Toronado - I'll address one particular quote in your reply first, as I feel it's an important thing to start with:
I still don't get this attitude. I'm not sure if you are doing it on purpose, but most of your posts seems to come off as hydrogen being some kind of illegitimate son of the evil gasoline menace.
I'm slightly taken aback by your implication that I'm holding my point of view just to be an ass and have a bit of an arguement - yourself and anyone else should know by now that it's not the way I do things on this or any other forum. And if you can see any reference to where I've declared hyrdogen to be as bad as fossil fuels, please direct me to it. Otherwise, I'll just have to treat it as a bit of a misguided prod.
I'd like to clarify that I don't have any particular problem with hydrogen - indeed, it's already proven to be quite clean as far as energy sources go, and I'm quite a fan of the Honda FCX Clarity, though as you can see I'm not quite as myopic on the subject as James May was when he reviewed that particular car. I'd like to think that many of the regular posters around here are slightly better read than the scriptwriters for Top Gear and are aware that any method of propulsion still has it's disadvantages, which is what I've been trying to explain.
Everyone already knows the disadvantages of pure electric powered vehicles, so I haven't seen the need to touch on it myself. People might not be as clear with hydrogen, mainly because it's very much an emerging technology and not many manufacturers have tackled it yet. Some won't touch it with a bargepole, because it also seems much trickier to get right. Even Honda have been trying for a good few years to come up with something as good as the FCX, and yet Tesla, who took to the electric-only route straight away, have come out with a sedan that's quicker, has a similar range, and have managed to avoid making it look like a big maroon slug. This suggests that if anything, electric technology might also be the
quicker route to clean propulsion.
Anyway.
Most locomotives operate on the same principle (only diesel instead of hydrogen), and they are incredibly effecient at what they do because that is how they work.
Fair point, though hydrogen is very different from diesel. And currently, the technology is more expensive. And much less developed.
That depends entirely on definition of necessarry. If I still want to be able to operate my future electric car like a normal motor vehicle. Battery technology doesn't look like a feasible way of doing so anytime in the near future.
I'm not talking about the near future though, that's the point. People assume that the low range, generally low performance and current low tech of the batteries will just continue with no change, which isn't the case at all. The Tesla is already proving that, having not only one of the best ranges of any electric car but also some of the best performance.
I'd say that would be an acceptable compromise considering it is a usable alternative technology that we currently have that doesn't rely on theoretical future inventions to be completely feasible. Furthermore, the whole "OMIGOD STOP WASTING ENERGY" mindset is a byproduct of the ignorant parts of the green movement.
I wouldn't say that "theoretical inventions" are needed. Just a natural rate of progress. I'm sure hydrogen technology will improve, though likely at a slower rate as fewer seem to be persuing that route.
And again, try and avoid putting words into my mouth. I neither said, nor implied that hydrogen was somehow responsible for wasting energy. I was just highlighting that it seems like a lack of foresight to use a technology that requires electricity in order to create electricity.
No, because the concept of a refueling station has allowed for incredible freedom in the ability to travel. Refueling stations will never go away for that reason, and I believe you are grossly overestimating the significance of being able to refuel at home.
I personally disagree, though this could be because of the relative differences between the average journey in the UK compared to that of the States. In the UK, I'd be willing to bet that, for something like the Tesla with a 300 mile range, 90% of journeys in an electric vehicle wouldn't need a visit to a single recharge station as I'd think that very few journeys get anywhere near a 300 mile round trip. In the States, that's probably a little different. I do remember
Sniffs mentioning in another thread that his commute is a 400 mile round trip each day, so for him a 300 mile range would obviously require a recharge somewhere.
Grossly overestimating the benefits of refuelling at home? I don't think so. For the majority of journeys I'd still think you'd be able to get away with it. And at least it would mean that for shorter journeys you wouldn't have to spend time "at the pumps". They'd only be required for longer journeys, which is an acceptable compromise.
Straight hydrogen power (different from hydrogen making electricity) could theoretically be adapted for use in normal cars. So the ideas Mark T is talking about wouldn't go away at all if that was the case.
That nobody has really explored this route suggests that the manufacturers have decided it's either too massive a project, or involves too many compromises. For a start, it's assuming that all you'd need to change are a few engine bits and pieces. And not the whole fuel system, have the tank replaced with a pressurised canister (at something like 350 atmospheres, as the FCX needs. Hardly a retro-fit job...), much of the electrics in order for them to understand the new, strange fuel. And somehow I doubt a hydrogen fed ICE would sound quite the same as one powered by petrol. Hell, even diesel sounds completely different thanks to the different engine design needed and at least it's still a fossil fuel. I think the roar that
Mark T wants might not sound quite the same with hydrogen...
At the end of the day, as I replied to Mark originally - I'd still want my weekend toy powered by petrol and nothing else, and use an electric car day to day. And stick it on charge overnight.
Electric motors have transmissions most of the time.
They do. Usually a reduction gear, which is very, very simplified compared to your average manual or automatic transmission. Only a CVT is as simple, yet on an electric car it's unnecessary as an electric motor produces most of it's torque across it's whole range, so a CVT that keeps an engine at peak torque/power and changes the ratio is made redundant.
EDIT:
Just to go back to the Tesla for a second, Autobloggreen has vids of the first ride in the car:
The passenger is buyer #1, and he sounds pretty happy with what he's getting! The car seems to move pretty well anyway. My only concern from that particular vid is how bright the centre console display is - it'd be very distracting at night.
Link:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/03/30/video-first-tesla-model-s-buyer-takes-first-ride/
Looks amazing from the outside too. They've built a beautiful looking sedan.
Debate is healthy as long as it doesn't turn into an exchange of insults, which nobody has done so far.
