Tesla Model S: Toyota Partnership Brings NUMMI Into the Picture

[Tornado]

Another fantastic looking yet utterly pointless electric car. Oh well.

I would like to know how it actually seats seven, though.

 

[Giancarlo]

Is that a digital analog speedo? That seems really cheesy.

Other than than and the really busy in-dash screen, i love this car.

Another fantastic looking yet utterly pointless electric car. Oh well.

I would like to know how it actually seats seven, though.

What are you talking about? What point do you want it to make?

It's already been said that it seats 5 adults and can take 2 "booster seats" under the rear hatch for 2 children.

 

[homeforsummer]

I'm interested too, why pointless?

 

[Tornado]

Because electric cars are a stopgap that pretty much completely transfer the problem from one thing to another rather than do anything. As it stands now, they are either worse than traditional hybrids or only barely any better; and no developments since GM first gave it a shot in 1999 have changed any of that. Electric cars now are pretty much a fancier, somewhat less practical version of ethanol.

If the world had built the automobile to use electric when cars first became mainstream, we would have gotten rid of it by the 50s. There is a reason that the concept for electric cars is nearly as old as the car itself, yet no one has ever cared. And that reason is not simply because gas is cheap energy.

 

[Jim Prower]

Well, technically Coal is a cheaper Fuel - hence why the N&W attempted to keep it throughout the '50s. Coal over Wires is cheap....

But there's that smoke catch.

 

[Giancarlo]

Because electric cars are a stopgap that pretty much completely transfer the problem from one thing to another rather than do anything. As it stands now, they are either worse than traditional hybrids or only barely any better; and no developments since GM first gave it a shot in 1999 have changed any of that. Electric cars now are pretty much a fancier, somewhat less practical version of ethanol.

If the world had built the automobile to use electric when cars first became mainstream, we would have gotten rid of it by the 50s. There is a reason that the concept for electric cars is nearly as old as the car itself, yet no one has ever cared. And that reason is not simply because gas is cheap energy.

Oh you're saying how instead of burning gas in cars, the gas will just be transferred as higher output from electrical plants?

Well yeah, but at least there are some concrete methods of renewable electricity from sources like wind power, currents in the ocean, solar power, etc. There's no other way to create gasoline other than to use oil.

So i wouldn't call it pointless, but maybe a bit too early of an idea - the current methods we have for renewal electricity just aren't reliable or efficient enough yet.

 

[homeforsummer]

Because electric cars are a stopgap that pretty much completely transfer the problem from one thing to another rather than do anything. As it stands now, they are either worse than traditional hybrids or only barely any better; and no developments since GM first gave it a shot in 1999 have changed any of that. Electric cars now are pretty much a fancier, somewhat less practical version of ethanol.

If the world had built the automobile to use electric when cars first became mainstream, we would have gotten rid of it by the 50s. There is a reason that the concept for electric cars is nearly as old as the car itself, yet no one has ever cared. And that reason is not simply because gas is cheap energy.

Have to say I disagree with you, almost entirely, for the first time in quite a while. Electricity isn't "transferring the problem" in the slightest. It's assuming that we'll be using coal to generate electricity for the forseeable future, in the same way that people assume the oil will last forever.

We will find other ways of generating electricity - nuclear power for one, despite the opposition from people who know very little about it, assuming that it's like The Simpsons and we'll start seeing three-eyed fish. Once nuclear fusion technology has improved it'll quickly replace nuclear fission, instantly becoming even cleaner than nuclear is already (lets face it, it's not perfect but it's better than coal, even with the waste it creates). And this is assuming we don't start generating more energy from renewable sources.

People claim that electric cars are "just as bad as fossil fuels" because "the electricity has to come from somewhere". Well yes, obviously - in just the same way the electricity used by the hundreds of thousands of petrol stations which would be required by petrol/diesel cars "has to come from somewhere". And the vast, vast amount of power that's needed to mine for crude oil, crack it into petrol and diesel and then ship it to wherever it's needed.

All of this is also assuming that electric cars will remain as expensive and relatively inefficient as they are at the moment - which is frankly a foolish assumption. It's no different from assuming back in 1888 when Messers Daimler and Benz that petrol cars would always drink huge amounts of petrol and not do any more than 10mph. The only reason that electric cars haven't had the same pace of progress is because we're a society already so dependent on fossil fuels, and until now we've had no reason to move away from them. Necessity breeds innovation - ten years ago we would never have got something like the Tesla cars - even if we already had the technology.

And if companies like Tesla produce cars as good looking as the Model S, and with performance figures like the S, then expect electric cars to become a whole lot more popular.

 

[mPWRD]

toronado: whether you like it or not, electric cars are probably here to stay. honesly, there is very little difference between the styling of a maserati quattroporte and a fisker karma, or a jag xf and a tesla model s except that the fuel mileage is way higher for the electric cars. yes, they may be stopgaps for future technologies, but until the next great breakthrough becomes cheap enough for everyone to afford, they are the next real method of propulsion in cars.

i agree with homeforsummer: development in automotive technologies is now increasing exponentially. when GM did the EV1, tech stuff like that in the tesla was unheard of. and yet, today, we're seeing a lot of new improvements for petrol-powered cars as well as electrics.

 

[Tornado]

Have to say I disagree with you, almost entirely, for the first time in quite a while. Electricity isn't "transferring the problem" in the slightest. It's assuming that we'll be using coal to generate electricity for the forseeable future, in the same way that people assume the oil will last forever.

That wasn't my point. I know coal is inefficient, and that mining it is dangerous, and that producing it is polluting. That's not the problem. The problem is that batteries are inherently the same way. If electric cars are to ever have a real future (and that is an "if," because hydrogen is just as sensible of an alternative, which has a bonus of being able to be retroactively fitted relatively inexpensively), they cannot use batteries to get there. That is really all there is too it.

 

[mPWRD]

you have a point: it is difficult to procure the materials, ship them, and assemble the batteries. but it will be easier. look at computers. my new laptop is a lot faster than my dad's, and he bought his 3 years ago... electric cars will be cheaper. i think that the chevy volt will be the real catalyst... the first mass-produced electric car.

 

[Tornado]

For those of you who are interested, I put more thought into this a while ago for some (probably failed by now) British me-too car.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3098487&postcount=24

 

[homeforsummer]

you have a point: it is difficult to procure the materials, ship them, and assemble the batteries. but it will be easier. look at computers. my new laptop is a lot faster than my dad's, and he bought his 3 years ago... electric cars will be cheaper. i think that the chevy volt will be the real catalyst... the first mass-produced electric car.

Agreed. Again, there seems to be the assumption that battery technology, and the efficiency and cleanliness by which they are currently produced, won't improve. They aren't particularly clean at the moment, but they're certainly getting better. For a start, we're moving away from lead acid towards lithium, which is immediately an improvement - cleaner, and more efficient.

Battery technology is improving just the same as anything else. Scientists have already begun creating nanobatteries, by encouraging evolution in particular strains of viruses that become more conductive of electricity, and others that develop different materials around the virus as "nano wires" - different types can be used in batteries, solar cells... of course, they're not quite up to powering cars yet, but it's just one example of how we're very unlikely to stay with the current battery tech forever.

We just need sufficient demand at the moment to justify the cost of improving emerging technologies in order to improve current technologies. It's about walking before you learn to run.

Re: the Lightning - it was hardly the pinnacle of technology, in any respect. It was just a "nice idea". Something like the Model S is a much better starting point - a family car, not a supercar that generally aren't bought with environmental consideration in mind. The Prius has proven that there are enough "early adopters" to justify building something that's a little expensive but offers technology over and above anything else - but you can't take the mick and offer a supercar with that technology, like the Lightning. At the end of the day, the Lightning was a British project, and I'd guess that probably 99% of those never succeed anyway. Even Noble has fallen by the wayside, and it was considered pretty successful.

 

[Tornado]

Why should we have to put up with the shortfalls now when we already potentially have technology that could be used instead of batteries?

We just need sufficient demand at the moment to justify the cost of improving emerging technologies in order to improve current technologies. It's about walking before you learn to run.

Battery technology most likely isn't motivated by electric cars.

 

[homeforsummer]

Why should we have to put up with the shortfalls now when we already potentially have technology that could be used instead of batteries?

Because that's exactly the sort of attitude the car industry has had for years, and look where it's getting us. Someone needs to take the big leaps rather than the tiny footsteps, otherwise technology would never advance at the rate it does.

Yes, ethanol is available at the moment, but that ethanol needs to come from somewhere, and we've seen how biofuels have played their part in ruining the world economy, increasing the price of food. Ethanol can apparently be produced from sugar cane (or is it beat?). Think of how many millions of acres would need to be devoted to sugar cane/beat to create the ethanol. Even with the small increase we've had over the last few years in things like biodiesel, it's already raised the price of basic foods like grain massively because grain is being used to make biodiesel now as well as feed livestock, and people.

And of course, ethanol still has to be burned in an internal combustion engine - hardly the most efficient propulsor. And it will still cause pollution - as well as being more difficult to pump around the car, as ethanol degrades rubber so any rubber in the fuel system would have to be replaced by another material, which would require more energy and research to implement.

If nobody takes the big leaps then we're just going to continue looking at short term solutions - and again, short-term solutions are the reason we're in the mess we are at the moment.

Battery technology most likely isn't motivated by electric cars.

True - but that doesn't mean that electric cars can't use it. Li-ion batteries were in laptops first, but now they're in cars. The same will eventually happen with nanotechnology.

 

[Sage]

Any of you watch Top Gear? I think James made a really really really good point that I had never thought of before seeing that episode: battery-powered cars won&#8217;t take off as long as it takes more than several minutes to refuel them (let alone the many many hours it takes to refuel these upcoming electric cars). Most of us drive until we&#8217;re close to &#8220;E&#8221;, and then pull over into a station and take <5 minutes to fill up &#8211; any technology that is to replace gasoline on a wide-scale has to achieve the same thing.

 

[Tornado]

Because that's exactly the sort of attitude the car industry has had for years, and look where it's getting us. Someone needs to take the big leaps rather than the tiny footsteps, otherwise technology would never advance at the rate it does.

It doesn't have to be some barely working invention with the promise of a better future to be a big advancement in the way things are done.

es, ethanol is available at the moment, but that ethanol needs to come from somewhere, and we've seen how biofuels have played their part in ruining the world economy, increasing the price of food. Ethanol can apparently be produced from sugar cane (or is it beat?). Think of how many millions of acres would need to be devoted to sugar cane/beat to create the ethanol. Even with the small increase we've had over the last few years in things like biodiesel, it's already raised the price of basic foods like grain massively because grain is being used to make biodiesel now as well as feed livestock, and people.

And of course, ethanol still has to be burned in an internal combustion engine - hardly the most efficient propulsor. And it will still cause pollution - as well as being more difficult to pump around the car, as ethanol degrades rubber so any rubber in the fuel system would have to be replaced by another material, which would require more energy and research to implement.

You think I was talking about ethanol? Please, give me more credit than that. That would be literally transferring the problem from one thing to another, regardless of what a few idiot senators in the west think.

 

[mPWRD]

s12e7? yes, i watched that (as well as every other episode) and what you say is totally correct. it goes along with what homeforsummer and I have been trying to say. just because electric cars would not fit into our lifestyles now doesn't mean they won't in the future. the model s is a car which drives like any other, and tesla have developed a charging system for it.

 

[Tornado]

s12e7? yes, i watched that (as well as every other episode) and what you say is totally correct.

the model s is a car which drives like any other, and tesla have developed a charging system for it.

These two statements are at odds with each other.

 

[mPWRD]

i was merely acknowledging that sage was correct in saying that electric cars won't catch on until there is sufficient infrastructure. Tesla has developed a system which would help, and they are trying to work with the federal government to have it installed more widely.

 

[Tornado]

Sufficient infrastructure alone wouldn't solve the problem with battery powered electric cars. What Sage was talking about was the hydrogen-electric hybrid, which in theory only needs infrastructure to become viable enough to completely replace gas.

 

[homeforsummer]

Any of you watch Top Gear? I think James made a really really really good point that I had never thought of before seeing that episode: battery-powered cars won&#8217;t take off as long as it takes more than several minutes to refuel them (let alone the many many hours it takes to refuel these upcoming electric cars). Most of us drive until we&#8217;re close to &#8220;E&#8221;, and then pull over into a station and take <5 minutes to fill up &#8211; any technology that is to replace gasoline on a wide-scale has to achieve the same thing.

Again, that whole thing is based on the assumption that electric cars will always take hours and hours to "fill up". Quick charges are already available for many electric cars that will do a 75% charge in 20 minutes or so - certainly better than plugging the car in overnight. This is yet another factor that will improve.

It doesn't have to be some barely working invention with the promise of a better future to be a big advancement in the way things are done.

It does really. And it's unfair to criticise electric cars as a "barely working invention". The Tesla is already testament to the fact that it does work. We're moving on quickly from the 40mph, 40 mile range electric shopping trolleys.

But we do have to take bigger steps to advance technology. People get complacent when technology moves too slowly, and people also become more adverse to change when they become complacent with a mild pace. If companies like Tesla didn't push the boat out that little bit further, then the technology would never advance at the rate it does.

Just look at how quickly diesel technology moved on from the mid-nineties until now. It took companies like VW to prove that you could have diesels with power and refinement before the public accepted it as more than just a novelty - and now in countries like the UK, diesel is more popular than petrol, despite it having a pretty poor reputation for so long (as it does in the States).

You think I was talking about ethanol? Please, give me more credit than that. That would be literally transferring the problem from one thing to another, regardless of what a few idiot senators in the west think.

Apologies. I could have sworn that you mentioned ethanol in a previous post, but when I went back to look I discovered you'd mentioned hydrogen. Regardless, hydrogen is still a shorter-term solution than fully electric is. It still involves a middle man, and refueling stations. Although there will certainly be electricity "refuelling" points, you can also charge your electric car at home. Try that with a hydrogen car as cheaply.

 

[Tornado]

It does really.

But does it in this case? The ICE hasn't changed that much in 100 years. Both hydrogen and electric are siginificantly more advanced than the engine in my Blazer, but only one of them would require me to change the way I live my life. Besides, the concept of hydrogen as a usable form of energy is much more advanced than the idea of battery powered cars, and it certainly hasn't been around as long. Regardless, I phrased that poorly and will try again:

Why do we have to move over to something that will change our lifestyles when we already have a technology that is just as advanced (and cleaner!) but wouldn't require nearly as many changes?

But we do have to take bigger steps to advance technology. People get complacent when technology moves too slowly, and people also become more adverse to change when they become complacent with a mild pace.

Okay. I agree with that. But why is it that hydrogen is labeled as complacency? The fact that it more easier fits our current lifestyle habits does not mean that it is worse, and it does not mean that it won't improve in the same way that you are saying battery technology will.

Regardless, hydrogen is still a shorter-term solution than fully electric is. It still involves a middle man, and refueling stations.

Hydrogen only involves a middle man if it is used to create electricity (and even then, so what? Its very efficient.). It doesn't have to be, as hydrogen itself is a fuel that is naturally occurring. It merely needs to be compressed to work properly.
Why does having refueling stations matter?

Furthermore, electric cars of any type do need a middle man. Unless you have flying DeLoreans, you can't harness naturally occurring electricity to do work. Whether it is produced at a nuclear plant and stored in a battery or produced in an on board hydrogen plant, it still needs to be produced.

Although there will certainly be electricity "refuelling" points, you can also charge your electric car at home. Try that with a hydrogen car as cheaply.

You wouldn't need to. The whole "charge while you sleep" concept was merely thought up to hide a problem currently plaguing battery-powered electric cars. If you didn't have to deal with the horrid refuel times that battery powered cars have, not being able to charge at home would become a non-issue just as it is for cars today.

 

[Keef]

Any of you watch Top Gear? I think James made a really really really good point that I had never thought of before seeing that episode: battery-powered cars won’t take off as long as it takes more than several minutes to refuel them (let alone the many many hours it takes to refuel these upcoming electric cars). Most of us drive until we’re close to “E”, and then pull over into a station and take <5 minutes to fill up – any technology that is to replace gasoline on a wide-scale has to achieve the same thing.

Even cell phones and cameras and the like with lithium batteries and small voltages take a half-hour to charge up fully. Yes, it'll improve, but can it improve that much? Is there a physical limit to how fast a battery can charge? Maybe there's an electrical engineer somewhere on this forum that can answer that question.

Besides quick charges, the best compromise I think any of us have seen so far is the Volt. It's all electric. But when the electricity runs out, a gasoline engine kicks on to generate more electricity, so you won't have to bother recharging anything until you go to bed that night. But then you've got to juggle a recharging and refueling schedule, and that sounds like a bit of extra time budgeting I could do without.

 

[YSSMAN]

Well, arguably the Volt would be the main competition to the S. When it comes down to it by days end, ultimately, the PHV cars will be the better idea until EV vehicles can become a more feasible option. Still, a range of 300 miles that can be charged in just a couple of hours... Thats a much better way to do things.

 

[homeforsummer]

The ICE hasn't changed that much in 100 years.

The basic concept of it hasn't but the technology has, massively. You only need to look at how a modern hot hatch produces more power than a supercar from the 70s to see that improvements are being made all the time.

Why do we have to move over to something that will change our lifestyles when we already have a technology that is just as advanced (and cleaner!) but wouldn't require nearly as many changes?

Because essentially, whether the car is run on hydrogen or pure electricity, the thing that's powering the car is still the same - an electric motor. So that's one change which will have to be made regardless. I personally don't see any reason to complicate it any further than that, which is what you're doing using hydrogen to generate electricity rather than just storing a charge in batteries.

Okay. I agree with that. But why is it that hydrogen is labeled as complacency? The fact that it more easier fits our current lifestyle habits does not mean that it is worse, and it does not mean that it won't improve in the same way that you are saying battery technology will.

I'm sure that hydrogen cars will improve, but it still seems like a half-way point between an ICE and full electric anyway. Just a reasonably unnecessary and expensive solution, which would require the infrastructure to be built up. At least with an electric car, even if there were no refuelling points around, you could still charge it at home pretty easily.

It merely needs to be compressed to work properly.

And you compress it how? With a compressor. Powered by? Electricity. So you'd be using electricity, to generate hydrogen, to generate electricity. Can you see why I think it makes no sense?...

Why does having refueling stations matter?

Because not everyone can refuel a hydrogen car in their own home, wheras I'd hazard a guess that most people have a plug located around their home with which they can charge an electric car. Let's face it, most of the time you'd charge your electric car at home, rather than having to locate a refuelling point. You're right in saying that hydrogen may change our habits less - but when one of our "habits" is standing around watching some numbers tick away on a fuel pump, is that really something that isn't worth changing?

Furthermore, electric cars of any type do need a middle man. Unless you have flying DeLoreans, you can't harness naturally occurring electricity to do work. Whether it is produced at a nuclear plant and stored in a battery or produced in an on board hydrogen plant, it still needs to be produced.

You're right. Anything needs a middle man, really. But at the same time, the process of getting electricty from a power station and into your car is a much simpler one. And there's nothing to say that some people wouldn't be able to generate their own power for use in an electric car - with solar cells, or wind turbines, or water turbines... or even an eventuality where the car can power itself. Such as this:

An extreme example, yes - but as technology improves it'll become more accessible. And not a molecule of hydrogen is needed.

You wouldn't need to. The whole "charge while you sleep" concept was merely thought up to hide a problem currently plaguing battery-powered electric cars. If you didn't have to deal with the horrid refuel times that battery powered cars have, not being able to charge at home would become a non-issue just as it is for cars today.

Even cell phones and cameras and the like with lithium batteries and small voltages take a half-hour to charge up fully. Yes, it'll improve, but can it improve that much? Is there a physical limit to how fast a battery can charge?

As mentioned, refuel times will improve. They already do. My mobile phone seven or so years ago took seven hours to fully charge and lasted maybe five days. My current one takes about an hour to fully charge and lasts over a week pretty easily, and that's with using things like GPS, and a 5mp camera, and having a full colour screen.

 

[Casio]

Even cell phones and cameras and the like with lithium batteries and small voltages take a half-hour to charge up fully. Yes, it'll improve, but can it improve that much? Is there a physical limit to how fast a battery can charge? Maybe there's an electrical engineer somewhere on this forum that can answer that question.

Most Cell-Phones charge at like 5V though, a Telsa can do 480V or something.

 

[Mark T]

I have a problem with the new Tesla and all electric cars in general. It's nothing to do with performance, economy, design or re-fuelling.

If electric cars do become the standard I'm worried about how boring things will become. No roar of an engine, little to no modifications to increase performance (I'm sure they will prohibit this to ensure the car remains economical). They will probably be non servicable apart from maybe brake and tyre changes. I expect the motor section will be a sealed unit and only available to trained technicians.

I hope that the electric car will develop into something truly fast, with exceptional handling and extreme acceleration but I think the motor car will become a gadget filled cocoon rather than something you take out for a pleasurable drive. I feel sick now thinking about it, might have to have a lay down....

 

[homeforsummer]

If electric cars do become the standard I'm worried about how boring things will become. No roar of an engine, little to no modifications to increase performance (I'm sure they will prohibit this to ensure the car remains economical). They will probably be non servicable apart from maybe brake and tyre changes. I expect the motor section will be a sealed unit and only available to trained technicians.

I hope that the electric car will develop into something truly fast, with exceptional handling and extreme acceleration but I think the motor car will become a gadget filled cocoon rather than something you take out for a pleasurable drive. I feel sick now thinking about it, might have to have a lay down....

As far as my opinion goes on stuff like this, I think that electric cars will eventually become the norm for general cars - hatchbacks, normal sedans, MPVs, maybe even off-roaders - yet sports cars, coupes, performance cars at any level will probably remain fossil-fuel powered, at least in our lifetime. And of course - there are still millions upon millions of petrol and diesel cars already in existance, so it's not like they'd all suddenly disappear and the roads would become silent with all the electric cars about. I'd me more than happy to rock an electric car as a daily driver, but keep a little petrol-powered sports car in a garage, ready to take out on weekends.

And let's face it, most brand new normal cars aren't that "fun" anyway (in the traditional sense), with electric power steering, fly-by-wire everything and loads of soundproofing. Certainly not in day-to-day driving, not fun in the way an MX-5 feels fun even if you're just pottering around.

As for maintainance concerns, one of the ideas behind an electric car is that it really only has one moving part in the "engine". It wouldn't really matter if you could service it because by and large, a well-designed electric motor should last for ages. If it isn't under much stress than it would probably outlive most internal combustion engines. No transmission worries either. Or exhaust pipes to rust or fall off.

 

[Tornado]

I personally don't see any reason to complicate it any further than that, which is what you're doing using hydrogen to generate electricity rather than just storing a charge in batteries.

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.

Just a reasonably unnecessary and expensive solution, which would require the infrastructure to be built up.

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.

And you compress it how? With a compressor. Powered by? Electricity. So you'd be using electricity, to generate hydrogen, to generate electricity. Can you see why I think it makes no sense?...

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.

Because not everyone can refuel a hydrogen car in their own home, wheras I'd hazard a guess that most people have a plug located around their home with which they can charge an electric car. Let's face it, most of the time you'd charge your electric car at home, rather than having to locate a refuelling point. You're right in saying that hydrogen may change our habits less - but when one of our "habits" is standing around watching some numbers tick away on a fuel pump, is that really something that isn't worth changing?

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.

An extreme example, yes - but as technology improves it'll become more accessible. And not a molecule of hydrogen is needed.

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.

And of course - there are still millions upon millions of petrol and diesel cars already in existance, so it's not like they'd all suddenly disappear and the roads would become silent with all the electric cars about.

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.

No transmission worries either.

Electric motors have transmissions most of the time.

 

[the Interceptor]

I see the point in using hydrogen, for one very simple reason: batteries are very unefficient when it comes to energy density. Therefore, you either load up your car with heaps of batteries and accept all the disadvantages, or you generate electricity onboard instead. With todays battery technology, the latter sounds like the much better idea to me.

I understand that the production of hydrogren consumes a lot of energy as well, yet, there are many ways to do it. The fact that we'd need a lot of power to make hydrogen today doesn't mean that there aren't better ways tomorrow.

Also, loading your car at home sounds like an excellent idea. Yet, our power grids might not be up to the job when the electric car has its breakthrough. Also, the plugs at home do not give enough energy to enable charging times of less than hours.

Therefore, I do see hydrogen as a logical step inbetween making electricity and using it to propel a car. The fact that the whole process is less efficient is a fact, but we need to ask ourselves whether it is important enough to can the whole idea.