Even the previous gen Nissan Leaf is driven more than the average fossil fuel car, funnily enough:
Nissan LEAFs Drive 50% More Miles Per Year Than Average ICE Cars
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Even the previous gen Nissan Leaf is driven more than the average fossil fuel car, funnily enough:
Nissan LEAFs Drive 50% More Miles Per Year Than Average ICE Cars
FutureShock
Best Coast Denizen
Perhaps, but if so, it's increasing Supercharger use from a pretty low base. Because most car trips are relatively short-distance.
From the US Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration:
As you can see from the chart, most trips are between 1 and 20 miles in distance. And most vehicle miles are put in on trips of 1 to 50 miles. Text accompanying the graph states the following:
"Conversely, trips of 100 miles or more account for less than one percent of all vehicle trips, but nearly 15 percent of all household-based vehicle miles."
Of course, the first 150-200 miles or so of those rare (<1%) longer trips are going to be taken care of by the charge you put into your car at home, so even that 'nearly 15 percent figure' isn't really reflective of what percentage of miles a Tesla owner would travel via Supercharger power. It would be significantly lower.
You seem to be under the impression somehow that Tesla owners are just constantly hitting the Superchargers like drunken sailors (lol). But that's generally not the case, because 1) 'very long trips all day every day' is not the average person's usage pattern, and 2) home charging, obviously.
.
Last edited:
FutureShock
Best Coast Denizen
Or, at least, the problems with hydrogen FCVs (almost no fueling infrastructure in place, the most economically-viable methods of H2 production generate carbon, expensive vehicles, difficult H2 transport and storage, etc) are further from being solved than the problems facing EVs.
I remember former US Energy Secretary Steven Chu talking about the 'four miracles' that hydrogen FCVs would need in terms of major engineering problems solved before the cars would be viable en masse.
"And saints only need three miracles", he added. Funny guy, for a scientist.
.
Last edited:
FutureShock
Best Coast Denizen
To be fair, those figures are for Europe, where very high petrol prices incentivize ppl to drive low miles if they have an ICE vehicle. The 6700 miles/year figure cited in the article graphic for avg European ICE usage is about half of the US ICE average (and a good argument for higher US gasoline taxes, actually).
So, given how much cheaper the per mile 'fueling' costs are for BEVs over there, it's no wonder that they'd see more miles (and that's even with most of Europe having significantly higher electric rates than the US).
.
Last edited:
No, that was the exactly my point, short trips already happen on home charging so are irrelevant to supercharger use, but now that M3 LRs are hitting the streets it's going to be easier and quicker to do long distance trips (especially with charging at >100kW to 60%+ SOC) so I would expect more road trips to be taken in Tesla as opposed to leaving the Tesla at home and taking the gas-burner. Forget comparisons to ICEs, @Labans post was suggesting that Supercharger use would go down as longer range EVs make up more of the fleet.
But there are two reasons in my mind why that won't happen.
1) It's easier to take longer trips, so more people will do it, and trips beyond one full charge range basically require supercharger use.
2) Only model S & X come with free Supercharging, so model 3 owners won't have a financial incentive to use supercharging for local travel unless supercharger rates are lower than their home electricity supply.
Last edited:
FutureShock
Best Coast Denizen
Fair enough, but no matter what you drive, long trips are going to continue to be relatively rare for the average person, and a low percentage of total miles driven.
Usage patterns don't usually change much unless there's a pretty dramatic new factor introduced. There are sound reasons why ppl don't take a great many long road trips, such as time, expense, the fatigue involved, family and job commitments, and just plain not wanting to, lol.
I think any effects on this you may be expecting via the M3 LR (whose range is already equalled or bettered by some Model S'es already on the road) will be modest at best. Oh, and I think they got rid of unlimited free supercharging just recently for Model S or X (or by end of year for current owners buying another one)... you get 400 kWh/yr free now, IIRC.
My point isn't that you're wrong, but rather that Supercharger use is quite infrequent for the average Tesla user to begin with, and that probably won't change much, so the whole debate between you and Laban on this is kinda moot 'cept as an esoteric exercise. YMMV.
.
Last edited:
My point, exactly. You can't "fix" physics. H2 FCs are doomed by the laws of nature to be less efficient. The only thing more efficient is to remove the battery, but I refuse to carry a 100 mile extension cord.
So, unless we have so much free, renewable, clean energy that we can waste it on H2 FCs, physics tells us that we should invest those R&D funds on the battery and charging side of the puzzle. And since everything when scaled sufficiently has some environmental impact, a vast excess of free, clean, renewable energy is probably impossible too. Of clean, free, and renewable, you can only pick two. Today, we're lucky to pick one.
Efficiency losses in a 100 mile extension cord would be... significant.
Thank you kindly.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Converting natural gas to hydrogen without any carbon emissions
Two new ways to make H2.
One strips H from methane leaving carbon only, no CO2.
No word on efficiency but require 1000 C temp so probably not that efficient.
Two new ways to make H2.
One strips H from methane leaving carbon only, no CO2.
No word on efficiency but require 1000 C temp so probably not that efficient.
wjhepworth
Member
I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. I know California is onboard with hydrogen but I can tell you the east coast is not at all moving to hydrogen anytime soon. It is still expensive to produce and I think people are more worried about the explosiveness of hydrogen versus the potential range anxiety. I promise you that by the time the hydrogen infrastructure reaches all major cities, Elon will have paved the entire US with SuperChargers.
The big part you are missing is that you are only on the tip of battery advances. Pay attention to what Tesla just announced yesterday with the Roadster 2. They clearly have already achieved a breakthrough with the 620 mile range... in a sport coupe! I fully expect we will see 200kWh Model S soon with at least a 500+ mile range.
California might have a few Hydrogen fueling stations, but they need to be as ubiquitous as gas stations, not as ubiquitous as Superchargers, to be viable (if not more so). I would never consider a Tesla if I could ONLY charge at Superchargers. The closest Supercharger is 40 minutes away, and I go weeks without passing that way.
Thank you kindly.
Thank you kindly.
Let me leap one year into the future and assume Tesla successfully ramped up Model 3 production to 10k cars/wk or around half a million units/yr.
At that point, wise man would say, the competition isn't between BEVs and FCEVs, but BEVs vs hybrids. Its possible and even likely BEVs could overtake hybrids in production.
Hydrogen stays as the unobtanium promise decades into the future.
Charge speed problems are simple, give it another 5 years, when lithium energy density and cost improvements allow 400 miles with full AC and 80mph driving. And only use superchargers to go up to 60% state. What matters is miles/kms recovered in 15 or 20 minutes rather than 10-70% benchmark. Only charge to 90 or 100% once a day when driving long distances. Plus 5 years into the future, Tesla supercharger density along heavily travelled worldwide roads should be in the 30 miles between stations range. It should even be possible to plan to recharge with 5-10% state rather than >10%.
Meanwhile, Tesla should blanket those stations with solar panels over 100% of parking space and substantially reducing its electricity costs.
By 2020 Tesla should have 3-4 thousand supercharger locations ! I wanna know how H2 will match that, where the money will come from, while Tesla is doing it with cash flow from sales (as soon as M3 production is fully ramped up, Tesla should no longer need to borrow cash).
At that point, wise man would say, the competition isn't between BEVs and FCEVs, but BEVs vs hybrids. Its possible and even likely BEVs could overtake hybrids in production.
Hydrogen stays as the unobtanium promise decades into the future.
Charge speed problems are simple, give it another 5 years, when lithium energy density and cost improvements allow 400 miles with full AC and 80mph driving. And only use superchargers to go up to 60% state. What matters is miles/kms recovered in 15 or 20 minutes rather than 10-70% benchmark. Only charge to 90 or 100% once a day when driving long distances. Plus 5 years into the future, Tesla supercharger density along heavily travelled worldwide roads should be in the 30 miles between stations range. It should even be possible to plan to recharge with 5-10% state rather than >10%.
Meanwhile, Tesla should blanket those stations with solar panels over 100% of parking space and substantially reducing its electricity costs.
By 2020 Tesla should have 3-4 thousand supercharger locations ! I wanna know how H2 will match that, where the money will come from, while Tesla is doing it with cash flow from sales (as soon as M3 production is fully ramped up, Tesla should no longer need to borrow cash).
Done.
Go watch the Tesla Semi event...
Thank you kindly.
I have. That's a PROTOTYPE. PROTOTYPEs don't count. Only whats delivering today matters.
In my opinion, even low volume deliveries don't quite count too. Otherwise the Toyota Mirai could be counted.
I only care about whats being delivered, today, at volume.
There isn't enough 2170 lithium ion supply today for the Tesla truck or a good production volume of the new roadster. By 2020 that shouldn't be a problem.
We can say the cheapest Model S variants are barely affordable cars. The new roadster is 100%, solely, a millionaire's toy. Who can purchase a US$ 200k car without at least a million USD/yr gross income ?
The purpose of the new Roadster really is to put Ferrari, Porsche, Lambo, and other companies that are still betting on ICE top performance cars to shame, make them look silly, steal market share from them. Realistically the new Roadster isn't likely to break 10k cars/year production.
To the original title, no the Model 3 didn’t kill Hydrogen, on its own.
Electric cars in general killed it as a fuel for passenger vehicles.
The Leaf, the Volt, the Roadster, the Model S, the Model X, the Bolt have all been nails in the coffin.
The Model 3 is probably the biggest nail in that coffin.
Electric cars in general killed it as a fuel for passenger vehicles.
The Leaf, the Volt, the Roadster, the Model S, the Model X, the Bolt have all been nails in the coffin.
The Model 3 is probably the biggest nail in that coffin.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
You made a forward-looking statement. I pointed out that there were forward-looking statements by Tesla that claimed to meet your requirements 2 years early without the advancements you claimed were needed.
If you don't want to discuss forward-looking statements, then don't make them.
Thank you kindly.
Fair enough...
But in conclusion... Even 10 years from now, the auto industry and some special interests will keep talking about H2. There might even still be minor fuel cell product production, maybe 200-300% growth from today. But today its a drop in the bucket, so 3 or even 10 drops in the bucket doesn't change that much.
But H2 might never die out as a promise. Until EVs have fully taken over and there are so many charging stations coverage and typical EV range is 300 miles with 500 miles available at a premium.
There is no way to argue that H2 is going to die without forward looking statements.
Toyota and other companies have way too much invested on H2 to simply kill it altogether. They will keep talking about it, even if they already know its effectively dead.
I find it interesting the power of H2 lobby in the USA. American nuclear proponents keep talking about nuclear as the way to make H2 for FCEVs (or even more complex synthetic fuels like DME - Di Methyl Ether). Chinese nuclear people talk about nuclear producing electricity to power EVs. In this debate, I think the Chinese are far more rational.
The other reason why H2 might not die is H2 is very important in many industrial processes. And its usage along with CO as syngas, that can be used to make any hydrocarbon fuel.
That question makes no sense. Everyone can afford a 200k USD car without a 1 million USD/year income.
You could afford it at a 20k USD income, if you saved half your income for 20 years... I can afford one, and I make under 100k USD per year. I can't *comfortably* afford it, and I can't afford it without making serious compromises in my economy, but it's still within my financial ability to do so.
