Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Hydrogen vs. Battery

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you saying mankind should have never researched and developed ICE transportation either because it's so grossly inefficient in its fuel use?

You brought it up. :wink:
Actually thinking about this a bit more, maybe we would have been better off if ICE transportation had never been developed. EV's were functioning quite well 100 years ago, who knows where they might be today if the ICE hadn't killed them? Also, what pollution could have been avoided, wars, money being sent to the Middle East, suburban sprawl, and who knows what else might have been changed without an ICE economy?
 
Actually thinking about this a bit more, maybe we would have been better off if ICE transportation had never been developed. EV's were functioning quite well 100 years ago, who knows where they might be today if the ICE hadn't killed them? Also, what pollution could have been avoided, wars, money being sent to the Middle East, suburban sprawl, and who knows what else might have been changed without an ICE economy?

It is a pretty fascinating alternate reality, I agree. 100 years of increased demand for battery innovation would be interesting, that's for certain! We may also have been forced to snap out of our China Syndrome-syndrome. That said, long-haul transport would perhaps be limited to trains. That would drive the cost of goods up versus what we're familiar with.

Not sure how it would have affected sprawl and wars though.

We've really got side-tracked, haven't we? :wink:
 
I too would prefer to not have any public policy about oil, nor do I want the government involved in picking favored technologies to replace it - they aren't smart enough.
A free market would do the best job of providing us with the technology we need. Unfortunately the U.S. and the rest of the west do not have free market economies.

We already have a long history of public policy towards oil. That policy has been to take our tax money and use it to encourage massive consumption of oil.
This has been implemented many different ways, from tax dollars building roads and interstates, to huge tax breaks for oil companies, to massive military spending to conquer oil bearing regions and defend those oil fields.

Because of our long history of meddling with and conquering the countries that produce oil, we are trapped into dealing with it for a long time to come.

I would prefer that we would stop subsidizing oil, and paying for the huge military that defends it but the politics won't allow that to happen.
Our political system of pork and subsidies doesn't allow us to stop subsidizing things, it only allows for new subsidies on the things that will eventually replace them.
It's a nightmare of inefficiency, but its what we've got to work with.

If gasoline wasn't subsidized by tax breaks to the oil companies, and included the cost to run the military that defends it and cleaning up the pollution it causes, I have no doubt that current EV technology would quickly crush ICE cars in the marketplace.
 
It is a pretty fascinating alternate reality, I agree. 100 years of increased demand for battery innovation would be interesting, that's for certain! We may also have been forced to snap out of our China Syndrome-syndrome. That said, long-haul transport would perhaps be limited to trains. That would drive the cost of goods up versus what we're familiar with.
Most likely more goods would have to be produced locally. Instead of truck drivers we'd have more craftsmen, as we used to.
Not sure how it would have affected sprawl and wars though.
I think EV range would still have been more limited than ICE range, so long trips to and from work and in and out of town would also be limited, therefore suburban sprawl becomes less practical. As for wars, really? How many conflicts have been over oil, and how many hostile countries have been made rich from us sending them billions in oil money? The two Iraq wars, Afghanistan, and 9/11 would not have happened to name a few.
Yes, we're way off topic, but it's been interesting.
 
That they often coincide is ... I think ... coincidental.
Though they may not be causal, the timing of the spikes seems to regular to be coincidental. It might be that when money was being moved out of failing assets (tech stocks, collateralized debt obligations, etc) they need a place to go, and oil futures are one of those places. Since oil both litterally and figuratively lubricates the gears of industry, it isn't suprising when it comes to a halt.
 
Wait, what? Looking at the chart you posted, it's not the case that every rise in oil price resulted in a recession (see 1987, 1989, 2000, 2003-2007). I think you conflate oil prices with recessions unnecessarily. That they often coincide is ... I think ... coincidental. Is the intent of this chart to suggest the most recent recession was caused by oil prices and not, say, housing?

Check out Jeff Rubin's "Why Your World Is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller: Oil and the End of Globalization".

http://www.jeffrubinssmallerworld.com/


Trying to extrapolate why you would bring this up, I am left with this: you are suggesting that we should not allow oil prices to fluctuate unhindered by government control. Doing so might cause recessions.

Right. Because ideologies should serve humans, not the other way round.


I don't want to do that. I don't want a public policy about oil at all.

Free market can't price "externalities" - so there has to be public policy regarding environment etc.
 
Daimler: Fuel cell vehicles to cost no more than diesel hybrids by 2015

http://green.autoblog.com/2011/01/30/daimler-fuel-cell-vehicles-cost-diesel-hybrids-2015/

Toyota has declared, on numerous occasions, that it will launch a sedan-type fuel cell vehicle in 2015 at or under a price of $50,000. Hitting that price point may prove difficult, but even Daimler feels that its doable. Herbert Kohler, head of e-drive and future mobility at Daimler, recently told Automotive News Europe that the cost of fuel cell vehicles will decline at a rapid rate in the coming years. Kohler stated:

By 2015, we think a fuel cell car will not cost more than a four-cylinder diesel hybrid that meets the Euro 6 emissions standard. By 2013-2014, we want to bring a four-digit-number of fuel cell vehicles to market.

Kohler added that he expects fuel cell vehicles to be less expensive than a comparable battery-powered car within the next five years.