Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Electric Vehicles' started by Atebit, Sep 20, 2014.
2015 Hyundai Tucson fuel cell a gem
Hyundai must've made a handsome payoff for that puff piece.
+1..... I could not agree more.
It really doesn't matter what USA Today publishes, fuel cell vehicles just are not going to catch on.
But you can charge it in 45 minutes at a SuC... for free.
Depending on where you fuel up and who has fueled up before, it could take between 5 and 60 minutes to get fueled with hydrogen.
Just what we need; a bunch of high pressure hydrogen fuel tanks driving all over town. Sooner or later a high pressure hydrogen fuel tank will fail, a high pressure filling station accident will occur, or a loose hydrogen fuel line fitting (we are talking about 3000psi like a SCUBA tank) will fail, and that explosion will be like another Hindenburg. I do not think the hydrocarbon fuel companies, or car manufactures dependent on hydrocarbon fuel, or politicians elected by lobbyists for hydrocarbon fuel, will stop pushing the Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle until a dozen or so people are killed in really spectacular hydrogen fuel explosion accidents. Then they'll say maybe HFCVs were not such a good idea.
Remember that a liquid gasoline fuel tank is not under pressure. In an accident, it is the low pressure gasoline vapor that ignites and explodes, and then the spilled liquid gasoline continues to burn in flame.
If a high pressure hydrogen fuel tank or fuel line fails, 3000psi hydrogen will escape and very rapidly fill the air/car, and that explosion will knockdown any buildings in the vicinity. The "fuel" will all be gone, and it is only secondary materials caught in the path that may continue to burn. I am sorry folks. HFCV; it's just not a very rosy picture.
Oops, my mistake. Not 3,000psi, it is 10,000psi !!!
I’m not personally interested in HFCV, but I think you are under a misconception as to how hydrogen can fail vs. gasoline (the HFCV is on the left; gas car on the right):
View attachment 59595
See Hydrogen Safety
No Frunk! Perhaps an unintentional consequence of the HFCV market is to replace gasoline vehicles in a manner that eliminates oil/petro but maintains many of the same engine components. Looking at the photo in the OP link, an untrained eye would not know the difference between HFCV and ICE when looking under the hood. This might have less of an impact on suppliers. IMO I prefer my Model S frunk. The best manner in which to get and store hydrogen is to build huge straws that jut out into space and literally suck the hydrogen back to Earth.
So let's see here...
Cargo space; EV
Safety: going out on a limb, EV
Convenience of fueling: EV
Ability to go 350 miles really fast within 175 miles of a hydrogen pump: FCV (after it gets up to speed)
Infrastructure paid by all taxpayers vs product owners: FCV (if you call that a win)
Cost of fuel: EV
Not sure how they come to the conclusion FCVs are EVs done right when comparing with the Models S.
9.1 hours to charge Tesla is misleading. We don't wait until "empty" and charge to 100%. Non EV owners fail to realize that we charge every night in our garage for 2 to 3 hours. The article also conveniently failed to mention SuperChargers.
It also failed to compare the MPGe numbers, 0-60 times/power, or trunk space - all big wins for the Tesla I believe.
They conveniently get in their dig about the Model S's high price, without mentioning that Hyundai would have to charge more than that to make a profit if they sold the FCV instead of leasing.
As usual for a mainstream media Fuel Cell piece, it mentions the water coming out of the exhaust as the only pollution, without considering where the hydrogen comes from - either the pollution of steam reformation of natural gas or the massive efficiency loss of hydrolysis.
Just a little spin going on here...
Wow, how misleading is that piece. Electrics done right, not to mention that you cannot refuel unless you live near a refueling station and where are they, now where.
Not to mention the major misconception of charging (9 hours) vs filling up at the H2 station (5 minutes). The reality is:
- charging happens at your garage while you sleep every night, effective time spent / wasted: ~ 5 second per day (the time to plug in)
- for H2 filling, even if you live in one of the 2 cities where it is possible, you probably don't live next-door to the station, you may need to drive 10-15 minutes to get there, fill-up for 5 minutes, then drive back: effective time spent / wasted on filling up: ~ 30 minutes
- option of home charging an EV is available to the vast majority of the driver population (I'd estimate about 70-80%)
- option of H2 filling is available only to those drivers living in LA, which is a small fraction of the total driver population, well below 1%
Funny article. Electric vehicles done right but you can't buy the car or get fuel for it outside LA for the most part.
That's only the case for one kind of failure, but if that tank ruptures (I believe Toyota's is 10,000 psi) it's not going to be a nice jet of flame as shown. Here's a test of an SUV tire. The pressure isn't shown, but I would expect it to be about 150 psi. at the time of failure. Note that oxygen was used to increase the explosion.
"Power is sufficient, if not exciting in the fuel-cell model" which is their way of glossing over the fact that it is gutless.
The 0-60 is 11.5 seconds versus 8.7 seconds in the ICE version - and the word they choose is "sufficient".
- - - Updated - - -
The time to fill the Tucson is quoted at 10 minutes, not 5. That is 5x slower than an ICE car. I cannot imagine an impatient, go anywhere I want right now, petrolhead being happy standing next to the pump for 10 minutes. It is not long enough to do anything useful and it is too short to wander away.
These sorts of pieces make me laugh. No doubt a hundred years ago there were similar articles on "horseless carriages done right" from a horse economy and experience point-of-view.
In the end, I believe the significant advantages and day-to-day convienence of BEV will win out in the marketplace.
It's just as well this misguided sentiment remains out there in the media for now. There just isn't enough battery production online yet to satisfy demand that if everyone realized the truth.
I'm a non-EV owner currently (hybrid only), and even *I* know this.
I believe cost analysis is very important. The lease cost was $500 per month? Isn't a Tesla the same?
Time 10 minutes twice a week. Tesla 10 seconds every day.
Range 120 miles from a fueling station. Tesla 120 miles from my house or 120 miles from the nearest electric plug. Reasonably 120 miles from any Supercharger.
Safety low for collision? Tesla high safety.
Explosive versus compartmentalized burn. (Firecracker with Roman candles on video of wrecked stolen Tesla).
Dull versus exciting. Hyundai reminds us of the brand of environmentalism that promoted a future where one could only expect less and less. Tesla shows us not to fear a bleak carbon neutral future but to be excited about the future.
No contest. FCV will not survive. Tesla inspired EVs will prevail. Darwin wins again.
20,000 miles on my Tesla, 1.5 years, a couple of dozen road trips where I charged on the road or at destination. Total time spent waiting for refueling: 0 minutes.
People need to start understanding that charging up a Model S is like charging up your iPhone - you do it overnight, or while eating lunch and no time is wasted.
Gas cars and FCV, on the other hand...