re: Longest range EV will end up being a full sized pickup truck: 450 miles

quote:

---

Lol, why are you putting hydrogen in houses??

---

Where are you gonna park your hydrogen powered car?

quote:

---

Baw hydrogen is the most energy dense liquid fuel (thats not an opinion thats a fact).

---

By mass yes, but not by volume. I believe it takes about 4 gallons of liquid hydrogen to equal a gallon of gasoline (someone check my math). That 25 gallon tank is now 100 gallons. Compressed hydrogen is worse. And the tank will weigh ~20 times as much as the hydrogen inside. And it will constantly leak. To use hydrogen in passenger vehicles it would probably need to be stored chemically. Then there is a whole new set of problems to solve.

And the real kicker is that hydrogen fuel cells extract about twice as much energy from hydrogen as hydrogen ICE. So if we ever do use hydrogen to power passenger vehicles, it will be used as a battery to power electric motors. Combustion is just not efficient.

quote:

---

But the fact of the matter is that pertinent plants, vehicles, and existing infrastructure can and will be modified and it's just a matter of time.

---

A matter of time and trillions of dollars, maybe. Maybe one day there will be some discovery that makes it more viable, but as of now using hydrogen to power passenger vehicles looks DOA. IMO hydrogen makes sense in stationary, large-scale applications like grid storage, but for portable applications batteries already have a big lead and there are a ton of development avenues for improvement. Maybe big ships and perhaps trucks and trains can take advantage of hydrogen as well, but you severely underestimate just how much infrastructure would have to be built to support hydrogen powered passenger vehicles. We already have the infrastructure for EVs.

quote:

---

Find a mix of 10 single people, male and women, and I guarantee you that every one of them has put something in the truck bed more than once a year. Is this excluding people who regularly keep something back there at all times? Tools? Spare tire? Etc.

---

You’re suggesting a ten person survey to refute data produced by actual market research companies that’s backed up by manufacturers. Simply astonishing. And now you’re going down the let’s manipulate it so that if you keep a spare tire back there it counts. This is pretty funny.

quote:

---

And now you’re going down the let’s manipulate it so that if you keep a spare tire back there it counts.

---

I’m just asking what they factored into the survey.

Like I said. There’s absolutely no way 35% of people that own a truck have put something in the end one time a year.

quote:

---

This is pretty funny.

---

I agree. It’s hilarious that you believe that stat.

quote:

---

The best reason to not own a truck is you don’t get hit up regularly to haul shite by folks who don’t own a truck

---

For me owning a pickup is like owning a boat, it is better to know someone with one than own one yourself. I own a boat so I am a special kinda stupid too.

I think the 35% is overblown without some caveats since it is similar to saying only 35% of people use the trunk or cargo portion of their car/SUV once a year. I will say it might be pretty accurate for people using their cargo bed of a truck for things that wouldn't fit or they wouldn't want in a trunk or cargo area. There are a lot of P/Us in my neighborhood but most people just commute in them and most of them don't do any work around the house or in the yard to need a P/U. I personally don't like driving a P/U so I use a trailer behind an SUV it is a bit of a PITA but it is so infrequent I still prefer it because I would still prefer an SUV even as a third vehicle.

While I don't get the love of pickups and think they are poor value most of the time I understand it is no more silly than having a daily driver that can top 200mph. As for EVs I think for over 80% of people (who currently have a place to locate a charger at their residence) and 98% of their driving an EV is a better choice. The US has a deep-seated car culture that dislikes change and also people that won't do something even if it is better for them if they feel forced to do it.

quote:

---

It’s hilarious that you believe that stat.

---

Provide some data then. You’ve given nothing but opinions.

quote:

---

Does it?

---

Yes.

quote:

---

What about the ease of loading and unloading.

---

What about it?

quote:

---

You could probably fit 10 items in a truck bed and those same 10 in a trunk. But you could go into the truck and grab anyone you want. You’d have to unload some from a trunk to get to others.

---

Man what the frick are you talking about?

If the stuff can go in a trunk then it's dumb to say people "use" their truck beds. They only use the bed because they don't have a trunk. If you count those use cases then your data is worthless. Such data would serve no purpose in a discussion about whether people use or need the capabilities of a truck. Using such data has only one purpose, and that is to purposely skew results to tell you what you want to hear.

And fwiw I drive a truck and I haul shite in the bed and in a trailer regularly.

quote:

---

If you count those use cases then your data is worthless. Such data would serve no purpose in a discussion about whether people use or need the capabilities of a truck.

---

I’m not using any data. I’m saying that writer is doing this:

quote:

---

purposely skew results to tell you what you want to hear.

---

The article specifically said:

35% of people only “putt something in the bed” once or less a year. I’m saying that’s bullshite.

quote:

---

I'm just the opposite. I had a car once for a year and I hated it.

---

I completely get why a lot of people like trucks as a DD. For me, they are too large, too slow, and don't handle/brake very well. It is just a personal preference. Our primary need for an SUV outside of hauling larger things is hauling our dogs which would be less than ideal in a truck and basically impossible in our cars.

I actually thought my wife might be interested in an EV next time around because the vast majority of her driving is commuting, any road trips and we take the SUV. When I broached the subject a month or so ago she just responded sure when one sounds better than mine. It became a non-discussion at that point since there are not a whole lot of ICE engines that sound better than her car. It seems we are going down swinging with ICE vehicles despite me having a bit of an itch for one.

quote:

---

Where are you gonna park your hydrogen powered car?

---

That wasn't what he was talking about; but the garage, where you park your vehicle of any kind is where you would park your hydrogen vehicle. It would be filled up at essentially a gas station, but with hydrogen. But I do agree that a lot of the currently developed (and not released) hydrogen vehicles will/are being used for commercial use, at least initially.

quote:

---

By mass yes, but not by volume. I believe it takes about 4 gallons of liquid hydrogen to equal a gallon of gasoline (someone check my math). That 25 gallon tank is now 100 gallons. Compressed hydrogen is worse. And the tank will weigh ~20 times as much as the hydrogen inside. And it will constantly leak. To use hydrogen in passenger vehicles it would probably need to be stored chemically. Then there is a whole new set of problems to solve.

And the real kicker is that hydrogen fuel cells extract about twice as much energy from hydrogen as hydrogen ICE. So if we ever do use hydrogen to power passenger vehicles, it will be used as a battery to power electric motors. Combustion is just not efficient.

---

Some truth in that, but it would be ultimately cheaper than gas eventually and cheaper to produce and result in totally carbon free emissions (which is the ultimate goal with all of this, particularly when it comes to airplanes and long haul trucks), and the application for hydrogen combustion powertrains are more being researched for long haul trucks and airplanes (and yes personal vehicles as well).

quote:

---

And the real kicker is that hydrogen fuel cells extract about twice as much energy from hydrogen as hydrogen ICE. So if we ever do use hydrogen to power passenger vehicles, it will be used as a battery to power electric motors. Combustion is just not efficient.

---

Combustion has never super been efficient, you can only get -50% efficiency in the best gas ICE.

quote:

---

A matter of time and trillions of dollars, maybe. Maybe one day there will be some discovery that makes it more viable, but as of now using hydrogen to power passenger vehicles looks DOA. IMO hydrogen makes sense in stationary, large-scale applications like grid storage, but for portable applications batteries already have a big lead and there are a ton of development avenues for improvement. Maybe big ships and perhaps trucks and trains can take advantage of hydrogen as well, but you severely underestimate just how much infrastructure would have to be built to support hydrogen powered passenger vehicles. We already have the infrastructure for EVs.

---

I wouldn't say DOA, you can take my word or not, but domestic and international O&G and Energy companies as well as National Departments of Energy globally, are all researching this now (many past R&D at this point), and have been doing so for the last decade and honestly more. Fuel cell drop ins for batteries definitely have an extremely large already existing market for fuel cells to replace electric batteries in existing vehicles.

The infrastructure for EV's is there but it was not there even 10-15 years ago, not to mention It is still currently very small, using existing roadways and slow chargers for home use or, if you are lucky, in a larger city parking lot. They are just now looking into road taxes for EV use. I am not anti EV, I just don't think the lay person understands the phenomenal implications of hydrogen being used in EV as well as hydrogen on it's own.

If the goal is to have a totally clean emission free system in place, EV's are still powered by a predominantly coal grid, and until we change out laws on nuclear power plants which is not changing any time soon, we are where we are. A LOT of work is being done for hydrogen to become a cheap viable fuel source, and is at this time it is the cleanest "legal" source available with a lot of aforementioned R&D being put in to effectuating this goal.

quote:

---

Combustion has never super been efficient, you can only get -50% efficiency in the best gas ICE.

---

That is approaching the theoretical maximum I believe. If it is possible to align an engine's peak torque/power and efficiency curves, paired with a CVT that can keep it at that rpm through typical driving patterns, then an ICE might come close to competing with a fuel cell. But I don't know why you would do that when there is already a more efficient option. Again for ships, trains, maybe planes, hydrogen combustion might make sense. Passenger vehicles nah.

quote:

---

I wouldn't say DOA, you can take my word or not, but domestic and international O&G and Energy companies as well as National Departments of Energy globally, are all researching this now

---

Of course O&G is researching it, they are our primary source of hydrogen.

quote:

---

Fuel cell drop ins for batteries definitely have an extremely large already existing market for fuel cells to replace electric batteries in existing vehicles.

---

Again, I just don't see the benefit when the tank is as large and maybe as heavy as a battery of equivalent range, and we are looking at trillions in infrastructure to take advantage of the faster refuel potential.

quote:

---

The infrastructure for EV's is there but it was not there even 10-15 years ago

---

So look at how fast and cheap it was to do that. 95% of the total infrastructure required for EVs was already there, we've been building it for a century.

quote:

---

If the goal is to have a totally clean emission free system in place, EV's are still powered by a predominantly coal grid, and until we change out laws on nuclear power plants which is not changing any time soon, we are where we are. A LOT of work is being done for hydrogen to become a cheap viable fuel source, and is at this time it is the cleanest "legal" source available with a lot of aforementioned R&D being put in to effectuating this goal.

---

I don't have a problem with nuclear other than I think even with the regs removed it still isn't all that cheap. Maybe some development could change that. And hydrogen could absolutely be a viable fuel source for a lot of applications, but I disagree that it is feasible for passenger vehicles. There are just too many problems to solve.