It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
https://www.treehugger.com/cars/lightyear-solar-electric-car-claims-500-mile-range-charge.html
Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
@Fretwired - any idea on the cost of those Hanergy cars? I suspect they will not be cheap - at least not in the next 15 years. Also, how durable are they, and how much would it cost to replace a wing or a bonnet in the event of a prang?
I suspect that in the future we'll have big batteries in our house to store electricity from solar and wind and take the strain off the National Grid while we're charging our cars outside.
Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
Keep 240V in kitchens but it probably wouldn't be needed elsewhere.
Have your solar panels store energy in a battery, and then have a low voltage LED lighting circuit, and low voltage circuits for electronics. You would save on having to convert DC from the panels to AC and then back again. It would also be a lot safer if there were less 240V wires running around the house. With the lower voltages, you could legally do DIY lighting stuff.
Battery capacity that would be enough to charge a car is a whole different level though.
Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
Hydrogen has low energy density - that's a fact which you "might need to read up on".
Even if the real world range is only 200 miles rather than 312 miles, that makes a big difference over where battery cars are at the moment. It would get me to my Grandma's on a single tank. It would allow me to do a round trip to my parents on a single tank. No electric car on the market at the moment, or in the near future is likely to let me do that.
You said "Hydrogen cars will only ever do relatively short hops between quick refills." Even if real world range is 200 miles, that's more than just a short hop.
You are also forgetting that fuel cell cars will improve. Honda are quoting a 366 mile range for their new fuel cell version of the Clarity. That's 54 miles more than Toyota are quoting on the Mirai - and definitely not a short hop even if it's only 250 miles in the real world.
In reality, you should be stopping every couple of hundred miles for a break anyway on a long journey. Filling up at that point isn't a big issue. At least you won't have to wait an hour and a half for it to charge.
By the way, the speed of your car doesn't rally matter that much. Even if your car is faster than a Mirai, that's not a lot of use in an everyday situation. At best you'll be stuck doing something close to the speed limit. Normally, you'll be stuck in a queue somewhere.
http://www.rebresearch.com/blog/hydrogen-versus-battery-power/
I think this is where we need a big culture shift - a move away from speed, and possibly convenience, and into the realms of pure practicality.
A bigger car will weigh more and thus need more energy. It would have capacity for a bigger battery, but would need longer to charge - so how often do you need, for example, 500 miles from a tank (example, a long round trip)? Some people genuinely need that for carting things around and long journeys (where you need more comfort), others (I suspect even most people) will only *need* that once or twice a year, for which a hire service may suit better.
More smaller cars may help ease congestion and make parking easier (reduce size of parking spaces - I'm thinking smart car size up to aygo/c1 size cars). It may even make roads safer, giving cyclists more room. More room and safer cycling means more cyclists, means less demand for cars, means more space on the roads...
Then again, I'm a bit of an eco head and I appreciate there are a lot of practicalities to be taken into account. A travelling consultant would need a car that's more comfortable and capable of long journeys, but I would hazard most people cover no more than 80 miles in a day 95 percent of the time (myself included).
With regards to shopping, it may be that using delivery vans are more efficient - one fully loaded van could efficiently plan a route and deliver shopping to a good few families, rather than a car per family embarking on the same trip. Not needing mega boot space means a lighter car, less demand for power to move it.
Basically, it's unrealistic right now but I am of the opinion that over time, we will need a huge rethink of transport solutions, and it may mean less convenience for a few people (although I'd hazard the advantages would outweigh the disadvantages). There is, obviously, also the question as to the impacts on biodiversity and the climate through manufacturing so much stuff.
There is also the question of product life cycle - how long would people keep it? Is it reasonable to want a new car every year, two years, five years? Lots to think on.
If/when driverless cars go mainstream, a lot of people will stop owning their own cars - especially those who live in cities.
If you look at the price of Uber, and subtract the price of the driver's wages, and allow for reduced running costs in the future because it's using electric motors (whatever the energy source), and allow for not having to pay for parking at the far end, then the cost of taxing, insuring, servicing, resident's parking, and MOT on your own personal car won't be worth it for most people.
You might also make things more efficient by using the correct vehicle. We have a 7 seater, but the majority of miles are my wife driving to work on her own. If she did call up a self driving Aygo type thing, and we only used a 7 seater when we needed one, there are big energy efficiencies there.
My feedback thread is here.
Fuck me, it'll be hell up our road, then. It's already 'parking wars' on a daily basis, so access to the two street lamps we have is likely to end up in pitched battles.
Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!