Gas, EV, Hydrogen, Diesel comeback....Which way are we going?

Northcoast300h

Northcoast300h

Active Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
293
Reaction score
267
Location
Cleveland, OH
Anyone know? I think gas is still king...for now, but I think its nice to have these options.

A) In 2019, Elon said Hydrogen vehicles were "stupid". Now its confirmed, Tesla is making a hydrogen car for sale in 2025. Toyota, BMW, Hyundai already have hydrogen cars for sale.

B) Toyota has a working gas engine that cleans the air, making it better than EV for the environment. (too expensive for general public so far)

C) Commercial truck companies are teaming up with Ingersol Rand and others building hydrogen refueling stations for their hydrogen trucks nationwide, (not for general public yet).

D) EV's are stagnating, but they are getting better every year and all it takes is gas going up $1/gallon to increase EV sales.

E) Diesels came up with a new cleaner burning engine, but huge exhaust filters have to be changed out.

maxresdefault1.jpg
 
Northcoast300h said:
Anyone know? I think gas is still king...for now, but I think its nice to have these options.

A) In 2019, Elon said Hydrogen vehicles were "stupid". Now its confirmed, Tesla is making a hydrogen car for sale in 2025. Toyota, BMW, Hyundai already have hydrogen cars for sale.

B) Toyota has a working gas engine that cleans the air, making it better than EV for the environment. (too expensive for general public so far)

C) Commercial truck companies are teaming up with Ingersol Rand and others building hydrogen refueling stations for their hydrogen trucks nationwide, (not for general public yet).

D) EV's are stagnating, but they are getting better every year and all it takes is gas going up $1/gallon to increase EV sales.

E) Diesels came up with a new cleaner burning engine, but huge exhaust filters have to be changed out.

View attachment 657925
Click to expand...
Toyoyo is continuing to work with hydrogen.
 
Me? I am going with the flow, so to speak.:)

I am staying IC, new vehicles will be cleanest I can get, as long as I can get them. I would go hybrid next, and EV last absent getting over my range anxiety. My vintage stuff is staying in "as-built" spec/contented and good repair: honkin' gasoline V8's and smokin" petroleum diesel Detroits.

Still .. doing other stuff to reduce my carbon footprint other places (consumption, recycling, reusing, etc.,) We gotta get greenhouse gases DOWN (PPM's). I will do what I can, not what "fanatics" want me to do.
It took 25 years to transition from horses to cars, 120 years ago. This transition is different. Existing IC propulsion continues to get cleaner. Alternatives continue to get better.

Ton of thread material here about EV's and I am staying out that here. Except to say, it kinda depends on what one believes the future from TODAY to look like.

So much information. Valuable, true, false, wrong, lies, politicized, complete nonsense, etc. Its hard to keep your wits about you amidst the competing chatter.

Public policy lacks overall logic/cohesivenss. Objective science suggests something needs to be done though. So, my belief is EV's are coming. I am cool. Alternatives, some promising/some not are coming/here now. Cool.

However, my fear is any attempt to outlaw IC's/mandate the EV penetration (nearly 1.5 billion vehicles estimated to be on global roads today), without the replacement technology(ies) sufficiently mature and market priced (no excessive subsidies after "priming the pump"), is foolish public policy at best, dishonest at worst.

Do we have to do something about portion of CO2/methane in the atmosphere that human activity generates? Surely, IMHO.

You need only spend a day on Venus (a "greenhouse" planet right next door), where it's so hot (like 900 degrees F) that lead melts on the surface, and it literally rains sulfuric acid from the clouds, to appreciate the potential problem of such an atmosphere.

Is that (the Venusian climate) gonna happen here in 50 human generations (2,000 years? ). Highly doubt it.

But, will Miami be underwater in 10 years? Maybe...if this joint continues to heat (in turn melt polar ice, in turn raise sea levels, etc.,) at this rate.
 
Last edited:

Hydrogen Refueling Station Closures In Multiple Countries More Painful News For Hydrogen Proponents​


cleantechnica.com

Hydrogen Refueling Station Closures In Multiple Countries More Painful News For Hydrogen Proponents - CleanTechnica

Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News! The past year has been a year of creative destruction in hydrogen for energy efforts. That is to say, destruction of creative accounting and projections in business cases. Green hydrogen supply proposals...
cleantechnica.com cleantechnica.com

Maybe that story mentions it, but I have read that hydrogen is more and more looking like an alternative for heavy transportation (tractor trailers) rather than passenger vehicles. Maybe when the demand for EV-powered tractor trailers hauling potato chips is satisfied, hydrogen-powered tractor-trailers will increase.

Was it Toyota that sold off it's inventory of H-powered cars in California recently? Something like $30k off a $45k car, and it included 2 years worth of H fillups? At a time when H stations in California were being taken down?

Hertz recently increased the number of Tesla's its going to unload. I think they bought 40k Tesla's, and had a lot of blow-back from customers who rented an ICE car but were handed a Tesla at the rental counter as Hertz tried to force their use. Hertz is now selling 30k of them, a few months ago it was 20k.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm, let's let the market decide. As mentioned above, horses did not disappear overnight, there were electric cars in the early 20th century. Diesels did not become popular until the second half of 20th century and are still mostly relegated to heavy duty/industrial uses.
This whole "we are going to stuff this down your throat and your going to like it" is a pipe dream of starry eyed kids that don't want to grow up/drive and see ICE, and their maintenance and complexity as a advisary, along with the "sky is falling" chicken little climate people. Other people who think that electricity for a EV makes them cheaper to operate have not yet come to the realization that road tax is not in their equation. A EVs real advantage is it's simplicity. No transmission, no oil regular oil changes, no complex emission systems that render the car inoperable because the engine light is on/not registrable. On the flip side you have a egomaniac that has a business plan (Tesla) that follows Gillette's "free razor", but now you are hooked into our proprietary blades, which is where they make their money. The rest of the car manufacturers are jumping on because everyone knows maintenance and repair pays better than building the car in the first place. Also some union busting, by dragging component manufacturing "partners". So until that cycle breaks it is a pissing contest with a lot of propaganda being vomited at the consumer.
I think hydrogen as a burnable fuel is not practical, unless someone figures out how to produce it efficiently and store a practical amount in a vehicle.
Look at why Diesel replaced other fuels/types of propulsion in large vessels.
Locomotives: steam did a fine job for longer than diesels have been doing same job. There are 3 men in the cab of steam locomotive replaced by 1 in a Diesel, not to mention the maintenance is drastically reduced.
Steam ships: huge number of men to run a coal fired steam ship, refueling is a massive labor intensive job. Oilade that easier, but still a boiler and a engine. Modern ships with Gigantic diesel engine that spins propeller at a unreduced speed are run by a couple of guys.
OTR trucks: BTU's in a gallon of diesel is higher than gasoline ever thinks about. They are resistant to detonation as diesel fuel does not spontaneous combust as gasoline in high demand/load tends to do. So compression can be consistently higher resulting in better efficiency. Maintenance of no ignition system, oil stays undiluted by fuel longer because of fuel injection as opposed to carburetor. Less pumping losses because of no vacuum/open air inlet.
So I believe the right propulsion will find it's niche and be exploited.
 
Last edited:
I like the idea of hybrids. They would work perfect for the wife driving a few miles to work daily down city streets and still have the efficient gas burner for highway trips. We could save a tank full every few weeks. Probably $700-1000 savings a year. Not a lot of savings but it all helps and it does help the environment. The newer plug in hybrids would be easily recharged over the weekend when she isn't using it much. The gas engine is always there when you need it. Just a thought.
 
Toolmanmike said:
I like the idea of hybrids. They would work perfect for the wife driving a few miles to work daily down city streets and still have the efficient gas burner for highway trips. We could save a tank full every few weeks. Probably $700-1000 savings a year. Not a lot of savings but it all helps and it does help the environment. The newer plug in hybrids would be easily recharged over the weekend when she isn't using it much. The gas engine is always there when you need it. Just a thought.
Click to expand...
How do we dispose of the lithium batteries in hybrids? Is that cost factored into the cost of the vehicle?
Yes, during a hybrids operation it is efficient. But the real cost is getting kicked down the road.
 
3175375 said:
How do we dispose of the lithium batteries in hybrids? Is that cost factored into the cost of the vehicle?
Yes, during a hybrids operation it is efficient. But the real cost is getting kicked down the road.
Click to expand...
I didn't say it was perfect. How do we dispose of batteries in EV's? It depends on manufacturer from what I understand. Hybrids use Nickel-Metal Hydride. Lithium, or Lead Acid.
 
Toolmanmike said:
I didn't say it was perfect. How do we dispose of batteries in EV's? It depends on manufacturer from what I understand. Hybrids use Nickel-Metal Hydride. Lithium, or Lead Acid.
Click to expand...
I agree. My point is the public is being deceived by the false cost of these vehicles. The industry and governments are hiding the real costs.
 
I was at the car wash today when this showed up.
The guy had a crowd around him asking questions about the EV, including me, when I jokingly asked was he worried if it would short out going through the car wash.
As the owner rushed around wiping down the truck, he mentioned he has to quickly dry the stainless steel or it leaves waterspots. I suggested keeping a bottle of the stainless steel cleaner with him, the same as used for appliances.
Definitely a required taste is needed to appreciate it.

20240504_125435.jpg
 
sixpkrt said:
I was at the car wash today when this showed up.
The guy had a crowd around him asking questions about the EV, including me, when I jokingly asked was he worried if it would short out going through the car wash.
As the owner rushed around wiping down the truck, he mentioned he has to quickly dry the stainless steel or it leaves waterspots. I suggested keeping a bottle of the stainless steel cleaner with him, the same as used for appliances.
Definitely a required taste is needed to appreciate it.

View attachment 659172
Click to expand...

The best we can hope for is that he's happy with it.
 
sea levels rise?? you ever fill a cup up allthe way to the top with ice then put water in it? does it flood the counter?? try it. common sense thing

what about nuculer energy. use it in subs aircraft carriers.? o wait we have a whole bunch of new citizens that may use them the wrong way
 
sixpkrt said:
I was at the car wash today when this showed up.
The guy had a crowd around him asking questions about the EV, including me, when I jokingly asked was he worried if it would short out going through the car wash.
As the owner rushed around wiping down the truck, he mentioned he has to quickly dry the stainless steel or it leaves waterspots. I suggested keeping a bottle of the stainless steel cleaner with him, the same as used for appliances.
Definitely a required taste is needed to appreciate it.

View attachment 659172
Click to expand...
I don’t care for them. They look like a 4 year old designed it.
 
W.Weiland said:
sea levels rise?? you ever fill a cup up allthe way to the top with ice then put water in it? does it flood the counter?? try it. common sense thing
Click to expand...
What happens when you reverse the order? Fill the cup to the edge then put some ice cubes in it?? I think that is the concept with sea levels going up.


But I do get what you’re saying about putting the ice in first. I run that experiment almost every day around 6PM with some gin and tonic. :)
 
Last edited:
SPF Required said:
What happens when you reverse the order? Fill the cup to the edge then put some ice cubes in it?? I think that is the concept with sea levels going up.
Click to expand...
how ya been chief?

that is exactly correct. to the way i learned it anyway :)

think of it yet another way (ignoring density/salinity effects, and reflectivity of ice vs water on ocean temps).

the ice that is melting, because planet seems warmer, is not in the water (i e. subject to mass displacement - water level doesnt change -- per Archimedes principles ), it is on the land (and therefore is not IN the water).

you then turn that mass of ice (e. g. melt it after it bergs off a glacier), or even just pour it in (you can't, but just assume) the ocean, the volume of water in the ocean, relative to the land which again is not IN the ocean, will go up relative to the land.

say it yet another way (variant of your scenario). fill up a 10 ml beaker with water, and then try to add 5 ml of water from another beaker (or 10 ice cubes if you want) the 10 ml beaker will overflow the its capacity. the volume of water will definitely go up (i.e. "flood" the 10 Ml beaker and its surroundings).

such is the case with a warming climate (less ice, more water, vs. a comparatively fixed amount of land). somebody figured it out .. what if all the ice (on Greenland, Antarctica, North polar sea, mountain glaciers, etc.,) melted tomorrow (it wont)?

global sea level goes up a couple hundred+ feet maybe??? that'll put a lotta things underwater i'd guess.
 
Last edited:
amazinblue82 said:
how ya been chief?

that is exactly correct. to the way i learned it anyway :)

think of it yet another way (ignoring density/salinity effects, and reflectivity of ice vs water on ocean temps).

the ice that is melting, because planet seems warmer, is not in the water (i e. subject to mass displacement - water level doesnt change -- per Archimedes principles ), it is on the land (and therefore is not IN the water).

you then turn that mass of ice (e. g. melt it after it bergs off a glacier), or even just pour it in (you can't, but just assume) the ocean, the volume of water in the ocean, relative to the land which again is not IN the ocean, will go up relative to the land.

say it yet another way (variant of your scenario). fill up a 10 ml beaker with water, and then try to add 5 ml of water from another beaker (or 10 ice cubes if you want) the 10 ml beaker will overflow the its capacity. the volume of water will definitely go up (i.e. "flood" the 10 Ml beaker and its surroundings).

such is the case with a warming climate (less ice, more water, vs. a comparatively fixed amount of land). somebody figured it out .. what if all the ice (on Greenland, Antarctica, North polar sea, mountain glaciers, etc.,) melted tomorrow (it wont)?

global sea level goes up a couple hundred+ feet maybe??? that'll put a lotta things underwater i'd guess.
Click to expand...
I've said this before, not under these circumstances. Most people really do not comprehend how big the oceans are. The cup of water and beaker are a neat demonstration. It's more like a cup of ice in a Olympic size swimming pool. Adding the ice to a full glass is only the ice in Antarctica, Greenland, way northern Canada, Russia, because the north pole is ice already in the glass.
Usually I'm using the big ocean thing when the uninformed are talking about how easy it would be to find a aircraft carrier and sink it. Like they are standing on a lake shore looking at it. Even all the "hypersonic" missiles will take 15+ minutes to get close.
I'm not against emission reduction, and cleaning up the mess we make is not a bad thing. But the alarmists with these crazy scenarios are playing to the suckers in the crowd.
 
Last edited:
70bigblockdodge said:
I've said this before, not under these circumstances. Most people really do not comprehend how big the oceans are. The cup of water and beaker are a neat demonstration. It's more like a cup of ice in a Olympic size swimming pool. Adding the ice to a full glass is only the ice in Antarctica, Greenland, way northern Canada, Russia, because the north pole is ice already in the glass.
Usually I'm using the big ocean thing when the uninformed are talking about how easy it would be to find a aircraft carrier and sink it. Like they are standing on a lake shore looking at it. Even all the "hypersonic" missiles will take 15+ minutes to get close.
I'm not against emission reduction, and cleaning up the mess we make is not a bad thing. But the alarmists with these crazy scenarios are playing to the suckers in the crowd.
Click to expand...
BINGO!!!!!
 
70bigblockdodge said:
I've said this before, not under these circumstances. Most people really do not comprehend how big the oceans are. The cup of water and beaker are a neat demonstration. It's more like a cup of ice in a Olympic size swimming pool. Adding the ice to a full glass is only the ice in Antarctica, Greenland, way northern Canada, Russia, because the north pole is ice already in the glass.
Usually I'm using the big ocean thing when the uninformed are talking about how easy it would be to find a aircraft carrier and sink it. Like they are standing on a lake shore looking at it. Even all the "hypersonic" missiles will take 15+ minutes to get close.
I'm not against emission reduction, and cleaning up the mess we make is not a bad thing. But the alarmists with these crazy scenarios are playing to the suckers in the crowd.
Click to expand...
i get your point chief. even in this context, the oceans are BIG.

i am only referring to WATER ICE NOT ALREADY IN/ON the ocean. takes a lotta water (like trillions of gallons) to come into/flow out of the oceans to change the level.

i learned Archimedes' buoyancy math in the fifth grade. we did then the ice in water melt thing ... making the bet what would happen to water level . work the math, if one doesnt believe their eyes, and you'll see the water level doesn't change after ice melts.

BUT, fill up the container, or your Coors glass, to the rim, the try to put ice in or more liquid, you and/or the table will get wet. Its then all about the volume of the liquid.

Ice melting, pour water onto a table ... add liquid (or rocks, or cotton balls, whatveer) volume to a fixed container, and DONT change container's capacity ... presto!. Just put an icecube on the dry kitchen counter .. you'll get a little "lake" soon, right there where it was when i was ice.

that water was once in your freezer as ice, and now its volume in on your counter, in your coffee cup that was empty, ruining the title to you C body on the counter, etc

EOD, which is why i stay on the public debate sidelines (too many various levels of agendas/basic understanding competing) sea level rise due to less ice , IMHO, is real thing backed with real science, with examples on real planets of the potential problem.

some folks think its BS and behave accordingly. i for one, aint gonna fight about it but seriously both views cannot be correct.

me? keep the electrics in the clean propulsion option set, but dont make me buy one now. :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top