[Byte1]

Originally Posted by Normal

Hydrogen will be the ultimate fuel source. Why even waste time with the polluting of batteries?

Because Hydrogen can be produced by individual citizens, therefore not enough profit for big industry? Same with methane, I believe. Interesting how fuel sources that can be produced by individual citizens is not encouraged.

[biker1]

Distribution is the issue with hydrogen. If is a lot easier to install electric recharging stations than hydrogen refueling stations. There is a lot of DC fast charging infrastructure already deployed (for example, Tesla already has about 17,000 DC fast chargers in the US alone). Also, each garage is essentially an electric recharging station with typically only a minor modification for 240V if you so desire, or no modification if 120V provides fast enough charging.

Originally Posted by Normal

Hydrogen will be the ultimate fuel source. Why even waste time with the polluting of batteries?

[biker1]

Producing hydrogen is not inexpensive and is typically done via electrolysis, which takes electricity. The last time I checked, people were encouraged to deploy solar panels.

Originally Posted by Byte1

Because Hydrogen can be produced by individual citizens, therefore not enough profit for big industry? Same with methane, I believe. Interesting how fuel sources that can be produced by individual citizens is not encouraged.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by biker1

Distribution is the issue with hydrogen. If is a lot easier to install electric recharging stations than hydrogen refueling stations. There is a lot of DC fast charging infrastructure already deployed (for example, Tesla already has about 17,000 DC fast chargers in the US alone). Also, each garage is essentially an electric recharging station with typically only a minor modification for 240V if you so desire, or no modification if 120V provides fast enough charging.

No issue really. Just locally produce what is needed. A car can have its own hydrogen generator. It’s not like you would be driving around with a tank of hydrogen. The generator would manufacture as needed amounts.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Normal

No issue really. Just locally produce what is needed. A car can have its own hydrogen generator. It’s not like you would be driving around with a tank of hydrogen. The generator would manufacture as needed amounts.

Kind of like a perpetual motion machine? The car would use hydrogen to generate enough energy to both power the car and replenish the hydrogen it was using?

[biker1]

Hmmm, I didn’t see any emojis so I will assume you are serious? Are you suggesting the hydrogen be used in a fuel cell or burned as internal combustion fuel? Do you realize that hydrogen would typically be generated via electrolysis, which takes electricity? Where is the electricity coming from on the vehicle that is driving around making this hydrogen, a battery perhaps? Since generating hydrogen for a fuel cell makes no sense then I can only assume you want to burn it as internal combustion fuel. This is not nearly as efficient as using the electricity to drive an electric motor, which are very efficient.

Originally Posted by Normal

No issue really. Just locally produce what is needed. A car can have its own hydrogen generator. It’s not like you would be driving around with a tank of hydrogen. The generator would manufacture as needed amounts.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Kind of like a perpetual motion machine? The car would use hydrogen to generate enough energy to both power the car and replenish the hydrogen it was using?

Every car would have start up. Once it’s running it doesn’t matter because you can manufacture at surplus amounts to energy.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by biker1

Hmmm, I didn’t see any emojis so I will assume you are serious? Are you suggesting the hydrogen be used in a fuel cell or burned as internal combustion fuel? Do you realize that hydrogen would typically be generated via electrolysis, which takes electricity? Where is the electricity coming from on the vehicle that is driving around making this hydrogen, a battery perhaps? Since generating hydrogen for a fuel cell makes no sense then I can only assume you want to burn it as internal combustion fuel. This is not nearly as efficient as using the electricity to drive an electric motor, which are very efficient.

The standard generator. Wired armature, stator and rotation. The wheel base can hook up to any pulley system.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Normal

Every car would have start up. Once it’s running it doesn’t matter because you can manufacture at surplus amounts to energy.

So then you are proposing a perpetual motion machine where operating the machine produces a surplus of energy.

Put a small bottle or battery on the car to capture some of the surplus then use it to start the car the next time. Since your machine produces a surplus of energy, once the bottle or battery is filled you would be putting that surplus hydrogen back into the atmosphere.

[biker1]

As Bill14564 asked, a perpetual motion machine? Yeah, those don’t exist.

Originally Posted by Normal

The standard generator. Wired armature, stator and rotation. The wheel base can hook up to any pulley system.

[Nellmack]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

For 100 miles.

Correction: Better tech, faster, more fun to drive for (approx) 350 miles.

[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by biker1

By 2030, probably about half of new cars sold will be EVs.

That may be what the Elites want, but I wouldn't bet on that happening. There has been tremendous consumer pushback and the manufacturers are losing so much money they are reducing output. Until/unless the perceived issues with EVs are eliminated, adoption will be very slow.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

That may be what the Elites want, but I wouldn't bet on that happening. There has been tremendous consumer pushback and the manufacturers are losing so much money they are reducing output. Until/unless the perceived issues with EVs are eliminated, adoption will be very slow.

What do you consider consumer pushback? Some have dug in their heels and declared that since the current Admin is pushing EVs they would rather ride horses. Is that the "tremendous consumer pushback" you are referring to? Those "perceived issues" are political, not technical.

Others, like me, have looked at their automobile usage habits and recognized that an EV does not have the required capabilities at this time. That will change as the range of the vehicle is increased and the range of my vacations is decreased.

As for reducing output, that will not help the manufacturers stop losing money. The amount they are losing is tied to the low number of vehicles sold, not the numbers manufactured. The big money has already been spent to build the production lines, the amount added by a vehicle sitting in a showroom is peanuts.

[biker1]

Confirmation bias at work.

Originally Posted by Pugchief

That may be what the Elites want, but I wouldn't bet on that happening. There has been tremendous consumer pushback and the manufacturers are losing so much money they are reducing output. Until/unless the perceived issues with EVs are eliminated, adoption will be very slow.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by biker1

As Bill14564 asked, a perpetual motion machine? Yeah, those don’t exist.

No, it would have to refill with water after dilution