Shell opens America's first pipelined hydrogen-fueling station in Southern California

[Wretched]

Residents of SoCal's Torrance should consider themselves lucky, as they're now living in America's first-ever city to have a pipelined hydrogen-fueling station. You can thank Shell and Toyota for picking up this government-funded green project. Sure, while the few other hydrogen stations still rely on delivery by supply truck (presumably running on diesel, ironically), this nevertheless marks a new milestone for our squeaky clean fuel, and it's only a matter of time before more stations get piped up to Air Products' hydrogen plants. If there's any indication of a time frame, Wired reminds us that 2015 should see the arrival of many new mass-market hydrogen cars from Toyota, Honda, and Mercedes-Benz. Not long to go now, fellow tree huggers.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/11/s...ing-station-i/

[sanchoXB]

Hopefully we will see some of those cars in Aus. Good to see a few manufacturers besides Honda getting involved, stop wasting time with electric cars and bring on hydrogen.

[2011G6E]

Until a cheap and easy catalyst is discovered to produce Hydrogen, once again it's a hugely "energy negative" fuel. It takes vast amounts of electricity (produced at a coal fired station usually unless your government has a pair and puts in nuclear) to make the stuff.

Not to mention storga eat the moment is a massive tank in the back of the car as even compressed it takes up a large volume.

There was an experimental hydrogen 7-series BMW that did very well...but because of the low energy content of hydrogen it needed a v12 engine to produce the performance of a six. There was also the little matter of the massive cylindrical tank needed to give it a decent range which took up half the back seat and most of the boot.

Don't get me wrong...hydrogen shows promise as it allows normal internal combustion engines to be used. It's jus the gas they should be concentrating on it natural gas and LPG.
The one line I notice in that article is "government funded"...once again to even make it slightly economically viable, as with ethanol and E10 here, the government must expend large amounts of taxpayers dollars to subsidise the stuff. People forget what will happen to prices when subsidies end. We are already seeing rumblings here from some politicians about the amount of subsidies paid to keep E10 artificially lower than normal unleaded. If and when the subsidies are dropped, and the true price of production is shown, E10 would be about 10 to 20 cents more expensive than ordinary unleaded.

I am quite certain one day a low-energy method of production will be invented...the easiest way to fix it at the moment is to source the huge amounts of electricity needed to crack the hydrogen out of water is to use atomic energy (which Australia steadfastly refuses to use despite out massive uranium deposits)...but that won't happen with our gutless governments of all persuasions.
But until those new techniques and catalysts are discovered, we have to just accept that if we are going to use hydrogen, we also have to happily accept "tailpipe emission shifting"...what used to come out the car exhaust is now coming out of a power station smokestack somewhere, thus negating any "green" benefit.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

There was an experimental hydrogen 7-series BMW that did very well...but because of the low energy content of hydrogen it needed a v12 engine to produce the performance of a six. .

Yes, energy content of hydrogen gas per volume isnt as good as petrol vapor, that's why a bigger combustion space is needed, but it is not as you imply that hydrogen outputs are half of those of petrol engines. Direct injection using hydrogen and a combustion engine purposely built to cope with it can have the same displacement engine producing more power.
At the end of the day, the engine displacement is just academic, it justs need to be bigger than a petrol engine, it wont have to be built as heavy as a conventional petrol engine because the forces exerted on it wont be the same as for petrol.

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Not to mention they are being sold as a "performance car"...however if you use it as such you'll drain the batteries in a very short time (as Top Gear did a while back after only 89km of heavy use).

Not to mention, but you have! So this is where you get your research, from a team of script writers working for an entertainment show whose major objective in pulling ratings is to produce a package that makes petrol heads feel good about themselves.

Would you like to give us the range of the other performance cars doing only quarter mile testing? or do you have no idea about that either.

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Don't get me wrong...hydrogen shows promise as it allows normal internal combustion engines to be used. It's jus the gas they should be concentrating on it natural gas and LPG

Ultimately we are looking for a green and renewable source of energy. So while gas has the potential to extend fossil fuel usage for a while yet, it certainly isnt renewable nor does it solve the problem of co2 emissions, which are only about 5% less than for petrol on a well tuned conversion.

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

.
The one line I notice in that article is "government funded"...once again to even make it slightly economically viable, as with ethanol and E10 here, the government must expend large amounts of taxpayers dollars to subsidise the stuff. People forget what will happen to prices when subsidies end. We are already seeing rumblings here from some politicians about the amount of subsidies paid to keep E10 artificially lower than normal unleaded. If and when the subsidies are dropped, and the true price of production is shown, E10 would be about 10 to 20 cents more expensive than ordinary unleaded.

Conspiracy theory? if governments dont fund research into alternatives, who else is going to get full scale turn arounds? oil companies.....rofl.

You are failing to see the big picture here. The idea of alternative fuels is not to provide a cheaper or more convenient to petrol(too hard, petrol is the ultimate fuel in that regard), but to have a fuel that doesnt add co2 to the atmosphere. Not all research and ideas will come to fruition, research doesnt work that way, never has, never will, but if you do nothing, one outcome is guaranteed, nothing will be achieved.

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

I am quite certain one day a low-energy method of production will be invented...the easiest way to fix it at the moment is to source the huge amounts of electricity needed to crack the hydrogen out of water is to use atomic energy (which Australia steadfastly refuses to use despite out massive uranium deposits)...but that won't happen with our gutless governments of all persuasions.
But until those new techniques and catalysts are discovered, we have to just accept that if we are going to use hydrogen, we also have to happily accept "tailpipe emission shifting"...what used to come out the car exhaust is now coming out of a power station smokestack somewhere, thus negating any "green" benefit.

Oh hangon, you are quite happy for all this to take place if we use nuclear,? all we need is a government with balls? how well do you think the balls of those fukishima workers who mopped up there are going to be functioning? or indeed all of us since the food chain is going to be absorbing fission products from Fukishima via the ocean for quite a while to come.

[ray38l]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Oh hangon, you are quite happy for all this to take place if we use nuclear,? all we need is a government with balls? how well do you think the balls of those fukishima workers who mopped up there are going to be functioning? or indeed all of us since the food chain is going to be absorbing fission products from Fukishima via the ocean for quite a while to come.

off topic but how many people die a year mining for coal and how many die from nuclear power?
I would bet alot more people die from coal mining.

[z80]

Hydrogen doesn't have to be burned to produce power.

In theory, it can fuel the electrolyte in a battery to "charge" it up....fuel cells.

So electric cars are still the way to go.

And...if I had one today I could fill the tank everyday with my 9kw of roof mounted solar panels....producing up to 50kw a day at home.

100.00000000% renewable.

[XDV800]

Without more support from powers that be, hydrogen is still a way behind in the alternative fuel stakes, and i doubt that every outlet can be piped to. Nice idea.

Ahem , Flappist. Theres a topic here that needs some sort of inane retort...

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by yzfr101

Without more support from powers that be, hydrogen is still a way behind in the alternative fuel stakes, and i doubt that every outlet can be piped to. Nice idea.

Ahem , Flappist. Theres a topic here that needs some sort of inane retort...

ok , so hydrogen by product coming out of the exhaust in the form of vapor water, blanketing the atmosphere, which increases carbon dioxide. an hence hydrogen at $1.70 a litre

[XDV800]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

ok , so hydrogen by product coming out of the exhaust in the form of vapor water, blanketing the atmosphere, which increases carbon dioxide. an hence hydrogen at $1.70 a litre

Huh? Thanks for sharing, whatever that post is meant to highlight, i just can't comprehend?
Are you VP of the Flappist group?

[gtfpv]

[QUOTE=yzfr101.

Ahem , Flappist. Theres a topic here that needs some sort of inane retort...[/QUOTE]

yes err , pixies , dribble ,um fairies, string theories and peter pan .

[flappist]

Originally Posted by yzfr101

Without more support from powers that be, hydrogen is still a way behind in the alternative fuel stakes, and i doubt that every outlet can be piped to. Nice idea.

Ahem , Flappist. Theres a topic here that needs some sort of inane retort...

Why?

Hydrogen is a great idea. It can be extracted from seawater and would be 0 carbon if the energy was provided by Australias greatest resource, uranium.....

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by flappist

Why?

Hydrogen is a great idea. It can be extracted from seawater and would be 0 carbon if the energy was provided by Australias greatest resource, uranium.....

Quite correct. As I said though, unless that Brown stain in parliament is got rid of, and the major parties grow a pair, we won't see atomic energy used in Australia. The problem is that it isn't cheap or that easy to do even with plentiful atomic energy. Yet another fuel, like ethanol, that needs to be heavily subsidised in an ongoing way by taxpayer dollars to make it in any way affordable to the public.

Then we are only left with the massive logistical problems of transport, storage, fuelling station issues, on-vehicle storage ("fuel tank" size needed for half-decent range) problems, and energy required to keep it refrigerated. Far higher issues than are associated with LPG...which is already set up and which we should be concentrating on instead of hydrogen.

[FGX-351]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Quite correct. As I said though, unless that Brown stain in parliament is got rid of

lol! I love it!
And oh so true.

[cheap]

Isn't water vapor a green house gas?

[napmatt]

i believe its defiantly possibly to use solar power to get the power to convert hydrogen.

[napmatt]

but aside from the electricity issue, i still think this is very exciting, it could solve our energy problem! its way better then electric cars because those massive battery's are so toxic for the environment, both to make and to dispose of.

[2011G6E]

That Honda in the top picture is a fuel cell car. Hydrogen works to fuel these cells. You can also quite successfully burn it just like LPG in a normal internal combustion engine...in fact one of the best engines for it is a ****el rotary...Mazda had a prototype RX8 with one in it.

But as for "solving the energy crisis", no it won't. Yet. Without a vast amount of clean energy from some source to produce the stuff, you are just emissions-shifting...instead of the tailpipe it's coming out a smokestack. It first requires a government that has the balls to go atomic to produce the clean power needed, and it also needs the public to start to accept a lot less from thier cars.
Even the best fuel cell or hydrogen gas powered car is using an energy source of a very low energy content...it takes a large insulated taken to contain even a smallish capacity of liquid hydrogen.

Too many people have been shown (or remember from school science classes) seeing a couple of wires in a glass of water bubbling away from a battery and being told "look, there's hydrogen and oxygen being produced!". Yes it is...but a system you could have at home would be massive...gut-your-house-and-fill-it-with-equipment massive. There is a reason it's only produced in useable quantities in massive energy-hungry facilities. You need to electrolyse vast quanitites of water, sererate it into oxygen and hydrogen, compress and liquify it, and then store it and have pumping facilities.
Then you need to have refrigeration systems to keep it cold.
It isn't as easy as the shonky Dodgy-Brothers under-bonnet magical "hydrogen producers" would have us believe...

Hydrogen will never be an "answer"...but it can help. However, until a catalyst of some kind can be discovered that will make the production of it cheap and plentiful, it will remain an expensive energy negative fuel.

[z80]

You can buy an electric car in Sydney...today...that doesn't use exotic toxic batteries, in fact they arre recyclable.

The car will outperform almost every car on this forum,(0-100 in 3,7 seconds)

Think about that...what turbo would you need on a V8 to match that?

and get more than 400 plus kilometres between recharges.

If you fill a double car port roof with solar panels it will charge it every day.

They have setup an Australian operation and are selling cars if you want one.

Absolutely leading edge....no need for oil companies products like hydrogen.

And almost impossible to tax the fuel used...

http://www.teslamotors.com/



I cannot understand why more car companies haven't done what these guys have achieved.......
.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by z80

You can buy an electric car in Sydney...today...that doesn't use exotic toxic batteries, in fact they arre recyclable.

The car will outperform almost every car on this forum,(0-100 in 3,7 seconds)

Think about that...what turbo would you need on a V8 to match that?

and get more than 400 plus kilometres between recharges.

If you fill a double car port roof with solar panels it will charge it every day.

They have setup an Australian operation and are selling cars if you want one.

Absolutely leading edge....no need for oil companies products like hydrogen.

And almost impossible to tax the fuel used...

http://www.teslamotors.com/



I cannot understand why more car companies haven't done what these guys have achieved.......
.

Yep great idea..... They are about the same price a Falcon aren't they?

The have a maximum range of 360km THATS IT, you want to drive 500km it will take 2 days there and then 2 days back.

They are just a city boy toy......nothing more.

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by flappist

Yep great idea..... They are about the same price a Falcon aren't they?

The have a maximum range of 360km THATS IT, you want to drive 500km it will take 2 days there and then 2 days back.

They are just a city boy toy......nothing more.

Sorry, but they're slightly more expensive than a Falcon...$109,000 in the USA, so I doubt the right hand drive version will be cheaper...pretty substantial and expensive way of proving your green credentials...

Not to mention they are being sold as a "performance car"...however if you use it as such you'll drain the batteries in a very short time (as Top Gear did a while back after only 89km of heavy use).
The can't tax the fuel source? Really. One would assume you have to pay registration of some kind on this vehicle. I would also assume they are going to pick probably four cylinder registration as a base guide...even though it doesn't have an engine as such.

All that for a car which doesn't outhandle many similar cars such as a Lotus Elise. At least you could take the Elise on a weekend away without worrying about where to charge up.

I think this bit of information is also interesting about the charging:

The Tesla Roadster uses a unique charging connector, although Tesla has indicated they will convert to the SAE J1772 standard. The vehicle can be recharged using a wall-mounted 208–240 volt, 70 amp maximum current Home Connector. This appears to be the TS-70 charging station from ClipperCreek.
* a portable 120–240V, 40A maximum current Universal Mobile Connector cable that can plug into a NEMA 14-50 receptacle and other 240V receptacles using adapters.
* a portable 120V, 15A maximum current Spare Mobile Connector cable that plugs into a standard North American domestic socket.
Charging times vary depending on the ESS's state-of-charge, the available voltage, and the available circuit breaker amp rating (current). In a best case scenario, Tesla documents a recharge time of just under 4 hours using a 240v charger on a 90 amp circuit breaker and a worst case of 48 hours using a 120v outlet and a 15 amp breaker.

Not many houses have a 90 amp outlet to charge it quickly...and you certainly won't get that from "a garage roof full of solar cells"...I'd be betting real life charging times of 24 hours plus...

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch...

[flappist]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Sorry, but they're slightly more expensive than a Falcon...$109,000 in the USA, so I doubt the right hand drive version will be cheaper...pretty substantial and expensive way of proving your green credentials...

Not to mention they are being sold as a "performance car"...however if you use it as such you'll drain the batteries in a very short time (as Top Gear did a while back after only 89km of heavy use).
The can't tax the fuel source? Really. One would assume you have to pay registration of some kind on this vehicle. I would also assume they are going to pick probably four cylinder registration as a base guide...even though it doesn't have an engine as such.

All that for a car which doesn't outhandle many similar cars such as a Lotus Elise. At least you could take the Elise on a weekend away without worrying about where to charge up.

I think this bit of information is also interesting about the charging:


Not many houses have a 90 amp outlet to charge it quickly...and you certainly won't get that from "a garage roof full of solar cells"...I'd be betting real life charging times of 24 hours plus...

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch...

If you look at their AUSTRALIAN web site you get the price here.

http://www.teslamotors.com/australia

$222,995 is a LOT more than a falcon.....

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by flappist

If you look at their AUSTRALIAN web site you get the price here.

http://www.teslamotors.com/australia

$222,995 is a LOT more than a falcon.....

HOLY CRAP!

Man, near a quarter of a million bucks (after stamp duty, luxury car tax, and on roads) would buy a hell of a lot of petrol or diesel over a looooong period of time for something nice to drive that will take you anywhere in the country on a trip.

At that cost, you could buy an old 1970's big block F100 and to hell with the fuel economy and you'd probably still get ten years running out of it.

[z80]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Sorry, but they're slightly more expensive than a Falcon...$109,000 in the USA, so I doubt the right hand drive version will be cheaper...pretty substantial and expensive way of proving your green credentials...

50% of the cost of a Tesla is in protecting Holden Ford and Toyota.

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Not to mention they are being sold as a "performance car"...however if you use it as such you'll drain the batteries in a very short time (as Top Gear did a while back after only 89km of heavy use).

mate...89km of full throttle flogging isn't enough for you?


0-100 in 3.7 seconds for the Tesla...

You need a Nissan GTR to beat that...and it costs a lot more....

300 1/4 mile runs between recharges?

better show me a Holden/Ford that can do that? without an engine rebuild?
without losing traction?

Do that with my dedicated LPG falcon and it will need a tow to an LPG outlet in a lot less than 89k's...

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

The can't tax the fuel source? Really. One would assume you have to pay registration of some kind on this vehicle. I would also assume they are going to pick probably four cylinder registration as a base guide...even though it doesn't have an engine as such.

Are you for real?

You think the govt would openly charge more for registering an electric car than a fossil fuels car?

The biggest cost is the occupant crash insurance (third party), not registration.

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

All that for a car which doesn't outhandle many similar cars such as a Lotus Elise. At least you could take the Elise on a weekend away without worrying about where to charge up.

Err...the Tesla doesn't outhandle the Lotus Elise?

LOL...you better do more reading...the Tesla use a Lotus elise chassis and components....

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Not many houses have a 90 amp outlet to charge it quickly...and you certainly won't get that from "a garage roof full of solar cells"...I'd be betting real life charging times of 24 hours plus...

You would lose that bet....especially if the house has 3 phase power.

90A is the maximum the car will accept as a charge rate, Most houses have 30amps, in that case it will simply take 3 times longer.

If you were visiting a mate and had an empty tank. would he have a petrol bowser to fill you up?

Of course not, but his 240v 10A outlet would charge you up enough over a few beers to get you home ( if its not too far...)

mate...Garage full of solar panels works just fine.

Tesla owners in the US are already doing it.

You are looking at it too simplistically, without being armed with an understanding of solar arrays

Solar arrays are typically 600v strings on your roof ,some are 1500v, which the Tesla can accept...in fact it will accept almost any voltage charge sources.

so don't think low 240v...especially when...

If you double the voltage then the amps can be halved...triple the voltage and the amps can be a third.

Crudely put the formula is

Watts= volts x amps

2400w=240v x 10amps (your power point charging Tesla)
2400w=600v x 4 amps (solar array charging Tesla)


Hope that clears up your misunderstandings.

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by z80

50% of the cost of a Tesla is in protecting Holden Ford and Toyota.





mate...89km of full throttle flogging isn't enough for you?


0-100 in 3.7 seconds for the Tesla...

You need a Nissan GTR to beat that...and it costs a lot more....

300 1/4 mile runs between recharges?

better show me a Holden/Ford that can do that? without an engine rebuild?
without losing traction?

Do that with my dedicated LPG falcon and it will need a tow to an LPG outlet in a lot less than 89k's...





Are you for real?

You think the govt would openly charge more for registering an electric car than a fossil fuels car?

The biggest cost is the occupant crash insurance (third party), not registration.



Err...the Tesla doesn't outhandle the Lotus Elise?

LOL...you better do more reading...the Tesla use a Lotus elise chassis and components....




You would lose that bet....especially if the house has 3 phase power.

90A is the maximum the car will accept as a charge rate, Most houses have 30amps, in that case it will simply take 3 times longer.

If you were visiting a mate and had an empty tank. would he have a petrol bowser to fill you up?

Of course not, but his 240v 10A outlet would charge you up enough over a few beers to get you home ( if its not too far...)

mate...Garage full of solar panels works just fine.

Tesla owners in the US are already doing it.

You are looking at it too simplistically, without being armed with an understanding of solar arrays

Solar arrays are typically 600v strings on your roof ,some are 1500v, which the Tesla can accept...in fact it will accept almost any voltage charge sources.

so don't think low 240v...especially when...

If you double the voltage then the amps can be halved...triple the voltage and the amps can be a third.

Crudely put the formula is

Watts= volts x amps

2400w=240v x 10amps (your power point charging Tesla)
2400w=600v x 4 amps (solar array charging Tesla)


Hope that clears up your misunderstandings.

when are you buying yours . from what youve said 'im sold , just not sure about the cost of the car or the life span , will my house catch fire with 90 or 70 amps going through the wiring . ???
i'm still interested , show me the pics of yours ? they must be a very new concept ,and not here as yet , cause i havent come across one , and there are plenty of green voters around here .

[z80]

Originally Posted by flappist

Yep great idea..... They are about the same price a Falcon aren't they?.

Since when is a Falcon a benchmark for anything?

Originally Posted by flappist

:The have a maximum range of 360km THATS IT, you want to drive 500km it will take 2 days there and then 2 days back..

err...noooo

There is a fast charge option.

If there were two recharge stations between melb and sydney it could be done in a day.

Remember the days when LPG was newly introduced?

What happens when a dedicated LPG vehicle runs out of gas?

Ding!...its gets towed, no jerry cans for LPG...decanting is illegal...

Originally Posted by flappist

:They are just a city boy toy......nothing more.

Really? plenty of toy boy cars here that would be absolutely flogged by a Tesla....80 k's of full throttle is plenty on one charge.

That's 300 1/4 mile runs buddy boy....and 299 wins...,.maybe 300

For a product that's been developed for about the price that the big car makers spend on designing windscreen wipers, it's a damn good achievement in fact it's most likely an embarassment for a lot of them.

The big car makers are struggling to get 150km between recharges.

Tesla have upset plenty of people and some here by the looks of it.

[Buntz]

Originally Posted by z80

For a product that's been developed for about the price that the big car makers spend on designing windscreen wipers, it's a damn good achievement in fact it's most likely an embarassment for a lot of them.

The big car makers are struggling to get 150km between recharges.

Tesla have upset plenty of people and some here by the looks of it.

Wow... they took what is basically the money spent and hard labour of another company, and fitted it with some batteries and an electric motor...


I'm stunned.

It would be equally as cheap to take a Falcon and put some batteries in it. Or even a Commodore like one company is doing I believe. But then it has to be viable, and marketed and sold. And most companies that build cars for real people... aren't in the habit of making fools of themselves for ***** and giggles.

This is a tree hugging millionaires toy thing. Nothing more. But when he goes on international business ventures.... he's still burning fossil fuels. Let alone how much nasties are produced to build his new green car.... or the mining operations to make his batteries.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by z80

I cannot understand why more car companies haven't done what these guys have achieved.......
.

Thank you for demonstrating in the above two posts exactly why you do not understand.....

[z80]

Originally Posted by flappist

Thank you for demonstrating in the above two posts exactly why you do not understand.....

Takes two eyes to see all the world mate, not just one.

[2011G6E]

City use only? Perfect.

Anywhere else in the country? Nope. Useless.

Why, you ask?

Ruminate a bit on the areas outside capital cities...hell, even areas surrounding regional cities.
Say the proponents of purely electric cars get thier way and electric vehicles are "widely taken up by the public".
How far apart do you propose these high capacity filling stations be located? Probably at every single service station in the country for a start. And a lot in between many will have to be built, because of some of the distances involved. Probably between 50 and 70km apart would be a good distance...you have to allow for people who "forget to fill up" and drive past a station, and have to get to the next one. It happens now with petrol cars that get 600+ km out of a tank of fuel...how much more often would it happen with cars that only get less than 200km out of a "tank".

Now, say I was to buy one. All of a sudden the luxury of being able to go where I want, when I want. I will have to start planning my trips carefully, and make double sure the car has a "full tank" before leaving...too bad if I forget to plug it in and it's only got a half charge when I really have to leave.
It's 100km in one direction to Emerald where we do our shopping...it's 180 in the other direction to Rockhampton where we also shop and visit major stores. It's all 100 to 110kph roads, and sometimes for long periods of the year it's stinking hot, which would mean using the air con all the time as we do now...this will affect the distance we could go.
Just use it for local trips? Why? It's only 20kph to the next small town, and our town has one shop about 300 meters from where we live.

"It's not meant for everyone"...that's not the point. it isn't just me out here all on my lonesome. There's 400 people in my town...there's a couple of thousand in the next town. "Widely taking up" electric cars would mean thousands of pretty little electric cars which no one will be using, at vast cost, going by the $220,000+ price for a Tesla.

Back to the filling stations. There was a comment about "unable to tax the fuel". Who do you suppose will pay for the billions it would cost to string new high capacity cable all over the country? Who's going to pay for the modifications to existing stations and building of new ones? Where does the extra power come from?
You can bet your bollocks you won't be paying a few cents a kilowatt for your electricity like you do now out of the power point. And even if you "fuel up" at home, someone is going to have t pay for all the massive network of new facilities.
Oh look...there's all those people who've bought electric cars that meant the building of all this in the first place...they can pay for it in rego costs.

Once again...there ain;t no such thing as a free lunch...

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

City use only? Perfect.

Anywhere else in the country? Nope. Useless.

Why, you ask?

Ruminate a bit on the areas outside capital cities...hell, even areas surrounding regional cities.
Say the proponents of purely electric cars get thier way and electric vehicles are "widely taken up by the public".
How far apart do you propose these high capacity filling stations be located? Probably at every single service station in the country for a start. And a lot in between many will have to be built, because of some of the distances involved. Probably between 50 and 70km apart would be a good distance...you have to allow for people who "forget to fill up" and drive past a station, and have to get to the next one. It happens now with petrol cars that get 600+ km out of a tank of fuel...how much more often would it happen with cars that only get less than 200km out of a "tank".

Now, say I was to buy one. All of a sudden the luxury of being able to go where I want, when I want. I will have to start planning my trips carefully, and make double sure the car has a "full tank" before leaving...too bad if I forget to plug it in and it's only got a half charge when I really have to leave.
It's 100km in one direction to Emerald where we do our shopping...it's 180 in the other direction to Rockhampton where we also shop and visit major stores.

Again, you are not seeing the big picture. Hydrogen is not being touted as an alternative for people that have a need to be able to travel 1000kms on a tank of fuel or indeed 4 or 500km. Id hazard a guess that even in this country most of would only need to use a range of that distance once in a lifetime, and if we cant travel those sort of distances then we wont, its not going to be life breaker.

For those that need drive big distances in the country all of the time, its probably not for you, but you usage is in the minority of how vehicles are used in this country and everywhere else in the world, and liquid fuel that doesnt need to be stored under pressure could be continued to be supplied just as it will most likely need to continue for aviation
Again at the end of the day, nothing is as convenient or as cheap as liquid fossil fuels, no one is arguing that the alternatives will be cheaper or more convenient, the change is necessary to reduce the further accumulation of co2 in the atmosphere .