What a joke, what would it take for a Tesla Roadster to go 1700 miles?

Answer: about 3 weeks.

↓↑report

Tankdog:

With the current chargers, if you drove in typical EPA combined mileage fashion, averaging ~60mph, and used the standard 3.5 hour charger, 53 hours (2.2 days) (assuming no time to sleep)

Same assumptions but charging at 45A/240V at RV parks (~5.5 hours): 67 hours (2.8 days)

Same assumptions, but charging at 27A/240V on dryer sockets (~9 hours): 92 hours (3.8 days)

Same assumptions, but charging at 18A/240V via two merged garage power sockets (~13.5 hours): 124 hours (5.2 days)

Same assumptions, but a single garage power socket (~26.5 hours): 216 hours (9 days)

Sleep actually is favorable to the Roadster versus other vehicles, because the vehicle can charge while the driver sleeps. Same with meals, rest breaks, etc.

↓↑report

Nice analysis meme.

I think TANKDOG is speechless.

↓↑report

Your comments have no thought to them.

The future will be about choice of fuel. Commuters will use EVs where it makes sense. Others will use hydrogen. Trucks will run off clean or bio-diesel. Some cars will still use gas.

Telling people that hydrogen sucks is like telling your buddy that he should stop eating Chinese food because you think it sucks. Last time I checked, people appreciated choice.

You seem to have all the answers, care to enlighten us on what solutions you have?

↓↑report

"Telling people that hydrogen sucks is like telling your buddy that he should stop eating Chinese food because you think it sucks. "

Yeah, good analogy...... talk about note putting anything thought into a comment.

↓↑report

"talk about note putting anything thought into a comment."

Irony.

↓↑report

Ya, shovel some more coal into that power plant and lets rocket into the future!

↓↑report

Tankdog: I'm sure you know very well that even on our current grid, EVs are notably cleaner than gasoline/diesel cars. And the grid is getting cleaner every day; 42% of the new power added the grid last year was wind, and most of the rest, natural gas.

↓↑report

The whole purpose of both the Hydrogen Road Tour 2008 and Hydrogen Road Tour 2009 was to showcase all of the incredible advancements that have made made in hydrogen fuel cell vehicles from the various car companies and demonstrate the need to build the hydrogen fueling infrastructure.

It takes no courage to be a critic. That's the easiest job in the world, because you don't have to take any responsibility. However, it takes a lot of courage to step up and defend a solution to the biggest problem that mankind has ever faced.

What is your solution to the oil crisis? Do you have the guts to propose a solution and defend it?

In the past, if everybody had the attitude of the people that write for AutoblogGreen and most of the people who post comments here, the U.S. would have never even become a country, won World War II, put a man on the moon, etc.

The reason there is so much negativity is that deep down everybody here knows hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are the ultimate solution. Battery vehicles can't compete. Therefore, the hope is that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will go away if they are criticized enough.

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are the only technology that can be scaled up globally and meet customer expectations for driving range, fueling time, cost when mass produced, and trunk and passenger space. Very smart companies like Toyota, Honda, Daimler, Hyundai, etc. are aggressively pursuing the technology. The vehicles are set to arrive at dealerships in 2015.

While the initial hydrogen to power these vehicles will be produced from natural gas, this is only a bridge to hydrogen from wind and then solar. And since 50% of the electricity in the U.S. comes from coal and 20% from natural gas, plug-in battery vehicles would result in a massive increase in fossil fuel use. But the plug-in battery advocates never bring this up? Why is that?

Furthermore, plug-in battery vehicles have infrastructure problems, too. Only about 50% of people in the U.S. have access to an outlet at night. And there is no way the grid could handle a significant number of plug-in battery vehicles.

Since plug-in battery vehicles have so many problems and very few mainstream customers will want them, people who are advocates of plug-in battery technology are helping out the oil companies (who don't like hydrogen at all, which is why there are only 60 hydrogen stations in the U.S. and very few were funded by oil companies).

The focus now should be on getting the hydrogen fueling infrastructure built. Here is the plan for U.S. Congress to launch the hydrogen car revolution. Please tell your members of Congress to support it.

http://hydrogendiscoveries.wordpress.com/2009/06/06/plan-for-u-s-congress-to-launch-hydrogen-car-revolution-proposed-tax-incentives-for-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-and-hydrogen-fueling-stations/

Furthermore, I would highly recommend reading the following article which is titled the "Top 25 things I wish President Barack Obama knew about hydrogen fuel cell cars and plug-in battery cars":

http://hydrogendiscoveries.wordpress.com/2009/03/25/top-25-things-i-wish-president-barack-obama-knew-about-hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars-and-plug-in-battery-cars/

Moreover, I also highly recommend reading the following article which is titled the "Fallacy of energy efficiency argument against hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by plug-in battery advocates":

http://hydrogendiscoveries.wordpress.com/2009/02/19/fallacy-of-energy-efficiency-argument-against-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-by-plug-in-battery-advocates/

The hydrogen car revolution will soon begin!

Greg Blencoe
Chief Executive Officer
Hydrogen Discoveries, Inc.
"Hydrogen Car Revolution" blog

↓↑report

> It takes no courage to be a critic. However, it takes a lot of courage to step up and defend a solution...

BS. It takes no courage to be a lobbyist, just a willingness to stretch the truth and take a paycheck for it. In contrast I don't get paid and I just tell the unvarnished truth.

> What is your solution to the oil crisis? Do you have the guts to propose a solution and defend it?

Starting today can march up the scale: Smaller more efficient gas/diesel ICE < PHEV < EREV < BEV. It is a solution that starts now and grows as technology gets better. Practical,affordable,Here now, and no Trillion dollar infrastructure needed. Most of these are available now. Within 2 years all will be available.

> And since 50% of the electricity in the U.S. comes from coal and 20% from natural gas,
> plug-in battery vehicles would result in a massive increase in fossil fuel use.
> But the plug-in battery advocates never bring this up? Why is that?

This is a huge joke. Since clean hydrogen comes from electrolysis, and the hydrogen cycle is only 1/3 as efficient as BEV cycle, H2 cars effectively will create TRIPLE the electric generation/grid problem that BEVs will. Bringing this up highlights how disingenuous and bankrupt your position is.

↓↑report

Of course it takes courage to be a critic, especially when criticizing someone who throws a hissy fit when anyone dares to disagree with them. I noticed Blencoe got the moderator of the "hydrogen road tour blog" to squelch unflattering comments about H2 - which resulted in darn few comments on the H2 Road Tour blogs.

As for "stepping up and defend a solution to the biggest problem mankind has ever faced", well, aside from being a bit grandiose, aren't people promoting plug-ins and biofuels doing the same thing?

My solution to the "oil crisis" is similar to what SnowDog stated - starting with efficiency boosting hybrids (got one), then plug-in hybrids and pure battery electrics to cur petroleum use even more. I also see a role for various biofuels to fuel older legacy vehicles and jet aircraft, an auxilliary role for wind power on ships, and perhaps even some nuclear powered freighters. All practical, affordable, and reasonable solutions.

Sorry, but H2 fuel cell vehicles are NOT "the only technology that can be scaled up globally and meet customer expectations for driving range, cost when mass produced, and trunk and passenger space". Obviously, you didn't see the introduction of the Tesla Model S, an electric car with room for 7, trunk space front and back, range of up to 300 miles, quick 45 minute charging and even quicker battery swaps in less than 2 minutes. The Model S rivals H2 fuel cell vehicles in range and space, and beats any H2 FCVs by a wide margin in terms of cost, cost of operation, convenience (recharge at home), and acceleration. Barring unexpected complications, it will be in production within 2 years, which is at least 4 years before any planned H2FC car sales. Almost all auto makers plan to have some sort of plug-in on the market within 3 years, and there will be models for most market segments, perhaps even plug-in hybrids with a "H2 range extender" for wealthy H2 enthusiasts.

No, we don't all "believe deep down that H2FCVs are the ultimate solution". That's rather like the pompous claim that "everyone deep down believes in Allah". Plug-ins can easily compete with H2FCVs, being far less expensive, costing less to run, exceeding fuel cell reliability, and having far more infrastructure already in place. The one lone remaining "advantage" to H2 fuel cells, fast refill, is rendered moot by the development of quick charging and battery swaps. It is H2 FCVs that can't compete in an unsubsidized market. We don't believe H2FCVs to be "the ultimate solution" , that's why we're pointing out the many problems with H2 fuel cells.

Then there is the classic dodge, pretending that all those new EVs are going to be "coal powered", but H2 will magically only come from clean sources. Sorry, both electricity and H2 is made using the exact same energy sources, including coal - that's what the "clean coal" initiative was all about. Making H2 from clean renewable sources means making electricity first, but charger and batteries are 3x more efficient at storing energy compared to electrolysis and storage compression and fuel cells, that means more renewable energy available to displace fossil fuel used for other purposes. H2 zealots don't like the efficiency argument, why is that?

The Blencoe "fallacy of energy efficiency argument" article really doesn't refute the efficiency argument at all, instead it assumes an unlimited supply of renewable energy, ignoring that 3x extra equipment needed to harvest that energy and the 3x extra costs involved. It is typical of H2 zealots to ignore the costs, kinda necessary when trying to peddle such an extravagantly expensive solution.

50% of the population without electrical outlets? Really? While there are some apartment dwellers that must park their cars on the street, vulnerable to vandalism and theft, that is a relatively small portion of the car buying public. Also, it will be much easier and cheaper to provide public charging outlets to that supposed "50%" than to provide H2 fueling facilities within reasonable distance of the 95% of the population now unserved by H2 fuels.

If the grid couldn't handle the plug-in load, then it really couldn't handle the 3x greater demand from the H2 electrolyzers. Silly argument, it will take decades to replace the most of the current vehicles with plug-ins OR H2FCVs, giving us time to build up the infrastructure. But of course, the electric infrastructure has a considerable head start, with electricity available in every garage.

It is really silly to claim that the oil companies "don't like hydrogen at all" when the major supporters and members of almost all H2 promotional groups are oil companies, the oil companies are the biggest producers of H2, and the oil companies have the cheapest source of H2. Royal Dutch Shell has even installed some H2 fueling pumps and promote H2 fuel on their website! But claiming that advocating battery technology is somehow "helping" oil companies is downright insane. Really, Blencoe, how gullible do you think we are?

↓↑report