Japan Moves To Fast-Track Cars Powered By Hydrogen Fuel Cells

[oracle]

Denninger covered this a while back...said something like roads are already about as efficient as can be from a heating POV as possible as tarmac is black and very effective already at absorbing heat and releasing it (ie, the urban heat island effect), transferring it would induce energy losses and having 'solar roads' would be more wasteful than doing nothing.

Post seems to be under the title 'my ghod, the stupid' but he seems to have restricted access to view it.

Similar to this post, anyway...i think it was another 'addictinginfo' moron-magnet article.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229120

yeah, roads are good, but the peltier effect is the best solution for them.

ie bimetallic stips on upper and lower surface, then soak up the voltage.

[MarkG]

In theory, electric cars should last much better than petrol/diesel; electric motors are an extremely mature technology with far lower servicing requirements - and you are losing much of the drivetrain.

We're about to replace our old Buick, which is almost twenty years old and has a perfectly working engine and gearbox (thought it's leaking a bit of oil and coolant). It's slow, inefficient, drives like a sofa on wheels, and is a death-trap by modern safety standards.

Why would we keep it any longer if it had an electric motor instead of petrol?

Oh, yeah, and the Civic is coming up to six years with just oil changes and a new battery. That's about fifty quid a year in servicing and repairs. From what I gather, the hybrid version is so problematic they eventually reprogrammed it to stop using the battery so it wouldn't wear out before the warranty expired.

As for fuel cells, you'd do much better to skip the whole hydrogen thing and just burn natural gas directly.

[fluffy666]

We're about to replace our old Buick, which is almost twenty years old and has a perfectly working engine and gearbox (thought it's leaking a bit of oil and coolant). It's slow, inefficient, drives like a sofa on wheels, and is a death-trap by modern safety standards.

Why would we keep it any longer if it had an electric motor instead of petrol?

Oh, yeah, and the Civic is coming up to six years with just oil changes and a new battery. That's about fifty quid a year in servicing and repairs. From what I gather, the hybrid version is so problematic they eventually reprogrammed it to stop using the battery so it wouldn't wear out before the warranty expired.

As for fuel cells, you'd do much better to skip the whole hydrogen thing and just burn natural gas directly.

On average, you'd expect an electric car to last longer and require fewer repairs. A single counter example does not change this (what % of those Buicks are still on the road?). The principle is simple: All the components are the same apart from the engine. A petrol car has it's engine, clutch, gearbox and differential which should not be needed by an electric car. Of course, we've been using and improving IC-powered cars for a century or more.

My beef with fuel cells is that I don't see what problem they solve.

[MarkG]

On average, you'd expect an electric car to last longer and require fewer repairs.

1. Most people replace their new car within ten years, and there are plenty of cars you can buy which are unlikely to require expensive repairs in that time. I can't see people being any more eager to drive a ten year old EV than a ten year old petrol car.

2. A new battery for a pure EV seems to cost around the same amount as a new petrol engine and gearbox. I'm guessing a new fuel cell wouldn't be much cheaper. If you're paying $30,000 for a new car, there will always be expensive parts in there that can go wrong, and electric motors probably aren't one of them.