Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

More news being hidden from the public by omission.

https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/jane-marsh/first-offshore-green-hydrogen-electrolyzer-the-first-20221122

And trickle down technology that will get into personal cars with long range and quick refills.

https://hydrogen-central.com/new-mexico-bucking-become-hydrogen-power-player/

Something about VW that has not been publically reported recently vs the big EV splash.
https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/volkswagen-hydrogen-car/8555838/?gclid=Cj0KCQiAj4ecBhD3ARIsAM4Q_jEO6wRbJixATkjCniE18HF9ie5h1aRUx02ri_ilUG-8E1sdEjEZCeEaAheUEALw_wcB

Sounds like a long range 1,200 mile per fillup consumer car with 5-10 min. fill up.
How does that range and recharge time compare to an EV on batteries only?

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

I favor electric motors in vehicles. Their power/weight and efficiency is undisputed.
I am for electrifying vehicle with appropriate WORKABLE technologies.

At this time, the BATTERY ONLY option is not viable:
Limited range per charge (improving),
extensive charging times (improving, but potentially costly for home usage),
lack of charging stations (infrastructure),
potential overload of the present electrical-grid supply systems (when wind and solar may not be as effective).
battery inefficiency (power loss, restricted range &c.) due to cold temperatures,
potential hazardous fires due to crashes or self-immolation.

COSTS:
Cost of vehicle(s),
cost of batteries,
cost of importing items or materials from other international sources,
cost of materials,
cost of charging stations,
cost of special tires,
cost of electronics and microprocessors,
cost of battery replacement(s),
cost of battery disposal or recycling,
cost of insurance.


Likewise, the hydrogen fuel cell option is not currently viable:
lack of hydrogen production facilities,
lack of infrastructure (t***sport, storage, refueling stations),
potential hazardous fires due to crashes,
lack of fuel cell producers, control and safety concerns (mechanical plumbing, electronics, storage vessels &c.),
public perception of hydrogen hazards.

COSTS:
cost of vehicle(s), cost of importing items or materials from other international sources,
cost of materials,
cost of refueling stations,
cost of hydrogen production facilities,
cost of hydrogen fuel t***sportation infrastructure,
cost of electronics and microprocessors, plumbing and controls,
cost of disposal or recycling,
cost of insurance.

Considering the variables, the hydrogen option appears to be better in the long term.
It is easier to ramp-up production,
hydrogen storage (either under pressure or cryogenically) is proven technology,
has faster refueling times,
there is in-country control of resources,
environmental consideration (pollution, recycling) are less,
overall costs are potentially less.

The current “best alternative” could be HYBRID gasoline/battery-electric, t***sitioning to a liquid “green-fuel” source, then t***sitioning to hydrogen fuel/battery-electric or hydrogen fuel cell-electric.
Or a conversion of internal combustion engines to use hydrogen fuel.

There should be a T***SITION to what works out to be the best alternative.

The current battery-only alternative being pushed (foisted upon) upon the public does not make sense!
Not economically, not environmentally, nor from a regulatory standpoint.
In addition, the control of materials and supplies for hydrogen are more “home-grown” and not dependent on foreign control.

[b]Governmental sources pushing the electrifukation by offering subsidies that do not really apply to any vehicles currently being sold are just insulting to the American public./b]

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

[quote=Wyantry]I favor electric motors in vehicles. Their power/weight and efficiency is undisputed.
I am for electrifying vehicle with appropriate WORKABLE technologies.

At this time, the BATTERY ONLY option is not viable:
Limited range per charge (improving),
extensive charging times (improving, but potentially costly for home usage),
lack of charging stations (infrastructure),
potential overload of the present electrical-grid supply systems (when wind and solar may not be as effective).
battery inefficiency (power loss, restricted range &c.) due to cold temperatures,
potential hazardous fires due to crashes or self-immolation.

COSTS:
Cost of vehicle(s),
cost of batteries,
cost of importing items or materials from other international sources,
cost of materials,
cost of charging stations,
cost of special tires,
cost of electronics and microprocessors,
cost of battery replacement(s),
cost of battery disposal or recycling,
cost of insurance.


Likewise, the hydrogen fuel cell option is not currently viable:
lack of hydrogen production facilities,
lack of infrastructure (t***sport, storage, refueling stations),
potential hazardous fires due to crashes,
lack of fuel cell producers, control and safety concerns (mechanical plumbing, electronics, storage vessels &c.),
public perception of hydrogen hazards.

COSTS:
cost of vehicle(s), cost of importing items or materials from other international sources,
cost of materials,
cost of refueling stations,
cost of hydrogen production facilities,
cost of hydrogen fuel t***sportation infrastructure,
cost of electronics and microprocessors, plumbing and controls,
cost of disposal or recycling,
cost of insurance.

Considering the variables, the hydrogen option appears to be better in the long term.
It is easier to ramp-up production,
hydrogen storage (either under pressure or cryogenically) is proven technology,
has faster refueling times,
there is in-country control of resources,
environmental consideration (pollution, recycling) are less,
overall costs are potentially less.

The current “best alternative” could be HYBRID gasoline/battery-electric, t***sitioning to a liquid “green-fuel” source, then t***sitioning to hydrogen fuel/battery-electric or hydrogen fuel cell-electric.
Or a conversion of internal combustion engines to use hydrogen fuel.

There should be a T***SITION to what works out to be the best alternative.

The current battery-only alternative being pushed (foisted upon) upon the public does not make sense!
Not economically, not environmentally, nor from a regulatory standpoint.
In addition, the control of materials and supplies for hydrogen are more “home-grown” and not dependent on foreign control.

[b]Governmental sources pushing the electrifukation by offering subsidies that do not really apply to any vehicles currently being sold are just insulting to the American public./b][/quote]

anotherview Loc: California

This onlooker sees no plan of action carrying the whole nation and its t***sportation structure forward to replace f****l f**ls with battery-driven vehicles. Instead, we see little but ballyhoo filling the air with notions of nirvana depicting this project.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

I agree fully with the 2 quoted paras that I extracted from your post.

As for the 3rd paragraph, I see the current push to (battery) EVs as a t***sition to a better alternative. It has to start somewhere, and as with most radical changes (remember burning bras?) the pendulum has to swing past the rest point.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Unfortunately you would throw out the broad with the bra. What makes you think we have to t***sition now at all costs? AOC and the Green New Dealer's insistence that the world will boil over in 12 years? Based on U.N. political science?

Why is no one taking into account the basic human cost in lives and to our economy of ending f****l f**ls? Right now the biggest risk to the world is "T***sition Risk".

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Were we not supposed yo be frozen popsicles by the early 70's according to ALL the most brilliant scientists all over the world in common unchallenged consensus?

Drbobcameraguy Loc: Eaton Ohio

Unless we were melted because of the ozone hole. Lol.

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

Careful. The environmentalists will have you fried-in-hell for reminding them about the “imminent” ice age . . . .

Funny what consensus (consensi?) can bring about!

“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”— R. Hanlon.


From a geologic standpoint, there have been periods in (relatively) recent history when, for example, there was abundant plant material on Greenland. The ice cores proving this had been “lost” (misplaced) for years and never analyzed for biologic material.

SOURCE: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2021442118
”Understanding Greenland Ice Sheet history is critical for predicting its response to future climate warming and contribution to sea-level rise. We analyzed sediment at the bottom of the Camp Century ice core, collected 120 km from the coast in northwestern Greenland. The sediment, frozen under nearly 1.4 km of ice, contains well-preserved fossil plants and biomolecules sourced from at least two ice-free warm periods in the past few million years. Enriched stable isotopes in pore ice indicate precipitation at lower elevations than present, implying ice-sheet absence. The similarity of cosmogenic isotope ratios in the upper-most sediment to those measured in bedrock near the center of Greenland suggests that the ice sheet melted and re-formed at least once during the past million years.“

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

I just recently saw a documentary that talked about plant life on the Antarctic continent. But rather than attributing it to periods of c*****e c****e they ascribed it to possible tectonic drift. I wonder if Greenland was not "relocated" from warmer lower latitude zones.

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

Interesting thought, John. The wandering of Greenland (attested to by geomagnetics) indicates it pulled apart from its nearly the same latitude as at present. It did not “wander” up from an equatorial region like India.

Not only that, but the timing for the fossils found within the ice cores is all wrong. The vegetation was found to be only a million years (my) or so BCE, whereas the Greenland separation occurred ~68 my BCE.

”The Precambrian basement of Greenland formed an integral part of the Laurentian Shield that is at the core of the North American continent. Greenland was formed in two rifting stages from the main body of North America.

The first, during the Cretaceous period, formed Baffin Bay. Baffin Bay is the northwestern extension and terminus of the North Atlantic-Labrador Sea rift system that started forming 140 million years ago in the Early Cretaceous epoch. The Labrador Sea started opening 69 million years ago during the Maastrichtian age but seafloor spreading appears to have ceased by the Oligocene epoch, 30–35 million years ago. Correlations between tectonic units in Canada and Greenland have been proposed; however, the pre-spreading fit of Greenland to Canada is still not accurately known.

Since the closure of the North Atlantic–Labrador Sea rift, Greenland has moved roughly in conjunction with North America; thus, there are questions as to whether the Greenland Plate should still be considered a separate plate at all.” — https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_Plate#

At 80 my BCE, Greenland was near 45 deg. N. latitude. As indicated by this reconstruction:
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/949/earth-greenlands-geologic-past/

Not an equatorial (hot) climate even then.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Your Greenland is a good example.
Why would humans there and elsewhere build villages under 20 feet of ice?

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

I am not sure your reference to villages built “under 20 feet of ice” is understood.
The timing of the “un-iced” Greenland was >1 million years ago (radiometric dating).
No humans were present at that time and location.

The reference was also to the plant material being recovered from basal ice cores under ~ 1.4 kilometers of ice, in the center of the land mass, ~ 150 km from the coast.

There may be data indicating villages along the Greenland coast are NOW covered by twenty feet of ice, I am not conversant with this information.

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

Thank you for the encouraging reply. This discussion has settled down to the consensus that:

A.) Electric motors are a viable alternative. They are relatively small, have a good power-to-weight ratio, are very efficient, have low heat-output / power load and are becoming less expensive. Drawbacks include the requirements for specific “rare” elements that are either in short supply or controlled by foreign, potentially hostile nations.

B.) Current battery technologies are not up to the demands of electric vehicle use. 1.) They have a poor storage to weight-and-volume ratio. 2.) They employ materials that are a.) expensive, b.) in short supply, or c.) controlled by foreign countries.

C.) There has been a push to battery-only vehicle powering. At the “expense” of investigating other technologies: Hydrogen-direct use in conventional engine/powertrains, hydrogen fuel-cell/electric motors, or hybrid electric/fuel technologies.

The costs — real and potential, are, I think, not being adequately addressed in the current rush toward battery-only/electric vehicle development.