VWVortex.com - Nikola Latest to Announce EV Pick-Up Truck
Username or Email Address
Do you already have an account?
Forgot your password?
  • Log in or Sign up

    VWVortex


    The Car Lounge
    Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
    Results 26 to 50 of 69

    Thread: Nikola Latest to Announce EV Pick-Up Truck

    1. Member turbinepowered's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 18th, 2007
      Location
      Upstate SC
      Posts
      10,001
      Vehicles
      '86 Interceptor 700, '82 Quantum Coupe, Hyundai Elantra GT Daily
      02-13-2020 10:24 AM #26
      Side note: gonna need a source on the "2000+ mile range" figure for "mediocre" diesel class 8 trucks.

      One of those machines is doing a hell of a good job if it pulls 7.5mpg loaded. For 2k miles of range you're talking nearly 300 gallons of fuel, which is in the upper ranges of what twin tanks will hold (quick mfg site survey showed most "standard equipment" tanks were 60-80gal each, 180/ea was the biggest I saw offered).

      A more "average" economy would be 6-6.5, which means you're over 300 gallons needed now.

      A mediocre figure (older truck, less aero, less upkeep) is more likely 4.5-5.5, now you're up in the upper 300s for fuel tanks.

      Most range figures I've seen posted (Google searches, conversations with a couple of the drivers that deliver here) indicate ~1k miles is more typical on the range numbers, as big fuel tanks are weight you can't charge people for and you have to stop around 10 hours into the day anyway for driving regulations.
      Quote Originally Posted by zukiphile View Post
      There is an area of a normal brain that lets the owner know the object works and needs to be left alone. Not all of us have it. It is like being colorblind.

    2. Remove Advertisements

      Advertisements
       

    3. Member robr2's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 5th, 2005
      Location
      Boston
      Posts
      9,067
      Vehicles
      2015 Passat "Limited Edition"
      02-13-2020 10:25 AM #27
      Quote Originally Posted by boogetyboogety View Post
      I love the love affair for H by those who forgot chemistry lessons from their high school years. As you explained: The most reactive element, H readily bonds to other elements, so it has to have energy applied to separate it from whatever it's attached to before it can be exclusively used. That takes more energy that what H can deliver... Ergo, energy negative. And that's not even taking into consideration the energy needed to store it in a usable manner. Hah!
      Not a scientist - how does that compare versus the energy needed to create gasoline? Then add to the equation that hydrogen fuel cells are 40-60% efficient and IC engines are about 20% efficient. I am posing a question as I don't know the answer.

    4. Geriatric Member Air and water do mix's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 5th, 2004
      Location
      So IN
      Posts
      43,731
      Vehicles
      '66 Beetle, '92 Ranger, '08 Fit
      02-13-2020 10:28 AM #28
      Quote Originally Posted by robr2 View Post
      Not a scientist - how does that compare versus the energy needed to create gasoline? Then add to the equation that hydrogen fuel cells are 40-60% efficient and IC engines are about 20% efficient. I am posing a question as I don't know the answer.
      While that's a logical question the better comparison is CNG, which can replace diesel directly. Of course you still need to worry about infrastructure, of which there is (for all practical purposes) none for hydrogen and lots for CNG, gasoline, diesel and electricity.
      Quote Originally Posted by Boyz in da Park
      Proletariat, Bourgeoise - Everybody smellin' my potpourri...

    5. 02-13-2020 01:24 PM #29
      Quote Originally Posted by robr2 View Post
      Not a scientist - how does that compare versus the energy needed to create gasoline? Then add to the equation that hydrogen fuel cells are 40-60% efficient and IC engines are about 20% efficient. I am posing a question as I don't know the answer.
      Not an economist... Wish I could intelligently answer your excellent question. Since gasoline sells around here cheaper than bottled Fiji water, I don't truly know, but I imagine it's cheaper and more profitable to create, transport, advertise, store, and sell a gallon of gasoline than the equivalent of any other form of the fuels or electrons we use for propulsion nowadays. I own both a hybrid and an electric vehicle, in addition to our ICE cars, because of this horrible habit I have of buying cutting edge tech early in the cycle, so I see how drivers may prefer one fuel source over another... But I've never bothered to put a pencil to any ancillary costs involved with my driving to my destinations. And I imagine most people don't either, which is a shame, ain't it...

    6. Geriatric Member ValveCoverGasket's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 20th, 2002
      Location
      northwest corner, WA
      Posts
      41,650
      Vehicles
      mini-duramax, tdi westy, dieselgate tdi, and a miata'd mg
      02-13-2020 01:41 PM #30
      Quote Originally Posted by Goingnowherefast View Post
      To be honest, that thought process just isn't shared in the long-range trucking world. That's why the big players in the commercial trucking world including: Kenworth, Toyota, Cummins, Peterbilt, Hyundai and more are all invested in Hydrogen Fuel Cell use for Class 8 commercial applications. To date, the majority of the heavy trucking industry is focusing on HFCEV's above BEV's.
      this is one joint project. so 1 heavy duty oem, one fuel cell supplier, one engine manufacturer dabbling for govt credits, and hyundai.

      Quote Originally Posted by Goingnowherefast View Post
      TTo date, the majority of the heavy trucking industry is focusing on HFCEV's above BEV's.
      thats a bit of a stretch...

      i see youre in MI. perhaps in the industry?

    7. Geriatric Member ValveCoverGasket's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 20th, 2002
      Location
      northwest corner, WA
      Posts
      41,650
      Vehicles
      mini-duramax, tdi westy, dieselgate tdi, and a miata'd mg
      09-12-2020 12:31 AM #31
      So, uh, just gonna throw this out there...

      https://electrek.co/2020/09/11/nikol...es-gm-nothing/

      An engineer who I was able to confirm worked on the first prototype of Nikola’s hydrogen/electric truck said:

      I was alarmed to hear lies flowing like water from Trevor as he toured the floor with investors and politicians.

      He claimed that Milton would have a constant stream of possible partners and investors come in, and he would exaggerate the capability of the truck, the extent of the work done by Nikola, and even what technology they owned versus what was bought off the shelves.

      Earlier this year, Bloomberg reported that Milton lied when he claimed that the Nikola One he unveiled on stage was a functional truck.



      It was in fact a “pusher prototype” that was completely not operational, despite Milton specifically claiming on stage that it “wasn’t a pusher.”

      The same engineer who worked on the truck told Electrek that it indeed wasn’t functional on the night of the event or even months after the event.
      Electrek being full on tesla nut swingers probably shouldn't detract from the fact that he makes great points regarding how easy it would be to rebut these claims.
      It's always been vaporware, which some of use have been calling for years....

    8. Member DrivinAW8's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 21st, 2004
      Location
      Pixburgh
      Posts
      940
      Vehicles
      1989 yuppie-mobile, 2011 essfour
      09-12-2020 04:44 AM #32
      Fully understanding that this ‘investment research/whistleblowing entity’ is really just one guy that is using his platform to make money on speculative shorts, I can’t help but be both bemused by the quotes and astounded by some of the claimed findings in the article referenced in the Elektrek link above: https://hindenburgresearch.com/nikola/


      In general I am not a fan of speculation in any sense of the word... especially not financial. So while I find it disingenuous to pose as an independent research firm to publish a exposé when you’re really just one dude out there shorting stocks for big gains, I don’t think anyone can deny that there are some serious inconsistencies and a pattern of deceitful behavior in the Nikola timeline. So in this situation (like many others... Fyre Festival, anyone?), why wouldn’t you want to get paid for your investigative work, let alone calling out a fraud when you see one? Idk. It’s an ethical quagmire, at least to me. It would possibly be better if Hindenburg Research was actually a 501c4 with payroll funded by profits from these shorts, and the one guy behind it (Nathan Anderson) just collected a modest salary as the director while there were other staffers engaged in anti-fraud policy/legislative advocacy.


      Anyway. Back on topic.


      All around I feel icky about everything and everyone surrounding this entire Nikola situation. In the end though, especially with riches built on speculation (let alone outright lies), a fool and their money soon part... and even if you get to keep it all, no amount of money will ever repair your soul.
      Last edited by DrivinAW8; 09-12-2020 at 04:47 AM.

    9. Geriatric Member ValveCoverGasket's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 20th, 2002
      Location
      northwest corner, WA
      Posts
      41,650
      Vehicles
      mini-duramax, tdi westy, dieselgate tdi, and a miata'd mg
      09-12-2020 04:17 PM #33
      You're right they/he definitely have a vested interest in creating a pile of negative press, and it's not unbiased in the least, but the point still stands - a lot of industry insiders have been calling BS on Nikola since the jump, and they could take a few minutes and easily debunk a lot of this with a couple of videos.... but their response is to clam up and litigate. Fishy!

    10. Member turbinepowered's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 18th, 2007
      Location
      Upstate SC
      Posts
      10,001
      Vehicles
      '86 Interceptor 700, '82 Quantum Coupe, Hyundai Elantra GT Daily
      09-12-2020 05:23 PM #34
      GM has a pretty solid small-form-factor fuel cell program, or did back around 2015; a relationship with them may be a Hail Mary for Nikola.

      I don't think people realize *how much* of this tech is off the shelf. It's just not a very public shelf.
      Quote Originally Posted by zukiphile View Post
      There is an area of a normal brain that lets the owner know the object works and needs to be left alone. Not all of us have it. It is like being colorblind.

    11. Member DrivinAW8's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 21st, 2004
      Location
      Pixburgh
      Posts
      940
      Vehicles
      1989 yuppie-mobile, 2011 essfour
      09-12-2020 06:12 PM #35
      Quote Originally Posted by turbinepowered View Post
      GM has a pretty solid small-form-factor fuel cell program, or did back around 2015; a relationship with them may be a Hail Mary for Nikola.

      I don't think people realize *how much* of this tech is off the shelf. It's just not a very public shelf.

      Right, so that’s kinda the key question here.

      Did GM really need to attach themselves (and their money, their shareholder’s money, and their reputation) to a company that kinda... doesn’t seem to have... anything?

      It’s one thing to get duped when someone promises you access to something you don’t have and couldn’t possibly create yourself. It’s another thing entirely when you yourself have actually developed the same tech (really, the only tech in this case) in your own house!

    12. Member turbinepowered's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 18th, 2007
      Location
      Upstate SC
      Posts
      10,001
      Vehicles
      '86 Interceptor 700, '82 Quantum Coupe, Hyundai Elantra GT Daily
      09-12-2020 06:23 PM #36
      Quote Originally Posted by DrivinAW8 View Post
      Right, so that’s kinda the key question here.

      Did GM really need to attach themselves (and their money, their shareholder’s money, and their reputation) to a company that kinda... doesn’t seem to have... anything?

      It’s one thing to get duped when someone promises you access to something you don’t have and couldn’t possibly create yourself. It’s another thing entirely when you yourself have actually developed the same tech (really, the only tech in this case) in your own house!
      It's possible that Nikola, in this case, offered a chance to sell that tech to a bigger market than GM currently gets.

      In this instance they get to sell fuel cells to a bigger client than the handful of forklift and stationary power customers, without assuming the risk of tying the GM name to it if the truck flops.
      Quote Originally Posted by zukiphile View Post
      There is an area of a normal brain that lets the owner know the object works and needs to be left alone. Not all of us have it. It is like being colorblind.

    13. Geriatric Member ValveCoverGasket's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 20th, 2002
      Location
      northwest corner, WA
      Posts
      41,650
      Vehicles
      mini-duramax, tdi westy, dieselgate tdi, and a miata'd mg
      09-12-2020 09:16 PM #37
      Quote Originally Posted by DrivinAW8 View Post
      It’s another thing entirely when you yourself have actually developed the same tech (really, the only tech in this case) in your own house!
      Having seen some of these tech partnerships happen from the periphery... The people signing the agreements and shaking hands are virtually never the people who'd be capable of fully vetting the tech. Especially if a professional smoke blower like nikolas ceo was involved in the bamboozling... Which is to say who knows what politics and were involved behind the scenes on GM's end here. And if the tech is claimed to be proprietary the amount of background info you're given isn't enormous, the vetting committee may not have been listened to on the GM side, or given all of the proper info from the Nikola side, etc etc

    14. 09-13-2020 05:37 PM #38
      This looks like a mess for investors, wouldn't want to go near this company, whole operation looks shady to me.

    15. Member
      Join Date
      Feb 19th, 2015
      Posts
      1,775
      Vehicles
      small car that does it all, incredibly reliable too
      09-13-2020 06:12 PM #39
      Quote Originally Posted by Goingnowherefast View Post

      Also why is there such a divide where people support full EV's but not FCEV's? They are literally the same thing, except that the FCEV's are just EV's with a hydrogen range extender.
      Even though fueling up can be done a lot quicker than pure electrics , don't fuel cell electric vehicles cost a lot more to fuel up than electrical vehicles? I believe they even cost more to fuel up than gasoline vehicles. What advantages do hydrogens really have since that's the case?
      You can’t take advantage of “record low” gas prices when you have nowhere to drive. And it’s not really more affordable if you don’t have a paycheck to buy it with.

    16. Member
      Join Date
      Dec 31st, 2015
      Posts
      479
      09-13-2020 07:03 PM #40
      Theranos 2.0.
      I really don't understand the partnership with GM. What does GM gain from that? Nothing.

    17. Member robr2's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 5th, 2005
      Location
      Boston
      Posts
      9,067
      Vehicles
      2015 Passat "Limited Edition"
      09-14-2020 09:18 AM #41
      Quote Originally Posted by antilock View Post
      Even though fueling up can be done a lot quicker than pure electrics , don't fuel cell electric vehicles cost a lot more to fuel up than electrical vehicles? I believe they even cost more to fuel up than gasoline vehicles. What advantages do hydrogens really have since that's the case?
      Right now, hydrogen is more expensive and parity is expected by 2025. The kicker with a fuel cell vehicle is the $15,000 fuel card you get when you lease or purchase one. That's about 3 years worth of fuel.

    18. Geriatric Member ValveCoverGasket's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 20th, 2002
      Location
      northwest corner, WA
      Posts
      41,650
      Vehicles
      mini-duramax, tdi westy, dieselgate tdi, and a miata'd mg
      09-14-2020 04:11 PM #42
      Quote Originally Posted by robr2 View Post
      Right now, hydrogen is more expensive and parity is expected by 2025.


      ah yes, hydrogen, always 5 years out from being fully viable.


      speaking of vaporware...
      https://arstechnica.com/cars/2020/09...otional-video/


      On Monday morning, Nikola sent out a lengthy press release titled "Nikola Sets the Record Straight on False and Misleading Short Seller Report." While the statement nitpicks a number of claims in the Hindenburg report, it tacitly concedes Hindenburg's main claim about the Nikola One. Nikola now admits that the Nikola One prototype wasn't functional in December 2016 and still wasn't functional when the company released the "in motion" video 13 months later.

      Nikola claims that the gearbox, batteries, inverters, power steering, and some other components of the truck were functional at the time of the December 2016 show. But Nikola doesn't claim that the truck had a working hydrogen fuel cell or motors to drive the wheels—the two key components Hindenburg stated were missing from the truck in December 2016.

      And Nikola now admits that it never got the truck to fully function. "As Nikola pivoted to the next generation of trucks, it ultimately decided not to invest additional resources into completing the process to make the Nikola One drive on its own propulsion," Nikola wrote in its Monday statement. Instead, Nikola pivoted to working on its next vehicle, the Nikola Two.

      So what about that video of the Nikola One driving across the desert?

      "Nikola never stated its truck was driving under its own propulsion in the video," Nikola wrote. "Nikola described this third-party video on the Company’s social media as 'In Motion.' It was never described as 'under its own propulsion' or 'powertrain driven.' Nikola investors who invested during this period, in which the Company was privately held, knew the technical capability of the Nikola One at the time of their investment."
      classic

      also i guess that article also answers "what does gm get out of this?". product to feed their plants, and a customer for their battery and cell platforms. and i guess nikola just brings the hype?

    19. Member
      Join Date
      Jun 18th, 1999
      Posts
      11,253
      09-14-2020 09:41 PM #43
      Quote Originally Posted by robr2 View Post
      Not a scientist - how does that compare versus the energy needed to create gasoline? Then add to the equation that hydrogen fuel cells are 40-60% efficient and IC engines are about 20% efficient. I am posing a question as I don't know the answer.
      Here is the fundamental difference: Gasoline (hydrocarbon) already "exists" (for now). It doesn't have to be "created" (for now). It's a hydrocarbon that we take out of the ground. Sure, a whole bunch of hydrocarbons are mixed together as the crude oil comes out of the ground - the stuff that ends up becoming asphalt needs to be separated from the stuff that ends up becoming lubricating oil, and from the stuff that ends up becoming diesel fuel and jet fuel, and from the stuff that ends up becoming gasoline, and from the stuff that ends up becoming LPG. And there are some chemical treatments to be applied in case the mixture of what comes out of the ground doesn't correspond to what the market is asking for, and you need to convert some of the heavy/thick compounds into lighter and more volatile compounds. But the base material, the "hydrocarbon", is already there as it comes out of the ground.

      The processes involved in getting the crude oil out of the ground, pumping it around, refining and transforming it into useful products, does use some energy. Rough estimate, perhaps 10% of the energy content of the final product.

      Hydrogen is not like that. Hydrogen does not exist on earth naturally in a form that is not chemically combined with something else (generally with oxygen, in the form of water, but also with carbon, in the form of the above-mentioned hydrocarbons). Hydrogen is not a "source" of energy, it is merely a way of "storing" energy that originally came from some other process.

      If you want hydrogen, you have to separate it from whatever other atom it is combined with. Basically there are two ways to go here. The first method, which is what is currently used on an industrial scale, is to take natural gas (methane, CH4, one carbon atom and four hydrogen atoms) and combine it with steam (water, H2O, two hydrogen atoms and one carbon), in the presence of a catalyst that encourages the chemical reaction to go ahead, and convert that into a mixture of carbon dioxide and hydrogen. Separate the carbon dioxide from the hydrogen and there you have hydrogen (with minor impurities because natural gas isn't pure methane and the process isn't 100% effective). In the course of doing this, some of the original energy content in the methane is lost - because chemical reactions that go forward are always from a higher-energy state to a lower-energy state.

      The other method is to take water plus vast amounts of electricity to "electrolyze" water, which separates the hydrogen from the oxygen and the fact that this reaction doesn't want to go forward (because it's energy-negative) is forced to go in that direction by the energy in the electricity (to vastly oversimplify the process). The energy content of the hydrogen that you get out of this process of course has a lower energy content than the electricity that you used to make it happen.

      There are some other niche ways of doing it but there is no getting around supplying vast amounts of energy, in some form, to force the hydrogen out of the chemical compound that it's part of (usually water).

      And now, by either process, you have hydrogen at somewhere near atmospheric pressure and temperature, and now what do you do with it?

      Hydrogen takes up an enormous amount of space relative to the amount of energy it contains. It doesn't weigh much, but it takes up a lot of space. It isn't practical to use it or store it or transport it as an atmospheric-pressure gas. It has to be either compressed, or liquefied. And because it is so bulky, the process of compressing it to 5000 psi or something of that sort, or liquefying it, uses an enormous amount of energy - a significant amount (~30%?) of the energy content of the hydrogen itself - and it isn't practical to get that energy back when you reduce the pressure and increase the temperature in order to use it in your fuel cell.

      These processes are based on thermodynamic laws. There is no getting around them. There is no skirting these laws. The laws of thermodynamics, the laws of physics, must be obeyed. The consequence is that the amount of energy you can get out of a certain amount of hydrogen is quite a bit less than the amount of whatever other form of energy you had to use in order to produce that certain amount of hydrogen.

      Right now, the only industrially viable method of producing large amounts of hydrogen is via steam reformulation of natural gas. And if you are going to do that ... why not just use the natural gas directly and skip the whole hydrogen step?

      The other method, electrolysis, requires vast amounts of electricity. Electricity in itself needs to come from somewhere ... and if you are talking about hydrogen-fuelling an entire country's worth of transport trucks, where is that going to come from? Nuclear plants? Good luck getting those approved in this day and age. Nuclear fusion, maybe, if the scientists can ever figure out how to make that happen; this is another magic energy source that has always been 20 years in the future with no sign of that ever changing. Solar? You'll need three times as much land covered in photoelectric cells to do it with hydrogen as you would if you just charged a battery, or pumped electricity into overhead power lines (think trolley buses) or the like.

      I don't dispute in the slightest bit that there will eventually be niche applications for hydrogen-powered vehicles. There are probably applications that no foreseeable battery technology could serve. But for the mass market ... Ain't gonna happen. Hydrogen will always be more expensive and more complicated to deal with than batteries and electricity will.

      Hydrogen fuel cells have been a holy grail since the 1960s. That was decades before lithium-based battery technology became available. That was back when hydrogen fuel cells were thought to be the only way of solving the smog crisis, and then the oil crunch (even though the means by which the hydrogen was actually produced was never mentioned even though that's the big bugaboo). The availability of lithium-based batteries with decent performance and recharging capability has made fuel cells unnecessary for personal-transport vehicles.

      I'm not an EV evangelist. I don't own one ... but it's pretty darn likely that my next daily-driver vehicle is going to be electric.

    20. Member DrivinAW8's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 21st, 2004
      Location
      Pixburgh
      Posts
      940
      Vehicles
      1989 yuppie-mobile, 2011 essfour
      09-15-2020 12:53 AM #44
      ^^That was an excellent post, thank you.

      Beyond the energy requirements and technical challenges of singling our hydrogen and storing/distributing/using it... I find it especially ironic that the two most realistic industrial processes fundamentally:

      1) do nothing to address and abate mass-scale industrial and transportation related CO2 emissions (in fact likely increasing them due to the energy required in the entire process) and/or

      2) require the (inefficient and superfluous) consumption/conversion of potable water, the equitable availability of which is absolutely the Next Big Natural Resource Crisis



      I’m always amazed at the stupidity of both the equity investment industry and world governments. Throwing money at things that are fundamentally a non-starter, at least based on the scale they’re assuming and basing their dollar amounts off of. Does no one in the positions to spend (waste) millions or billions of dollars listen to science and reason anymore? Have they ever? It’s astonishing.

    21. Member
      Join Date
      Dec 31st, 2015
      Posts
      479
      09-15-2020 05:46 AM #45
      Quote Originally Posted by DrivinAW8 View Post
      ^^That was an excellent post, thank you.

      Beyond the energy requirements and technical challenges of singling our hydrogen and storing/distributing/using it... I find it especially ironic that the two most realistic industrial processes fundamentally:

      1) do nothing to address and abate mass-scale industrial and transportation related CO2 emissions (in fact likely increasing them due to the energy required in the entire process) and/or

      2) require the (inefficient and superfluous) consumption/conversion of potable water, the equitable availability of which is absolutely the Next Big Natural Resource Crisis



      I’m always amazed at the stupidity of both the equity investment industry and world governments. Throwing money at things that are fundamentally a non-starter, at least based on the scale they’re assuming and basing their dollar amounts off of. Does no one in the positions to spend (waste) millions or billions of dollars listen to science and reason anymore? Have they ever? It’s astonishing.
      Governments aren't stupid. You're thinking about this all wrong. Governments are the ultimate long-term solution. They are the ultimate loss leaders. No one else is going to invest in long term solutions unless it's economically viable. Certainly not companies who only think about short-term profit or survival. And not universities that depend on the generosities of patrons and...you guessed it...governments. In fact, no university could exist without the succor of governments. If it wasn't for governments basic research simply wouldn't exist because no other entity could afford it on a time-scale that spans generations. There are simply too many examples of this to list here. In this regard, the role of the government is to support anything and everything so that the nation has...options. You don't want to rely on something until that option is exhausted. You have to think ahead. Way ahead. It is only when something becomes economically viable that governments, via universities, hand off the idea to the private sector. If the private sector thinks the idea is profitable they will pursue it. Hydrogen may not be a profit maker right now but 1) hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and 2) who knows where the next breakthrough will come from to bring about a collapse in costs. So, to dismiss it today is not unlike dismissing the internet in its infancy. One difference compared to lithium ion is in the waste factor. Batteries are extremely toxic and bad for the Earth in the long term. So, unless we're going to toss used batteries into the sun, we need to think of a better way make make energy and Hydrogen is that way. So, the more research that goes into hydrogen the higher the likelihood that someone, somewhere will find the solutions that makes it so intractable today.

    22. Member turbinepowered's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 18th, 2007
      Location
      Upstate SC
      Posts
      10,001
      Vehicles
      '86 Interceptor 700, '82 Quantum Coupe, Hyundai Elantra GT Daily
      09-15-2020 06:59 AM #46
      Quote Originally Posted by Reisner View Post
      Governments aren't stupid. You're thinking about this all wrong. Governments are the ultimate long-term solution. They are the ultimate loss leaders. No one else is going to invest in long term solutions unless it's economically viable. Certainly not companies who only think about short-term profit or survival. And not universities that depend on the generosities of patrons and...you guessed it...governments. In fact, no university could exist without the succor of governments. If it wasn't for governments basic research simply wouldn't exist because no other entity could afford it on a time-scale that spans generations. There are simply too many examples of this to list here. In this regard, the role of the government is to support anything and everything so that the nation has...options. You don't want to rely on something until that option is exhausted. You have to think ahead. Way ahead. It is only when something becomes economically viable that governments, via universities, hand off the idea to the private sector. If the private sector thinks the idea is profitable they will pursue it. Hydrogen may not be a profit maker right now but 1) hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and 2) who knows where the next breakthrough will come from to bring about a collapse in costs. So, to dismiss it today is not unlike dismissing the internet in its infancy. One difference compared to lithium ion is in the waste factor. Batteries are extremely toxic and bad for the Earth in the long term. So, unless we're going to toss used batteries into the sun, we need to think of a better way make make energy and Hydrogen is that way. So, the more research that goes into hydrogen the higher the likelihood that someone, somewhere will find the solutions that makes it so intractable today.
      While I'm usually arguing the government side of this, there has been a trend in recent decades to "businessify" governmental thinking.

      Also, playing the long game without critically evaluating what you're doing over that term is a good way to get stuck in Sunk Costs fallacies re: research. The government can, and has, closed lines of research that are not making the necessary strides to meet interim goals.

      And finally, as noted above hydrogen is not an energy source, it's energy storage. We are doing pretty good on the energy storage front right now, and batteries are recyclable. We don't do it right now because raw materials are so cheap, but we know how to break them down and recycle them.
      Quote Originally Posted by zukiphile View Post
      There is an area of a normal brain that lets the owner know the object works and needs to be left alone. Not all of us have it. It is like being colorblind.

    23. Member DrivinAW8's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 21st, 2004
      Location
      Pixburgh
      Posts
      940
      Vehicles
      1989 yuppie-mobile, 2011 essfour
      09-15-2020 07:07 AM #47
      A government investing into transformative tech as a catalyzing loss leader is important.

      But hydrogen is a special case where the fundamental laws of science, which will always exist, ensure it will always be a losing proposition no matter how much cash you throw at it.

      Kinda like investing in a giant lie of a company with a proven track record of no track records!

    24. Member
      Join Date
      Dec 31st, 2015
      Posts
      479
      09-15-2020 07:17 AM #48
      Quote Originally Posted by turbinepowered View Post
      While I'm usually arguing the government side of this, there has been a trend in recent decades to "businessify" governmental thinking.

      Also, playing the long game without critically evaluating what you're doing over that term is a good way to get stuck in Sunk Costs fallacies re: research. The government can, and has, closed lines of research that are not making the necessary strides to meet interim goals.

      And finally, as noted above hydrogen is not an energy source, it's energy storage. We are doing pretty good on the energy storage front right now, and batteries are recyclable. We don't do it right now because raw materials are so cheap, but we know how to break them down and recycle them.
      Keyword being 'right now'. Either way, I just don't understand the arguments against it here. Fraud aside, hydrogen storage is yet another alternative that may develop into something more profound. We need competition and options in everything we do so as to not become overly reliant or complacent. From that perspective, the argument against hydrogen is asinine. It is yet another option on the table that is attracting private investors. The government of Japan and Japanese OEMs are fully onboard. Just because something is cost-prohibitive doesn't mean it'll always be so. Right now, even BEVs are not profitable (without artificial government inducements) but I don't hear anyone saying we should discard them and go all in on ICE. They certainly weren't saying that 10/20 years ago when the costs were even higher.

    25. Member turbinepowered's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 18th, 2007
      Location
      Upstate SC
      Posts
      10,001
      Vehicles
      '86 Interceptor 700, '82 Quantum Coupe, Hyundai Elantra GT Daily
      09-15-2020 07:24 AM #49
      It's not just that it's cost prohibitive, it's blisteringly wasteful of resources.

      The energy cost to produce it commercially alone should be an argument for it staying in the labs and space programs, where it's almost a necessity due to lack of available atmospheric oxygen.

      I'm not saying research shouldn't continue, I'm saying commercialization should not be encouraged.
      Quote Originally Posted by zukiphile View Post
      There is an area of a normal brain that lets the owner know the object works and needs to be left alone. Not all of us have it. It is like being colorblind.

    26. Member
      Join Date
      Dec 31st, 2015
      Posts
      479
      09-15-2020 08:55 AM #50
      Quote Originally Posted by turbinepowered View Post
      It's not just that it's cost prohibitive, it's blisteringly wasteful of resources.

      The energy cost to produce it commercially alone should be an argument for it staying in the labs and space programs, where it's almost a necessity due to lack of available atmospheric oxygen.

      I'm not saying research shouldn't continue, I'm saying commercialization should not be encouraged.
      Why not? It's not your money at this point. I say if investors want to put their money into this project, who are we to say otherwise? So long as there isn't fraud, let the market decide whether or not this endeavor is viable.

    Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •  
    vwvortex.com is an independent Volkswagen enthusiast website owned and operated by VerticalScope Inc. Content on vwvortex.com is generated by its users. vwvortex.com is not in any way affiliated with Volkswagen AG.