Electric cars are a pipe dream

And if you'd been saying that in the first place I wouldn't have had any objection to it. But you weren't, you were saying raw materials were the problem, not manufacturing costs.

The reports say that the biggest factor in bringing down the manufacturing cost is volume, and the second is r&d. Just like anything else, just like I was saying originally.

What they don't say is what you were claiming, that fuel cells are prohibitively expensive because they contain so much platinum.

I also disagree with your earlier assertion that the platinum couldn't be reclaimed from the plastic sheets.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You obviously say things for rhetorical effect, rather than actually knowing.

Many people would, yes. Although many people would carry on buying thinly disguised tractors with ludicrously overpowered and inefficient engines because they feel it compensates for their penis size/mid life crisis.

It remains to be seen whether NASA (as an organisation, not as a logo in the corner of an unofficial video made by one of their employees about his hobby horse) is standing behind it.

As for all gas cars being dispensed with I find your prediction highly unlikely. Bordering on impossible. Actually, I'm sure enough to dispense the qualifier; just plain impossible.

In fact I bet you a thousand English pounds that doesn't happen. If you'd like to put your money where your mouth is (if that is indeed the orifice from which that assertion issued

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) just send me a PM and we can arrange for a legally binding wager to that effect for whatever sum you deem appropriate.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@ Michael,
Yeah. I suppose there will always be antique cars, but the point is made.

You say it remains to be seen if NASA is behind LENR.

Please open your eyes when viewing this video
http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/media/CC/lenr/lenr.html
http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/media/CC/lenr/lenr.html

Perhaps you did not notice that this is a media release from NASA. Does this look like a Youtube video to you? Can you not spend a full minute investigating the URL of that link to see that it is an official Media release.

Can you not see it is in a "media" sub folder on a NASA website?
http://technologygateway.nasa.gov/media/.......

Are you suggesting that someone hacked a NASA website and coerced a Known NASA LENR researcher into acting on a hoax?

Apparently you are not up on this LENR technology like I said. You made this comment on another thread about this subject.

There are MANY peer reviewed books on LENR, and the WLT, and Beta Decay.
In fact; I'll go further and say that Oxford University has published a peer reviewed BOOK on the subject.
http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/books/2008-LENR-Sourcebook/LENR-Sourcebook.shtml
(click above to see book link, or to purchase)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nope, you said raw materials, and I corrected you many pages ago:

As I pointed out, even at $40 per KW they are still expensive, when that's the price just for the fuel cell and not the supporting drive train and particularly if they can only use H2 as a fuel source, and yes, a lot of that cost is inherent in the materials needed to make them.

I never claimed either of those things.

 

Why is it that YOU are making these bold predictions, but if something had been developed by NASA that would get all gas cars off the road in 10 years and pretty much solve our CO2 emission problem at the same time, which would be a MONUMENTAL achievement, that the only thing we can find is a single video on a Langley technology site?

 

And that book is put out by a site that makes money from people interested in LENR.

And that book was published 4 years ago.

And we still don't have a single example of a working prototype for commercial use.

 

We seem to agree on most things except this, mainly because you are not clearly stating what PHEVs &HEVs are cheaper than. I don't think they are cheaper than IC cars using imported, tropically grown, sugar cane alcohol OR natural gas fuel.

Also it is my understanding (perhaps wrong) that conversion of natural gas to a liquid IC fuel (benzine, etc.) if done on large scale is not so expensive that PHEV's and HEV's would be cheaper, even in a life-cycle cost analysis. (For decades the cost of a BTU in oil will rise much faster than for a BTU in NG or tropical alcohol, so Life-cycle cost will increasing favor the these IC fuels over both batteries and gasoline.) Also then the range of a "chemically liquefied NG" fuel car would be significantly less than a gasoline fueled car. (Manual for my first VW 1956 beetle recommended use of Benzine in it).

 

Yes, it was a question about your initial statement.

Then why did your comments contain the exact words I copied and pasted that said those things, in the form of claiming they were true? Is there some other meaning of "claim those things" I'm not aware of?



You're a liar, and not a very skillful or organised one.

 

No, I said materials, you said RAW materials and I immediately corrected you and said in SOME cases it was raw materials in other cases (like the PEM membrane) it was the cost of making the materials.

Because you have taken them out of context.

Either show the WHOLE post that supports either of those assertions or retract your false claim that I lied.

Nope, so far the only lies posted have been from you.

For instance you just claimed that I said that the platinum couldn't be reclaimed from the plastic sheets. but I said no such thing:

And I've always made a clear distinction between the expensive PEM membrane and the Platinum Catalyst because they aren't the same thing:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The Report also discusses the cost issue associated with the PEM membrane:

Note, no mention of Platinum in discussing the cost of the PEM membrane.

Then you claimed that I said: fuel cells are prohibitively expensive because they contain so much platinum

When I actually just used Platinum as one of several examples:

Big difference in that statement and your assertion.

 

Cheaper than pure battery cars, but retaining most of the advantages.

IC cars will always be cheaper to _buy._ At some point they may well be more expensive to operate though.

Perhaps - but natural gas is usable as-is without too much fuss. Most people have natural gas lines to their homes, for example, and compressors are available.

 

Then you should have said that in the first place, instead of incrementally moving the goalposts for each new item of information and then dishonestly claiming you meant that all along.

You didn't. I know that, you know that, and anyone who is interested enough to check your first statements on the matter know that.

 

More to the point, not suffering from the key disadvantage of the EV, that when the battery runs down there is now typically no place to recharge and if there is then recharging takes a while.

For a long time the EV will be not usable as a means of transportation between cities and I suspect that's a deal breaker for a lot of users.

I don't drive 250 miles that often, but I do it enough that I don't want to have to rent an IC car when I do, because when I drive that far, I'm usually gone for a few days, which over a 10 year life of a car would add about $10,000 to the cost.

 

Too bad your reading comprehension sucks Michael.

I NEVER said raw materials, I said it was materials cost, you said RAW materials and I immediately corrected you and said in SOME cases it was raw materials in other cases (like the PEM membrane) it was the cost of making the materials.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2887322&postcount=2393

And I also pointed out the issue wasn't just the cost of the fuel cells (an issue you continue to ignore)

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2886904&postcount=2384

I linked to this from the DOE:

That explains the issue is MORE than just the cost of the fuel cells (as does the report I linked to)

 

The world's first electric car rides again:

http://www.aol.com/video/worlds-fir...d-again/517245555/?ncid=wsc-video-cards-image

 

I hardly think that's borne out by the facts.

In fact I'd go so far as to say that's just another intentional and premeditated lie in a desperate attempt to lend credence to the original off the cuff guess you presented as fact and now don't have the intellectual honesty to own up to.

The cost of making the materials? That's the manufacturing costs. Any material you have to make is, by definition, manufactured. It's a combination of raw materials and manufacturing costs, as you will recall me mentioning. You understood that earlier, so I don't see what's changed.

Oh, yes I do, your claims.

Offering one of the many points on which you moved the goalposts as evidence that the goalposts had always been there doesn't help your credibility in my opinion.

 

No Michael, right from the beginning of this discussion about the costs I made the distinction between Raw Materials like Platinum and Materials which are expensive to make like PEM.

So no moving of goal posts.

Was how this started,

But in your response notice what YOU dropped:

When you quoted me you dropped the QUALIFICATON that you are now contesting: In some cases it's raw materials like Platinum, but in other cases it's the cost/time/difficulty in making the materials needed.

In any case I responded to you with the exact same qualifications:

And note I pointed out that the PEM MATERIAL was "very expensive to make", so right from the beginning I've always been talking about the cost of raw materials and the cost of manufactured materials that are very expensive to make.

If we just take the cost of raw materials then diamonds would be considered just as cheap as coal. But some materials are much more expensive to make.

And you did mention It's a combination of raw materials and manufacturing costs, as you will recall me mentioning.

Except you mentioned that in post 2406, well AFTER the previous exchange, so clearly I was not moving any goal posts when discussing things like the cost of the PEM.

Indeed in 2406 you posted:

Leaving out the fact that the report notes that that is for an H2 system and that the report agreed with me: The PEM membrane is widely acknowledged as one of the more costly stack components and one needing to be reduced in cost to achieve a cost competitive fuel cell system. and though the report ASSUMES they can do so, as of yet that hasn't happened. And finally the report you quoted also states: Many of the components not included in this study are significant contributors to the total fuel cell vehicle cost, and I've always been discussing the FULL fuel cell vehicle cost, not just the cost of the actual fuel cell.

Indeed, as late as post 2411 you still didn't realize the report you quoted was about H2 Fuel cells and suggested that was my choice:

When in fact H2 fuel cells is what the DOE is working on and what that report you quoted was about.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

$20,000 is less than the batteries of some electric cars!
Tata Technologies used set a price target of $20,000 and then used a multidimensional approach to develop the vehicle using the company's "intimate understanding" of frugal engineering principles. The end result was a small, urban oriented four-seat vehicle with a unique electric drive and operating software that weighs only 900 kilograms.

The eMo also has a steel frame capable of meeting existing crash standards. The eMO architecture emphasizes "right size" personal urban transportation by minimizing its exterior footprint and maximizing interior space, including seating for four adults.

The project eventually utilized the talents of more than 300 engineers Tata's Technologies four automotive engineering centers of excellence in Novi Pune, India; Detroit, Michigan; Coventry, in Britain and Stuttgart, Germany.

Tata is known for building low-cost vehicles, most notably the Nano, known as the "world's cheapest car" with a price tag of less than $2,000.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/ta...oit-auto-show-article-1.1005693#ixzz1jNTW2tWu Also mildly interesting is fact this link mis-spells Tata as Tato.

 

Did you miss this KEY point Billy?

Dubbed the “eMO”, the four-door electric hatchback was built not for retail release

Easy to put a price tag on something you don't plan on actually building or selling.

 

Okay then, if you like.

 

No, what the facts show.
You want to discuss things, then do so, that's interesting.
You want to post more personal BS, then do so, but it really is boring.