# The Rise of Range Anxiety?



## zeroemission (Sep 14, 2010)

as the main reason i'd have for owning a car is to be able to travel out of town or even state, is a serious hurdle for me to switch from bikes & busses that get me about anywhere i'd need an EV for. even though it's too late because evil oil companies bought the hydrogen cell technology that can be reversed to generate hydrogen with simply water & electricity, i think hydrogen power is the "ultimate solution". all that would be needed is for stations to have windmills or solar tech & a water supply to be able to generate hydrogen on site. range becomes a non-issue as long as there's infrastructure, cost is a non issues as a modern fuel injected car can be converted to burning hydrogen for just a couple thousand dollars and filling up with hydro is much faster than charging. in every way, hydrogen is a superior technology except it still generates heat. people are always going to fight against giving up freedoms they already have. people can just hop in their car and drive cross country on a whim. telling them that they can only go 100 miles doesn't sit well with them. it doesn't work for me either as i'd want a car precisely to travel 100+ miles too. if the infrastructure was built for charging stations less than 100 miles apart including places like texas and the technology for fast charging were developed, then the tech would catch on, but as it stands now... electric cars = imprisonment. electric cars with current technology are totally useless for taxis or delivery, police, & ambulance type vehicles etc. it's an overpriced technology that underdelivers. (pun intended) GO HYDRO!


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

I think you need to take a closer look at hydrogen.

How much electricity does it take to generate enough hydrogen for a full range car? How does it compare to charging an electric car to drive the same distance? The answer may suprise you and it has nothing to do with an oil company conspiracy. Furthermore, electric charging infrastructure is easier to implement than hydrogen filling stations.

As far as range anxiety is concerned, I can't say its been a factor driving my electric car. Know your limit, drive within it. Its no different than driving within the range of your gas powered car. I'm not giving up any freedoms by driving an EV because I have a fossil fueled vehicle for longer trips. The idea of electric cars is not to force others to drive them, its to give them a choice and let them decide.


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

Quote:
As far as range anxiety is concerned, I can't say its been a factor driving my electric car. Know your limit, drive within it. Its no different than driving within the range of your gas powered car. I'm not giving up any freedoms by driving an EV because I have a fossil fueled vehicle for longer trips. The idea of electric cars is not to force others to drive them, its to give them a choice and let them decide. 

So say I. You drive it for the convenience with the range it has.
No anxiety what so ever.


----------



## mechman600 (Oct 16, 2010)

zeroemission said:


> GO HYDRO!


Hydrogen is a politically driven scam. It is currently made from fossil fuel, with a byproduct of CO2. Far more CO2 is produced in this process than if the car fueled by hydrogen simply ran on gasoline. The electrolysis method of producing hydrogen requires far more energy than what is usable in the hydrogen. The day that the lofty hydrogen dream finally dies is the day you will hear cheering from most of us in this forum.


----------



## Alexander_B (Oct 19, 2010)

and the bit of hydrogen made with electricity... its about 10% efficient, batteries are 50-90% efficient. (lead or lithium) so you can already see how much power you're throwing away, and even after that, theres the rather poor efficiency of a piston engine or fuel cell to burn the hydrogen back into power or electricity.

and with the poster above, most hydrogen is made by "stripping" LNG so that the carbon ends up as co2, and some of the hydrogen can be collected. again, throwing away tons of energy that could have just as well (or actually, better) have fueled a car.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Zeroemission must be a paid hydrogen supporter, otherwise I'm not sure why he's on this board. All he ever does is try to promote how wonderful hydrogen is, and no one is buying his BS.


----------



## mechman600 (Oct 16, 2010)

Alexander_B said:


> most hydrogen is made by "stripping" LNG so that the carbon ends up as co2, and some of the hydrogen can be collected. again


Exactly. They take natural gas, which is mostly CH4 (methane), and strip the `H4s` (hydrogen) off to use as fuel. Now the C (carbon) is lonely and naturally clings to the nearest O2 (oxygen) floating around, so now we have a bunch of CO2. Not only does it produce carbon dioxide, but it consumes valuable oxygen.

When I watch the part of _Who Killed The Electric Car_ where it explains the reasons for the `rise of hydrogen` I want to punch holes through the wall. That`s why I don`t like that movie!


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

I thought they explain near the end of the film that hydrogen is a bit of a red herring. They do explain that it diverted attention away from BEVs, but I don't remember them defending it. Its been a while since I watched it though.


----------



## ga2500ev (Apr 20, 2008)

I cannot see why folks are so shortsighted that they fail to see the possibility of a new infrastructure for the electric car economy. 

The one thing that electricity can do that no liquid or gas fuel can is refuel the car while it is traveling. The second point is that a nationwide electrical infrastructure is already in place. Electricity can be produced and delivered almost anywhere. Virtually every building, home, and road has some type of electrical infrastructure in place.

So there's really no need for hydrogen, or zinc slurry, or fuel cells, or any other type of infrastructure that is analogous to the current gasoline infrastructure. All that needs to be done is to embed inductive charging stations right into the roads. The electric car drives over them and gets recharged. Electricity producers and charge maintainers are paid by the users of the charging stations.

There's not even a need to completely electrify the roads. Simply start with charging stations on the interstate road infrastructure every twenty miles or so. That would be enough to get the ball rolling. Then as demand increases, then fill in charging stations more densely.

The concept of the 10 minute fill up is vastly overrated.

ga2500ev


----------



## mechman600 (Oct 16, 2010)

david85 said:


> I thought they explain near the end of the film that hydrogen is a bit of a red herring. They do explain that it diverted attention away from BEVs, but I don't remember them defending it.


You are right, they don't defend Hydrogen at all. They explain how the automakers convinced the government that Hydrogen is better, how they dangled the hydrogen dream in front of us and continue to do so, even though the necessary technology is still 30 years away. Just before CARB voted to cancel the EV mandate, its head, Alan Lloyd, got a job in hydrogen research. The hydrogen folks promise long ranges and renewable fuel, even though they still have less range than the EV1 did, and use fuel that is more damaging than the gasoline that I/we are addicted to. THIS is why I hate the movie - because it reminds me of all this stuff and makes me angry!


----------



## poprock (Apr 29, 2010)

Alexander_B said:


> and the bit of hydrogen made with electricity... its about 10% efficient, batteries are 50-90% efficient. (lead or lithium) so you can already see how much power you're throwing away, and even after that, theres the rather poor efficiency of a piston engine or fuel cell to burn the hydrogen back into power or electricity.
> 
> and with the poster above, most hydrogen is made by "stripping" LNG so that the carbon ends up as co2, and some of the hydrogen can be collected. again, throwing away tons of energy that could have just as well (or actually, better) have fueled a car.


As one who has fiddled with hydrogen on many vehicles, my homemeade electrolysers worked well, but for the average joe are too much to maintain. 10% -20% is easily achieved but as it is concurrent with the dinosaur's feedbag we need to look further ahead to electric.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

mechman600 said:


> You are right, they don't defend Hydrogen at all. They explain how the automakers convinced the government that Hydrogen is better, how they dangled the hydrogen dream in front of us and continue to do so, even though the necessary technology is still 30 years away. Just before CARB voted to cancel the EV mandate, its head, Alan Lloyd, got a job in hydrogen research. The hydrogen folks promise long ranges and renewable fuel, even though they still have less range than the EV1 did, and use fuel that is more damaging than the gasoline that I/we are addicted to. THIS is why I hate the movie - because it reminds me of all this stuff and makes me angry!


OK, now I understand.

I've watched it twice. Rented it a few years ago, then saw a good chunk of it again on CBC. Both times I wanted to punch a hole through the walls even though I can't agree 100% with everything about the film. 

On the upside, it motivated me to build my own EV.


----------



## Guest (Oct 25, 2010)

I tell every one that when they sit down to watch the movie they need to move all breakables away because you will not be sitting for long and you will get pissed.  

I give fair warning to all.


----------



## zeroemission (Sep 14, 2010)

i am NOT a hydrogen power lobbyist thank you very much! my 34 wheeled vehicle is a pair of bicycles. i haven't been behind a steering wheel other than at an arcade maybe since about 1992 or 3.

i DO hate that the oil industry used hydro power as a wedge to destroy carb, but blame that on greed & politics, NOT THE TECHNOLOGY!

i must be the ONLY one here who watched alan alda's *scientific american frointeirs* show on PBS religiously as no one seems to remember seeing the scandinavian hydrogen station that was basically a giant hydrogen fuel cell run in reverse. electricity & water go in, and hydrogen comes out.

i must be the only one who saw the ford escort that ran off hydro with just a few thousand dollars in plumbing changes. sorry EVers, being able to convert MOST cars on the road to a technology unhampered by range or charge time issues at a FRACTION of the cost of EV conversion is a total win win situation.

before you start calling me a corporate schill, why don't you read my posts and see my pure venomous hatred of big business, lobbyists & the sheep that don't want to french revolution their butts like me. if you want to call me a shill, then my mountain bike has the right to call you a sellout. i'm way greener than you are in that count.

oil industries DID destroy hydrogen tech. you must not have seen or payed attention to *who killed the electric car* where GM bought the patents for hydrogen cells (same exact tech as hydrogen generators) and then sold it to the oil industry. that is a FACT! they cornered the market on 100% renewable hydrogen.

yes, now you need to use chemicals to make hydrogen because of the corporate scumbags (mobil i think) that killed it's future until someone who can't be bought comes up with another renewable way to generate hydrogen.

thinking of getting electricity off the grid IF it even were possible to get the tech back from oil scumbags is incredibly short sighted. stations could generate their own electricity on sight with wind and half a dozen solar techs. 

my dream would be burning the oil & banking industries etc. to the ground, and lining CEOs, shareholders, lobbyists, political whores & media conspirators up for the gillotine just as the french did in their revolution and converting ALL gas stations into hydrogen stations with windmills and/or solar steam, stirling or cells on their roofs.

i get my electricity from hydro power (yay!) by the way. not everyone is connected to coal & nuclear.

go ahead and call me an a-hole, but don't EVER question my love for this planet and the environment. i've been riding this huffy revolution since 1992! read the *nature is p#ssed, i love this bike & gasoline kills* bumper stickers.
http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z157/zeroemission/quarterview1024.jpg

my support for hydrogen has absolutely DIDDLY to do with politics or business. it has to do with renewability, cost & ease of conversion, extended range and speed of refilling. purely technical issues. the scum that be you accuse me of aligning myself with are what's keeping the tech off the market. separate their heads from their bodies, and the world would be a much better place.

BTW i have more than one battle scar from riding bikes AFTER i stopped driving my durable as heck red 1989 38/42mpg 993cc 3 cylinder daihatsu charade


----------



## dimitri (May 16, 2008)

> the scum that be you accuse me of aligning myself with are what's keeping the tech off the market


nah, there is no conspiracy related to hydrogen, only one thing keeps it from the market, HORRIBLE WASTEFUL INEFFICIENCY in every aspect, from start to finish.

You might as well burn wood for power generation, its renewable, carbon neutral, and just as inefficient as hydrogen, putting us back to stone age of technology.



> i must be the ONLY one here who watched alan alda's *scientific american frointeirs* show on PBS religiously as no one seems to remember seeing the scandinavian hydrogen station that was basically a giant hydrogen fuel cell run in reverse. electricity & water go in, and hydrogen comes out.


TV shows, just like most other public media, don't bother themselves with paying attention to efficiency and economics of any particular subject they show off. Afterall, most viewers aren't educated enough to grasp at the concept of efficiency, which has been proven million times on every Internet forum where people like you post in support of hydrogen.

No technology will ever see mass market at 10% efficiency, unless heavily subsidized by government, which makes it even worse, pure evil.


----------



## Alexander_B (Oct 19, 2010)

except for the edison lightbulb.  luckily we also have LED's, hp/lp sodium lights, tube lights and the folded-up-tube-light energy saving bulb. (last 2 are actually the same kind of crap as hydrogen, they contain mercury and are thus a real hazard to the environment and peoples health.)


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

zeroemission said:


> i'm way greener than you are in that count.


That has nothing to do with hydrogen, and if a holier than thou argument is the best you can do, you won't win many supporters here.

So you watch a science show on PPS - good for you. 

You ride a bike and refuse to own a car - we don't care, but good for you anyway.

What net efficiency did that thing on PPS deliver?

Were the numbers independantly verified?

How much did the project cost?

I'm not defending the personal references levelled against you, but you are not exactly taking the high road either.


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2010)

I know the amount of electricity required to make hydrogen would get me further down the road if I just dumped it directly into my lithium batteries. No need for a fuel cell that is way more expensive than a good lithium pack. One tank full of hydrogen is about the same range as a full electric vehicle so no incentive there either. Electric plugs abound where hydrogen stations are pretty much nonexistent. So what is up with the hydrogen? Well If you happen to have an over abundance of electricity and can't use it all and cant store it all then go ahead and make hydrogen for use later. Better that than not using the electricity and wasting that. But for the main stream, Electricity will be KING. 

Pete 

I love my planet too. Heck go electrify your bike with a nice affordable lithium pack and some smaller speakers. You will cruise in style and still have your sound system. Damn, those are some mighty large speakers. A bit overkill if you ask me. Tryin to piss someone off with those boomers?


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

zeroemission said:


> ....his usual misinformed hydrogen rant....


As others have pointed out, you seem to lack understanding of the poor efficiency of the entire hydrogen process, no matter how many times we explain it to you. I guess you need to watch some more TV shows, maybe some with real science in them. Here's a small bit of info you can ponder upon, burning hydrogen in an ICE is probably the very least efficient use of an already inefficient product. Since there is zero hydrogen infrastructure any hydrogen vehicle is extremely hampered by range issues and charge times.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi Zero

Just a wee bit of information for you

_*where GM bought the patents for *__*hydrogen*__* cells (same exact tech as *__*hydrogen*__* generators) and then sold it to the oil industry. that is a FACT! they cornered the market on 100% renewable *__*hydrogen*_

Patents last 20 years - the "Deal with Patents" is that the government grants a patenter a 20 year monopoly in return for publishing the details and making it public domain after the 20 years

Anything not coverred in the publication (which everybody can see) is not coverred by the patent

Everything patented before October 1990 is now public domain

And No there is no way to extend a patent, - you can patent a further improvement - but that covers the extra improvement not the initial idea

The only thing this does not apply to is the small number of patents that the military claim


----------



## zeroemission (Sep 14, 2010)

who cares about EFFICIENCY if you're burning hydrogen? it doesn't matter that hydrogen burning motors share the same 30% or lower efficiency as petroleum burning... not one bit! the only byproducts are heat & water.

there are some REALLY nasty chemicals involved in battery tech you know, right? 

round 1: hydrogen wins the chemistry battle

all you need to CREATE hydrogen is electricity & water IF you could chop mobil's head off and get the hydrogen cell/generator technology they most certainly DO hold the patents on back. they ARE keeping the tech off the market on purpose no matter what any of you apologists who apparently either never watched *who killed the electric car?* or payed attention to it say. GM bought the tech and then sold it to an oil company (kinda sounds like an anti-trust issue to me)

round 2: (PROVISIONAL if only the generator tech weren't buried) tie between electric & hydrogen as both use electricity which is infinitely renewable with any number of techs i'm not going to repeat. the only difference would be whether you get your electricity off the grid or on site. hydro stations without on site renewable generation WOULD suck, but windmills etc. should be part of a "let's save the planet" strategy which of course will be fought tooth & nail by every industry that bribes politicos to keep their profits maxed.

electric power SUCKS for range whereas hydrogen refills would be available coast to coast if only there were the will to adopt the tech. sorry, no EV is EVER going to get me to vegas or disneyland etc. heck, where i am, it won't get me anywhere but a couple of small towns i'd never visit even if i could

round 3: hydrogen beats the living daylights out of electric for range and then takes a steaming dump on it

unless some sort of "fast charge" tech is ever invented, you'll never be able to recharge vehicles at a station like you could refueling a hydrogen tank/cell which can be done in MINUTES! that would be especially important for delivery vehicles etc.

round 4: hydrogen kicks butt yet again in the "refueling" department

cost? don't even try and lie. electric cars cost an insane amount to build (new!) yet offer terrible performance (range). you know, that leaf car everyone is psyched about doesn't include the $10k or so needed to put batteries in it. i haven't seen many EV conversions that cost under $10K, but most modern fuel injected cars can be converted to burn hydrogen for just a COUPLE thousand. (that is, unless the builders of the hydro burning festiva lied about it)

round 5: hydro totally kicks EV's butt in conversion costs at about 30% on a bad day and much less if infrastructure were built.

taking range out of the equation, EV conversions totally win the infrastructure battle as owners can charge at home instead of waiting for oil scum to invest in hydro stations which ain't EVER gonna happen as long as there's a drop of dead dinosaurs left in the earth's crust.

round 6: electric owns the infrastructure battle as long as you don't want to go anywhere out of town

of course you need to get your water from SOMEWHERE and that too is a dwindling resource, but sooner or later we'll need to move to desalinization plants to keep up with demand, but in my mind i see a top to bottom infrastructure reform that would take that into account too.

round 7: without researching the scarcity of materials needed to make batteries, i'll give that tech the benefit of the doubt in the material availabilty department, but it shouldn't be too difficult to incorporate water reclamation into cars so they dump the water they've burned back off at the station which will turn it back into hydrogen again. i'd call it a tie, but i'm trying to be unbiased and just stick with facts.

being generous, hydro still wins 3 to 2. just because as EV fans, you're willing to accept range limitations, don't project that on the rest of the world who absolutely has no interest in taking a step backwards & surrendering freedom. i'd add a "desirability" round for an extra point, but that would be dishonest as the reasons are already covered.

these are all FACTS. deny them, and you're either a flat out idiot or a lying sack of crap, either way unworthy of debating.

i would say that hydrogen power's lack of highly toxic battery chemistry far outweighs the efficiency issue. as long as you have access to sytations that generate hydrogen on site with wind, solar or hydropower, you can go ANYWHERE you want with water & heat being your only byproducts.

if it weren't for the oil scum who DO hold the hydrogen cell tech you're in denial about because you aren't in full possession of the facts (or are a flat out liar) after the market EASILY adapts to burning hydrogen, could then adapt to hydrogen cell EVs that use the very same "quick refill" tech at hydro stations.

the only way you could win an argument against that is to be a liar. facts are facts. the only thing keeping it off the market is greed. if it weren't for that, hydrogen power is the pragmatic solution. why am i even arguing with EV fanboys who deny reality & practicality? no one can say anything to you you don't want to hear.

if EVs were practical & affordable without so many compromises, i would be the first to support them. hydrogen does the same thing cheaper, further & less toxic.

BTW... there's an entire world out there beyond 100 miles! you won't fall off the earth if you drive 500 miles. honest.

there's no way i'm wasting $20k to go anywhere i can for free or just a couple dollars with an all day bus pass. without range, EVs suck rotten eggs when there are zero emission techs out there that can do that CHEAPER in an ideal world not ruled by greed and lies and where people are motivated by what's right & necessary.

if you want to make EVs attractive (besides the way they kick much butt in drag racing) then you either need to come up with a quick charge tech to extend range or make stations where one can swap batteries to keep going after 100 miles. otherwise, the range limitation is an unbearable straightjacket hardly anyone will be willing to pay a 5x premium for.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

zeroemission said:


> ... and you're either a flat out idiot or a lying sack of crap, either way unworthy of debating.
> 
> ... if it weren't for the oil scum who DO hold the hydrogen cell tech you're in denial about because you aren't in full possession of the facts (or are a flat out liar) ...
> 
> the only way you could win an argument against that is to be a liar. facts are facts. the only thing keeping it off the market is greed. if it weren't for that, hydrogen power is the pragmatic solution. why am i even arguing with EV fanboys who deny reality & practicality? no one can say anything to you you don't want to hear.


If you enjoy this forum, I suggest you avoid language like this.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I think he must be insane.  Everything he claims is basically wrong. What I bothered to read at least....


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Zero-brains

You said
I_F you could chop mobil's head off and get the hydrogen cell/generator technology they most certainly DO hold the patents on back. they ARE keeping the tech off the market on purpose no matter what any of you apologists who apparently either never watched who killed the electric car? or payed attention to it say. GM bought the tech and then sold it to an oil company (kinda sounds like an anti-trust issue to me)_

*Hi Zero

Just a wee bit of information for you

where GM bought the patents for hydrogen cells (same exact tech as hydrogen generators) and then sold it to the oil industry. that is a FACT! they cornered the market on 100% renewable hydrogen

Patents last 20 years - the "Deal with Patents" is that the government grants a patenter a 20 year monopoly in return for publishing the details and making it public domain after the 20 years

Anything not coverred in the publication (which everybody can see) is not coverred by the patent

Everything patented before October 1990 is now public domain

And No there is no way to extend a patent, - you can patent a further improvement - but that covers the extra improvement not the initial idea

The only thing this does not apply to is the small number of patents that the military claim
*

Any patent held before 1990 is now public domain - anybody can read the full details and make and sell it


----------



## poprock (Apr 29, 2010)

I am appealing to the moderators of this forum to please restrict posts such as those from zero. My reason for subscribing is to learn about ev's, not hydrogen. Been there, done that, moved on.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Guys I don't think tossing some jabs back at him really help diffuse the situation here.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

We either need to ban him or all put him on ignore. Banning seems more effective, since he repeatedly has shown little interest in EV's and constantly rants about hydrogen, someone will end up taking the bait.


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

Hydrogen is a complete waste of time. Aside from the fact that a comercial hydrogen fuel cell, like the one in the Honda Clarity makes for a car that has a price tag in the millions of dollars.
Now take the fact that the conversion of hydrogen from water, which is the only sustainable method of making hydrogen, is only 10% at the most you can see why H2 will never be in the main stream.
As one post said earlier. I have looked into H2, done the research and have moved on. It is simply not a viable alternative.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

We did have to take action against a newbie member who was a blind supporter of hydrogen and didn't seem to care for the technical side of the questions we had about fue cells. His remarks were far more inflamatory however and he eventually was given enough rope to hang himself - and was banned.

As far as discussing hydrogen is concerned, I see little problem with that since we often discuss completely unrelated topics from time to time. When things degrade into this sort of exchange however, well - thats not what this forum is about.



> The following are prohibited on DIY Electric Car forums:
> 
> 1) Flaming, hate speech, racial slurs or otherwise obviously offensive or trolling remarks.
> 2) Links posted to products for sale outside of the marketplace forums
> ...


I've given a verbal warning to zeroemission, the next move is up to him.
Since everyone had a chance to speak their mind on this, I'll close this thread down so we can get back to our usual routine.


----------

