Energy conversion is required in pretty much everything except for heating.
While technically correct, the details prove the devils. Yes, one must refine oil for both fuel and lubricant. That crude that starts the process, though, is cheap (relatively). For hydrogen, one must take perfectly good electricity—which, as you point out, has already been converted from other forms—and convert it once again. The losses converting it and re-converting it back to electricity by the fuel cell drastically eats up any losses from the simple chemical or mechanical battery alternative. Factor in the extremely expensive rare-earth metals needed for an even half-way decent fuel cell, and the attractions of hydrogen get less sparkly.
That's why the conduit. Why convert electricity to and from hydrogen when batteries both simplify and (in most cases) improve the efficiency?
Battery research is alive and well. . . . Your theory that GWB killed batteries by going the fuel cell route makes little sense.
Not GWB personally, but his corporate cronies who really weren't interested in batteries anyway. They were making bank on the SUV craze already in progress. After his election, and with his well-known ties to the black goo brigade, research and investment shriveled to a husk of its more robust self when Gore was the projected winner. Why should be obvious. What bank would invest in batteries for cars when the president has such close connections to the oil industry, therefore making such cars nothing but hobbyist pursuits? That's exactly what happened. The flood of research and promise dried to a trickle.
I never said batteries were "killed," only specific projects related to furthering the availability and technical ability of future batteries. With some digging, I can back up that observation.
Any advancement in battery technology is not only an advancement for electric cars, but also fuel cells.
Exactly! When one further postulates that advancements in either take market share away from gassers, you can see why what happened happened the way it happened. Battery cars were essentially put on hold for 8 years, so as not to impact Detroit profits. When the need for them finally did materialize, the short-sighted bastards had to get a bailout just to stay in business. GM pissed away it's lead for better stock margins. No executive in that company deserves a job of any kind.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 24/12/13 19:14 (UTC)While technically correct, the details prove the devils. Yes, one must refine oil for both fuel and lubricant. That crude that starts the process, though, is cheap (relatively). For hydrogen, one must take perfectly good electricity—which, as you point out, has already been converted from other forms—and convert it once again. The losses converting it and re-converting it back to electricity by the fuel cell drastically eats up any losses from the simple chemical or mechanical battery alternative. Factor in the extremely expensive rare-earth metals needed for an even half-way decent fuel cell, and the attractions of hydrogen get less sparkly.
That's why the conduit. Why convert electricity to and from hydrogen when batteries both simplify and (in most cases) improve the efficiency?
Battery research is alive and well. . . . Your theory that GWB killed batteries by going the fuel cell route makes little sense.
Not GWB personally, but his corporate cronies who really weren't interested in batteries anyway. They were making bank on the SUV craze already in progress. After his election, and with his well-known ties to the black goo brigade, research and investment shriveled to a husk of its more robust self when Gore was the projected winner. Why should be obvious. What bank would invest in batteries for cars when the president has such close connections to the oil industry, therefore making such cars nothing but hobbyist pursuits? That's exactly what happened. The flood of research and promise dried to a trickle.
I never said batteries were "killed," only specific projects related to furthering the availability and technical ability of future batteries. With some digging, I can back up that observation.
Any advancement in battery technology is not only an advancement for electric cars, but also fuel cells.
Exactly! When one further postulates that advancements in either take market share away from gassers, you can see why what happened happened the way it happened. Battery cars were essentially put on hold for 8 years, so as not to impact Detroit profits. When the need for them finally did materialize, the short-sighted bastards had to get a bailout just to stay in business. GM pissed away it's lead for better stock margins. No executive in that company deserves a job of any kind.