How long do you think until the petrol engine is phased out by

>>17269353
Just because he's getting sucked off doesn't mean that the company is going to enter the mainstream market any time soon. Or that other people are going to start phasing out everything for electric overnight.

Bolt is a good step forward, but it's not going to happen overnight.

>>17269353
Probably another 100 -150 years.

>>17269353
Until their raw range and weight improves, never

How long until even the most gullible retards realize that Tesla for the most part is a clever marketing scheme that created yet more Silicon Valley billionaires? The number of cars they sell is disappearingly small compared to the overall market (0.1% in 2016 to be precise). I don't think they've even reached half a million cumulative sales so far.

>How long do you think until the petrol engine is phased out by [150 years old design]

This seems like a decent enough place to ask, but why hasn't Hydrogen taken off aside from infrastructure reasons?

Cars powered by it seem perfectly normal, there's a shit load of it, and it just makes water? The techs there and there's been low volume every day Fuel cell cars, but nothing really been done to get them out in ernest and I'm left thinking why? It doesn't have the disadvantages electricity does and it solves the whole fuel thing every eco maniac is screeching about.

>>17269384
>aside from infrastructure reasons
No other reasons, but the infrastructure is absolutely critical. Fossil fuel cars sell because you can refuel them at every corner. Electric cars soooorta work because you can slowcharge them at home and because their producers have taken measures to install a quickcharger network where you can forcefeed electricity into the battery at the expense of battery life. I can only speak from my perspective, but I think there's a whole of 8 hydrogen refueling stations in the entirety of Germany. Unless you live near one of those 8 stations and only use your expensive hydrogen fuel cell car for local drives where you can make it back home you're going to be fucked. And no one's willing to build thousands of hydrogen refueling stations across the world when there's no demand yet. Fossil fuels have to become much more expensive to make the prospect of hydrogen fuel cell cars realistic. I mean, I like them, but right now they can't compete with an existing infrastructure.

>>17269353
Charge time and range will make these things only practical for urban and barely outside urban areas.

>>17269403
Yeah I figured it was solely that, here in burgerland, right off hand the only place I know with any is California but I'm sure there's more in other places but only in a few major cities I imagine and even then not many...kind of fucked right out of the gate.

I'm suprised with the tech being as good as it is, for as long as it is, no one has undertaken it at all in terms of companies, I guess they don't see return investment and don't want to bother.

>>17269403
Because hydrogen is dangerous.

>>17269403
What do you think about NatGas engines?

>>17269415
Then again that's where the greatest emissions problems persist so that's where electric cars belong. There's absolutely no reason to object to urban electric carsharing networks for normies. The problem is that everyone wants to drive a car with MUH RANGE because they make one or two longer trips a year that would work just as well using a train, just like everyone wants to drive a pickup truck because they haul one or two washing machines a year that would fit just as well into a rental van.

>>17269384
Hydrogen is incredibly difficult to store as it leaks from everything you put it in. Its dangerous to refuel (you need gloves and a face shield) and dangerous to store. Additionally, it takes electricity to synthesize hydrogen - thus introducing additional conversion losses than direct electrical power.

File: IMG_20170516_170853~2.jpg (2MB, 2357x3734px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2357x3734px

Really made me think OP

>>17269422
50 million tons of hydrogen are produced and handled globally per year without mentionworthy accidents. The only reason there would be any danger is if it's put into the hands of absolute retards without adequate education, i.e. American drivers.

>>17269429
Natural gas is just as fossil and limited as gasoline and diesel, only slightly more environmentally friendly. If anything it's just an emergency fix, not a long term solution.

>>17269435
That makes sense too. Completely forgot to think about that.

>>17269433
> There's absolutely no reason to object to urban electric carsharing networks for normies.
I see legal problems with this if not handled by a third party. American cities really need to become their own city states, kind of like Hong Kong. They pay tax to the US, but don't make any decisions.
>The problem is that everyone wants to drive a car with MUH RANGE because they make one or two longer trips a year that would work just as well using a train, just like everyone wants to drive a pickup truck because they haul one or two washing machines a year that would fit just as well into a rental van.
I'm one of those people who own a V8 SUV. It's my daily. They're beyond ridiculously reliable and I use the storage capacity all the time. I also wouldn't object to limiting them to commercial and rural use only though.

>>17269435
You seem to be implying that only leaky containers without safety measures exist for hydrogen storage, which is factually wrong.

>>17269450
>. If anything it's just an emergency fix, not a long term solution.
I'm confused. What do you mean it's a fix. What's broken? Are you one of those people that think we're going to run out of shit to burn or that people are responsible for major shifts in climate?

>>17269456
All signs point towards it, and I'd rather protect the environment to find out that it was unnecessary than destroy the environment to find out it would've required protection. Better safe than sorry.

>>17269384
>aside from infrastructure reasons
nothing. well you could say that the battery hype is the pleb's choice and that's a big thing that's holding back hydrogen development as well. sadly the infrastructure is a huge problem and nobody takes alternative engines serious enough to really develop a hydrogen infrastructure. so big manufacturers just make a few battery shitboxes for image reasons but secretly plan on making ICE / Hybdrid powered cars for many more years.

>>17269438
>want to go for a ride
>bike is flat
>car is ded
poor guy

>>17269464
>All signs point towards it
No they don't. Signs actually point away from it. The heart of the science actually suggest that people's impact is pretty insignificant in climate change. We account for less than 1% of CO2 Δ. There has been much more correlation with the suns cycles and desertification, which are both known natural cycles. It's why the projections made my "climate scientist" are consistently off, or have to me strongly manipulated to be shown correct.
> I'd rather protect the environment to find out that it was unnecessary than destroy the environment to find out it would've required protection. Better safe than sorry.
Good think you don't decide things for everyone else.

>>17269487
>Signs actually point away from it.
Do they now?

>>17269498
Read the rest of the comment, neck beard.

>>17269500
The rest of the comment are just more unfounded statements.

File: IMG_20170517_064608~2.jpg (1MB, 2182x2357px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2182x2357px

>>17269485
>TFW bought $40k electric car
>20 hour charge time from "13" hour charger

>>17269510
you need one of those Superchargers™ that charge (destroy) your 500kg of batteries within 30 minutes :^)

>>17269507
>The rest of the comment are just more unfounded statements.
>The heart of the science actually suggest that people's impact is pretty insignificant in climate change.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01b8d137162b970c-pi
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01bb08197ca6970d-pi
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01a73e1546d8970d-pi

You consume too much fake news.

>>17269541
Great graphs, but they're all garbage because the climate isn't limited to the atmosphere.

>>17269547
>>post evidence
>G-g-g-reat graphs anon but even though they refute a major argument for human caused global climate change, the occasional oil spill makes up for that, even though oil used to seep through the ground before we started pumping it.
You're one of those useful idiots, aren't you. Have you ever actually looked a the raw methodology and data or are you just repeating Don Lemon and Bill Nye the I'm-and-engineer-and-not-a-Science Guy, or Neil Tyson - who is also not a climate scientist nor an academic.

>>17269353
How long until the relics that control copyright laws that are even older than the fossil fuel start hunting people that download custom engine sounds for the electric cars?

>>17269569
>Neil Tyson - who is also not a climate scientist nor an academic
And this is why I can't take you people seriously. You think you can get away with just flat-out lying.

>he completed a bachelor's degree in physics at Harvard University in 1980. After receiving a master's degree in astronomy at the University of Texas at Austin in 1983, he earned his master's (1989) and doctorate (1991) in astrophysics at Columbia University.

>>17269353
40 or 50 years.

>>17269435
The main issue isn't storing or making Hydrogen. Its transporting it, there's no existing infrastructure to transport it like petroleum products.

They're also looking into ways of storing it using non-traditional means, like in easily releasable compounds and tank designs that rely on geometry and construction of the tank rather than pressurization.

>>17269608
>In 1994, Tyson joined the Hayden Planetarium as a staff scientist while he was a research affiliate in Princeton University. He became acting director of the planetarium in June 1995 and was appointed director in 1996. As director, he oversaw the planetarium's $210 million reconstruction project, which was completed in 2000.
>become director in less than a year
>don't actually do scientific research
https://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/a_scientists_un/
>After director, become TV personality. Keep getting facts wrong on show that is based around your profession.
http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/16/another-day-another-quote-fabricated-by-neil-degrasse-tyson/
>Get involved in politics and fabricate shit there too
https://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/forget_cosmos_h/
>turns out fabrications are well documented with this individual
>only notable achievement of any merit value was removing pluto from planetary status.
Wew, you're setting the bar high, aren't you.

>>17269353
To phase out ICE you need to make electric cars economically viable for everyone, and with everyone I mean that they their initial cost must be comparable to a B/C-segment car with no practical drawbacks. This means batteries must become dirt cheap to produce, have good operational life, and have a high energy density.

This for DD cars, shit that need to bring you from home to work and viceversa, and scoot you around town, because of course they make up most of the world's demand. Then you'd need to find practical solutions for long-range car travel, freight transport, and heavy-duty vehicles, not counting the aerospace industry, where you need a lot of power at as low weight as possible.

File: 1494172470954.jpg (65KB, 640x619px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 640x619px

>>17269700
>Evolution News
>The articles published at Evolution News are copyright by Discovery Institute
>The Discovery Institute (DI) is a non-profit public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design (ID).
AAAAHAHAAHAHAHHHAAHAHHA is this the kind of websites you use to shape your scientific understanding?

>OP ignores the one person that actually has an electric car and says it's shit

>>17269810
>tries to discredit article
>article links to credible news sources
>makes you look like a delfectionist
wew. really fell into that one, didn't you.
The only think you're missing from this argument is ad hominem and red herring in place of an argument, but the day is young.

>>17269353
In about 10 years mark my fucking words

Germany and California want to ban sales of new petrol cars by 2030.

File: IMG_20170516_165157.jpg (3MB, 2610x4640px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2610x4640px

>take 5.5 mile commute to work
>Uses 8 miles of "range"

Electric will never take off

>>17269455
It can be mitigated, but that doesn't mean it's good. Hydrogen has a habit of going straight though materials like metal since, you know, hydrogen is the smallest thing on the periodic table.

>>17269353
Tesla still hasn't made a dollar.

On top of that those cars can't run a race. Normies just think they are fast because they fell for the viral marketing scheme Elon cooked. up.

LUDICRIS MODE LMAO

>>17270393
>was the heat on?
>did you use regen braking?
>did you accelerate hard a lot?

>>17270901
they make 20% profit on each S and X sold. they just keep burning through money to expand the business.

there is a reason why you don't see people in the West making a new car company from nothing, besides a few high end sports car makers.

it is just too capital intensive to make it work with out government help.

>>17270901
the p100d has a 2.28s 0-60. Acceleration drops after the quarter mile but you really have to specify what you mean in "races"

Steam is the future.

about another 10 to 15 years i think alot of commuter appliance cars will be replaced by electric.

File: IMG_20170516_170355.jpg (3MB, 4640x2610px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4640x2610px

>>17270946
This thing was fully loaded. Heated seats, heated steering wheel. Both hardly worked. I was never able to get the heater to work, turned the temperature up and it would just blow cold. So left all that worthless crap off. Regen is an automatic thing and also used the "L" which regens even harder.

File: 5d9ea9c3bab2d4a62a98da019164ee81.jpg (26KB, 465x455px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 465x455px

>>17269510
>he didn't buy an i3

File: 936.jpg (31KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 625x626px

>>17269353
>How long do you think until the petrol engine is phased out by electric?
Never

>>17269353
I feel like before electric cars account for 50.1% of new vehicles sold we will have regressed to need-based instead of want-based societally, thereby making the thought of electric cars unattainable/unrealistic

Some of the first "cars" to come out were electric... I happen to think we're at the same spot laterally as a planet, just headed in the opposite direction

>>17271031
>YFW electricity cost surpasses gas
The grid can't handle a nation of electric cars. The price will be prohibitive.

Hopefully soon
>bull shit speed limits enforced by Nazi cock sucking cops everywhere
>tinted windows are illegal
>not wearing a seatbelt is illegal

Just fucking end it already

>>17269370
This.
Battery tech just isn't good enough

>>17269353
A long time unless someone whips groundbreaking battery tech out their asshole.

>>17269363
This, I have a Volt, it's kind of shit, but the concept is pretty solid.
>When you realize that constantly running at peak power fixes both of the major problems of rotaries, shit power at low RPMs and flexing due to imbalanced thermal expansion.

Rotary range extenders when

>>17272868
Sorry about whatever shithole you live in.

>>17273014
There is just to many fucking state troopers how fucking boring is their job

>>17272587
What's the point when they would charge the same?

>>17269821>>17269810

BTFO