Zerocarbonista: Taking the Wind Out of Tesla’s Sales, Or Just Taking the Mickey?

• Back to Top
• End of Comments

9 Comments on “Zerocarbonista: Taking the Wind Out of Tesla’s Sales, Or Just Taking the Mickey?...”

• 	Stein X Leikanger December 4th, 2008 at 8:11 am
  He points out something that is absolutely obvious. Why have the traditional car/oil companies been so unwilling to go electric? And why have they championed hydrogen? One answer: moving from oil to hydrogen retains the processing and supply infrastructure – nothing changes. With electric, you suddenly skip the need for everything between electric plant and plug into car. Which terrifies the supply chain and gas station owners.
  Login to reply

• 	Jared December 4th, 2008 at 9:26 am
  Why have the traditional car/oil companies been so unwilling to go electric? Gosh, that is such a valid question. After all, it couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that: - batteries are very bulky and heavy - batteries are very, very expensive - no one has been able to build an electric car that has a range of 300+ miles and can be recharged in 5 minutes. Conspiracy theories aside, battery technology isn’t there and won’t be there for many, many decades.
  Login to reply

• 	RedStapler December 4th, 2008 at 9:48 am
  There are plenty of EVs that can manage 80-100 miles, fully charge in 8 hours or half change in 2-4. When I liven in California I knew a guy who did an extreme commute in his Electric Ford Ranger 120mi daily. I agree that the EVs not requiring fluid changes, timing belts, blinker fluid etc etc upend the traditional business model of after sales parts and service profits.
  Login to reply

• 	Stein X Leikanger December 4th, 2008 at 10:08 am
  @Jared, It is absolutely a valid question, and your points are moot. If powering cars using electricity had been taken seriously, then we would be well on our way to solve many of the battery issues you voice. And it’s not at all a question of conspiracy theories, it’s called protectionism, and it is something that powers great and small have engaged in since time immemorial. Smart business sense. If you have sunk oodles into refineries, pipelines, trucks, gas stations, etc. – you’re loath to suddenly see that become irrelevant.
  Login to reply

• 	Richard Chen December 4th, 2008 at 11:36 am
  Related: Project Better Place, with Nissan EV’s, a boatload of rechargers, and swappable battery packs, looks like it’s coming to Hawaii in a couple of years.
  Login to reply

• 	cdotson December 4th, 2008 at 11:51 am
  While I haven’t watched the video (present firewall blocks it) I’m not convinced that the existing petrochemical infrastructure would be in any way relevant to hydrogen fuel production/transportation. I’m guessing that many of the pipes/tanks/etc. used for petroleum are made of steel which can leak hydrogen like a sieve not to mention become significantly more brittle via hydrogen diffusion. Most hydrogen production that has been discussed has been via water electrolysis which would be better accomplished in proximity to nuclear power generating facilities leaving refineries irrelevant. I think the real reason that the “hydrogen economy” has been touted/supported is that it’s some blue-sky ideal sufficiently separated from present reality that we can kid many people into thinking “it won’t be long now…” and the world will be a happy place…all the while continuing business as usual. Not that there’s anything inherently wrong with business as usual, but hydrogen is just the right carrot at the end of the stick that keeps the dumb mules slaving away while never getting any closer to the (impossible) goal. Protectionism-yes; not to translate assets into a particular future mold but to mold the future around the present assets.
  Login to reply

• 	Dr. Remulac December 4th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
  Firewall blocks me as well. But judging from title and posts I think I get the gist. The main reason battery technology is not the cure all is because of something so basic: Energy Density. Batteries don’t have it, hydrogen (not compressed) doesn’t have it. Oil does. Compressed hydrogen is in the league of oil, but compressed liquid hydrogen is no picnic. Now from an energy use standpoint. There is no benefit to battery powered car compared to a petroleum powerd one. Look at Tesla’s website numbers and you’ll see their flaw. They assume the most modern, most efficient natural gas combined cycle turbine electric plants as their baseline electric power producer.
  Login to reply

• 	rainbowmindrita December 4th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
  high hopes and figment sof the future…but if you want to gift me one to save a ew hydrocarbon releases into the atmosphere I won’t complain. And it looks a bit like my first two cars~1967 Shelby GT500’s!! Rita
  Login to reply

• 	rainbowmindrita December 4th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
  Crickey-I have been booted? I feel the need for air powered vehicless or solar..as in off the ground and eliminate the road ways…flying about about in gliders would relieve us of the use of yet another environmentaly devastating hydrocarbon~icky sticky black tarry roadways. Poisonous wastelands criss cross our planet’s surface. :D…About time everyone is waking up to the idea of using our resources wisely..they are limited even though most will delay and suspend the notion that the supply is endless..duh world~we are the great destroyers…use your yard as a garden, not a lawn..you will need your own food before long. R
  Login to reply