The End For Electric Cars? VW Develops New Hydrogen Tech: 2,000 Km On A Single Tank

Primavera said:
Is that the best you can do? Truly piss poor if so!


The Imaginary Climate Crisis: How can we Change the Message? A talk by Richard Lindzen

The Irish Climate Science Forum (ICSF) in cooperation with CLINTEL hosted a lecture by the world-renowned climate scientist Richard Lindzen. The online lecture was attended by around 200 people from around the world (including a group of climate activists who disturbed the talk. The recorded talk can be viewed here.

Professor Lindzen kindly agreed that his written speech could be posted here at CLINTEL. It follows below.


Richard S. Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT

For about 33 years, many of us have been battling against climate hysteria. We have correctly noted

The exaggerated sensitivity,
The role of other processes and natural internal variability,
The inconsistency with the paleoclimate record,
The absence of evidence for increased extremes, hurricanes, etc. and so on.

We have also pointed out the very real benefits of CO2 and even of modest warming. And, as concerns government policies, we have been pretty ineffective. Indeed our efforts have done little other than to show (incorrectly) that we take the threat scenario seriously. In this talk, I want to make a tentative analysis of our failure.

In punching away at the clear shortcomings of the narrative of climate alarm, we have, perhaps, missed the most serious shortcoming: namely, that the whole narrative is pretty absurd. Of course, many people (though by no means all) have great difficulty entertaining this possibility. They can’t believe that something so absurd could gain such universal acceptance. Consider the following situation. Your physician declares that your complete physical will consist in simply taking your temperature. This would immediately suggest something wrong with your physician. He further claims that if your temperature is 37.3C rather than between 36.1C and 37.2C you must be put on life support. Now you know he is certifiably insane. The same situation for climate (a comparably complex system with a much more poorly defined index, globally averaged temperature anomaly) is considered ‘settled science.’

In case you are wondering why this index is remarkably poor. I suspect that many people believe that there is an instrument that measures the Earth’s temperature. As most of you know, that is not how the record was obtained.

Obviously, the concept of an average surface temperature is meaningless. One can’t very well average the Dead Sea with Mt. Everest. Instead, one takes 30 year annual or seasonal means at each station and averages the deviations from these averages. The results are referred to as annual or seasonal mean anomalies. In the following figures, we see the station data in black and the mean anomalies in orange. The spread of anomalies is much larger than the rather small range of change seen in the average. While the average does show a trend, most of the time there are almost as many stations cooling as there are stations warming. The figure you are familiar with omits the data points, expands the scale by about an order of magnitude (and usually smooths the curve as well). The total change in the mean is much smaller than what we experience over a day, a week or over any longer period. This is illustrated in the fourth figure. The residue we refer to as the index is pretty negligible. It may not even be a good measure of climate at all. Instead of emphasizing this, we look for problems at individual stations. This, I would suggest, is somewhat myopic.

We are bombarded with claims that the impacts of this climate change include such things as obesity and the Syrian civil war. The claims of impacts are then circularly claimed to be overwhelming evidence of dangerous climate change. It doesn’t matter that most of these claims are wrong and/or irrelevant. It doesn’t matter that none of these claims can be related to CO2 except via model projections. In almost all cases, even the model projections are non-existent. Somehow, the sheer volume of misinformation seems to overwhelm us. In case, you retain any skepticism, there is John Kerry’s claim that climate (unlike physics and chemistry) is simple enough for any child to understand. Presumably, if you can’t see the existential danger of CO2, you’re a stupid denier.

And, in case this situation isn’t sufficiently bizarre, there is the governmental response. It is entirely analogous to a situation that a colleague, Bruce Everett, described. After your physical, your physician tells you that you may have a fatal disease. He’s not really sure, but he proposes a treatment that will be expensive and painful while offering no prospect of preventing the disease. When you ask why you would ever agree to such a thing, he says he just feels obligated to “do something”. That is precisely what the Paris Accord amounts to. However, the ‘something’ also gives governments the power to control the energy sector and this is something many governments cannot resist. Information is unlikely to change this despite the fact that even the UN’s IPCC acknowledges that their warming claims would only reduce the immensely expanded GDP by about 2-3% by the end of the century – something that is trivially manageable and hardly ‘existential.’

Feeblemindedness
In trying to understand the success of this claim that climate change due to CO2 is an existential threat, I propose to look at an analogous scare: the widespread fear in the US in the early 20th Century of an epidemic of feeblemindedness. I will also return to C.P. Snow’s two-culture description in order to see why the alarmist scenario appeals primarily to the so-called educated elite rather than to the common people.

Over twenty five years ago, I wrote a paper comparing the panic in the US in the early 1920’s over an alleged epidemic of feeblemindedness with the current fear of cataclysmic climate change. ((1996) Science and politics: global warming and eugenics. in Risks, Costs, and Lives Saved, R. Hahn, editor, Oxford University Press, New York, 267pp (Chapter 5, 85-103))

During this early period, the counterpart of Environmentalism was Eugenics. Instead of climate physics as the underlying science, we had genetics. And instead of overturning the energy economy, we had immigration restriction. Both advocacy movements were characteristically concerned with purity: environmentalism with the purity of the environment, eugenics with the purity of the gene pool. Interestingly, Eugenics did not start with a focus on genes. It was started around 1880 by biometricians who used statistical analysis to study human evolution. Among them were some of the founders of modern statistics like Pearson and Fisher. Given the mathematically sophisticated origin of the movement, it should come as no surprise that it didn’t really catch on. It only became popular and fashionable when Mendelian genetics was rediscovered around 1900, and things like feeble mindedness were suggested to be associated with a single recessive gene. It is pretty clear that such movements need an easily understood, allegedly scientific but actually pretty absurd narrative. The people needing such narratives are not the ordinary citizen, but rather our educated elites. Prominent supporters of eugenics included Theodore Roosevelt, Margaret Sanger, the racist founder of Planned Parenthood, the Bishop of Ripon, George Bernard Shaw, Havelock Ellis, and many others. The supporters also included technically adept individuals who were not expert in genetics. Alexander Graham Bell for example. They also need a policy goal. In the early 1920’s, Americans became concerned with immigration, and it was argued that America was threatened with an epidemic of feeblemindedness due allegedly to immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe.

Details of this situation are in my paper which you can request by email. The major takeaway points are the following:

Elites are always searching for ways to advertise their virtue and assert the authority they believe they are entitled to. They view science as source of authority rather than a process, and they try to appropriate science, suitably and incorrectly simplified, as the
Movements need goals, and these goals are generally embedded in legislation.

The effect of legislation long outlasts the alleged science. The Immigration Reduction Act of 1924 remained until 1964. As long as scientists are rewarded for doing so, they are unlikely to oppose the exploitation of science.

Read much more:

https://clintel.org/the-imaginary-c...change-the-message-a-talk-by-richard-lindzen/
Click to expand...

.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Using China electrical production and GREET, the average EV in China will produce less GHG at about 40K.
Click to expand...

You mean any EV battery made in China, not the EVs in China.

And it's 40k only if you believe that China is altruistic and telling the truth. They are only in it for the profit and to take down America just like the rest of the globalist hoaxers.

They probably use COAL to make most of their batteries since coal is way cheaper and gives them a bigger Profit margin.
 
Bigdog said:
You mean any EV battery made in China, not the EVs in China.

And it's 40k only if you believe that China is altruistic and telling the truth. They are only in it for the profit and to take down America just like the rest of the globalist hoaxers.

They probably use COAL to make most of their batteries since coal is way cheaper and gives them a bigger Profit margin.
Click to expand...

Only EVs in China are using the electricity made in China. What do you think isn't true about the numbers GREET uses? Does coal burn differently in China than it does anywhere else in the world?
GREET uses the percent of electricity from coal in China to calculate the GHG produced.
 
Stringfellow Hawk said:
down around Atlanta they have quick charge stations and they charge like $43, takes 45 minutes to an hour
Click to expand...

I guess that isn't too bad. Still, there's very few charging stations around here. None outside of town that I know of and I see very few electric cars, even in the small towns.
 
Here's Why Toyota's New Hydrogen Car is the Future (Goodbye Tesla), DIY and car review with Scotty Kilmer.

Toyota Mirai hydrogen car review. Are Toyotas the best cars to buy or Tesla? Should I buy a Toyota? Are Toyotas reliable? Does Toyota make good hydrogen cars? Everything you need to know about Toyota Mirai vs Tesla's electric cars. Car Advice. DIY car repair with Scotty Kilmer, an auto mechanic for the last 54 years.

 
Last edited:
.
I remember Rune continually disparaging hydrogen because of embrittlement, too expensive, unsafe and a host of other reasons. Will he man up now and say he was wrong?
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Only EVs in China are using the electricity made in China. What do you think isn't true about the numbers GREET uses? Does coal burn differently in China than it does anywhere else in the world?
GREET uses the percent of electricity from coal in China to calculate the GHG produced.
Click to expand...

We were talking about the energy sources used to produce EV batteries in China. Which makes over 80% of the globe's eV batteries.

GREET only uses the information the Communist Chinese provide it.

The Chinese lie to their own people, why wouldn't they lie to you and GREET?
 
Primavera said:
Here's Why Toyota's New Hydrogen Car is the Future (Goodbye Tesla), DIY and car review with Scotty Kilmer.

Toyota Mirai hydrogen car review. Are Toyotas the best cars to buy or Tesla? Should I buy a Toyota? Are Toyotas reliable? Does Toyota make good hydrogen cars? Everything you need to know about Toyota Mirai vs Tesla's electric cars. Car Advice. DIY car repair with Scotty Kilmer, an auto mechanic for the last 54 years.

Click to expand...


BMW and Toyota just gave hydrogen cars a big vote of confidence

The two automakers will work together to jointly develop hydrogen fuel-cell-powered cars that we could see as early as 2025.

When it comes to eco-friendly vehicles, most people think batteries over hydrogen. A new partnership between BMW and Toyota, however, may be giving the latter approach a desperately-needed publicity boost. Pieter Nota, BMW’s sales chief told Nikkei that BMW will be mass-producing and selling fuel-cell EVs made with Toyota as early as 2025.

Toyota has a longer history working on hydrogen fuel cell EVs and recently showed off its 2022 Mirai that can get up to a 400-mile range. BMW is also working on hydrogen technology and is looking to produce its iX5 Hydrogen before the end of the year.

Toyota 2022 Mirai
The Toyota Mirai starts at $49,500.Toyota
This partnership between the two car makers means they’re both committed to pursuing hydrogen fuel cells as an alternative to the more popular battery-powered electric vehicles. Although, you could also see this move as just another way to persuade customers to ditch their internal combustion engine cars.

BUSTED BEVS — On its own, Toyota is a little behind when it comes to battery-powered EVs. So far, the bZ4X is its only available BEV, and it’s having a pretty rough introduction to the market with a recent major recall. For Toyota, partnering with BMW could be a way to solidify its position early in the hydrogen fuel-cell-powered EV market, particularly after fumbling so poorly with BEVs.

BMW is a little more invested in BEVs than Toyota, with several models available already and plenty more on the way, including its i4 eDrive35 and its iX SUV. BMW does seem to have given its vote of confidence on hydrogen-powered cars with this partnership with Toyota, though.

MORE EV OPTIONS — Toyota may have been one of the first major car makers to test the waters with hydrogen-powered EVs, but it’s clear that battery-powered EVs are dominating the market. Hydrogen fuel cells definitely have their benefits compared to traditional batteries, like not sacrificing range in extremely cold temps and being much faster to charge. When you take one look at the EV market, it’s clear that batteries are clearly the more popular option.

Now that these two major companies have committed to building more hydrogen-powered EVs, it could make hydrogen-powered cars a more serious contender to battery-powered EVs. We’ll have to wait and see what comes out of Toyota and BMW’s partnership, but having more EVs options — be it hydrogen-powered or battery-powered — is another solid step forward for the overall auto market.

https://www.inputmag.com/tech/bmw-toyota-hydrogen-car-partnership-electric-vehicles
 
Last edited:
Primavera said:
BMW and Toyota just gave hydrogen cars a big vote of confidence

The two automakers will work together to jointly develop hydrogen fuel-cell-powered cars that we could see as early as 2025.

When it comes to eco-friendly vehicles, most people think batteries over hydrogen. A new partnership between BMW and Toyota, however, may be giving the latter approach a desperately-needed publicity boost. Pieter Nota, BMW’s sales chief told Nikkei that BMW will be mass-producing and selling fuel-cell EVs made with Toyota as early as 2025.

Toyota has a longer history working on hydrogen fuel cell EVs and recently showed off its 2022 Mirai that can get up to a 400-mile range. BMW is also working on hydrogen technology and is looking to produce its iX5 Hydrogen before the end of the year.

Toyota 2022 Mirai
The Toyota Mirai starts at $49,500.Toyota
This partnership between the two car makers means they’re both committed to pursuing hydrogen fuel cells as an alternative to the more popular battery-powered electric vehicles. Although, you could also see this move as just another way to persuade customers to ditch their internal combustion engine cars.

BUSTED BEVS — On its own, Toyota is a little behind when it comes to battery-powered EVs. So far, the bZ4X is its only available BEV, and it’s having a pretty rough introduction to the market with a recent major recall. For Toyota, partnering with BMW could be a way to solidify its position early in the hydrogen fuel-cell-powered EV market, particularly after fumbling so poorly with BEVs.

BMW is a little more invested in BEVs than Toyota, with several models available already and plenty more on the way, including its i4 eDrive35 and its iX SUV. BMW does seem to have given its vote of confidence on hydrogen-powered cars with this partnership with Toyota, though.

MORE EV OPTIONS — Toyota may have been one of the first major car makers to test the waters with hydrogen-powered EVs, but it’s clear that battery-powered EVs are dominating the market. Hydrogen fuel cells definitely have their benefits compared to traditional batteries, like not sacrificing range in extremely cold temps and being much faster to charge. When you take one look at the EV market, it’s clear that batteries are clearly the more popular option.

Now that these two major companies have committed to building more hydrogen-powered EVs, it could make hydrogen-powered cars a more serious contender to battery-powered EVs. We’ll have to wait and see what comes out of Toyota and BMW’s partnership, but having more EVs options — be it hydrogen-powered or battery-powered — is another solid step forward for the overall auto market.

https://www.inputmag.com/tech/bmw-toyota-hydrogen-car-partnership-electric-vehicles
Click to expand...

.
 
Joe Capitalist said:
Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles aren’t likely to catch up to EVs. MAGA wets panties.
A new study published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature has confirmed what common sense has made clear for years: Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles aren’t likely to catch up to battery-electric vehicles – even for commercial trucks.

The auto industry has been divided on solutions to remove emissions from their products.

Most have been betting on battery-electric vehicles(BEV), but a few automakers have insisted on trying to make fuel cell hydrogen powertrains work.

Toyota, Hyundai, and GM have been the most resistant in giving up on the technology, which also can achieve zero-emission transport, but it is much less efficient than BEVs.

For passenger cars, it’s already game over for fuel cells (FCEV).

Some of the biggest FCEV programs in the world, like the Toyota Mirai and Hyundai Nexo, have failed to gain any reactions after years and billions invested in them.

Aside from the full energy cycle of FCEVs being so much less efficient (three times less efficient, as shown in the chart below), the infrastructure seems to be the main problem.

MAGA wets panties
Click to expand...

Actually, at some point fuel cell cars, be it on hydrogen, anhydrous ammonia, or something else, will bury battery cars. Battery cars have always ended up a niche vehicle as early as 1911 when Edison tried to build one--much like Tesla.

Edison-Electric-Car.jpg
 
Primavera said:
Need to keep a watchful eye out for this in future.
Click to expand...


despite all the talk from car companies re EV, most of them are putting serious money into Hydrogen ones with a number of them coming out with models for sale.

all I can think is that they hope to get the public at least considering stepping away from ICEs. they realize EVs have limited practicality but are getting some attention. Its a pretty quick switch from an EV platform to Hydrogen (powering electric motors) so not as great a shift as you might think.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Actually, at some point fuel cell cars, be it on hydrogen, anhydrous ammonia, or something else, will bury battery cars. Battery cars have always ended up a niche vehicle as early as 1911 when Edison tried to build one--much like Tesla.

Edison-Electric-Car.jpg
Click to expand...



batteries die and are a landfill disaster.
 
Primavera said:
.
This looks promising, it looks like hydrogen fuel call techology may finally come of age.

VW may have developed a major hydrogen breakthrough…cars could travel 2000 km on a single tank of fuel. VW often rails against hydrogen cars, but the German automaker is reported to have filed a patent that could mean a major breakthrough for hydrogen powered vehicles, reports Patrick Freiwa of the German Kreiszeitung here. Though the latest trend has been electric cars, these have also a number of technical drawbacks like range, cost, mining and weight. Moreover there is also the problem of how to dispose of millions of tons of batteries at the end of their lives.

Files patent
Despite VW having railed against hydrogen technology for cars, the automaker has “filed a patent for a special fuel cell with the Saxon company Kraftwerk Tubes GmbH,” thus making it clear that the auto giant is indeed pushing hydrogen technology. With the new technology from VW, the company looks to set itself apart from the rest of the field, which has focused on fuel cell technology.

According to the Kreiszeitung: “The main difference to the fuel cells of Hyundai and Toyota is that VW has set on a ceramic diaphragm instead of the usual plastic diaphragm and is the only manufacturer of this technology that produces the ceramic membrane in such a way that the fuel cell can be started quickly.” The advantages are lower production costs and the elimination of platinum.

Up to 2000 km range
“The target for the breakthrough of this form of mobility is considered to be the so-called solid-state cell battery,” reports the Kreiszeitung. VW predicts shorter refueling times with the innovative technology. “We can travel up to 2,000 kilometers on a single tank of fuel,” says the VW engineer Sascha Kuhn. If true, electric cars will be left in the dust.

https://notrickszone.com/2022/04/12...-technology-2000-km-on-a-single-tank-of-fuel/
Click to expand...

So is the electric car dead yet? I'm sorry I fell asleep :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top