Most car journeys, statistically, consist of 1.2 people (or thereabouts) and that was the logic behind the MCC Smart.. however for when you DO want that back row of seats, you're stuffed. And that is why, brilliant in so many ways the Smart is, has ultimately cost Mercedes to make them since day one. Much the same with electric, if we could all afford two cars, somehow, then a simple electric vehicle for the daily commute would be fabulous, and I'd get/rent/lease/borrow/share one tomorrow, save wear on Pissy's Michelins for the weekend.. Ina way, we need to structurally alter our society to enable us to both nip to work in 10 mins, as well as drive to Scotland and back to politically visit that distant relative. With electric we can't do that.
The other option (which baffles me why this isnt the norm) is you pay to own the car.. but lease the batteries. Turn up at the fuel station, simply lift out the suit-case sized battery, plug it into the charger, and pick up the already-charged battery pack next to it. Every time a battery is plugged in its health is downloaded, and at such time that they're becoming old, they get replaced by 'the company', all covered by your monthly lease fee. Eradicating crisp-packet and chewing-gum ruined shared cars, as you only 'share' the powercell.
However, fuel cell is blatantly the way of the future, I agree.
You're halfway there, but have avoided the science/engineering/practicalities.
Working backwards:
Fuel cells are just another inefficient way of packaging energy in a way that it can be used to propel a vehicle. Their biggest advantage is low pollution at the point of use, but that largely is cancelled out by the processes used to separate the hydrogen.
Fossil fuels have this at both ends of their cycle; the massive chemical plants required to convert oil into fuel
and when it's burnt.
Your swapping of a suitcase size battery sounds good, but they simply aren't big enough to provide a useful amount of energy. Renault had a scheme for doing this procedure, which required dropping a much biger battery pack out the bottom on a ramp. Google Renault Fluence. It went bankrupt very quickly.
All of the three systems are mature technology: they all produce workable vehicles. They all have some serious flaws, one of which is shared: the requirement to carry around your own stash of dangerous chemicals. After that you have emissions, lack of range, recharge times etc, etc.
The biggest problems with both electric and hydrogen is the lack of infra-structure, which is what Tesla are
actually working towards. Let's not forget that the electricity required to charge a battery or fill a fuel cell has to come from somewhere. Most of the world uses fossil fuels for that.
The reasoning behind the Smart was sound, but it didn't go far enough and it certainly doesn't allow for human nature. Most of us simply don't
want that sort of vehicle, even if it fits our needs. It didn't help that the engine and gearbox were so awful to use. The inherent Smart compromises actually match the battery vehicle compromises very well.
The real problem is that we're continually promised a replacement for fossil fuel vehicles, yet the solutions are all useful additions.
The real improvement will come from the vehicles themselves and the way we use them. Cars have become huge, bloated and heavy for no practical gain. Just compare a mk1 Golf's dimensions with the current model which does the same job of moving four people and some luggage in comfort.
We've become so used to being able to go wherever we want, whenever we want that we've become blind to the expenditure required to do so. This is a social and political problem, which means it's unsolvable without a radical reason to do so. Those are never good.
Author
Topic: Part Two of Tesla Masterplan (Read 2369 times)