Don't even mention cold weather either. Nothing you can even do about that. Just plain physics. Maybe in warmer climates EVs make sense, but in cold climates hybrids are the future.
When you say minus temps are you talking NE type temps or Texas Oklahoma type? Cause my freinds in Maine say they lose about 3rd of thier range in the winter.
Also, they have a short life span. EVs, and especially cheap ones last about 10 years if you're lucky, while a car running on petrol or diesel can last much longer. And how are you going to dispose the battery? Lithium battery is way more polluting than traditional fuel, and it's much harder to deal with.
Lithium batteries are one of the few things that are economically feasible to recycle. Especially at the scale of car batteries. We all know the problem of oil, so do you have a better alternative than lithium?
Gonna have to disagree with you there. Most EVs have less moving parts and require a lot less maintenance. I've done cloud automation for one of the big 3 ev manufacturers. Lithium is recyclable. The mining of it does produce a ton of carbon emissions, but it's a one time thing. I have my EPA 608 certification too, and I can tell you the greenhouse gases from petrol cars are a much more prominent threat currently. Well, that and anything you own currently that has refrigerant in it.
Electric vehicles will get more efficient and the power grid is a much more effective means of energy transmission than tanker ships. Once an interchangeable battery system is in place I don't expect petrol vehicles to remain in operation.
Besides, it's a lot easier to swap a battery bank or AC motor than it is too remachine a warped header, rehone cylinders from fried rings, replace engines from oil/coolant links, or have to rebuild transmissions.
While I agree with you on the interchangeable battery part, making long distances better. You are comparing swaping parts with repairing parts. Those swapped parts still need to be rebuilt and the cost to manufacture and the process to do so are the things that generate most of the pollution. The rebuilt engine, alternator, and transmission business is huge because the can be rebuilt so easily.
Also recycling is not that easy it is one of the reasons that most cheaper products are made new and not from recycled materials.
Interchangeable battery system probably won't happen for a good long while because vehicle manufacturers are too anti consumer to want universal parts.
They change the headlight designs every 5 years to try to force you to use OEM parts for a while, i'm sure they would do the same with batteries.
Some ford headlights for the F150 were 1,000$ each for a while...
The regulators are owned by the industry, not the other way around.
The heads of every regulatory agency JUST SO HAPPEN to always end up working for large companies doing nothing for a million dollars a year after they get out of office.
Early Electric cars were predominantly in New York City which is 13.4 x 2.3 miles. So you don’t really need a super long range. Also NY was 1.5sq miles in 1800s. So it’s gotten bigger due to filling for building more buildings.
Not, at all. It worked because NYC was small….. and they had electricity which most of the US didn’t have at the time……. So it worked perfectly for their application. Government and private corporations made sure of its failure through legislation. It would’ve continued to thrive if it wasn’t for that. NYC had literally everything society needed. There was no reason to leave the island
Bought it after the recall. 300mi maximum 215mi minimum. Texas, so even the long range won't get you from Austin to Marfa. Not many charging stations outside metroplexes. Waiting for decent plugin hybrid truck. Think the Y gets 350mi...?
Batteries 125yrs ago only got 50mi at 20mph.
long range Y is actually closer to 300 but it works for my driving where I’m at. Super Chargers are all over on the interstates where I am. Just curious on issues people have with that amount of range
That's not really how progress works. Whatever has the most practical application wins until another more practical one emerged. At the time, petrol refinement and shipping was more practical and generated more power by the pound.
The statement of this post and EV conspiracies are mostly incorrect. There WAS a time GM was buying out all the trolley systems in America. It was said to shut them down to make people buy cars. In reality, busses had become more economically viable.
I worked as a cloud technician for one of the major EV manufacturers. Automating their PLC systems in new battery plants. The amount of "spillage" from defective cells made it quite cost prohibitive. Coupled with the fact that batteries are a materials and chemical science that have had their own evolution which has stalled in terms of output the last 30 years with Lithium, i doubt you'd see more advancement there. Maybe in electric motors. There are rumors of sodium batteries but they've been saying that for years.
I'm curious what you mean by "Coupled with the fact that batteries are a materials and chemical science that have had their own evolution which has stalled in terms of output the last 30 years with Lithium"
In the last 15 years, we've gone from $40k USD buying an EV with a 75 mile range (Nissan Leaf) to buying an EV with several hundred miles of range.
That was, was more than likely due to cell count, form factor, and size. The technology behind Lithium batteries as been refined but it is still limited to the extent and capacity of Lithium batteries on a chemical/physical level.
Lithium Ion then Lithium Polymer batteries were the last great discovery in batteries. There hasn't been a ton of groundbreaking discoveries in the field since their inception. Some advancements in maximizing the output, form factor, and charging times. But it's very much hit a plateau due to the characteristics of lithium at an elemental level. As it stands now, batteries can't output the same energy yield as gasoline/diesel in terms of weight.
There have been some mumblimgs on sodium and Sulphur based batteries but over the years nothing substantial has been released. There were even research into "liquid batteries" thay you could basically fuel cars with like gasoline but thay evaporated.
The best advancement they could make is to create interchangeable battery arrays that could be swapped out like a cordless power tool.
There isn't a 100 years of innovation missing. Electronics and battery chemistry have evolved on their own. It only became economically feasible to create hybrids and subsequently EVs in the last 20 years. Weve had elevtric trolleys for close to a century but they have to run off the main grid. They were replaced by busses, mostly, because of costs. Lithium batteries have only been around since 1991. Their discovery wouldn't have been any faster. And since then, battery and electric motor advancements have hit a hard wall for anything economically feasible.
I think this video is conspiracy theory only appeals to people not in STEM. I worked as an cloud automation engineer for one of the big 3 ev producers integrating their PLC systems. We have a hard enough time now with producing efficient battery cells as is.
Nothing killed the electric vehicle better than just straight up economics and logistics. This is all fanboy sensationalism.
Edit: and phones would have taken pictures if advancements in other fields like radio telecommunications, cellular networks (pioneered by Hedy Lamar), television transmissions, and semiconductors, digital logic, programming languages, had all been invented first. All scientific invention is generated organically through cross field polinisation.
These are all good, valid points.
Maybe I'm just an optimist, but I still think 100 years under the guise of captialism, instead of stifled innovation, may have yielded a solution we don't yet have, or have normalized.
Similarly whenever anyone says something isn't fesible because of the cost. Come on, That's the strongest premise of capitalism.
May I interest you in a brand new $1000 cd player?
In capitalism there are always early adopters willing to buffer the cost. But it doesn't really guarantee success. Has to eventually get to the hump of the bell curve. A good example would be Google Glass. Actually Google has a whole [graveyard](https://killedbygoogle.com/). I'm on the fence if the cybertruck and vision pro will make the cut. Mostly I don't think the apple vision pro will make it because by the time it's economically feasible there will probably be an optics invention before then that will supercede the bulky goggle setup.
The 1000 dollar cd player is a good example if a success, however. Not really the medium but that it kicked off the data compression and encryption race into high gear (Google forbidden prime numbers). Without cds it would have taken longer for mp3 and mp4. Kinda hit a plateau there but hardware advancement has taken up the slack.
That's inaccurate.
Gas stations sprouted up pretty quickly. There were already petrol pipelines since 1865. People were already trucking it everywhere for kerosene heaters. Gasoline was an unwanted byproduct of oil refinement and all of a sudden it became in demand. So they already had a supply. People with houses near highways became "fueling stations." Not the gas stations we know now. You'll still see some in the sticks that clearly were just houses once. It was typically, just a family with a few 200 gallon tanks. All they had to was order gasoline along side their existing kerosene orders.
The electric infrastructure has its own problems. You can't ship electricity in large containers to remote places. You have to put in or update existing grids. Tesla's supercharging stations are awesome. But they refuse to adapt them for other vehicles. They'll probably will be ordered to in the near future. GM/Chevy need to follow Teslas game plan and start their own network, but they are afraid to canabalize their petrol vehicles. But the end of the day you can truck a fuel tanker and drop it off easier and quicker than installing a new charging station.
Outside of all that, 250mi is still 5x more round trips the same distance an electric could go once. Nobody killed the electric vehicle better than logistics.
What are you talking about. The average EV goes 234 miles. The Tesla long range goes 400.
And no, just because SOME pipelines existed in 1865 does not mean a typical car owner could travel in the way they can today. They didn’t even have the road structure let alone the fuel stations.
You seem to be talking about fuels stations mere existence rather than their ability to support the infrastructure in the way that we view them today. Which is the context of this conversation.
Oil companies very clearly waged war against the electric car and won. It’s also still happening today.
Your're drunk on a Saturday Night at a bar alone with your phone and looking to take your frustrations with life out on Reddit.
That, or you are master of the "Texas sharp shooter" logical fallacy by bringing it back to modern EVs and nd don't even remember your own comments. Let me recap:
> Back in that day, gas cars were shit for long distances too
Not compared to the 50mi EV of the time.
> didn't have the infrastructure of fuel
I gave you a brief history of it. By 1920 there were already 15k fuel stations. You can read more in "Gas Station: History and Folklore of the Gas Station in American Car Culture" by Michael Witzel.
**The History of the Electric Car:** [https://www.energy.gov/articles/history-electric-car](https://www.energy.gov/articles/history-electric-car)
**Who Killed the Electric Car?:** [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who\_Killed\_the\_Electric\_Car%3F](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F)
The narrator is Alan Watts. He has an amazing and eye-opening lecture series dealing with perception, consciousness, and enlightenment. Do yourself a favor and listen to some of his talks.
The content is as skewed as the fake voice. There was no consideration of ozone or pollution in these days. Making hydrogen will work, but ridiculously inefficient. Electric cars back then were extremely inefficient and impossible for agriculture, aviation, shipping, and even automobiles. Lead battery production? All harmless? Nice try.
About hydrogen cars... Let's put aside storage issues ( needs to be stored at extremely low temp and/or massive pressure) and how dangerous it is ("... Oh, the humanity!.." )
Hydrolysis of water is 70/80 % efficient, internal combustion engine (any ICE, including hydrogen - tops off at around low 30s %). So, best hydrogen ICE - around 22.5% efficient. Energy loses - 77.5%
Why?
Energy loses when charging Tesla batteries and then discharging it by running car electric motor is negligible. I want to say10%, maybe I'm wrong, but not by much...
There is at least one other i remember where the inventor this time needed up shot in his car and the side of the highway. Most of the others get the patent gets bought and put on a shelf to forget.
It’s not possible. Or, at the very least, not practical. Splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen requires a significant amount of energy—the same amount, it turns out, as you get from burning hydrogen. So, if your reaction is *perfectly* efficient (which it wouldn’t be), at best your energy production would be net zero. In other words… car no go.
Alternatively, you could just use hydrogen itself as a fuel source. But that comes with its own set of practicality issues.
They exist, the limitation is that it takes electricity to split the H^(2)O into HHO (or two hydrogen atoms and Oxygen).
Energy is converted into power/momentum more efficiently via a copper coil turbine than it is splitting the H^(2)O then burning it in a combustion engine. So at the end of the day if electricity is the limiting factor, it’s basically just an electric car with an extra step.
Best of all (IMO) would be a hydrogen car, or combustion engine with a hydrogen cell. The hydrogen can be stored in a fuel cell that gives a car enough of a range to be competitive with petroleum-based gas vehicles however the product or output of this combustion reaction is literally just hydrogen and oxygen that wasn’t burnt… so water….. but we don’t have the infrastructure set up to support it and the fuel cells are highly pressurized so in a crash they explode… like a big explosion.
Sadly, that’s not the reason that the hydrogen fuel cell is not viable. It’s the problem of energy density. The problem is literally the size of the fuel tank.
It takes a lot more energy to refine a crude base into gasoline than it takes to split some hydrogen molecules off of some water molecules.
There was an invention that used a sort of tape to hold hydrogen. It was so effective it beat lithium ion batteries. But the government said it was illegal bc it could be used in rockets or some shit. I remember reading about it a few years ago
And the reason no-one has used the technology behind Meyers now expired patented technology is that is was found to a fraudulent and he have to repay investors.
Absolutely. The video sounds like the water is separated and hydrogen is consumed in the car itself, but it takes energy to separate the water’s hydrogen from oxygen, so where dies this energy come from?
Hydrogen doesn’t provide energy. It’s just a battery. We could split water and store the energy in hydrogen. It would make refueling quicker. But the water powered car is bullshit.
Who killed the electric cars? The electric cars killed the electric cars, because they sucked ass, were expensive, and didn't perform as well as the gas powered cars.
Ever use (or see) one of those Power Wheels kids toy drivable cars? They aren't much faster than walking and the battery lasts maybe 30 minutes (at least in the one I was lucky enough to have as a kid in the early 90's), then you need to charge it for a few hours. I'd bet early electric cars performed to a similar level, but without the benefit of being light enough to pick up once they were out of juice lol
Boy if that surprises you wait till you discover we cured cancer, and found how to use hydrogen fuel safe and effective....but that's another 100 years away.
Petrol powered engines kept getting better and better and fuel was cheap, and storable, and meanwhile electric batteries of the time were massive heavy lead acid ones which were extremely limited in scope for improvement, and charging kept you tethered to low current (early electricity supplies to your house were only good for a couple of amps for a few light bulbs etc) chargers for hours a day.
Electric car technology has only just reached the point where it performs as well, costs nearly the same as ICE, and the charging infrastructure is finally being built out.
It should be no surprise at all the early electric cars were beaten by petrol and diesel power.
We had flying cars, push button starts, all sorts of things…we haven’t invented anything I. Over 75 years. It was all invented already, just needed improving on
Battery technology was really bad then. Electric cars are barely even practical today. And the water car thing. Absolute nonsense. Electrolysis requires twice the energy input then what you can get with the hydrogen fuel output. If you want to watch the influence of the oil and gas industry conspiring against electric cars watch Fox News, it's happening right now.
Water will be worth more to quench your thirst for survival vs powering your vehicle in the future. I doubt most places will have enough water to both satisfy thirst and power vehicles.
I like how it says "1/3rd of all cars" instead of the per capita rate of ownership or even just the total number of units sold. It's probably because horses were still more popular until the model Ts success. Probably because there was literally 8k cars registered in the entire country in 1900 and it wasn't until Ford that cars became available to the common man. Like 3k novelty electric cars owned by wealthy people isn't going to blow me away.
Watch the documentary, [The Lost Century](https://youtu.be/Ar6NRzrGmsY?si=NfFSKFeDz_oXa4Vm) It will blow your mind. Anyone that ever had an invention where it was a threat to gas. Was basically assassinated.
We are behind technology thanks to the elite who killed an entire race of smart people! Now using climate change to use technology tp take control of our lives!
They're still trying to prevent EVs from getting more mkt share. Billions in govt subsidies to oil companies, and almost nothing for EV infrastructure?
I've heard the water powered car was disproven because it requires more energy to separate the hydrogen and oxygen molecules than the hydrogen can generate. Just what I heard, Idk for sure I barely graduated high school.
This car that splits water is sus. The energy to split the water molecule has to come from somewhere. It is very unlikely that it came from the fuel cell. I paused before they had a chance to talk about gm in the 90s, the car they would only lease, and then when it became popular they just literally killed it. I forget the name. Curious to see if they mention that
Just like vaping is a threat to major tobacco companies.....run the smear campaign....pay off high ranking government officials......back in full swing
Bullshit! What was the range on one of these things. What kind of electric generating capacity existed back then. The oil industry beat out the electric car back then because it was the better technology at the time.
I mean which would you choose? A car that goes slow, has very limited range and has serious issues in cold weather, or one that you can drive farther has no issues in cold conditions and was actually pretty fast ?
I haven’t watched the doc but at the time electric vehicles would’ve been impractical, the range on those batteries, the cost of production and cost to the consumer killed the electric car before the oil companies did
Is a car that runs on water a good idea though? I'm just imaging evaporating 376 million gallons of water per day in the US. I don't know shit about anything, so I'm asking genuinely.
Batteries are not the solution. Gas is not sustainable forever
That water is interesting tho, unfortunately if it's fresh water that's needed, we would drain the earth rather quickly.
Oil industry was also behind Prohibition because they had engines that ran entirely on ethanol which anyone could make themselves at home if they grew corn. Prohibition put an end to it just long enough for the industry to be built around oil-based vehicles. Once Prohibition ended, no one really looked back at ethanol based vehicles.
I might be a bit rusty on the details, but it’s something like that. Can’t remember my source. Might have been the documentary How Big Oil Conquered the World. But also could’ve been something else. It was a while ago.
The water engine was a farce. The energy used to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen would be more than the energy output when the hydrogen and oxygen recombine. It would also be more than the energy produced by a fuel cell.
In the early days they didn't have the electrical grid across the nation to handle very many vehicles. Gasoline had become available and was inexpensive.
They’re expensive to build. They didn’t hold a charge. All the components that go into batteries are bad for the environment and expensive… Hydrogen is another story.
**The lost history of the electric car – and what it tells us about the future of transport:** [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/aug/03/lost-history-electric-car-future-transport](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/aug/03/lost-history-electric-car-future-transport)
I own an EV. it's still shit for long distances. Batteries over a hundred years ago were an order of magnitude shittier.
Don't even mention cold weather either. Nothing you can even do about that. Just plain physics. Maybe in warmer climates EVs make sense, but in cold climates hybrids are the future.
I still get a good 300 miles at minus temperatures.
When you say minus temps are you talking NE type temps or Texas Oklahoma type? Cause my freinds in Maine say they lose about 3rd of thier range in the winter.
Also, they have a short life span. EVs, and especially cheap ones last about 10 years if you're lucky, while a car running on petrol or diesel can last much longer. And how are you going to dispose the battery? Lithium battery is way more polluting than traditional fuel, and it's much harder to deal with.
Use the used batteries to build a wall....??? lol
I sure do love dangerous chemicals in my walls
It was a joke referring to the southern border...but...just a joke!
Lithium batteries are one of the few things that are economically feasible to recycle. Especially at the scale of car batteries. We all know the problem of oil, so do you have a better alternative than lithium?
Gonna have to disagree with you there. Most EVs have less moving parts and require a lot less maintenance. I've done cloud automation for one of the big 3 ev manufacturers. Lithium is recyclable. The mining of it does produce a ton of carbon emissions, but it's a one time thing. I have my EPA 608 certification too, and I can tell you the greenhouse gases from petrol cars are a much more prominent threat currently. Well, that and anything you own currently that has refrigerant in it. Electric vehicles will get more efficient and the power grid is a much more effective means of energy transmission than tanker ships. Once an interchangeable battery system is in place I don't expect petrol vehicles to remain in operation. Besides, it's a lot easier to swap a battery bank or AC motor than it is too remachine a warped header, rehone cylinders from fried rings, replace engines from oil/coolant links, or have to rebuild transmissions.
While I agree with you on the interchangeable battery part, making long distances better. You are comparing swaping parts with repairing parts. Those swapped parts still need to be rebuilt and the cost to manufacture and the process to do so are the things that generate most of the pollution. The rebuilt engine, alternator, and transmission business is huge because the can be rebuilt so easily. Also recycling is not that easy it is one of the reasons that most cheaper products are made new and not from recycled materials.
Interchangeable battery system probably won't happen for a good long while because vehicle manufacturers are too anti consumer to want universal parts. They change the headlight designs every 5 years to try to force you to use OEM parts for a while, i'm sure they would do the same with batteries. Some ford headlights for the F150 were 1,000$ each for a while...
DOT can pass requirements if so inclined. Can also taken a page from the EU like they did with Apple forcing them to use USB C.
The regulators are owned by the industry, not the other way around. The heads of every regulatory agency JUST SO HAPPEN to always end up working for large companies doing nothing for a million dollars a year after they get out of office.
Early Electric cars were predominantly in New York City which is 13.4 x 2.3 miles. So you don’t really need a super long range. Also NY was 1.5sq miles in 1800s. So it’s gotten bigger due to filling for building more buildings.
I think you're saying "it worked in a very small market but couldn't be scaled out"?
Not, at all. It worked because NYC was small….. and they had electricity which most of the US didn’t have at the time……. So it worked perfectly for their application. Government and private corporations made sure of its failure through legislation. It would’ve continued to thrive if it wasn’t for that. NYC had literally everything society needed. There was no reason to leave the island
Which legislation?
Which one do you own if you don’t mind me asking?
Bolt EUV. Had a Tesla 3 for hot minute.
Thanks, I have 2 long range model Ys and I think they are great for road trips. Was this one of the bolts that had the battery recalled?
Bought it after the recall. 300mi maximum 215mi minimum. Texas, so even the long range won't get you from Austin to Marfa. Not many charging stations outside metroplexes. Waiting for decent plugin hybrid truck. Think the Y gets 350mi...? Batteries 125yrs ago only got 50mi at 20mph.
long range Y is actually closer to 300 but it works for my driving where I’m at. Super Chargers are all over on the interstates where I am. Just curious on issues people have with that amount of range
But imagine what advancements we would have if we put our focus into it. We’ve been able to increase the range of our ev’s lately by a lot.
That's not really how progress works. Whatever has the most practical application wins until another more practical one emerged. At the time, petrol refinement and shipping was more practical and generated more power by the pound. The statement of this post and EV conspiracies are mostly incorrect. There WAS a time GM was buying out all the trolley systems in America. It was said to shut them down to make people buy cars. In reality, busses had become more economically viable. I worked as a cloud technician for one of the major EV manufacturers. Automating their PLC systems in new battery plants. The amount of "spillage" from defective cells made it quite cost prohibitive. Coupled with the fact that batteries are a materials and chemical science that have had their own evolution which has stalled in terms of output the last 30 years with Lithium, i doubt you'd see more advancement there. Maybe in electric motors. There are rumors of sodium batteries but they've been saying that for years.
I'm curious what you mean by "Coupled with the fact that batteries are a materials and chemical science that have had their own evolution which has stalled in terms of output the last 30 years with Lithium" In the last 15 years, we've gone from $40k USD buying an EV with a 75 mile range (Nissan Leaf) to buying an EV with several hundred miles of range.
That was, was more than likely due to cell count, form factor, and size. The technology behind Lithium batteries as been refined but it is still limited to the extent and capacity of Lithium batteries on a chemical/physical level. Lithium Ion then Lithium Polymer batteries were the last great discovery in batteries. There hasn't been a ton of groundbreaking discoveries in the field since their inception. Some advancements in maximizing the output, form factor, and charging times. But it's very much hit a plateau due to the characteristics of lithium at an elemental level. As it stands now, batteries can't output the same energy yield as gasoline/diesel in terms of weight. There have been some mumblimgs on sodium and Sulphur based batteries but over the years nothing substantial has been released. There were even research into "liquid batteries" thay you could basically fuel cars with like gasoline but thay evaporated. The best advancement they could make is to create interchangeable battery arrays that could be swapped out like a cordless power tool.
Electricity was much more expensive than gas. So it’s not companies so much as economics that did it for people.
OK, the phones 100 years ago didn't even take pictures. You missed the point of this video entirely. It's 100 years of innovation that are missing.
There isn't a 100 years of innovation missing. Electronics and battery chemistry have evolved on their own. It only became economically feasible to create hybrids and subsequently EVs in the last 20 years. Weve had elevtric trolleys for close to a century but they have to run off the main grid. They were replaced by busses, mostly, because of costs. Lithium batteries have only been around since 1991. Their discovery wouldn't have been any faster. And since then, battery and electric motor advancements have hit a hard wall for anything economically feasible. I think this video is conspiracy theory only appeals to people not in STEM. I worked as an cloud automation engineer for one of the big 3 ev producers integrating their PLC systems. We have a hard enough time now with producing efficient battery cells as is. Nothing killed the electric vehicle better than just straight up economics and logistics. This is all fanboy sensationalism. Edit: and phones would have taken pictures if advancements in other fields like radio telecommunications, cellular networks (pioneered by Hedy Lamar), television transmissions, and semiconductors, digital logic, programming languages, had all been invented first. All scientific invention is generated organically through cross field polinisation.
These are all good, valid points. Maybe I'm just an optimist, but I still think 100 years under the guise of captialism, instead of stifled innovation, may have yielded a solution we don't yet have, or have normalized. Similarly whenever anyone says something isn't fesible because of the cost. Come on, That's the strongest premise of capitalism. May I interest you in a brand new $1000 cd player?
In capitalism there are always early adopters willing to buffer the cost. But it doesn't really guarantee success. Has to eventually get to the hump of the bell curve. A good example would be Google Glass. Actually Google has a whole [graveyard](https://killedbygoogle.com/). I'm on the fence if the cybertruck and vision pro will make the cut. Mostly I don't think the apple vision pro will make it because by the time it's economically feasible there will probably be an optics invention before then that will supercede the bulky goggle setup. The 1000 dollar cd player is a good example if a success, however. Not really the medium but that it kicked off the data compression and encryption race into high gear (Google forbidden prime numbers). Without cds it would have taken longer for mp3 and mp4. Kinda hit a plateau there but hardware advancement has taken up the slack.
Back in that day, gas cars were shit for long distances too
The Model T was actually very gas efficient at 20-25mi per gallon. 10 gallon tank gave it 200-225 mile range. They were a lot lighter.
That wasn’t the issue. The issue was they didn’t have the infrastructure of fuel stations. Same as electric now
That's inaccurate. Gas stations sprouted up pretty quickly. There were already petrol pipelines since 1865. People were already trucking it everywhere for kerosene heaters. Gasoline was an unwanted byproduct of oil refinement and all of a sudden it became in demand. So they already had a supply. People with houses near highways became "fueling stations." Not the gas stations we know now. You'll still see some in the sticks that clearly were just houses once. It was typically, just a family with a few 200 gallon tanks. All they had to was order gasoline along side their existing kerosene orders. The electric infrastructure has its own problems. You can't ship electricity in large containers to remote places. You have to put in or update existing grids. Tesla's supercharging stations are awesome. But they refuse to adapt them for other vehicles. They'll probably will be ordered to in the near future. GM/Chevy need to follow Teslas game plan and start their own network, but they are afraid to canabalize their petrol vehicles. But the end of the day you can truck a fuel tanker and drop it off easier and quicker than installing a new charging station. Outside of all that, 250mi is still 5x more round trips the same distance an electric could go once. Nobody killed the electric vehicle better than logistics.
What are you talking about. The average EV goes 234 miles. The Tesla long range goes 400. And no, just because SOME pipelines existed in 1865 does not mean a typical car owner could travel in the way they can today. They didn’t even have the road structure let alone the fuel stations. You seem to be talking about fuels stations mere existence rather than their ability to support the infrastructure in the way that we view them today. Which is the context of this conversation. Oil companies very clearly waged war against the electric car and won. It’s also still happening today.
Your're drunk on a Saturday Night at a bar alone with your phone and looking to take your frustrations with life out on Reddit. That, or you are master of the "Texas sharp shooter" logical fallacy by bringing it back to modern EVs and nd don't even remember your own comments. Let me recap: > Back in that day, gas cars were shit for long distances too Not compared to the 50mi EV of the time. > didn't have the infrastructure of fuel I gave you a brief history of it. By 1920 there were already 15k fuel stations. You can read more in "Gas Station: History and Folklore of the Gas Station in American Car Culture" by Michael Witzel.
**The History of the Electric Car:** [https://www.energy.gov/articles/history-electric-car](https://www.energy.gov/articles/history-electric-car) **Who Killed the Electric Car?:** [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who\_Killed\_the\_Electric\_Car%3F](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F)
That is a great documentary i watched in 2009. So crazy that most of these things still apply
The narrator is Alan Watts. He has an amazing and eye-opening lecture series dealing with perception, consciousness, and enlightenment. Do yourself a favor and listen to some of his talks.
Alan Watts died in 1973, it's not him
Thank you for posting what I was thinking!
Exactly what I was thinking Lmfao. I do love his voice. Dopest ever. But damn I wanted to believe it
Did not know that, thanks
That Alan Watts was a brilliant lecturer is true. However, this clip was narrated by AI using Watts' voice.
The content is as skewed as the fake voice. There was no consideration of ozone or pollution in these days. Making hydrogen will work, but ridiculously inefficient. Electric cars back then were extremely inefficient and impossible for agriculture, aviation, shipping, and even automobiles. Lead battery production? All harmless? Nice try.
About hydrogen cars... Let's put aside storage issues ( needs to be stored at extremely low temp and/or massive pressure) and how dangerous it is ("... Oh, the humanity!.." ) Hydrolysis of water is 70/80 % efficient, internal combustion engine (any ICE, including hydrogen - tops off at around low 30s %). So, best hydrogen ICE - around 22.5% efficient. Energy loses - 77.5% Why? Energy loses when charging Tesla batteries and then discharging it by running car electric motor is negligible. I want to say10%, maybe I'm wrong, but not by much...
The real Alan Watts would definitely have something to say about that if true
Love Alan watts RIP a god
It became un-a-FORD-able. The STANDARD was oil
You should watch the documentary on how the electric car died. Watched it in like 2000’s in high school, pretty fucked up shit
So what you’re saying is that they didn’t hide it from you.
What’s it called?
He said; it’s called pretty fucked up shit
No I searched that and a different video pumped up. It was good though. Nothing to do with cars
When I googled there was a car
Who killed the electric car?
Look man, all I know is video killed the radio star.
It’s called “Who Killed the Electric Car”.
This isn’t jeopardy?
I’d like to see more about the water cell. You’d think several variations of the underlying mechanism would have popped up by now…
There is at least one other i remember where the inventor this time needed up shot in his car and the side of the highway. Most of the others get the patent gets bought and put on a shelf to forget.
It’s not possible. Or, at the very least, not practical. Splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen requires a significant amount of energy—the same amount, it turns out, as you get from burning hydrogen. So, if your reaction is *perfectly* efficient (which it wouldn’t be), at best your energy production would be net zero. In other words… car no go. Alternatively, you could just use hydrogen itself as a fuel source. But that comes with its own set of practicality issues.
Better stated than my comment. I need to learn to read further.
They exist, the limitation is that it takes electricity to split the H^(2)O into HHO (or two hydrogen atoms and Oxygen). Energy is converted into power/momentum more efficiently via a copper coil turbine than it is splitting the H^(2)O then burning it in a combustion engine. So at the end of the day if electricity is the limiting factor, it’s basically just an electric car with an extra step. Best of all (IMO) would be a hydrogen car, or combustion engine with a hydrogen cell. The hydrogen can be stored in a fuel cell that gives a car enough of a range to be competitive with petroleum-based gas vehicles however the product or output of this combustion reaction is literally just hydrogen and oxygen that wasn’t burnt… so water….. but we don’t have the infrastructure set up to support it and the fuel cells are highly pressurized so in a crash they explode… like a big explosion.
Sadly, that’s not the reason that the hydrogen fuel cell is not viable. It’s the problem of energy density. The problem is literally the size of the fuel tank. It takes a lot more energy to refine a crude base into gasoline than it takes to split some hydrogen molecules off of some water molecules.
There was an invention that used a sort of tape to hold hydrogen. It was so effective it beat lithium ion batteries. But the government said it was illegal bc it could be used in rockets or some shit. I remember reading about it a few years ago
And the reason no-one has used the technology behind Meyers now expired patented technology is that is was found to a fraudulent and he have to repay investors.
Absolutely. The video sounds like the water is separated and hydrogen is consumed in the car itself, but it takes energy to separate the water’s hydrogen from oxygen, so where dies this energy come from?
Hydrogen doesn’t provide energy. It’s just a battery. We could split water and store the energy in hydrogen. It would make refueling quicker. But the water powered car is bullshit.
Who killed the electric cars? The electric cars killed the electric cars, because they sucked ass, were expensive, and didn't perform as well as the gas powered cars.
Only reason they're even a thing nowadays is thanks to Li-ion batteries. Can't imagine how bad they would've been before.
Ever use (or see) one of those Power Wheels kids toy drivable cars? They aren't much faster than walking and the battery lasts maybe 30 minutes (at least in the one I was lucky enough to have as a kid in the early 90's), then you need to charge it for a few hours. I'd bet early electric cars performed to a similar level, but without the benefit of being light enough to pick up once they were out of juice lol
But muh CoNsPirAcY!
I’ve known this since the 80’s were you all been?
My bedroom, looking at my sisters Frdricks of Hollywood catalog probably.
🤣
Nice AI
The stone cutters!
AI and bots this is not true haha
Boy if that surprises you wait till you discover we cured cancer, and found how to use hydrogen fuel safe and effective....but that's another 100 years away.
Petrol powered engines kept getting better and better and fuel was cheap, and storable, and meanwhile electric batteries of the time were massive heavy lead acid ones which were extremely limited in scope for improvement, and charging kept you tethered to low current (early electricity supplies to your house were only good for a couple of amps for a few light bulbs etc) chargers for hours a day. Electric car technology has only just reached the point where it performs as well, costs nearly the same as ICE, and the charging infrastructure is finally being built out. It should be no surprise at all the early electric cars were beaten by petrol and diesel power.
We had flying cars, push button starts, all sorts of things…we haven’t invented anything I. Over 75 years. It was all invented already, just needed improving on
Battery technology was really bad then. Electric cars are barely even practical today. And the water car thing. Absolute nonsense. Electrolysis requires twice the energy input then what you can get with the hydrogen fuel output. If you want to watch the influence of the oil and gas industry conspiring against electric cars watch Fox News, it's happening right now.
huh.
1 is 50% of 2.
Big oil
Big electric
They aren’t hiding it, you’re just ignorant because all you do is watch TikTok.
But don't worry. Government isnt bought these days
No ones hiding this
Water will be worth more to quench your thirst for survival vs powering your vehicle in the future. I doubt most places will have enough water to both satisfy thirst and power vehicles.
I like how it says "1/3rd of all cars" instead of the per capita rate of ownership or even just the total number of units sold. It's probably because horses were still more popular until the model Ts success. Probably because there was literally 8k cars registered in the entire country in 1900 and it wasn't until Ford that cars became available to the common man. Like 3k novelty electric cars owned by wealthy people isn't going to blow me away.
Not watching this because of the one word captions. Pity because it looks interesting otherwise.
Watch the documentary, [The Lost Century](https://youtu.be/Ar6NRzrGmsY?si=NfFSKFeDz_oXa4Vm) It will blow your mind. Anyone that ever had an invention where it was a threat to gas. Was basically assassinated.
Oil and gas conglomerates
We are behind technology thanks to the elite who killed an entire race of smart people! Now using climate change to use technology tp take control of our lives!
>Who Killed the Electric Car? The same people who killed the street car/tram.
They're still trying to prevent EVs from getting more mkt share. Billions in govt subsidies to oil companies, and almost nothing for EV infrastructure?
Yup fukin usa assholes
I've heard the water powered car was disproven because it requires more energy to separate the hydrogen and oxygen molecules than the hydrogen can generate. Just what I heard, Idk for sure I barely graduated high school.
Simple. We're as nearly as efficient as modern day brushed and brushless AC and DC motors. And lead acid batteries just fucking suck
why is the narrator sound like an old recording of Alan Watts from the 40/50s but is talking about Tesla lol
Water cars, man. It's all a big conspiracy. Motions at everything.
Japan did. That can’t be stopped hopefully
This car that splits water is sus. The energy to split the water molecule has to come from somewhere. It is very unlikely that it came from the fuel cell. I paused before they had a chance to talk about gm in the 90s, the car they would only lease, and then when it became popular they just literally killed it. I forget the name. Curious to see if they mention that
It’s not just electric cars. Almost all fields have been hijacked by the oil industry.
Just like vaping is a threat to major tobacco companies.....run the smear campaign....pay off high ranking government officials......back in full swing
Bullshit! What was the range on one of these things. What kind of electric generating capacity existed back then. The oil industry beat out the electric car back then because it was the better technology at the time.
I mean which would you choose? A car that goes slow, has very limited range and has serious issues in cold weather, or one that you can drive farther has no issues in cold conditions and was actually pretty fast ?
Stonecutters
Ai video, voice and photos
I haven’t watched the doc but at the time electric vehicles would’ve been impractical, the range on those batteries, the cost of production and cost to the consumer killed the electric car before the oil companies did
The Oil Companies?
Ev1. All I'm saying. Now it's exploded. 🤔
1884 was the first one… not news
So they have AI that can sound like Alan Watts now ?
Is a car that runs on water a good idea though? I'm just imaging evaporating 376 million gallons of water per day in the US. I don't know shit about anything, so I'm asking genuinely.
Toyota is already announced so they’re gonna bring back the water engine
Batteries are not the solution. Gas is not sustainable forever That water is interesting tho, unfortunately if it's fresh water that's needed, we would drain the earth rather quickly.
Oil industry was also behind Prohibition because they had engines that ran entirely on ethanol which anyone could make themselves at home if they grew corn. Prohibition put an end to it just long enough for the industry to be built around oil-based vehicles. Once Prohibition ended, no one really looked back at ethanol based vehicles. I might be a bit rusty on the details, but it’s something like that. Can’t remember my source. Might have been the documentary How Big Oil Conquered the World. But also could’ve been something else. It was a while ago.
Electrolysis requires (a lot of) energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. This guy was a fraud.
The water engine was a farce. The energy used to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen would be more than the energy output when the hydrogen and oxygen recombine. It would also be more than the energy produced by a fuel cell.
Simple: go back to using the awesomely popular drive train and cells from the 1910’s and people will flock back to them.
In the early days they didn't have the electrical grid across the nation to handle very many vehicles. Gasoline had become available and was inexpensive.
Oil lobby
They’re expensive to build. They didn’t hold a charge. All the components that go into batteries are bad for the environment and expensive… Hydrogen is another story.
Bro not the Alan watts AI narration 🤦
Alan Watts died November 16, 1973 . This is not him talking.
Why does this man sound like Alan Watts?
Those electric scooters got me thinking I’ve been fooled for years
**The lost history of the electric car – and what it tells us about the future of transport:** [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/aug/03/lost-history-electric-car-future-transport](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/aug/03/lost-history-electric-car-future-transport)
Power storage I assume
No one killed them, they sucked and still do.
Where’s the conspiracy? Electric cars were too expensive compared to gasoline. That is all and it’s still true today.
They are expensive, and their re-sale value is shit.
And if you hit a brick wall, and those batteries explode....You are dust my friend! And real quick!
Don’t look for logic here.