49 States have snow

Yes, but reactors are sold as some kind of magic oil to rid us of our energy woes. Which is overselling them by a rather large amount. We might be able to cut coal consumption, which is a big thing. But it is not coal that is running out (there's still plenty of coal in the UK/USA/Germany). It is oil and gas. Well they're not running out either but it is getting increasingly difficult to extract these, and therefore it's getting increasingly expensive.

So to solve that we need something completely different. Yes you can put nuclear reactors in cars (ones capable of powering a submarine are about a dustbin sized affair, apparently), but then your basic terrorist going nuclear scare scenario gets in the way of the public stamp of approval. So, not going to happen anytime soon. Yes, you can put nuclear reactors in homes & flats -- same story different version. Yes you can make a concerted effort to rid the world of gas based kitchens and move on to electric/keramic ones and the same for central heating. Apart from a drop in food quality (with gas you can do things you just can't with electric/keramic), think of the nightmare in replacing all that equipment.

Think about it: nuclear reactors are no use if we cannot put them to good use. And we still haven't touched on the little problem of synthetic materials which we cannot do without in the course of our everyday life. The only reason we have them is because the resources needed to make these products are essentially by-products and waste from the petrol industry, so these resources are artificially cheap.

Gas is having a renaissance with the shale gas being found all over the place - no, again it is not a silver bullet as it can seriously wreck the area is managed poorly.

Most synthetic plastics could be replaced by plant-derived plastics which would also degrade more easily. Would three be an increase in cost? Probably - at least at first but it would be / could be sustainable.

There are the more odd ways forward - Japan have scientists which uses plankton to produce diesel of all things - effectively one could harvest intentionally made slicks.

One could use nuclear to convert water to hydrogen and oxygen to be used locally to replace natural gas in those areas where there is a large difference in the utility between the two.

Humans are very resourceful when they have to be. When it looks like things are going to go wrong I believe that most of the problems we have today created will be fixed - to create problems a decent way off in the future.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Yes, but reactors are sold as some kind of magic oil to rid us of our energy woes. Which is overselling them by a rather large amount. We might be able to cut coal consumption, which is a big thing. But it is not coal that is running out (there's still plenty of coal in the UK/USA/Germany). It is oil and gas. Well they're not running out either but it is getting increasingly difficult to extract these, and therefore it's getting increasingly expensive.

So to solve that we need something completely different. Yes you can put nuclear reactors in cars (ones capable of powering a submarine are about a dustbin sized affair, apparently), but then your basic terrorist going nuclear scare scenario gets in the way of the public stamp of approval. So, not going to happen anytime soon. Yes, you can put nuclear reactors in homes & flats -- same story different version. Yes you can make a concerted effort to rid the world of gas based kitchens and move on to electric/keramic ones and the same for central heating. Apart from a drop in food quality (with gas you can do things you just can't with electric/keramic), think of the nightmare in replacing all that equipment.

Think about it: nuclear reactors are no use if we cannot put them to good use. And we still haven't touched on the little problem of synthetic materials which we cannot do without in the course of our everyday life. The only reason we have them is because the resources needed to make these products are essentially by-products and waste from the petrol industry, so these resources are artificially cheap.

---

While this isn't a solution, it would still be smart to implement these nuclear reactors on a large scale to replace our coal supplied energy if only for the environmental reasons. Then promote electric cars (which I know are not exactly where they need to be) with subsidies so that the public can buy them cheaper than internal combustion engines. I have not heard of a shortage of natural gas, I was unaware that those supplies are dwindling as well. Nevertheless the US uses 25% of the worlds petroleum supply. This is a chart I found from wiki on how the US uses it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Usesofpetroleum.pnghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...fpetroleum.png


So it looks like gasoline for car usage takes up almost half our consumption of petroleum. 46% of 25% is .115 or 11.5%. I think a reduction of 11.5% of the world's consumption of petroleum is good enough to warrant a major injection of capital towards nuclear power plants and subsidies for electric cars. I do not know the statistics for Europe, but I am sure the same tactic would take another chunk out of the world's usage of petroleum as well. Plus, you get to feel good about not polluting the air.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Usesofpetroleum.png

Ehrm now we are having two things being mixed together that shouldn't be:

(a) Simple upgrades in the power infrastructure --> fission is a temporary option, fusion is a more desirable long term solution.
(b) Finding alternatives for oil/gas --> fission won't do. You need something capable of producing fair amounts of power at small scales but not too much power or the engine will tear the vehicle apart. You've got gasoline, diesel is better (because the engine design implies a much better fuel economy), electric is even better but not feasible for small stuff. The latter is not feasible for ordinary cars because the design of the engine either ends up favouring high amount of torque at low speeds or the exact opposite. The first is what you need to get a car going but the latter is what you need to keep it going at high speeds, and an electric engine can't really adapt well between the two modes of operation (a simple gearbox doesn't work as well as it does with more traditional engines). Trains get away with a relatively simple high-speed design or a simple high-power design because each wagon (well, each set of wheels) is powered by its own engine so they need only a single efficient design to achieve good results and the infrastructure is simply built/upgraded to fit the power requirements.

Now assuming you want to rid yourself of your gasoline/diesel needs as much as possible and you want to use fission/main power grid to do it, then you will have to use hydrogen fuel cells (or something very similar) for car engines and such like because these work much the same way as gasoline/diesel ones do. Unfortunately that technology requires a major infrastructure overhaul and probably a wholesale replacement of vehicles, too. That, on top of the fact the technology is still not much more than a proof of concept (so, not unlike fusion).

Fission is temporary but thats only when compared to geological time etc. There is easy a few hundred years of fissile material available if one moves to other fission sources like thorium etc.

The key is having energy available to make the change from Oil/Gas so we can still produce electricity and drive electric cars (where they are suitable)

Fusion is likely going to be a long time in development and will require vast amounts of money and time in research and development, basically it would be even bigger than the space programme the mahattan project combined.

However the payoff is enourmous if it was achieved say in the next 100-150 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

The only reason we have them is because the resources needed to make these products are essentially by-products and waste from the petrol industry, so these resources are artificially cheap.

---

While the price element is true as regards our use of oil to make todays plastics, the reality is we can make it pretty much anything as long as one obtains the correct chain length of the molecules et voila we have made plastic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Well, there have been some design issues discovered with the Chernobyl power plant itself but the actual meltdown wasn't due to “shoddy engineering” per se. It was a design which by then was 10-20 years or so behind the state of the art but we have to remember that at the time its actual faults were not as well known nor as extensively researched. Chernobyl served as a wake up call and research topic for nuclear engineers to evaluate their designs. But the actual meltdown happened during a stress test carried outside of the determined boundary conditions which to top it all off was carried out by staff that didn't design the test. That went rather badly wrong, and staff attempted to shutdown the reactor which was another mistake because the design of the reactor meant it was safer under moderate load than under near to no load. So human error on top of human error on top of staff which had no idea of what was going on.

Anyway, nuclear fusion is by far the more desirable technology. Even its waste product is valuable. Fission suffers from the same drawback as fossil fuel, actually: there's not enough fuel of it to power us indefinitely. That is, when you assume the energy consumption of Asia and Africa will eventually pick up to run at USA or even North/Western European rates per capita, and when you are looking for fuel that can be extracted somewhat easily in large quantities.

The snag is that fission was essentially developed for the purpose of highly destructive toys for the military, civilian energy technology piggybacked on the military funding for such research. It needed a lot, a lot of research, funding and testing sites for it to get where it is today. The same cannot be said for fusion: yes, there is funding, but there isn't some kind of military device-of-doom application for it so research goes at a correspondingly slower pace.

---

Human error is certainly a part of the Chernobyl disaster but it doesn't expose any dangers in building more nuclear power, nor would have it happened if it was not for the design flaws themselves. Much of the human error in Chernobyl was would never be allowed to take place with well trained engineers and shows a rampant disregard for the concept of safety. Design flaws allowed these errors to occur by allowing the staff to bypass many safety measures. In addition there were issues with both the design and material components used to build the fuel rods which also contributed to the crises. All of these issues have been addressed in modern reactors. Lastly, other reactors such as the the one at three mile island are designed to contain radiation that could result from a melt down. There is absolutely no evidence that a Chernobyl type situation would occur in the United States if we adopted a widespread policy of building nuclear reactors. Even if we don't launch such a program nuclear power may still be coming to the United Sates. New reactor designs are being developed for relativity small scale industrial use and could soon be a common occurrence.

I agree that fusion is superior to fission in every single factor except for the fact that fission actually exists right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Ehrm now we are having two things being mixed together that shouldn't be:

(a) Simple upgrades in the power infrastructure --> fission is a temporary option, fusion is a more desirable long term solution.
(b) Finding alternatives for oil/gas --> fission won't do. You need something capable of producing fair amounts of power at small scales but not too much power or the engine will tear the vehicle apart. You've got gasoline, diesel is better (because the engine design implies a much better fuel economy), electric is even better but not feasible for small stuff. The latter is not feasible for ordinary cars because the design of the engine either ends up favouring high amount of torque at low speeds or the exact opposite. The first is what you need to get a car going but the latter is what you need to keep it going at high speeds, and an electric engine can't really adapt well between the two modes of operation (a simple gearbox doesn't work as well as it does with more traditional engines). Trains get away with a relatively simple high-speed design or a simple high-power design because each wagon (well, each set of wheels) is powered by its own engine so they need only a single efficient design to achieve good results and the infrastructure is simply built/upgraded to fit the power requirements.

Now assuming you want to rid yourself of your gasoline/diesel needs as much as possible and you want to use fission/main power grid to do it, then you will have to use hydrogen fuel cells (or something very similar) for car engines and such like because these work much the same way as gasoline/diesel ones do. Unfortunately that technology requires a major infrastructure overhaul and probably a wholesale replacement of vehicles, too. That, on top of the fact the technology is still not much more than a proof of concept (so, not unlike fusion).

---

From my understanding, most the issues regarding electric cars seem to be able to be worked out over the course of 10-15 years. Although it is expensive, all accounts I hear of the Tesla Roadster seem to be that it is an amazing car, with no major flaws in how it handles or accelerates. Most car manufacturers are developing electric cars for the long run which seems to indicate that electric is the way to go. If it is, then it really isn't that big of an issue to make the source of electricity come from fission than coal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Winter

Human error is certainly a part of the Chernobyl disaster but it doesn't expose any dangers in building more nuclear power, nor would have it happened if it was not for the design flaws themselves. Much of the human error in Chernobyl was would never be allowed to take place with well trained engineers and shows a rampant disregard for the concept of safety. Design flaws allowed these errors to occur by allowing the staff to bypass many safety measures. In addition there were issues with both the design and material components used to build the fuel rods which also contributed to the crises.

---

I thought it was the control rods, the Chernobyl design implies that to decrease core activity (i.e. absorb more neurons, slow the fission down), you must first speed it up a little because of how you swap control rods.

Quote:

---

All of these issues have been addressed in modern reactors. Lastly, other reactors such as the the one at three mile island are designed to contain radiation that could result from a melt down. There is absolutely no evidence that a Chernobyl type situation would occur in the United States if we adopted a widespread policy of building nuclear reactors. Even if we don't launch such a program nuclear power may still be coming to the United Sates. New reactor designs are being developed for relativity small scale industrial use and could soon be a common occurrence.

---

Agreed. Chernobyl was, even when it was built, an outdated design and we have far superior reactor designs today (especially Thorium reactors show promise).


@ACIN: except that the Tesla Roadster still suffers from basic range problems. It's out of juice far to quickly, and when it does run out it takes far too long for recharging. That is because it consumes a *lot* of power to do what it does. Your basic diesel car can drive a solid 800 - 1000 miles without refueling, and you do not even have to drive economically to do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

@ACIN: except that the Tesla Roadster still suffers from basic range problems. It's out of juice far to quickly, and when it does run out it takes far too long for recharging. That is because it consumes a *lot* of power to do what it does. Your basic diesel car can drive a solid 800 - 1000 miles without refueling, and you do not even have to drive economically to do it.

---

From the top of my head, the Tesla Roadster can go 240ish miles before needing to recharge. I don't know the recharge time, so I can't say anything about that. However, the issue with driving is that for a commerical car intended for the average consumer, they will not be driving more than 240 miles a day, most likely. Ford kept hyping up its electric-gas hybrid (Volt or something?) that could go a measly 40 miles on electric. But they kept insisting that for the large majority of consumers, their research indicated that 40 miles was plenty for most consumers. The distance from Los Angeles to San Diego is about 120 miles or half the distance that the Roadster can go in a day. If you can get the mileage up to 300-350, then there really is no reason to nit pick about the electric not being able to cross 1/5 of the US before needing more fuel. Let the tuckers keep using diesel for the moment but I see no reason why in 5 years, the electric car won't be able to satisfy the needs of the average consumer taking a 20 mile commute to work each day.

How does a white rappers comeback tour disprove global warming?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D39Lm_HRfOs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

From the top of my head, the Tesla Roadster can go 240ish miles before needing to recharge. I don't know the recharge time, so I can't say anything about that. However, the issue with driving is that for a commerical car intended for the average consumer, they will not be driving more than 240 miles a day, most likely. Ford kept hyping up its electric-gas hybrid (Volt or something?) that could go a measly 40 miles on electric. But they kept insisting that for the large majority of consumers, their research indicated that 40 miles was plenty for most consumers. The distance from Los Angeles to San Diego is about 120 miles or half the distance that the Roadster can go in a day. If you can get the mileage up to 300-350, then there really is no reason to nit pick about the electric not being able to cross 1/5 of the US before needing more fuel. Let the tuckers keep using diesel for the moment but I see no reason why in 5 years, the electric car won't be able to satisfy the needs of the average consumer taking a 20 mile commute to work each day.

---

You wont sell cars that way by trying to sell limits, cars are about freedom and versatility not the average commute.

If it does less mileage than the last type of car then people will see it as inferior, and rightly so in my view.

However this below is the real problem with electric cars in my view

Quote:

---

A full recharge of the battery system requires 3½ hours using the High Power Connector

---

Recharge is a problem, no doubt. But is the 3 1/2 hours from a standard power plug?

If a triple-phase, higher voltage plug were to be rolled out this would help a lot, although yes it's further infrastructure costs.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Recharge is a problem, no doubt. But is the 3 1/2 hours from a standard power plug?

If a triple-phase, higher voltage plug were to be rolled out this would help a lot, although yes it's further infrastructure costs.

~:smoking:

---

Still maybe take 15 minutes which way longer than a fillup at the station any day

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Still maybe take 15 minutes which way longer than a fillup at the station any day

---

But you can't fill-up at home (with the petrol drive one), thus you wouldn't need to use a station in the first place. (for the electric)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

But you can't fill-up at home (with the petrol drive one), thus you wouldn't need to use a station in the first place. (for the electric)

---

If you go beyond the limit in mileage you will

I agree it would require a different approach to driving with more care and forethought. I think that a very large percentage of journeys would be catered for within these limitations, with notable exceptions (a road-based sales-rep isn't going to be satisfied).

I don't see why this issue should not require people to alter their habits.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

If you go beyond the limit in mileage you will

---

The newest cars can go 300 miles on a single charge. There would be zero issues unless you are traveling further than from Newcastle to London.

Since such a drive would take considerable time anyway, there is bound to be at least one stop at a highway service station, which you can use to further charge your car while you have a bite to eat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

The newest cars can go 300 miles on a single charge. There would be zero issues unless you are traveling further than from Newcastle to London.

Since such a drive would take considerable time anyway, there is bound to be at least one stop at a highway service station, which you can use to further charge your car while you have a bite to eat.

---

This would require a massive amount of infrastructure, a high powered charge at some type of service station would end up causing massive delays far beyond 15 minutes were talking probably hours.

They way to do it is not to charge a batterry but replace it entirely, if an electirc car is designed for easy removal of said battery at some kind of way station which must take less that ten minute preferably down to 5 miutes you will sell electric cars. People are pushing the other kind to sell electricity not to save petrol.


Check out about 2.40 into video below

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp78rfNkfrY

Seen something similar before, but one thing bugs me a bit.

Basically until the EU/world government forces some standard I bet the batteries of the different companies won't be interchangeable, so you end up making yourself dependant on a single company if you buy such a car, let's say you buy a betterplace car and want to travel through Mexico, only to find out that they don't operate there and you end up stranded without a place to get a new battery because only Toyota has battery changing stations in Mexico? Of course there's a chance you can just plan really long recharge breaks in between but then calculate the hotel costs into that, and that you can only enjoy your actual planned holidays for four days less than planned because you spent that much waiting for the batteries to recharge during the trip.

So I say they need to develop a, preferably worldwide, standard for this.

Mobile phone chargers are FINALLY getting standardised but yes, this is one area where if there could be agreement of a standard early on it'd be great: several companies joint owning a subsidiary that produces batteries for all their cars for example.

~:smoking:

The problem with that is that the electric car industry is one where constant advances will be made for quite a long time. A Swap 'n' Go system for batteries would require that the batteries in the system are updated a regular intervals. If a standard plug was agreed upon then any new batteries, regardless of who made it should be able to plug into any car old or new, but new advances in battery technology would still require regular system upgrades.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miotas

The problem with that is that the electric car industry is one where constant advances will be made for quite a long time. A Swap 'n' Go system for batteries would require that the batteries in the system are updated a regular intervals. If a standard plug was agreed upon then any new batteries, regardless of who made it should be able to plug into any car old or new, but new advances in battery technology would still require regular system upgrades.

---

You charge as has been said already at home or work but when your on the road you can just swap n go, this gets over the lack of freedom to roam that electric cars suffer from. Generally any old tyre will fit a car so I think that with batteries we should be aiming for the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Recharge is a problem, no doubt. But is the 3 1/2 hours from a standard power plug?

If a triple-phase, higher voltage plug were to be rolled out this would help a lot, although yes it's further infrastructure costs.

~:smoking:

---

3.5 hours is a high power socket and the various safety features in most homes will strongly object to that kind of amps running through their circuit (it's amps you need for the recharging, voltage is something that a good transformer can fix). IIRC it was 16 hours for the Tesla from the mains in your garage/outdoor socket.

And as gaelic mentioned, it is not the daily commute that this is all about. If it were, public transport would work too and rather better at that.

If you are refusing to buy an other type of car until you are able to go as far as an 18 wheeler carrying 100 gallons of diesel than you are being unreasonable. This is an energy crisis, you are going to have to put up with more inconveniences for the next 15-20 years if you want to even continue driving 50 years from now. It is downright stupid for people to be so stubborn that they are still acting like their parents did in the 1970s, willing to wait 3-7 hours in line for gas, paying $5 or more per gallon during the oil embargo just so they can drive around for another 2 days tops.

You don't need a 1,000 mile range. It is a slightly inferior product with leap and bounds of improvement ahead of it compared to a slightly superior product that is on the express train to obsolescence in 30-50 years.

My view is that much of todays economy is dependent on patterns of living we have from our cars so limiting the freedom to roam better be worth it. Too much of the talk from greenies is about getting rid of things like dishwashers etc that is not progress in my view.

Of course resources are finite but they are not any less finite by using electric cars unless the system is properly integrated into our world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

My view is that much of todays economy is dependent on patterns of living we have from our cars so limiting the freedom to roam better be worth it. Too much of the talk from greenies is about getting rid of things like dishwashers etc that is not progress in my view.

Of course resources are finite but they are not any less finite by using electric cars unless the system is properly integrated into our world.

---

No reasonable person is telling people to stop using appliances. All I am doing is saying that you can still have a car and live the American dream of being able to drive to the mall, just switch over to a technology which will cause inconveniences in the short term for the survival of the country in the long run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

If you are refusing to buy an other type of car until you are able to go as far as an 18 wheeler carrying 100 gallons of diesel than you are being unreasonable.

---

18 wheeler, is that American for lorry?

What makes you think you won't notice the difference between 240 miles and somewhere between 800 or 1000 miles from your average to economical diesel? It's only about 4 times more often that you need to refuel/recharge, apart from the fact that when you do need to recharge you need to spend quite some time doing it.

This implies one thing. You might feel:

Quote:

---

This is an energy crisis, you are going to have to put up with more inconveniences for the next 15-20 years if you want to even continue driving 50 years from now. It is downright stupid for people to be so stubborn that they are still acting like their parents did in the 1970s, willing to wait 3-7 hours in line for gas, paying $5 or more per gallon during the oil embargo just so they can drive around for another 2 days tops.

---

But try and convince the general public they should spend considerably more time recharging/swapping batteries (which incidentally weigh a lot) and do that 4 times as often as they would have to refuel otherwise. That isn't going to be an attractive pitch: hey, this Tesla might be a fast electric car that doesn't make you want to take public transport instead but it can't handle nearly as well as its archetype (Lotus Elise) would have you believe nor can it actually drive you to your holiday destination. (For those of you outside the US: not everyone flies. In Europe, plenty of people drive.)

No for “green” cars, I think that in the better way forward is not batteries but fuel cells.

Quote:

---

You don't need a 1,000 mile range.

---

Oh I don't need it. It is more a matter of convenience. But when it comes to the topic of ranges, you do realise your 240 mile range assumes that you do not use it for the daily commute? (Energy wasted by erratic acceleration/deceleration of the car.)

Quote:

---

It is a slightly inferior product with leap and bounds of improvement ahead of it compared to a slightly superior product that is on the express train to obsolescence in 30-50 years.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

18 wheeler, is that American for lorry?

---

Yeah, it's a lorry in British English.

Quote:

---

What makes you think you won't notice the difference between 240 miles and somewhere between 800 or 1000 miles from your average to economical diesel? It's only about 4 times more often that you need to refuel/recharge, apart from the fact that when you do need to recharge you need to spend quite some time doing it.

---

I won't notice the difference because as long as I don't drive more than 240 miles, I can still do everything I had been doing before. You have to drive to a gasoline station to fill up, all you need to do for electric is leave it plugged in your garage when you are done for the day. Get home around 5, do errands until 9, plug it in. Chill at home, go to bed, wake up at 5, leave at 6-6:30 for your job, that is nine hours it has been charging. If the power supply is able to match the high supply connectors people were talking about earlier than that is more than enough. Basically you plug it in whenever you don't need it and you should be fine.

Quote:

---

But try and convince the general public they should spend considerably more time recharging/swapping batteries (which incidentally weigh a lot) and do that 4 times as often as they would have to refuel otherwise. That isn't going to be an attractive pitch: hey, this Tesla might be a fast electric car that doesn't make you want to take public transport instead but it can't handle nearly as well as its archetype (Lotus Elise) would have you believe nor can it actually drive you to your holiday destination. (For those of you outside the US: not everyone flies. In Europe, plenty of people drive.)

---

I was just using the Tesla has an example for my arguments. From the statements I have read from the Tesla company they are planning on releasing a second generation Tesla car that is half the price of the Roadster ($100,000) designed for average consumers (so not a flashy sports car but something more practical) with more comfort and convenience and then a third generation that is half of that (so $25,000 now) and so on.

Quote:

---

No for “green” cars, I think that in the better way forward is not batteries but fuel cells.

---

From what I have read, fuel cells are a loooong way from being affordable to the public.

Quote:

---

Oh I don't need it. It is more a matter of convenience. But when it comes to the topic of ranges, you do realise your 240 mile range assumes that you do not use it for the daily commute? (Energy wasted by erratic acceleration/deceleration of the car.)

---

Is someone's daily commute 120 miles long?


EDIT: I know that the technology isn't quite where we would like to be, but given the trend that has been occurring in the past 10 years in electric cars, do you really think there is any real chance that fuel cells or hydrogen or any other type of fuel which requires redoing the entire infrastructure is going to happen?

Fuel cells are still a long way off, but there is actually a major industry working on that right now. Basically, the technology is already there and working but it is now about getting the economics of scale to work out; hybrids could be an option there. I understand that to some degree it is the same story with electric cars but fuel cells have the added bonus of not needing to lug around batteries (which do get heavy and which do take up space).

You should not forget that battery-based electric cars have been flogged for longer than you or I have lived. The basic technology has been put into production cars since the 80s but battery cars consistently fail to deliver/take off in the real world. The closest you'll get is the Prius and other such hybrids, which still very much rely on that secondary engine for getting actual range or performance out of it.

I agree your average daily commute isn't 120 miles, but even in the Netherlands where the bike is a serious alternative to the car, a max range of 240 miles will still be a handicap on the market for any car that is to be sold based on its merit as a car rather than on some claim of good-for-the-environment.

Not directly related to the topic of the Tesla (but certainly to the topic of relying on fossil fuel); you may find this article interesting as well (a BP energy supply/demand forecast/projection till 2030). http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01..._outlook_2030/