I think the market will split between the two based on the use of the cars.

For "city cars" (and some municipal vehicles), going with electricity is a better approach because owners of those vehicles can charge them during the night and use them without worrying of getting out of charge due to the small distances they'll make during the day.

For everything else hydrogen is the way to go because, once the infrastructures are done, it will be easier and faster to recharge and the fuel tanks will give those vehicles (not only cars, but also vans, pick-ups, 4x4 and trucks) the autonomy they need.

I want electric cars. Actually cars that use anything other than fossil fuels is good.

Intrinsic said: generic-user-1 said: teslas like to burn. the cars arent realy save, and atm you need a lot more time to load em. we need a completly new batterie tech for it, an that will not happen so fast, there are some interesting ideas and prototyps, but we need more time and they still have problems. and Li isnt cheap and we need alot for 1b cars... so someone steals a model s, crashes it into a light post at over 120mph, silting the car in half, yet survives even though the impact set the car on fire. yet the car or its tech is not safe?  do you seed what happens when you crash an ice vehicle at 120mph? hell, when you crash anything at 120mph. electric is far more safer than ice will ever be right now. the problem for now is just the price and range.

its not just tesla, E-cars burn much to fast, even a long time after a crash, big Li batteries are just not that save. 3 burning teslas in a fleet of 21k dont seems so much, but it IS a lot if you consider that those are fairly new cars and they need a crash to burn so it is infact a big problem. and the possibility of burning long after a crash is a real dealbreaker. gas and diesel dont burn just because of a crash, they need alot more, specialy diesel, that stuff is realy hard to get on fire... and tesla is just to small and doesnt invest a lot in new tech or turn a profit...

generic-user-1 said: its not just tesla, E-cars burn much to fast, even a long time after a crash, big Li batteries are just not that save. 3 burning teslas in a fleet of 21k dont seems so much, but it IS a lot if you consider that those are fairly new cars and they need a crash to burn so it is infact a big problem. and the possibility of burning long after a crash is a real dealbreaker. gas and diesel dont burn just because of a crash, they need alot more, specialy diesel, that stuff is realy hard to get on fire... and tesla is just to small and doesnt invest a lot in new tech or turn a profit...

 

1. 3 in over 40k to be exact. and they all required crashes. which falls under what you may call extreme situations.
2. Burning long after a crash? you kidding me? that only happened cause the response services are ill equipped to handle electric fires. you should just pour water on an electric fire you know? besides, I don't think that qualifies as a disadvantage. 
3. Tesla doesn't invest in new tech? that comment alone makes it sound like you don't really know what you are talking about and is so wrong on so many different levels that I don't even know where to begin. Tesla's are so safe that it damaged they safety equipment during the safety tests, Tesla is building a battery factory, they have built a super charger network across the states and in most of Europe that let's any Tesla charge for free and super fast, have you tracked their share prices recemtly? you are talking abt a car that receives feature updates like a phone or a console would, about a car that is completely controllable from your phone, about a car that will be receiving a self drive update in 2015.  everything about the model so is as cutting edge as it gets, that's why its called car 2.0

 

Intrinsic said: generic-user-1 said: its not just tesla, E-cars burn much to fast, even a long time after a crash, big Li batteries are just not that save. 3 burning teslas in a fleet of 21k dont seems so much, but it IS a lot if you consider that those are fairly new cars and they need a crash to burn so it is infact a big problem. and the possibility of burning long after a crash is a real dealbreaker. gas and diesel dont burn just because of a crash, they need alot more, specialy diesel, that stuff is realy hard to get on fire... and tesla is just to small and doesnt invest a lot in new tech or turn a profit...   3 in over 40k to be exact. and they all required crashes. which falls under what you may call extreme situations. Burning long after a crash? you kidding me? that only happened cause the response services are ill equipped to handle electric fires. you should just pour water on an electric fire you know? besides, I don't think that qualifies as a disadvantage.  Tesla doesn't invest in new tech? that comment alone makes it sound like you don't really know what you are talking about and is so wrong on so many different levels that I don't even know where to begin. Tesla's are so safe that it damaged they safety equipment during the safety tests, Tesla is building a battery factory, they have built a super charger network across the states and in most of Europe that let's any Tesla charge for free and super fast, have you tracked their share prices recemtly? you are talking abt a car that receives feature updates like a phone or a console would, about a car that is completely controllable from your phone, about a car that will be receiving a self drive update in 2015.  everything about the model so is as cutting edge as it gets, that's why its called car 2.0 I understand there are definitely skeptics out there, but spreadimg misinformation is uncalled for. and turn a profit? do you know that of all the companies that took a government automotive loan Tesla is not just the only one that has paid back in full, but they actually did it way ahead of time.

1.its not 3 in 40k... its 3 in the number of teslas that crashed, we dont have numbers for that, but it cant be that high. 2.and no, burning long after the crash is possible when batteries and the cooling system are damaged. the risiko can be minimised, but its still there, gm had to hold sales of a E-car because they ha a faulty design that made cars burn up to 3 weeks after a crashtest. tesla will maybe never make these errors, but some company will do em and a lot of people will die because of that. 3. they invest in production and services, but not so much in r&d. i dont have high hopes in tesla, they dont turned a profit ever and burn money with every sold car. they ust have money because they are cool and can get a lot of money from investors, but that will end at somepoint, nobody like too burn money for a long time

generic-user-1 said: 1.its not 3 in 40k... its 3 in the number of teslas that crashed, we dont have numbers for that, but it cant be that high. 2.and no, burning long after the crash is possible when batteries and the cooling system are damaged. the risiko can be minimised, but its still there, gm had to hold sales of a E-car because they ha a faulty design that made cars burn up to 3 weeks after a crashtest. tesla will maybe never make these errors, but some company will do em and a lot of people will die because of that. 3. they invest in production and services, but not so much in r&d. i dont have high hopes in tesla, they dont turned a profit ever and burn money with every sold car. they ust have money because they are cool and can get a lot of money from investors, but that will end at somepoint, nobody like too burn money for a long time

 

1. your initial statement was 3 in a fleet o 21k cars. . and now your are switching it to only the cars that crashed? well you should have been more clear. 
2. like every kinda new tech advancements will be made. you cannot have progressif attempts are not made to begin with.  and why I say you don't seem to know what you are talking about, you do realize gm owns Chevrolet. do you also know that the Chevy volt, is made by Chevrolet. unless you are referring to the ev-1 announced way back in the 90s that was just an electric concept car. you know what concept cars are right?
3. and pls, show or point out a link where electric cars are known to burn 3 weeks after a crash test. damn where do you even come up with these things.
4. and drop the Tesla not investing in r and do. that's just wrong. they manufactured and make their own electric motor. they also designed and asslmble their battery packs. and came up with the idea of laying the batteries flat in the car. they supply electric vehicle components to toyata and Mercedes. they are the industry leaders in electric vehicle research, development, design and implementation. the sister companies of Tesla is space x, which is designing the grasshopper rocket launches stuff into space for NASA or the iss and is planning on going to Mars, the other one is solar city, which is one of the biggest solar companies in america. I could go on, so pls, just stop.
5. they just have money cause they are cool and can get money from investors? wow..... OK. I give up.

 

Intrinsic said: JamaicameCRAZY said: Fastest charge ive ever heard was fords and it was 15 mins at 80% charge. But what size of battery were they charging? usinthe Tesla supercharger you can charge an 85kWhr battery to 50% in 30mins. that's like saying you could add 150miles+ of range in 30mins.  another thing to consider is real world use. I'll put it this way, no single person has a daily commute of 200+miles. most people had a daily commute under 40 miles. so basically, if you were on a road trip and after driving 250+ miles you need to charge up, then maybe resting for an hour, grabbing something to east all while charging up isn't such a bad idea.  the way I see it, ice cars become obsolete the day you can buy an electric car with 200+ miles range for under $22k.

I guess that supercharger won't work from your home, as I doubt any residential hookup can provide the amperage needed to fill that battery that fast. At home you can charge overnight anyway.

The power grid will have to be upgraded though. It's already touch and go on a hot day from all the AC units running. Charging a fleet of cars as well will surely cause a blackout on a hot day.

SvennoJ said: I guess that supercharger won't work from your home, as I doubt any residential hookup can provide the amperage needed to fill that battery that fast. At home you can charge overnight anyway. The power grid will have to be upgraded though. It's already touch and go on a hot day from all the AC units running. Charging a fleet of cars as well will surely cause a blackout on a hot day.

true, but this is moving the posts. that Tesla has even taken the initiative to install superchargers everywhere speaks volumes and is a start indication of the progress made in the sector. besides, its not like people have gas pumps in their garages for their ice vehicles right? that you can even plug in ur car at home and charge overnight is a great good thing.

I do agree that the power grid will have to be upgraded some, but we are a loooooong way from having to deal with stuff like that. of expect that we are more likely to see more and more charge stations everywhere than an actual push for in home charging. and the way tech is going wireless charging will probably be the way it settles. 

fun fact, Tesla is working on a home automated charging system, basically called something like the charge snake. its supposed to unhook itself and snake its way to ur cars charging port when parked at home Lol. I'm actually serious. 

NiKKoM said: well it's 2015 so this year we will get hoverboards making cars obselete...

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/142464853/hendo-hoverboards-worlds-first-real-hoverboard

free energy from the vacuum of space.