Do $6-a-gallon gas and electric vehicles go hand in hand?

Well, it may be a stretch to conclude that from a two-minute fifty-second man-on-the-street video posted by Honda, but it may not be far off.

Honda said it polled 1,000 Americans about their attitudes towards both buying more fuel-efficient vehicles and potential advanced powertrains and interviewed a handful of men and women to see if their views were consistent with the larger poll.

The Japanese automaker found that, while 30 percent of respondents would actively seek out a more fuel-efficient car if gas hit $5 a gallon, 62 percent would do the same if gas hit $6 a gallon. Meanwhile, 15 percent said nothing would make them consider a fuel sipper.

Additionally, 37 percent of those polled said electricity would be the primary source of vehicle power 20 years from now, while 19 percent said gasoline would still reign supreme by then and another 19 percent saw biofuels as the fuel of the future. We know that just because people think something is true doesn't make that thing come true, but 37 percent market share in 2032 would be something, wouldn't it? See Honda's video below.



I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 87 Comments
      • 2 Years Ago
      The survey contains a usual misconception, namely, that electricity and hydrogen fuel cell are different things. Here's the good news: fuel cell cars are electric too. However, the following study -by DoE - probably will have more impact on the things in 2030, than Honda's survey. "2030: The revenge of the hydrogen car" "The DoE published in October 2011 [7] an analytical method of the total cost of ownership. With the data used in the study, it appears that by 2030 vehicles equipped with fuel cells would cost the same as those equipped with an internal combustion engine, or a battery with a 160 km range. For intensive use over long distances the battery is not considered a viable solution: for a range of 320 miles (514 km) hydrogen costs $ 16.9 c / mile (euro 13.73c / km) while the battery costs 24.8 c $ / mile (euro 20.15c / km) which is an additional cost of almost 50%. Hydrogen would be the most economical solution suitable for long journeys." http://sf.france-science.org/2012/03/01/2030-the-revenge-of-the-hydrogen-car/ http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/cf/news_detail.cfm/news_id=17833 So, according to the U.S. Department of Energy: - BEVs for short distances - FCEVs for longer distances And - by 2030 - probably the fuel cell plugin hybrids will prevail, which you can recharge for short terms, but can use for virtually unlimited range using the fuel cell. That's the future folks and it makes sense too.
        Chris M
        • 2 Years Ago
        Those "per mile" figures can't be just the fuel cost only, considering that the current fuel cost of driving electric is just 2 to 3 cents per mile - a far cry from the 24.8 cents per mile they quote. Also, the price of H2 fuel is and will always remain higher than the price of electricity, and currently batteries are less expensive than fuel cells and H2 storage. Therefore, they must be including the amortized cost of fuel cells and batteries, and assuming a huge price reduction and very long lifespan for fuel cells but little or no price reduction or any improvement in lifespan for batteries. Time will tell if their predictions have any merit, though past predictions from the hydrogen enthusiasts have been wildly off the mark.
        2 Wheeled Menace
        • 2 Years Ago
        Sounds like someone's magic 8 ball is being optimistic when being asked about hydrogen! How seriously can you take a study that predicts something 18 years off?
          EZEE
          • 2 Years Ago
          @2 Wheeled Menace
          Critical and criticized: 'yes, those pants do make your hips look big' 'oh? Well, you're a douchebag.'
          • 2 Years Ago
          @2 Wheeled Menace
          The answer to your question from the same article: "In this type of prospective study hypothesis are critical and often criticized. That is why the DOE issued a request for information on the methodology and hyposthesis. The industry players are invited to provide realistic information in order to establish new results." "The law also provides the necessary development of hydrogen distribution stations, starting with major metropolitan cities and eventually covering the entire state. [11] Manufacturers say they will have sold 53,000 hydrogen vehicles in California by 2017. [12] The development of charging stations will be done..." At least that's what the government believes in and that's how they will probably.act.
          EZEE
          • 2 Years Ago
          @2 Wheeled Menace
          I like critical and criticized....
          • 2 Years Ago
          @2 Wheeled Menace
          @EZEE My only possible comment on your comment is this: NO COMMENT
        Ford Future
        • 2 Years Ago
        Nano-Tech Batteries will be out before any hydrogen solution appears. It's over for hydrogen.
          DaveMart
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Ford Future
          Paul: Actually I try to distinguish the two, simply by using phrases like IMO frequently. No doubt I sometimes slip, and it would be more useful if you pointed that out when that occurs, rather than making a blanket accusation, which you do not trouble to substantiate with example.
          DaveMart
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Ford Future
          I love the way you present your opinion as a fact.
          DaveMart
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Ford Future
          Paul: Actually I try to distinguish the two, simply by using phrases like IMO frequently. No doubt I sometimes slip, and it would be more useful if you pointed that out when that occurs, rather than making a blanket accusation, which you do not trouble to substantiate with example.
          paulwesterberg
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Ford Future
          Pot kettle black.
        DaveMart
        • 2 Years Ago
        Here is the actual DOE study: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/costs_mile_rfi.pdf the only assumptions I would question there are their projected volumes of 500,000 pa for fuel cell vehicles and 250,000 for BEVs, together with petrol at $3.60/gallon! This essentially says that Nissan will fall flat on their face in popularising BEVs, as these figues are for 2030! Just the same their projected battery costs sound realistic, with price points of $125, $220 and $300 kwh considered. The EIA, on whose figures the petrol price is based, have IMO pulled off their regular trick of underestimating future prices. They have done that in every forecast they have published. You would think that they would have learnt by now, but of course they are funded by the US government, so their 'authoritative and independent' estimates are in reality whatever the Government fancies. There is no denying though that very substantial sources are becoming available at $100 plus per barrel. Here is a huge one I was not previously familiar with: http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/bazhenov-neocomian-oil-formation-covers.html None of this means that petrol is going to drop back to $2/gallon or something, and the new demand from the likes of China and India is even huger, so to speak! It may mean however that petrol prices will rise less swiftly than many of us had thought.
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          The main revelation of the study IMHO is this:  "it appears that by 2030 vehicles equipped with fuel cells would cost the same as those equipped with an internal combustion engine, or a battery with a 160 km range." And the even more surprising data: "Hydrogen would be the most economical solution suitable for long journeys" (and by a large margin, so even some unlikely miscalculation doesn't change the outcome significantly), making the battery "over long distances not a viable solution:" It simply eliminates the need for craving forever for better batteries, since using the fuel cell will be cheaper than the battery (thus, no more reasonable argument for batteries over fuel cell). Who "woulda thunk" this even just a year ago.
          DaveMart
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          Hi kris: Actually, I 'thunk' this well over a year ago, and posted here several times to that effect! ;-) For all the talk about the relative inefficiency of hydrogen production, endless hyping of the cost of infrastructure and so forth, it simply does not make much sense to haul around several hundreds of kilos of battery everywhere for the occasional long trip. Batteries are really good for short distances, and around 12 kwh or so covers that fine. Over that and an RE of some sort makes sense, and fuel cells are way better for that than the totally different ICE engine, needing a high temperature exhaust system, sophisticated gearboxes and so on. This may all change if a practical lithium air battery or something comes on the market, but at the moment we know a lot more about suing fuel cells in combination with batteries than we do about how to build the very advanced and cheap batteries that would be needed to materially change the outlook.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          Hydrogen can be produced from many processes, including several waste streams such as industrial chemical production and municipal wastewater treatment plants. Recently, yet another method has been devised to produce hydrogen using waste heat to split water chemically: "The four-reaction cycle the team came up with begins with a manganese oxide and sodium carbonate, and is a completely closed system: the water that enters the system in the second step comes out completely converted into hydrogen and oxygen during each cycle. That’s important because it means that none of the hydrogen or oxygen is lost, and the cycle can run over and over, splitting water into the two gases. In the current paper, the researchers ran their newly created cycle five times to show reproducibility. It will be needed to show that the cycle can run thousands of times in order to be practical. Experiments of this type are beyond the capabilities currently in the Davis lab." "“What we’re trying to ask is, ‘Where are the places around the world where people are just throwing away energy in the form of heat?’” he says. He speculates that there could be a day when water-splitting plants are able to run on the heat given off by a variety of manufacturing industries such as the steel- and aluminum-making industries and the petrochemicals industries, and by the more traditional power-generation industries. “The lower the temperature that we can use for driving these types of water-splitting processes,” he says, “the more we can make use of energy that people are currently just wasting.” http://fuelcellsworks.com/news/2012/06/06/caltech-chemical-engineers-devise-new-way-to-split-water/
          brotherkenny4
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          I agree that the long range batteries are a silly idea. Having 80% more batteries than you use 99% of the time is really how it should be stated. Saying that range is an issue is, I believe, one of the ways that the car companies can use to prevent this market from developing. It's not hard to mislead most people too. It's probably the biggest weakness of democracies that most people are not intellegent enough to know they are being manipulated. I would suggest fuel cells as drop in extenders. Fuel cell are lighter and more efficient than ICE, but as with the batteries you don't need to carry it around all the time.
          DaveMart
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          Hi Daryl. The basic advantages are that fuel cells are about 2.5 times as efficient as ICE, that hydrogen can be produced from a whole host of sources, and that it is free of pollution at point of use. There is a good summary here, including sources and costs: http://www.h2carblog.com/?p=461 'As mentioned above, a cost of hydrogen of $4 to $12 per kilogram is equivalent to gasoline at $1.60 to $4.80 per gallon.' (Due to the 2.5 times greater efficiency) To expand briefly: It is often argued that hydrogen use does not represent progress as it is currently made using natural gas, and so you are not getting off fossil fuels. Even after conversion losses the better efficiency of fuel cells mean that you use the natural gas far more efficiently than burning it in a modified car. A lot of ways of producing hydrogen also use energy that would otherwise be thrown away. such as this: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2012/06/caltch-20120606.html The high temperature bit, 850C, would need new output, concentrated solar or nuclear, but for the other bits of the cycle waste heat from industrial processes could be used, so the comparison: 'Batteries are x times more efficient than hydrogen' ignore the possibility that hydrogen can be produced substantially using waste - not just the process I have linked, but stranded wind and so on. We now know that carcinogens from transport cause around 2-3 times as many deaths as we had thought, so moving to hydrogen would save tens of thousands of lives a year in the US alone. Methanol etc are variants on the hydrogen economy, with their molecules a bit more complex but they can be built from the hydrogen produced, and perhaps use waste carbon dioxide for the rest. For some applications such as aviation fuel still more complex artificial kerosene etc can be built up, again using the same basic processes. So the answer is that hydrogen and it's derivatives can be produced and used more efficiently, and much more cleanly.
          DarylMc
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          Hi DaveMart I agree battery EV's wont do all tasks. Sorry I didnt read all the links but where do you think the hydrogen will be sourced for the fuel cells and if from natural gas what advantage is anyone claiming over an ICE on natural gas.
          paulwesterberg
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          If hydrogen fuel cells are the answer for long distance pollution free motoring then put it on a trailer and allow them to be rented so I don't have to bother paying for an expensive generator that I only use once in a while. Having them be rented would increase utilization, monitization and allow them to be more quickly replaced by newer models that offer improved efficiency, lower cost and longer lifespan.
          DaveMart
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          Paul, Apart from the hassle factor of hitching up a trailer and it's impracticality in many areas of the world - you do NOT want to be driving around with a trailer in Europe's or Asia's cities - there are also efficiency considerations. Around 35 miles/day would cover most people's usual driving in the US. You would not though, want to be hitching a trailer if you wanted to go 37 miles one day, and importantly you would not want to be driving forever on the ragged edge of your range. So in practise you would want something with around the range of present electric cars, around 70 miles or so, and a 24 kwh or so battery pack, about double what you would need in a hybrid where it does not matter too much if the fuel cell is called on, especially as it is just as clean as the battery, and so could be used without concern in the cities, unlike present ICE RE's. It is also not that easy to design a trailer for a hydrogen RE. The use of hydrogen is safe, but then Mercedes etc take care to ensure that the tanks are well protected in the frame of the car, so that the trailer would not be simple. You could do it, but in the end have a lot more hassle and loose some of the battery size optimisation that are possible. There may be some trailers about, and designing and building them is perfectly possible, but most people, certainly in Europe and Asia, will go for the simplicity of having an internal fuel cell. External fuel cells are a lot easier using methanol, but some of the drawbacks remain, and the extra weight of the methanol storage and the needed 20 or 30kw fuel stack are anyway slight compared to storing hydrogen in tanks.
        Spec
        • 2 Years Ago
        But electricity is NOT THE FUEL they use.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Spec
          FCVs are powered by electric motors, just like any other EV. They create their electricity on-board, instead of off-board.
          JakeY
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Spec
          "FCVs are powered by electric motors, just like any other EV. They create their electricity on-board, instead of off-board." Hybrids are powered by electric motors, just like any other EV. They create their electricity on-board, instead of off-board. I doubt most people will say that electricity is the fuel that hybrids use (even if it was a serial hybrid) despite that. A more common example is the diesel electric train; it's still considered to be running diesel and not electricity (because the input is not electricity).
      • 2 Years Ago
      Its $8 a gallon in the UK right now !!
        EZEE
        • 2 Years Ago
        and all cars are electric. Yep...all cars...
      Jake
      • 2 Years Ago
      Nothing too enlightening here. Honda could have just looked at Canada. Gas is already at $6/gallon and people simply drive smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles on average compared to the U.S.
        Ernie Dunbar
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Jake
        They do? I could swear that the number of full-sized trucks and SUVs hasn't changed at all.
      2 Wheeled Menace
      • 2 Years Ago
      Maybe they could do something TOTALLY CRAZY and listen to their prospective customers for once. Nobody wanted the crosstour. Nobody wanted a bigger Civic, people want newer high tech engines, the ridgeline should have been killed long ago, your IMA sucks, and your new cars look awful for starters. I only have one real request though. If your electric FIT is that good... then friggin' sell it, you dopes!!!
        EZEE
        • 2 Years Ago
        @2 Wheeled Menace
        I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!
      Turbo Froggy
      • 2 Years Ago
      Hmm, I am going to predict $6.00/gallon gas by 2015, just in time to get 1M plug-in vehicles on the road by the end of 2015. Most of which will be Nissans. Other manufactures will be scrambling to expand their "compliance" cars to full production. Car makers that are serious like Nissan and Tesla will come out on top. The others will fare much much worse.
      JRBEINGINEER
      • 2 Years Ago
      They missed the most efficient configuration. Perhaps they only offered the surveyees the choice of windows down, A/C off, or windows up, A/C on. As the most frugal guy I’ve ever known once told me, just after he had taken his family on a July trip to Florida, the most efficient configuration is windows up, A/C off.
        SVX pearlie
        • 2 Years Ago
        @JRBEINGINEER
        "the most efficient configuration is windows up, A/C off." Now, drive from San Diego, CA to White Sands, NM during the summer and tell us how that goes for ya.
        Letstakeawalk
        • 2 Years Ago
        @JRBEINGINEER
        "...after he had taken his family on a July trip to Florida, the most efficient configuration is windows up, A/C off." Seriously, people can die from doing this, in even moderate temperatures. Do not attempt what was surely meant in jest to be a humorous comment. "This year there have been at least three deaths of children due to hyperthermia (heat stroke) after being in hot cars, trucks, vans and SUV's. In 2011 there were at least 33 juvenile vehicular hyperthermia fatalities. Since 1998 there have been at least a total of 530 of these needless tragedies. This study shows that these incidents can occur on days with relatively mild (i.e., ~ 70 degrees F) temperatures and that vehicles can reach life-threatening temperatures very rapidly. " http://ggweather.com/heat/ The above link focuses on parked car fatalities - An operating vehicle, traveling during daylight with no interior ventilation or AC cooling will get even hotter than a parked car due to the heat produced from the ICE and exhaust system running underneath the cabin.
        A_Guy
        • 2 Years Ago
        @JRBEINGINEER
        It sounds like his key to frugality was suffocating everyone to death. seems legit
          Chris M
          • 2 Years Ago
          @A_Guy
          Yeah, heat stroke can be a lot more expensive than burning a bit of fuel to run the A/C.
        DaveMart
        • 2 Years Ago
        @JRBEINGINEER
        The costs of a divorce are high, as are those of crashing the car when distracted by the heat.
      Dave
      • 2 Years Ago
      I'm amazed that 13% of the population is aware of hydrogen as a vehicle fuel.
        SVX pearlie
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Dave
        They should have given nuclear power as an option, as an honest benchmark.
        Spec
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Dave
        Well, I think it was multiple choice.
      DaveMart
      • 2 Years Ago
      I've got interested in the methanol fuel cycle recently, as there are now enough in real world use to be able to evaluate the direct methanol fuel cell better. They are being used in RV's and sailing: http://www.campervanstuff.com/shop_stuff/index.php?mod=product&id_prd=1068 'PLEASE NOTE that we have not yet revised the following information to reflect the improved fuel consumption of the latest 2009 models, which use 20% less fuel at 0.91 litres per kWh (1.09 litres per 100 Ah)' That works out to an efficiency of 25%, not great but it is early days, and it can realistically be boosted to perhaps around 40%, which is 'good enough' Their other major problem is heavy use of precious metals, around 10 times as great as for hydrogen fuel cells, but it is only recently that precious metal use in the latter has been reduced to economic levels, so again progress is likely, following behind hydrogen fuel cells. The reason I am interested in fuel cells in cars in the first place is that they are a fundamentally better solution than anything short of a lithium air battery, which is basically a kind of fuel cell anyway, and we don't really have a clear idea how we will build it. So one alternative if we can't build lithium-air, is to go for hydrogen for a RE. That is a fundamentally better solution than using batteries alone for long range/heavy loads, as you are not lugging around a great weight of relatively slow charging batteries. You still have to lug around a large weight of CF tanks though, so a methanol fuel cell would be better again at a really fundamental level. Although methanol is corrosive the infrastructure is easy compared to that for hydrogen, too. A battery/methanol car would be much lighter than it's competition, and so would perform far better. Not as well as a car using a 12kwh or so battery which travels long distances on electric highways though, of course! :-) These are exciting times for road transport, and some great possibilities are opening up, so let's enjoy this time of hope!
        • 2 Years Ago
        @DaveMart
        Or maybe, this time surprisingly Apple Inc. would brings us a solution (as they already flirted with building an "iCar"), but now they patented a fuel cell (Liquid Sodium Borohydride) for mobile devices (where the batteries frankly really"suck"). Same for cars: "Liquid Sodium Borohydride Fuel Cell (NaBH4) technology utilizes sodium borohydride as the fuel and air as the oxidizer. Waste products are water and sodium metaborate, which can be recycled to produce new sodium borohydride either at a central plant (currently feasible) or in the fuel cell itself (currently in development" http://www.avrc.com/nabh4/ The Liquid Sodium Borohydride being liquid, could eliminate any difference between using a conventional gasoline car or a fuel cell vehicle (currently under development).
          DaveMart
          • 2 Years Ago
          There area lot of technologies at a very early stage of development. For car use, I didn't much fancy this!: Because the cell uses a permeable membrane, it will self discharge after a certain amount of time (~15 hrs)' Slide 13 http://www.avrc.com/presentations/Sodium_Borohydride_Fuel_Cell_AVRC.ppt More on the characteristics of this fuel cycle on Wiki and here: http://gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/hydrogen_workshop/Wu.pdf
          • 2 Years Ago
          Yep. That's why fuel cells will probably use hydrogen (despite some initial difficulties of handling it). Byproduct is only water and - just incidentally - before long using hydrogen will be cheaper than charging the battery. It means: apart from the die-hard pure BEV fans (willing even to pay more for their passion), most people will opt for hydrogen (possibly plug-in fuel cell hybrids with their virtually unlimited range and optional refilling / charging capability).
        Ford Future
        • 2 Years Ago
        @DaveMart
        Hybrid's already outperform natural gas cars. EV's and Hybrids will probably already out perform this solution as well. We've already got a better solution, you just need to buy it. And demand they put it in trucks.
      Rick
      • 2 Years Ago
      Sky high fuel prices are not tipping anybody in the UK into electric vehicle, they have skipped them in the race to go green, and are buying cheaper to buy/run zero emission two wheeled cycles on mass not shown on Honda's list. We have got $10 gas in the UK electric car sales fell -48% last month from 179 in 2011 down to 92 in 2012. Cycling is up +28% in the UK sales with yearly ending sales of 3,200,000 of which 1,300,000 were brand new cyclists buying a bike for the first time ever.
        Joeviocoe
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Rick
        That is probably more related to weather than gasoline prices. Or do Brits bike in the rain too?
          Rick
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          British Government tax on fuel & VAT, and to many other motoring taxes in general list. If the tax revenue from motorist drops they put the taxes up for those that remain in cars to compensate for the loss in tax revenue, which just ends up driving more folk out of car sad to say. It's raining cat and dogs at the moment, there are still lots of cyclists doing the 2012 olympic cycle route in the area where l live today. The boom in cycling will continue unabated if Britain's "Boy Racer" Mark Cavendish strikes gold, half of blokes l work with be doing 60 mile London-Brighton charity ride next weekend which involves 47,000 cyclists in a charity ride what ever the weather,
          Marco Polo
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Joeviocoe, Curiously, the average per capita difference between car ownership in most Western European countries is pretty much the same, about 1 car for every two people. Rick's bizarre quote that 1.3 million UK car owners gave up cars in favour of bicycles, is case of 1+1 becoming 11 ! The source of this urban myth, comes from a survey conducted by a supermarket chain who sells motor insurance quotes suggesting that 1 in 30 have given cars in the last 12 months. This information when coupled with a large increase in the sales of bicycles and a 4 percent drop in new car figures, was seized upon by the Cyclist Association's as proof that 1.3 million people gave up 1.3 million cars ! Not true, say the UK Dept. of Transport statistics. The 2011 UK census revealed the exact opposite! The number of UK households without a car has been steadily falling, and if the trend continues will flatten out at 20 per cent. The proportion of families with just one car peaked in the mid-nineties and has dropped slightly, due mainly to the rise in ownership of multiple cars. In addition, the number of UK used cars for sale have decreased in the last two years ! Another urban myth busted ! Even more puzzling, the highest car per capita ownership, is split between the very small countries, Monaco, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Iceland, and the very large, USA, Australia, Canada. ! Go figure... But the average UK road trip has been decreasing at exactly the same rate as the population ages, probably just another statistical coincidence.
          Dave D
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Well, it is a lot of fun to watch Cavendish, especially on those sprint stages of the Tour where he just goes all out, balls-to-the-walls flying :-)
      Vlad
      • 2 Years Ago
      These numbers don't mean much. Most people (myself included) don't have any idea how $5 or $6 per gallon will translate into monthly expenses, and nobody does back-of-the-envelope calculations when responding to a survey. The fact is, $4/gallon coupled with a recession made people acutely aware of the MPG rating of their car. If we have an economic boom coming, people may switch back to SUVs even with gas at $6. If not, even $4.50 will accelerate the shift to smaller cars and alternative drivetrains.
      Spec
      • 2 Years Ago
      Who gives a crap what a bunch of uninformed people think?
        EZEE
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Spec
        looks down at all the comments, then back at spec....waves his arms, eyes wide, shaking head...."sshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
      • 2 Years Ago
      Huh! Jesus Christ! As I looked back to ABG - checking the replies to my post about an official study on future green tech - I'm really surprised. The debate on battery vs fuel cell (and others) is becoming very similar to the silly war on iOs vs Android (+WP7 & others) on another site (also owned by AOL). The simple answer to this latter is: iOs is better for some people and Android (WP7 etc.) is better for some others (for different purposes / usage scenarios), just like batteries and fuel cells. Mind you: competition is GOOD. It is inspiring progress, creating more options, efficiently reducing prices. The DoE study was NOT made by me (but DoE) involving serious industry players (carmakers) / expert etc. and this is how the government will probably act. I think DoE (government)- just like commenters on ABG - want to solve our energy / transportation future for the better. I also think making their decisions based on professional wide scale studies is way better, than e.g. based on the opinions of ABG commenters. Lighten up people. This is just technology made for humans by humans. It's not your life - or if it is - you seriously need to get a life. Peace out.
        dmay
        • 2 Years Ago
        There is one difference in your metaphor: iOS and Android both exist.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @dmay
          To add to the allegory, the "smartphone" of the time was the Blackberry (Palm OS) which was the first on the scene to really tie up a huge user base... (Just to point out that the first to market doesn't always win)
          • 2 Years Ago
          @dmay
          Yes, but - using the same metaphor - when iOS was released back in 2007, there was no Android too (only under development, just like our subject).
          • 2 Years Ago
          @dmay
          Jake, No one was predicting the demise of Windows Mobile - when it did exist - before the introduction of iOS (which made Microsoft to rethink everything from scratch).
          JakeY
          • 2 Years Ago
          @dmay
          @krisztiant No one was debating iOS vs Android before Android came out. Certainly no one was making a prediction 10 years into the future about which one will dominate. That's the difference. People only debate the merits of each now, because both are mature mobile OSes. The analogy with your DOE study is like the recent IDC study that predicted WP7 will take second place in place of iOS by 2015. Most people thought that study was ridiculous also. The difference with the hydrogen FCV study is that WP7 has been in the market for 1 year already (and average phone turnaround is 2 years; average car turnaround is 5-10 years).
        JakeY
        • 2 Years Ago
        When you say "That's the future folks and it makes sense too." and you have a lot of people who completely disagree with your opinion, they obviously will respond. This is ABG, so people won't let any statement just slide, or there would be no discussions.
        krona2k
        • 2 Years Ago
        You're probably just not as jaded as us yet...
    • Load More Comments