Personally I have a problem with the driveability of the new transmissions as the number of gears rise. I have a Camry with 4sp AT plus OD. It seems completely sufficient to provide adequate torque and is very responsive to power needs. I also have a Honda with a 5sp AT plus OD. It is mush 'busier' and is switching gears more often under normal driving conditions.
Recently I drove two cars with 6sp AT plus OD transmissions and was even less impressed with the transmission experience...always hunting for the 'right' gear to be in. It was especially noticeable when I wanted to pass a car with intent. Mashing the gas pedal, the transmission would take a noticeable time to find the right gear and actually caused a significant lag in response time. I found myself having to allow an extra second to pass as it took almost that long to begin hard passing acceleration to occur.
I can only imagine these issues being more manifested in the 7,8,9,10 speed transmissions ie. more switching of gears in normal driving and more time in selecting the right gear to provide passing power. I know that many people don't like CVT's for a variety of reasons, but I think CVT's are really the end game and we are only adding complexity and cost with adding additional gears to standard transmissions.
What are your thoughts?
Part 2 Remainder
“There is currently a trade-off between hydrogen carbon footprint and cost,” Scott said.
Battery technology is improving each year, which puts more pressure on fuel cell technologies. Lithium batteries are seeing improvements in costs per kilowatt-hour decreasing and energy density increasing. Fuel cell electric vehicles have about 20-to-25 years to move past early adopters or they’ll remain in niche market status, according to Scott. “This could be a ‘now or never’ situation for FCEVs in mass market mobility,” said Scott.
Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles have a window of opportunity for reaching the mass market, but that window will close if it doesn’t happen soon, according to an IHS Automotive study.
While plans are in place to expand fuel cell cars from three on the market today – the Toyota Mirai, Hyundai ix35/Tucson and the Honda Clarity – to 17, it’s not going to see real growth in the U.S. for a few years. The three fuel cell models are only available in California for now in the U.S. market.
Most of these new models will be rolled out in Japan and Korea initially, and by 2021, European carmakers are expected to take a leading role as government emissions targets get tougher. By 2027, IHS says fuel cell vehicle production will reach 70,000 units, but that will still represent less than 0.1 percent of all vehicles produced in the world.
For Ben Scott, a senior analyst at IHS Automotive and the study’s author, fuel cells have a window of opportunity to get firmly stabled in the marketplace including a few advantages over battery electric vehicles. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles have longer driving range and shorter fueling times than EVs. “Refueling habits with a fuel cell vehicle will be very similar to that of a conventional car. This will definitely help with customer acceptance,” Scott said.
One of the biggest stumbling blocks for mass adoption has been the limited refueling infrastructure. Today there are only about 100 public hydrogen stations in the world, with 16 in the U.S. One of the challenges has been the cost of installing one of these stations – more than $3 million – which gives relatively inexpensive EV chargers stations a competitive edge.
Hydrogen is being used now industrial applications such as hydrogen-powered forklifts. This hydrogen comes mainly from fossil fuels like natural gas and coal. To produce it from renewable sources is much more expensive.
...BS. I Don't know your game. Don't care. You're wrong....
That says a lot doesn't it? Presented with facts, the facts that are a big part of the problem, you immediately denigrate the poster.
Then you say you don't understand his 'game', which really means you don't understand that there isn't any 'game', only facts which you too don't understand.
Followed by 'I don't care' which is painfully obvious.
Then, laughably, you say he is wrong. Which of course he isn't, but you don't understand why, so you just call him wrong (and probably gave him a thumbs down just to prove yourself right.)
Sm, there seems to be a whole lot of things you can't get your head around as to why the conversion to a hydrogen economy is going so slowly. You don't seem to grasp the efficiencies of conversions. The high initial costs. The lack of infrastructure. The inertia of the infrastructure already in place and paid for. The missing pieces of technologies. The competing technologies. This may be why you appear to be so frustrated with the process and with people who don't share your rather narrow viewpoints.
Broaden your vision a little and try to grasp why things don't seem to be matching with your expectations. With more knowledge comes more wisdom.
You are, of course, right on with your comments. There are a lot of 'less-than-complete' investors on this board that are not looking at all sides of the complex issues of stock pricing. If you want to be a good investor, you must be able to engage in the understanding of why a stock price is trading where it is and where you think it might be down the road. Then you can intelligently pick buy, hold or sell points.
Some board members are not quite there yet.
I'm glad you posted these articles. They say exactly what many of us have been saying for years about needing spinning reserve, reliable base load, difficulty of load leveling, conflicts between traditional and AE power sources, the need for a very sophisticated grid management system. political regulations and higher than expected costs with lower than expected benefits.
I am all for transitioning from fossil fuel power to AE power, but there are, and will continue to be, real-world problems that need engineering solutions and fool-world problems created by irrational politics to be ironed out each step along the way.
This is exactly the problem with fuel cell transtioning. Fuel cell technology is a generation beyond wind turbines and solar panels and we can see how far we have yet to go with these technologies...
There are a lot of problems to work out before the transition is smooth. A lot of politics and regulations are interfering with this just like the problems shown in your articles. It is going to take some time yet for fuel cells to make a significant mark in the transportation infrastructure picture. This is why Ballard is showing so little life in the stock price. A few demonstration projects and bus trials doth not a successful technology make.
It's going to take time. A couple decades more.
I don't know why you just wouldn't chew nicotine gum instead...
But I'm sure there won't be any hydrogen fires either.
Yes, but not for India. Indian temperature records began closer to ~1880. The topic was 'record temperatures for India'.
I meant that we have only been taking temp measurements since 1880, so that's all the recorded history we have. Warming since then means more warm records since.
Since we were in the coldest parts of the LIA from ~1300 to ~1850, it is no surprise that winter sports were more prevalent then...
Have a nice day at work.
A record since ~1880 maybe. Since then we have been warming from the LIA so temperature 'records' should be regular and not abnormal to a great extent, no?
I'm guessing it hit a couple degrees higher than 51 during the Medieval, Roman and Minoan Periods since all were 1-2 degree warmer than today?
We know so little about global temperatures simply because we have only been recording them regularly for ~150 years in a system that appears to have many, many climate cycles going on simultaneously over eons.
The historical record shows that we were warmer much of the last 10,000 years than we are today before humans burned fossil fuels. It also shows several similar time frames where the rate of warming before fossil fuels were burned was the same as the rate of warming after fossil fuels were burned.
So the following questions are extremely relevant.
Are we still warming up from the LIA?
Are there other processes that can change global temperatures that might 'look like' CO2 perceived effects?
What percentage of the current rise is due to CO2/man?
Is there any way, at all, to tell what the effect of CO2 is on global temps?
Why does NASA continue to adjust older temperature records downward and newer temperature records upward?
Why do balloon and satellite records consistently show lower temps than the vast majority of the models?
Why do the models still show the warming effects of CO2 at a level more than 2x the actually experimentally determined values?
No scientist can answer any of these questions with any certainty backed up by actual science, yet. Until they can, no-one knows much of anything.
So why do you feel that man has any significant effect on global temperatures? Is it because you are just a simple human being wired to over-react to perceived threats for self preservation even when no real threat actually exists? You needn't worry. This is an natural adaptive response in homo sapiens. You just have to out-grow irrational fears and properly determine what is emotionally perceived and what is reality.
The science gives every indication that CO2 is a minor player and that global temperature changes, roaming dry spells/wet spells, glacier melting/re-growth, variable cloudiness, wind patterns, etc. are all normal and having been going on for interminable millennia without any influence of mankind. Its normal and we will adapt as we always have.
Relax and read a good book.
Well...the price has fallen below the 1.40 level for several days now. This probably makes 1.40 an overhead resistance for the for the time being.
This is disappointing.
OHI stock price is at an important near-term level today. There is some moderate price support in the $30.50 to 31.50 range that it would be nice to hold at. But other technical indicators are showing little support for this level and the price trend is still sloping towards lower prices ie. the $28 range.
Take caution in buying/selling in here and watch for better ideas of the next direction in prices.
You are quite uninformed. Battery breakthroughs are happening all the time and at an ever-increasing pace. The batteries in the EV-1 weighed 1200 pounds and gave the car a 90 mile range. The batteries in the Tesla weigh 1200 pounds and give the car a 300 mile range. That's a 330% improvement. The EV-1 batteries could be 80% recharged about 100 times while the Teslas batteries can be 80% recharged at least 600 times. That' s a 500+ % improvement. All you need to do is take off you blinders and do a little reading. Oh yes...reading with comprehension. We've gone from lead acid to nickel cadmium to nickel metal hydride to lithium and are moving forward with divalent compounds for another big boost in performance. Some reading into that progression and the future of battery technologies would be very informative for you.
You are right.
Merrill is not making any recommendations for our benefit. Merrill is making recommendations for Merrill's benefit. Merrill hoped to get a few more buyers and bump the price up a few more pennies while they were planning to sell a whole bunch of shares and make as much money as they could...with our help. Merrill's goal is to make as much money as possible and they do it by trading. Their recommendations are made for their benefit. We are their tools.