Compare two vehicles of the same overall type. A Toyota Mirai, one of the only hydrogen cars available, with a Long-Range Model 3.
Msrp: $58,550 for the Mirai, $46,990 for the LR Model 3.
Range: 312 miles for the Mirai, 322 for Model 3 LR.
Curb weight (!): 4075lbs for the Mirai, 4072lbs for the Model 3 LR.
Top speed, 0-60mph: 111mph and 9s for the Mirai; 145mph and 4.4s Model 3 LR
Cost per mile: $0.33 per mile for Toyota Mirai in LA https://www.toyotasantamonica.com/toyota-mirai-faqs/#:~:text....
About $0.05 per mile for the Tesla Model 3 LR (19 cents per kWh in LA for households average, ~4 miles per kWh) for home charging and $0.07 per mile for Model 3 LR with Supercharging (about 28 cents per kWh).
Battery-electric cars are basically cheaper and more convenient and more efficient and better in virtually every single way. (Even lighter for more range, which I was surprised at.)
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
(The parent comment has since been edited.)
BEVs are only lighter in certain cases, like passenger cars. They become heavier/provide less range than the FCEV equivalent for larger sizes, like with large SUVs, pickup/semi-trailer trucks, etc. Additionally, electrified boats, ships, trains, and airplanes will likely make use of fuel cells.
FCEVs have the advantage of faster (5-minute) refueling, a low self-discharge rate, and have better resistance to temperature extremes.
Current FCEV production numbers are very low. As FCEV production increases, the cost will come down: https://www.thedrive.com/tech/26050/exclusive-toyota-hydroge....
An FCEV would make a good option for someone who wants to drive a completely electric car but who doesn't have convenient access to charging stations. Perhaps they live in an apartment and/or work at a place with a limited number of/no charging stations.
So I disagree. Electric infrastructure is FAR more plentiful, and fundamentally so because we already have an electric grid but not a hydrogen grid. On-site production of hydrogen is very expensive and less efficient than centralized production, but central production has significant distribution costs. To get the 5 minute refuel time requires cryogenic cooling of hydrogen, which itself requires energy (continuously to keep it cool and ready). The 5 minute charge time is a best case, too, because it typically takes time to cool the hydrogen. So the first user may experience 5 minute refueling, but the next user has 15-20 minute refuel time. And because the refueling stations are so expensive and because workplace and home and destination refueling are not feasible, there end up being lines for the rare refueling stations, so practical refueling times can be (and often are) much higher. Not only that, but many hydrogen refueling stations only refuel up to half capacity, 5000psi instead of 10,000psi.
Another issue is that typically, hydrogen is delivered and not produced on-site. There is a limited amount of hydrogen available at any one time, therefore, and hydrogen fuel stations can and do run out. (I checked, and typical hydrogen fueling stations in California have around 50-200kg of hydrogen available at any one time, and each kg gets about 62 miles in the Mirai, so maybe equivalent to 70-300 gallons of gasoline... compared to about 10,000-30,000 gallons of capacity at a typical gas station, two orders of magnitude greater capacity and able to be refueled by one or two trucks which can also carry over an order of magnitude more gasoline than the gasoline-equivalent hydrogen in a hydrogen delivery truck.)
Even without home charging, it’s much more practical to have an electric vehicle than a hydrogen one because of the fundamentally cheaper electric charging infrastructure. For instance, you can charge your electric car in more places than just California!
Hydrogen is marketed as if it solves range anxiety when in reality it's far, far worse and electric cars are now accomplishing ranges equivalent to gas cars and so therefore can be recharged in a similar manner as to a gas car even without initiatives to make home, work, and destination charging more ubiquitous than it already is.
It ignores both the cost and environmental damage of each energy source.
If we discover a way to extract energy from little kittens more efficiently than from oil, according to you we should start building kitten farms for fuel. This is absurd :)
Alternatively think of the low energy output of solar and wind power. In order to get more energy, you have to use more land and real estate. Are we supposed to chop down the entire rainforest and destroy poor people neighborhoods to get more energy.
No, people are not chopping down the rainforest for solar panels and integrating wind turbines into a forest is absolutely trivial with minimal loss of land. [0]
The primary reason why rain forests are being destroyed is by what I personally call "disposable agriculture". Poor farmers set a part of the rainforest on fire. The resulting ashes drop down on the land and the farmer starts tilling the soil. The ashes act as a natural fertilizer. The farmer then plants his monoculture field and exports the harvest. The top soil in the rainforest is not very deep. Without trees it is prone to being blown or washed away. Additionally exporting the harvest means that organic matter is being taken away from the location which further depletes the topsoil. After 3 years the land is worthless and the farmer has to move onto the next location. Rinse and repeat. A single farmer can easily destroy hundreds of acres of rainforest.
Depletion of nutrients is not exclusive to the rainforest though. Regular farmland also suffers from this which is why farmers have to use artificial fertilizer. You can farm in the rainforest even if you can't afford fertilizer. This is why it is being destroyed.
[0] https://static2.bigstockphoto.com/5/1/3/large1500/315311371....
There is basically no infrastructure either. Additionally hydrogen infrastructure is incredibly expensive to deploy and to keep running. Using the already existing power infrastructure is just so much smarter its not even close.
Add to all that that nobody has ever produced fuel cells at that scale at anywhere the price you would need. It also contains lots of expensive metals that would make scaling to millions of cars very challenging. Compared to batteries that consists of lithium, nikel, graphite and silicon, with maybe some cobalt but that will be gone soon. All easily available materials that can scale.
Any automaker that is still perusing fuel cells will be dealt harsh kicks by the market over and over again. At least they can keep sucking in government money to continue development, instead the government funding sulfer-lithium batteries that have way more potential.
Also, hydrogen has how much - 60% energy loss?
Whenever I see people use this phrase in a debate context, I give the argument less credit because it's meant to evoke an emotional response, but adds little to the discussion.
There are all sorts of companies , some big, some small, some more profit-driven, some less, some with more flexible ethics, etc. A company being big or small doesn't inherently make it bad, and small companies aren't inherently good.
It might also disrupt the status quo. Electrolysis (I assume this is where you're getting your hydrogen) just takes water and electric. People might even have home systems that can do it. That said, I still think hydrogen is, for the most part, silly, because of the electric requirement. Might as well use the electric as electric.
I don't think time favors hydrogen cars. The underlying technology was available over 50 years ago (used on Gemini spacecraft as hydrogen fuel cells in the mid 1960s, and in stationary form in the early 1930s, first developed in the lab in the 1830s). Lithium chemistry has advanced dramatically in the time since it was first invented. There were no rechargeable lithium chemistry batteries 50 years ago, even in the lab. And they didn't enter practical use until the 1990s and significant yearly progress continues today.
Time favors lithium chemistry rechargeable batteries.
With lithium annodes we are at a point where you can replace most air-travel with battery planes.
There is way more upside for improvement in batteries compared to fuel cells.
Fuel cells have no future in transportation unless there is some fundamental breakthrew that nobody can anticipate, nothing I have seen even in research improves fuel cell technology enough to make it viable.
I also don't see how fuel cells beat ICE even a renewable produced carbon fuel like methanol or Dimethyl ether. I would prefer small nuclear reactors but I seem to be the only one.
Get the word out. Batteries are bad hydrogen is good. Current hydrogen gas will have more energy than batteries at peak technology growth. This matters because hydrogen cars are cheaper, more scalable, and more inclusive than battery cars. Rich people get battery cars, you get a battery bike.