Johnny Bacigalupo and Rob Hussey have been hit with a £17,000 bill to fix their Tesla after it was damaged in the rain - they have been told to pay even if they say it's not their fault
You probably didn’t see a BEV until the last several years. FCEVs will plunge in cost until they are no more expensive than ICE cars. That will be the real revolution.
We’ve seen pushes for hydrogen, hard ones. And yet ultimately they had to concede that the inherent downsides of hydrogen make them only useful in a select few situations, compared to BEVs that are far better fits especially in the small/commute personal car market where their already short charging duration is irrelevant due to the briefness of the trip.
Not everyone is a professional truck or long distance bus driver where hydrogen can play to its strengths. Even with busses, my city has fully electrified busses with gasoline ones only being used as a backup now. The way they do it is by having a slightly larger spare fleet than normal, so busses can charge while others are running, and then swapping them as a bus nears the end of its lap where everyone has to exit anyways. Intra-city busses benefit massively from regenerative braking, after all.
I mean, do humor me, because I thought hydrogen was a fantastic idea, until I actually read up on it and it turns out it’s not actually a very good tech, as cool scifi as it sounds at first.
I do my homework. It’s all about following the evidence.
Toyota has already come out and say that a fuel cell car costs the same as an ICE car to build, at least in theory. But it has very small resource requirements, so it seems self-evident that it is the case.
You don’t have to make a compromise. If there’s a way to power a car just like a conventional gasoline car, while also being a zero emissions electric car, then there’s no reason to oppose the idea.
Most engineers in the car industry actually believe the hydrogen car is the future. And they still do. What you’re hearing on social media is just a lot of marketing BS coming from BEV companies. Most of these accounts are Tesla drivers or investors. None of them are being honest.
Toyota has already come out and say that a fuel cell car costs the same as an ICE car to build, at least in theory. But it has very small resource requirements, so it seems self-evident that it is the case.
Isn’t one of the big downsides of hydrogen fuel cells the required platinum, even after the improvement of not bonding them to carbon?
You don’t have to make a compromise. If there’s a way to power a car just like a conventional gasoline car, while also being a zero emissions electric car, then there’s no reason to oppose the idea.
Hydrogen is not a zero-emissions thing, and I hope that you didn’t pick that up from “sources”, because you speak about others going by social media information while - apparently - believing that hydrogen is a zero-emissions system. (neither is BEV, at least not in a well-to-wheel-comparative scenario, mind you)
Most engineers in the car industry actually believe the hydrogen car is the future. And they still do. What you’re hearing on social media is just a lot of marketing BS coming from BEV companies. Most of these accounts are Tesla drivers or investors. None of them are being honest.
What about all the other car companies then, that should have a vested interesent in marketing-wise opposing Tesla, yet even after initial pushes to hydrogen, Toyota and Honda quickly swapped to a near-100% BEV fleet? Wouldn’t your logic dictate that if hydrogen was a valid alternative as-is, then companies would lean hard on that as their USP compared to Tesla? Especialy in North America where Tesla is so dominant, but which is also just about the only place where hydrogen vehicles have any existence and hence usable network at all?
Last stats I’ve seen still had hydrogen at 50%-100% more pollution than gasoline cards while also costing ~2x as much per kilometer for the owner. Of course, in theory all hydrogen can be produced from solar/wind/etc, but:
The losses during production and shipping are so big that the amount of energy is absurd.
The extra storage and shipping problems are entirely unsolved at the scale personal vehicles would require. Nevermind the further reduction in final efficiency they incur.
Right now >90% of hydrogen is produced from methane, as electrolysis is just not a valid source. Without serious technological advancements, switching to hydrogen would actually make things worse.
Speaking of making things worse: We worry about batteries in crashes and fires. We mind the pollution from their materials in such cases. Both issues are, at present, worse for hydrogen.
Sure, maybe in 40-100 years, people might scoff at the idea that hydrogen was ever not a valid way of powering a personal vehicle. But at our present technology, all it has going for it is that it sounds quite cool. Hydrogen powered!! 🤘
You need grams of platinum. It is not a big deal. And not all fuel cells need platinum.
All EVs are as green as their energy source.
Toyota and Honda have not swapped to a 100% BEV fleet. It is currently what is in vogue, and everyone invest in it. But like the diesel car, that does not imply it is the future. In reality, BEVs are still a niche product and current demand is entirely created via subsidies. The current wave of BEV excitement will not last beyond the end of those huge subsidies.
Most criticisms of hydrogen cars are just marketing from competing technologies. You shouldn’t believe them. In reality, hydrogen cars will be the cheaper type of EV, and the fuel will plunge in cost. It is the same story as what happened to wind and solar.
Okay, but why should I believe you? When any source other than you disagrees?
And kind you, like I said, maybe in a few decades hydrogen will be a cool tech. But even ignoring the inherent downsides like greenhouse gas, losses during conversion, issues with storage and handling, we are probably decades away from a usable solution for production, too.
At present, a hydrogen vehicle comes out slightly to moderately worse than a petrol car for the environment while also costing the user significantly more. Can that change? Sure! Will it? Dunno, do you? Mind you, meanwhile BEVs provide a solution that is mildly cheaper to run and moderately to significantly better for the environment. We have a solution, we should use it. If in 40 years or whatever things look different, well, then that will be the case.
How did you react to all green tech in the past? With wind, solar, and even the BEV to some extent, you listen to the supporters and not the detractors. Only after the technology got widely deployed could you listen to real criticisms, mostly from real-world studies or analyses. None of the imagined problems from the detractors ever came true. Hydrogen cars will be the same.
And every green tech got accused of being a secretly dirty technology. It’s total BS. Why do you even believe the story that hydrogen vehicles are worse than petrol cars? It is utter gibberish and was the same story as BEVs being accused of being worse than petrol cars.
FCEVs are happening now. People should not fall for the marketing BS that its still far off in the future.
All of those techs either had no superior alternatives in their primary use (that is, being green) already, or in the cases where they did, they weren’t intended to be used, just to be researched.
That is, hydrogen is worse at what it wants to do than existing tech. Maybe it can surpass it in the future, but that means it clearly belongs into labs and only labs.
Why do you even believe the story that hydrogen vehicles are worse than petrol cars?
Because… it’s not a story? 🤷
FCEVs are happening now. People should not fall for the marketing BS that its still far off in the future.
Yeah, and they’re not as green or as cheap as BEVs. That’s kinda the point, the they’re excluding some very special applications like busses and some trucks a strictly inferior solution to a solved problem. That is not to say that BEVs are the end-all-be-all, quite probably they’re not. But it doesn’t seem like hydrogen can outdo them, at least at out present technological level.
That’s revisionist history. Wind and solar were widely condemned as being inferior technology in the past. They are in many ways worse than hydropower, their main zero emission competitor of the time.
Your repeating some old anti-hydrogen story probably from either an oil company or a battery company. An FCEV gets around 70 MPGe. There is very little argument that it is somehow less green than existing petrol cars. It’s an obvious repeat of classic anti-green rhetoric. We heard everything from solar panels or hybrids being demonized as being worse than the conventional solution by random fossil fuel marketing firms. It’s all bunk.
And no to that last claim either. There’s a good reason to believe that an FCEV is greener than a BEV. For starters, it has much less upfront emissions during production. And at something like 30% green hydrogen, the BEV will never catch up to the FCEV, even if it is running on 100% green electricity.
Wait do you spent all this time denying that hydrogen is going anywhere then in your last sentence admit that in 40 years it might be a default mode of transport?
We had pushes for electric cars too and after decades all we had was a few overpriced, underperforming examples that took forever to charge. Electric cars were a non-market-viable novelty for a long time.
You probably didn’t see a BEV until the last several years. FCEVs will plunge in cost until they are no more expensive than ICE cars. That will be the real revolution.
How come you know this?
We’ve seen pushes for hydrogen, hard ones. And yet ultimately they had to concede that the inherent downsides of hydrogen make them only useful in a select few situations, compared to BEVs that are far better fits especially in the small/commute personal car market where their already short charging duration is irrelevant due to the briefness of the trip.
Not everyone is a professional truck or long distance bus driver where hydrogen can play to its strengths. Even with busses, my city has fully electrified busses with gasoline ones only being used as a backup now. The way they do it is by having a slightly larger spare fleet than normal, so busses can charge while others are running, and then swapping them as a bus nears the end of its lap where everyone has to exit anyways. Intra-city busses benefit massively from regenerative braking, after all.
I mean, do humor me, because I thought hydrogen was a fantastic idea, until I actually read up on it and it turns out it’s not actually a very good tech, as cool scifi as it sounds at first.
I do my homework. It’s all about following the evidence.
Toyota has already come out and say that a fuel cell car costs the same as an ICE car to build, at least in theory. But it has very small resource requirements, so it seems self-evident that it is the case.
You don’t have to make a compromise. If there’s a way to power a car just like a conventional gasoline car, while also being a zero emissions electric car, then there’s no reason to oppose the idea.
Most engineers in the car industry actually believe the hydrogen car is the future. And they still do. What you’re hearing on social media is just a lot of marketing BS coming from BEV companies. Most of these accounts are Tesla drivers or investors. None of them are being honest.
Isn’t one of the big downsides of hydrogen fuel cells the required platinum, even after the improvement of not bonding them to carbon?
Hydrogen is not a zero-emissions thing, and I hope that you didn’t pick that up from “sources”, because you speak about others going by social media information while - apparently - believing that hydrogen is a zero-emissions system. (neither is BEV, at least not in a well-to-wheel-comparative scenario, mind you)
What about all the other car companies then, that should have a vested interesent in marketing-wise opposing Tesla, yet even after initial pushes to hydrogen, Toyota and Honda quickly swapped to a near-100% BEV fleet? Wouldn’t your logic dictate that if hydrogen was a valid alternative as-is, then companies would lean hard on that as their USP compared to Tesla? Especialy in North America where Tesla is so dominant, but which is also just about the only place where hydrogen vehicles have any existence and hence usable network at all?
Last stats I’ve seen still had hydrogen at 50%-100% more pollution than gasoline cards while also costing ~2x as much per kilometer for the owner. Of course, in theory all hydrogen can be produced from solar/wind/etc, but:
Sure, maybe in 40-100 years, people might scoff at the idea that hydrogen was ever not a valid way of powering a personal vehicle. But at our present technology, all it has going for it is that it sounds quite cool. Hydrogen powered!! 🤘
You need grams of platinum. It is not a big deal. And not all fuel cells need platinum.
All EVs are as green as their energy source.
Toyota and Honda have not swapped to a 100% BEV fleet. It is currently what is in vogue, and everyone invest in it. But like the diesel car, that does not imply it is the future. In reality, BEVs are still a niche product and current demand is entirely created via subsidies. The current wave of BEV excitement will not last beyond the end of those huge subsidies.
Most criticisms of hydrogen cars are just marketing from competing technologies. You shouldn’t believe them. In reality, hydrogen cars will be the cheaper type of EV, and the fuel will plunge in cost. It is the same story as what happened to wind and solar.
Okay, but why should I believe you? When any source other than you disagrees?
And kind you, like I said, maybe in a few decades hydrogen will be a cool tech. But even ignoring the inherent downsides like greenhouse gas, losses during conversion, issues with storage and handling, we are probably decades away from a usable solution for production, too.
At present, a hydrogen vehicle comes out slightly to moderately worse than a petrol car for the environment while also costing the user significantly more. Can that change? Sure! Will it? Dunno, do you? Mind you, meanwhile BEVs provide a solution that is mildly cheaper to run and moderately to significantly better for the environment. We have a solution, we should use it. If in 40 years or whatever things look different, well, then that will be the case.
How did you react to all green tech in the past? With wind, solar, and even the BEV to some extent, you listen to the supporters and not the detractors. Only after the technology got widely deployed could you listen to real criticisms, mostly from real-world studies or analyses. None of the imagined problems from the detractors ever came true. Hydrogen cars will be the same.
And every green tech got accused of being a secretly dirty technology. It’s total BS. Why do you even believe the story that hydrogen vehicles are worse than petrol cars? It is utter gibberish and was the same story as BEVs being accused of being worse than petrol cars.
FCEVs are happening now. People should not fall for the marketing BS that its still far off in the future.
All of those techs either had no superior alternatives in their primary use (that is, being green) already, or in the cases where they did, they weren’t intended to be used, just to be researched.
That is, hydrogen is worse at what it wants to do than existing tech. Maybe it can surpass it in the future, but that means it clearly belongs into labs and only labs.
Because… it’s not a story? 🤷
Yeah, and they’re not as green or as cheap as BEVs. That’s kinda the point, the they’re excluding some very special applications like busses and some trucks a strictly inferior solution to a solved problem. That is not to say that BEVs are the end-all-be-all, quite probably they’re not. But it doesn’t seem like hydrogen can outdo them, at least at out present technological level.
That’s revisionist history. Wind and solar were widely condemned as being inferior technology in the past. They are in many ways worse than hydropower, their main zero emission competitor of the time.
Your repeating some old anti-hydrogen story probably from either an oil company or a battery company. An FCEV gets around 70 MPGe. There is very little argument that it is somehow less green than existing petrol cars. It’s an obvious repeat of classic anti-green rhetoric. We heard everything from solar panels or hybrids being demonized as being worse than the conventional solution by random fossil fuel marketing firms. It’s all bunk.
And no to that last claim either. There’s a good reason to believe that an FCEV is greener than a BEV. For starters, it has much less upfront emissions during production. And at something like 30% green hydrogen, the BEV will never catch up to the FCEV, even if it is running on 100% green electricity.
Wait do you spent all this time denying that hydrogen is going anywhere then in your last sentence admit that in 40 years it might be a default mode of transport?
What time frame did you think we were discussing?
We had pushes for electric cars too and after decades all we had was a few overpriced, underperforming examples that took forever to charge. Electric cars were a non-market-viable novelty for a long time.
Battery vehicles were made the hot item over a decade ago by Tesla… The real evolution would be to get rid of car dependency altogether
Not sure if that would be an evolution. That would be like a sea sponge saying “the real evolution would be getting rid of multicellular structures”.
Car dependency is a new thing, and it’s also called “using cars because we vastly prefer that to not using cars”.