An AI tool was used to add an extra layer to the editing process for this story.
For crying out loud, stop that!
Translation: this story was written by AI but we sorta skimmed it to make sure it wasn’t too insane.
And the readers can do the proof reading for us.
*to make sure it was insane enough.
It’s The Mirror we’re taking about.
Okay so for starters this article is clearly just a dig at Elon. If it wasn’t they would never have mentioned him but Elon makes headlines.
Second, I don’t buy it. We’re getting one side of the story here. They’ve been selling these cars by the millions for years at this point. If the cars were failing “while driving in the rain”, it would be a much bigger deal.
The " Elon Musk could buy everyone in the world a Tesla if he wanted to." line makes it clear that this is just more Elon/Tesla clickbait.
Elon Musk could buy everyone in the world a Tesla if he wanted to.
Well, that would be $ 314 562 157 350 000. in other words, 3 times the global yearly GDP. But one can hardly expect a common sense from a tesla owner :D /s
He wouldn’t buy them from himself at full MSRP, only cost.
Let’s deduct the average per-car profit of $9500, not pay any taxes, since it’s a gift… we’re at $ 153 207 089 787 600. Still a few billions above the yearly global GDP.
And I’m using this bullshit fake base price per car that’s not even real. Seriously, read the text behind the asterisk, this is outright scam.
Tesla probably has a lot higher profit than other cars, since Teslas are a Status-Symbol rather than just a Car
but yes
Where in the world is Tesla a status symbol? Because I bought my M3P because I couldn’t afford a BMW i4 M50, let alone a iX or EQS/EQE AMG. The BMW is similar size and performance and costs 30% more.
I still like it, but it was the compromise option.
US, EU, RU, probably even China…
Not in the EU for sure. American cars have always been “lots of horsepower and low-ish quality for a low price”, and Tesla keeps the trend.
I only know rich people who buy Tesla in EU. Rest of the people are driving half the price combustion engine cars.
deleted by creator
Even if the cost was an impossibly low 10% of MSRP, that’s still $30 trillion dollars based on the math above and well more than he has.
Why are you guys so literate about it. OP just used something called exaggeration.
This whole thread is a perfect example of “feeding the troll” :D
John said he pressed representatives of Tesla on whether he or Rob were at fault for the damage, to which he claims he was told that it was a weather issue. He added: "They said that the battery is effectively submerged in water. How can that be our fault?
The car got flooded, then? That’s an insurance problem not a repair problem.
Incredible. I clicked to read the article, but there was no article! A title and a sentence.
There is an article. It talks about how they were driving in the rain in Scotland and apparently the damage caused by the rain wasn’t covered under the warranty.
deleted by creator
Due respect and support for Elon hatred, but this story is stupid. No one gets water ingress on a tesla battery from driving through puddles. The family didn’t want to pay for it, the horrible “newd” organization (I refuse to even name them) knows mentioning Elon makes better news, and this whole thing is an insurance issue and somehow Elon is mentioned.
Quick, without looking, who is the CEO of Toyota, Honda, Chevrolet, or Ford?
Even if you know, who cares? Exactly.
A stupid story by The Daily Mirror? That must be a first!
Fair point. Why do they get posted though is the real question.
Usually because the Daily Mail and The Sun are worse, and because leaning towards the left/Labour let’s The Mirror off a bit in some people’s eyes.
Because it fits the narrative of the slightly radicalised userbase.
Nelson voice, points finger, Haha!!
Guinea pigs.
I have zero sympathy for anyone that bought anything connected to Phony Stark. Zilch.
You knew what you were buying into - you live with it.
I get everyone here loves to hate have hate boner for musk but any electric car will break down if submerged in water. If tesla’s were breaking from simply driving in the rain, you would have heard about it.
Hell son, any car will break down when submerged. ICE cars don’t like inhaling water either.
deleted by creator
Stop reposting Elon articles.
Lmao at the mass downvotes from Musk stans
This isn’t about Elon. While it’s about one of his companies, Elon has little to nothing to do with this story.
Yes. It is not about Elon. It’s about the doomed nature of BEVs. Any technology that can give you a £17,000 repair bill just because it is wet means it is not a viable technology. Though it’s sad that people have been fooled by Elon’s bullshit about his companies. Which is why stories like this come up. Ultimately, BEVs are dead-end and this cannot be changed. It will be a matter of when BEVs are abandoned in the marketplace, not if.
EDIT: Again, no amount of lying to yourself will change reality. BEVs are a dead-end and always will be.
So a poorly made electric vehicle by one manufacturer means that the entire field is non-viable?
EDIT: Lmao, check out this guy’s posts, every single comment is shitting on battery EVs and shilling hydrogen vehicles. I don’t know how much you’re being paid to shill for the fossil fuel industry, but I hope it’s enough.
Lmao, check out this guy’s posts, every single comment is shitting on battery EVs and shilling hydrogen vehicles. I don’t know how much you’re being paid to shill for the fossil fuel industry, but I hope it’s enough.
How many people are shilling for the BEV industry or Tesla? It is the biggest greenwashing scam of our time. Someone has to say something. You have reality reversed. It’s the pro-BEV people that are shills.
All BEVs from everyone will have the same issues.
EDIT: Lying to yourself will not change reality. A BEV will never be a low-resource type of vehicles. It is a matter of when, not if, it falls apart as an idea.
Lying to yourself will not change reality. A cellphone will never be a low-resource type of communication. It is a matter of when, not if, it falls apart as an idea.
Lying to yourself will not change reality. A personal computer will never be a low-resource type of device. It is a matter of when, not if, it falls apart as an idea.
That is you, that is how deranged you sound.
A cellphone is not a car. Nor is a personal computer.
A BEV has fundamental problems that cannot be solved. It’s worth noting that they are an older idea than combustion cars. It is in many ways, totally obsolete.
Ok I stand corrected, you definitely are deranged or you are literally a paid shill of Exxon, which in this case would be the same thing.
Funny, cause an combustion car has a lot bigger issues that can not be fixed and need to be addressed right now.
Which shares the same problems with hydrogen cars, btw.
How much do you think a new PEM fuel cell stack costs?
A fuel cell stack has a few hundred dollars worth of platinum. The rest is just conventional materials like steel or plastic. Not very expensive. The whole stack is very small too, weighing just 50kg for an average car.
So with mass production, it will be less than a combustion engine. You’ll get more savings by getting rid of the transmission and catalytic convertor. You pencil out the cost, and going with “first principles,” the whole vehicle will be the same or less than a conventional ICE car.
I don’t think the people buying Teslas are doing so because they believe them to be an economically viable option. They’re buying Teslas for the brand recognition/design more than anything.
Reminder to everyone in this thread: BEVs are a doomed technology. The fundamental high cost and resource requirements of the battery dooms it to inevitable failure. Luckily, superior technology like FCEVs are coming along now. They won’t have this problem. So if you actually cared about solving climate change, you’ll endorse FCEVs, just like any other kind of zero emission car. Even if you don’t agree with me, you should still support anything that can get us off of fossil fuels. There is no coherent reason to oppose green technology after all.
But of course, this is not the case. Many people here have either been brainwashed by Elon Musk, or have some financial motive like investments in BEV companies. As a result, they do not care for any kind of alternative to the BEV. They only want the BEV. And they will lie and BS endlessly to prop up their favored technology.
Unfortunately, reality does not care for your opinions. The BEV is a dead-end, and always will be. You can’t save it by lying to yourself or others. You have no choice to admit the truth. By not doing so, you are just becoming another group of conspiracy theorists or science deniers. We make fun of anti-vaxxers or climate deniers, and eventually we will make fun of hydrogen deniers. That is the eventual outcome if you cannot change your mind.
Removed by mod
Last I checked, a lot of countries are planning to ban all competing technologies, or subsidizing BEVs to an insane amount. If you realize that this is basically a doomed strategy, then your next act is pretty obvious.
In the end, our motivation is about solving climate change. And we see a lot of brainwashed fools wasting their time and money on a dead-end idea that won’t work. It’s pretty much impossible not to bring up the alternative. Not doing so would be a major moral failure on our own part. So it has to be brought up. Guys like you are just annoyed that someone is telling you something you don’t want to hear.
How do you feel about capacitor based EVs?
Really low energy density. Not feasible for a long time.
I’m all for FCEVs but they are a long way off from mass consumption simply because you can’t fuel them at home like you can with a BEV. They need to seriously start building out hydrogen fueling stations for then be considered a viable alternative.
That’s a motivation for building them out as quickly as possible. Saying that it is an excuse to not doing anything really reveals that you’re not being serious about stopping climate change.
After all, millions of people will need some kind of public charging/refuel system anyways. So it’s not like this problem can be ignored.
I don’t see why something that works today won’t tomorrow. I got a BEV for years (Renault Zoe), rode it under a lot of rain, never got any problem.
At worst this only shows a lack of quality from Tesla, not from the whole industry.
FCEV has a lot of downside that BEV don’t, and same goes the other way. Those two technologies are complementary, but FCEVs lack the necessary infrastructure, be it for distribution or production.
Currently, most of the hydrogen used comes from fossil fuel as current electrolysis technologies have too much loss of potential energy, and has to be sold at a far higher price than fossil fuel based hydrogen as a result.
Once these BEVs get older and more corroded, we will see a lot of issues.
FCEVs have massive advantages over BEVs. They are just some years away from mass production and adoption.
Most arguments against them are years or even decades out of date. There isn’t anything holding back green hydrogen anymore. It will be both widespread and cheap pretty soon. It is basically following the same cost curve as wind, solar, even batteries themselves.
FCEV isn’t immune to corrosion, as is any vehicle. And if the fuel cell leaks, considering the volatility of hydrogen, you are at risk of a pretty big exposition. BEV has its own risk, but at least you have a chance to get out of the car and save your life.
And unfortunately the arguments are not out of date, unfortunately. Hydrogen production is still a big problem, as is the distribution network and storage (albeit this side is far better now than it was in the past, it is far from being good enough to deal with the smallest atom in existence).
BEV have a lot of advantages over FCEV. They can be recharged pretty much anywhere, they can be used as battery storage to make a resilient renewable based power grid, and battery can be reused as static electricity storage once their autonomy goes below the often used 70% threshold, and can be recycled pretty well (ironically the problem isn’t the technology but the lack of batteries to recycle, as there is very little BEV that get scrapped currently).
Moreover new battery technologies are on the way to help with a lot of it’s downsides, like ones that don’t catch fire, or smaller one to get better autonomy.
FCEVs are much less flammable than BEVs. They’ve been on the road of years, even a decade+. None of that has happened. And carbon fiber doesn’t really corrode, so it is incredibly safe all around.
Again, FCEVs have massive advantages over batteries. Including all of the same advantages of availability and green energy sources. Remember, FCEVs are literally EVs. They work the same way and have all the same basic advantages.
They just also happen to be able to refuel in minutes and have 400 miles of range. Plus much less raw material challenges. None of the supposed solutions of BEVs can even touch what FCEVs provide from day one.
And of course, BEV fanatics always resort to “magical batteries from the future.” Never once allowing for the possibility of superior fuel cells in the future.
FCEVs are much less flammable than BEVs.
I agree with you on that. That’s one of the main current generation BEV weak points. But that’s not something that can’t be changed. FCEVs are not as flammable, but they are surely explosive. But in both case, a lot of security measures exists, and danger comes from quality defect, not the lack of security.
They’ve been on the road of years, even a decade+.
As for BEV. I could also add more than a century for BEV (early cars were electric, but died out due to batteries being far too primitive at the time).
None of that has happened.
https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/hydrogen-fuel-cell-car-california-explosion/
https://electrek.co/2019/06/11/hydrogen-station-explodes-toyota-halts-sales-fuel-cell-cars/
And there are other occurrences, just go do a Google search.
And carbon fiber doesn’t really corrode, so it is incredibly safe all around.
Carbon fiber can be used on BEV too. But in both case it cost way too much to be viable other than for supercars.
Including all of the same advantages of availability and green energy sources.
Tell me, have you seen a lot of at home hydrogen recharge station. Have you seen a lot of hydrogen recharge stations in parking ? Both are true for BEVs
They work the same way and have all the same basic advantages.
The engine yes, not the energy storage. And a lot of EVs advantage and inconvenience are due to that part.
They just also happen to be able to refuel in minutes and have 400 miles of range. Plus much less raw material challenges.
I don’t deny that. And that’s why both technologies are complementary. FCEV for long range, far from home, BEV for medium to short ranges, when you can charge it at home.
On another hand, fast charger are more and more commonplace, and can recharge a $50000 BEV in less than 30 minutes. Just the time to go touch some grass, drink a cup of coffee, or do something else. It is required to take a break while driving from time to time, so why not ? Considering the pace at which fast charging is going, a 10 minutes fill up isn’t that far fetched.None of the supposed solutions of BEVs can even touch what FCEVs provide from day one.
Depends of your uses. For mine, FCEV have far to much disadvantages over BEV to be viable.
And of course, BEV fanatics always resort to “magical batteries from the future.” Never once allowing for the possibility of superior fuel cells in the future.
I can say the same about magical hydrogen production and storage facilities for FCEVs.
What you don’t understand is that I’m not critical as much about FCEVs than I am about the agressive and borderline irrational your stance is.
Both technologies are good. Both have a future. And more importantly, both have an important role to play to decarbonate of our civilization.
“You are not wrong, you’re just an asshole”, The Big Lebowski
Then don’t come out and claim that FCEVs are a bad idea. If you know that they can work, then support them fully.
Imagine a world where wind supporter vigorously attack solar power. That would be insane! That’s also what is happening now with FCEVs. It just happens that FCEVs, due to their lower resource needs, will play a much larger role than BEVs. But BEV fanatics cannot accept this at all. So rational people should know better than to swallow their lies.
Imagine a world where wind supporter vigorously attack solar power.
You say that and then proceed to vigorously attack BEVs. Quite ironic isn’t it?
I just point out that FCEVs are, like BEVs, a flawed technology at this time. If it wasn’t the adoption would have been immediate. Both still need a lot of R&D, and both will get better. BEVs are in no way a doomed technology like you said earlier. It is just different from FCEVs.
If you actually cared about the environment, you’d walk, bike or take transit. Cars are bad for cities, people and ecology
Actually yes. Cars are for special purposes. They should not be driven that much.
Reminder to everyone in this thread:
Anyone who starts off their post with stuff like this is probably an idiot that shouldn’t be taken seriously.
These are the folks who never touch grass.
FCEV
Lol.
Keep dreaming.
Go back to the year 2015 when you actually sound original.
Maybe stop insulting everyone who disagrees with you. That’s how children behave. Not adults.
You are genuinely mentally ill. Get help.
Seriously, fuck off. You’re just a sad troll.
You’re the one rabidly pushing a technology that nobody is buying for some reason.
As soon as anybody disagrees with you (which is basically everyone) you respond with irrational anger, hate and swearing.
That’s not normal. It’s not healthy.
You need help. Get it.
aS A meCHAnIC, all vehicles are doomed. You want green, advocate for trollies.
Heavier vehicles also eat up tires quicker and put more micro plastics into the environment.
I heard one of the byproducts of desalinization is hydrogen. If that’s what’s powering the cars, and we’re going to run out of drinking water that seems like a win win in my book.
BEVs are a dead-end technology. It just replaces an unsustainable dependency on fossil fuels with an unsustainable dependency on batteries and battery-related mining.
In reality, the future will be hydrogen cars, with an outside chance of synfuel/e-fuel cars.
EDIT: Sorry, but no amount of lying to yourself will make BEVs a viable technology. It is a dead-end and always will be.
Maybe the future is not relying on any one technology as our only option.
Nah, that doesn’t make sense at all.
Agreed. BEVs make sense as short-ranged urban commuter cars. You don’t want a car with a giant, expensive battery. But this is a niche, so you quickly realize that something else must be the answer.
For a lot of cases, it is either mass transit or e-bikes. But if you must have a car, it must be something that matches the functionality of ICE cars while being zero emissions.
Since when is a 300 mile range “short range”? And it only takes a half hour or so at a good charger to regain the majority of that range. Modern electric cars are perfectly reasonable for long distance trips, provided there’s charging infrastructure, of course.
Do any of them actually have 300 mile range? Like an actual human being can drive them on real roads for 300 miles without charging?
A few, very expensive BEVs do. Think Lucid Air and the like. But they’re not economically viable vehicles.
And a brand new, cutting edge hydrogen vehicle is economically viable? Your arguments are all retarded man lol
An FCEV is able to do 400 miles at a much lower price right now. And that’s with very low rate of production.
To get a long-ranged BEV, you need a giant battery. That means massive repair bills down the road. Only by limiting range to a small number can this be avoided. Saying that BEVs can have 300 miles of range is missing the point. It is just too expensive to get there.
There is now technology that can let you refuel in 5 minutes, give you 300-400 miles of range, while also being a type of EV. As a result, it no longer matters that BEVs are “good enough.” It is simply not the most practical idea. Something else is flat-out better.
Your alternative is not better, because it’s not in mass production. When it’s in production it might be better.
But there are still a lot of problems to work out with hydrogen fuel, and the infrastructure is extremely expensive and complicated compared to simple charging stations.
It will be mass produced. The main difference is that there will be much less need for raw materials. So it will be much cheaper.
There’s very little left to solve for hydrogen cars. It’s mostly outdated bullshit coming from competing industries. The only real problem left is getting it to mass production. Once that happens, hydrogen cars will be as cheap as ICE cars, and hydrogen fuel will be cheaper than gasoline.
You’re completely ignoring the fact that it takes 3 to 5 times as much energy to actually drive a hydrogen car, because of the (in)efficiencies of the hydrogen production, supply and consumption chains.
And given that the driving of a car is what consumes the most energy in its lifetime, the much higher efficiency of a BEV ‘pays off’ the higher production costs, both monetarily and ecologically.
Battery technology will be improved. Look at how much better today’s lithium ion batteries are than the NiCad batteries of the 90s.
At some point, we’ll develop something that doesn’t wear out for tens of thousands of charge cycles.
And fuel cells will also improve. Why not invest in an alternative? At the very least, you have a backup plan.
Also, fuel cells are electrochemical devices just like batteries. They arguable are batteries. So there’s no reason to not accept fuel cells.
Batteries will improve. So there’s no reason to not accept them.
I smell an angry Nikola investor.
Hydrogen can not be improved. It will still seep through containers no matter what material you use because hydrogen atoms are just so damn small.
They are 2 fundamentally different problems, and only one can be actually improved. And that is the battery storage.
Massive repair bills like you would have with an ICE engine and transmission or hydrogen fuel cell. Turns out vehicles, regardless of what they’re powered with, are expensive to fix.
Short range urban commuting is the domain of subways and ebikes
Wow man. You have the highest proportional mix of someone being both highly opinionated and highly misinformed that I’ve witnessed in quite a while. Congrats, I guess 🎉
You’re being eaten alive here because you are confidently wrong about many things and seem to be blind to criticism
Because in reality, this thread is filled with brainwashed BEV fanatics. Either they have been fooled by Musk, or they are investors in some BEV company.
A real problem, if you believe that is going to be a massive distraction to solving climate change.
Ultimately, if you were in my shoes, you do the same thing. You have to. It is the only morally acceptable thing to do if you believe what I believe.
Bud, have you even spent any time around here? I can’t think of a group of people more gleefully critical of Musk. He’s reviled around here
You say you believe these things, but have shared nothing but flimsy opinion without facts. That’s not reality, that’s faith. It might be a great time to reconsider whose actually brainwashed.
I’m sure there’s plenty of Musk haters. But there’s still plenty of people still believing in him. Or still believing in past lies they haven’t realized were lies.
Classic example of heels firmly dug in with no interest in reality. Good luck with all of that bullshit
Some of you guys are so detached from reality, you can’t even realize that you just propping up some outdated Fascist bullshit that almost no one on the left believes in anymore.
In case you weren’t aware, even Joe Biden is promoting hydrogen. At some point, you have to make an assessment of whose water you’re really carrying.
There it is. I see now which echo chamber you’ve crawled out of. Crawl back, please, back into your troglodyte hole
Why do you think we’re brainwashed BEV fanatics? We’re not blind, we just think it’s decent for now. We’re just not hydrogen-brainwashed fanatics like you? What’s wrong with that? I drive a cheap ass honda civic with no hope of affording EV or HV, but I like the idea of BEV over the gas/diesel does that mean I’m brainwashed BEV fanatic? I’d love to see hydrogen-fueled vehicles as viable, but it’s not happening now other than only two models.
People here are actively rejecting the possibility of an alternative type of EV. For most of them, only the BEV can exist, and anything is reflexively rejected. It’s not the first time they behave like that, so don’t think they are coming from nowhere and are just asking questions. It’s purely an act of defensiveness, likely to defend their car purposes or their investments.
Right now EVs can be charged at home with power they can generate themselves via solar panels. How is going back to a gas station a better and more convenient solution? Also, you think battery tech will never evolve?
Because millions of people cannot change at home. They don’t have a garage to charge in.
Not to mention you will need a “gas station” for long distance driving anyways. Might as well have one infrastructure that serves both purposes.
In fact, this is how the ICE car won over BEVs in the first place. ICE cars were invented before the gas station, but the gas station allows ICE cars to be ubiquitous and available for everyone. As a result, BEVs died out in the early 1900s.
You do realize hydrogen technology can also evolve? FCEVs of the future will be better than FCEVs of today. Furthermore, fuel cells are basically batteries anyways. The moment you start talking about metal-air batteries is the moment you admit defeat, because hydrogen fuel cells are basically hydrogen-air batteries.
Removed by mod
Why do you care? Are you a climate change denier?
Removed by mod
Then you are a climate change denier. Fuck off with your callous ignorance.
Removed by mod
There are about 44 Hydrogen fueling stations in the USA right now. Every home and parking structure damn near has at least a power outlet.
Today you can do a cross county road trip with an EV. You can not do that with a Fuel Cell. I don’t see that changing. Batteries are just more convenient.
Same could be said of BEVs not that long ago.
And no, it will never be more convenient than a chemical fuel. Once there are more hydrogen stations, no one will bother with slow recharging.
Nobody will? We already do. 🤣
Then why does everyone complain about long recharge times, or long lines at fast charging stations?
Look, you don’t have to lie to yourself anymore. There’s a technology that can reduce refueling/recharge times to that of a gasoline car. Might as well start talking about the next big idea, not prop up the outdated one.
Look, you don’t have to lie to yourself anymore.
This is called projection.
Isn’t Hydrogen only like 50% efficient?
On a good day… Electrolysis alone is often <60% efficient, but as someone else pointed out, you do have the advantage of ToU flexibility for minimizing costs.
Round trip, although you can make and store it with excess solar you were just gonna throw away
Not really, because fuel cells are electrochemical systems just like batteries. In the long-run, it will be the same level of efficiency as batteries.
What you mean to say is that at a certain level of technology, it is 50% efficient. But even that is meaningless, because hydrogen’s ability to capture excess wind and solar energy let’s it be extremely cheap energy. It is the same story as photovoltaic cells. Photovoltaic cells are very inefficient, but it is irrelevant because it captures such a cheap energy source. So solar power is very cheap. Likewise, green hydrogen, made from water and extremely cheap renewable energy, will also be extremely cheap. Efficiency isn’t that big of a deal here either.
Ultimately, the people who criticize hydrogen are doing the same thing as those that attacked solar power. It is just missing the forest for the trees, and they are basically guaranteed to be wrong.
Ultimately, the people who criticize hydrogen are doing the same thing as those that attacked solar power. It is just missing the forest for the trees, and they are basically guaranteed to be wrong.
Can’t speak for everyone but my criticism of hydrogen is not on its theoretical potential to displace fossil fuels as an energy carrier, but on its practical constraints today.
I don’t see many people criticizing hydrogen like those who “attacked solar” but people more treating it like fusion - it’s very likely the way of the future, but we shouldn’t stand around waiting for that future to materialize when we can be making changes now that will help preserve our collective future.
Additionally, your theoretical ultra-efficient-platinum-free-corrosion-resistant-fuel-cell-and-electrolyzer future is competing against the theoretical super-energy-dense-durable-low-cost-solid-state-battery future, and I shook my Magic 8 ball asking which is more likely and all I got was “Ask again later” so… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The “practical constraints” are mostly just lies from competing industries. Case in point, a hydrogen tank is both volumetrically and gravimetrically denser than batteries. Loosely speaking, it is about 2000 Wh/kg and 1333 Wh/L. That’s better than any li-ion battery.
It is plenty good enough to replace both BEVs and ICE cars. As long as it is zero emissions, it works.
Finally, FCEVs exist right now. Hypothetical magical batteries of the future don’t. So this is a meaningless comparison.
mostly just lies from competing industries
My Master’s Thesis and PhD Dissertation were focused on fuel cells as an energy storage system of the future - I’ve got more first hand experience than most with no influence “from competing industries”. I want this technology to work - badly.
That said, you’re right that fuel cell cars exist today, but so do batteries, and with today’s technology any “meaningful comparison” will quickly point out that today’s batteries are:
More efficient, cheaper to manufacturer, much cheaper to operate (have you checked the price per kg for (mostly fossil-produced) hydrogen recently? YIKES!), more user friendly for most (not all) drivers, and (a little more subjective) way more fun to drive.
Yes, batteries do have their problems (long haul & heavy duty applications, refueling time, cobalt sourcing, flammability, …) But so do PEMFCs (fuel cost, platinum sourcing, reliability & safety of ultra high pressure fueling infrastructure, fuel cost, complete lack of availability for green hydrogen, fuel cost, relatively rapid chemical degradation of electolyzers through catalyst poisoning, forever chemicals involved in the production use and disposal of Teflon/Nafion, …)
Again, I WANT fuel cells to win this contest, but today? They’ve got a lot of catching up to do before they overtake the leader, and unlike batteries, in their current state I could not in good conscience recommend purchasing an FCEV to anyone I care about.
I have two things to point out: I don’t have to believe you on your claims of expertise. And the second is that I can easily accuse you of being decades out of date on your knowledge.
None of what you said is true anymore. FCEVs are a mature technology, and will cost very little to build. Green hydrogen is plunging in cost, and will be one of the cheapest energy sources out there. None of you claims about “catalyst poisoning” is true anymore.
So what you are doing is basically being one of those “experts” who attack a revolutionary new technology just as it is taking off. It mirrors solar skeptic just before solar power took off. All your doing is setting yourself up for total embarrassment.
Dude, this is just funny ngl. I’m so curious how much you get paid
don’t have to believe you on your claims of expertise.
I’m glad you finally understand. That being said, the quality of the content of the other guys comment, compared to your 30 comments, really should be an eye opener to you.
It’s easier for people to imagine an alternative to capitalism than an alternative to cars.
I hope hydrogen succeeds myself but my friend pointed out a hydrogen engine will still need an oil change.
In the EV space they have sodium batteries now which don’t use rare minerals?
He’s actually right about this one despite the down votes. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are electric vehicles that use elective motors not engines so there are no oil changes.
The difference is that a fuel cell vehicle captures electrons during the reaction that takes place when hydrogen is exposed to oxygen (they bond to from H2O) rather than storing energy in batteries.
So battery electric vehicles store their energy in a battery while fuel cell electric vehicles store it in the form of hydrogen but ultimately electricity is was powers both of them.
A fuel cell will never need an oil change. Your friend must be talking about hydrogen combustion engines. Another possibility, but probably something of a niche product.
Sodium-ion batteries haven’t been invented yet. Just a lot of PR but no products yet. And it will have lower energy density than li-ion batteries, so it won’t be a particularly desirable product anyways.
Bro there is literally already a car driving around with sodium batteries FOR YEARS. I even talked to a company last week that already has Sodium grid batteries. DELIVERED AND WORKING
The knowledge of Hypx hasn’t been updated since 2015.
They said so in a projection comment right above this one.
💀💀💀
Close but the problem is personal transit, we just need to actually build public transit and then it’s a non issue as by the nature of public transit you drastically reduce your dependence on both
In reality, the future will be hydrogen cars,
In what reality? They’ve been developing these for years and haven’t made much headway. Fossil fuels are finite while lithium batteries can be recycled over and over. What exactly is unsustainable about them?
Sorry, but no amount of lying to yourself will make BEVs a viable technology
If they aren’t a viable technology, then how are there millions of them on the road currently?
BEVs predate internal combustion engines. People have waited a long time for it to happen. Hydrogen has the same benefit as batteries, just minus any mining to begin with.
BEVs are the result of huge subsidies. They are not really in demand by most people. A lot of this debate is within a cluster of out-of-touch rich people.
Hydrogen has the same benefit as batteries, just minus any mining to begin with.
Hydrogen is currently produced from natural gas which is mined from the earth.
BEVs are the result of huge subsidies. They are not really in demand by most people. A lot of this debate is within a cluster of out-of-touch rich people.
Obviously written by someone with very little knowledge of the topic. Every form of fuel is subsidized whether that be fossil fuels, electric, or hydrogen. How about, at the very least, you take two seconds to Google things before you speak of them.
I’d bet 0% of the people you’re ‘debating’ with have any issue with hydrogen vehicle development. Everyone is taking issue with you and your ridiculous, uninformed comments.
And so is most electricity. The point is that it can be made from water. You’re just repeating an argument used against all EVs.
Not only do I know more than pretty much anyone here, I can immediately recognize all of the dumb myths and PR talking points everyone brings up. This is old news for me.
Everyone who oppose hydrogen pretty much has an agenda. If not an owner of a BEV, they are an investor of some kind.
Ultimately, why would anyone oppose green energy or green technology? Nevermind anyone who calls himself an environmentalist. It’s the most absurd fact in all of this. So many people here are lying to themselves about what they really believe and what their real motivations are.
