• Hypx@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    29
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Pennomi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Hypx@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        20
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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 It’s mostly outdated bullshit coming from competing industries.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.

        • Chreutz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Hypx@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            14
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That’s just bullshit from BEV companies. At best, it’s something like 2x. At worse, it will take less energy, because you have waste energy from renewables. Wind and solar farms have a tendency to produce energy all-at-once, and shut down all-at-once too. You need massive amounts of energy storage to solve this. And the cheapest way of doing this is with hydrogen.

            So as a result, you just get a lot of super-cheap hydrogen that otherwise can’t be used. BEV don’t solve this problem at all, leading to a lot of wasted energy.

            Finally, fuel cells are also electrochemical systems, just like batteries. The notion that batteries will always be more efficient is just another lie from the BEV companies. In the long-run, this will be a unanimous win from fuel cells, because they will be equally efficient while also been much cheaper.

              • Hypx@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Physics state that both are types of EVs. Both fuel cells and batteries are electrochemical systems. In fact, you can literally call a hydrogen fuel cell a hydrogen-air battery.

                So whoever comes out and say “but muh physics” has no idea what he’s talking about. If you really knew physics, you’d know that there’s holding back FCEVs in physics.

    • mememuseum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Hypx@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Hypx@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s gibberish. All technology improves. And with hydrogen, you already start off with the highest possible energy density. And fuel cells are electrochemical systems, just like batteries. Saying batteries can improve also imply fuel cells can improve.

    • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.