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?
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.
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.
Yeah, what most readers don’t know is that the Cannonmills / Edinburgh area has been flooding a lot for the past 2-3 weeks. It’s not only happening right now with Storm Babet but it was also happening with a different storm the 7th into the 10th…which is when the car came up damaged.
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.
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
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.
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.
I’m comparing what avg people drive in vs Tesla across EU. It’s symbol of having been able to afford expensive things.
BTW Cheapest tesla for 2023 where i curently reside costs 55k EUR.
There’s no point buying not new one because battery might not be in the shape and costs fortune in comparison to combastion car usually maintanance.
Even full electric BMW x1 costs 15k EUR less.
Don’t let me start about combustion Renault models which are not even selling due to their bad quality reputation.
Then the issue is not with Tesla, it’s with high performance cars. You are comparing small commuter cars with high performance cars. Among which, Tesla is the cheapest.
I’d love to see where an iX1 is 40k, in Germany it starts at 48k… with less power, smaller battery and a whole lot of equipment missing. Want a glass roof? 1500€. Want a wireless charger? Then you need the premium package, 1750€. A big screen? 3200€, please! A nicely configured one comes to around 60k. An equivalen model y is 45k.
I don’t have issue with Tesla.
I say that it’s status symbol across the EU as well in other parts of the world.
I’ve never mentioned other cars having better or worse features.
So again I’m comparing what avg people drive in vs Tesla across EU.
You are talking about what rich people buy if not Tesla.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
I do not "oppose" BEVs in that sense. It will play a role, just like wind does. But it won't be the magical solution, and realistically it will be a transitional role. It has too many downsides.
After all, an FCEV is also an EV. Why support the more resource intensive EV? Perhaps a better analogy might two different type of photovoltaic cells. They come in many different levels of efficiency, and yet it is the cheapest, not the most efficient kind, that is winning out.
That’s a flawed analogy. In the case of a photovoltaic cells it make sense to use the cheapest one as the main constrain is not the available place. If you were place constrained, you’ll look into maximising the production by square meter, in which case the most efficient on would win (at least for a rational buyer).
It would be better to compare wind and solar power, like you did earlier. In both case the technology is different, both have their own advantages and downsides, which makes them ideal for two different use cases.
Same goes for EVs.
Hydrogen is great for its cheaper initial build cost and fast charge, but do suffer from its lack of infrastructure and difficulty to store hydrogen (it is the smallest atom in existence. Any flaw in its container means a sizable leak. The only way currently is to make one with very thick walls, which mean it is heavy and costly.
Batteries is great for its multiple use and reuses, have a great charging infrastructure (you literally can charge on a standard electrical socket at home), but suffer from a slower charges.
In my case I suffered from no downside from my BEV, I charge it at home from time to time, I use it mainly for medium (less than 200km) to local trips, and use electrical trains for long-range trips. I have no use for any advantages provided by FCEVs, and would be rather hampered by its current or near future downsides.
BEVs in another hand got all the advantages I require. It pollute a bit more when being produced, but have 0 net emission when driving. I can choose how I get my electricity by adapting my electricity provider (I’m currently on a 100% renewable provider), which I can’t do with hydrogen. Long range trips, If I used my car for it, would be longer for sure, but as I said, it isn’t my use case for a car.
As for security, both have their risks, but strangely, they are both statistically (while taking into consideration the difference in number of vehicles) safer than gas powered car.
The future will tell us which technology will win, but for now, BEVs have a good head start. Take an example of Norway. Last time I checked they had something like 150 hydrogen car in the whole country. And that is taking into consideration that EVs make most of the car sales there now.
Just so we're clear, you can charge an FCEV. Either via PHEV setup or some home electrolysis system. It is also an EV after all. It is definitely analogous to two different PV technologies.
Since it basically runs on water, or least something made from water, it is going to be the much cheaper idea in the long run. So it seems unavoidable that at some point, the FCEV will win.
BEV owners will eventually end up being the next diesel car owners. Sure, you can say "I did my part for the climate," but you won't worship your old car.
Either via PHEV setup or some home electrolysis system.
PHEV would make it partly a BEV. Not bad for a doomed technology, isn’t it? As for an home electrolysis system, considering how difficult it is currently to build industrial sized one, I doubt we’ll see them for the decades to come. But I hope I’m mistaken on that aspect.
Since it basically runs on water, or least something made from water
They would if most of the hydrogen was made from water. It is unfortunately factually false currently, and that won’t change until someone heavily invest in a renewable mean of producing hydrogen. If you take that into consideration, FCEVs do emit quite a lot of greenhouse gases (and would even be worse than gas in some countries like Poland). Not directly, but they do nonetheless.
Sure, you can say “I did my part for the climate,” but you won’t worship your old car.
If you are worshipping your FCEV car you should reconsider your life 🤣. They are tool, maybe part of a way of life, but nothing more.
Considering FCEVs are also EVs, PHEVs don't anything. It is the absolute dependency on giant batteries that make BEVs doomed. PHEVs are fine for a transitional technology too.
It's the same argument with electricity. It is only green as its source. People are just repeating the arguments made against all EVs.
FCEVs merely happen to be the future of the automobile. There is nothing beyond that. It's BEV fanatics that get upset when someone suggests they're supporting a transitional technology.
Considering FCEVs are also EVs, PHEVs don’t anything.
Please rephrase that part, it has currently no meaning (I suppose you translated from another language). Personally I don’t believe on PHEVs. It is just an excuse to greenwash gas cars. Maybe Hydrogen-Battery hybrids, but in this case you put a possible fire hazard near a possible explosive one… Strangely I’m not a fan of the idea 😆 .
It’s the same argument with electricity. It is only green as its source. People are just repeating the arguments made against all EVs. Which is a valid argument unfortunately, albeit easy to counter. At least BEV users have the choice, which gas car user don’t. Same goes for hydrogen, at least currently, as I doubt anyone would want to pay the premium for electrolysis-only hydrogen considering its current price.
FCEVs merely happen to be the future of the automobile.
That’s an opinion, and I disagree with you. Beyond that there isn’t much to argue over. We both have our reason to believe in our technology of choice, and as I said earlier, both may be valid choices on the long run.
It’s BEV fanatics that get upset when someone suggests they’re supporting a transitional technology.
Only “fanatics” can be as sure of the future as you seem to be. There is still a ton of improvement to make in both case, so unless one of us is a specialist in both sector, we can’t pretend to know what the future hold for us. In any case, anything that helps reduce our carbon print is welcome, battery powered or not.
Plug-in fuel cell cars are a viable idea and solve a lot of problems. You are just fearmongering.
FCEVs are again, just EVs. Just without the huge cost of batteries. That ensures they will be the cheapest solution out there. Your rhetoric against the cost of green hydrogen is just a repeat of anti-renewable energy rhetoric of the past.
The difference is that you are basically saying FCEVs cannot exist in meaningful numbers. That's an absurdity. It's pretty much undeniable that they will play a major role given the need for green technology. To deny this is to repeat a common climate change denier argument. It is an argument against green technology altogether.
Plug-in fuel cell cars are a viable idea and solve a lot of problems. You are just fearmongering.
I said that it was my opinion, not that I’m correct. There is a very important difference between both. Plug-in fuel cell car could solve some problem, and create other. For now I didn’t see any commercial ones, so best I can do is speculate on its possible risks. How those risks are taken care of is the car engineers role. We’ll see. Tbh I’d really like to see that as a solution. Batterie for short range, hydrogen (if it is 100% electrolysis) for long range.
Your rhetoric against the cost of green hydrogen is just a repeat of anti-renewable energy rhetoric of the past.
I went and checked my data. According to the latest report I’ve found (July 2020), hydrolysis hydrogen cost between $3/kg and $6.55/kg. Fossil-based hydrogen costs about $1.80/kg. Not as big as I feared, but still quite a steep increase on cost that may rebuke many potential users. The mean of getting cheaper hydrogen is mostly based on a decreasing cost of renewable energy, which would also benefit BEVs.
If you have more recent data from a independent source, feel free to share.
The difference is that you are basically saying FCEVs cannot exist in meaningful numbers. That’s an absurdity. It’s pretty much undeniable that they will play a major role given the need for green technology.
You misunderstand my point. I merely pointed out the current difficulties that FCEVs faces (like the lack of distribution infrastructure), which are aspects where BEVs excels. This lack of infrastructure need to be addressed before FCEVs can be considered as a viable alternative.
For BEVs, you literally got dozen of potential “recharge infrastructure” in your own house. Slow ones, sure, but you can leave it to charge during the night like you’d do with a smartphone. And you can install faster ones too. I’m well aware of BEVs downsides, I don’t try to hide them. But they are not as damning as you portray them.
Slow charge speed are not a problem as we require regular pauses during long range driving anyway (15-30 min every 2h are recommended here), which are enough for a meaningful recharge using currently available fast chargers.
Battery cost isn’t as bad as this, fuel saving reimburse them on the long run (I already reimbursed mine long ago according to my calculation, and it is still going strong). Fire risks have long been taken care of (funnily enough the solution was borrowed from FCEVs, by redirecting the flame using valves). But Teslas are known for their lack of build quality. Elon Musk wouldn’t be its owner, it would have long gone under.
To deny this is to repeat a common climate change denier argument. It is an argument against green technology altogether.
FCEVs have a role to play, but it still need to mature a bit more before then. That’s my main point. BEVs are, in my opinion, the most logical thing to do. Depending on how FCEVs matures, it may become a welcome alternative, or even combine with BEVs to get the best of both worlds, but telling that BEVs are doomed to fail is ignorant at best, or to “repeat a common climate change denier argument” at worse, as you put it.
FCEVs are nearly PHEVs already. Battery powered for (very) short ranges and hydrogen for longer range. A PHEV version is just one with a bigger battery.
The current price of green hydrogen is already cheap enough to justify itself as a fuel. It is just distribution that is the issue.
It will be much cheaper to move hydrogen around than electricity. Pipelines are cheaper than wires after all. The cost of upgrade the grid and putting a charging point everywhere will be in the trillions of dollars. Many times more expensive than what it would take to have hydrogen stations replace gas stations.
The BEV over FCEV argument, as a near-term solution, is quickly running out of steam. It is similar to when several car companies were stuck promoting diesel cars just when the BEV began showing up. It will be the same story. People are desperately asking for an EV that can be a one-to-one replacement for their current car. As a result, the arrival of FCEVs will happen sooner than what many expect.
I doubt building hundreds of kilometers of leak proof pipeline, for the smallest atom in existence (no less than that) would be that cheap. If you have data on that you are welcome to post them.
On the other hand we already got a pretty robust infrastructure for electricity transport (except maybe for Texas, but that’s another whole story), and adding more isn’t that hard. Take some copper or anything conductive, make a cable out of it, install on a pylon or underground, and you are set.
Hydrogen pipeline are cheaper than wires and they don't leak either. You are just repeating marketing BS from competing industries. Hydrogen molecules aren't even the smallest. Helium is the smallest since it is a nobel gas and not a diatom.
Pipelines are made of steel. They are much cheaper than copper wires. In reality, your idea is much more expensive from an infrastructure point of view.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, and an EV battery has a few hundreds of dollars worth of materials in it too, but somehow they’re always going to be tens of thousands of dollars and fuel cells will get cheaper due to mass production?
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.
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.
Explain to me how a car with a $20,000 battery can ever avoid a repair job of $20,000 once the battery dies? This is a problem that everyone will face.
And in America, the land of SUVs and pick-up trucks, these costs will be even higher.
EDIT: You won't change economics by lying to yourself. BEVs are simply not viable. At least, not anything with a big battery.
This isn’t about the battery dying. It’s about Tesla failing miserably at building a water resistant enclosure for their batteries, them pretending that it’s somehow the customers fault.
It's both about the shittiness of Tesla, and the eventually doom of all BEVs. If you think companies like Ford or VW won't be building shit BEVs too, then I have a bridge to sell to you.
EDIT: Again, no amount of lying to yourself or others will save the BEV. It is doomed and always will be. If anything, you are just delaying real solutions to climate change.
Joe Biden just announced a huge pro-hydrogen program? Is he paid off or insane?
It's time to ask yourself honestly: Why do you oppose green technology that happens to not be your favored technology? Perhaps you can reach a realization here.
There's nearly nobody left on the political left that still oppose hydrogen. Maybe you'll find an occasional weirdo, but that's about it. You're just out of touch here.
Those other BEVs are just other car companies chasing the subsidies. Once you get over Musk's lies, you'll realize that the market is not an organic one. It is just an artificial market created by the government. Most people don't want a BEV.
It's not one giant battery, but arrays of smaller batteries. At least that has been my experience with them. Battery goes bad and you replace that array. Not 20k but closer to 2k.
Much of that is wishful thinking. All batteries will die, and the repair cost will be insane. Not to mention it all applies to FCEVs and at a much lower cost and lower resource base.
Fundamentally, you can’t. The same as how a gas car can’t avoid a $5k transmission or engine replacement. Cars being totaled due to their most expensive part failing isn’t really a new thing or unexpected. Beaters are sold for scrap literally every day because it’s not worth repairing them.
All cars have a limited lifetime. For ICE cars, that’s on average around 12 years, and things often start going wrong around ~150k miles. You can get particularly well-maintained cars to last much longer, but most people don’t. Classic cars are mostly a hobbyist thing for a reason.
The question isn’t “will the battery eventually die”, its “will the battery last 15-20 years while still having 60-80% of its initial capacity?”
And based on real-world data, the answer appears to be “yes, unless you have a lemon or really abuse your battery.” Lemons are also nothing new.
You? Lmao, nope. Gotta pay big bucks if you want new cars repaired. Pay a couple thousand upfront and then another couple thousand every year for new vehicle information. You can thank John Deere for that shift. I know, your car currently runs. For Americans, there is a certain point in buying a newer one is cheaper than repairing it. There will be a point where everyone is forced to have a shittier car because they are either all like that or you pay the big bucks. What are Americans going to do? Not buy cars, they don't have the freedom to not have one.
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.
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.
So when Joe Biden announces a huge pro-hydrogen program, is he a paid shill of Exxon?
Honestly, some of you guys are so deluded, it goes beyond projecting. You guys are seriously brainwashed by Musk. Some of you will sell out the entirety of the climate change movement if it means validation by a Fascist.
lol we hate Musk. We dont like Teslas shitty cars. We do like EVs since they keep the air pollution outside of big cities and if used with renewable energies they are the best alternative to fossil fuel car travel we have.
First of all, we already have good electric distribution infrastructure, but don’t have an industrially-sized hydrogen distribution infrastructure. It’s way easier to install a new charging site than a new hydrogen refueling site. Building hydrogen out will be expensive, unless you’re talking about vehicles with a centralized depot, like busses or ferries.
Second, fuel cells aren’t really that efficient right now, and neither is electrolysis. Due to losses at each step, 100 miles worth of green hydrogen is way, way more expensive than 100 miles worth of electricity.
With more research, that could change. But for now, there’s a reason you don’t see many FCEVs.
The same story was said about wind, solar, even BEVs too. They all had to be expensive before they hit mass production.
But the advantage of FCEVs is that they have very low resource requirements. The cost floor is much below that of BEVs. Eventually, they will be as cheap as ICE cars or less, and the fuel will be cheaper than gasoline.
The efficiency argument is hugely exaggerated and is mostly coming from BEV companies. Even if you believe it, you should be aware that photovoltaics are terribly inefficient. But it doesn't matter because solar is made from sand and sunlight is everywhere. Hydrogen has the same idea going for it. Made from water and renewable energy, it too will be extremely cheap.
"Everyone on the left is brainwashed by the oil companies. But me, supporting a position only held by one Fascist, is definitely not the crazy one here."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You're just like some of the others here: Stuck in 2015 and accusing everyone else of being paid by the oil companies.
Literally no one on the left support these kinds of fanatical anti-hydrogen positions anymore. Just this one Fascist is left. And just a bunch of conspiracy theories as the basis of reasoning. Not even a single coherent counterargument...
ROFL at your stuck in 2015 comment, I wish I were!
In 2015, hydrogen was ~$20/kg and trending down to ~$13-16/kg by 2017, with the DOE claiming it to be “about the same cost as gas today” despite the fact that 1 kg H2 is roughly 1 gge, so the costs were about 4x gas costs, and 4x their target of $4/kg at the pump.
Fast forward to today and guess what, that price kept dropping, and it hit the DOE targets!
Just kidding - prices this year are , making the Toyota Mirai one of the highest TCO cars on the market.
Take me back to 2015 when that hydrogen fuel was half the price!
That's a local supply issue. It reminds me of the polysilicon shortage of late-2000s. Plenty of people came out of the woodwork to proclaim the solar panel as a dead technology. But the physics of the idea, namely that it's all made from sand, meant that cost will eventually plunge and it did.
Hydrogen is the same story. Investment has recently skyrocketed across the world. No one except a few BEV fanatics are still opposed to hydrogen. That is why guys like you are stuck in the past. You are repeating the same story as what people said about wind, solar, even the BEV itself in its early days. It is guaranteed to be wrong.
Says the person with no actual experience on the matter, unlike the person you are arguing with.
I am left, and I don’t support hydrogen because it pales compared to the electrical solutions we have and will have in the future. So don’t pretend your viewpoint is universal with the left, because it isn’t far from it.
I also don’t support Elmo in any way shape or form for your information.
Hydrogen would only be viable for airplanes, since they require higher density fuel at the lowest weight possible.
But other than that, hydrogen just isn’t viable in the applications you name. Your EV information is also from 2015, so all your arguments are just projection. Plain and simple.
Not only are you wrong, it's you guys that are just repeating one debunked myth after another. There's nothing being said hear that I haven't heard already.
This is why you guys are stuck in 2015. It's just a bunch of obsolete drivel that originated from Tesla and other BEV companies.
If you are really politically left, then why not starting acting politically left? No one on the left opposes hydrogen anymore. This is quickly turning into an extreme political position. Possibly, a far-right position in the near-future.
If you don't support Elmo, then stop repeating his lies. It's like everyone here hasn't realized that Elmo has been lying for well over a decade. It didn't just begin with Twitter.
In the end, FCEVs are also EVs. They are also zero emissions cars. You cannot come up with a coherent reason to oppose them. It is the same style of argument as those that opposed wind, solar, even BEVs too. So there's only one reason conclusion, and that is to support FCEVs like any other green technology.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It depends on how heavy your foot is, really. Hilariously, the FCEV Mirai doesn’t top the charts, especially for high speeds.
Mostly when people see the price of top end EVs they decide that they aren’t in that much of a hurry and taking a break every couple of hours would be okay. Same thing happens when you put an expensive battery swap station next to a cheap fast charger, people look at the price difference and decide they aren’t in that much of a hurry.
But this guy who’s off his meds thinks people will pay a premium for hydrogen instead of just peeing and stretching their legs while they wait.
Personally, my 200 mile EV has taken me everywhere I’ve wanted to go and when I stop and charge it’s ready to go again before I am.
It just feels like way too low to me. Maybe you’re right and it’s not, but nowadays I get some 600 km (some 370 miles according to Google) from my petrol-based car for a full tank and I’m quite used to that.
Anyway, to paraphrase you a bit, I’ve looked at the prices of EVs and decided I’m not in that much of a hurry to switch to them.
The main difference is you mostly don’t take them somewhere special to fill them up, so you aren’t thinking about “how long before I have to fill up again”.
An EV charges overnight and starts off each day with a full charge, so it’s all about daily usage and long trips. Going days without charging isn’t a useful thing to do, where filling a gas car every day would be a pain in the ass.
Prices are still fairly high, but they’re dropping fast and the used market is picking up steam.
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
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.
Those people who don’t have a garage to charge in? They’re parking their cars somewhere, and odds are those parking spaces are within 100 yards of a power line.
You can’t just pour hydrogen into the underground tanks, you know? You aren’t really reusing anything but the land, and you could do something else with it if the gas station wasn’t there.
You might as well claim that EVs let you reuse gas stations as charging stations. All you need to do is install completely new charging stations.
You store hydrogen in underground salt caverns on the large scale. Similar to how natural gas works. Above-ground tanks for local storage, and move via pipelines for the most part. It is not a perfect replacement for gasoline, but it is close enough.
The reason why you reuse gas stations because that's what's actually happening. Hydrogen stations are just converted gas stations in most cases.
Where on earth do you think your local 7-11 is going to come up with underground salt caverns?
We don’t even have pipes for gasoline and it doesn’t soak through steel. Nobody’s paying to dig up all the roads and footpaths necessary to build hydrogen pipelines across town and replace them when the hydrogen turns them brittle.
Local hydrogen stations will probably use above-ground tanks.
Hydrogen pipelines are 10x cheaper than wires. It's not some inconceivably huge cost.
It should be added that environmentalist have been screaming for massive investment in green energy, and that cost is of secondary importance. We shouldn't suddenly become hard-right conservatives here. As long as costs are reasonable, it is fine.
For economic reasons, it is much better to transport energy over long distances by molecules. When you transport hydrogen over a distance of about a thousand miles by pipeline, the costs are about half a cent per kilowatt-hour. When you do the same with electricity, it is about 5 cents per kilowatt-hour.
This all you’re talking about? Unquantified speculation from a guy trying to sell hydrogen? Don’t thank me for playing dude, find another game.
Personally I think we’re gonna experience societal collapse before we get to the point of replacing our fleet of vehicles with electric, let alone hydrogen. I love Green alternatives, but cars in general will be our undoing, not our saviour. I would suggest putting your energy into something constructive, instead of leaving 30 comments on a subject you might have studied and forgotten a lot about, but are still inept in.
It’s alright, he says the funding he received from the gas network hasn’t influenced him so it must be true. Weird that he forgot to mention it in all of his papers, though. It’s just a coincidence that his funding comes from a group that’s counting on hydrogen to keep their business and existing infrastructure profitable in the future.
I’ve never seen someone dodge admitting they could be wrong so many times, for days in a row, after being thoroughly talked down to by so many different people.
Wasting 2/3 of the energy we generate by turning it into hydrogen and back isn’t a green solution. It means we need to triple our electricity generation and keep coal and gas plants running for a lot longer.
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.
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.
Wrong. Again, my goal is to solve climate change. You're making shit up about why this is happening.
Like I said, you no longer have to lie to yourself about the limitations of BEV. An FCEV refuels in 5 minutes, solving this problem completely. Unless you think I'm making this up, then you are the one projecting here.
Bro you’re literally not solving climate change with hydrogen vehicles no matter how much you tell people on obscure forums on the interwebs. You’d have much more of an effect on the fossil fuel industry by driving your car into a refinery.
If your goal is to solve climate change then why are you spending all this energy bickering about how you think hydrogen cars are better than EVs? Everyone driving a hydrogen car isn’t going to solve climate change.
By itself, no. But you can power basically anything with hydrogen. Pretty much all of industry will switch to hydrogen. Same is true of most of transportation. It's just the BEV fanatic crowd that suddenly has an issue with passenger cars also being powered by hydrogen. In reality, it is a big revolution across many sectors. That will in fact solve climate change or at least greatly reduce the problem.
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
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.
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.
Ask yourself that. Which echo chamber did you fall into? What Troglodyte hole are you in?
Unless you think I just made up the story about Joe Biden promoting hydrogen, then you're the one that is caught repeating the same story as a Fascist.
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.
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.
Add comment