[parkingrift]

I mean that we're at the absolute edge of possible range with existing battery tech, and there is no path to dramatically increasing range. The Model 3 is 20% heavier than a Honda CRV, the "range" is about 30% less, and the total cargo capacity is also about 30% less. We can't add more batteries because the weight is already an issue, and so the only viable path forward is to dramatically increase energy density. I compared a sedan to an SUV because you otherwise wouldn't expect a small sedan to weigh so much more than an SUV.

Most effort today is going into decreasing costs via economies of scale. What's the path to an electric vehicle with a 1,500 mile range? Hydrogen "gen1" cars are already over 400 miles of range, and you can add 400 more miles of range in 3 minutes.

Basically... batteries seem more like a stopgap than a permanent solution. Do you really think batteries will ever power an airplane, for example? I do think it's plausible that planes could run on hydrogen.

[onethought]

For cars, they are much more than a stop gap. How will hydrogen work in cars? We need to build hydrogen filling infrastructure across the world, and then manufacture and ship hydrogen across the world.

Electricity on the other hand - we already have that infrastructure, and it basically costs nothing to move it huge distances.

We are no where near the edge of what is possible for batteries, every couple of years cars are released with 10+% more range. There is more efficiency, and chemistry to be done here.

Also hydrogen vehicles ARE EVs so how can you say batteries are a stop gap while also saying they are the obvious future… the fuel cell charges a battery, the battery delivers the energy to the motor.

[parkingrift]

>We are no where near the edge of what is possible for batteries, every couple of years cars are released with 10+% more range. There is more efficiency, and chemistry to be done here.

Nope. Not even close. The Tesla Model S had a range of 265 miles in 2012. The top end Model S today has a range of 375 miles. If we were truly extending range 10% every couple of years we would have vehicles approaching 700 miles in range on the market today.

Instead we have seen about 42% range growth paired with a 91% increase in price over the last decade. The majority of electric vehicles on the market or hitting the market in the near-term have EPA estimated range less than 300 miles.

There is no path this decade to an electric vehicle with a range that is even approaching 700 miles.

>Also hydrogen vehicles ARE EVs so how can you say batteries are a stop gap while also saying they are the obvious future… the fuel cell charges a battery, the battery delivers the energy to the motor.

You are overstating battery requirements of hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. The Toyota Mirai, for example, has a 1.24 kWh battery pack that weighs 45kg. There are also literal hydrogen combustion engines which require no batteries at all. Future hydrogen fuel cell vehicles may not require a battery at all, and may instead rely on a bank of super capacitors.

This giant heavy duty truck we're discussing has a 72kWh battery. Tesla sells sedans with bigger batteries than this.

>We need to build hydrogen filling infrastructure across the world, and then manufacture and ship hydrogen across the world.

Hydrogen can be made with water, locally. We're basically one electrolysis (or other) invention away from trivially mass manufacturing hydrogen wherever there is water. We've already solved every other problem with hydrogen.

If you're betting on BeV you're basically betting that we will quite literally never solve hydrogen production problems. I wouldn't take that bet.

[onethought]

BYD Seal has a rated range of 435 miles. Battery prices are also cheaper per kilowatt (The Seal is $100k cheaper than the model S). You are misrepresenting the state of play on batteries.

But according to you batteries are getting more expensive, so does that mean hydrogen vehicles are also going to suffer from this price inflation?

Electrolysis requires energy… so you think it’s more sustainable to turn energy into hydrogen then back into energy than instead just store the energy?

The well-to-wheel efficiency of an BEV is double to triple that of hydrogen, and the well in hydrogen = fossil fuel, where as the well of an BEV is renewables.

Betting on BEV is betting on the fact we already have global electricity infrastructure (which is a pretty safe bet, because it exists). And so far hydrogen at scale has involved processing methane… so just make a methane car, and stop pretending you’re being sustainable. Build the hydrogen car once you’ve solved electrolysis at scale. Because before then you’re just making another gas powered car.