[somewhat_drunk]

FCEV "well to wheel" systemic efficiency is significantly lower than equivalent BEV systemic efficiency, and FCEVs are much more complex than BEVs. FCEV's only advantages over BEVs are faster charging times and moderately greater range, both of which are fast dwindling and will soon be gone. Hydrogen is a dead end, a decarbonization distraction being pushed by oil companies, policymakers engaging in the sunk cost fallacy, and those who would benefit financially from a widespread adoption of the tech.

Shame on all who continue to push hydrogen tech for selfish reasons.

https://medium.com/10x-curiosity/the-hydrogen-hopium-ea11c7a...

https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/63-paul-marti...

>FCEVs are also EVs

This is a meaningless statement within the context of the FCEV vs BEV discussion. You keep saying it, so presumably you think it makes you sound clever? It doesn't. It has the opposite effect.

[_hypx]

That's total bullshit. A fuel cell is very simple. A FCEV will be significantly cheaper than comparable BEVs. They will cost no more than conventional hybrid cars to build.

BEV advocates are suffering from their own sunk cost fallacy. When BEVs die as a technology, it will be BEV companies that will reveal themselves to holding onto outdated ideas.

In fact it is already happening. The fact that BEV fans can't even acknowledge that FCEVs are also EVs is proof of this.

[panick21_]

> That's total bullshit. A fuel cell is very simple.

Funny how despite it being so simply all car companies still struggle to actually produce a fuel cell car at sane costs.

> A FCEV will be significantly cheaper than comparable BEVs.

This is just factually wrong.

And in the cases its true its because the company selling them is actually losing absurd amounts of money per car. While on the other hand Tesla has a 20% margin on their BEVs.

Lets compare in the real world. I just checked, I can get a Long Range Tesla Model 3 for the same price as a Toyota Mirai and Tesla has far, far cheaper fuel costs and many extras not included in the Toyota.

Tesla live cycle cost are far lower, this isn't up for debate, its a simple fact.

> BEV advocates are suffering from their own sunk cost fallacy.

Funny how there are many millions of BEV sold and Toyota can barley sell a few 1000s highly subsidies FCEVs.

And how every industry prediction is suggesting 50% growth over the next couple years for BEV and barley and growth for FCEV.

> When BEVs die as a technology, it will be BEV companies that will reveal themselves to holding onto outdated ideas.

You are a hilarious joker. Pretty much every car company in the world not in Japan is fully committed to transitioning to BEV and are investing 1000s of billion.

FCEV isn't even a rounding error. Tesla produces more Model Y per week then Toyota FCEV sales per year.

> In fact it is already happening. The fact that BEV fans can't even acknowledge that FCEVs are also EVs is proof of this.

Everybody knows that FCEVs are EV but FCEV are so irrelevant in the real world that nobody even considers talking about them. Its like saying Birds are dinosaurs, ok I guess that's strictly speaking true but its simply a irrelevant fact for 99.99999999% of the population.

FCEV for cars is dead. You sound like time traveler from early 2000s who has been left behind.

[_hypx]

Fuel cell cars already are in the range of normal cars in terms of cost. They cost around the same as regular luxury cars despite being made in tiny numbers.

The simple fact is that a FCEV is very simple car to make. Once it hits mass production, it will be no more expensive than ICE-powered cars. Making it a far better economic choice.

Like I said elsewhere, the BEV is older than internal combustion. It is not a new idea and everything about them is a repeat of the early 1900s. Its fundamental weaknesses have not been solved.

FCEVs offer the true revolutionary idea: A vehicle with the upside of an EV, but without needing a giant battery. That fact doesn't change no matter how loudly you boast about the BEV. So it is only a matter of when that FCEVs replaces BEVs.

[panick21_]

> Fuel cell cars already are in the range of normal cars in terms of cost.

I'm sorry but evaluating production cost when only a few 1000 are produced is pointless.

No independent company has done a public costing of these cars.

The sales price is not reflective of production cost on such low volumes.

> The simple fact is that a FCEV is very simple car to make.

You are just straight up disagreeing with every automotive engineer that I have seen talking about this topic.

It literally has every interface a BEV has plus a lot of very, very complex stuff on top of that.

> Once it hits mass production, it will be no more expensive than ICE-powered cars.

Assertions without evidence.

> Making it a far better economic choice.

The fuel cost alone will make sure its never the economic choice.

> Like I said elsewhere, the BEV is older than internal combustion.

The lithium ion battery is the innovation and that has been commercialized in 1991. Fuel cells have been commercialized for far, far, far longer.

> It is not a new idea and everything about them is a repeat of the early 1900s.

Except you know, like totally different batteries, far more advanced electronics and so on.

Its just an utterly silly comparison. The range was the issue with BEV in 1900 and now we have better batteries. And as a bonus far better electronics.

> Its fundamental weaknesses have not been solved.

Exact that the fundamental weakness was that batteries back then were heavy, short range and slow charge. And now batteries are comparatively far lighter, have a range that is more then sufficent and charge rates have gone up by a gigantic amount.

So quite literally ever issue has been addressed.

And reality reflects this, as today millions of EV are sold every year.

> FCEVs offer the true revolutionary idea

Yeah a revolution from 1960 rather then 1920. How advanced.

> A vehicle with the upside of an EV, but without needing a giant battery.

FCEV do need a battery. Jesus have you actually at how a FCEV works in the real world?

> how loudly you boast about the BEV

> That fact doesn't change no matter how loudly you boast about the BEV. So it is only a matter of when that FCEVs replaces BEVs.

I'm not 'boast', I'm just point out basic facts.

The real world and the real world has already decided. The technology race is over, you are like somebody advocating for Betamax in the late 1990s.

We are not even talking about a 10x difference, not 100x difference more like a 1000x difference in total sales. Pretty much ever car maker except those in Japan have made up their mind. Research in FHEV has essentially collapsed.

You are literally living in a delusional fantasy land you have constructed in your had that is just utterly devoid of reality.

[seanmcdirmid]

FCEV requires lots of compression, that compressed tank doesn’t come for free, and a lot of energy is lost to compression.

[_hypx]

Compressed gas is its own energy storage method. This is not a fundamental problem.

Also, it does not take that much energy to compress gas. Advancements in technology will reduce this to a tiny amount: https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/9013_energy_requirement...

[fwungy]

FCVs are projected to be cheaper than BEVs by all the modeling in the literature.

Going with a lower pressure tank saves money at the cost of reduced range. The problem is booting a hydrogen station network big enough to support a low range FCV (< 200 miles).

But even building expensive carbon fiber high pressure tanks is going to eventually be much cheaper than huge batteries filled with semi-rare minerals that will increase in price as battery market demand increases. We should talk about what peak <Battery Mineral> will mean alongside Peak Oil.

[_hypx]

Even carbon fiber isn't that expensive anymore. We can make whole airplanes out of them. Needing high pressure isn't that big of a challenge anymore.

[seanmcdirmid]

Those compressed tanks are still expensive, comparable to a battery in cost. Right now power return is like 38% given electricity - hydrogen - compression - convert back to electricity costs.

Sure it can get better, so can BEVs. I don’t see hydrogen winning though, electricity is just so pervasive while the infrastructure for hydrogen would have to be built out, and people might not want to go back to the gas station model after they are used to just charging at home.

They might work out for truck transport given the weight savings, and easier deployment of hydrogen infrastructure at truck stops.

[_hypx]

It's literally just a tank. It will be far cheaper than batteries, especially if you want real range.

Most of the arguments against hydrogen cars are just attempts to defend BEVs, not serious arguments against them. BEV advocates can't even acknowledge that millions of people live in apartments or condos, and will probably never have convenient access to charging systems. They pretty much require an alternative.

[seanmcdirmid]

It’s really not just a tank, it has to be capable of very high pressure storage, at -240C, which is kind of cold. If it were just a tank, Hydrogen fuel cell cars wouldn’t be $50k+. Not only that, but you are now paying a per gallon cost for hydrogen that is similar, if not more, than what gasoline costs, given the infra needed to just hold the hydrogen and then send it into someone p’s tank, as well as deliver it.

Millions of people live in condos and apartments without access to even parking, they park on the street I guess in countries that allow that (many countries require that you show proof of parking spot before they’ll sell you a vehicle). Norway is already at 50%, it’s not going to be even a contest in most countries that don’t have America’s flaky parking arrangements.