|
|
|
|
|
|
by _hypx
1096 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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.