[_hypx]

That's Luddite bullshit. Complete gibberish.

The simple fact is that fuel cell cars are also EVs. As a result, there are no fundamental limitations compared to BEVs. They are fundamentally guaranteed to be just as good as BEVs.

And since BEVs are not a sustainable technology, they are destined to be replaced by their truly sustainable alternative. Which is a "battery" made from water. That is the self-evident future of EVs.

[Gwypaas]

> That's Luddite bullshit. Complete gibberish.

I would recommend you to read the guidelines when posting here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> The simple fact is that fuel cell cars are also EVs. As a result, there are no fundamental limitations compared to BEVs. They are fundamentally guaranteed to be just as good as BEVs.

In other words, you pay for two cars in one when you could simply pay for one car and charge it from any wall outlet.

> And since BEVs are not a sustainable technology

This is a statement which requires proof.

[_hypx]

And if someone said that vacuum tubes are the future, what is your response? It's pure absurdity to claim that an obsolete technology is the future. You'd immediately get up and ridicule the obvious non sequiturs in their logic. FYI, BEVs predate the ICE car. It is an incredibly outdated idea.

In reality, hydrogen cars are far cheaper to make than BEVs. They have very little raw material needs. They do not need the hundreds of kilograms of batteries that BEVs need. They only need water as their raw material. That's fundamentally a superior idea. You can never make a coherent argument that an EV powered by rare or limited resources could ever be a better idea.

Again, a fuel cell car is literally an EV, only one whose "battery" is made from water. You cannot do better than that.

[kelnos]

That's a bit of a disingenuous analogy; vacuum tubes have already been supplanted by a better technology. Hydrogen may be a better technology than BEVs, but it hasn't supplanted anything.

> You can never make a coherent argument that an EV powered by rare or limited resources could ever be a better idea.

Better idea or not, BEVs are being produced in ever-increasing numbers. Hydrogen cars are not. Sure, maybe that will change at some point in the future, but I think BEVs have too much momentum and capital behind them to fade away any time soon.

As an aside: judging by your word choice and tone in your comments, you seem to be emotionally invested in hydrogen cars. That's fine, but I think how you're presenting things is hurting your argument quite a bit.

[_hypx]

Then you can use whatever technology that hasn't be driven into obsolescence yet, but basic physics nearly guarantees that outcome. Maybe flash memory versus HDDs, or perhaps fiber optics over copper wires.

BEVs where at basically zero not that long ago. The problem is that economically, they are always going to have a major upfront cost. And the more range and the larger the car, the bigger this will be.

It's Tesla fanboys that are invested in a particular outcome. My own opinion is just asking "what comes next?" If you ask that question honestly, you'll end up with the same opinion that I have.

[mensetmanusman]

Fuel cells require pretty exotic materials to accomplish the ox:redox reactions of water...

[_hypx]

No. Fuel cells can be constructed with no special materials. Even those that need them need extremely small quantities of it. A PEM fuel cell needs about as much platinum as a catalytic converter.