[_hypx]

You will need many millions of them, and enough generating capacity to power then all. That is many years away. Likely decades.

There's also no technological issue preventing the expansion of hydrogen stations. It's also worth noting that this directly replaces the gas station, both in number and location. This is not nearly as big of a challenge as you might think. Unlike charging stations, which must exist in much greater numbers and new locations.

[jqpabc123]

Registration data shows there are around 2 million electric vehicles currently on the road in the USA.

Market research shows more than half of auto consumers will be looking at an EV when they need a new car.

Like it or not, hydrogen has already lost --- for a multitude of reasons. But keep flogging that dead pony.

[_hypx]

There are about 300 million ICE cars in the US. BEVs are nowhere near ready to replace ICE cars.

What’s ironic is that BEV fans are just repeating the same anti-EV arguments used against BEVs. They’re not even aware that BEVs were at zero just a decade and a half ago. The fact is, FCEVs are needed by millions of people. As the world shifts to green energy, FCEVs will play a major role and likely one much bigger than what BEVs ever could’ve achieved. So the whole argument is just an act of shortsightedness.

[jqpabc123]

There are 45 EV models currently offered for sale all across the USA --- and more are on the way. Virtually every auto manufacturer either has one (or more) or is working overtime to make one.

There are 3 hydrogen vehicles currently offered for sale --- only in California. And nobody cares.

It should be obvious by now that the marketplace has already decided the future is electric. But keep flogging that dead pony.

[_hypx]

And again, how many BEV models were available a decade or so ago? What exactly is suppose to keep hydrogen cars from being developed?

Also, why is your understanding of the marketplace something straight out of a video game, as if there is a end-credits scene and nothing happens afterwards? There's nothing stopping advancement in new technology, regardless of how successful current technology is. Progress always marches on.

Not to mention that fuel cell cars are electric...

[jqpabc123]

What exactly is suppose to keep hydrogen cars from being developed?

Better question --- What keeps hydrogen from being a commercially viable energy source?

Short answer: Economics. The same reason you don't (and probably won't) run your home from hydrogen --- because electricity is a much more universal form of energy that can be produced, safely distributed and utilized more easily/cheaply/efficiently.

[_hypx]

Funny, because the economics of hydrogen is heading to nearly zero cost. This is the same trajectory of wind and solar. All of these things have one thing in common: They all are made from practically infinite and free resources. Wind, sunlight and water are very cheap after all. This will imply that hydrogen will also be very cheap.

Also, hydrogen is more ubiquitous than electricity. In fact, it is cheaper to distribute hydrogen than electricity, simply on account of how pipes work compared to wires.

In short, if your argument is economical in nature, then your conclusion is profoundly wrong. It is a matter of when, not if, the lower cost basis of hydrogen based vehicles will cause them to displace BEVs. Also, BEVs have major environmental and practical downsides. I suspect that once the hydrogen movement gets going, BEVs will not pose much of a fight. It will be discarded as just another transitional idea. After all, FCEVs are also EVs.

[ffhhttt]

Hydrogen is also very expensive and can’t really be produced sustainably at scale yet..

[_hypx]

That’s the same argument said about wind and solar not that long ago. People are repeating history by saying the same thing. In the end, you are making something with just wind, sunlight and water. Since they are practically infinite resources, the cost will trend towards zero.

[ffhhttt]

Now apply the same to fusion and many other technologies that turned our to be duds.

For every success story you have 10 (or whatever) failures that nobody remembers.

> the cost will trend towards zero.

Why not just use batteries then? All processes that can be used to make hydrogen now are very inefficient, so unless energy literally costs zero hydrogen won’t still make much sense for cars.

[_hypx]

We don't have a working fusion reactor. We do have working electrolyzers and fuel cells. This is night and day difference.

Electrolyzer and fuel cells are electrochemical systems and are basically batteries themselves. There is no fundamental downside compared to choosing some other electrochemical system. People are just swallowing the FUD and marketing BS of li-ion battery companies. There simply isn't a big enough difference in efficiency for this to matter to begin with, and even then the gap will shrink away to nothing. For instance, for large installations it is already possible to do heat-recapture and use that heat to drive a turbine. We can see 85% efficiency and above pretty much right now. We are going to see more ideas like that and therefore there won't much of any real difference in efficiency.

The other point is that we are not here to just replace fossil fuels with something just as limited and problematic. The goal is to move all of society to something truly sustainable. In fact, if the goal is to replace every single vehicle on Earth with BEVs, then the goal is already a dead one. It would be both absurdly expensive and environmentally damaging to attempt that feat. As a result, we pretty much have to invest in hydrogen eventually anyways. So we might as well do so now, rather than keep spending everything on what is basically a transitional technology.

[ffhhttt]

> every single vehicle on Earth with BEVs, then the goal is already a dead one.

We might replace small/personal vehicles with BEV and larger ones with hydrogen.

It’s not a very good fuel source for small vehicles because of how unstable it is. You need significant amounts of energy to stop it from evaporating.

For large commercial vehicles that and distribution would be much easier.

> . We can see 85% efficiency and above pretty much right now

Multiply that by production efficiency and we’re just a bit above the level of ICE.

[_hypx]

You mean something closer to every short-ranged EV with BEVs, and long ranged ones with FCEVs? That could work, although it would be admitting that most cars will be FCEVs. Though honestly, we'd be better off with more mass transit than short-ranged vehicles.

Hydrogen is not unstable for transportation purposes. It is safer than gasoline.

No. Wells to wheels efficiency, at least for large installations, would be not far off from what is possible with batteries. The fact that you even think that FCEVs are even close to ICE on efficiency shows that you've swallowed a lot of BEV propaganda. A fuel cell is 3x the efficiency of a conventional gasoline engine. BEVs simply are not that much efficient, and the gap continuously shrink.