[cLeEOGPw]

Electric car with battery pros:

* Can deliver full power instantly

* Does not produce CO2 at time of energy release (clean cities)

* Lesser moving parts

Electric car with battery cons:

* Range too small with current designs

* No charging stations (infrastructure problem)

* Battery needs to be replaced every several years

* Requires lithium, which reserves are very limited on earth

* Carbon tube based battery doesn't seem to be reality any time soon

Hydrogen on the other hand doesn't require any rare elements and also doesn't pollute environment at the time of energy release.

Only downsides are it is more difficult to store as of now? How is it different from liquid natural gas tanks that are already widely used? I've never heard of any car exploding because of gas. What is the problem with hydrogen then?

[mikestew]

> I've never heard of any car exploding because of gas.

Ford Pinto isn't ringing any bells? I mean, it's not as common as TV and movies would have you believe, but yeesh, you've never heard of this happening?

EDIT: forgot this one... > No charging stations (infrastructure problem)

There are infinitely more electric car charging stations between my house and work than there are hydrogen stations. I understand that it's different in other parts of the country, but in the Seattle area you'd have to really put in some effort to run out before you find a charging station. My only complaint is that aren't enough fast charging stations.

[yetihehe]

> Hydrogen on the other hand doesn't require any rare elements Only when you think that platinum is more commong than lithium. Platinum is used as a catalyst in fuel cells. Lithium is a rather abundand element (comparing to platinum) and much cheaper.

> How is it different from liquid natural gas tanks Storing hydrogen is MUCH harder. It requires much lower temperatures (-162C for LNG, -253C for H). LPG can be stored liquefied at room temperature. Natural gas cars use CNG (compressed, not liquefied gas).

[tbrownaw]

Does not produce CO2 at time of energy release (clean cities)

1. Hydrogen (as opposed to (L|C)NG / gasoline / other hydrocarbons) wouldn't either.

2. I don't think the where matters for CO2? Sure it's supposed to melt the ice caps and put us all underwater, but I don't think there are any local effects?

[greglindahl]

The reason California has all these ZEV (zero emission vehicle) regulations is because of smog. It's better to burn stuff at a power plant than on a highway in the middle of LA or the Bay Area. (And you're right, CO2 isn't the issue, it's the other stuff.)

In this respect, batteries and fuel cells are similar.

[xionon]

Gasoline is not actually explosive - the fumes are flammable, but not the liquid itself. Hydrogen is much more flammable, and will ignite from a much smaller spark than gasoline will.

Cars catch fire in accidents all the time, it's not that hart to imagine that the problem might get worse if we switched to an even more flammable fuel.

[dublinben]

Compressed hydrogen would diffuse so quickly that the chance of a dangerous explosion is quite low. Fuel cell vehicles would actually be much safer than gasoline vehicles in this regard. As soon as you were in a catastrophic accident, all your hydrogen would vanish.

[tbrownaw]

As soon as you were in a catastrophic accident, all your hydrogen would vanish.

You would have a bottle of highly compressed hydrogen somewhere. The bottles can be designed so they don't explode when damaged, but it would take a non-zero amount of time for the hydrogen to escape. For however long that takes, you have a jet of escaping pure hydrogen that would make an excellent blowtorch if anything resembling a flame or spark gets too close.

[protomyth]

"You would have a bottle of highly compressed hydrogen somewhere."

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fcv_benefits.shtml shows another option for storage (Materials-based storage) that will probably be safer.

[neon_electro]

> * No charging stations (infrastructure problem)

Pardon me if I don't understand your point there, but you can't really say there aren't charging stations available, can you? I can agree that bringing electric car charging infrastructure to par with gas refueling infrastructure is still a challenge.

[IanDrake]

>Hydrogen on the other hand doesn't require any rare elements

Don't fuel cells need platinum?

[outworlder]

Currently they do, they might not in the future. The best commercially available battery tech requires lithium, it might not in the future.

[mikeash]

The downsides of hydrogen are that it's less efficient than batteries, it's considerably more expensive than electricity (because it's less efficient, and because you have to pay for additional infrastructure to produce, distribute, and store it), and it's generally not available for purchase.

Give me a Tesla and I can charge it anywhere there's electricity. If there's no dedicated charging station, then I can still charge it from a regular wall socket, albeit slowly. There are also a ton of charging stations around here.

Give me a fuel cell vehicle and I can't refuel it anywhere near here. According to the Department of Energy, there are 11 public hydrogen filling stations in the US:

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/hydrogen_locations.html

You list "no charging stations" as a con for batteries, but it's really not bad at all, and the hydrogen situation is vastly worse, and I don't see it getting better with any kind of speed.