Hypx @ Hypx @kbin.social

Posts

24

Comments

401

Joined

2 yr. ago

That's a motivation for building them out as quickly as possible. Saying that it is an excuse to not doing anything really reveals that you're not being serious about stopping climate change.

After all, millions of people will need some kind of public charging/refuel system anyways. So it's not like this problem can be ignored.

I have two things to point out: I don't have to believe you on your claims of expertise. And the second is that I can easily accuse you of being decades out of date on your knowledge.

None of what you said is true anymore. FCEVs are a mature technology, and will cost very little to build. Green hydrogen is plunging in cost, and will be one of the cheapest energy sources out there. None of you claims about "catalyst poisoning" is true anymore.

So what you are doing is basically being one of those "experts" who attack a revolutionary new technology just as it is taking off. It mirrors solar skeptic just before solar power took off. All your doing is setting yourself up for total embarrassment.

Last I checked, a lot of countries are planning to ban all competing technologies, or subsidizing BEVs to an insane amount. If you realize that this is basically a doomed strategy, then your next act is pretty obvious.

In the end, our motivation is about solving climate change. And we see a lot of brainwashed fools wasting their time and money on a dead-end idea that won't work. It's pretty much impossible not to bring up the alternative. Not doing so would be a major moral failure on our own part. So it has to be brought up. Guys like you are just annoyed that someone is telling you something you don't want to hear.

And fuel cells will also improve. Why not invest in an alternative? At the very least, you have a backup plan.

Also, fuel cells are electrochemical devices just like batteries. They arguable are batteries. So there's no reason to not accept fuel cells.

Reminder to everyone in this thread: BEVs are a doomed technology. The fundamental high cost and resource requirements of the battery dooms it to inevitable failure. Luckily, superior technology like FCEVs are coming along now. They won't have this problem. So if you actually cared about solving climate change, you'll endorse FCEVs, just like any other kind of zero emission car. Even if you don't agree with me, you should still support anything that can get us off of fossil fuels. There is no coherent reason to oppose green technology after all.

But of course, this is not the case. Many people here have either been brainwashed by Elon Musk, or have some financial motive like investments in BEV companies. As a result, they do not care for any kind of alternative to the BEV. They only want the BEV. And they will lie and BS endlessly to prop up their favored technology.

Unfortunately, reality does not care for your opinions. The BEV is a dead-end, and always will be. You can't save it by lying to yourself or others. You have no choice to admit the truth. By not doing so, you are just becoming another group of conspiracy theorists or science deniers. We make fun of anti-vaxxers or climate deniers, and eventually we will make fun of hydrogen deniers. That is the eventual outcome if you cannot change your mind.

It's both about the shittiness of Tesla, and the eventually doom of all BEVs. If you think companies like Ford or VW won't be building shit BEVs too, then I have a bridge to sell to you.

EDIT: Again, no amount of lying to yourself or others will save the BEV. It is doomed and always will be. If anything, you are just delaying real solutions to climate change.

That's just bullshit from BEV companies. At best, it's something like 2x. At worse, it will take less energy, because you have waste energy from renewables. Wind and solar farms have a tendency to produce energy all-at-once, and shut down all-at-once too. You need massive amounts of energy storage to solve this. And the cheapest way of doing this is with hydrogen.

So as a result, you just get a lot of super-cheap hydrogen that otherwise can't be used. BEV don't solve this problem at all, leading to a lot of wasted energy.

Finally, fuel cells are also electrochemical systems, just like batteries. The notion that batteries will always be more efficient is just another lie from the BEV companies. In the long-run, this will be a unanimous win from fuel cells, because they will be equally efficient while also been much cheaper.

A fuel cell stack has a few hundred dollars worth of platinum. The rest is just conventional materials like steel or plastic. Not very expensive. The whole stack is very small too, weighing just 50kg for an average car.

So with mass production, it will be less than a combustion engine. You'll get more savings by getting rid of the transmission and catalytic convertor. You pencil out the cost, and going with "first principles," the whole vehicle will be the same or less than a conventional ICE car.

Explain to me how a car with a $20,000 battery can ever avoid a repair job of $20,000 once the battery dies? This is a problem that everyone will face.

And in America, the land of SUVs and pick-up trucks, these costs will be even higher.

EDIT: You won't change economics by lying to yourself. BEVs are simply not viable. At least, not anything with a big battery.

A fuel cell will never need an oil change. Your friend must be talking about hydrogen combustion engines. Another possibility, but probably something of a niche product.

Sodium-ion batteries haven't been invented yet. Just a lot of PR but no products yet. And it will have lower energy density than li-ion batteries, so it won't be a particularly desirable product anyways.

All BEVs from everyone will have the same issues.

EDIT: Lying to yourself will not change reality. A BEV will never be a low-resource type of vehicles. It is a matter of when, not if, it falls apart as an idea.

It will be mass produced. The main difference is that there will be much less need for raw materials. So it will be much cheaper.

There's very little left to solve for hydrogen cars. It's mostly outdated bullshit coming from competing industries. The only real problem left is getting it to mass production. Once that happens, hydrogen cars will be as cheap as ICE cars, and hydrogen fuel will be cheaper than gasoline.

Because millions of people cannot change at home. They don't have a garage to charge in.

Not to mention you will need a "gas station" for long distance driving anyways. Might as well have one infrastructure that serves both purposes.

In fact, this is how the ICE car won over BEVs in the first place. ICE cars were invented before the gas station, but the gas station allows ICE cars to be ubiquitous and available for everyone. As a result, BEVs died out in the early 1900s.

You do realize hydrogen technology can also evolve? FCEVs of the future will be better than FCEVs of today. Furthermore, fuel cells are basically batteries anyways. The moment you start talking about metal-air batteries is the moment you admit defeat, because hydrogen fuel cells are basically hydrogen-air batteries.

The "practical constraints" are mostly just lies from competing industries. Case in point, a hydrogen tank is both volumetrically and gravimetrically denser than batteries. Loosely speaking, it is about 2000 Wh/kg and 1333 Wh/L. That's better than any li-ion battery.

It is plenty good enough to replace both BEVs and ICE cars. As long as it is zero emissions, it works.

Finally, FCEVs exist right now. Hypothetical magical batteries of the future don't. So this is a meaningless comparison.

To get a long-ranged BEV, you need a giant battery. That means massive repair bills down the road. Only by limiting range to a small number can this be avoided. Saying that BEVs can have 300 miles of range is missing the point. It is just too expensive to get there.

There is now technology that can let you refuel in 5 minutes, give you 300-400 miles of range, while also being a type of EV. As a result, it no longer matters that BEVs are "good enough." It is simply not the most practical idea. Something else is flat-out better.

Yes. It is not about Elon. It's about the doomed nature of BEVs. Any technology that can give you a £17,000 repair bill just because it is wet means it is not a viable technology. Though it's sad that people have been fooled by Elon's bullshit about his companies. Which is why stories like this come up. Ultimately, BEVs are dead-end and this cannot be changed. It will be a matter of when BEVs are abandoned in the marketplace, not if.

EDIT: Again, no amount of lying to yourself will change reality. BEVs are a dead-end and always will be.

Agreed. BEVs make sense as short-ranged urban commuter cars. You don't want a car with a giant, expensive battery. But this is a niche, so you quickly realize that something else must be the answer.

For a lot of cases, it is either mass transit or e-bikes. But if you must have a car, it must be something that matches the functionality of ICE cars while being zero emissions.

Not really, because fuel cells are electrochemical systems just like batteries. In the long-run, it will be the same level of efficiency as batteries.

What you mean to say is that at a certain level of technology, it is 50% efficient. But even that is meaningless, because hydrogen's ability to capture excess wind and solar energy let's it be extremely cheap energy. It is the same story as photovoltaic cells. Photovoltaic cells are very inefficient, but it is irrelevant because it captures such a cheap energy source. So solar power is very cheap. Likewise, green hydrogen, made from water and extremely cheap renewable energy, will also be extremely cheap. Efficiency isn't that big of a deal here either.

Ultimately, the people who criticize hydrogen are doing the same thing as those that attacked solar power. It is just missing the forest for the trees, and they are basically guaranteed to be wrong.

BEVs are a dead-end technology. It just replaces an unsustainable dependency on fossil fuels with an unsustainable dependency on batteries and battery-related mining.

In reality, the future will be hydrogen cars, with an outside chance of synfuel/e-fuel cars.

EDIT: Sorry, but no amount of lying to yourself will make BEVs a viable technology. It is a dead-end and always will be.

Time to leave X then.