Wasn’t like… a huge deal made about how the Teslas are so waterproof they could double as a boat? I mean they can in fact ford much deeper than ICE cars because they don’t need air, but also there’s definitely tweets about this.
Edit: he said it about both the cybertruck - loads of stories about this - and the model S: https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/hybrid-electric/a21421/elon-musk-model-s-boat/
This is entirely separate of course from the much more basic issue that a car that breaks because of some fucking precipitation is not fit for purpose and this damage report would be indefensible just about anywhere in the world. Precedent for manufacturers taking responsibility for bad products was first established in Britain centuries ago.
And not to mention it was water ingress into the bloody batteries, they’re lucky (or maybe unlucky in this case) that the car didn’t burn down from the Lithium…
Yeah… that’s the one part you need to waterproof, more even than the passenger cabin. Everything else except the ECU is water-agnostic. Those battery cells will discharge and die if you leave them submerged. The pack itself is fine for short spells under water if it is properly made.
This is entirely separate of course from the much more basic issue that a car that breaks because of some fucking precipitation is not fit for purpose and this damage report would be indefensible just about anywhere in the world.
Two things here…
The source of this is …The Mirror. Not exactly top shelf journalism. They thrive of outage, just like the Daily Fail. Keep that in mind when reading these trash sources.
I suspect the owner of the vehicle did a lot more than “drive it in a bit of rain” and is simply lying about it in order to try and get bailed out. Funnily enough I’ve not seen a queue of Tesla’s broken down every time I drive in the rain.
It’s certainly possible that the owner is telling the truth. But I doubt it. I doubt it a lot.
I’ve recovered Teslas that have “failed” in the rain. It means a moisture sensor has triggered. The car tells you they it can get to where you need to go but then will need to be serviced. It’s a “first” generation problem rather than anything inherently wrong with electric cars.
The issue is the statement by the Tesla rep that bad weather was the cause. Now we don’t have any confirmation they said that, but it would take nothing for Tesla to categorically deny that that is an acceptable reason to deny warranty, and state that any rep saying that was at fault. There. Done. Non-story.
If they can’t categorically deny that then that implies they actually are employing this excuse for their shoddy workmanship. It certainly wouldn’t be the scummiest thing the company has done.
What statement? What you read was not a statement but hearsay in the form of a vaguely retold exchange.
Fuck Elon and Tesla but this isn’t much to go on.
They got a statement from Tesla who said they were “investigating”. You don’t need to investigate to know that this is a bullshit reason to give, and their silence on that issue speaks volumes. Now, if the statements by the customers were not given to the Tesla rep to respond to, they would have ample opportunity to put out a statement explaining the problems with the article. Have they done that, or is it just silence? Any media rep worth their salt is absolutely going to be aware of this article.
Scotland is having some pretty extreme weather now, though
Unless a tree fell on the car it shouldn’t stop running because of some wind & rain. This is basic stuff, I don’t know why people don’t get this.
Rain kills cars literally all the time when idiots drive them through flooded roads.
“Some wind and rain”. The Edinburgh and Cannonmill area, where this story is from, has had at least two floods this month severe enough to submerge parked vehicles.
Have you not heard of flooding?
This is basic stuff, I don’t know why people don’t get this.
Perhaps it’s the other way around?
I know someone who had to get their Tesla repaired after driving in a puddle. I don’t know the size or depth of the puddle though.
This is not as easy, I mean they’re are some things that makes it easier than ICE, but electronical components also cannot get wet and those big boats run on fossil fuel after all.
But what’s ridiculous is that rain could damage it (from article doesn’t sound like car was flooded, as that would be understandable).
Yesterday I saw comment: imagine that the typical home printer was your car. That’s the experience of typical Tesla owner.
This seems to match the article.
Except most BEVs absolutely can ford shallow rivers. They’re better at it than ICE cars because of the intake issue.
And the electronics on any vehicle needs to be water proof too. Although I’ve seen an iffroad tesla mod where they actually said that opening holes in the bottom of the ECU waterproofing was essential to allow water to flow out, rather than sealing it up completely like Tesla had done. That was the problem that killed their first motherboard in that project.
Also note there’s a difference between electronics and electrics. The electric motors dgaf about water, they work flooded or dry. The logic circuits are the really vulnerable part.
Well, what if I never had a problem with a printer? I realize I might be just lucky, but I never got the fuss about broken printers.
Now if we’re talking 3D printer, yeah, that shit needs constant repair.
Edit: Holy shit dudes, never expected to get into the negative score for stating objective facts. Get help, pretty please.
3D printers have obvious and fixable defects. When they break you can see the broken part, you can diagnose and fix it. Regular printers are just fuck you machines.
They didn’t used to be.
And I suspect the same will happen with 3D printers over time.
I’ve had my brother printer for around 10 years now with no problems. Assuming they are still made the same, I highly recommend them.
Brother as far as I know produces only office printers. Most people that complain about printers talk about those home inkjet printers that they bundle with PCs.
Kind of side note. 20 years ago I remember buying PC at best buy. It came with Canon (I think) printer. I told them that I didn’t want it, saying that I already had a printer at home going to get lower price. After the sales guy removed it, the price was actually higher. They apparently were paying them to include it.
Pretty sure my brother is a home printer. It’s bulky, for sure, but that’s probably part of the reason why it has lasted so long. But yeah, I get what those people are complaining about. I bought a brother specifically because everyone always complains about crappy printers, so I looked up which one wasn’t crappy and paid the premium to have something I wouldn’t soon need to replace.
Yesterday I saw comment: imagine that the typical home printer was your car. That’s the experience of typical Tesla owner.
Can you expand? I live in a wealthy liberal area, the cross section of people who want to show their wealth with fancy cars and also want to virtue signal that they care about the environment, so there are a bunch of Teslas around here. I also have a few close friends and family that have them. I’ve heard overwhelmingly good things about the cars from these people. All of the complaints have been minor quibbles.
Tesla owners down play it, but basically every study/survey agrees that Tesla has terrible reliability. It’s not just the electric car parts, it’s everything. You can call it minor that door handles stick, or windows break, loss of power steering, leaking moon roofs, touch screens being non-responsive, and more.
I think Elon tweeted something about the cyber truck being water proof enough to be used as a boat once, I don’t know if anything was said about the rest of their cars.
I looked it up, it was the truck and the model S, he’s said it multiple times, because the man cannot understand when to stfu: https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/hybrid-electric/a21421/elon-musk-model-s-boat/
Cool good to know, I saw a model 3 in a home Depot parking lot recently when it was raining and it looked like the driver was having all kinds of issues with their car. I kind of wonder if it was the same thing.
You’re correct, it was the truck
Every car can “briefly” serve as a boat.
Yeah it’s Lemon Law, it exists in many places
All BEVs will have similar problems. The battery pack is huge and cannot come into contact with water.
The battery pack is supposed to be watertight because that is an expected hazard for an outdoor vehicle. It absolutely can come in contact with water, which apart from some minor corrosion and discharge over time due to electrolysis, should not in the short term damage it. The ability to ford shallow rivers is absolutely normal in most BEVs.
The problem is that it just slung underneath the car, exposed to whatever is beneath the car. You can try making it watertight, but water will eventually get it in wetter climates. That will be the problem of all BEVs with giant batteries.
It’s not “just slung”… The battery fulfills multiple functions as it is part of the chassis. And nobody is “trying” to make it watertight, it is literally engineered that way. We have made things weatersealed since forever, hell even cars just standing outside in wet cold climates won’t get wet inside even after decades. Yet we can’t make a rigid part of a chassis watertight? You’re grasping at straws brother. You have to crash before water gets in.
Grind Hard Plumbing did an offroad Tesla mod where their BEV expert suggested part of the problem was waterproofing everything completely, rather than allowing drain holes in the bottom. Tesla seems to think absolutely sealed batteries are the solution, but water will get in like you say, then it’s trapped.
They had an issue with the motherboard grtting water damaged for the same reason. As long as the car is right-way-up, drain holes won’t allow much water in during immersion, but they will let it back out.
Please me all the articles about BEVs dying in wet weather
The OptiGrab!
An AI tool was used to add an extra layer to the editing process for this story.
For crying out loud, stop that!
Translation: this story was written by AI but we sorta skimmed it to make sure it wasn’t too insane.
And the readers can do the proof reading for us.
*to make sure it was insane enough.
It’s The Mirror we’re taking about.
And it’s the fucking Daily Mirror – a tabloid.
Here’s an alternative link for people that don’t want to give traffic to that trash site. Or want a story that’s not click-bait garbage and has actual context.
Elon Musk could buy everyone in the world a Tesla if he wanted to.
Well, that would be $ 314 562 157 350 000. in other words, 3 times the global yearly GDP. But one can hardly expect a common sense from a tesla owner :D /s
He wouldn’t buy them from himself at full MSRP, only cost.
Let’s deduct the average per-car profit of $9500, not pay any taxes, since it’s a gift… we’re at $ 153 207 089 787 600. Still a few billions above the yearly global GDP.
And I’m using this bullshit fake base price per car that’s not even real. Seriously, read the text behind the asterisk, this is outright scam.
Tesla probably has a lot higher profit than other cars, since Teslas are a Status-Symbol rather than just a Car
but yes
Where in the world is Tesla a status symbol? Because I bought my M3P because I couldn’t afford a BMW i4 M50, let alone a iX or EQS/EQE AMG. The BMW is similar size and performance and costs 30% more.
I still like it, but it was the compromise option.
US, EU, RU, probably even China…
Not in the EU for sure. American cars have always been “lots of horsepower and low-ish quality for a low price”, and Tesla keeps the trend.
I only know rich people who buy Tesla in EU. Rest of the people are driving half the price combustion engine cars.
Removed by mod
Even if the cost was an impossibly low 10% of MSRP, that’s still $30 trillion dollars based on the math above and well more than he has.
Why are you guys so literate about it. OP just used something called exaggeration.
Doesn’t surprise me with those panel gaps.
Due respect and support for Elon hatred, but this story is stupid. No one gets water ingress on a tesla battery from driving through puddles. The family didn’t want to pay for it, the horrible “newd” organization (I refuse to even name them) knows mentioning Elon makes better news, and this whole thing is an insurance issue and somehow Elon is mentioned.
Quick, without looking, who is the CEO of Toyota, Honda, Chevrolet, or Ford?
Even if you know, who cares? Exactly.
A stupid story by The Daily Mirror? That must be a first!
Fair point. Why do they get posted though is the real question.
Usually because the Daily Mail and The Sun are worse, and because leaning towards the left/Labour let’s The Mirror off a bit in some people’s eyes.
Because it fits the narrative of the slightly radicalised userbase.
John said he pressed representatives of Tesla on whether he or Rob were at fault for the damage, to which he claims he was told that it was a weather issue. He added: "They said that the battery is effectively submerged in water. How can that be our fault?
The car got flooded, then? That’s an insurance problem not a repair problem.
Incredible. I clicked to read the article, but there was no article! A title and a sentence.
But they were FUMING!
Fucking clickbait everywhere.
There is an article. It talks about how they were driving in the rain in Scotland and apparently the damage caused by the rain wasn’t covered under the warranty.
deleted by creator
This whole thread is a perfect example of “feeding the troll” :D
I have zero sympathy for anyone that bought anything connected to Phony Stark. Zilch.
You knew what you were buying into - you live with it.
Removed by mod
Hell son, any car will break down when submerged. ICE cars don’t like inhaling water either.
Do you think a journalist might write a news article about a guy having a $17,000 repair bill after driving one in the rain to let us hear about it?
Removed by mod
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.
Maybe the future is not relying on any one technology as our only option.
Nah, that doesn’t make sense at all.
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.
Since when is a 300 mile range “short range”? And it only takes a half hour or so at a good charger to regain the majority of that range. Modern electric cars are perfectly reasonable for long distance trips, provided there’s charging infrastructure, of course.
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.
Your alternative is not better, because it’s not in mass production. When it’s in production it might be better.
But there are still a lot of problems to work out with hydrogen fuel, and the infrastructure is extremely expensive and complicated compared to simple charging stations.
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.
You’re completely ignoring the fact that it takes 3 to 5 times as much energy to actually drive a hydrogen car, because of the (in)efficiencies of the hydrogen production, supply and consumption chains.
And given that the driving of a car is what consumes the most energy in its lifetime, the much higher efficiency of a BEV ‘pays off’ the higher production costs, both monetarily and ecologically.
Battery technology will be improved. Look at how much better today’s lithium ion batteries are than the NiCad batteries of the 90s.
At some point, we’ll develop something that doesn’t wear out for tens of thousands of charge cycles.
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.
Batteries will improve. So there’s no reason to not accept them.
I smell an angry Nikola investor.
Hydrogen can not be improved. It will still seep through containers no matter what material you use because hydrogen atoms are just so damn small.
They are 2 fundamentally different problems, and only one can be actually improved. And that is the battery storage.
Massive repair bills like you would have with an ICE engine and transmission or hydrogen fuel cell. Turns out vehicles, regardless of what they’re powered with, are expensive to fix.
Do any of them actually have 300 mile range? Like an actual human being can drive them on real roads for 300 miles without charging?
Behold, Bjørn Nyland’s test result spreadsheet.
It depends on how heavy your foot is, really. Hilariously, the FCEV Mirai doesn’t top the charts, especially for high speeds.
Mostly when people see the price of top end EVs they decide that they aren’t in that much of a hurry and taking a break every couple of hours would be okay. Same thing happens when you put an expensive battery swap station next to a cheap fast charger, people look at the price difference and decide they aren’t in that much of a hurry.
But this guy who’s off his meds thinks people will pay a premium for hydrogen instead of just peeing and stretching their legs while they wait.
Personally, my 200 mile EV has taken me everywhere I’ve wanted to go and when I stop and charge it’s ready to go again before I am.
Personally, my 200 mile EV has taken me everywhere I’ve wanted to go and when I stop and charge it’s ready to go again before I am.
And that’s the key.
As long as EV range > Bladder range and they charge fast enough that the toilet break time is similar to charging time, then it doesn’t matter.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
It just feels like way too low to me. Maybe you’re right and it’s not, but nowadays I get some 600 km (some 370 miles according to Google) from my petrol-based car for a full tank and I’m quite used to that.
Anyway, to paraphrase you a bit, I’ve looked at the prices of EVs and decided I’m not in that much of a hurry to switch to them.
The main difference is you mostly don’t take them somewhere special to fill them up, so you aren’t thinking about “how long before I have to fill up again”.
An EV charges overnight and starts off each day with a full charge, so it’s all about daily usage and long trips. Going days without charging isn’t a useful thing to do, where filling a gas car every day would be a pain in the ass.
Prices are still fairly high, but they’re dropping fast and the used market is picking up steam.
A few, very expensive BEVs do. Think Lucid Air and the like. But they’re not economically viable vehicles.
And a brand new, cutting edge hydrogen vehicle is economically viable? Your arguments are all retarded man lol
An FCEV is able to do 400 miles at a much lower price right now. And that’s with very low rate of production.
Short range urban commuting is the domain of subways and ebikes
Wow man. You have the highest proportional mix of someone being both highly opinionated and highly misinformed that I’ve witnessed in quite a while. Congrats, I guess 🎉
You’re being eaten alive here because you are confidently wrong about many things and seem to be blind to criticism
Because in reality, this thread is filled with brainwashed BEV fanatics. Either they have been fooled by Musk, or they are investors in some BEV company.
A real problem, if you believe that is going to be a massive distraction to solving climate change.
Ultimately, if you were in my shoes, you do the same thing. You have to. It is the only morally acceptable thing to do if you believe what I believe.
Bud, have you even spent any time around here? I can’t think of a group of people more gleefully critical of Musk. He’s reviled around here
You say you believe these things, but have shared nothing but flimsy opinion without facts. That’s not reality, that’s faith. It might be a great time to reconsider whose actually brainwashed.
I’m sure there’s plenty of Musk haters. But there’s still plenty of people still believing in him. Or still believing in past lies they haven’t realized were lies.
Classic example of heels firmly dug in with no interest in reality. Good luck with all of that bullshit
Some of you guys are so detached from reality, you can’t even realize that you just propping up some outdated Fascist bullshit that almost no one on the left believes in anymore.
In case you weren’t aware, even Joe Biden is promoting hydrogen. At some point, you have to make an assessment of whose water you’re really carrying.
There it is. I see now which echo chamber you’ve crawled out of. Crawl back, please, back into your troglodyte hole
Why do you think we’re brainwashed BEV fanatics? We’re not blind, we just think it’s decent for now. We’re just not hydrogen-brainwashed fanatics like you? What’s wrong with that? I drive a cheap ass honda civic with no hope of affording EV or HV, but I like the idea of BEV over the gas/diesel does that mean I’m brainwashed BEV fanatic? I’d love to see hydrogen-fueled vehicles as viable, but it’s not happening now other than only two models.
People here are actively rejecting the possibility of an alternative type of EV. For most of them, only the BEV can exist, and anything is reflexively rejected. It’s not the first time they behave like that, so don’t think they are coming from nowhere and are just asking questions. It’s purely an act of defensiveness, likely to defend their car purposes or their investments.
Right now EVs can be charged at home with power they can generate themselves via solar panels. How is going back to a gas station a better and more convenient solution? Also, you think battery tech will never evolve?
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.
There are about 44 Hydrogen fueling stations in the USA right now. Every home and parking structure damn near has at least a power outlet.
Today you can do a cross county road trip with an EV. You can not do that with a Fuel Cell. I don’t see that changing. Batteries are just more convenient.
Same could be said of BEVs not that long ago.
And no, it will never be more convenient than a chemical fuel. Once there are more hydrogen stations, no one will bother with slow recharging.
Nobody will? We already do. 🤣
Then why does everyone complain about long recharge times, or long lines at fast charging stations?
Look, you don’t have to lie to yourself anymore. There’s a technology that can reduce refueling/recharge times to that of a gasoline car. Might as well start talking about the next big idea, not prop up the outdated one.
Look, you don’t have to lie to yourself anymore.
This is called projection.
Those people who don’t have a garage to charge in? They’re parking their cars somewhere, and odds are those parking spaces are within 100 yards of a power line.
Heck, countries where it’s cold enough that gas cars need block heaters to be able to start have had parking lots wired for power for decades.
Like on the street or some random parking lot.
Hydrogen allows for converting gasoline stations to hydrogen. That is the simplest and in fact cheapest solution.
You can’t just pour hydrogen into the underground tanks, you know? You aren’t really reusing anything but the land, and you could do something else with it if the gas station wasn’t there.
You might as well claim that EVs let you reuse gas stations as charging stations. All you need to do is install completely new charging stations.
You store hydrogen in underground salt caverns on the large scale. Similar to how natural gas works. Above-ground tanks for local storage, and move via pipelines for the most part. It is not a perfect replacement for gasoline, but it is close enough.
The reason why you reuse gas stations because that’s what’s actually happening. Hydrogen stations are just converted gas stations in most cases.
Where on earth do you think your local 7-11 is going to come up with underground salt caverns?
We don’t even have pipes for gasoline and it doesn’t soak through steel. Nobody’s paying to dig up all the roads and footpaths necessary to build hydrogen pipelines across town and replace them when the hydrogen turns them brittle.
Isn’t Hydrogen only like 50% efficient?
On a good day… Electrolysis alone is often <60% efficient, but as someone else pointed out, you do have the advantage of ToU flexibility for minimizing costs.
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.
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.
Can’t speak for everyone but my criticism of hydrogen is not on its theoretical potential to displace fossil fuels as an energy carrier, but on its practical constraints today.
I don’t see many people criticizing hydrogen like those who “attacked solar” but people more treating it like fusion - it’s very likely the way of the future, but we shouldn’t stand around waiting for that future to materialize when we can be making changes now that will help preserve our collective future.
Additionally, your theoretical ultra-efficient-platinum-free-corrosion-resistant-fuel-cell-and-electrolyzer future is competing against the theoretical super-energy-dense-durable-low-cost-solid-state-battery future, and I shook my Magic 8 ball asking which is more likely and all I got was “Ask again later” so… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
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.
mostly just lies from competing industries
My Master’s Thesis and PhD Dissertation were focused on fuel cells as an energy storage system of the future - I’ve got more first hand experience than most with no influence “from competing industries”. I want this technology to work - badly.
That said, you’re right that fuel cell cars exist today, but so do batteries, and with today’s technology any “meaningful comparison” will quickly point out that today’s batteries are:
More efficient, cheaper to manufacturer, much cheaper to operate (have you checked the price per kg for (mostly fossil-produced) hydrogen recently? YIKES!), more user friendly for most (not all) drivers, and (a little more subjective) way more fun to drive.
Yes, batteries do have their problems (long haul & heavy duty applications, refueling time, cobalt sourcing, flammability, …) But so do PEMFCs (fuel cost, platinum sourcing, reliability & safety of ultra high pressure fueling infrastructure, fuel cost, complete lack of availability for green hydrogen, fuel cost, relatively rapid chemical degradation of electolyzers through catalyst poisoning, forever chemicals involved in the production use and disposal of Teflon/Nafion, …)
Again, I WANT fuel cells to win this contest, but today? They’ve got a lot of catching up to do before they overtake the leader, and unlike batteries, in their current state I could not in good conscience recommend purchasing an FCEV to anyone I care about.
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.
Dude, this is just funny ngl. I’m so curious how much you get paid
don’t have to believe you on your claims of expertise.
I’m glad you finally understand. That being said, the quality of the content of the other guys comment, compared to your 30 comments, really should be an eye opener to you.
Round trip, although you can make and store it with excess solar you were just gonna throw away
Or you could charge batteries with much more usable power because of fewer losses in the system…
Energy storage us a huge pain in the ass. Item Better to not have to
Electrical energy storage is at least viable.
Hydrogen storage slowly releases its contents because hydrogen atoms are so small they slip through any material.
It’s easier for people to imagine an alternative to capitalism than an alternative to cars.
I hope hydrogen succeeds myself but my friend pointed out a hydrogen engine will still need an oil change.
In the EV space they have sodium batteries now which don’t use rare minerals?
He’s actually right about this one despite the down votes. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are electric vehicles that use elective motors not engines so there are no oil changes.
The difference is that a fuel cell vehicle captures electrons during the reaction that takes place when hydrogen is exposed to oxygen (they bond to from H2O) rather than storing energy in batteries.
So battery electric vehicles store their energy in a battery while fuel cell electric vehicles store it in the form of hydrogen but ultimately electricity is was powers both of them.
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.
Bro there is literally already a car driving around with sodium batteries FOR YEARS. I even talked to a company last week that already has Sodium grid batteries. DELIVERED AND WORKING
The knowledge of Hypx hasn’t been updated since 2015.
They said so in a projection comment right above this one.
💀💀💀
Close but the problem is personal transit, we just need to actually build public transit and then it’s a non issue as by the nature of public transit you drastically reduce your dependence on both
In reality, the future will be hydrogen cars,
In what reality? They’ve been developing these for years and haven’t made much headway. Fossil fuels are finite while lithium batteries can be recycled over and over. What exactly is unsustainable about them?
Sorry, but no amount of lying to yourself will make BEVs a viable technology
If they aren’t a viable technology, then how are there millions of them on the road currently?
BEVs predate internal combustion engines. People have waited a long time for it to happen. Hydrogen has the same benefit as batteries, just minus any mining to begin with.
BEVs are the result of huge subsidies. They are not really in demand by most people. A lot of this debate is within a cluster of out-of-touch rich people.
Hydrogen has the same benefit as batteries, just minus any mining to begin with.
Hydrogen is currently produced from natural gas which is mined from the earth.
BEVs are the result of huge subsidies. They are not really in demand by most people. A lot of this debate is within a cluster of out-of-touch rich people.
Obviously written by someone with very little knowledge of the topic. Every form of fuel is subsidized whether that be fossil fuels, electric, or hydrogen. How about, at the very least, you take two seconds to Google things before you speak of them.
I’d bet 0% of the people you’re ‘debating’ with have any issue with hydrogen vehicle development. Everyone is taking issue with you and your ridiculous, uninformed comments.
And so is most electricity. The point is that it can be made from water. You’re just repeating an argument used against all EVs.
Not only do I know more than pretty much anyone here, I can immediately recognize all of the dumb myths and PR talking points everyone brings up. This is old news for me.
Everyone who oppose hydrogen pretty much has an agenda. If not an owner of a BEV, they are an investor of some kind.
Ultimately, why would anyone oppose green energy or green technology? Nevermind anyone who calls himself an environmentalist. It’s the most absurd fact in all of this. So many people here are lying to themselves about what they really believe and what their real motivations are.
idc about this post but i clicked on the article anyway to see gay people
that’s so cool…
We normally hide under your bed at night.
that sounds like the dream to me
Guinea pigs.
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.
I’m all for FCEVs but they are a long way off from mass consumption simply because you can’t fuel them at home like you can with a BEV. They need to seriously start building out hydrogen fueling stations for then be considered a viable alternative.
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 don’t see why something that works today won’t tomorrow. I got a BEV for years (Renault Zoe), rode it under a lot of rain, never got any problem.
At worst this only shows a lack of quality from Tesla, not from the whole industry.
FCEV has a lot of downside that BEV don’t, and same goes the other way. Those two technologies are complementary, but FCEVs lack the necessary infrastructure, be it for distribution or production.
Currently, most of the hydrogen used comes from fossil fuel as current electrolysis technologies have too much loss of potential energy, and has to be sold at a far higher price than fossil fuel based hydrogen as a result.
Once these BEVs get older and more corroded, we will see a lot of issues.
FCEVs have massive advantages over BEVs. They are just some years away from mass production and adoption.
Most arguments against them are years or even decades out of date. There isn’t anything holding back green hydrogen anymore. It will be both widespread and cheap pretty soon. It is basically following the same cost curve as wind, solar, even batteries themselves.
FCEV isn’t immune to corrosion, as is any vehicle. And if the fuel cell leaks, considering the volatility of hydrogen, you are at risk of a pretty big exposition. BEV has its own risk, but at least you have a chance to get out of the car and save your life.
And unfortunately the arguments are not out of date, unfortunately. Hydrogen production is still a big problem, as is the distribution network and storage (albeit this side is far better now than it was in the past, it is far from being good enough to deal with the smallest atom in existence).
BEV have a lot of advantages over FCEV. They can be recharged pretty much anywhere, they can be used as battery storage to make a resilient renewable based power grid, and battery can be reused as static electricity storage once their autonomy goes below the often used 70% threshold, and can be recycled pretty well (ironically the problem isn’t the technology but the lack of batteries to recycle, as there is very little BEV that get scrapped currently).
Moreover new battery technologies are on the way to help with a lot of it’s downsides, like ones that don’t catch fire, or smaller one to get better autonomy.
FCEVs are much less flammable than BEVs. They’ve been on the road of years, even a decade+. None of that has happened. And carbon fiber doesn’t really corrode, so it is incredibly safe all around.
Again, FCEVs have massive advantages over batteries. Including all of the same advantages of availability and green energy sources. Remember, FCEVs are literally EVs. They work the same way and have all the same basic advantages.
They just also happen to be able to refuel in minutes and have 400 miles of range. Plus much less raw material challenges. None of the supposed solutions of BEVs can even touch what FCEVs provide from day one.
And of course, BEV fanatics always resort to “magical batteries from the future.” Never once allowing for the possibility of superior fuel cells in the future.
FCEVs are much less flammable than BEVs.
I agree with you on that. That’s one of the main current generation BEV weak points. But that’s not something that can’t be changed. FCEVs are not as flammable, but they are surely explosive. But in both case, a lot of security measures exists, and danger comes from quality defect, not the lack of security.
They’ve been on the road of years, even a decade+.
As for BEV. I could also add more than a century for BEV (early cars were electric, but died out due to batteries being far too primitive at the time).
None of that has happened.
https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/hydrogen-fuel-cell-car-california-explosion/
https://electrek.co/2019/06/11/hydrogen-station-explodes-toyota-halts-sales-fuel-cell-cars/
And there are other occurrences, just go do a Google search.
And carbon fiber doesn’t really corrode, so it is incredibly safe all around.
Carbon fiber can be used on BEV too. But in both case it cost way too much to be viable other than for supercars.
Including all of the same advantages of availability and green energy sources.
Tell me, have you seen a lot of at home hydrogen recharge station. Have you seen a lot of hydrogen recharge stations in parking ? Both are true for BEVs
They work the same way and have all the same basic advantages.
The engine yes, not the energy storage. And a lot of EVs advantage and inconvenience are due to that part.
They just also happen to be able to refuel in minutes and have 400 miles of range. Plus much less raw material challenges.
I don’t deny that. And that’s why both technologies are complementary. FCEV for long range, far from home, BEV for medium to short ranges, when you can charge it at home.
On another hand, fast charger are more and more commonplace, and can recharge a $50000 BEV in less than 30 minutes. Just the time to go touch some grass, drink a cup of coffee, or do something else. It is required to take a break while driving from time to time, so why not ? Considering the pace at which fast charging is going, a 10 minutes fill up isn’t that far fetched.None of the supposed solutions of BEVs can even touch what FCEVs provide from day one.
Depends of your uses. For mine, FCEV have far to much disadvantages over BEV to be viable.
And of course, BEV fanatics always resort to “magical batteries from the future.” Never once allowing for the possibility of superior fuel cells in the future.
I can say the same about magical hydrogen production and storage facilities for FCEVs.
What you don’t understand is that I’m not critical as much about FCEVs than I am about the agressive and borderline irrational your stance is.
Both technologies are good. Both have a future. And more importantly, both have an important role to play to decarbonate of our civilization.
“You are not wrong, you’re just an asshole”, The Big Lebowski
Then don’t come out and claim that FCEVs are a bad idea. If you know that they can work, then support them fully.
Imagine a world where wind supporter vigorously attack solar power. That would be insane! That’s also what is happening now with FCEVs. It just happens that FCEVs, due to their lower resource needs, will play a much larger role than BEVs. But BEV fanatics cannot accept this at all. So rational people should know better than to swallow their lies.
Imagine a world where wind supporter vigorously attack solar power.
You say that and then proceed to vigorously attack BEVs. Quite ironic isn’t it?
I just point out that FCEVs are, like BEVs, a flawed technology at this time. If it wasn’t the adoption would have been immediate. Both still need a lot of R&D, and both will get better. BEVs are in no way a doomed technology like you said earlier. It is just different from FCEVs.
If you actually cared about the environment, you’d walk, bike or take transit. Cars are bad for cities, people and ecology
Actually yes. Cars are for special purposes. They should not be driven that much.
FCEV
Lol.
Keep dreaming.
Go back to the year 2015 when you actually sound original.
Maybe stop insulting everyone who disagrees with you. That’s how children behave. Not adults.
You are genuinely mentally ill. Get help.
Seriously, fuck off. You’re just a sad troll.
You’re the one rabidly pushing a technology that nobody is buying for some reason.
As soon as anybody disagrees with you (which is basically everyone) you respond with irrational anger, hate and swearing.
That’s not normal. It’s not healthy.
You need help. Get it.
Reminder to everyone in this thread:
Anyone who starts off their post with stuff like this is probably an idiot that shouldn’t be taken seriously.
These are the folks who never touch grass.
aS A meCHAnIC, all vehicles are doomed. You want green, advocate for trollies.
Heavier vehicles also eat up tires quicker and put more micro plastics into the environment.
I heard one of the byproducts of desalinization is hydrogen. If that’s what’s powering the cars, and we’re going to run out of drinking water that seems like a win win in my book.
deleted by creator
