• Chreutz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Hypx@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

        • Hypx@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Physics state that both are types of EVs. Both fuel cells and batteries are electrochemical systems. In fact, you can literally call a hydrogen fuel cell a hydrogen-air battery.

          So whoever comes out and say “but muh physics” has no idea what he’s talking about. If you really knew physics, you’d know that there’s holding back FCEVs in physics.