Johnny Bacigalupo and Rob Hussey have been hit with a £17,000 bill to fix their Tesla after it was damaged in the rain - they have been told to pay even if they say it's not their fault
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.
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).
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.
I do not “oppose” BEVs in that sense. It will play a role, just like wind does. But it won’t be the magical solution, and realistically it will be a transitional role. It has too many downsides.
After all, an FCEV is also an EV. Why support the more resource intensive EV? Perhaps a better analogy might two different type of photovoltaic cells. They come in many different levels of efficiency, and yet it is the cheapest, not the most efficient kind, that is winning out.
That’s a flawed analogy. In the case of a photovoltaic cells it make sense to use the cheapest one as the main constrain is not the available place. If you were place constrained, you’ll look into maximising the production by square meter, in which case the most efficient on would win (at least for a rational buyer).
It would be better to compare wind and solar power, like you did earlier. In both case the technology is different, both have their own advantages and downsides, which makes them ideal for two different use cases.
Same goes for EVs.
Hydrogen is great for its cheaper initial build cost and fast charge, but do suffer from its lack of infrastructure and difficulty to store hydrogen (it is the smallest atom in existence. Any flaw in its container means a sizable leak. The only way currently is to make one with very thick walls, which mean it is heavy and costly.
Batteries is great for its multiple use and reuses, have a great charging infrastructure (you literally can charge on a standard electrical socket at home), but suffer from a slower charges.
In my case I suffered from no downside from my BEV, I charge it at home from time to time, I use it mainly for medium (less than 200km) to local trips, and use electrical trains for long-range trips. I have no use for any advantages provided by FCEVs, and would be rather hampered by its current or near future downsides.
BEVs in another hand got all the advantages I require. It pollute a bit more when being produced, but have 0 net emission when driving. I can choose how I get my electricity by adapting my electricity provider (I’m currently on a 100% renewable provider), which I can’t do with hydrogen. Long range trips, If I used my car for it, would be longer for sure, but as I said, it isn’t my use case for a car.
As for security, both have their risks, but strangely, they are both statistically (while taking into consideration the difference in number of vehicles) safer than gas powered car.
The future will tell us which technology will win, but for now, BEVs have a good head start. Take an example of Norway. Last time I checked they had something like 150 hydrogen car in the whole country. And that is taking into consideration that EVs make most of the car sales there now.
Just so we’re clear, you can charge an FCEV. Either via PHEV setup or some home electrolysis system. It is also an EV after all. It is definitely analogous to two different PV technologies.
Since it basically runs on water, or least something made from water, it is going to be the much cheaper idea in the long run. So it seems unavoidable that at some point, the FCEV will win.
BEV owners will eventually end up being the next diesel car owners. Sure, you can say “I did my part for the climate,” but you won’t worship your old car.
Either via PHEV setup or some home electrolysis system.
PHEV would make it partly a BEV. Not bad for a doomed technology, isn’t it? As for an home electrolysis system, considering how difficult it is currently to build industrial sized one, I doubt we’ll see them for the decades to come. But I hope I’m mistaken on that aspect.
Since it basically runs on water, or least something made from water
They would if most of the hydrogen was made from water. It is unfortunately factually false currently, and that won’t change until someone heavily invest in a renewable mean of producing hydrogen. If you take that into consideration, FCEVs do emit quite a lot of greenhouse gases (and would even be worse than gas in some countries like Poland). Not directly, but they do nonetheless.
Sure, you can say “I did my part for the climate,” but you won’t worship your old car.
If you are worshipping your FCEV car you should reconsider your life 🤣. They are tool, maybe part of a way of life, but nothing more.
Considering FCEVs are also EVs, PHEVs don’t anything. It is the absolute dependency on giant batteries that make BEVs doomed. PHEVs are fine for a transitional technology too.
It’s the same argument with electricity. It is only green as its source. People are just repeating the arguments made against all EVs.
FCEVs merely happen to be the future of the automobile. There is nothing beyond that. It’s BEV fanatics that get upset when someone suggests they’re supporting a transitional technology.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Carbon fiber can be used on BEV too. But in both case it cost way too much to be viable other than for supercars.
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
The engine yes, not the energy storage. And a lot of EVs advantage and inconvenience are due to that part.
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.
Depends of your uses. For mine, FCEV have far to much disadvantages over BEV to be viable.
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.
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.
I do not “oppose” BEVs in that sense. It will play a role, just like wind does. But it won’t be the magical solution, and realistically it will be a transitional role. It has too many downsides.
After all, an FCEV is also an EV. Why support the more resource intensive EV? Perhaps a better analogy might two different type of photovoltaic cells. They come in many different levels of efficiency, and yet it is the cheapest, not the most efficient kind, that is winning out.
That’s a flawed analogy. In the case of a photovoltaic cells it make sense to use the cheapest one as the main constrain is not the available place. If you were place constrained, you’ll look into maximising the production by square meter, in which case the most efficient on would win (at least for a rational buyer).
It would be better to compare wind and solar power, like you did earlier. In both case the technology is different, both have their own advantages and downsides, which makes them ideal for two different use cases.
Same goes for EVs.
Hydrogen is great for its cheaper initial build cost and fast charge, but do suffer from its lack of infrastructure and difficulty to store hydrogen (it is the smallest atom in existence. Any flaw in its container means a sizable leak. The only way currently is to make one with very thick walls, which mean it is heavy and costly.
Batteries is great for its multiple use and reuses, have a great charging infrastructure (you literally can charge on a standard electrical socket at home), but suffer from a slower charges.
In my case I suffered from no downside from my BEV, I charge it at home from time to time, I use it mainly for medium (less than 200km) to local trips, and use electrical trains for long-range trips. I have no use for any advantages provided by FCEVs, and would be rather hampered by its current or near future downsides.
BEVs in another hand got all the advantages I require. It pollute a bit more when being produced, but have 0 net emission when driving. I can choose how I get my electricity by adapting my electricity provider (I’m currently on a 100% renewable provider), which I can’t do with hydrogen. Long range trips, If I used my car for it, would be longer for sure, but as I said, it isn’t my use case for a car.
As for security, both have their risks, but strangely, they are both statistically (while taking into consideration the difference in number of vehicles) safer than gas powered car.
The future will tell us which technology will win, but for now, BEVs have a good head start. Take an example of Norway. Last time I checked they had something like 150 hydrogen car in the whole country. And that is taking into consideration that EVs make most of the car sales there now.
Just so we’re clear, you can charge an FCEV. Either via PHEV setup or some home electrolysis system. It is also an EV after all. It is definitely analogous to two different PV technologies.
Since it basically runs on water, or least something made from water, it is going to be the much cheaper idea in the long run. So it seems unavoidable that at some point, the FCEV will win.
BEV owners will eventually end up being the next diesel car owners. Sure, you can say “I did my part for the climate,” but you won’t worship your old car.
PHEV would make it partly a BEV. Not bad for a doomed technology, isn’t it? As for an home electrolysis system, considering how difficult it is currently to build industrial sized one, I doubt we’ll see them for the decades to come. But I hope I’m mistaken on that aspect.
They would if most of the hydrogen was made from water. It is unfortunately factually false currently, and that won’t change until someone heavily invest in a renewable mean of producing hydrogen. If you take that into consideration, FCEVs do emit quite a lot of greenhouse gases (and would even be worse than gas in some countries like Poland). Not directly, but they do nonetheless.
If you are worshipping your FCEV car you should reconsider your life 🤣. They are tool, maybe part of a way of life, but nothing more.
Considering FCEVs are also EVs, PHEVs don’t anything. It is the absolute dependency on giant batteries that make BEVs doomed. PHEVs are fine for a transitional technology too.
It’s the same argument with electricity. It is only green as its source. People are just repeating the arguments made against all EVs.
FCEVs merely happen to be the future of the automobile. There is nothing beyond that. It’s BEV fanatics that get upset when someone suggests they’re supporting a transitional technology.