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
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.
Considering FCEVs are also EVs, PHEVs don’t anything.
Please rephrase that part, it has currently no meaning (I suppose you translated from another language). Personally I don’t believe on PHEVs. It is just an excuse to greenwash gas cars. Maybe Hydrogen-Battery hybrids, but in this case you put a possible fire hazard near a possible explosive one… Strangely I’m not a fan of the idea 😆 .
It’s the same argument with electricity. It is only green as its source. People are just repeating the arguments made against all EVs.
Which is a valid argument unfortunately, albeit easy to counter. At least BEV users have the choice, which gas car user don’t. Same goes for hydrogen, at least currently, as I doubt anyone would want to pay the premium for electrolysis-only hydrogen considering its current price.
FCEVs merely happen to be the future of the automobile.
That’s an opinion, and I disagree with you. Beyond that there isn’t much to argue over. We both have our reason to believe in our technology of choice, and as I said earlier, both may be valid choices on the long run.
It’s BEV fanatics that get upset when someone suggests they’re supporting a transitional technology.
Only “fanatics” can be as sure of the future as you seem to be. There is still a ton of improvement to make in both case, so unless one of us is a specialist in both sector, we can’t pretend to know what the future hold for us. In any case, anything that helps reduce our carbon print is welcome, battery powered or not.
Plug-in fuel cell cars are a viable idea and solve a lot of problems. You are just fearmongering.
FCEVs are again, just EVs. Just without the huge cost of batteries. That ensures they will be the cheapest solution out there. Your rhetoric against the cost of green hydrogen is just a repeat of anti-renewable energy rhetoric of the past.
The difference is that you are basically saying FCEVs cannot exist in meaningful numbers. That’s an absurdity. It’s pretty much undeniable that they will play a major role given the need for green technology. To deny this is to repeat a common climate change denier argument. It is an argument against green technology altogether.
Plug-in fuel cell cars are a viable idea and solve a lot of problems. You are just fearmongering.
I said that it was my opinion, not that I’m correct. There is a very important difference between both. Plug-in fuel cell car could solve some problem, and create other. For now I didn’t see any commercial ones, so best I can do is speculate on its possible risks. How those risks are taken care of is the car engineers role. We’ll see.
Tbh I’d really like to see that as a solution. Batterie for short range, hydrogen (if it is 100% electrolysis) for long range.
Your rhetoric against the cost of green hydrogen is just a repeat of anti-renewable energy rhetoric of the past.
I went and checked my data. According to the latest report I’ve found (July 2020), hydrolysis hydrogen cost between $3/kg and $6.55/kg. Fossil-based hydrogen costs about $1.80/kg. Not as big as I feared, but still quite a steep increase on cost that may rebuke many potential users. The mean of getting cheaper hydrogen is mostly based on a decreasing cost of renewable energy, which would also benefit BEVs.
If you have more recent data from a independent source, feel free to share.
The difference is that you are basically saying FCEVs cannot exist in meaningful numbers. That’s an absurdity. It’s pretty much undeniable that they will play a major role given the need for green technology.
You misunderstand my point. I merely pointed out the current difficulties that FCEVs faces (like the lack of distribution infrastructure), which are aspects where BEVs excels. This lack of infrastructure need to be addressed before FCEVs can be considered as a viable alternative.
For BEVs, you literally got dozen of potential “recharge infrastructure” in your own house. Slow ones, sure, but you can leave it to charge during the night like you’d do with a smartphone. And you can install faster ones too.
I’m well aware of BEVs downsides, I don’t try to hide them. But they are not as damning as you portray them.
Slow charge speed are not a problem as we require regular pauses during long range driving anyway (15-30 min every 2h are recommended here), which are enough for a meaningful recharge using currently available fast chargers.
Battery cost isn’t as bad as this, fuel saving reimburse them on the long run (I already reimbursed mine long ago according to my calculation, and it is still going strong).
Fire risks have long been taken care of (funnily enough the solution was borrowed from FCEVs, by redirecting the flame using valves). But Teslas are known for their lack of build quality. Elon Musk wouldn’t be its owner, it would have long gone under.
To deny this is to repeat a common climate change denier argument. It is an argument against green technology altogether.
FCEVs have a role to play, but it still need to mature a bit more before then. That’s my main point. BEVs are, in my opinion, the most logical thing to do. Depending on how FCEVs matures, it may become a welcome alternative, or even combine with BEVs to get the best of both worlds, but telling that BEVs are doomed to fail is ignorant at best, or to “repeat a common climate change denier argument” at worse, as you put it.
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.
Please rephrase that part, it has currently no meaning (I suppose you translated from another language). Personally I don’t believe on PHEVs. It is just an excuse to greenwash gas cars. Maybe Hydrogen-Battery hybrids, but in this case you put a possible fire hazard near a possible explosive one… Strangely I’m not a fan of the idea 😆 .
That’s an opinion, and I disagree with you. Beyond that there isn’t much to argue over. We both have our reason to believe in our technology of choice, and as I said earlier, both may be valid choices on the long run.
Only “fanatics” can be as sure of the future as you seem to be. There is still a ton of improvement to make in both case, so unless one of us is a specialist in both sector, we can’t pretend to know what the future hold for us. In any case, anything that helps reduce our carbon print is welcome, battery powered or not.
Your own post was garbled as well.
Plug-in fuel cell cars are a viable idea and solve a lot of problems. You are just fearmongering.
FCEVs are again, just EVs. Just without the huge cost of batteries. That ensures they will be the cheapest solution out there. Your rhetoric against the cost of green hydrogen is just a repeat of anti-renewable energy rhetoric of the past.
The difference is that you are basically saying FCEVs cannot exist in meaningful numbers. That’s an absurdity. It’s pretty much undeniable that they will play a major role given the need for green technology. To deny this is to repeat a common climate change denier argument. It is an argument against green technology altogether.
I said that it was my opinion, not that I’m correct. There is a very important difference between both. Plug-in fuel cell car could solve some problem, and create other. For now I didn’t see any commercial ones, so best I can do is speculate on its possible risks. How those risks are taken care of is the car engineers role. We’ll see. Tbh I’d really like to see that as a solution. Batterie for short range, hydrogen (if it is 100% electrolysis) for long range.
I went and checked my data. According to the latest report I’ve found (July 2020), hydrolysis hydrogen cost between $3/kg and $6.55/kg. Fossil-based hydrogen costs about $1.80/kg. Not as big as I feared, but still quite a steep increase on cost that may rebuke many potential users. The mean of getting cheaper hydrogen is mostly based on a decreasing cost of renewable energy, which would also benefit BEVs.
If you have more recent data from a independent source, feel free to share.
You misunderstand my point. I merely pointed out the current difficulties that FCEVs faces (like the lack of distribution infrastructure), which are aspects where BEVs excels. This lack of infrastructure need to be addressed before FCEVs can be considered as a viable alternative.
For BEVs, you literally got dozen of potential “recharge infrastructure” in your own house. Slow ones, sure, but you can leave it to charge during the night like you’d do with a smartphone. And you can install faster ones too. I’m well aware of BEVs downsides, I don’t try to hide them. But they are not as damning as you portray them.
Slow charge speed are not a problem as we require regular pauses during long range driving anyway (15-30 min every 2h are recommended here), which are enough for a meaningful recharge using currently available fast chargers.
Battery cost isn’t as bad as this, fuel saving reimburse them on the long run (I already reimbursed mine long ago according to my calculation, and it is still going strong). Fire risks have long been taken care of (funnily enough the solution was borrowed from FCEVs, by redirecting the flame using valves). But Teslas are known for their lack of build quality. Elon Musk wouldn’t be its owner, it would have long gone under.
FCEVs have a role to play, but it still need to mature a bit more before then. That’s my main point. BEVs are, in my opinion, the most logical thing to do. Depending on how FCEVs matures, it may become a welcome alternative, or even combine with BEVs to get the best of both worlds, but telling that BEVs are doomed to fail is ignorant at best, or to “repeat a common climate change denier argument” at worse, as you put it.