There are all sorts of problems to solve with hydrogen, but I think we’re closer to solving those problems than we are to increasing battery density by an order of magnitude.
The Model 3 long range is almost 1,000 pounds heavier than a Camry, and the Camry has more range (and a faster “charging” time). Interior volume is similar, with a slight advantage to the Camry, though given the Model 3 has smaller exterior dimensions I’d give it the edge there.
26000$ vs 57000$
Who on an 800 mile road trip is upset about a 50 minute stop?
Most effort today is going into decreasing costs via economies of scale. What's the path to an electric vehicle with a 1,500 mile range? Hydrogen "gen1" cars are already over 400 miles of range, and you can add 400 more miles of range in 3 minutes.
Basically... batteries seem more like a stopgap than a permanent solution. Do you really think batteries will ever power an airplane, for example? I do think it's plausible that planes could run on hydrogen.
Electricity on the other hand - we already have that infrastructure, and it basically costs nothing to move it huge distances.
We are no where near the edge of what is possible for batteries, every couple of years cars are released with 10+% more range. There is more efficiency, and chemistry to be done here.
Also hydrogen vehicles ARE EVs so how can you say batteries are a stop gap while also saying they are the obvious future… the fuel cell charges a battery, the battery delivers the energy to the motor.
Nope. Not even close. The Tesla Model S had a range of 265 miles in 2012. The top end Model S today has a range of 375 miles. If we were truly extending range 10% every couple of years we would have vehicles approaching 700 miles in range on the market today.
Instead we have seen about 42% range growth paired with a 91% increase in price over the last decade. The majority of electric vehicles on the market or hitting the market in the near-term have EPA estimated range less than 300 miles.
There is no path this decade to an electric vehicle with a range that is even approaching 700 miles.
>Also hydrogen vehicles ARE EVs so how can you say batteries are a stop gap while also saying they are the obvious future… the fuel cell charges a battery, the battery delivers the energy to the motor.
You are overstating battery requirements of hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. The Toyota Mirai, for example, has a 1.24 kWh battery pack that weighs 45kg. There are also literal hydrogen combustion engines which require no batteries at all. Future hydrogen fuel cell vehicles may not require a battery at all, and may instead rely on a bank of super capacitors.
This giant heavy duty truck we're discussing has a 72kWh battery. Tesla sells sedans with bigger batteries than this.
>We need to build hydrogen filling infrastructure across the world, and then manufacture and ship hydrogen across the world.
Hydrogen can be made with water, locally. We're basically one electrolysis (or other) invention away from trivially mass manufacturing hydrogen wherever there is water. We've already solved every other problem with hydrogen.
If you're betting on BeV you're basically betting that we will quite literally never solve hydrogen production problems. I wouldn't take that bet.
But according to you batteries are getting more expensive, so does that mean hydrogen vehicles are also going to suffer from this price inflation?
Electrolysis requires energy… so you think it’s more sustainable to turn energy into hydrogen then back into energy than instead just store the energy?
The well-to-wheel efficiency of an BEV is double to triple that of hydrogen, and the well in hydrogen = fossil fuel, where as the well of an BEV is renewables.
Betting on BEV is betting on the fact we already have global electricity infrastructure (which is a pretty safe bet, because it exists). And so far hydrogen at scale has involved processing methane… so just make a methane car, and stop pretending you’re being sustainable. Build the hydrogen car once you’ve solved electrolysis at scale. Because before then you’re just making another gas powered car.
Can you clarify? Currently have a Chevy Bolt and it is great...
As example compare the Model 3 and a CRV. This is an absurd example because the CRV is an SUV, but the comparison is telling given the weight differences.
The Model 3 weighs 4,200 pounds with 97 cubic feet of interior passenger space.
A Honda CRV weighs 3,500 pounds and 103 cubic feet of interior passenger space.
So we have a smaller car that is quite a bit heavier and it’s almost exclusively due to the battery. Tesla can’t cram more battery into that car so the only option is to dramatically increase energy density. There is nothing in the horizon except incremental improvements.
And I think your point on space is out of date. I have no idea about the Tesla M3. In my mind I hate how that car looks and so I've never even tested one. But, for space, try an ioniq 5. Magic.
For you.
>Internal combustion cars can't go 500 miles on a tank of gas either, and trips longer than 300 miles are a tiny, tiny, tiny minority for most people.
Internal combustion doesn't need to go 500 miles on a tank. Gas vehicles can go 300-400 miles and then add an additional 300-400 miles in <2 minutes.
Hydrogen vehicles can have that same benefit.
For a large number of people. Nobody is claiming EVs are ready to replace all use cases for ICE vehicles, that would be silly. It is equally silly to point out shortcomings of EVs and say they're irrelevant in the current marketplace.
Also, level 3 charging is pretty fast - it's not as fast as filling up on fossil energy, but the bigger issue is simply one of availability. If there were even half as many charging stations as gas stations, the feasibility of longer trips would change considerably. You'd be trading a slightly slower trip for vastly reduced costs.
“Just install a network of hydrogen filling stations, and hydrogen production facilities, and trucks that ship hydrogen daily to all of those filling stations” … ?