Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuds
It's essentially the same question, but that's not important.
1. With hydrogen, you don't need to charge at home. I get along just fine stopping by the gas station when I need to. Plus, right now, in 2019, it works, as-is, no further mad science projects needed. I don't need to be hypothetical if the technology is already there. It got this far even without some billionaire playboy cultist "leading" the way. The only hypothetical statement is what could have been if he had been promoting hydrogen vehicles instead. Or just not done anything.
2. If you really need to fuel up at home, generating hydrogen is actually pretty easy. First Google result from 2016, IDK how it's going, but it had similar amounts of speculation as you are suggesting, and that was 3 years ago. Bottom line, $2K for a home unit that should be more than you need for a car.
https://www.computerworld.com/articl...ings-cars.html
3. Hydrogen may be less efficient due to energy conversion, but they are more efficient in terms of kinetic energy. A hydrogen-powered car does not need to rely on a massive battery to get decent range.
4. I'm assuming by numbers you mean sales/people. Why do people buy designer handbags, or fancy shoes, or Starbucks coffee? It's all a status symbol, and completely influenced by marketing. I can give you a few great examples of times when popularity of an idea wasn't an indication of the soundness of said idea.
5. If EVs are the right solution, why do you suppose real car companies like Toyota are still investing in hydrogen vehicle technology? |
1. Ehh, the Elon anecdotes are getting old. The hypothetical is with speculating about how these two techs compare when the infrastructure doesn't exist and getting there could be the biggest obstacle. It isn't like California, for instance, isn't trying, and there is no reason why Toyota couldn't make their own stations, except the investment would be large:
Quote:
|
California station development was encouraged and subsidized by the California Fuel Cell Partnership, and under Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's California Hydrogen Highway program.[47][48] In 2013 Governor Brown signed AB 8, a bill to fund 20 million a year for 10 years for up to 100 stations.[49] The California Energy Commission funded $46.6 million for 28 stations to be completed in 2016, making significant progress towards the goal of establishing a 100-station refueling network in California.[50] As of August 2018, California had 35 stations open and 29 more were expected to open before 2020.[51]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrog...#North_America
2. That is cool if it works out someday, but it seems far less convenient to create hydrogen at home then have to use it to charge a car battery, when charging a battery directly would take two seconds to plug in a charger. I already do that now with my trickle charger for my Braille battery, as well as, my phone and laptop. What's one more thing?
3. I don't get your point? The Toyota Mirai weighs 4078lbs. The Model 3 weighs 3552-4072lbs. The Mirai has a battery, motor, a hydrogen cell and a hydrogen to electric converter, so yes, a smaller battery, but more stuff. There is less space in the hydrogen car; there is less safety in crash tests; there is less performance (0-60 of 9.0s).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Mirai
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_3
4. It is either a status symbol theory, or the infrastructure isn't in place to make hydrogen cars popular/feasible; where anyone who has a home could charge an electric car, which is the other theory for why they are so successful. Superchargers only exist to allow for far distance travel for people who want to travel far distances in a Tesla or who have no other car in their household (most families do), or they are for people without access to a home charger or a close standard charger.
5. "Real car companies." Is there really a need for these stabs or insulting anecdotes? They get old. Toyota is investing in hydrogen for many reasons. For one thing, they already have invested in the technology, so it behooves them to try and make it work than cutting their losses. They could also be doing it because that is what could work in places like Japan or in some markets. Why aren't they working on electric? Because they already know how to make electric because they have been making hybrids forever, so maybe they don't believe the hype or tech is there (others do). Maybe they don't want to buck their current practices until the last minute when they will then dive into the market. Maybe they are quietly working on their tech, and they will wait for the batteries to reach more mileage or be cheaper. Volvo, VW and others do believe the hype, which is why they are plunging into development.