4 ms·

Status quo doesn't matter. Cost does. Efficiency doesn't matter. Cost does. Economics<-> Engineering <-> Science Link the 3 and you will understand. Economics:

Status quo doesn't matter. Cost does. Efficiency doesn't matter. Cost does. Economics<-> Engineering <-> Science Link the 3 and you will understand. Economics: Rare earth metals are scare, expensive, and political. Hydrogen sourced from natural gas is abundant and 50% less pollution than oil and petrol. Hydrogen is operating expense(pay on usage), batteries(pay upfront). Engineering: Storage is everything. Batteries have about the same Mega Joules overall as hydrogen storage in a car because the hydrogen has to be compressed. You can compare the range between Model 3 and Hydrogen fuel cell cars and see the ranges are similar. MJ/kg is ultimately what determines cost and batteries have significantly worse MJ/kg than hydrogen tanks. Science: Peak battery innovation will only be able to match current hydrogen fuel cells MJ/kg.

Robotbeat 6y ago
Hydrogen cars are both more expensive (both upfront and operational) AND less efficient than comparable electric cars while having less range, less convenient recharging (no home or work charging, can only fill in a few stations in California), and being slower.
- afrojack123 6y ago
  Give it some time.
  - Robotbeat 6y ago
    So that batteries become both lighter and cheaper and the advantage grows? I don't think time favors hydrogen cars. The underlying technology was available over 50 years ago (used on Gemini spacecraft as hydrogen fuel cells in the mid 1960s, and in stationary form in the early 1930s, first developed in the lab in the 1830s). Lithium chemistry has advanced dramatically in the time since it was first invented. There were no rechargeable lithium chemistry batteries 50 years ago, even in the lab. And they didn't enter practical use until the 1990s and significant yearly progress continues today. Time favors lithium chemistry rechargeable batteries.
    - nickik 6y ago
      We will literally have silicon anodes batteries in 2-3 years, we will have pure lithium anodes in 4-5 years, after that we will have sulfer-lithium batteries within the decade. With lithium annodes we are at a point where you can replace most air-travel with battery planes. There is way more upside for improvement in batteries compared to fuel cells. Fuel cells have no future in transportation unless there is some fundamental breakthrew that nobody can anticipate, nothing I have seen even in research improves fuel cell technology enough to make it viable.
      - Robotbeat 6y ago
        There might be some purpose for fuel cells for really long distance shipping and maybe seasonal storage use, but overall, I agree.
        nickik 6y ago
        I think for seasonal storage there are better options. I also don't see how fuel cells beat ICE even a renewable produced carbon fuel like methanol or Dimethyl ether. I would prefer small nuclear reactors but I seem to be the only one.

Robotbeat 6y ago

Hydrogen cars are both more expensive (both upfront and operational) AND less efficient than comparable electric cars while having less range, less convenient recharging (no home or work charging, can only fill in a few stations in California), and being slower.

afrojack123 6y ago
Give it some time.
- Robotbeat 6y ago
  So that batteries become both lighter and cheaper and the advantage grows? I don't think time favors hydrogen cars. The underlying technology was available over 50 years ago (used on Gemini spacecraft as hydrogen fuel cells in the mid 1960s, and in stationary form in the early 1930s, first developed in the lab in the 1830s). Lithium chemistry has advanced dramatically in the time since it was first invented. There were no rechargeable lithium chemistry batteries 50 years ago, even in the lab. And they didn't enter practical use until the 1990s and significant yearly progress continues today. Time favors lithium chemistry rechargeable batteries.
  - nickik 6y ago
    We will literally have silicon anodes batteries in 2-3 years, we will have pure lithium anodes in 4-5 years, after that we will have sulfer-lithium batteries within the decade. With lithium annodes we are at a point where you can replace most air-travel with battery planes. There is way more upside for improvement in batteries compared to fuel cells. Fuel cells have no future in transportation unless there is some fundamental breakthrew that nobody can anticipate, nothing I have seen even in research improves fuel cell technology enough to make it viable.
    - Robotbeat 6y ago
      There might be some purpose for fuel cells for really long distance shipping and maybe seasonal storage use, but overall, I agree.
      - nickik 6y ago
        I think for seasonal storage there are better options. I also don't see how fuel cells beat ICE even a renewable produced carbon fuel like methanol or Dimethyl ether. I would prefer small nuclear reactors but I seem to be the only one.