3 ms·
I see there is a lot of hostile reaction to HEVs as either a distraction from EVs or some fossil-industry plot. The thing is, we cannot really predict the futu
by dimitar 6y ago
I see there is a lot of hostile reaction to HEVs as either a distraction from EVs or some fossil-industry plot.
The thing is, we cannot really predict the future and every possible use for EV, ICE, ICE-hybrids and HEVs. That is why it is important that every country adopts carbon taxes and caps to keep incentives aligned for a diversity of approaches of reducing carbon emissions. Picking winners in the technology space is not something that governments have been good at historically.
I think we need hydrogen over the long term - it allows technologies like airplanes powered by renewable energy. There is a case to be made that we need to be on the experience curve early even if it means that it relies on fossil fuels in the first years. This is also true for battery-powered electric vehicles by the way - the electricity is often sourced from fossil fuels.
- integer42 6y agoI agree we can't predict the future, so why hydrogen is the only synthetic fuel being discussed. There is a laundry list of contenders. Each with different properties, some exceeding hydrogen in terms of energy density, ease of storage, efficiency of production, and so on. Methanol, dimethyl ether, etc. Manufacture of synthetic fuels pairs nicely with overproduction of cheap renewable energy sources, and some amount of it is necessary for a niche of applications that require energy density or other aspects of combustion. So, exactly as you said, why should we pick winners wrt hydrogen vs any other synthetic fuel?