5 ms·

The automakers' behavior makes much more sense once you assume they did their homework, and came out with the same conclusion as everyone else: that the future

The automakers' behavior makes much more sense once you assume they did their homework, and came out with the same conclusion as everyone else: that the future of personal transport is in battery electric vehicles, and that future implies lower service revenue, slower upgrade cycle, fewer possibilities for brand differentiation, obsolescence of their patent portfolio and large layoffs. Based on that conclusion, they decided the best overall strategy is to delay that future as long as possible, by any means necessary.

CydeWeys 6y ago
That strategy was only the best if you assumed someone like a Tesla wouldn't come along. However, a Tesla did come along, and as a result, Tesla now controls an ungodly fraction of the total worldwide automaker value. Basically, it was a bad strategy, as it was practically inevitable that at some point someone would "defect" and do BEVs. Not only did the automakers use a bad strategy, but they failed to pivot from that strategy once it was already blown to hell. Any one of them could be worth a lot more money now if they had simply taken EVs as seriously as Tesla did a decade ago. But none did. Same problem with Kodak. The new technology is inevitable, and while you may delay it, you're killing your future by doing so. It's short term thinking.
- Hypx 6y ago
  The problem is that Tesla is also another Kodak. Companies need to start investing in fuel cell technology or face another disruption. The future might be companies like Hyundai or Toyota, who are investing in "all-of-the-above" technologies rather than betting everything on one idea.
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    To put it charitably, it is not a widely held viewpoint that pressurized hydrogen tanks and fuel cells are a superior automotive technology to batteries.
    - Hypx 6y ago
      Which is why the disruptive risk is so high here. There’s already enough fuel cell cars out there that we know pressurized hydrogen tanks work safely. That so many people ignore or dismiss this fact is potentially leading many companies in the wrong direction.
      - HeadsUpHigh 6y ago
        There is plenty of material about why hydrogen isn't really better just a google away. Plenty of smart people have evaluated it and realized it's not worth it. Toyota is the only company left that still pretends that it's relevant... while slowly electrifying their fleet.
        Hypx 6y ago
        Most of that stuff is written by people with a financial motivation and are likely biased. You can’t take them too seriously. Toyota, Hyundai, Honda are all investing and expanding investment. That’s for passenger cars specifically. Once you go into industrial and heavy transportation it’s a vast group of companies. People who are paying attention knows that there’s a major revolution afoot. The people with tunnel vision are the people who don’t realize this or are ignorant of these events.
        bryanlarsen 6y ago
        > Most of that stuff is written by people with a financial motivation and are likely biased. You can’t take them too seriously. You're saying that without disclosing your financial stake. "HypX" is the name of a hydrogen car company.
        Hypx 6y ago
        That's a coincidence.
        HeadsUpHigh 6y ago
        The big EV industry doesn't want hydrogen to succeed!!! Are you even listening to yourself?
Hypx 6y ago
I would insist that the future is really fuel cell cars. Battery electric will be a short-term transitional class of vehicle. Most car companies need to plan for the real future pretty soon now.
- epistasis 6y ago
  I can't imagine any future where that seems remoter plausible. Hydrogen requires 2x as much energy according to anything we know right now. Unless the hydrogen capital expenses have a way of getting cheaper than lithium ion capital expense, then there's little chance of this ever happening. So when you say "pretty soon now," you must mean 2040 at the earliest. There's certainly a chance, when you look at the progress of PV solar over the past 40 years, for example, but it is hugely speculative and a long term bet, not a short term one.
  - Hypx 6y ago
    That’s the thing: Hydrogen is getting much cheaper as we speak. Cheap enough to become a real threat to companies not on board. It’s following the curve of PV solar right now and not some decades in the future. Besides, what do companies have to gain by waiting for the technology to be ready before investing? It’s weird how people here lament the lack of foresight in the car industry, and yet on this subject immediately reject any kind of forward planning. Finally, most of the negative stuff you heard is probably marketing or propaganda from businesses that don’t want to see fuel cell succeed. “2x more energy” is a misleading claim, as fuel cells are technically batteries and should close the gap eventually. Plus, you save energy by avoiding heavy batteries, do better in cold weather, and need less raw materials during production.
    - epistasis 6y ago
      Electrolyzers are expensive and capital intensive enough that we don't anticipate that green hydrogen will compete with natural-gas derived hydrogen on cost before 2030. By 2030 batteries will haven fallen dramatically in cost. It's not enough to show that electrolyzers are falling in cost, it also needs to be shown that they are falling faster than batteries, and will be able to catch up. That's the missing logical link, and I haven't seen even the most optimistic hydrogen boosters produce numbers that show it to be possible. Definitely not before 2030. There is a massive hydrogen PR push right now from natural gas companies with the hope that they can eek a few more years out before transitioning to the modern renewable economy. But even those folks don't say that fuel cell is going to be cheaper than typical passenger vehicle sized batteries. Every single hydrogen powered vehicle is already going to have a battery in it, to manage variable output. The question is, if hydrogen machinery gets cheaper than battery, at what range capacity does it make sense to include both battery and hydrogen. If it's at 1000 miles, 500 miles, or 300 miles, or 100 miles, and that all depends on the cost ratio of the two, and hydrogen being significantly cheaper than battery.
epistasis 6y ago
Sure, but that makes them far far worse world citizens than Tesla, a company that I have little love for.

CydeWeys 6y ago

That strategy was only the best if you assumed someone like a Tesla wouldn't come along. However, a Tesla did come along, and as a result, Tesla now controls an ungodly fraction of the total worldwide automaker value. Basically, it was a bad strategy, as it was practically inevitable that at some point someone would "defect" and do BEVs. Not only did the automakers use a bad strategy, but they failed to pivot from that strategy once it was already blown to hell. Any one of them could be worth a lot more money now if they had simply taken EVs as seriously as Tesla did a decade ago. But none did. Same problem with Kodak. The new technology is inevitable, and while you may delay it, you're killing your future by doing so. It's short term thinking.

Hypx 6y ago
The problem is that Tesla is also another Kodak. Companies need to start investing in fuel cell technology or face another disruption. The future might be companies like Hyundai or Toyota, who are investing in "all-of-the-above" technologies rather than betting everything on one idea.
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  To put it charitably, it is not a widely held viewpoint that pressurized hydrogen tanks and fuel cells are a superior automotive technology to batteries.
  - Hypx 6y ago
    Which is why the disruptive risk is so high here. There’s already enough fuel cell cars out there that we know pressurized hydrogen tanks work safely. That so many people ignore or dismiss this fact is potentially leading many companies in the wrong direction.
    - HeadsUpHigh 6y ago
      There is plenty of material about why hydrogen isn't really better just a google away. Plenty of smart people have evaluated it and realized it's not worth it. Toyota is the only company left that still pretends that it's relevant... while slowly electrifying their fleet.
      - Hypx 6y ago
        Most of that stuff is written by people with a financial motivation and are likely biased. You can’t take them too seriously. Toyota, Hyundai, Honda are all investing and expanding investment. That’s for passenger cars specifically. Once you go into industrial and heavy transportation it’s a vast group of companies. People who are paying attention knows that there’s a major revolution afoot. The people with tunnel vision are the people who don’t realize this or are ignorant of these events.
        bryanlarsen 6y ago
        > Most of that stuff is written by people with a financial motivation and are likely biased. You can’t take them too seriously. You're saying that without disclosing your financial stake. "HypX" is the name of a hydrogen car company.
        Hypx 6y ago
        That's a coincidence.
        HeadsUpHigh 6y ago
        The big EV industry doesn't want hydrogen to succeed!!! Are you even listening to yourself?

Hypx 6y ago

I would insist that the future is really fuel cell cars. Battery electric will be a short-term transitional class of vehicle. Most car companies need to plan for the real future pretty soon now.

epistasis 6y ago
I can't imagine any future where that seems remoter plausible. Hydrogen requires 2x as much energy according to anything we know right now. Unless the hydrogen capital expenses have a way of getting cheaper than lithium ion capital expense, then there's little chance of this ever happening. So when you say "pretty soon now," you must mean 2040 at the earliest. There's certainly a chance, when you look at the progress of PV solar over the past 40 years, for example, but it is hugely speculative and a long term bet, not a short term one.
- Hypx 6y ago
  That’s the thing: Hydrogen is getting much cheaper as we speak. Cheap enough to become a real threat to companies not on board. It’s following the curve of PV solar right now and not some decades in the future. Besides, what do companies have to gain by waiting for the technology to be ready before investing? It’s weird how people here lament the lack of foresight in the car industry, and yet on this subject immediately reject any kind of forward planning. Finally, most of the negative stuff you heard is probably marketing or propaganda from businesses that don’t want to see fuel cell succeed. “2x more energy” is a misleading claim, as fuel cells are technically batteries and should close the gap eventually. Plus, you save energy by avoiding heavy batteries, do better in cold weather, and need less raw materials during production.
  - epistasis 6y ago
    Electrolyzers are expensive and capital intensive enough that we don't anticipate that green hydrogen will compete with natural-gas derived hydrogen on cost before 2030. By 2030 batteries will haven fallen dramatically in cost. It's not enough to show that electrolyzers are falling in cost, it also needs to be shown that they are falling faster than batteries, and will be able to catch up. That's the missing logical link, and I haven't seen even the most optimistic hydrogen boosters produce numbers that show it to be possible. Definitely not before 2030. There is a massive hydrogen PR push right now from natural gas companies with the hope that they can eek a few more years out before transitioning to the modern renewable economy. But even those folks don't say that fuel cell is going to be cheaper than typical passenger vehicle sized batteries. Every single hydrogen powered vehicle is already going to have a battery in it, to manage variable output. The question is, if hydrogen machinery gets cheaper than battery, at what range capacity does it make sense to include both battery and hydrogen. If it's at 1000 miles, 500 miles, or 300 miles, or 100 miles, and that all depends on the cost ratio of the two, and hydrogen being significantly cheaper than battery.

epistasis 6y ago

Sure, but that makes them far far worse world citizens than Tesla, a company that I have little love for.