3 ms·

If I need to side with someone here, I'm more inclined to side with the two companies that have a long history in making trucks vs. the person whose company has

by Hamuko 6y ago

If I need to side with someone here, I'm more inclined to side with the two companies that have a long history in making trucks vs. the person whose company has yet to made the truck they debuted in 2017.

SigmundA 6y ago
There are no hydrogen trucks on the road either, time will tell which one is viable. Physics tells me which one will be more likely no need for a argumentum ab auctoritate.
- Hamuko 6y ago
  Since when has listening to an authority on a topic been a bad thing? Daimler and Volvo are the two biggest truck companies in the world. I imagine they have a pretty good grasp on the market and on the engineering.
  - dagw 6y ago
    Volvo also has real electric trucks on the road and working today. So if anybody knows the pros and cons of electric trucks, its probably Volvo.
    - rjmunro 6y ago
      That argument doesn't always work. GM had the EV1 "on the road and working" in 1996. Then they decided that electric cars could never work. Then Tesla happened.
      - manquer 6y ago
        Volvo has not decided that electric or hydrogen is not viable yet. There was good reason for GMs decision, the battery tech and costs in early 2000s were not simply viable for mass market adoption at that time. They were not interested in niche product. Battery cost per kwh had reduced orders of magnitude now. It is still not price competitive with gasoline bases vechiles but is close , in another five years it will be cheaper than gasoline vehicles. The equations have fundamentally changed in 20 years. Volvo or any large maker has no need to be first in the market , they just need to have good enough product when adoption kicks in, their network, brand and service will be enough to compete. While they will invest, they don't need to bet the farm in a make or break product that startups will need to do.
  - jsight 6y ago
    > Since when has listening to an authority on a topic been a bad thing? It isn't a bad thing, but a reasoned argument is always preferable to an appeal to authority. This is especially true when there is scant evidence of actual authority.
- zibzab 6y ago
  Not true. They had a pilot program (limited to Scandinavia) some years ago. I think they decided to pivot from personal vehicles to trucks due to the lack of charging stations (all government funding was allocated for EV chargers back then, so thanks a lot Elon).
  - Dah00n 6y ago
    Shell also invested heavily in hydrogen production for trucks at their oil refineries in Scandinavia a year back or so.
mlatu 6y ago
I've heard one of Elon's other sidegigs deals with a buttload of hydrogen per launch...
- SigmundA 6y ago
  SpaceX does not use hydrogen in its rocket engines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_rocket_engines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_rocket_engines
  - Robotbeat 6y ago
    No, but they’ll have to make a bunch of hydrogen for synthesizing that methane eventually. (Won’t make sense to do that until we mostly phase out fossil fuels from the grid.)

by Hamuko 6y ago

SigmundA 6y ago

There are no hydrogen trucks on the road either, time will tell which one is viable. Physics tells me which one will be more likely no need for a argumentum ab auctoritate.

Hamuko 6y ago
Since when has listening to an authority on a topic been a bad thing? Daimler and Volvo are the two biggest truck companies in the world. I imagine they have a pretty good grasp on the market and on the engineering.
- dagw 6y ago
  Volvo also has real electric trucks on the road and working today. So if anybody knows the pros and cons of electric trucks, its probably Volvo.
  - rjmunro 6y ago
    That argument doesn't always work. GM had the EV1 "on the road and working" in 1996. Then they decided that electric cars could never work. Then Tesla happened.
    - manquer 6y ago
      Volvo has not decided that electric or hydrogen is not viable yet. There was good reason for GMs decision, the battery tech and costs in early 2000s were not simply viable for mass market adoption at that time. They were not interested in niche product. Battery cost per kwh had reduced orders of magnitude now. It is still not price competitive with gasoline bases vechiles but is close , in another five years it will be cheaper than gasoline vehicles. The equations have fundamentally changed in 20 years. Volvo or any large maker has no need to be first in the market , they just need to have good enough product when adoption kicks in, their network, brand and service will be enough to compete. While they will invest, they don't need to bet the farm in a make or break product that startups will need to do.
- jsight 6y ago
  > Since when has listening to an authority on a topic been a bad thing? It isn't a bad thing, but a reasoned argument is always preferable to an appeal to authority. This is especially true when there is scant evidence of actual authority.
zibzab 6y ago
Not true. They had a pilot program (limited to Scandinavia) some years ago. I think they decided to pivot from personal vehicles to trucks due to the lack of charging stations (all government funding was allocated for EV chargers back then, so thanks a lot Elon).
- Dah00n 6y ago
  Shell also invested heavily in hydrogen production for trucks at their oil refineries in Scandinavia a year back or so.

mlatu 6y ago

I've heard one of Elon's other sidegigs deals with a buttload of hydrogen per launch...

SigmundA 6y ago
SpaceX does not use hydrogen in its rocket engines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_rocket_engines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_rocket_engines
- Robotbeat 6y ago
  No, but they’ll have to make a bunch of hydrogen for synthesizing that methane eventually. (Won’t make sense to do that until we mostly phase out fossil fuels from the grid.)