4 ms·

One could also say "Subsidies for electric vehicles are clearly beating subsidies for hydrogen vehicles." All the more reason to tax what you don't want and no

One could also say "Subsidies for electric vehicles are clearly beating subsidies for hydrogen vehicles." All the more reason to tax what you don't want and not subsidize specific solutions. The government should focus on the problem, not on specific solutions to the problem. Because politically deciding what should succeed is not science. Politicians may not even be aware of a better solution. Or it may not be lobbied as hard as poorer solutions.

outworlder 5y ago
Hydrogen vehicles ARE electric vehicles. Complete with electric motors and batteries. It's just that one gets most of its power in a more roundabout way.
panick21_ 5y ago
Hydrogen had more government support for longer. And EV started to establish themselves with very little support and continued growing once they were over. In the consumers got tax benefits only for the first 250k cars. Tesla blew past that many,many years ago and it didnt stop their growth in the least. And clean air credits would count for Hydrogen vehicles too. BEV won because its quite simply far better almost any way you look at it. Fiancial, infrastruce , conviniance, mass production and so on. And its not even close.
- hnov 5y ago
  If you're of limited means, you could get around 13k off your Model 3 in California as of last year, courtesy of the tax payer. Then don't discount the hype, cool millenials and Gen Z in particular are not about driving, but when they do they prefer a Tesla. I think a BEV was a lot easier to bootstrap because with 0 infrastructure you could at least make trips around town, but that doesn't mean that it's going to work at planet scale (at least not with current battery tech).
w3ll_w3ll_w3ll 5y ago
Also, the market deciding what should succeed is not science. I believe we have many examples.
- stretchwithme 5y ago
  The market doesn't pretend that it is science. But it doesn't keep alive things that clearly don't work when there are alternatives that do. The market values many dimensions, not just a few considerations or what someone decides is "science". Like switching costs. Or failure to get the product into people's hands, even if it is better. Even setting the price too high matters. Or setting it too low to pay the bills. And many other things. Including the preferences of millions of people. A scientist couldn't design an experiment that replicates what the market already is.

outworlder 5y ago

Hydrogen vehicles ARE electric vehicles. Complete with electric motors and batteries. It's just that one gets most of its power in a more roundabout way.

panick21_ 5y ago

Hydrogen had more government support for longer. And EV started to establish themselves with very little support and continued growing once they were over. In the consumers got tax benefits only for the first 250k cars. Tesla blew past that many,many years ago and it didnt stop their growth in the least. And clean air credits would count for Hydrogen vehicles too. BEV won because its quite simply far better almost any way you look at it. Fiancial, infrastruce , conviniance, mass production and so on. And its not even close.

hnov 5y ago
If you're of limited means, you could get around 13k off your Model 3 in California as of last year, courtesy of the tax payer. Then don't discount the hype, cool millenials and Gen Z in particular are not about driving, but when they do they prefer a Tesla. I think a BEV was a lot easier to bootstrap because with 0 infrastructure you could at least make trips around town, but that doesn't mean that it's going to work at planet scale (at least not with current battery tech).

w3ll_w3ll_w3ll 5y ago

Also, the market deciding what should succeed is not science. I believe we have many examples.

stretchwithme 5y ago
The market doesn't pretend that it is science. But it doesn't keep alive things that clearly don't work when there are alternatives that do. The market values many dimensions, not just a few considerations or what someone decides is "science". Like switching costs. Or failure to get the product into people's hands, even if it is better. Even setting the price too high matters. Or setting it too low to pay the bills. And many other things. Including the preferences of millions of people. A scientist couldn't design an experiment that replicates what the market already is.