4 ms·

>Atkinson is a pretty heavyweight knowledgeable car guy and as he says in the article has a university degree in electrical and electronic engineering, with a s

>Atkinson is a pretty heavyweight knowledgeable car guy and as he says in the article has a university degree in electrical and electronic engineering, with a subsequent master’s in control systems. Apparently none of that stopped him from thinking that cars get thrown in the crusher after the first owner is done. FTA: >Currently, on average we keep our new cars for only three years before selling them on, driven mainly by the ubiquitous three-year leasing model. This seems an outrageously profligate use of the world’s natural resources when you consider what great condition a three-year-old car is in. ... It’s sobering to think that if the first owners of new cars just kept them for five years, on average, instead of the current three, then car production and the CO2 emissions associated with it, would be vastly reduced. Far from "vastly reducing" CO2, duration of first ownership has almost no effect. Total vehicle lifespan (not just the first owner) is what actually has a huge effect on lifecycle CO2. With such a glaring and elementary logic error, it's impossible to take anything Atkinson writes seriously.[0] Besides that, all his points are just regurgitating the same tired anti-EV talking points we've been hearing for 15+ years now: "Hydrogen is right around the corner!" (please ignore how the unavoidably terrible thermodynamic efficiency causes unavoidably terrible per-mile economics) "Or e-gas!" (ditto) "Or combustion hydrogen!" (even harder ditto) "Batteries have some problems, don't you know?" (Nirvana Fallacy; nothing's perfect, but batteries are already better than the alternatives and improving fast) "Batteries are improving fast so we shouldn't make EVs yet." (why do you think EV battery technology is improving so fast?) The "support" for these claims is invariably cherry-picked, like the fact that manufacturing emissions are 70% greater, while ignoring the fact that EVs more than pay this back in reduced operating emissions (meaning EVs have lower total lifecycle emissions overall). So like I said, nothing beyond an extremely typical hydrogen puff piece, which are always (and always have been) just anti-EV puff pieces in disguise. [0] to be fair, perhaps Atkinson actually knows this and he is 'just' making his argument disingenuously; in that case his word has even less credibility

_hypx 3y ago
You’re own anti-hydrogen tirade is equally ignorant. A fuel cell is an electrochemical system just like a li-ion battery. It has more or less the same basic pros and cons. This includes efficiency, and we can expect eventual parity between fuel cells and conventional batteries on this issue. Which is why so many in the industry are pretty convinced that it will be hydrogen vehicles as the path forward beyond BEVs. They are EVs without the enormous raw material needs, and have both longer ranges and refuel like ICE cars.
- schiffern 3y ago
  >This includes efficiency, and we can expect eventual parity between fuel cells and conventional batteries This is completely unphysical, and reveals that your knowledge goes no deeper than "fuel cells are electrochemical systems." In any proton exchange membrane you (by definition) lose 50% of the theoretical chemical energy as the proton crosses the membrane. Some fuel cells try to use this waste heat somehow, which is how they try to claim >50% efficiency. >Which is why so many in the industry are pretty convinced that it will be hydrogen vehicles as the path forward beyond BEVs. No, fuel cells are nothing more than a shiny distraction for legacy ICE makers to wave in front of regulators, in a desperate attempt to delay their disruption by EVs. For this purpose, the fact that fuel cells are fundamentally unworkable is a feature, not a bug. Fuel cells will never threaten their ICE profit center, but because their unworkability is non-obvious the legacy automakers can still make a case that's plausible enough to fool (non-technical) regulators. >They are EVs without the enormous raw material needs If they could figure out how to make a long-lived fuel cell without platinum, maybe that would be true.
  - _hypx 3y ago
    > This is completely unphysical, and reveals that your knowledge goes no deeper than "fuel cells are electrochemical systems." > In any proton exchange membrane you (by definition) lose 50% of the theoretical chemical energy as the proton crosses the membrane. Some fuel cells try to use this waste heat somehow, which is how they try to claim >50% efficiency. You are suffering from Dunning-Kruger syndrome. It's already been proven that fuel cells can attain 100% efficiency. https://www.dynamictidalpower.eu/resources/Documenten/Maximum_conversion_efficiency_of_hydroge.pdf https://www.dynamictidalpower.eu/resources/Documenten/Maximu... Not to mention that you're own claims are factually wrong since efficiencies exceeding 50% have already been obtain before any heat reuse. > No, fuel cells are nothing more than a shiny distraction for legacy ICE makers to wave in front of regulators, in a desperate attempt to delay their disruption by EVs. Fuel cells cars are literally EVs. This profound misunderstanding of the facts suggests that you are working entirely off of BEV propaganda. Your claims are pure gibberish and nonsensical. Also, synfuels and hydrogen-ICE cars have been tested now. So it isn't even a motivation anymore, since ICE cars can also be zero emissions. In fact, pro-BEV bullshit is permanently stuck in the mid-2000s, not realizing that technology has long since moved on. > If they could figure out how to make a long-lived fuel cell without platinum, maybe that would be true. Platinum use is comparable to a catalytic convertor: https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/bosch-ev-fuel-cells-less-platinum-report/ https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/bosch-ev-fuel-cells-less-... It is not an issue to begin with.

_hypx 3y ago

You’re own anti-hydrogen tirade is equally ignorant. A fuel cell is an electrochemical system just like a li-ion battery. It has more or less the same basic pros and cons. This includes efficiency, and we can expect eventual parity between fuel cells and conventional batteries on this issue. Which is why so many in the industry are pretty convinced that it will be hydrogen vehicles as the path forward beyond BEVs. They are EVs without the enormous raw material needs, and have both longer ranges and refuel like ICE cars.

schiffern 3y ago
>This includes efficiency, and we can expect eventual parity between fuel cells and conventional batteries This is completely unphysical, and reveals that your knowledge goes no deeper than "fuel cells are electrochemical systems." In any proton exchange membrane you (by definition) lose 50% of the theoretical chemical energy as the proton crosses the membrane. Some fuel cells try to use this waste heat somehow, which is how they try to claim >50% efficiency. >Which is why so many in the industry are pretty convinced that it will be hydrogen vehicles as the path forward beyond BEVs. No, fuel cells are nothing more than a shiny distraction for legacy ICE makers to wave in front of regulators, in a desperate attempt to delay their disruption by EVs. For this purpose, the fact that fuel cells are fundamentally unworkable is a feature, not a bug. Fuel cells will never threaten their ICE profit center, but because their unworkability is non-obvious the legacy automakers can still make a case that's plausible enough to fool (non-technical) regulators. >They are EVs without the enormous raw material needs If they could figure out how to make a long-lived fuel cell without platinum, maybe that would be true.
- _hypx 3y ago
  > This is completely unphysical, and reveals that your knowledge goes no deeper than "fuel cells are electrochemical systems." > In any proton exchange membrane you (by definition) lose 50% of the theoretical chemical energy as the proton crosses the membrane. Some fuel cells try to use this waste heat somehow, which is how they try to claim >50% efficiency. You are suffering from Dunning-Kruger syndrome. It's already been proven that fuel cells can attain 100% efficiency. https://www.dynamictidalpower.eu/resources/Documenten/Maximum_conversion_efficiency_of_hydroge.pdf https://www.dynamictidalpower.eu/resources/Documenten/Maximu... Not to mention that you're own claims are factually wrong since efficiencies exceeding 50% have already been obtain before any heat reuse. > No, fuel cells are nothing more than a shiny distraction for legacy ICE makers to wave in front of regulators, in a desperate attempt to delay their disruption by EVs. Fuel cells cars are literally EVs. This profound misunderstanding of the facts suggests that you are working entirely off of BEV propaganda. Your claims are pure gibberish and nonsensical. Also, synfuels and hydrogen-ICE cars have been tested now. So it isn't even a motivation anymore, since ICE cars can also be zero emissions. In fact, pro-BEV bullshit is permanently stuck in the mid-2000s, not realizing that technology has long since moved on. > If they could figure out how to make a long-lived fuel cell without platinum, maybe that would be true. Platinum use is comparable to a catalytic convertor: https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/bosch-ev-fuel-cells-less-platinum-report/ https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/bosch-ev-fuel-cells-less-... It is not an issue to begin with.