CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 4 months ago
We need hydrogen powered vehicles just to spite this guy, if nothing else.
Hydrogen is definitely interesting for the future but is currently used by the oil industry to stall the transition away from gas. On top of that, almost all hydrogen making its way to market is dirty.
We can think about hydrogen and the mountains of infrastructure it needs after the oil barons are all dead.
Hydrogen is definitely interesting for the future
Hardly, since Methanol does most things better.
I don’t think transitioning to either predominantly BEVs or hydrogen powered vehicles really affects the energy mix since the electricity to charge BEVs also comes from natural gas. That said, the infrastructure to support fast charging for a predominantly BEV fleet isn’t there either, especially for cargo trucks.
Most of the hydrogen on market is made with methane.
EVs use whatever source is being given, and most of these sources are converting to renewables.
Not comparable imo.
It’s also worth noting that EVs can be charged at home. Fast charging isn’t necessary for most and it’s silly to pretend like hydrogen doesn’t need its own distribution network. It’s a lot more complicated to set up a hydrogen refilling station than a fast charging one and you can’t fully fill your hydrogen over night by plugging it into your wall outlet.
Most of the hydrogen on market is made with methane.
EVs use whatever source is being given, and most of these sources are converting to renewables.
Not comparable imo.
As I explained in this reply, you can’t count on the grid’s energy mix improving or not getting worse as the vehicle fleet transitions to BEV. What you identify as a problem with FCEVs is really just bad energy policy that BEVs don’t solve either.
I actually kind of agree with you that the ideal BEV requires barely any new infrastructure. It should have a small battery that can support a daily commute and errands with slow charging at home overnight or during the day at work. Yet somehow these “fast” charging stations, which aren’t as fast or convenient as regular gas stations (and still run at least partially on fossil fuels anyway), have to get built everywhere. If we can’t get rid of these stations then let them be hydrogen stations.
You do know that nearly all fuel cell vehicles also use lithium and a battery pack, as well the fuel cell it self uses a number of rare earth metals.
I don’t know how the mineral ingredients of a fuel cell stack compare to a lithium battery, but assuming they’re the same, a fuel cell vehicle has significantly less of them. For example, the fuel cell stack in the Toyota Mirai weighs about 19kg and is complemented with a battery that weighs 45kg (1, 2). In comparison, the Tesla Model 3 carries a battery weighing 480kg. Therefore, a BEV has about 6.5x as much stuff of questionable origin (and questionable disposal requirements) as a FCEV.
The FCEV is going to be fueled from fossil fuels for the foreseeable future
Today, about 95% of all hydrogen is produced from steam reforming of natural gas.
www.energy.gov/eere/…/hydrogen-fuel-basics#:~:tex….
EV battery packs however can be nearly fully recycled back into more batteries.
As the transportation sector electrifies, how can you be so sure that the GHG-free portion of the grid’s electricity mix will stay the same or improve? Why wouldn’t the fossil fuels that currently power our vehicle fleet follow the demand and shift to powering the grid? BEVs only make a small portion of the cars on the road, but there’s evidence that this shift is already happening. So, while it might currently be the case that the hydrogen powering an FCEV was derived from natural gas, it’s also certainly possible that your BEV is effectively running on coal. I’m not trying to knock BEVs here. Rather, I’m making the point that the problem you’ve raised is one of energy policy, not FCEVs. Relying on BEVs to mitigate our current energy policy, instead of correcting the policy, is just going to create new problems.
As for recycling battery packs, yes, I’m aware that it’s a thing, but it’s not pretty. The best course is to minimize the amount of battery that needs to be dealt with in the first place.
need hydrogen powered vehicles just to spite this guy
No need. Tesla is history. All the big carmakers can offer better electric models, either now or very soon.
Unfortunately, I think the other manufacturers are also following Tesla’s model of oversized batteries and software gimmicks.
ch00f@lemmy.world 4 months ago
If you want to spite this guy, ride a bus.
TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org 4 months ago
Or a train. He realllly hates trains. If they're not in stupid-ass evacuated tubes and separated into pods, that is.
ch00f@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Techbros love reinventing trains www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5M7Oq1PCz4
TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org 4 months ago
I knew it was gonna be Adam Something, lol. That dude has the best Elon roasts.
Pxtl@lemmy.ca 4 months ago
And a train can even be greener than his silly cars with direct electrification via 3rd rail or overhead catenary.
CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 4 months ago
That’s fair, but Musk has specifically complained about FCEVs before.
ch00f@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Yeah, but he’s right about that part. Hybrid cars are just BEVs with more steps that can’t be recharged at home. Maybe useful for planes and other specific applications. Dumb for cars.
CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 4 months ago
You do not have to hand it to Elon Musk. If home charging is the big benefit of BEVs, then why do “fast” charging stations have to get built everywhere? Tesla et al are enshittifying driving!