Quote:
Originally Posted by stefan
Hydrogen is no more polluting than full lifecycle EVs. Both are better than ICE--though only marginally once you factor in lifecycle. It's nowhere near the 70% enthusiasts claim. Much closer to 15-20% less footprint when you factor in mining, shipping, dirty power sources, disposal, etc.
|
I'm not sure where you got that.
With hydrogen you lose about 60-70% of the original energy in conversion losses. Look at what VW's Krebs said in 2013 (before a bunch of battery advancements)
https://www.autoblog.com/2013/11/20/...ay-to-convert/
That level of loss by far exceeds any advantage hydrogen would have over electric. The guys at car companies aren't idiots.
They've done the math.
Their consultants have done the math.
Universities and other researchers have the math.
Hydrogen doesn't make financial or environmental sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stefan
That said hydrogen is a great alternative to EV especially in countries with long distances between cities or extremely cold climates. Most importantly it doesn't require long charge times which will absolutely cripple our infrastructure if enough people switch to EV. So I really disagree that hydrogen isn't going to be in our future.
|
It may well be around but in limited applications.
I doubt you will see many FCEV cars. Even with trucks there are numerous companies working on EV trucks.
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/8-e...ies-watch-2020
Quote:
Originally Posted by stefan
Further to all of this, consumers do not care. EVs can make ZERO sense, just like SUVs honestly, but people buy them anyway. People like "feel good" and not necessarily "do good" when it comes to going green. Reusable bags are a great example of this. BMW probably has some of the best analysts on the planet informing their exec where to take the company. So rest assured this is a smart move.
|
The exec that announced i Hydrogen, Klaus Fröhlich, is retiring later this year.
And he's being replaced by Frank Weber, who formerly worked on EV's at GM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stefan
8 years is insanely optimistic and requires a total overhaul of decades of infrastructure evolution. Not everywhere is Toronto or LA  I'll say that at least EVs are less dangerous than hydrogen cells, but again, your problem is adoption rates. If successful, they will be nearly impossible to use for long distance drives. For example take cottage country near you there. Everyone will be charging at the same predictable spots which will create massive lines. Hydrogen is better I think in this sense while using basically the same supply chain--like you can probably retrofit gas stations. |
8 Years maybe optimistic but hydrogen is much further behind in adoption than EV's.
Number of EV's on the road today is in the millions.
Number of FCEV's - less than 10,000
I don't think BEV range will be an issue with further battery technology developments. It will take a lot less money and time to improve batteries than it will to implement a hydrogen infrastructure.
And as for cottage country, everyone charges at the cottage. We all have electricity there, and the vehicles generally stay parked for the weekend while we're on the lake or drinking beer
