Johnny Bacigalupo and Rob Hussey have been hit with a £17,000 bill to fix their Tesla after it was damaged in the rain - they have been told to pay even if they say it's not their fault
I don’t see why something that works today won’t tomorrow. I got a BEV for years (Renault Zoe), rode it under a lot of rain, never got any problem.
At worst this only shows a lack of quality from Tesla, not from the whole industry.
FCEV has a lot of downside that BEV don’t, and same goes the other way. Those two technologies are complementary, but FCEVs lack the necessary infrastructure, be it for distribution or production.
Currently, most of the hydrogen used comes from fossil fuel as current electrolysis technologies have too much loss of potential energy, and has to be sold at a far higher price than fossil fuel based hydrogen as a result.
Once these BEVs get older and more corroded, we will see a lot of issues.
FCEVs have massive advantages over BEVs. They are just some years away from mass production and adoption.
Most arguments against them are years or even decades out of date. There isn’t anything holding back green hydrogen anymore. It will be both widespread and cheap pretty soon. It is basically following the same cost curve as wind, solar, even batteries themselves.
FCEV isn’t immune to corrosion, as is any vehicle. And if the fuel cell leaks, considering the volatility of hydrogen, you are at risk of a pretty big exposition. BEV has its own risk, but at least you have a chance to get out of the car and save your life.
And unfortunately the arguments are not out of date, unfortunately.
Hydrogen production is still a big problem, as is the distribution network and storage (albeit this side is far better now than it was in the past, it is far from being good enough to deal with the smallest atom in existence).
BEV have a lot of advantages over FCEV. They can be recharged pretty much anywhere, they can be used as battery storage to make a resilient renewable based power grid, and battery can be reused as static electricity storage once their autonomy goes below the often used 70% threshold, and can be recycled pretty well (ironically the problem isn’t the technology but the lack of batteries to recycle, as there is very little BEV that get scrapped currently).
Moreover new battery technologies are on the way to help with a lot of it’s downsides, like ones that don’t catch fire, or smaller one to get better autonomy.
FCEVs are much less flammable than BEVs. They’ve been on the road of years, even a decade+. None of that has happened. And carbon fiber doesn’t really corrode, so it is incredibly safe all around.
Again, FCEVs have massive advantages over batteries. Including all of the same advantages of availability and green energy sources. Remember, FCEVs are literally EVs. They work the same way and have all the same basic advantages.
They just also happen to be able to refuel in minutes and have 400 miles of range. Plus much less raw material challenges. None of the supposed solutions of BEVs can even touch what FCEVs provide from day one.
And of course, BEV fanatics always resort to “magical batteries from the future.” Never once allowing for the possibility of superior fuel cells in the future.
I agree with you on that. That’s one of the main current generation BEV weak points. But that’s not something that can’t be changed. FCEVs are not as flammable, but they are surely explosive. But in both case, a lot of security measures exists, and danger comes from quality defect, not the lack of security.
They’ve been on the road of years, even a decade+.
As for BEV. I could also add more than a century for BEV (early cars were electric, but died out due to batteries being far too primitive at the time).
And there are other occurrences, just go do a Google search.
And carbon fiber doesn’t really corrode, so it is incredibly safe all around.
Carbon fiber can be used on BEV too. But in both case it cost way too much to be viable other than for supercars.
Including all of the same advantages of availability and green energy sources.
Tell me, have you seen a lot of at home hydrogen recharge station. Have you seen a lot of hydrogen recharge stations in parking ? Both are true for BEVs
They work the same way and have all the same basic advantages.
The engine yes, not the energy storage. And a lot of EVs advantage and inconvenience are due to that part.
They just also happen to be able to refuel in minutes and have 400 miles of range. Plus much less raw material challenges.
I don’t deny that. And that’s why both technologies are complementary. FCEV for long range, far from home, BEV for medium to short ranges, when you can charge it at home.
On another hand, fast charger are more and more commonplace, and can recharge a $50000 BEV in less than 30 minutes. Just the time to go touch some grass, drink a cup of coffee, or do something else. It is required to take a break while driving from time to time, so why not ? Considering the pace at which fast charging is going, a 10 minutes fill up isn’t that far fetched.
None of the supposed solutions of BEVs can even touch what FCEVs provide from day one.
Depends of your uses. For mine, FCEV have far to much disadvantages over BEV to be viable.
And of course, BEV fanatics always resort to “magical batteries from the future.” Never once allowing for the possibility of superior fuel cells in the future.
I can say the same about magical hydrogen production and storage facilities for FCEVs.
What you don’t understand is that I’m not critical as much about FCEVs than I am about the agressive and borderline irrational your stance is.
Both technologies are good. Both have a future. And more importantly, both have an important role to play to decarbonate of our civilization.
“You are not wrong, you’re just an asshole”, The Big Lebowski
Then don’t come out and claim that FCEVs are a bad idea. If you know that they can work, then support them fully.
Imagine a world where wind supporter vigorously attack solar power. That would be insane! That’s also what is happening now with FCEVs. It just happens that FCEVs, due to their lower resource needs, will play a much larger role than BEVs. But BEV fanatics cannot accept this at all. So rational people should know better than to swallow their lies.
Imagine a world where wind supporter vigorously attack solar power.
You say that and then proceed to vigorously attack BEVs. Quite ironic isn’t it?
I just point out that FCEVs are, like BEVs, a flawed technology at this time. If it wasn’t the adoption would have been immediate. Both still need a lot of R&D, and both will get better. BEVs are in no way a doomed technology like you said earlier. It is just different from FCEVs.
I do not “oppose” BEVs in that sense. It will play a role, just like wind does. But it won’t be the magical solution, and realistically it will be a transitional role. It has too many downsides.
After all, an FCEV is also an EV. Why support the more resource intensive EV? Perhaps a better analogy might two different type of photovoltaic cells. They come in many different levels of efficiency, and yet it is the cheapest, not the most efficient kind, that is winning out.
That’s a flawed analogy. In the case of a photovoltaic cells it make sense to use the cheapest one as the main constrain is not the available place. If you were place constrained, you’ll look into maximising the production by square meter, in which case the most efficient on would win (at least for a rational buyer).
It would be better to compare wind and solar power, like you did earlier. In both case the technology is different, both have their own advantages and downsides, which makes them ideal for two different use cases.
Same goes for EVs.
Hydrogen is great for its cheaper initial build cost and fast charge, but do suffer from its lack of infrastructure and difficulty to store hydrogen (it is the smallest atom in existence. Any flaw in its container means a sizable leak. The only way currently is to make one with very thick walls, which mean it is heavy and costly.
Batteries is great for its multiple use and reuses, have a great charging infrastructure (you literally can charge on a standard electrical socket at home), but suffer from a slower charges.
In my case I suffered from no downside from my BEV, I charge it at home from time to time, I use it mainly for medium (less than 200km) to local trips, and use electrical trains for long-range trips. I have no use for any advantages provided by FCEVs, and would be rather hampered by its current or near future downsides.
BEVs in another hand got all the advantages I require. It pollute a bit more when being produced, but have 0 net emission when driving. I can choose how I get my electricity by adapting my electricity provider (I’m currently on a 100% renewable provider), which I can’t do with hydrogen. Long range trips, If I used my car for it, would be longer for sure, but as I said, it isn’t my use case for a car.
As for security, both have their risks, but strangely, they are both statistically (while taking into consideration the difference in number of vehicles) safer than gas powered car.
The future will tell us which technology will win, but for now, BEVs have a good head start. Take an example of Norway. Last time I checked they had something like 150 hydrogen car in the whole country. And that is taking into consideration that EVs make most of the car sales there now.
I don’t see why something that works today won’t tomorrow. I got a BEV for years (Renault Zoe), rode it under a lot of rain, never got any problem.
At worst this only shows a lack of quality from Tesla, not from the whole industry.
FCEV has a lot of downside that BEV don’t, and same goes the other way. Those two technologies are complementary, but FCEVs lack the necessary infrastructure, be it for distribution or production.
Currently, most of the hydrogen used comes from fossil fuel as current electrolysis technologies have too much loss of potential energy, and has to be sold at a far higher price than fossil fuel based hydrogen as a result.
Once these BEVs get older and more corroded, we will see a lot of issues.
FCEVs have massive advantages over BEVs. They are just some years away from mass production and adoption.
Most arguments against them are years or even decades out of date. There isn’t anything holding back green hydrogen anymore. It will be both widespread and cheap pretty soon. It is basically following the same cost curve as wind, solar, even batteries themselves.
FCEV isn’t immune to corrosion, as is any vehicle. And if the fuel cell leaks, considering the volatility of hydrogen, you are at risk of a pretty big exposition. BEV has its own risk, but at least you have a chance to get out of the car and save your life.
And unfortunately the arguments are not out of date, unfortunately. Hydrogen production is still a big problem, as is the distribution network and storage (albeit this side is far better now than it was in the past, it is far from being good enough to deal with the smallest atom in existence).
BEV have a lot of advantages over FCEV. They can be recharged pretty much anywhere, they can be used as battery storage to make a resilient renewable based power grid, and battery can be reused as static electricity storage once their autonomy goes below the often used 70% threshold, and can be recycled pretty well (ironically the problem isn’t the technology but the lack of batteries to recycle, as there is very little BEV that get scrapped currently).
Moreover new battery technologies are on the way to help with a lot of it’s downsides, like ones that don’t catch fire, or smaller one to get better autonomy.
FCEVs are much less flammable than BEVs. They’ve been on the road of years, even a decade+. None of that has happened. And carbon fiber doesn’t really corrode, so it is incredibly safe all around.
Again, FCEVs have massive advantages over batteries. Including all of the same advantages of availability and green energy sources. Remember, FCEVs are literally EVs. They work the same way and have all the same basic advantages.
They just also happen to be able to refuel in minutes and have 400 miles of range. Plus much less raw material challenges. None of the supposed solutions of BEVs can even touch what FCEVs provide from day one.
And of course, BEV fanatics always resort to “magical batteries from the future.” Never once allowing for the possibility of superior fuel cells in the future.
I agree with you on that. That’s one of the main current generation BEV weak points. But that’s not something that can’t be changed. FCEVs are not as flammable, but they are surely explosive. But in both case, a lot of security measures exists, and danger comes from quality defect, not the lack of security.
As for BEV. I could also add more than a century for BEV (early cars were electric, but died out due to batteries being far too primitive at the time).
https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/hydrogen-fuel-cell-car-california-explosion/
https://electrek.co/2019/06/11/hydrogen-station-explodes-toyota-halts-sales-fuel-cell-cars/
And there are other occurrences, just go do a Google search.
Carbon fiber can be used on BEV too. But in both case it cost way too much to be viable other than for supercars.
Tell me, have you seen a lot of at home hydrogen recharge station. Have you seen a lot of hydrogen recharge stations in parking ? Both are true for BEVs
The engine yes, not the energy storage. And a lot of EVs advantage and inconvenience are due to that part.
I don’t deny that. And that’s why both technologies are complementary. FCEV for long range, far from home, BEV for medium to short ranges, when you can charge it at home.
On another hand, fast charger are more and more commonplace, and can recharge a $50000 BEV in less than 30 minutes. Just the time to go touch some grass, drink a cup of coffee, or do something else. It is required to take a break while driving from time to time, so why not ? Considering the pace at which fast charging is going, a 10 minutes fill up isn’t that far fetched.
Depends of your uses. For mine, FCEV have far to much disadvantages over BEV to be viable.
I can say the same about magical hydrogen production and storage facilities for FCEVs.
What you don’t understand is that I’m not critical as much about FCEVs than I am about the agressive and borderline irrational your stance is.
Both technologies are good. Both have a future. And more importantly, both have an important role to play to decarbonate of our civilization.
“You are not wrong, you’re just an asshole”, The Big Lebowski
Then don’t come out and claim that FCEVs are a bad idea. If you know that they can work, then support them fully.
Imagine a world where wind supporter vigorously attack solar power. That would be insane! That’s also what is happening now with FCEVs. It just happens that FCEVs, due to their lower resource needs, will play a much larger role than BEVs. But BEV fanatics cannot accept this at all. So rational people should know better than to swallow their lies.
You say that and then proceed to vigorously attack BEVs. Quite ironic isn’t it?
I just point out that FCEVs are, like BEVs, a flawed technology at this time. If it wasn’t the adoption would have been immediate. Both still need a lot of R&D, and both will get better. BEVs are in no way a doomed technology like you said earlier. It is just different from FCEVs.
I do not “oppose” BEVs in that sense. It will play a role, just like wind does. But it won’t be the magical solution, and realistically it will be a transitional role. It has too many downsides.
After all, an FCEV is also an EV. Why support the more resource intensive EV? Perhaps a better analogy might two different type of photovoltaic cells. They come in many different levels of efficiency, and yet it is the cheapest, not the most efficient kind, that is winning out.
That’s a flawed analogy. In the case of a photovoltaic cells it make sense to use the cheapest one as the main constrain is not the available place. If you were place constrained, you’ll look into maximising the production by square meter, in which case the most efficient on would win (at least for a rational buyer).
It would be better to compare wind and solar power, like you did earlier. In both case the technology is different, both have their own advantages and downsides, which makes them ideal for two different use cases.
Same goes for EVs.
Hydrogen is great for its cheaper initial build cost and fast charge, but do suffer from its lack of infrastructure and difficulty to store hydrogen (it is the smallest atom in existence. Any flaw in its container means a sizable leak. The only way currently is to make one with very thick walls, which mean it is heavy and costly.
Batteries is great for its multiple use and reuses, have a great charging infrastructure (you literally can charge on a standard electrical socket at home), but suffer from a slower charges.
In my case I suffered from no downside from my BEV, I charge it at home from time to time, I use it mainly for medium (less than 200km) to local trips, and use electrical trains for long-range trips. I have no use for any advantages provided by FCEVs, and would be rather hampered by its current or near future downsides.
BEVs in another hand got all the advantages I require. It pollute a bit more when being produced, but have 0 net emission when driving. I can choose how I get my electricity by adapting my electricity provider (I’m currently on a 100% renewable provider), which I can’t do with hydrogen. Long range trips, If I used my car for it, would be longer for sure, but as I said, it isn’t my use case for a car.
As for security, both have their risks, but strangely, they are both statistically (while taking into consideration the difference in number of vehicles) safer than gas powered car.
The future will tell us which technology will win, but for now, BEVs have a good head start. Take an example of Norway. Last time I checked they had something like 150 hydrogen car in the whole country. And that is taking into consideration that EVs make most of the car sales there now.