Amidst California’s ongoing efforts to promote environmentally friendly transportation and the changing landscape of hydrogen fuel infrastructure, Toyota has announced a dramatic rebate of up to $40,000 off MSRP for the 2023 Toyota Mirai.
Amidst California’s ongoing efforts to promote environmentally friendly transportation and the changing landscape of hydrogen fuel infrastructure, Toyota has announced a dramatic rebate of up to $40,000 off MSRP for the 2023 Toyota Mirai.
Then you are repeating an argument from the oil industry. To them, all green vehicles are secretly dirty, and therefore you must always buy an oil powered car.
See my comment here in this answer to someone who just asked for arguments instead of making shit up.
You can make it 100% with fossil fuels and it would still be greener than a gasoline or diesel powered car.
Not really. Hydrogen cars are horrible for carbon. They just cannot compete with electric for efficiency. You’re bound by the laws of nature to have extra losses. The only argument hydrogen shills have is about “muh lithium” which isn’t really an issue longer term. It’s already recycled, whereas hydrogen is bound to have less efficiency forever, as compared to an electrical cable.
That’s pure gibberish. An FCEV is also an electric car. It has the same theoretical efficiency as a BEV.
You just cannot avoid having losses with an extra conversion step. Any source of energy you can fathom can supply electrical current to the car. Directly via cables. If you convert said energy to hydrogen, then back to electric, you are bound to have extra losses, thus the car polutes more, as it uses more fuel for the same distance. There’s literally no way around this, in this plane of existence, and there’s literally nothing you can do about it.
The “conversion” steps are functionally the same as what happens inside a battery. Which is why the theoretical efficiency is the same as a BEV. You are effectively doing the equivalent of battery swapping, just with a fluid rather than a solid battery pack.
What? Are you shamelessly lying?
Do you know what a fuel cell even is? It is an electrochemical system that converts chemical energy directly into electrical energy. That is why FCEVs are also EVs.
You’re just regurgitating blatantly Tesla propaganda. They are lying about the merits of FCEVs vs. BEVs. An FCEV is equally valid as an EV as any BEV.
They are not equal and will never ever be equal. I have no idea what Tesla is saying about it, I’m an EE and did the math (not that complicated), and Hydrogen will forever be less efficient and will pollute more, and there’s no way around it. You are trying to minimize the impact the Hydrogen infrastructure will have on everything, and are seriously misrepresenting what it implies. This is so horrible that I’m amazed it’s even a god damned discussion. Makes NO sense, pollutes more, releases WAY more carbon for the same amount of traveled distance all things considered, heavily complicates the car since not only does the car need an EV battery, it has to accommodate the extra cell, which will cost more of-course, pollute more, and do nothing for the average folk apart from taking power out of their hands, for nothing, and to pollute even more. This topic is insane, I’m amazed more engineers aren’t on top of debunking it.
Again, all of this is pure gibberish. Both fuel cells and batteries are electrochemical systems. Both have the same level of efficiency in the theoretical sense.
Like I said, you are repeating bullshit from BEV companies like Tesla. All of the anti-hydrogen stuff is just corporate propaganda and has zero basis in fact.
And what’s ironic is that it is copied from propaganda that originated from the oil industry. BEV companies repeating this stuff just means they are repeating the same anti-green rhetoric used against all green energy. Wind, solar, geothermal, etc., even BEVs themselves, when through the same crap. And you are doing the same just against fuel cells and hydrogen.
The oil industry has been rooting for hydrogen cars as their favourite alternative to combustion engines as most hydrogen is produced from fossil energy carriers. It’s the oil industry’s backdoor to remain the mobility supplier as methane based hydrogen dominates the market and will remain cheaper than green hydrogen unless the whole world agrees on proper taxes, which it won’t. Hydrogen cars are emission free but hydrogen isn’t. And while the same can be said for electric cats, the shift to renewable energy sources is already happening there and the higher efficiency already makes BEVs more environmentally friendly than ICEs, unlike hydrogen cars.
The same is also happening with hydrogen. We are shifting towards green hydrogen. People who claim otherwise are repeating the same anti-green rhetoric used against BEVs.
What green hydrogen? Where?
You’re clearly stuck in the past. Green hydrogen production is rapidly expanding. It is the new solar or wind boom.
I’m pretty sure the real reason is that they need to sell you something. Hydrogen handling means exclusivity and they can control energy prices this way. Having solar panels is a big problem apparently, we’re not “allowed” to escape their control. Not sure we plebs can do anything about them pushing hydrogen constantly.
No one is going to meaningful control hydrogen prices in the long-run. It can be made via renewable energy like wind and solar. So it will have the same level of cost. Which is to say it will cost very little as wind and solar cost very little.
And this is why we have so many people campaigning against it.
It’s more expensive because you have to have an extra conversion of energy which is bound to be lossy. There’s no way it makes sense apart from them having something THEY control and sell you, that’s it. The only realistic uses for it is for heavy machinery in remote places.
You can literally make it yourself. This replaces having to need giant banks of batteries, as well reduces the need for grid capacity increases. Furthermore, you need energy storage in general. That implies that even BEVs will need hydrogen for energy storage for long durations. As a result, there’s not likely to be any meaningful increase in cost. And since wind and solar are so cheap, efficiency is not particularly irrelevant. The margin cost of production is basically zero anyways, so none of that matters. It will be far cheaper than fossil fuels in the long-run.
More carbon from hydrogen when you add up all that crazy infrastructure and safety related to hydrogen manufacture and transport which will be made via special trucks and stuff as compared to an electrical cable. You cannot and will not ever compete with a copper cable. You have to resort to plain lying for the hydrogen shill to make any god damned sense.
More gibberish. All of the steps needed for an hydrogen infrastructure can be powered by hydrogen. Even steel made for the purpose can be made via hydrogen reduction. So can any trucks or equipment needed. Meanwhile, all of the steps for building batteries or wires requirement fossil fuels at some point. After all, who is going to mine all of that stuff? Same with refining it to pure metals. You are unaware of how dependent BEVs are to fossil fuels. Something that won’t be solved unless we adopt hydrogen on a vast scale.
And BTW, steel is a lot cheaper than copper. So pipelines are much cheaper than wires. In reality, you are just brainwashed by BEV propaganda mostly coming from Tesla. You’d save money by going with hydrogen. BEVs are the more expensive option.
Here is the lie, because this implies more carbon released in the atmosphere. It’s not free. Anything that can power the “infrastructure” can be directly supplied to cars, via copper cables. You will always have this issue, you cannot hide from it. ANY source of energy you can imagine can be used to power EVs instead of your hydrogen thing. You cannot escape this, there’s no way around it. You are lying, shamelessly for that matter.