Let's consider hydrogen cars are the next big thing. Is it a good move to go massively towards electric cars? Especially regarding batteries that will have to be massively replaced in 2 years?
Batteries last longer than that.
Hydrogen has problems, hydrogen embrittlement, its extremely hard to contain.
Additionally hydrogen's major strength, that it continues the current fill up at a filling station dynamic* means that it needs to start making gains now, while there are still petrol stations left, to make the switch to hydrogen.
Hydrogen may well 'win' but I don't think its an open and shut case.
*yes you can generate hydrogen at home. In that situation you basically you have the same tradeoffs as a standard battery
How? My understanding is that hydrogen is either produced from fossil fuels (aka non-renewable) or from electrolysis but the latter won't be economical for many decades AFAIK.
Worst, all things considered, hydrogen cars are still far less efficient that battery EV: https://insideevs.com/efficiency-compared-battery-electric-7...
Germany has some similar projects creating hydrogen as storage for renewables, and replacing some diesel trains with hydrogen.
I'm less convinced it will replace petrol, but there is definitely a case for it replacing many uses of diesel.
You seem to be over estimating my support for hydrogen. My next car will more likely be battery powered, and I'd be buying battery, rather than hydrogen shares, but it isn't without merit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNV8qi_rJBg
IMO the next big things are:
- Fuel like ethanol. https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2017/09/18/solar-fuel-system-recy...
- Quickly charging batteries that are not affected by dendrites.
Quote: Despite their name, rare-earth elements are – with the exception of the radioactive promethium – relatively plentiful in Earth's crust
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium: Although neodymium is classed as a rare earth, it is a fairly common element, no rarer than cobalt, nickel, or copper, and is widely distributed in the Earth's crust.
Good practices and recycling could be very important with regard to costs and environment protection.
There is always progress if progress is financed.
Example: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/11/european-ecoswing-buil...
Quote: A conventional wind generator making 1MW of power will have about one tonne of neodymium in its magnets. The superconductor uses about 1 kilogram of the rare earth gadolinium. It costs just $18.70/kg (£14.50/kg) of gadolinium oxide versus $45.50/kg of neodymium oxide.
I doubt that the rare earth is an important cost factor for such a turbine.
http://www.windustry.org/how_much_do_wind_turbines_cost
Quote: The costs for a utility scale wind turbine range from about $1.3 million to $2.2 million per MW of nameplate capacity installed. Most of the commercial-scale turbines installed today are 2 MW in size and cost roughly $3-$4 million installed.
What rare earth elements are you talking about, exactly? I keep hearing about the scarcity of such "rare" elements, but except lithium (which isn't that rare, it's just we haven't invested in the infrastructure), I'm not aware of the lack of any other materials needed for EV cells.
The resulting pollution level is effectively a cost choice.
You've not explained where all this hydrogen is supposed to come from and get transported.
.. let's not? Where are you getting the hydrogen, and how are you transporting it in the car?
Fossil fuels (nat gas, more specifically). Betting on electrolysis to produce hydrogen economically from renewable sources is as fanciful as betting on batteries to be made from renewable materials.