Based on that conclusion, they decided the best overall strategy is to delay that future as long as possible, by any means necessary.
Based on that conclusion, they decided the best overall strategy is to delay that future as long as possible, by any means necessary.
Basically, it was a bad strategy, as it was practically inevitable that at some point someone would "defect" and do BEVs. Not only did the automakers use a bad strategy, but they failed to pivot from that strategy once it was already blown to hell. Any one of them could be worth a lot more money now if they had simply taken EVs as seriously as Tesla did a decade ago. But none did.
Same problem with Kodak. The new technology is inevitable, and while you may delay it, you're killing your future by doing so. It's short term thinking.
The future might be companies like Hyundai or Toyota, who are investing in "all-of-the-above" technologies rather than betting everything on one idea.
Toyota, Hyundai, Honda are all investing and expanding investment. That’s for passenger cars specifically. Once you go into industrial and heavy transportation it’s a vast group of companies.
People who are paying attention knows that there’s a major revolution afoot. The people with tunnel vision are the people who don’t realize this or are ignorant of these events.
You're saying that without disclosing your financial stake. "HypX" is the name of a hydrogen car company.
So when you say "pretty soon now," you must mean 2040 at the earliest. There's certainly a chance, when you look at the progress of PV solar over the past 40 years, for example, but it is hugely speculative and a long term bet, not a short term one.
Besides, what do companies have to gain by waiting for the technology to be ready before investing? It’s weird how people here lament the lack of foresight in the car industry, and yet on this subject immediately reject any kind of forward planning.
Finally, most of the negative stuff you heard is probably marketing or propaganda from businesses that don’t want to see fuel cell succeed. “2x more energy” is a misleading claim, as fuel cells are technically batteries and should close the gap eventually. Plus, you save energy by avoiding heavy batteries, do better in cold weather, and need less raw materials during production.
By 2030 batteries will haven fallen dramatically in cost. It's not enough to show that electrolyzers are falling in cost, it also needs to be shown that they are falling faster than batteries, and will be able to catch up.
That's the missing logical link, and I haven't seen even the most optimistic hydrogen boosters produce numbers that show it to be possible. Definitely not before 2030.
There is a massive hydrogen PR push right now from natural gas companies with the hope that they can eek a few more years out before transitioning to the modern renewable economy. But even those folks don't say that fuel cell is going to be cheaper than typical passenger vehicle sized batteries.
Every single hydrogen powered vehicle is already going to have a battery in it, to manage variable output. The question is, if hydrogen machinery gets cheaper than battery, at what range capacity does it make sense to include both battery and hydrogen. If it's at 1000 miles, 500 miles, or 300 miles, or 100 miles, and that all depends on the cost ratio of the two, and hydrogen being significantly cheaper than battery.
I don't think people fully grasp that hydrogen is made from water, and has a theoretical lowest possible cost of almost $0. A tank of hydrogen is just a dumb tank too, not a series of sophisticated battery cells. It's batteries that will have trouble keeping up on cost, not hydrogen. In fact, on a cost per range basis, the latest Mirai is already cheaper than competing battery electric cars. This suggests that the crossover point is nearly reached.
So we should stop thinking about batteries as if they have any kind of permanent lead here. The real missing logical link is ignoring the speed of hydrogen and fuel cell advancement, not the other way around.
What about the PR from big battery and electric car companies? These companies might too be dead within a decade or so. And yes, the hydrogen boosters very much say that fuel cell cars will be cheaper than battery powered cars. Toyota thinks fuel cell cars will be as cheap as the Corolla is today.
Some fuel cell cars use a capacitor instead. You only need 1-2 kWh for a passenger car for that purpose anyways. Probably anything past 100 miles will make more sense using fuel cells than batteries.
The laws of physics demand that compressing hydrogen so that a usable amount can be stored in a vehicle requires energy.
So by saying "almost $0" you're saying that electricity is "even less than almost $0". Which might be correct, industrial scale solar PV energy is cheap and will get a lot cheaper over the next decade.
But of course electric cars benefit from cheap electricity even more than hydrogen cars do.
> In fact, on a cost per range basis, the latest Mirai is already cheaper than competing battery electric cars.
Sure, if you use grey hydrogen created from natural gas rather than green hydrogen created from water and electricity. Grey hydrogen is far from carbon-free.
> It's batteries that will have trouble keeping up on cost
That's a strong claim, given that battery prices have historically dropped 80% per decade and show no signs of slowing down.
> These companies might too be dead within a decade or so.
The lack of hydrogen filling stations is the biggest roadblock for this among many big roadblocks.
The notion that batteries are superior than fuel cells at utilizing low cost electricity is fundamentally in error. People have traditionally made the argument batteries are more efficient, but the gap is continuously shrinking and likely will become a non-factor. Meanwhile, you benefit from lower weight, less material cost, faster refueling, cold weather performance, and various other advantages. So it could easily be more cost effective to power a car using hydrogen than with cheap electricity than with batteries in the majority of cases.
> Sure, if you use grey hydrogen created from natural gas rather than green hydrogen created from water and electricity. Grey hydrogen is far from carbon-free.
You're conflating two different things: fuel cells and green hydrogen production. Fuel cell cars are in a lot of ways already competitive with battery electric on their own merits. Hydrogen production is going to be dependent on electrolysis. Even so, as electrolysis costs come down this too will be become cheaper than fossil fuel sources of hydrogen
It's also a lazy argument, as fuel cells have the possibility of being zero emissions the same way batteries have. In fact, this was repeated against battery electric cars historically, since electricity production is heavily based on fossil fuels. So repeating it against fuel cell cars is just playing the role of luddite again.
> That's a strong claim, given that battery prices have historically dropped 80% per decade and show no signs of slowing down.
That's from a very high base and is misleading. Regardless, fuel cell costs are also dropping extremely fast, but unlike batteries don't have the floor of material costs. It's likely that fuel cells will be much cheaper than batteries in the long run. Toyota for instance believes that a fuel cell car can cost the same as a Corolla. Electrolysis costs are also dropping in a similar way and you can expect green hydrogen production to be minimally capital intensive.
> The lack of hydrogen filling stations is the biggest roadblock for this among many big roadblocks.
It's starting to look like the hydrogen refueling infrastructure will be cheaper than the equivalent battery charging infrastructure. Some recent studies are suggesting this.