Hypx_

All close cycled cells have the same properties. Ultracaps are even better.

It wouldn't shock me if the Mirai has even bigger profit margins. Fuel cell systems aren't that much more expensive than internal combustion engines to build.

If the Mirai really had those losses, Toyota would be literally losing billions on the Mirai by itself.

Yes it has happened or is nearly about to happen. FYI, the LR version of the Model 3 is $50k, about the same as the Mirai. By many metrics they've reached cost parity. Even if you angrily deny this, remember that EV are produced in larger quantities and benefit from greater economics of scale. It's pretty obvious the fuel cell cars are going to get a lot cheaper from here.

And as countries invest more into renewable they're are quickly running into a dilemma: Wind and solar are too unreliable to directly replace fossil fuels. This requires seasonal energy storage to solve, which as of today is only solvable by hydrogen energy storage: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/236723/1/Ruhnau-and-...

In short, even EVs will be hydrogen powered to a large extent. You can easily imagine a kind of plug-in hydrogen car that matches EVs on efficiency in broad strokes.

Ultimately, this is not really a difference of opinion but rather a difference in understanding of the facts. You simply haven't realized that fuel cell cars are already here and have already solved the fundamental problems of green energy. Batteries cars have not, and barring a miracle battery discovery will not either.

As we are talking about a large ticket item (cars), a 20% difference is a big deal.

As with all fuels, this shouldn't be much more expensive than from a fueling station.

The point is that they talk about it. Either positively or negative, it means that they're using the public chargers.

In the Northeast, people often use fuel oil delivered to their house for heating. Except that this fuel oil is basically diesel/kerosene, meaning we already had a system of delivery fuel to people's houses. And yet there was never an outcry for home refueling for their cars. It clearly wasn't something that people wanted even when they had it. So it's hard to see why now all of a sudden this is a real selling point.

Only because they have to. If there was a way to recharge within 3 minutes publically, the home charging solution would be rarely used.

Then I will have to disagree. I insist that it is still post-hoc rationalization.

Sooner or later, hydrogen cars will be cheaper to own than a battery car. Once this happens, none of this reasoning will hold up to scrutiny.

Should be noted that you can have hydrogen delivered in the same way propane/LPG can be delivered. In fact, gasoline/petrol could have been delivered since the first days of the automobile. None of these ideas really mattered in the end.

I think those people are simply living in the past. It is hydrogen disrupting batteries, not the other away around. In fact, I see a flattening of the pace of battery improvements, meaning the speed of this disruption event should be moving faster than expected. By 2030 the battery "revolution" might have already collapsed and left for obsolescence.

It's important to remember that hydrogen fuel cells are batteries too. There is no reason for the metal lithium to have magic properties over other battery technologies.

It will likely be a transition from blended hydrogen before reaching 100% hydrogen later. Just because it won't happen all at once doesn't mean it hasn't already started.

Everyone says this but they still talk about public charging all the time. It's mostly just a rationalization.

The difference is that for fuel cells, it has mostly already happened. It's quickly becoming a kind of denial where the haters simply pretend that it doesn't exist or insist on unsolved problems that have long been solved. It frankly reminds me of how Blackberry executives denied the viability of the iPhone even after it launched.

You are already proven wrong. The biggest event in green energy is hydrogen right now. The only reason why people disagree at all is ignorance of recent events.

In this case it's mental distance. It's not be affected by the politics of other countries nearly as much as others.

One big idea in Australia is the possibility of exporting hydrogen. It might be a factor on their thinking.

Same thing. Everyone uses public stations all the time.

This is just post-hoc rationalization. The extra few minutes of refueling time is hardly a problem.

Even so, eventually you likely will be able to refuel at home since home electrolysis is possible.

All vehicles are "negative." This doesn't make sense as a metric.

None of those alternatives have anything but a minor role. The overwhelming majority of grid energy storage will be from hydrogen energy storage:

https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/236723/1/Ruhnau-and-...

All of the safety and wear and tear issues have been solved. This is really just fearmongering at this point.

It is fully viable: https://www.siemens-energy.com/global/en/news/magazine/2020/...

The problem with this mentality is that is impossible to create a zero emissions grid with just batteries. You'll find that long-duration energy storage is necessary. Except this can only be solved via hydrogen energy storage. So even EVs will just be hydrogen powered cars in a lot of respects.

Compared to fuel cell cars, especially plug-in fuel cell cars, EVs are the unavoidable loser. They'll be more expensive, heavier, and generally will have shorter ranges while failing to produce a real efficiency advantages.

Except no one drives at home. Every EV fan still complains about lack of public charging stations. I suspect few people really find home recharging as any kind of game changer.

Except you can extract 237 kJ/mole from hydrogen. A fuel cell is a battery and can approach the efficiency of a lithium-ion battery.

> No, you cannot use existing gas pipelines for transporting hydrogen.

You absolutely can. In fact gas companies are already planning this exact thing.

> For passenger cars, EVs today are already better than what physics allow hydrogen cars to ever be.

Your "physics" is entirely pseudoscience.

Really just a meme at this point. The risk here is that hydrogen cars end up being cheaper to run than electric cars. A real possibility due to the production of hydrogen from curtailed renewables, higher battery costs, hydrogen being much more efficient than believed, as well as cheaper distribution costs since hydrogen can be piped in natural gas pipelines.

Possible. In fact a company called LAVO is building a home hydrogen battery for energy storage. Although compressing it to 10,000 psi at home is not quite ready yet, although companies are working on it.

Solar panels cost money. It is not really nearly free. In the near future, you can make hydrogen with your own solar panels too.

As it stands now, the biggest revolution in energy right now is the rapid reduction in hydrogen cost: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/06/24/low-cost-renewable-hy...

Once things hit their exponential growth curve, things might happen a lot faster than people expect.

A point I want to make about the "Innovator's Dilemma" with regards to my other comment: It does not happen when everyone gets together and just agrees that "X is true" with zero critical thought. It happens when a group of radicals abandon old ideas and rethinks the problem, leading to radical new ideas.

But the problem is that everyone here is just convinced that it can't happen, usually using very facile thinking. Few are asking any hard questions. As long as this stays true, hydrogen will continue to pose an enormous threat to Tesla.

Unlike the others hydrogen fuel cells are already here.

There is the possibility that Australia is simply correct in their assessment. They're a long ways away from both Silicon Valley and Brussels, and may be acting as an independent entity that is free from external influences.

The one threat they cannot win against is if batteries become obsolete in the face of advances of hydrogen fuel cell technology. This represents a disruptive event, and something they cannot easily fight against.