521
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2023
521 points (87.1% liked)
World News
38563 readers
2468 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
Just so we're clear, you can charge an FCEV. Either via PHEV setup or some home electrolysis system. It is also an EV after all. It is definitely analogous to two different PV technologies.
Since it basically runs on water, or least something made from water, it is going to be the much cheaper idea in the long run. So it seems unavoidable that at some point, the FCEV will win.
BEV owners will eventually end up being the next diesel car owners. Sure, you can say "I did my part for the climate," but you won't worship your old car.
PHEV would make it partly a BEV. Not bad for a doomed technology, isn't it? As for an home electrolysis system, considering how difficult it is currently to build industrial sized one, I doubt we'll see them for the decades to come. But I hope I'm mistaken on that aspect.
They would if most of the hydrogen was made from water. It is unfortunately factually false currently, and that won't change until someone heavily invest in a renewable mean of producing hydrogen. If you take that into consideration, FCEVs do emit quite a lot of greenhouse gases (and would even be worse than gas in some countries like Poland). Not directly, but they do nonetheless.
If you are worshipping your FCEV car you should reconsider your life 🤣. They are tool, maybe part of a way of life, but nothing more.
Considering FCEVs are also EVs, PHEVs don't anything. It is the absolute dependency on giant batteries that make BEVs doomed. PHEVs are fine for a transitional technology too.
It's the same argument with electricity. It is only green as its source. People are just repeating the arguments made against all EVs.
FCEVs merely happen to be the future of the automobile. There is nothing beyond that. It's BEV fanatics that get upset when someone suggests they're supporting a transitional technology.
Please rephrase that part, it has currently no meaning (I suppose you translated from another language). Personally I don't believe on PHEVs. It is just an excuse to greenwash gas cars. Maybe Hydrogen-Battery hybrids, but in this case you put a possible fire hazard near a possible explosive one... Strangely I'm not a fan of the idea 😆 .
That's an opinion, and I disagree with you. Beyond that there isn't much to argue over. We both have our reason to believe in our technology of choice, and as I said earlier, both may be valid choices on the long run.
Only "fanatics" can be as sure of the future as you seem to be. There is still a ton of improvement to make in both case, so unless one of us is a specialist in both sector, we can't pretend to know what the future hold for us. In any case, anything that helps reduce our carbon print is welcome, battery powered or not.
Your own post was garbled as well.
Plug-in fuel cell cars are a viable idea and solve a lot of problems. You are just fearmongering.
FCEVs are again, just EVs. Just without the huge cost of batteries. That ensures they will be the cheapest solution out there. Your rhetoric against the cost of green hydrogen is just a repeat of anti-renewable energy rhetoric of the past.
The difference is that you are basically saying FCEVs cannot exist in meaningful numbers. That's an absurdity. It's pretty much undeniable that they will play a major role given the need for green technology. To deny this is to repeat a common climate change denier argument. It is an argument against green technology altogether.
I said that it was my opinion, not that I'm correct. There is a very important difference between both. Plug-in fuel cell car could solve some problem, and create other. For now I didn't see any commercial ones, so best I can do is speculate on its possible risks. How those risks are taken care of is the car engineers role. We'll see. Tbh I'd really like to see that as a solution. Batterie for short range, hydrogen (if it is 100% electrolysis) for long range.
I went and checked my data. According to the latest report I've found (July 2020), hydrolysis hydrogen cost between $3/kg and $6.55/kg. Fossil-based hydrogen costs about $1.80/kg. Not as big as I feared, but still quite a steep increase on cost that may rebuke many potential users. The mean of getting cheaper hydrogen is mostly based on a decreasing cost of renewable energy, which would also benefit BEVs.
If you have more recent data from a independent source, feel free to share.
You misunderstand my point. I merely pointed out the current difficulties that FCEVs faces (like the lack of distribution infrastructure), which are aspects where BEVs excels. This lack of infrastructure need to be addressed before FCEVs can be considered as a viable alternative.
For BEVs, you literally got dozen of potential "recharge infrastructure" in your own house. Slow ones, sure, but you can leave it to charge during the night like you'd do with a smartphone. And you can install faster ones too. I'm well aware of BEVs downsides, I don't try to hide them. But they are not as damning as you portray them.
Slow charge speed are not a problem as we require regular pauses during long range driving anyway (15-30 min every 2h are recommended here), which are enough for a meaningful recharge using currently available fast chargers.
Battery cost isn't as bad as this, fuel saving reimburse them on the long run (I already reimbursed mine long ago according to my calculation, and it is still going strong). Fire risks have long been taken care of (funnily enough the solution was borrowed from FCEVs, by redirecting the flame using valves). But Teslas are known for their lack of build quality. Elon Musk wouldn't be its owner, it would have long gone under.
FCEVs have a role to play, but it still need to mature a bit more before then. That's my main point. BEVs are, in my opinion, the most logical thing to do. Depending on how FCEVs matures, it may become a welcome alternative, or even combine with BEVs to get the best of both worlds, but telling that BEVs are doomed to fail is ignorant at best, or to "repeat a common climate change denier argument" at worse, as you put it.
FCEVs are nearly PHEVs already. Battery powered for (very) short ranges and hydrogen for longer range. A PHEV version is just one with a bigger battery.
The current price of green hydrogen is already cheap enough to justify itself as a fuel. It is just distribution that is the issue.
It will be much cheaper to move hydrogen around than electricity. Pipelines are cheaper than wires after all. The cost of upgrade the grid and putting a charging point everywhere will be in the trillions of dollars. Many times more expensive than what it would take to have hydrogen stations replace gas stations.
The BEV over FCEV argument, as a near-term solution, is quickly running out of steam. It is similar to when several car companies were stuck promoting diesel cars just when the BEV began showing up. It will be the same story. People are desperately asking for an EV that can be a one-to-one replacement for their current car. As a result, the arrival of FCEVs will happen sooner than what many expect.
I doubt building hundreds of kilometers of leak proof pipeline, for the smallest atom in existence (no less than that) would be that cheap. If you have data on that you are welcome to post them.
On the other hand we already got a pretty robust infrastructure for electricity transport (except maybe for Texas, but that's another whole story), and adding more isn't that hard. Take some copper or anything conductive, make a cable out of it, install on a pylon or underground, and you are set.
Hydrogen pipeline are cheaper than wires and they don't leak either. You are just repeating marketing BS from competing industries. Hydrogen molecules aren't even the smallest. Helium is the smallest since it is a nobel gas and not a diatom.
Pipelines are made of steel. They are much cheaper than copper wires. In reality, your idea is much more expensive from an infrastructure point of view.