It's the same story as with diesel or ethanol cars. There are always some short-term "easy" solutions that don't scale or aren't really that green. BEVs is just the next stage of that. You can obsess all you want with a transitional technology, but that doesn't stop the march of progress.
Hypx
Hydrogen is the future. Batteries are unsustainable and will only be a transitional technology.
We have had hydrogen pipelines for decades, and large scale storage in the form of underground salt caverns. These things basically work the same as natural gas pipes and storage systems. The only real challenge was local storage, which has mostly ceased to be a problem with the rise of carbon fiber tanks. There are tens of thousands of FCEVs around the world, and rarely any issues with dealing with hydrogen storage.
The main limiting factor is infrastructure, or rather lack thereof. But the difference here is that you think it is technically impossible or at very least difficult. I believe it is simply a matter of building it, which is pretty straightforward.
BEVs also were impossible to buy for most people until around the mid-2010s. They went a century of near non-existence before then. FCEVs are simply going through a similar process. Sooner or later, they will be everywhere and BEVs will be abandoned afterwards.
You can buy whatever you want right now. It's not like anyone's stopping you. The point is that BEVs are not the answer. They are just a transitional idea and won't last.
No, there are not. A lot of these concerns are from people stuck in the past, or have an agenda.
You can generate your own hydrogen, and there are a few companies building products for that. Though realistically there will be some degree of centralization. Most people will buy hydrogen and not bother with home production.
BEVs are really the result of subsidies and virtue signaling. It is a mandate driven by delusional pseudo-environmentalists. The same people that got nuclear banned in much of the world. It is not a serious attempt at green transportation. And it will likely die-off in favor of FCEVs or other ideas once the time comes.
Which is why car makers need to pursue ideas like e-fuels and hydrogen cars. The obsession with BEVs is tunnel vision, and is doing more harm than good.
The advantages of a chemical fuel is that you make them when costs are very low and save them for when you need them. Even months later if need be. Not doable with batteries. Even the ICCT is admitting that electricity used to make hydrogen is going to much cheaper than electricity used to charge BEVs. It will likely be cheaper to operate a hydrogen car due to that fact.
At least with e-fuels, there's an argument to be made that there are too many unnecessary steps and that costs will be high. But with hydrogen, that argument doesn't really hold water. Fuel cell cars are also EVs. The gap between BEVs FCEVs on efficiency is small and shrinking. When the full lifecycle factors are included, it is likely the FCEV is the more efficient idea even now.
Which is where fuel cell cars come in. They are also EVs. It pretty much renders the BEV obsolete. A lot of BEV advocacy are from people stuck in the early 2000s, totally unaware that technology has past them by. It is similar to the past obsession with diesel cars, which at one point was see as unbeatable.
Which doesn’t matter, something I’ve been saying all this time.
And the efficiency of batteries has been massively exaggerated too.
It's too bad we're not comparing BEVs to conventional ICE cars. The alternatives are even greener and don't have a paypack period.
Fuel cell cars literally are EVs. People like you are just regurgitating a lot of BEV propaganda. These arguments only work when the alternative is a conventional ICE car running on pure fossil fuels. Your understanding of transportation technology is basically trapped in the early 2000s. You think you know something, but in reality you're 20 years out of date.
E-fuels or hydrogen made from green energy. With the latter you won't even give up on the future being EVs. They are the actually sustainable forms of transportation that everyone can accept.
If you can admit that, you can admit there can be superior options to BEVs.
This is just a repeat of the same old pro-RISC myths from decades ago. There is very little performance difference between x86 and any RISC based CPU, at least when pertaining to the ISA itself. Apple merely has the advantage of having far more resources available for CPU development than their competitors.