Hypx

A lot of those "agnostic" sources are secretly working for the BEV companies. There's a lot of misinformation out there. Anyways, given that a fuel cell is vastly more efficient than a conventional ICE, there shouldn't be an issue on efficiency. FCEVs are more than good enough. Anyone bringing this issue up as a problem is either confused or has an agenda. After all, FCEVs are also EVs.

Gas stations are much cheaper than battery swapping. In fact, that is the main argument in favor of FCEVs. Replacing existing gas stations with hydrogen stations is a much cheaper solution than putting up millions of charging stations, battery swapping stations, DC fast charging stations, etc.

I'm on Kbin FYI. It mostly works for my needs.

Excess green energy will likely flood the system. We will have an overabundance of all types of green energy, including hydrogen, in the long-run.

Critics of hydrogen are basically contradicting themselves. If you admit the need for energy storage in the form of hydrogen, you are also admitting the existence of very cheap hydrogen. That will be available for a variety of tasks. It will become the go-to solution for anything that needs a chemical fuel. If it is cheap enough for heating or steel production, it will be cheap enough for transportation solutions too.

Yes, you should read up on salt cavern storage: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/06/16/hydrogen-storage-in-salt-caverns/

For millions of people, that is not an option. And I'm assuming you mean "BEVs" not electric vehicles. FCEVs are also electric vehicles. Furthermore, the claims of the BEV industry are not to be trusted. It is no different than citing the oil industry's claim that BEVs cost the the equivalent of $17/gallon to drive.

Battery swapping will explode the logistical and resource requirements of BEVs. It makes the problem even worse.

Airplanes will probably use some combo of e-fuels or LH₂ setup. The latter is doable via a new type of airframe like a blended wing body.

If speed is important, you'd support the rapid adoption of hydrogen, not oppose it. These are not credible arguments unless you do not actually believe in climate change.

Renewable energy is leading to vast curtailment and excess production. That energy is pretty much wasted. Turning it into hydrogen will not cost that much money nor require that much more generation capacity.

Large scale storage of hydrogen is done with natural occurring salt caverns. These cost far less than just about anything else ever conceived.

Again, if the goal is to phase fossil fuels, you would go hard in favor of green hydrogen, alongside many other ideas. You would not oppose any green energy ideas.

If you are totally honest, you'd admit that for a huge percentage of the transportation, we don't have any real option other than hydrogen. That's certainly the case for many types of commercial vehicles, ships and airplanes. But it is also true for a large percentage of passenger cars. Not everyone can accept a battery powered car in their lifestyle. So it is inevitable that transportation is part of what hydrogen is good for. And once we start using hydrogen for this, batteries quickly become the odd-man out. After all, why spend trillions on a highly destructive and arguably unsustainable technology that will have to be replaced anyways?

The reason why it is a climate change denial tactic is that it completely ignores the fact that we can easily build enough renewable energy for pretty much whatever we want. It is thousands of times more plentiful than fossil fuels, and won't run out either. So even if we accept your claim of needing 3x more capacity, that is still no problem. However, it won't actually need that, since renewable energy requires vast amounts of energy storage to be viable. That storage is most easily done using hydrogen. So in reality, hydrogen is pretty fundamental to renewable energy altogether.

This is anti-hydrogen propaganda. It is basically a marketing spiel for the battery industry. In reality, hydrogen is going to power nearly all transportation, mainly because batteries are not a sustainable solution.

And the notion that we can't build enough renewable energy capacity is a classic climate change denial argument. People who say this are unknowingly (or sometimes knowingly) trying to get everyone back onto fossil fuels.

There will come a day when people will realize that even tech companies aren't worth that much.

What type of EV? Because people have a habit of conflating the battery powered EV with EVs in general.

I suspect there is something more to this than just that. After all, the car in question did this:

Earlier this month, a Cruise robotaxi notably ran over a pedestrian who had been hit by another vehicle driven by a human. The pedestrian became pinned under a tire of the Cruise vehicle after it came to a stop — and then was pulled for about 20 feet (six meters) as the car attempted to move off the road.

It seems like there are unsolvable safety problems going on.

For starters, ICE cars have not been banned nearly anywhere. For seconds, hydrogen is not unworkable. That is pure BEV propaganda.

The future will almost certainly be hydrogen cars. They are also EVs BTW. BEV fanatics are just bullshitting about this fact here. In reality, BEVs are not a sustainable idea and are doomed.

Battery cell technology will change over time. Into fuel cells.

Battery electric cars predate internal combustion. It is emphatically not the way to go. In fact, it is just a fad driven by subsidies and desire to appear green. It will die off once the subsidies go away and people realize that paying vastly more for an inferior type of car is not a smart decision.

Hydrogen cars are EVs. The lithium-ion EV is the doomed technology, propped up by hype and subsidies.

It's still something pretty close to a government mandated monopoly. Hell, most Tesla fanboys want literally just Tesla owning the entire car industry. And the Chinese car companies are all being controlled by the Chinese government. It's closer to being one company than you think.

You are just listening to too much anti-hydrogen propaganda. It's absurd to say that it isn't getting cheaper. It is just doing the same thing wind and solar did as they scaled up. The infrastructure is rapidly expanding too, something you'd know if you actually started to look into hydrogen.