You mean a tenth of one single percent is possibly zero emissions, the rest is a heavy emissions fuel. Hydrogen is not a new technology, hydrogen fuel cells powered the bloody moon landing, and that one had a ten percent higher efficiency than the ones you’d find in any modern, technology demonstrator, i mean vehicle.
Battery technology has seen continuous practical improvement in density, efficiency, and capacity over the last forty years. Fuel cells haven’t, not significantly anyway, and are just as impractical for common useage now as they were then.
Again, i can’t help but notice that you haven’t presented any evidence for your extraordinary claims, any reason to believe that this tech could possibly do what you claim is self evident, just make personal attacks.
Same story with solar cells, again. Everything starts at zero, and nothing is magically perfect from day one. You are doing exactly what climate change deniers said about all new green technologies when they first came out.
Meanwhile, battery cars are older than internal combustion cars. You think you have a point here, but you don’t. You are cheering on totally obsolete technology as if it is anything new.
In reality, you are just being brainwashed by corporate propaganda. All you’re digging your hole even deeper, and even more indistinguishable from blatant climate change denier.
Everything starts at zero, but we arn’t on day zero of fuel cell development. We’re on decade six. There is already massive demand for green hydrogen at a comprehensive price, just as there has been for years, yet supply remains at a tiny fraction of a percent.
Electric cars are not new, but practical alternatives to lead acid batteries are. Yet somehow, despite these new battery chemistry’s being so much newer than hydrogen, they now make up more than half of all new cars sold in some countries. Hydrogen cars came out in the nineties, and still can’t find buyers.
Also, for someone who is calling me brainwashed, your the one who can’t seem to find a single verifiable fact to back up your argument. Just saying over and over again that if you don’t support a fossil fuel your a climate change denier.
And we are in the second century of battery powered cars. Even solar cells are technical over 100 years old.
The difference is that we already tried battery powered cars, and replace them with internal combustion cars. It is fundamentally an obsolete idea. Guys like you want us to stop advancing and stop stick with obsolete technology.
You’re frankly too deep in your delusion to be worth “disproving.” As long as you oppose green energy, you are a climate change denier. And as a long as you reject new ideas, you are a Luddite. There is no need to go into detail over how nonsensical your position actually is.
Except your the one opposing green energy at every turn. Hydrogen created from natural gas can not in any way be called green energy, and yet that’s what your defending to the exclusion of actual green energy solutions. Hydrogen powered transport is not a new idea, just a failed one.
Lead Acid cars failed, not batteries in general. Thouse have advanced to the point they are more common than gas in some countries new cars. Hydrogen by contrast has remained a oil executive fantasy.
Wrong. You’re the one opposed to green energy at every turn. You’re just so brainwashed you can’t even understand your own position.
Everything is as green as its energy source. Electricity can also be made from natural gas. Is electricity now an elaborate conspiracy by the oil companies? Seriously, it’s multiple levels of delusional thinking and cognitive dissonance.
No one has every built commercial hydrogen cars until a few years ago. It is fundamentally a never-before-seen technology. If you reject the climate change denier tag, then you get the Luddite tag.
Toyota and Honda both began leasing Hydogen cars over twenty years ago. By twenty twenty, all but three of half a dozen major automakers to release hydogen vehicles had abandoned development in favor of batteries.
It is absolutely ludicrous to compare electricity to hydrogen. Eighty percent of my electricity is powerd by renewables with no oil company involved, as compared to the fraction of a single percent of hydogen. To think the two are the same is to so fundamentally reject reality in favor of propaganda that i don’t even know where to start.
You mean in a series of highly experimental vehicles and with no refueling infrastructure, then sure. But in reality, no has seriously tried hydrogen cars until recently. All the support for BEVs is just the result of government subsidies. It is entirely a fake market, and will die off as soon as the subsidies end.
Wind and solar were just rounding errors on the grid until recently. You could’ve easily made the same argument for BEVs until recently. Not that it matters, because the insanely resource dependent and extremely expensive batteries doom them to inevitable obsolescence for a second time. Car companies that won’t get on board with hydrogen will just die off.
You know hydogen requires the same batteries right? Enough platinum to directly power a car is far to expensive, so all hydrogen cars need a large battery to store charge for acceleration.
If BEVs are the result of subsidies, then why are hydrogen vehicles, which enjoy the exact same subsidies still a rounding error? Before you say fueling infrastructure, note that Honda spent quite a lot of money trying to build that out in 2008. Also note that a failure in fuel infrastructure is also a failure of hydrogen.
Batteries can be recycled, hydrogen still has to be made out of fossil fuels for very single fill up. If the market for BEVs is artificial, then why would there suddenly be a market for a far more expensive and far less convenient technology like hydrogen?
You mean a tenth of one single percent is possibly zero emissions, the rest is a heavy emissions fuel. Hydrogen is not a new technology, hydrogen fuel cells powered the bloody moon landing, and that one had a ten percent higher efficiency than the ones you’d find in any modern, technology demonstrator, i mean vehicle.
Battery technology has seen continuous practical improvement in density, efficiency, and capacity over the last forty years. Fuel cells haven’t, not significantly anyway, and are just as impractical for common useage now as they were then.
Again, i can’t help but notice that you haven’t presented any evidence for your extraordinary claims, any reason to believe that this tech could possibly do what you claim is self evident, just make personal attacks.
Same story with solar cells, again. Everything starts at zero, and nothing is magically perfect from day one. You are doing exactly what climate change deniers said about all new green technologies when they first came out.
Meanwhile, battery cars are older than internal combustion cars. You think you have a point here, but you don’t. You are cheering on totally obsolete technology as if it is anything new.
In reality, you are just being brainwashed by corporate propaganda. All you’re digging your hole even deeper, and even more indistinguishable from blatant climate change denier.
Everything starts at zero, but we arn’t on day zero of fuel cell development. We’re on decade six. There is already massive demand for green hydrogen at a comprehensive price, just as there has been for years, yet supply remains at a tiny fraction of a percent.
Electric cars are not new, but practical alternatives to lead acid batteries are. Yet somehow, despite these new battery chemistry’s being so much newer than hydrogen, they now make up more than half of all new cars sold in some countries. Hydrogen cars came out in the nineties, and still can’t find buyers.
Also, for someone who is calling me brainwashed, your the one who can’t seem to find a single verifiable fact to back up your argument. Just saying over and over again that if you don’t support a fossil fuel your a climate change denier.
And we are in the second century of battery powered cars. Even solar cells are technical over 100 years old.
The difference is that we already tried battery powered cars, and replace them with internal combustion cars. It is fundamentally an obsolete idea. Guys like you want us to stop advancing and stop stick with obsolete technology.
You’re frankly too deep in your delusion to be worth “disproving.” As long as you oppose green energy, you are a climate change denier. And as a long as you reject new ideas, you are a Luddite. There is no need to go into detail over how nonsensical your position actually is.
Except your the one opposing green energy at every turn. Hydrogen created from natural gas can not in any way be called green energy, and yet that’s what your defending to the exclusion of actual green energy solutions. Hydrogen powered transport is not a new idea, just a failed one.
Lead Acid cars failed, not batteries in general. Thouse have advanced to the point they are more common than gas in some countries new cars. Hydrogen by contrast has remained a oil executive fantasy.
Wrong. You’re the one opposed to green energy at every turn. You’re just so brainwashed you can’t even understand your own position.
Everything is as green as its energy source. Electricity can also be made from natural gas. Is electricity now an elaborate conspiracy by the oil companies? Seriously, it’s multiple levels of delusional thinking and cognitive dissonance.
No one has every built commercial hydrogen cars until a few years ago. It is fundamentally a never-before-seen technology. If you reject the climate change denier tag, then you get the Luddite tag.
Toyota and Honda both began leasing Hydogen cars over twenty years ago. By twenty twenty, all but three of half a dozen major automakers to release hydogen vehicles had abandoned development in favor of batteries.
It is absolutely ludicrous to compare electricity to hydrogen. Eighty percent of my electricity is powerd by renewables with no oil company involved, as compared to the fraction of a single percent of hydogen. To think the two are the same is to so fundamentally reject reality in favor of propaganda that i don’t even know where to start.
You mean in a series of highly experimental vehicles and with no refueling infrastructure, then sure. But in reality, no has seriously tried hydrogen cars until recently. All the support for BEVs is just the result of government subsidies. It is entirely a fake market, and will die off as soon as the subsidies end.
Wind and solar were just rounding errors on the grid until recently. You could’ve easily made the same argument for BEVs until recently. Not that it matters, because the insanely resource dependent and extremely expensive batteries doom them to inevitable obsolescence for a second time. Car companies that won’t get on board with hydrogen will just die off.
You know hydogen requires the same batteries right? Enough platinum to directly power a car is far to expensive, so all hydrogen cars need a large battery to store charge for acceleration.
If BEVs are the result of subsidies, then why are hydrogen vehicles, which enjoy the exact same subsidies still a rounding error? Before you say fueling infrastructure, note that Honda spent quite a lot of money trying to build that out in 2008. Also note that a failure in fuel infrastructure is also a failure of hydrogen.
Batteries can be recycled, hydrogen still has to be made out of fossil fuels for very single fill up. If the market for BEVs is artificial, then why would there suddenly be a market for a far more expensive and far less convenient technology like hydrogen?