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 1-2 kWh of batteries? Not the same thing. The platinum claim is outdated. It is no more than a catalytic convertor in newer designs.
Hydrogen have not received any real subsidies, at least not yet anyways. The main limiting factor has been the refueling system, which has been mostly ignored until recently. All of this is changing though. The next big deal in green energy is the hydrogen infrastructure.
Again, stop repeating climate change denier rhetoric. Hydrogen is made from water. When used, it turns back into water. It literally self-recycles with zero effort. Batteries are infinitely inferior on this criteria.
Except hydrogen is not made from just water, now is it. It’s made by using two tones of methane gas and five tons of water to make one ton of methane and six tones of co2. Thouse six tons of co2 are not recycled, neither is the natural gas that was used to make it. To say otherwise is what actual climate change denial looks like, as it is literally denying that a process emits vast quantities of co2 in favor of pretending it doesn’t exist. Hydrogen vehicles revive the exact same subsides as battery vehicles dispite this, and and have had public refueling points in California for over a decade.
Again, stop with your climate change denier rhetoric. Hydrogen can be made from water. Just like electricity can be made from green sources. Saying that it must be made from fossil fuels is a conspiracy theory and just proves that you are climate change denier.
I never said it must be, indeed k have very clearly brought up the amount that is made from just water several times.
It can be made from just water, but is ninty nine point nine percent of it made from just water? No, it is not. It is made from steam methane reforming. Even the companies betting their future on hydrogen say as much, to pretend otherwise is quite literally denying that co2 is related to climate change.
Again, you’re repeating more climate change denier rhetoric. Again, you can make hydrogen from water. It is as green as its energy source. This is the exact same argument as the one made for BEVs. If you cannot wrapped your head around that, then you are too brainwashed by BEV propaganda to even see straight.
Hydogen is as green as the energy source, and the energy source in the article were talking about is explicitly fossil fuel only. As previously mentioned, BEVs don’t need to waste nearly two thirds of the power the consume. Many of them are already fully powered by solar, unlike the aforementioned tenth of a percent of hydrogen, and they have half the cost.
This is going nowhere. You either won’t even read my comments or more likely are just trolling. If so, while this “debate” was admittedly amusing your mostly just making an ass of yourself in public.
If you really are deluded enough to have been serious however. I ask, do you already own one of the thousands hydogen cars, as compared to the millions of EVs?
Ohh who am i kidding, i doubt you’ll even stop to think about this. Instead you just project and repeat the same arguments you have no doubt heard leveled against hydogen, but don’t really understand why they make you feel unsure or you’d see how silly they are when taken out of that context.
You keep calling me a climate change denier while outright denying the climate impacts of your pet idea. You call everything propaganda while repeating the same few feel good lines right out of mouths of oil company marking teams. You talk about hydogen like it’s two thousand and there’s still a question as to what will power the cars of the future.
In the time since then we’ve nearly doubled the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Maybe in another twenty years we’ll have enough idle solar and wind to create the enough green hydrogen to satisfy its use in steel and a thousand other industries. I do hope so, but today it is doing nothing but adding to emissions while taking money from well proven technologies.
These buses could have been outfitted with overhead lines in 1990 to draw all thier power from solar and wind, but now will continue to use fossil fuels well into the future in the hope an oil company delivers on its promise to dispose of itself.
I’m not going to continue this, I had hoped that while you would no doubt be too set into your ways to be convinced, the information might prove useful to anyone scrooling past, but at this point your just saying the same lines over and over agian, with no actual information to even disprove or add context to. Besides we’re far to deep for anyone sensible to still be reading.
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 1-2 kWh of batteries? Not the same thing. The platinum claim is outdated. It is no more than a catalytic convertor in newer designs.
Hydrogen have not received any real subsidies, at least not yet anyways. The main limiting factor has been the refueling system, which has been mostly ignored until recently. All of this is changing though. The next big deal in green energy is the hydrogen infrastructure.
Again, stop repeating climate change denier rhetoric. Hydrogen is made from water. When used, it turns back into water. It literally self-recycles with zero effort. Batteries are infinitely inferior on this criteria.
Except hydrogen is not made from just water, now is it. It’s made by using two tones of methane gas and five tons of water to make one ton of methane and six tones of co2. Thouse six tons of co2 are not recycled, neither is the natural gas that was used to make it. To say otherwise is what actual climate change denial looks like, as it is literally denying that a process emits vast quantities of co2 in favor of pretending it doesn’t exist. Hydrogen vehicles revive the exact same subsides as battery vehicles dispite this, and and have had public refueling points in California for over a decade.
Again, stop with your climate change denier rhetoric. Hydrogen can be made from water. Just like electricity can be made from green sources. Saying that it must be made from fossil fuels is a conspiracy theory and just proves that you are climate change denier.
I never said it must be, indeed k have very clearly brought up the amount that is made from just water several times.
It can be made from just water, but is ninty nine point nine percent of it made from just water? No, it is not. It is made from steam methane reforming. Even the companies betting their future on hydrogen say as much, to pretend otherwise is quite literally denying that co2 is related to climate change.
Again, you’re repeating more climate change denier rhetoric. Again, you can make hydrogen from water. It is as green as its energy source. This is the exact same argument as the one made for BEVs. If you cannot wrapped your head around that, then you are too brainwashed by BEV propaganda to even see straight.
Hydogen is as green as the energy source, and the energy source in the article were talking about is explicitly fossil fuel only. As previously mentioned, BEVs don’t need to waste nearly two thirds of the power the consume. Many of them are already fully powered by solar, unlike the aforementioned tenth of a percent of hydrogen, and they have half the cost.
This is going nowhere. You either won’t even read my comments or more likely are just trolling. If so, while this “debate” was admittedly amusing your mostly just making an ass of yourself in public.
If you really are deluded enough to have been serious however. I ask, do you already own one of the thousands hydogen cars, as compared to the millions of EVs?
Ohh who am i kidding, i doubt you’ll even stop to think about this. Instead you just project and repeat the same arguments you have no doubt heard leveled against hydogen, but don’t really understand why they make you feel unsure or you’d see how silly they are when taken out of that context.
You keep calling me a climate change denier while outright denying the climate impacts of your pet idea. You call everything propaganda while repeating the same few feel good lines right out of mouths of oil company marking teams. You talk about hydogen like it’s two thousand and there’s still a question as to what will power the cars of the future.
In the time since then we’ve nearly doubled the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Maybe in another twenty years we’ll have enough idle solar and wind to create the enough green hydrogen to satisfy its use in steel and a thousand other industries. I do hope so, but today it is doing nothing but adding to emissions while taking money from well proven technologies.
These buses could have been outfitted with overhead lines in 1990 to draw all thier power from solar and wind, but now will continue to use fossil fuels well into the future in the hope an oil company delivers on its promise to dispose of itself.
I’m not going to continue this, I had hoped that while you would no doubt be too set into your ways to be convinced, the information might prove useful to anyone scrooling past, but at this point your just saying the same lines over and over agian, with no actual information to even disprove or add context to. Besides we’re far to deep for anyone sensible to still be reading.
It’s been, interesting, enjoy the holidays Hypx.
Again, you are repeating a climate change denier’s argument. No one cared that solar cells are inefficient. But somehow now, it suddenly matters.
Sorry, the problem is that you are utterly delusional and brainwashed by BEV propaganda. It’s impossible for you to even see straight.
There is nothing but for you to stop being a climate change denier. That is all.