China Believes In Hydrogen over Tesla.

Hydrogen has nothing to do with any electric revolution. It slows it down by wasting taxpayer money. Try again.

 

You come here to say your personal H2 needs are greater than the public's resources, taxpayer dollars. Please explain.

 

Your H2 projects have cost lots of taxpayer money and good jobs that could be spent building sustainable EV resources. Killing the H2 fool cell projects could help put a dent in unemployment and help pay more unemployment benefits and help clean the air.

 

No excuse for spending taxpayer dollars on this failed project when the money could be spent better in countless ways.

 

I'm not taking about the price of the car itself but the price of hydrogen and the hydrogen stations. You can actually save money by buying an electric car, not a fuel cell car, same for the cybertruck if you travel a lot with a F250

 

This is now finally correct. The lowest trim becomes the SR+ which is only $37,990 here in CA before the $1500 EV rebate + $2000 CVRP rebate.

So what does one get added for the lowest trim? Heat pump was added for 2021 to all trims, including this lowest SR+ trim. Another big upgrade - autopilot is now included in the SR+ (we never got that with our 2019 SR+ and is a $3k add on to do it now). This "enables your car to steer, accelerate and brake automatically for other vehicles and pedestrians within its lane." Another significant upgrade -range is now increased to 263 miles EPA. Just these items and at 2 years of 2% annual inflation, that's a much better value than the $35k 2019 SR.

Exactly. There is huge potential profit in a BEV passenger truck and why the race to get into this segment. The truck buyer has no interest in a Mirai or other H2 passenger sedan. They will be looking for the F-150 BEV, Cybertruck, etc.

 

There was a eye-opening discussion about using surplus energy to make hydrogen recently. And someone said:
"I build a multi billion dollar plant to use surplus solar/wind energy to make hydrogen.

Who decides that I should shut it down when there is no such thing as a surplus?

I won't do this voluntarily. My shareholders won't let me. It will run as long as it is economically viable."

This statement is as logical as "1 + 1 = 2", yet I had not seen it before in plans for 'using free surplus energy to make hydrogen'. As long as the electricity price is low enough, that station will run. Period. And this taxes the grid even more, so it is not a 'simple' solution. If anything, it makes it more complex.

E.g. use H2 to make formic acid and develop this further, that solves the large problems with storage of H2 and the inability for chargingstations to service more than 5 cars an hour. And there's a lot of other potential, but this does not warrant the effort that is put into it.

Imho the promise of hydrogen is not in line with the way it is (and has been) pushed onto the public. So without trying to sound as a conspiracy thinker, this does make me wonder what's behind this. My inability to see the possible gains for the environment or my inability to see the possible gains for certain companies...

 

A hydrogen plant not integrated with its own renewable energy will likely run whenever it can make hydrogen cheap enough to compete with hydrogen from steam reformation. Like the arc furnaces used in steel production, that cheap enough electricity is only going to be at night. The draw on the grid then won't be a strain, but the electricity will likely be no longer be green. So the plant isn't making green hydrogen.

Green hydrogen is worth it just for the green ammonia.

It is getting pushed for transportation, because companies and governments have already spent millions on it, and because it allows them to concentrate power. There will only be a few hydrogen companies or associations that will lobby as one, and it is easier to tax than electricity for cars.

 

.