Firstly, this is not a rehash of the EV vs HFC thread.
By 2008, with a little research it was apparent that H2 was pointless, and by late 2012 early 2013, due to Tesla model S, it was apparent to the wider public that EVs were both the future and the present. Counter arguments to that belong in the EV vs HFC thread.
what missteps did hydrogen vehicles do. That is what this thread is about.
Firstly, the pursuit of 700bar. The resulting infrastructure cost from the 350 to 700 bar transition i think killed hydrogen in general. Personally I suspect that the resultant infrastructure burden is why Nissan/Ford/Mercedes H2 vehicles now seem to be postponed until next decade and the 200mile EVs for Nissan (and Ford) are coming instead. Reasons why 350 to 700bar results in such high infrastructure cost are suitable for consideration in this thread.
pursuit of 700 bar also degrades and range of a 350 bar optimized HFC, increases the cost of a 350 bar optimized HFC and added unnecessary risk to the choice of on-board pressure tanks.
Secondly, avoidance of adding a plug for recharging is also major misstep of the hydrogen. Yes recharge plugs are anathema to hydrogen manufacturers, but they do vastly reduce the dependence on hydrogen infrastructure. Even a 8.8 kwh prius prime type battery would massively improve the viability of the Toyota Mirai. Same for Hyundais and Hondas etc. People don't buy 700bar hydrogen tanked cars just to let the car sit on public roads so they can be scratched. That was a silly idea,
A correlation is if Tesla had put all there superchargers at equivalent locations of the H2 stations, and forced people to only recharge there. Funny straw man idea, very likely would've bankrupt Tesla.
The first and second point were and are major, the third point is quite debatable and possibly wrong, H2 cars give the appearance of greenwashing, yet are not green. There was blowback, that hydrogen could've avoided if they had not pretended to be low global emission.
By 2008, with a little research it was apparent that H2 was pointless, and by late 2012 early 2013, due to Tesla model S, it was apparent to the wider public that EVs were both the future and the present. Counter arguments to that belong in the EV vs HFC thread.
what missteps did hydrogen vehicles do. That is what this thread is about.
Firstly, the pursuit of 700bar. The resulting infrastructure cost from the 350 to 700 bar transition i think killed hydrogen in general. Personally I suspect that the resultant infrastructure burden is why Nissan/Ford/Mercedes H2 vehicles now seem to be postponed until next decade and the 200mile EVs for Nissan (and Ford) are coming instead. Reasons why 350 to 700bar results in such high infrastructure cost are suitable for consideration in this thread.
pursuit of 700 bar also degrades and range of a 350 bar optimized HFC, increases the cost of a 350 bar optimized HFC and added unnecessary risk to the choice of on-board pressure tanks.
Secondly, avoidance of adding a plug for recharging is also major misstep of the hydrogen. Yes recharge plugs are anathema to hydrogen manufacturers, but they do vastly reduce the dependence on hydrogen infrastructure. Even a 8.8 kwh prius prime type battery would massively improve the viability of the Toyota Mirai. Same for Hyundais and Hondas etc. People don't buy 700bar hydrogen tanked cars just to let the car sit on public roads so they can be scratched. That was a silly idea,
A correlation is if Tesla had put all there superchargers at equivalent locations of the H2 stations, and forced people to only recharge there. Funny straw man idea, very likely would've bankrupt Tesla.
The first and second point were and are major, the third point is quite debatable and possibly wrong, H2 cars give the appearance of greenwashing, yet are not green. There was blowback, that hydrogen could've avoided if they had not pretended to be low global emission.
