Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[epirali]

Well, we agree on the latter, that's for sure!!!

Let me lay it out a little more simply for you; every time you casually proclaim that there are NOT logical reasons for aversion to hydrogen for personal transport, and that it's all FUD (your term), you really put yourself into the "fanboy" corner with your "head in the sand".

Having disagreements on the merits of issues, however, are a different situation altogether.

Ok let's stick to simple: every time you use name calling, personal attacks and don't engage in discussion without reverting to attacks on people you show your position to be weak, and in my eyes you disqualify yourself from rational and useful conversation.

Try sticking to your own last sentence: please limit yourself to the merit of the discussion at hand, if you can.

Yes, Andy, we will all try...

:ugeek:

I think its hilarious, I don't think you are capable of it. I am genuinely smiling!

 

[GRA]

Also, lab development, so years away if ever:

JCAP team reports first complete “artificial leaf”; >10% solar-to-hydrogen conversion efficiency

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/08/20150828-jcap.html

This is the sort of thing that will likely be necessary to get renewable H2 costs down below gasoline. Not only is the energy cheaper than PV, but they are able to use less expensive materials than Pt for the catalyst.

There is nothing cheaper about this technology than PV. Here is what the article actually said:

Peak system efficiencies of 12.6% and 24.6%, respectively, could be obtained by use of an electrolyzer in conjunction with a high-efficiency (21%) Si PV module or a high-efficiency (41%) III-V triple junction PV operated under optical concentration.

Such systems have been demonstrated at commercial, laboratory and research scales, the team said. However, at the commercial level, the high balance of systems cost and low capacity factor results in high levelized hydrogen costs relative to hydrogen produced by steam reforming or grid electrolysis using fossil or low-carbon electricity. Thus, a lower-cost “artificial leaf” technology could offer significant advantages as an alternative.

In other words, hydrogen production through PV-driven hydrolysis is not cost-effective when compared with steam reforming.

Uh, yeah, we knew that.

The researchers are painting a picture for the media of a magical "artificial leaf" which would be cheaper than PV-driven hydrolysis.

We are very far from that point today.

Of course, and the article said so.

Here is what is learned by reading the research materials instead of the just the hype:

Planar III-V layers were grown epitaxially by metal-organic chemical vapour deposition (MOCVD) on an n+-GaAs wafer with a (100)-oriented polished surface (Si-doped, acceptor concentration of 1×10^19 cm^-3 6” diameter).

While there are many semiconductor materials which are superior to Si in many different ways, Si still rules them all because it is cheapest. So while researchers have substituted Ni for Pt as the catalyst, they have also substituted GaAs for Si as the substrate, which far more than nullifies any cost benefits achieved by moving to Ni. (Besides, you have already pointed out the very small amount of Pt needed by current-generation fuel cells.)

Finally, the real cost issue is that this device only lived for 6.5 hours before catastrophic failure:

Figure S1 (a) SEM image of device failure after 6.5 hours of operation, showing cracking of ALD-TiO2 protection layer and corrosion of underlying III-V semiconductors.

Note that according to the Green Car Congress article, the TiO2 layer had to be very thin to allow the light to flow through it:

A major advance that allowed the integrated system to be developed was previous work in Lewis’s laboratory, which showed that adding a nanometers-thick layer of titanium dioxide (TiO2) onto the electrodes could prevent them from corroding while still allowing light and electrons to pass through.

In other words, they cannot simply plate that layer thicker.

This technology has a lifetime of a quarter of a DAY while I have PV modules (along with their associated inverters) on my roof which the manufacturers GUARANTEE to last for a quarter of a CENTURY. PV modules are generally expected to last 50 years or more, but no one really knows how long they last. The 24 PV modules I have in the field have been there for over sixteen years and each and every one of them still produces nearly the same amount of electricity as they did when they were new. So this new technology currently has a deficit of over 35,000X in terms of lifetime and likely 3X - 5X in terms of cost.

As you said, this technology exists only in the lab. It is FAR from having any real use to society.

Sure, and it may never. It's an example of the approaches that are being worked on, and as I explicitly stated may never come to fruition, just like most of the battery advances announced in similar papers. I don't bother to post them in the advanced battery thread, and only post them here occasionally to show the direction research is taking, not because I believe we'll be seeing any of this anytime soon.

 

[TonyWilliams]

I think its hilarious, I don't think you are capable of it. I am genuinely smiling!

Don't worry, I share the reciprocal of your concern.

 

[epirali]

So getting back on topic. It occurred to me maybe a more useful path (rather than pointless back and forth) would be to see if we can come up with a fact based, no opinion allowed, list of items that people who are on different sides of the topic can agree on. I think its an interesting exercise in separation of opinion and bias from factual statements. To that end I am listing items below. What I ask (and am hopeful will be honored) is to have corrections/revision or items missed pointed to and see if we can kind of come up with an agreed upon list. Again the point is to NOT include opinion and conjecture. And to that extent I am trying to eliminate projection into the future, policy discussion, etc. So everything should be based on "now" to reduce devolving into what may or may not happen later.

Also the list is really in no particular order.

1) BEVs are currently 2-2.5x more efficient in use of energy that FCEVs (40% vs 85%).

2) FCEVs at best can hope to match the efficiency of BEVs (this is based on physics not technology).

3) FCEVs can gain more miles/minute than BEVs (100 miles/min vs 5 mile/min, I am using best Tesla Supercharger rate 150 mile/30 min).

4) BEVs are much less expensive and less complex to manufacture and sell.

5) BEVs are cheaper to operate per mile (fuel/energy cost).

6) BEVs at best can match the range of FCEVs per "fill up."

7) BEVs offer much more convenience to the portion of the population with home charging.

8) FCEVs offer more convenience to city dwellers/population who does not have easy access to charging.

9) FCEVs weigh less for a given range than BEVs (4078 vs 4676 for Model S P85).

10) Currently there is a very large advantage in public infrastructure for BEVs than FCEVs in most large cities in the US.

I am sure there is a lot missing from this list. But its a start.

 

[epirali]

I think its hilarious, I don't think you are capable of it. I am genuinely smiling!

Don't worry, I share the reciprocal of your concern.

Well that it is puzzling considering I do not share you need or tendency to name call people or engage in personal attacks. If you find any examples of me attacking people like you do, or name calling, please provide a link and I will promptly and publicly apologize.

 

[TonyWilliams]

I think its hilarious, I don't think you are capable of it. I am genuinely smiling!

Don't worry, I share the reciprocal of your concern.

Well that it is puzzling considering I do not share you need or tendency to name call people or engage in personal attacks. If you find any examples of me attacking people like you do, or name calling, please provide a link and I will promptly and publicly apologize.

I've previously identified them, multiple times.

 

[TonyWilliams]

So getting back on topic. It occurred to me maybe a more useful path (rather than pointless back and forth) would be to see if we can come up with a fact based, no opinion allowed, list of items that people who are on different sides of the topic can agree on.

Since that is exactly what I have done a few posts up, and what I previously did with Andy, it makes sense why this method "just occurred to you".

What I already learned in dealing with Andy is that facts really don't matter.

 

[epirali]

I've previously identified them, multiple times.

Actually no, you have not, and saying it doesn't make it true. Please point to an exact post or quote.

 

[epirali]

So getting back on topic. It occurred to me maybe a more useful path (rather than pointless back and forth) would be to see if we can come up with a fact based, no opinion allowed, list of items that people who are on different sides of the topic can agree on.

Since that is exactly what I have done a few posts up, and what I previously did with Andy, it makes sense why this method "just occurred to you".

What I already learned in dealing with Andy is that facts really don't matter.

Well then don't deal with Andy with facts, whatever that means to you. But your point is irrelevant here.

Yes it did occur to me, because I have not, in fact, seen you list facts in its complete form. Rather you present a highly biased version that supports your point. My attempt here, and obviously it is not for you I see, is to get a complete list from all sides, without bias, that can be agreed upon. Feel free to sit out of that part, or re-read your own list if it is indeed complete.

BTW may I suggest that you consider not posting a response if in fact you do not want to adhere to the parameters of the post as requested? I know, its just crazy to say something like that, but hey, I am just that crazy!

 

[TonyWilliams]

1) BEVs are currently 2-2.5x more efficient in use of energy that FCEVs (40% vs 85%).

True, but the variable needs to be larger to satisfy all conditions.

2) FCEVs at best can hope to match the efficiency of BEVs (this is based on physics not technology).

Not true at the same CO2 output level. Not even close.

3) FCEVs can gain more miles/minute than BEVs (100 miles/min vs 5 mile/min, I am using best Tesla Supercharger rate 150 mile/30 min).

True, except you missed out on battery swapping, that is available from Tesla today.

4) BEVs are much less expensive and less complex to manufacture and sell.

True, if you're talking about comparable performance hydrogen cars as the comparison metric. This needs no debate, as it will likely ALWAYS be true.

5) BEVs are cheaper to operate per mile (fuel/energy cost).

If you want "facts", you need to state what all the metrics... EVs are cheaper than what? A horse? Space ship? Gasoline car? Hydrogen car?

EVs and hybrids operated in EV mode only are cheaper to operate than a comparable performance H2 powered car by a factor XX.

Now we can debate XX.

6) BEVs at best can match the range of FCEVs per "fill up."

Autonomous range, yes. Practical range, absolutely not. Once again, glib statements are easy to poke holes in.

7) BEVs offer much more convenience to the portion of the population with home charging.

Certainly, home charging with automatic methods are the MOST convenient, but those don't yet have widespread appeal (and I believe weight and cost will keep automated systems on the sidelines).

8) FCEVs offer more convenience to city dwellers/population who does not have easy access to charging.

Pure bullshit. 99.99% of the world population has absolutely ZERO access to hydrogen cars, or infrastructure.

9) FCEVs weigh less for a given range than BEVs (4078 vs 4676 for Model S P85).

Your Toyota car is not the same car as a Tesla Model S or X. Not a valid comparison.

10) Currently there is a very large advantage in public infrastructure for BEVs than FCEVs in most large cities in the US.

Another bullshit statement. For 99.99% of the world population, there is not viable hydrogen infrastructure. It's not even a comparison with EVs.

I am sure there is a lot missing from this list. But its a start.

I'm glad you recognize the weaknesses of your statements.

 

[TonyWilliams]

BTW may I suggest that you consider not posting a response if in fact you do not want to adhere to the parameters of the post as requested? I know, its just crazy to say something like that, but hey, I am just that crazy!

Yes, I'm starting to think that's true. Given what I know, a seemingly disgruntled Tesla Roadster owner advocating hydrogen cars, while claiming EV advocates are somehow HARMING the overall goal of zero emissions falls into the head scratching area.

 

[epirali]

BTW may I suggest that you consider not posting a response if in fact you do not want to adhere to the parameters of the post as requested? I know, its just crazy to say something like that, but hey, I am just that crazy!

Yes, I'm starting to think that's true. Given what I know, a seemingly disgruntled Tesla Roadster owner advocating hydrogen cars, while claiming EV advocates are somehow HARMING the overall goal of zero emissions falls into the head scratching area.

Ok a few corrections:

1) I am in no way a disgruntled Roadster owner, it is my second favorite car and I will keep it until it falls to bits.

2) I am advocating hydrogen as having a place in the mix of cars,

3) And for the Nth time you are misstating my statement: I said EV owners who are into PURITY over results are harming the cause of zero emissions. Like for example, not seeing that hydrogen cars have a place in the world.

But please feel free to misstate my beliefs and positions. I'll just have to correct them.

 

[epirali]

1) BEVs are currently 2-2.5x more efficient in use of energy that FCEVs (40% vs 85%).

True, but the variable needs to be larger to satisfy all conditions.

2) FCEVs at best can hope to match the efficiency of BEVs (this is based on physics not technology).

Not true at the same CO2 output level. Not even close.

3) FCEVs can gain more miles/minute than BEVs (100 miles/min vs 5 mile/min, I am using best Tesla Supercharger rate 150 mile/30 min).

True, except you missed out on battery swapping, that is available from Tesla today.

4) BEVs are much less expensive and less complex to manufacture and sell.

True, if you're talking about comparable performance hydrogen cars as the comparison metric. This needs no debate, as it will likely ALWAYS be true.

5) BEVs are cheaper to operate per mile (fuel/energy cost).

If you want "facts", you need to state what all the metrics... EVs are cheaper than what? A horse? Space ship? Gasoline car? Hydrogen car?

EVs and hybrids operated in EV mode only are cheaper to operate than a comparable performance H2 powered car by a factor XX.

Now we can debate XX.

6) BEVs at best can match the range of FCEVs per "fill up."

Autonomous range, yes. Practical range, absolutely not. Once again, glib statements are easy to poke holes in.

7) BEVs offer much more convenience to the portion of the population with home charging.

Certainly, home charging with automatic methods are the MOST convenient, but those don't yet have widespread appeal (and I believe weight and cost will keep automated systems on the sidelines).

8) FCEVs offer more convenience to city dwellers/population who does not have easy access to charging.

Pure bullshit. 99.99% of the world population has absolutely ZERO access to hydrogen cars, or infrastructure.

9) FCEVs weigh less for a given range than BEVs (4078 vs 4676 for Model S P85).

Your Toyota car is not the same car as a Tesla Model S or X. Not a valid comparison.

10) Currently there is a very large advantage in public infrastructure for BEVs than FCEVs in most large cities in the US.

Another bullshit statement. For 99.99% of the world population, there is not viable hydrogen infrastructure. It's not even a comparison with EVs.

I am sure there is a lot missing from this list. But its a start.

I'm glad you recognize the weaknesses of your statements.

Thanks a few requests and questions if I may: please refrain from using words like "bullshit" as honestly that is opinion. Let's stick to facts.

1) I am not trying to get all conditions, I am trying to keep a realistic balance on average.

2) I was not talking about CO2, rather efficiency. As for CO2 you statement is not correct in light of direct hydrolysis using say solar power, so can you clarify and/or can we add an item about CO2?

3) I am pretty sure battery swapping has been demonstrated but is not available, can you please correct?

5) Sorry should have been clearer, I was comparing BEVs to FCEVs per mile.

6) I honestly have no idea what you mean, can you please clarify?

8) I am excluding those who have no access to filling stations, as we are talking about today. Not globally.

9) Then explain why not. Batteries way a lot, and the Toyota is a comparable size vehicle to the Model S. So what is your statement based on?

10) And so my point is valid and your disagreement is what exactly if you take out your opinion part?

 

[TonyWilliams]

1) I am in no way a disgruntled Roadster owner, it is my second favorite car and I will keep it until it falls to bits.

Interesting. Your posts have not, to date, have not even hinted to that.

2) I am advocating hydrogen as having a place in the mix of cars,

Well, we just disagree with you on that for the dozens of reasons posted (that you just casually ignore, usually with some post like, "well, you guys only have this one iddy biddy reason to dislike hydrogen"). Statements like that are what put you in the Andy camp.

3) And for the Nth time you are misstating my statement: I said EV owners who are into PURITY over results are harming the cause of zero emissions. Like for example, not seeing that hydrogen cars have a place in the world.

Zero emissions is "purity", and to date, only viable with solar / hydro / wind / wave powered electricity into a battery storage device for cars.

So, no, hydrogen has virtually no place in that mix using fracked fossil fuels (polluting water with chemicals and the atmosphere with CO2 and other pollutants) at a cost that is hundreds of percent more cost per unit of travel with a comparable performance EV.

Hydrogen from the same renewables used by a storage battery in an EV is just the latter, hundreds of percent more expensive.

This is in addition to all the other reasons enumerated frequently on this thread about why hydrogen is a poor choice for cars.

 

[GRA]

So getting back on topic. It occurred to me maybe a more useful path (rather than pointless back and forth) would be to see if we can come up with a fact based, no opinion allowed, list of items that people who are on different sides of the topic can agree on. I think its an interesting exercise in separation of opinion and bias from factual statements. To that end I am listing items below. What I ask (and am hopeful will be honored) is to have corrections/revision or items missed pointed to and see if we can kind of come up with an agreed upon list. Again the point is to NOT include opinion and conjecture. And to that extent I am trying to eliminate projection into the future, policy discussion, etc. So everything should be based on "now" to reduce devolving into what may or may not happen later.

Also the list is really in no particular order.

1) BEVs are currently 2-2.5x more efficient in use of energy that FCEVs (40% vs 85%).

I've seen overall efficiency of 45% claimed for current FCEVs, so maybe 2x would be more correct.

2) FCEVs at best can hope to match the efficiency of BEVs (this is based on physics not technology).

3) FCEVs can gain more miles/minute than BEVs (100 miles/min vs 5 mile/min, I am using best Tesla Supercharger rate 150 mile/30 min).

4) BEVs are much less expensive and less complex to manufacture and sell.

Cheaper to manufacture, probably at the moment, but selling (for comparable range) we don't know, as we have no idea how much Toyota or Hyundai are losing per car.

5) BEVs are cheaper to operate per mile (fuel/energy cost).

Given inexpensive home charging, and certainly with current H2 retail prices, not that any customers are paying that.

6) BEVs at best can match the range of FCEVs per "fill up."

7) BEVs offer much more convenience to the portion of the population with home charging.

8) FCEVs offer more convenience to city dwellers/population who does not have easy access to charging.

9) FCEVs weigh less for a given range than BEVs (4078 vs 4676 for Model S P85).

10) Currently there is a very large advantage in public infrastructure for BEVs than FCEVs in most large cities in the US.

I am sure there is a lot missing from this list. But its a start.

 

[GRA]

3) FCEVs can gain more miles/minute than BEVs (100 miles/min vs 5 mile/min, I am using best Tesla Supercharger rate 150 mile/30 min).

True, except you missed out on battery swapping, that is available from Tesla today.

Yes, although in only a single site, and it doesn't seem to be very popular. I suspect it will take leased, standardized batteries to make swapping a viable option, but that's opinion, not a statement of fact.

4) BEVs are much less expensive and less complex to manufacture and sell.

True, if you're talking about comparable performance hydrogen cars as the comparison metric. This needs no debate, as it will likely ALWAYS be true.

Again, opinion rather than fact.

5) BEVs are cheaper to operate per mile (fuel/energy cost).

If you want "facts", you need to state what all the metrics... EVs are cheaper than what? A horse? Space ship? Gasoline car? Hydrogen car?

EVs and hybrids operated in EV mode only are cheaper to operate than a comparable performance H2 powered car by a factor XX.

Now we can debate XX.

6) BEVs at best can match the range of FCEVs per "fill up."

Autonomous range, yes. Practical range, absolutely not. Once again, glib statements are easy to poke holes in.

It's obvious he is referring to autonomous range, as any car without infrastructure will have limited practical range.

7) BEVs offer much more convenience to the portion of the population with home charging.

Certainly, home charging with automatic methods are the MOST convenient, but those don't yet have widespread appeal (and I believe weight and cost will keep automated systems on the sidelines).

8) FCEVs offer more convenience to city dwellers/population who does not have easy access to charging.

Pure bullshit. 99.99% of the world population has absolutely ZERO access to hydrogen cars, or infrastructure.

It seems plain the statement assumes the necessary H2 fueling infrastructure. However, to make it clear, it should read something like: "FCEVs offer more convenience to city dwellers/population who do not have guaranteed access to convenient charging at/near home or work, but do have access to an H2 fuel station near home or work, or along a frequently traveled route." That also applies to gas stations, or any other fast (ca. 5-10 minutes) refueling site.

9) FCEVs weigh less for a given range than BEVs (4078 vs 4676 for Model S P85).

Your Toyota car is not the same car as a Tesla Model S or X. Not a valid comparison.

They're the only production EV cars with true road-trip range, and not that far apart in size. However, since you've got a B-class BEV, and Mercedes also made a B-class FCHEV with the same motor, we can compare them: the FCEV has a curb weight of 3,750 lb., and a claimed range of 190-250 miles (in 2011) depending on the source. A more modern fuel cell stack like the one in the Mirai would presumably have a higher power density. The B-class BEV has a curb weight of 3,858 lb., and a range of 103? or 113? miles depending on how it's measured.

10) Currently there is a very large advantage in public infrastructure for BEVs than FCEVs in most large cities in the US.

Another bullshit statement. For 99.99% of the world population, there is not viable hydrogen infrastructure. It's not even a comparison with EVs.

Note the bolded section; your reply is currently correct, but not on point. Of course, in those countries outside the U.S. that are pushing H2 infrastructure, as well as in major Californian and Northeastern U.S. metro areas, that will change considerably in the next year or two.

I am sure there is a lot missing from this list. But its a start.

I'm glad you recognize the weaknesses of your statements.

Really, this constant snarkiness is unnecessary, and adds nothing to the discussion.

 

[TonyWilliams]

All my responses to the "statements" were based on the stated TODAY metric.

So, every time you change that metric, you're off on a tangent. Like I said originally, we likely won't find statements to agree on, in part, because there is biased intent, inaccurate and with unstated assumptions in most of them.

For example, if you're talking about autonomous range, state so. Details matter. This isn't pedantic, if the goal is to find a concensus.

Why not try exactly one statement at a time:

"EVs and hybrids operated in EV mode only are cheaper to operate than a comparable performance H2 powered car by a factor XX."

 

[epirali]

1) I am in no way a disgruntled Roadster owner, it is my second favorite car and I will keep it until it falls to bits.

Interesting. Your posts have not, to date, have not even hinted to that.

2) I am advocating hydrogen as having a place in the mix of cars,

Well, we just disagree with you on that for the dozens of reasons posted (that you just casually ignore, usually with some post like, "well, you guys only have this one iddy biddy reason to dislike hydrogen"). Statements like that are what put you in the Andy camp.

3) And for the Nth time you are misstating my statement: I said EV owners who are into PURITY over results are harming the cause of zero emissions. Like for example, not seeing that hydrogen cars have a place in the world.

Zero emissions is "purity", and to date, only viable with solar / hydro / wind / wave powered electricity into a battery storage device for cars.

So, no, hydrogen has virtually no place in that mix using fracked fossil fuels (polluting water with chemicals and the atmosphere with CO2 and other pollutants) at a cost that is hundreds of percent more cost per unit of travel with a comparable performance EV.

Hydrogen from the same renewables used by a storage battery in an EV is just the latter, hundreds of percent more expensive.

This is in addition to all the other reasons enumerated frequently on this thread about why hydrogen is a poor choice for cars.

Appreciate the comments. No one has ever asked nor has there been a context to comment about my like/dislike of the roadster. I have commented when appropriate that I am a BIG/HUGE fan of BEVs, own 3 versions now and owned a Leaf that I recently passed to a co-worker. I think people assume just because someone differs in views that there is an automatic polarization. I have managed to get 3 other people in my office to get BEVs from essentially showing them my cars, letting them borrow them, etc. My post about the Roadster that you assumed was "disgruntled" was not, I was merely pointing out that BEVs have their own potential costly repairs.

And I have never said "you have one iddy biddy reason," and in fact have listed and included the reasons against FCEVs in my list (and have never actually discounted those). I don't agree on some, like the misstatement that hydrogen/FCEVs must have a carbon footprint. But I have also never disagreed that they are not nearly as efficient, rather than if there is a trade off between efficiency and adoption I'll take adoption, and I understand that is not a position others share. My general position is that hydrogen chain/FCEVs are very early in the commercialization stage and I see more potential for them long term. Which again I understand is NOT shared by you and others here.

 

[epirali]

Ok I have taken a crack at trying to incorporate the comments/points raised, so I am reposting with the changes. Again please further elaborate errors you feel are there, or things that may be "opinion" so they can be removed or made more factual. I do want to add a section of future things, but I have a feeling that will be much more contentious. So maybe if we can all agree on common facts before we move to that?

I am sticking to the 2-2.5x more efficient mainly because as a perceived hydrogen advocate I don't want to be accused of trying to make EVs look weaker. In fact I have taken the most optimistic version of BEVs and the most realistic of FCEVs that I could to try to be more than balanced. I was even going to suggest it would be interesting to flip positions and have each side honestly try to argue for the other, but I have a feeling that won't go so well.

Also anyone want to add a statement about current CO2 impact? I don't want to be the sole generator of facts just to prevent being accused of trying to tilt the list. My thought would be something like "FCEVs have a much more significant CO2 in use than BEVs with current available hydrogen vs electricity sources."
-----
1) BEVs are currently 2-2.5x more efficient in use of energy that FCEVs on an average/typical use case (40% vs 85%).

2) FCEVs at best can hope to match the efficiency of BEVs (this is based on physics not technology).

3) FCEVs can gain more miles/minute than BEVs (100 miles/min vs 5 mile/min, I am using best Tesla Supercharger rate 150 mile/30 min).

4) BEVs are currently much less expensive and less complex to manufacture and sell.

5) BEVs are cheaper to operate per mile (fuel/energy cost) the FCEVs by a factor of X (???).

6) BEVs at best can match the range of FCEVs per "fill up" in conditions where both sources are available.

7) BEVs offer much more convenience to the portion of the population with home charging.

8) FCEVs offer more convenience to city dwellers/population who do not have guaranteed access to convenient charging at/near home or work, but do have access to an H2 fuel station near home or work, or along a frequently traveled route.

9) FCEVs weigh less for a given range than BEVs (4078 vs 4676 for Model S P85).

10) Currently there is a very large advantage in public infrastructure for BEVs than FCEVs in most large cities WORLDWIDE.

 

[Zythryn]

... if there is a trade off between efficiency and adoption I'll take adoption, and I understand that is not a position others share. ...

I do not believe anybody disagrees with that position.
What people disagree with is that FCVs will garner more adoption that plugin vehicles.
Yes, there is a place for them, but not nearly for as large a place as plugins hold.