BEVs are way too heavy. The future will move away from them and towards lighter technologies.
@Hypx I just don't think that a multimillion-dollar sports car with a production run of 33 is a useful example of where the #EV industry is headed. That massively oversized 102kWh battery is there only to ensure enough current to saturate all three motors. vehicles with more reasonable performance expectations will not need batteries that large.
@antares 102 kWh is not that big for high-end BEVs. This is indicative of the norm.
Also, a smaller battery will mean a shortish range. You’re not going to drop the weight by much without compromises.
@Hypx Again, High-end is not representative of the general market. My M3 LR which I drive 280 miles between Sacramento and the Central Coast on a full charge has a battery only 60% that size. My car is still heavier that a comparable ICE sedan, but not to such an extent that it is "way too heavy." It weighs less than the F250 Superduity that I'm borrowing to help us move, and no one has any complaints about it being too heavy.
@antares Because it is a compact car, not a pick-up truck. It is far heavier than a Civic or Corolla that is the same size as. You need to let go of your car fanboyism, and realize that BEVs are not the conclusion of the car industry. Just like in the tech industry, newer ideas will appear and will have advantages over the current technology.
@Hypx I look forward to this bright and glorious future! I will be at the front of the line for the first viable super capacitor car, but I will be shocked if I can buy one by 2033.
However usually when people talk alternatives to BEVs that might hit the market in the next 10 years, they are hinting at #FCEV technology. While I'd love to be proven wrong, I just don't think hydrogen is going to be a better ICE alternative. The engineering challenges of storing molecular hydrogen are too bulky and expensive, and the fuel itself is - almost by definition - going to be more expensive per mile that hydrocarbons.
Do you have some other technology in mind?
@Hypx Now who is being the fanboy?
@antares Who is blatantly lying in defense of the limitations of a technology? That is the BEV industry. You should get serious about the physical limitations of batteries. Same is true when they lie about alternative ideas. It is its own form of science denial, not that much different than climate change denial.
There will be alternatives regardless of how strongly BEV companies say otherwise. It is important to realize it, not to deny it.
@Hypx Find my full response here: https://qoto.org/@antares/110986868805276550
@antares That's just a repeat of BEV propaganda. It's total bullshit. Here's the real truth:
FCEVs are also EVs. There is no fundamental reason why we must have BEVs. In fact, there is very little difference in basic design, and in the long run both will be more alike than different.
Furthermore, many of the "problems" of hydrogen are made-up or greatly exaggerated. We already have FCEVs that can drive hundreds of miles. There are no fundamental problems left to solve.
@antares The only real point is the cost of operation, but even that is just a temporary phenomenon. It is 10x cheaper to move hydrogen around than electricity, and with tons of excess and curtailed electricity being produced by renewables, this will change. In the long-run, you can expect it to cost no more run a hydrogen car than a BEV.
https://www.brinknews.com/could-hydrogen-replace-the-need-for-an-electric-grid/
@Hypx I can think of lots of better options for excess renewables domestically in the USA where there is not a particular location that is electricity poor. I agree that over long distances molecules are more efficient than aluminum or copper wire. However, if we are going to turn power into gas, lets go a step further drop a carbon atom in the middle and we can use the even less expensive existing natural gas network including LNG for transoceanic transport. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2020.570112/full
@antares No you can't. The only alternative is letting it go entirely to waste.
Adding carbon back into the equation now means dealing with CO₂ and methane emissions. Carbon capture will have to exist at scale. This makes things more complicated.
If it can be done with hydrogen, it probably will. Hydrocarbons won't come back unless there is a specific need for them.
@Hypx Here in the US West the best use of excess power is to pump water up one side of a hill during the afternoon and [recapture the power](https://clui.org/ludb/site/castaic-power-plant) as it goes down the other side in the evening. Desalination is another useful option that doesn't add any power to the grid but is arguably a higher and better use of the excess solar power than transportation. On a more localized scale, one could use it to freeze water and then cool buildings with the ice in the late afternoon when solar production drops but cooling demand peeks. A [molten salt battery](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rechargeable-molten-salt-battery-freezes-energy-in-place-for-long-term-storage/) is another option though admittedly not significantly superior to hydrogen generation in terms of power storage.
@antares You will run out of water long before you capture all of that power. It is simply not a sufficient solution.
All of your ideas are low-effectiveness and sometimes inefficient energy storage ideas. If you can be bothered to look at molten salt energy storage, then you'll find hydrogen a vastly superior idea. This is further augmented by the fact that hydrogen has huge industrial uses, something none of the alternatives have.
@Hypx @antares You are touching on a topic that has been discussed at length for at least 40 years; how to best build a grid. In Ontario there was a proposal back in 1980s to continue to build out nuclear above baseload and absorb the load valleys below peak demand with electrolysis. This was abandoned in favour of building gas peaking plants. Ironically this gas is what has enabled Ontario’s renewable generation (mostly wind) to be added to the grid.
@antares Most of your criticisms of hydrogen cars are BEV talking points. They are factually incorrect. In reality, hydrogen cars are both simpler and cheaper than BEVs. Even the storage system is more compact by volume. Volume production of FCEVs will reveal this.
BEV companies are simply creating a narrative of TINA (There is no alternative) as a way to dissuade any discussion of alternative options. It is really a form of FUD.