Ask Lemmy

In a vacuum, sure, hydrogen for personal vehicles is great. In reality, though, you're down at about 30% efficiency between the H2 geting extracted from wherever, and you gassing up your car.

Additionally, if more than 5% of that H2 escapes into the atmosphere at any time, it actually does more damage to the planet than fossil fuels, by preoccupying the hydroxyl radicals in the sky that would otherwise be breaking down greenhouse gases.

Add on to that, that if I actually had to pay for hydrogen fuel, it would cost me 6x as much per mile to run my Hyundai Nexo than a Prius. H2 in SoCal is currently $36/kg at the pump, having doubled or nearly tripled in price in the last 18 months. (Somehow, in Korea it's only $2/kg.)

H2 fuel cell tech has its place as a fuel (but not in combustion engines like BMW is trying to do though... that's just a farce). Trucks/long-haul vehicles, planes, ships all would be better off running H2. It fuels up fast, is way lighter than any battery, and is pretty darn energy dense. But for around-town driving, BEVs right now are just a much better option. Their problem is heavy batteries and comparatively longer fueling time than gasoline/hydrogen.

Fossil fuels are just amazingly energy dense, and we're not going to replace them 1:1 any time soon. Every alternative involves massive tradeoffs.

Source: I own a 2022 Hyundai Nexo hydrogen SUV. Love it as a car, but most of the H2 fueling stations are broken down half the time (you need to check an app to see which one, if any, are currently working), and the price of the fuel in the US is no longer viable. When my free fuel card expires in 2025, I'll be getting either a BEV or PHEV. Lucid or Polaris are looking nice.

I 100% wholeheartedly agree, but to actively lobby against the use of other clean alternatives that show promise are better established setting back the environmental progress make in this industry, just because they want to make the big money on THEIR clean technology, is what I have issue with. That is crappy in my books.

Hi, thanks for the extra information you clearly know your stuff on this topic. See my reply above, I seem to have been misunderstood sorry if I was unclear. I have zero issue with hydrogen technologies for vehicles, they're great, and even better in some ways than battery options. My issue is solely with Toyota actively avoiding going full electric themselves and lobbying EVs due to their heavy investment in hydrogen. I wasn't actually aware Honda had sunk in as much as Toyota in this area as well so thanks for the extra info. LIke with anything (especially with a list as long as mine!) I don't pretend to know everything, but it was certainly my understanding that Toyota was fighting against battery EV's specifically because of their desire to get a lead foothold in the hydrogen vehicle sector and make this the dominant clean option, perhaps I was mistaken!

You're 100% correct, fundamentally the drive system is still electric motors (and all the advantages that come with that!) I would have to disagree that lithium-ion EV is doomed, I think it's better to conceptualize it as a stepping stone technology, I think we will move away from Li-Ion in the relatively near future, but it has supercharged (pun intended) investment and research in battery technologies (lithium fluoride, solid state, etc.) that will likely take over this mantle. I would be surprised given the necessary infrastructure, and lack of adoption thusfar if hydrogen did become the dominant mode of power in vehicles, but any of these would be a step in the right direction even if none are perfect currently. Thanks for your comment, I added some more on my thoughts on hydrogen in replies above as well!