Tesla owners fuming as they get £17,000 bill to fix car after 'driving in rain'
Johnny Bacigalupo and Rob Hussey have been hit with a £17,000 bill to fix their Tesla after it was damaged in the rain - they have been told to pay even if they say it's not their fault
You're viewing a single thread.
BEVs are a dead-end technology. It just replaces an unsustainable dependency on fossil fuels with an unsustainable dependency on batteries and battery-related mining.
In reality, the future will be hydrogen cars, with an outside chance of synfuel/e-fuel cars.
EDIT: Sorry, but no amount of lying to yourself will make BEVs a viable technology. It is a dead-end and always will be.
Maybe the future is not relying on any one technology as our only option.
Nah, that doesn't make sense at all.
Agreed. BEVs make sense as short-ranged urban commuter cars. You don't want a car with a giant, expensive battery. But this is a niche, so you quickly realize that something else must be the answer.
For a lot of cases, it is either mass transit or e-bikes. But if you must have a car, it must be something that matches the functionality of ICE cars while being zero emissions.
Since when is a 300 mile range “short range”? And it only takes a half hour or so at a good charger to regain the majority of that range. Modern electric cars are perfectly reasonable for long distance trips, provided there’s charging infrastructure, of course.
Do any of them actually have 300 mile range? Like an actual human being can drive them on real roads for 300 miles without charging?
Behold, Bjørn Nyland's test result spreadsheet.
It depends on how heavy your foot is, really. Hilariously, the FCEV Mirai doesn't top the charts, especially for high speeds.
Mostly when people see the price of top end EVs they decide that they aren't in that much of a hurry and taking a break every couple of hours would be okay. Same thing happens when you put an expensive battery swap station next to a cheap fast charger, people look at the price difference and decide they aren't in that much of a hurry.
But this guy who's off his meds thinks people will pay a premium for hydrogen instead of just peeing and stretching their legs while they wait.
Personally, my 200 mile EV has taken me everywhere I've wanted to go and when I stop and charge it's ready to go again before I am.
Personally, my 200 mile EV has taken me everywhere I've wanted to go and when I stop and charge it's ready to go again before I am.
And that's the key.
As long as EV range > Bladder range and they charge fast enough that the toilet break time is similar to charging time, then it doesn't matter.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
It just feels like way too low to me. Maybe you're right and it's not, but nowadays I get some 600 km (some 370 miles according to Google) from my petrol-based car for a full tank and I'm quite used to that.
Anyway, to paraphrase you a bit, I've looked at the prices of EVs and decided I'm not in that much of a hurry to switch to them.
The main difference is you mostly don't take them somewhere special to fill them up, so you aren't thinking about "how long before I have to fill up again".
An EV charges overnight and starts off each day with a full charge, so it's all about daily usage and long trips. Going days without charging isn't a useful thing to do, where filling a gas car every day would be a pain in the ass.
Prices are still fairly high, but they're dropping fast and the used market is picking up steam.
A few, very expensive BEVs do. Think Lucid Air and the like. But they're not economically viable vehicles.
And a brand new, cutting edge hydrogen vehicle is economically viable? Your arguments are all retarded man lol
An FCEV is able to do 400 miles at a much lower price right now. And that's with very low rate of production.
Okay, and is the car economically viable for millions of people? Is the fuel?
It will be soon. It's already cheaper than similarly long-ranged BEVs. It is simply in an earlier state of adoption.
To get a long-ranged BEV, you need a giant battery. That means massive repair bills down the road. Only by limiting range to a small number can this be avoided. Saying that BEVs can have 300 miles of range is missing the point. It is just too expensive to get there.
There is now technology that can let you refuel in 5 minutes, give you 300-400 miles of range, while also being a type of EV. As a result, it no longer matters that BEVs are "good enough." It is simply not the most practical idea. Something else is flat-out better.
Your alternative is not better, because it’s not in mass production. When it’s in production it might be better.
But there are still a lot of problems to work out with hydrogen fuel, and the infrastructure is extremely expensive and complicated compared to simple charging stations.
It will be mass produced. The main difference is that there will be much less need for raw materials. So it will be much cheaper.
There's very little left to solve for hydrogen cars. It's mostly outdated bullshit coming from competing industries. The only real problem left is getting it to mass production. Once that happens, hydrogen cars will be as cheap as ICE cars, and hydrogen fuel will be cheaper than gasoline.
You're completely ignoring the fact that it takes 3 to 5 times as much energy to actually drive a hydrogen car, because of the (in)efficiencies of the hydrogen production, supply and consumption chains.
And given that the driving of a car is what consumes the most energy in its lifetime, the much higher efficiency of a BEV 'pays off' the higher production costs, both monetarily and ecologically.
That's just bullshit from BEV companies. At best, it's something like 2x. At worse, it will take less energy, because you have waste energy from renewables. Wind and solar farms have a tendency to produce energy all-at-once, and shut down all-at-once too. You need massive amounts of energy storage to solve this. And the cheapest way of doing this is with hydrogen.
So as a result, you just get a lot of super-cheap hydrogen that otherwise can't be used. BEV don't solve this problem at all, leading to a lot of wasted energy.
Finally, fuel cells are also electrochemical systems, just like batteries. The notion that batteries will always be more efficient is just another lie from the BEV companies. In the long-run, this will be a unanimous win from fuel cells, because they will be equally efficient while also been much cheaper.
No, that is physics.
You could stand to learn some of it.
Physics state that both are types of EVs. Both fuel cells and batteries are electrochemical systems. In fact, you can literally call a hydrogen fuel cell a hydrogen-air battery.
So whoever comes out and say "but muh physics" has no idea what he's talking about. If you really knew physics, you'd know that there's holding back FCEVs in physics.
Battery technology will be improved. Look at how much better today's lithium ion batteries are than the NiCad batteries of the 90s.
At some point, we'll develop something that doesn't wear out for tens of thousands of charge cycles.
And fuel cells will also improve. Why not invest in an alternative? At the very least, you have a backup plan.
Also, fuel cells are electrochemical devices just like batteries. They arguable are batteries. So there's no reason to not accept fuel cells.
Batteries will improve. So there's no reason to not accept them.
I smell an angry Nikola investor.
They will just end up being a niche idea that won't solve climate change.
No car will.
Hydrogen can solve a lot of industrial problems too. BEVs only work for cars. As a result, it is an expensive distraction.
Hydrogen can not be improved. It will still seep through containers no matter what material you use because hydrogen atoms are just so damn small.
They are 2 fundamentally different problems, and only one can be actually improved. And that is the battery storage.
That's gibberish. All technology improves. And with hydrogen, you already start off with the highest possible energy density. And fuel cells are electrochemical systems, just like batteries. Saying batteries can improve also imply fuel cells can improve.
Massive repair bills like you would have with an ICE engine and transmission or hydrogen fuel cell. Turns out vehicles, regardless of what they're powered with, are expensive to fix.
Short range urban commuting is the domain of subways and ebikes
Wow man. You have the highest proportional mix of someone being both highly opinionated and highly misinformed that I've witnessed in quite a while. Congrats, I guess 🎉
You're being eaten alive here because you are confidently wrong about many things and seem to be blind to criticism
Because in reality, this thread is filled with brainwashed BEV fanatics. Either they have been fooled by Musk, or they are investors in some BEV company.
A real problem, if you believe that is going to be a massive distraction to solving climate change.
Ultimately, if you were in my shoes, you do the same thing. You have to. It is the only morally acceptable thing to do if you believe what I believe.
Bud, have you even spent any time around here? I can't think of a group of people more gleefully critical of Musk. He's reviled around here
You say you believe these things, but have shared nothing but flimsy opinion without facts. That's not reality, that's faith. It might be a great time to reconsider whose actually brainwashed.
I'm sure there's plenty of Musk haters. But there's still plenty of people still believing in him. Or still believing in past lies they haven't realized were lies.
Classic example of heels firmly dug in with no interest in reality. Good luck with all of that bullshit
Some of you guys are so detached from reality, you can't even realize that you just propping up some outdated Fascist bullshit that almost no one on the left believes in anymore.
In case you weren't aware, even Joe Biden is promoting hydrogen. At some point, you have to make an assessment of whose water you're really carrying.
There it is. I see now which echo chamber you've crawled out of. Crawl back, please, back into your troglodyte hole
Ask yourself that. Which echo chamber did you fall into? What Troglodyte hole are you in?
Unless you think I just made up the story about Joe Biden promoting hydrogen, then you're the one that is caught repeating the same story as a Fascist.
Why do you think we're brainwashed BEV fanatics? We're not blind, we just think it's decent for now. We're just not hydrogen-brainwashed fanatics like you? What's wrong with that? I drive a cheap ass honda civic with no hope of affording EV or HV, but I like the idea of BEV over the gas/diesel does that mean I'm brainwashed BEV fanatic? I'd love to see hydrogen-fueled vehicles as viable, but it's not happening now other than only two models.
People here are actively rejecting the possibility of an alternative type of EV. For most of them, only the BEV can exist, and anything is reflexively rejected. It's not the first time they behave like that, so don't think they are coming from nowhere and are just asking questions. It's purely an act of defensiveness, likely to defend their car purposes or their investments.
Right now EVs can be charged at home with power they can generate themselves via solar panels. How is going back to a gas station a better and more convenient solution? Also, you think battery tech will never evolve?
Because millions of people cannot change at home. They don't have a garage to charge in.
Not to mention you will need a "gas station" for long distance driving anyways. Might as well have one infrastructure that serves both purposes.
In fact, this is how the ICE car won over BEVs in the first place. ICE cars were invented before the gas station, but the gas station allows ICE cars to be ubiquitous and available for everyone. As a result, BEVs died out in the early 1900s.
You do realize hydrogen technology can also evolve? FCEVs of the future will be better than FCEVs of today. Furthermore, fuel cells are basically batteries anyways. The moment you start talking about metal-air batteries is the moment you admit defeat, because hydrogen fuel cells are basically hydrogen-air batteries.
There are about 44 Hydrogen fueling stations in the USA right now. Every home and parking structure damn near has at least a power outlet.
Today you can do a cross county road trip with an EV. You can not do that with a Fuel Cell. I don't see that changing. Batteries are just more convenient.
Same could be said of BEVs not that long ago.
And no, it will never be more convenient than a chemical fuel. Once there are more hydrogen stations, no one will bother with slow recharging.
Nobody will? We already do. 🤣
Then why does everyone complain about long recharge times, or long lines at fast charging stations?
Look, you don't have to lie to yourself anymore. There's a technology that can reduce refueling/recharge times to that of a gasoline car. Might as well start talking about the next big idea, not prop up the outdated one.
Look, you don't have to lie to yourself anymore.
This is called projection.
Wrong. Again, my goal is to solve climate change. You're making shit up about why this is happening.
Like I said, you no longer have to lie to yourself about the limitations of BEV. An FCEV refuels in 5 minutes, solving this problem completely. Unless you think I'm making this up, then you are the one projecting here.
Unless you think I'm making this up
We all think you are insecure and borderline mentally ill, if that's what you mean.
The proof is in the pudding. The market has spoken and nobody is buying your pipe dream.
You lost. Get over it.
Bro you're literally not solving climate change with hydrogen vehicles no matter how much you tell people on obscure forums on the interwebs. You'd have much more of an effect on the fossil fuel industry by driving your car into a refinery.
If your goal is to solve climate change then why are you spending all this energy bickering about how you think hydrogen cars are better than EVs? Everyone driving a hydrogen car isn't going to solve climate change.
By itself, no. But you can power basically anything with hydrogen. Pretty much all of industry will switch to hydrogen. Same is true of most of transportation. It's just the BEV fanatic crowd that suddenly has an issue with passenger cars also being powered by hydrogen. In reality, it is a big revolution across many sectors. That will in fact solve climate change or at least greatly reduce the problem.
Those people who don't have a garage to charge in? They're parking their cars somewhere, and odds are those parking spaces are within 100 yards of a power line.
Heck, countries where it's cold enough that gas cars need block heaters to be able to start have had parking lots wired for power for decades.
Like on the street or some random parking lot.
Hydrogen allows for converting gasoline stations to hydrogen. That is the simplest and in fact cheapest solution.
You can't just pour hydrogen into the underground tanks, you know? You aren't really reusing anything but the land, and you could do something else with it if the gas station wasn't there.
You might as well claim that EVs let you reuse gas stations as charging stations. All you need to do is install completely new charging stations.
You store hydrogen in underground salt caverns on the large scale. Similar to how natural gas works. Above-ground tanks for local storage, and move via pipelines for the most part. It is not a perfect replacement for gasoline, but it is close enough.
The reason why you reuse gas stations because that's what's actually happening. Hydrogen stations are just converted gas stations in most cases.
Where on earth do you think your local 7-11 is going to come up with underground salt caverns?
We don't even have pipes for gasoline and it doesn't soak through steel. Nobody's paying to dig up all the roads and footpaths necessary to build hydrogen pipelines across town and replace them when the hydrogen turns them brittle.
Local hydrogen stations will probably use above-ground tanks.
Hydrogen pipelines are 10x cheaper than wires. It's not some inconceivably huge cost.
It should be added that environmentalist have been screaming for massive investment in green energy, and that cost is of secondary importance. We shouldn't suddenly become hard-right conservatives here. As long as costs are reasonable, it is fine.
Hydrogen pipelines are 10x cheaper than wires.
???
Wasting 2/3 of the energy we generate by turning it into hydrogen and back isn't a green solution. It means we need to triple our electricity generation and keep coal and gas plants running for a lot longer.
Funny how the 20% efficiency of photovoltaic panels never bothered you.
Isn’t Hydrogen only like 50% efficient?
On a good day... Electrolysis alone is often <60% efficient, but as someone else pointed out, you do have the advantage of ToU flexibility for minimizing costs.
Round trip, although you can make and store it with excess solar you were just gonna throw away
Or you could charge batteries with much more usable power because of fewer losses in the system...
Energy storage us a huge pain in the ass. Item Better to not have to
Electrical energy storage is at least viable.
Hydrogen storage slowly releases its contents because hydrogen atoms are so small they slip through any material.
Not really, because fuel cells are electrochemical systems just like batteries. In the long-run, it will be the same level of efficiency as batteries.
What you mean to say is that at a certain level of technology, it is 50% efficient. But even that is meaningless, because hydrogen's ability to capture excess wind and solar energy let's it be extremely cheap energy. It is the same story as photovoltaic cells. Photovoltaic cells are very inefficient, but it is irrelevant because it captures such a cheap energy source. So solar power is very cheap. Likewise, green hydrogen, made from water and extremely cheap renewable energy, will also be extremely cheap. Efficiency isn't that big of a deal here either.
Ultimately, the people who criticize hydrogen are doing the same thing as those that attacked solar power. It is just missing the forest for the trees, and they are basically guaranteed to be wrong.
Ultimately, the people who criticize hydrogen are doing the same thing as those that attacked solar power. It is just missing the forest for the trees, and they are basically guaranteed to be wrong.
Can't speak for everyone but my criticism of hydrogen is not on its theoretical potential to displace fossil fuels as an energy carrier, but on its practical constraints today.
I don't see many people criticizing hydrogen like those who "attacked solar" but people more treating it like fusion - it's very likely the way of the future, but we shouldn't stand around waiting for that future to materialize when we can be making changes now that will help preserve our collective future.
Additionally, your theoretical ultra-efficient-platinum-free-corrosion-resistant-fuel-cell-and-electrolyzer future is competing against the theoretical super-energy-dense-durable-low-cost-solid-state-battery future, and I shook my Magic 8 ball asking which is more likely and all I got was "Ask again later" so... ¯_(ツ)_/¯
The "practical constraints" are mostly just lies from competing industries. Case in point, a hydrogen tank is both volumetrically and gravimetrically denser than batteries. Loosely speaking, it is about 2000 Wh/kg and 1333 Wh/L. That's better than any li-ion battery.
It is plenty good enough to replace both BEVs and ICE cars. As long as it is zero emissions, it works.
Finally, FCEVs exist right now. Hypothetical magical batteries of the future don't. So this is a meaningless comparison.
mostly just lies from competing industries
My Master's Thesis and PhD Dissertation were focused on fuel cells as an energy storage system of the future - I've got more first hand experience than most with no influence "from competing industries". I want this technology to work - badly.
That said, you're right that fuel cell cars exist today, but so do batteries, and with today's technology any "meaningful comparison" will quickly point out that today's batteries are:
More efficient, cheaper to manufacturer, much cheaper to operate (have you checked the price per kg for (mostly fossil-produced) hydrogen recently? YIKES!), more user friendly for most (not all) drivers, and (a little more subjective) way more fun to drive.
Yes, batteries do have their problems (long haul & heavy duty applications, refueling time, cobalt sourcing, flammability, ...) But so do PEMFCs (fuel cost, platinum sourcing, reliability & safety of ultra high pressure fueling infrastructure, fuel cost, complete lack of availability for green hydrogen, fuel cost, relatively rapid chemical degradation of electolyzers through catalyst poisoning, forever chemicals involved in the production use and disposal of Teflon/Nafion, ...)
Again, I WANT fuel cells to win this contest, but today? They've got a lot of catching up to do before they overtake the leader, and unlike batteries, in their current state I could not in good conscience recommend purchasing an FCEV to anyone I care about.
I have two things to point out: I don't have to believe you on your claims of expertise. And the second is that I can easily accuse you of being decades out of date on your knowledge.
None of what you said is true anymore. FCEVs are a mature technology, and will cost very little to build. Green hydrogen is plunging in cost, and will be one of the cheapest energy sources out there. None of you claims about "catalyst poisoning" is true anymore.
So what you are doing is basically being one of those "experts" who attack a revolutionary new technology just as it is taking off. It mirrors solar skeptic just before solar power took off. All your doing is setting yourself up for total embarrassment.
don't have to believe you on your claims of expertise.
I'm glad you finally understand. That being said, the quality of the content of the other guys comment, compared to your 30 comments, really should be an eye opener to you.
He's knows nothing. He's just name dropping debunked ideas.
Dude. We ALL know you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
I've forgot more about this subject than you will ever know.
Look at yourself. If you're not sure how there's this thing called a mirror.
Dude, this is just funny ngl. I'm so curious how much you get paid
You're just like some of the others here: Stuck in 2015 and accusing everyone else of being paid by the oil companies.
Literally no one on the left support these kinds of fanatical anti-hydrogen positions anymore. Just this one Fascist is left. And just a bunch of conspiracy theories as the basis of reasoning. Not even a single coherent counterargument...
Says the person with no actual experience on the matter, unlike the person you are arguing with.
I am left, and I don't support hydrogen because it pales compared to the electrical solutions we have and will have in the future. So don't pretend your viewpoint is universal with the left, because it isn't far from it.
I also don't support Elmo in any way shape or form for your information.
Hydrogen would only be viable for airplanes, since they require higher density fuel at the lowest weight possible.
But other than that, hydrogen just isn't viable in the applications you name. Your EV information is also from 2015, so all your arguments are just projection. Plain and simple.
Not only are you wrong, it's you guys that are just repeating one debunked myth after another. There's nothing being said hear that I haven't heard already.
This is why you guys are stuck in 2015. It's just a bunch of obsolete drivel that originated from Tesla and other BEV companies.
If you are really politically left, then why not starting acting politically left? No one on the left opposes hydrogen anymore. This is quickly turning into an extreme political position. Possibly, a far-right position in the near-future.
If you don't support Elmo, then stop repeating his lies. It's like everyone here hasn't realized that Elmo has been lying for well over a decade. It didn't just begin with Twitter.
In the end, FCEVs are also EVs. They are also zero emissions cars. You cannot come up with a coherent reason to oppose them. It is the same style of argument as those that opposed wind, solar, even BEVs too. So there's only one reason conclusion, and that is to support FCEVs like any other green technology.
ROFL at your stuck in 2015 comment, I wish I were!
In 2015, hydrogen was $20/kg and trending down to [$13-16/kg by 2017](https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles), with the DOE claiming it to be "about the same cost as gas today" despite the fact that 1 kg H2 is roughly 1 gge, so the costs were about 4x gas costs, and 4x their target of $4/kg at the pump.
Fast forward to today and guess what, that price kept dropping, and it hit the DOE targets!
Just kidding - prices this year are up to $36/kg, making the Toyota Mirai one of the highest TCO cars on the market.
Take me back to 2015 when that hydrogen fuel was half the price!
That's a local supply issue. It reminds me of the polysilicon shortage of late-2000s. Plenty of people came out of the woodwork to proclaim the solar panel as a dead technology. But the physics of the idea, namely that it's all made from sand, meant that cost will eventually plunge and it did.
Hydrogen is the same story. Investment has recently skyrocketed across the world. No one except a few BEV fanatics are still opposed to hydrogen. That is why guys like you are stuck in the past. You are repeating the same story as what people said about wind, solar, even the BEV itself in its early days. It is guaranteed to be wrong.
It's easier for people to imagine an alternative to capitalism than an alternative to cars.
I hope hydrogen succeeds myself but my friend pointed out a hydrogen engine will still need an oil change.
In the EV space they have sodium batteries now which don't use rare minerals?
He's actually right about this one despite the down votes. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are electric vehicles that use elective motors not engines so there are no oil changes.
The difference is that a fuel cell vehicle captures electrons during the reaction that takes place when hydrogen is exposed to oxygen (they bond to from H2O) rather than storing energy in batteries.
So battery electric vehicles store their energy in a battery while fuel cell electric vehicles store it in the form of hydrogen but ultimately electricity is was powers both of them.
A fuel cell will never need an oil change. Your friend must be talking about hydrogen combustion engines. Another possibility, but probably something of a niche product.
Sodium-ion batteries haven't been invented yet. Just a lot of PR but no products yet. And it will have lower energy density than li-ion batteries, so it won't be a particularly desirable product anyways.
Bro there is literally already a car driving around with sodium batteries FOR YEARS. I even talked to a company last week that already has Sodium grid batteries. DELIVERED AND WORKING
The knowledge of Hypx hasn't been updated since 2015.
They said so in a projection comment right above this one.
💀💀💀
Close but the problem is personal transit, we just need to actually build public transit and then it's a non issue as by the nature of public transit you drastically reduce your dependence on both
In reality, the future will be hydrogen cars,
In what reality? They've been developing these for years and haven't made much headway. Fossil fuels are finite while lithium batteries can be recycled over and over. What exactly is unsustainable about them?
Sorry, but no amount of lying to yourself will make BEVs a viable technology
If they aren't a viable technology, then how are there millions of them on the road currently?
BEVs predate internal combustion engines. People have waited a long time for it to happen. Hydrogen has the same benefit as batteries, just minus any mining to begin with.
BEVs are the result of huge subsidies. They are not really in demand by most people. A lot of this debate is within a cluster of out-of-touch rich people.
Hydrogen has the same benefit as batteries, just minus any mining to begin with.
Hydrogen is currently produced from natural gas which is mined from the earth.
BEVs are the result of huge subsidies. They are not really in demand by most people. A lot of this debate is within a cluster of out-of-touch rich people.
Obviously written by someone with very little knowledge of the topic. Every form of fuel is subsidized whether that be fossil fuels, electric, or hydrogen. How about, at the very least, you take two seconds to Google things before you speak of them.
I'd bet 0% of the people you're 'debating' with have any issue with hydrogen vehicle development. Everyone is taking issue with you and your ridiculous, uninformed comments.
And so is most electricity. The point is that it can be made from water. You're just repeating an argument used against all EVs.
Not only do I know more than pretty much anyone here, I can immediately recognize all of the dumb myths and PR talking points everyone brings up. This is old news for me.
Everyone who oppose hydrogen pretty much has an agenda. If not an owner of a BEV, they are an investor of some kind.
Ultimately, why would anyone oppose green energy or green technology? Nevermind anyone who calls himself an environmentalist. It's the most absurd fact in all of this. So many people here are lying to themselves about what they really believe and what their real motivations are.
