Electric and Hydrogen Vehicles

[Spinward Flow]

As I have not much idea about engines and poswer plants, wouldn't fuell cells make sense where fusion plants are not efficient (as small vehicles)? Traveller seems to point they are, but I don't know in real life...

In the real world, for terrestrial applications, the most descriptive term would be Fool Cells.
The reason for this isn't the cells themselves (those are relatively straightforward tech) ... the problem is the hydrogen (and the storage thereof).

In this case, I'll simply get out of the way and let the pictures do the work of thousands of words.

The problem with hydrogen (as a power source) is that it doesn't appear as "something that can be mined" in pockets of H₂ gas "conveniently lying around, ready to be pumped" from any natural sources. Hydrogen almost ALWAYS appears in molecular form bound to other elements (H₂O, CH₄, NH₃, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.), meaning that in order to "get at" the H₂ you have to "crack" the molecules you're wanting to source it from ... which means energy input just to make the hydrogen you want to use.

Then there's the Storage Problem™.
Hydrogen is the smallest "stuff" in the universe ... meaning is can permeate through ALMOST EVERYTHING made of other elements/molecules ... so it "leaks" out of storage REALLY EASILY.

Worse, hydrogen will react with almost all containment materials, with metals being prone to a phenomenon known as Hydrogen Embrittlement ... which does not bode well for sustainability/longevity of containment systems (that need to be pressurized, go figure). When the molecules of your "container" are being "attacked" at the atomic level ... options are ... limited ...



The problem is that a system that relies on hydrogen as an "energy storage medium" for energy transfer (short of fusion) is going to be inherently lossy and wasteful, whether you're talking combustion or electrolysis (fuel cell). You're simply better off "leaving" the electricity AS ELECTRICITY and storing it as electricity in batteries (electrochemical) and/or capacitors (electrostatic) and then using the electricity directly.

Fusion, of course, upends the table on all of that ... making hydrogen the "go to" fuel for power generation.
Once fusion becomes commonplace (TL=9+) and the hydrogen containment technologies get "perfected" (so your hydrogen fuel tanks don't "leak" constantly in self-destruct mode fashion), fuel cells can start to make a comeback for low power applications ... but even then, you're often times going to be better off (in endurance/kg and/or endurance/liter terms) just by using Batteries/Capacitors instead.

Unfortunately, Traveller of the 1970s/80s was decidedly biased against battery tech power density+pricing, so if you use CT Striker and/or LBB8 for this judgement of comparison, you'll be getting a wildly lopsided result in favor of fuel cells almost every single time. To be fair, it's only in the last 5-10 years that significant resources have been poured into battery research in the real world, lowering prices for batteries down to around Cr10 per kWh ... and in the next few years could go as low as Cr2 per kWh with some technologies currently being researched and developed for mass production.

"Predictions are hard, especially about the future."



And if all of that isn't convincing enough ... try This REALITY™ on for size ...

 

[McPerth]

In the real world, for terrestrial applications, the most descriptive term would be Fool Cells.

(...)

First of all, thank you for the explanation. As I said, I have little idea about RW power plants, and what I know comes mostly from the various Traveller (and similar games) versions, so what I think to know about RW situation may well be flawed or obsolete, forgive me if so.

But now let’s try to extrapolate to Traveler, mostly to MT (and, as is mostly compatible with CT:LBB8 Robots, I guess also with Striker):

With the appearing of the fusion power, as well as other (mostly renewable) power sources (solar satellites, wind, geothermic, etc,), the problem of hydrogen supply, that, as you say, is mostly power dependent, becomes moot. You can obtain as much as you need, as long as you have water (and probably other sources).

Storage problems would also be at least greatly minimized with the advent of super dense materials, so much used in ship building, so I guess we can get rid of them too.

While fusion becomes the main power source, the power plants are far to expensive and massive for small uses, as personal/utilitarian vehicles. Batteries may be an alternative (as current RW electric cars), but they have also their problems:

• They are expensive
• They are heavy
• They take time to recharge
• They need good recycling infrastructure once their useful life is finished, s they are quite contaminating

Current electric cars have (to may knowledge, this may have improved since last time I checked it) quite low autonomy, and take time to recharge. To give you an example, to go from Barcelona to Madrid (just over 600 km) with an electric car, you will have probably to spend the night in Zaragoza (about half way) to recharge the batteries, while to make the same trip with a gasoline (or hybrid) car you take about 6-8 hours. Even if you have to refuel, it takes only a few minutes (and I guess refuelling hydrogen will be likewise quick). There exist quick recharging batteries, but for what I know their useful life is quite reduced.

So, I guess what now you call Fool Cells may be really useful in higher TLs, where the obtaining and storage problems for hydrogen have been so solved, as an alternative to batteries when fusion power is too powerful, expensive and large to be used. Based on MT, the fuel cells are quite more efficient than batteries…

This does not mean they have no problems, of course, mostly in non-friendly atmospheres, where you need to carry you own oxygen source too. And I wonder what would do to local humidity if all cars in Barcelona (my own city, where the hot and humid climate in summer can be quite uncomfortable) worked on those fuel cells… I guess this humidity issue won’t have a global effect, but locally it’s another matter…

 

[atpollard]

What magic box creates this Electricity?
You are charging the Hydrogen economy for production of Hydrogen (25%) but Electricity just appears by Magic at no cost. Electric generation using Coal is only about 33% efficient … so for Electric, 100 watts Thermal = 33 watts electric (not 100) = 31 watts electric transmission = 28 watts battery charge = 26 watts to electric vehicle drive.

So 38 watts Hydrogen Car vs 26 watts Electric Car.

World Electricity Generation by Source (Approximate %):

• Coal: ~34–35.5%
• Natural Gas: ~22%
• Hydropower: ~14–15%
• Nuclear: ~9–10%
• Wind: ~8%
• Solar: ~7%

Hydrogen does have issues, but Electric is cheating with a thumb on the scale.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Re the air raft in every garage, not necessarily.

This is also my interpretation, but for a different reason.
You don't need a "personal" vehicle in every garage once autonomous driving becomes a "solved" technology stack.
Instead, the (grav) transportation network becomes a subscription "robotaxi" type service.

So instead of each household buying their own (personal) vehicle(s) ... instead, there's a company that owns a fleet of (autonomous grav) vehicles which can be hired/chartered for nominal fees on top of a subscription price, enabling transportation on demand. The utilization rate per vehicle in the fleet goes up ... while the cost to each participant in the service goes down (relative to the alternative of individual ownership for each vehicle). What you wind up with is a sort of "communal public transport" business model that is autonomous software driven which has more in common with a public utility cooperative service, rather than a personal ownership (and capital investment required) by each household yielding minimal utilization per day.

Wealthier households could still purchase and own/operate their own personal vehicle(s) ... but for most of the middle and lower (social standing) classes, it's simply "cheaper" to subscribe to a "robotaxi" type of autonomous service than personally owning a vehicle.

I look at the CT air raft as less a personal car and more a personal helicopter. Expeditionary cargo truck tool.

This is a better way to think of the air/raft.
It's really more of a "3D pick up" vehicle.

With the appearing of the fusion power, as well as other (mostly renewable) power sources (solar satellites, wind, geothermic, etc,), the problem of hydrogen supply, that, as you say, is mostly power dependent, becomes moot. You can obtain as much as you need, as long as you have water (and probably other sources).

With large/plentiful bodies of water under atmosphere, fusion power makes (hydrogen) fuel "refining" something of a non-issue (technologically speaking). However, not all planetary bodies HAVE plentiful supplies of hydrogen fuel precursors just lying around waiting to be snatched up and used.

Think about Hydrographics: 0 type Desert Worlds (in their star's habitable zone).
Think about Atmosphere: A-C type worlds with Fluid Oceans that are not composed of H₂O, but from other molecular substances.

Once you're dealing with more than a single type of planetary environment (Size: 8, Atmosphere: 6, Hydrographics: 7) but a whole RANGE of UWP code combinations ... sources for liquified H₂ can potentially go from being "just add water" to being "ah ah, GO GET your own water!" (or local equivalent of convenience).

In some star systems, the "closest" source of convenient H₂ won't be on the mainworld at all ... meaning you'll need to set up a logistics supply chain of scooper/tankers running all the way out to the nearest gas giant.

And in some star systems in the Spinward Marches ... the "nearest gas giant" CAN MEAN "interstellar travel required" in order to close the loop on that supply chain.

In extreme cases, you're looking at Deep Space Stations that are J4 from the nearest source of H₂ fuel parked out in the Great Rift between the Third Imperium and the Islands Cluster in the Reft sector. Try to imagine the "revenue tonnage fraction" for a starship tanker that needs to devote 40+40=80% of its tonnage to jump fuel, just to make the round trip to those Deep Space Stations.

Current electric cars have (to may knowledge, this may have improved since last time I checked it) quite low autonomy, and take time to recharge.

Your information is out of date.
Tesla vehicles (basically ALL OF THEM) are capable of autonomy RIGHT NOW ... it's just a matter of "perfecting the software" rather than a hardware limitation.

In case people don't believe me on this point ... 9 months ago (as of this posting), Tesla FSD navigated the Arc de Triomphe roundabout in Paris, functionally flawlessly. Here's a 54 second video clip of that happening.

Spoiler alert: that was 9+ months ago ... and Tesla FSD has improved by orders of magnitude (PLURAL!) since then ...
It's "still not perfect" ... but it's reaching "superhuman skill levels" by the time that I am writing this. The statistical data shows that Tesla FSD is already "safer than the average human" ... and Tesla keeps improving the system, aiming for 10x safer than human as a first order threshold for the widespread adoption of autonomy in driving.

To give you an example, to go from Barcelona to Madrid (just over 600 km) with an electric car, you will have probably to spend the night in Zaragoza (about half way) to recharge the batteries, while to make the same trip with a gasoline (or hybrid) car you take about 6-8 hours.

Zaragoza, Spain you say?

Tesla Supercharger station LINK (english language lookup)
8 Superchargers: up to 250kW max
Access Hours: available 24/7
This Supercharger is Open to Tesla and Other EVs with CCS compatibility
7 Tr.ª de los Jardines Reales
Zaragoza, Aragon 50021

You no longer need to make an overnight stay in Zaragoza at a (low power) destination charger before completing your road trip between Barcelona and Madrid. Simply plan for a 30 minutes (or less) charging session at the Supercharger station (get out of the vehicle, stretch your legs, use the water closet, get a drink, etc.) before resuming your journey. So ... 6-8 hours in an electric vehicle too.

Even if you have to refuel, it takes only a few minutes (and I guess refuelling hydrogen will be likewise quick). There exist quick recharging batteries, but for what I know their useful life is quite reduced.

Hydrogen is NOT quick to refuel. It's also ridiculously expensive (in the real world).
Take your usual petroleum fuel price and multiply it by 6-10x (or more!) and that's the typical hydrogen refueling station price.
Furthermore, current (real world tech) hydrogen stations for public passenger cars can only supply hydrogen to about ~50 vehicles before needing a resupply from a tanker truck.
There's a reason why the hydrogen fueling stations that have been built keep failing economically ... and it's because of the hydrogen as fuel logistical issues.

Battery fast charging is now a substantially "solved" problem with battery management systems marching along the Tech Curve and getting better all the time. Also, BEV battery systems are lasting longer than anticipated ... a LOT longer ...

So, I guess what now you call Fool Cells may be really useful in higher TLs, where the obtaining and storage problems for hydrogen have been so solved, as an alternative to batteries when fusion power is too powerful, expensive and large to be used.

Fuel Cells have their niche roles, including Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) in non-nuclear power submarines(!) while submerged ... but they aren't a panacea and they aren't "best in slot" for every single use case where you need power. However, those use cases tend to be in "challenging environments" (such as in space or submerged in the ocean) rather than in terrestrial vehicles (cars, busses, trains, etc.).

 

[Spinward Flow]

What magic box creates this Electricity?
You are charging the Hydrogen economy for production of Hydrogen (25%) but Electricity just appears by Magic at no cost.

Something ELSE has to generate the electricity that is needed for BOTH use cases.
Whatever the source of that energy is ... it's more efficient to reduce the conversion losses involved in producing Useful Work™ at the end of the chain of events.

For example.
If you start with AC power, convert to DC ... and then convert back to AC ... at each conversion step (AC to DC, DC to AC) there will be energy losses. Insert "enough" conversion steps between start and finish and you wind up with a tremendously inefficient (Rube Goldberg type) process that produces terrible yield at the end compared to the starting input. Go figure.

The same is true for thermal power systems as well.

• Heat Source > Phase Transition of Working Material > Mechanical Work > Electrical Power Generation > Step Change for Transmission ... etc.

Each "step" in the chain involves losses because nothing is 100% efficient.

Remember the Three Laws of Thermodynamics (as commonly understood by engineers):

1. You can't win.
2. You can't break even.
3. You can't get out of the game.

The problem with hydrogen as a "fuel" in a chemical cycle is that it's not a "power generation" cycle (that would require fusion, not molecular chemistry) ... instead it's just a lossy "power storage medium" for transmitting energy between Here and There. You have to put energy IN to get hydrogen OUT.

In the graphs cited above, the "energy" for both alternatives comes from agnostic sources (take your pick) ... but the energy required as INPUT to start the process towards generating Useful Work™ is exactly the same (in this case, 100 watts of power). What you "get" at the end from the chain of events is radically different.

The moral of the story is that diverting through a hydrogen cycle will cost 2-3x more input energy for the same amount of Useful Work At The End™ than simply sticking with an electrical system from start to finish.



Note that the elimination of phase transitions in working materials is one of the goals for improving the efficiency of turbines. Technology to replace the STEAM() cycle with supercritical CO₂ (which doesn't need to change phase states between gas and liquid) as the working fluid for converting heat energy into mechanical work is already underway in the real world.

 

[atpollard]

Something ELSE has to generate the electricity that is needed for BOTH use cases.

Hydrogen is not created from electricity … it comes from chemical manipulation of OIL (just as most Elecltricity is generated from fossil fuels). So both start out as 100 watts of “coal/oil/natural gas”, but the Electric Car ignores the 66% energy loss generating electricity while the Hydrogen Car is charged for the 25% loss in generating the Hydrogen.

That is a deliberately dishonest comparison.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Hydrogen is not created from electricity … it comes from chemical manipulation of OIL (just as most Elecltricity is generated from fossil fuels). So both start out as 100 watts of “coal/oil/natural gas”, but the Electric Car ignores the 66% energy loss generating electricity while the Hydrogen Car is charged for the 25% loss in generating the Hydrogen.

That is an deliberately dishonest comparison.

I see that there is a rather marked lack of education and knowledge on the subject of hydrogen engineering among our posters in this thread, to a degree that is rather worrisome.

Therefore, I'm assigning some "homework" to anyone who wants to be Better Informed™ about the topic.

But, as you say yourlef above in the post, with ample and cheap power and better superdense materials for storage, this will no longer be the case.

With "enough high tech" you can solve almost any problem.
The trouble is that right now (in the real world) the necessary technology/engineering prowess to "master" the hydrogen fuel challenge has not been reliably accomplished. As evidence, I offer recent NASA issues with hydrogen leaks causing delays in multiple launches (not just the current one for Artemis 2 that got delayed). Hydrogen, especially liquid hydrogen, really doesn't want to stay confined inside of containers.



Be kind of hilarious if the most reliable method to "contain" hydrogen wasn't a (made of matter) pressure vessel that atomic hydrogen LOVES to permeate through ... but instead what you need is a "gravitic bottle" that uses (artificial) gravitic fields to confine hydrogen (much more safely) within a container/tankage volume at an acceptable level of long term reliability.

Well, you can really have a good lunch in Zaragoza, as food is good there ...

It's Spain.
By definition, the food is going to be better there than almost anywhere that is an English speaking country.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Nonetheless, unless this has also improved, those quick charges burn the batteries quite faster than slow ones, and they are the most expensive part of your car...

As I said before, your information/knowledge on this subject is out of date.

With modern (last 5 years?) battery management systems, quick charging no longer imposes a "penalty" on battery life ... which is basically what you're asserting.

OLDER battery pack systems, especially those which lacked a battery management system (heating, cooling, power load balancing, the whole thing) or are unable to update their battery management system (for conversational purposes, that means every vehicle company except Tesla) were either not designed to handle fast charging or otherwise were unable to accept power at fast charging speeds.

Current "new" vehicles are being built with battery management systems already integrated which permit incredibly fast charging speeds. In fact, the Chinese battery manufacturers and car companies are racing ahead to develop and field faster and faster charging speeds without worrying about the economic tradeoffs involved in that race. As evidence for this assertion, I'll cite these references which were posted in the past week:

And as for the question of "how soon will autonomous driving become a reality?" ... well ... the answer is ... SOON™ ...

 

[Spinward Flow]

I trust you knowledge in current real world, but here we're also talking about Travller universe, and that's what I mean when I talk about superdense materials and cheap power to produce Hydrogen...

Fusion power ... and all of the high technology Stuffs™ that fusion power will both need and make possible ... will make hydrogen storage (and refinement from a variety of feedstock sources) a "solved problem" in engineering terms.

As I said before, your information/knowledge on this subject is out of date.

I already warned you this might be the case...

True.
Hence why I'm citing sources that I've used to learn about topics in order to share what I know with persons (like yourself) who don't know these things yet.

And yet, I'm warned by people who (unlike me) claims to know about the issue not to recharge batteries too often if I want them to last...

That is true but also wildly misleading.
There was a time when it was true (a decade or more ago) ... but it's no longer true.

Easiest analogy that I can think of (in petroleum fueled car terms) is that there was an era during which lead (atomic symbol: Pb) was a fuel additive to octane gasoline, used to reduce engine knock and ping (unwanted combustion behaviors). Then later, unleaded octane fuels were developed and internal combustion engines were redesigned for the new fuel mixture that omitted lead additives.

Older engines "needed" to use fuel with lead added to it ... until the newer unleaded fuel engines did not need lead in the fuel mix.

It's a bit like that, in analogy terms, with battery packs for electrified vehicles.
Older battery pack designs couldn't use fast charging ... until Tesla developed the North American Charging Standard (NACS) ... which every competitor trashed at first, but which is now becoming the global standard after every competitor failed to come up with something better (and most of the time developed "built by committee" garbage that couldn't hope to compete). So the competing Common Charging Standard (CCS) is in decline, because more and more vehicle manufacturers are licensing NACS charging port infrastructure from Tesla so their vehicles will be compatible with the Tesla Supercharger Network (that no competitors wanted to share in the build out cost for, leaving Tesla with a temporary monopoly on the best fast charger infrastructure deployment program).

As the fast charger infrastructure iterated and improved (v1, v2, v3, v4 ...), the fast charging battery management systems built into vehicles got better in order to keep pace with the increasingly sophisticated fast charging capabilities of public infrastructure.

Today, basically any Tesla and/or Chinese manufactured electric vehicle can handle fast charging without significant battery life degradation. There are "old" before Model S Tesla cars with 2170 Panasonic battery cells in them that have driven over 300,000km on their original battery packs (no replacement needed).

Here's just one example ...

An alternative to hydrogen for portable fuel is ammonia, specifically anhydrous ammonia. In terms of Traveller, you can get this almost directly from many gas giants as it's already present in the atmosphere. That means it takes little energy other than to collect and filter it to make it into a fuel.

At the risk of repeating what I've already posted ... a video from 5 years ago ...

It’s probably metallic hydrogen, which requires gravitics in terms of pressure creation not force field.

True ... but ...
Traveller is "unfortunately specific" about fuel tankage for small/big craft powered by fusion being ... liquid hydrogen.
Liquid hydrogen density: 70.85 kg/m³ (at 20 K), a relative density of just 0.07
Metallic hydrogen density: research is ongoing, but probably 10x the density of (mere, cryogenic) liquid hydrogen when compressed into a liquid metal form at high pressures (because metals can have a liquid phase state)

 

[atpollard]

I see that there is a rather marked lack of education and knowledge on the subject of hydrogen engineering among our posters in this thread, to a degree that is rather worrisome.

“The hydrogen is typically derived from natural gas via Steam Methane Reforming (SMR), which, while emitting CO2 is currently more cost-effective.” [I assume the most “cost-effective” method will continue to be employed.]

So, worry no more and accept the REALITY that both HYDROGEN and ELECTRICITY currently begin life as hydrocarbon fuels (even if your Electric Car chooses to ignore the efficiency loss of generating electricity while including the loss efficiency of generating Hydrogen for the Hydrogen Car).

 

[Spinward Flow]

So, worry no more and accept the REALITY that both HYDROGEN and ELECTRICITY currently begin life as hydrocarbon fuels

I will not, because that's not the reality.
Hydrocarbon fuels are merely ONE WAY to generate hydrogen and electricity ... rather than being the exclusive / ONLY WAY to generate hydrogen and electricity.

For example ... nuclear power can generate hydrogen and electricity.
The reason why the Fukushima nuclear power plant "blew up" after the tsunami hit it was because of a process that produced hydrogen gas in the reactor core as the water levels dropped in the core. The Fukushima nuclear power plant was designed, construction and operation for the generation of electricity.

And solar power is intrinsically, at its core ... a nuclear power sourced way of generating electricity.
The nuclear reactor that powers solar power plants? THE LOCAL STAR ... powered by fusion.

Wind power is also, ironically, nuclear powered (albeit indirectly) by the "fusion reactor" of the LOCAL STAR inducing "weather" conditions at the planetary surface when there's an atmosphere.

Hydropower is produced by water "flowing downhill" in ways that can produce useful work (either mechanical and/or electrical).

And then there's this kind of Inconvenient Truth about the whole thing ...

Your turn.

 

[Spinward Flow]

In case there are any (remaining) doubters about the potential/profitability of the "hydrogen economy" pre-fusion technology ... here's a really good primer on why hydrogen is a "lousy fuel" for chemical energy processes compared to almost everything else ...

 

[atpollard]

Your turn.

Ok.

Hydrocarbon fuels are merely ONE WAY to generate hydrogen and electricity ... rather than being the exclusive / ONLY WAY to generate hydrogen and electricity.

Strawman.
I never claimed “ONLY WAY”.
[go back and reread what I actually said]

 

[Grav_Moped]

“The hydrogen is typically derived from natural gas via Steam Methane Reforming (SMR), which, while emitting CO2 is currently more cost-effective.” [I assume the most “cost-effective” method will continue to be employed.]

So, worry no more and accept the REALITY that both HYDROGEN and ELECTRICITY currently begin life as hydrocarbon fuels (even if your Electric Car chooses to ignore the efficiency loss of generating electricity while including the loss efficiency of generating Hydrogen for the Hydrogen Car).

The advantage of battery-electric over hydrogen (either ICE or fuel-cell) is that electricity can be* sourced from solar/hydro/geothermal/whatever. Hydrogen isn't**.


----------
* Not that US infrastructure is configured that way now of course, but it's at least possible.

** Electrolyzing 2H₂O into 2H₂ + O₂ is fairly costly at present. With magical fusion power, it would be almost free ("too cheap to meter"?). Until then, you get H₂ by cracking methane.

 

[atpollard]

The advantage of battery-electric over hydrogen (either ICE or fuel-cell) is that electricity can be* sourced from solar/hydro/geothermal/whatever. Hydrogen isn't**.

… and both have staggering disadvantages that are carefully ignored by proponents of each technology. Battery technology is currently an ecological nightmare to manufacture and a rolling fire hazard inviting more death in car accidents. Hydrogen technology is not even mature enough to KNOW the “mass commercial” form it will ultimately take, so it is a debate about a vehicle that does not yet really exist. (Compressed Hydrogen is a bomb for a fuel tank).

Frankly, improvements in IC or a Hydrocarbon Fuel Cell could ultimately yield as good or better results … but would not click the “magic green” political box.
For Traveller, the magic “Fusion power” makes EVERYTHING ELSE a moot point and “batteries” a poor second per RAW. [shrug]

 

[Enoki]

The advantage of battery-electric over hydrogen (either ICE or fuel-cell) is that electricity can be* sourced from solar/hydro/geothermal/whatever. Hydrogen isn't**.


----------
* Not that US infrastructure is configured that way now of course, but it's at least possible.

** Electrolyzing 2H₂O into 2H₂ + O₂ is fairly costly at present. With magical fusion power, it would be almost free ("too cheap to meter"?). Until then, you get H₂ by cracking methane.

Whereas the advantage of hydrogen, or ammonia, or even gasoline, over electricity is that it's portable and relatively energy dense. Electric power requires fixed infrastructure to generate and transmit it to where you need it. Sure, batteries are portable to the extent that you can haul them somewhere and use them until discharged, but their low energy output to volume ratio is put to shame by portable liquid fuels.

This video shows you the visual reasons why

 

[Spinward Flow]

Battery technology is currently an ecological nightmare to manufacture and a rolling fire hazard inviting more death in car accidents.

More FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt).

Beware @Spinward Flow when bringing RECEIPTS ...

LINK

Fire Incidents by Vehicle Type (2024–2025)

Propulsion Type	Fires per 100K Cars Sold	Fire Rate (%)
EV (Battery Electric)	25	~0.025%
ICE (Gas/Diesel)	1,530	~1.53%
Hybrid (PHEV/HEV)	3,475	~3.48%

‍
EVs catch fire way less often than traditional cars, and hybrids have the highest relative likelihood of fire. EV fire rates are tiny on a percentage basis, but when they do happen, they’re operationally complex (longer burn times and harder suppression).

more death in car accidents.

ORLY?

Back to you, in studio.

(Compressed Hydrogen is a bomb for a fuel tank).

Using current day real world technology ... this is TRUE.

Frankly, improvements in IC or a Hydrocarbon Fuel Cell could ultimately yield as good or better results …

Internal Combustion Engine vehicle technologies utilizing liquid hydrocarbon fuels is a fully mature "played out" technology at this point (in the real world). Multiple manufacturers of such power plants have spent BILLIONS (plural!) of dollars worth on research and development in the last decade+, yielding about a ~1% improvement in performance. The advancements and gains to be had ... have already been HAD ... by now. Further R&D spending on the internal combustion engine has reached the point of (severely) diminishing returns, in the real world.

The simple fact of the matter is that battery electric vehicles have ALREADY reached "price parity" with internal combustion powered vehicles on the market TODAY ... and there's plenty of "room" for R&D to run with to realize further gains and step change advantages in electrification and battery technologies (including battery powered transportation on land, on/in water and in the air!). It's just a matter of Time, Tools and Tech Manuals before the internal combustion engine becomes the "has been" technology that gets retired.

The ICE age is ending.
The Electric age is just beginning.

Your witness, counselor.

 

[spank]

Whereas the advantage of hydrogen, or ammonia, or even gasoline, over electricity is that it's portable and relatively energy dense. Electric power requires fixed infrastructure to generate and transmit it to where you need it. Sure, batteries are portable to the extent that you can haul them somewhere and use them until discharged, but their low energy output to volume ratio is put to shame by portable liquid fuels.

This video shows you the visual reasons why

I always liked this one:

 

[McPerth]

More FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt).

Beware @Spinward Flow when bringing RECEIPTS ...

LINK

Well, as I said, I'm not an expert, but in most Spain cities battery run personal vehicles (bicycles, scooters, etc) are banned from mass transport (handicapped vehicles excepted) due to battery spontaneous explosion hazard, while I've not heard about spontaneous ICE explosions (I don't say there may not be, just most of them are in accidents)...

OTOH, I know (or so I think, again this may be outdated) about the Hydrogen problems. Aside from the production one (power may be used at low consume moments, and it can be produced by other means), the storage problem is, as you say, not only a problem for the vehicles, but a hazard too (imagine a car parking full of leacking hydrogen cars, how long until the concentration is right for any spark to produce an explosion if not very well ventilated?)

But, if we're talking about Traveller (mostly LBB8 and MT, that are the ones I most know), those problems seem to be solved, and I keep thinking they are more efficient and safe than batteries for small PPs, where fusion is not an option, in friendly atmosphere planets.

 

[whartung]

Well, as I said, I'm not an expert, but in most Spain cities battery run personal vehicles (bicycles, scooters, etc) are banned from mass transport (handicapped vehicles excepted) due to battery spontaneous explosion hazard, while I've not heard about spontaneous ICE explosions (I don't say there may not be, just most of them are in accidents)...

There's also the limitations on batteries in airplane luggage.

California has "banned" battery powered vehicles (i.e. scooters, bicycles, etc.) that aren't UL listed (I think, something like that). Folks getting random stuff from overseas catching fire in their house while charging.

Jeep has a recall right now where they want you to not use the battery at all on their hybrids, and don't park it near a building due to fire danger.

But battery tech is improving. Better every day.

My house is 95+% battery powered.