daqqad

I have an Outlander and I'm also getting more range than advertised specs. My issue with batteries isn't defects in tech, but the stage of its development. There are simply no batteries that can even come close to energy storage capacity of hydrogen and unlike with gas (12-30%), hydrogen's conversion efficiency when using fuel cell is ~60%.

My argument is it is wrong tech because of current state of development of batteries. Slow charging, low energy capacity, heavy weight, using dangerous chemicals, etc.

I'm one of those people - I have an EV, but I wish I had a hybrid that has a tiny, light battery for ~50 miles of city driving I can charge at home and a proper size hydrogen tank I can use to travel as far as I want.

I stand by my argument that we should have invested heavily in hydrogen cars and infrastructure. Batteries will inevitably make it into cars as their development progresses. They are just not the right tech now.

I already have an EV and I still think batteries in them are shit. These are not mutually exclusive.

I get it, but cost is irrelevant if it is produced using green power that would otherwise be wasted anyway from overproduction.

Right, except you can put several gas cans in your trunk in this extreme scenario.

I'm talking about public infra, not charging at home since most people cannot charge at home. Almost the same amount of infra is required since current capacities are nowhere near sufficient. So it has everything to do with people jumping on wrong tech and money being wasted on useless infra.

It isn't arbitrary. Just a simplified example of stored energy to weight ratio.

Infra would show up if people didn't jump on wrong tech just like electric charging infra is starting to show up.

Yes it does. If you cannot generate electricity at home, all those points are moot.

Most people in the world cannot put solar panels on their roof today. Even if you exclude all the places people don't own cars I still think my statement will be true.