I mean, to make e-fuel you still need the e (which stands for electricity). It’s ~guaranteed to have lower round-trip efficiency and higher cost in a car than just a battery. Ditto for green hydrogen. Theoretically blue hydrogen or white hydrogen could be used instead, but it’s not certain how much white hydrogen there is, and blue hydrogen needs carbon capture and storage which will add a lot to the cost.
Gas generators are pretty much the same as ever, while renewables have gotten much cheaper than them. If your power bill went up, it’s some local issue doing it.
(Air-breathing aviation is the other application I didn’t mention. Battery planes work but not well, so it’s closer to rockets. I don’t know if anyone has tried hydrogen, but that’s where e-fuel comes up a lot)
Round-trip efficiency is not that important. If it really was as important as claimed, we wouldn’t be talking about cars at all. It would all be about bikes, buses, trains, walkable neighborhoods, etc., instead. But in the real world, we will need to accept less-than-perfect solutions. So as long as the idea is green, it should be tolerated.
We also have far more renewable energy available to us than we could ever hope to use. It is orders of magnitude more plentiful than fossil fuel energy. As a result, there will be an overabundance of green energy in the long run. It is fine to use that excess of energy to make stuff e-fuels or hydrogen.
Okay, but then why not just go with battery cars? You’re the only person I’ve heard say hydrogen cars will make a comeback, if that is what you’re saying.
Hydrogen cars are dead and EVs won already. This pro hydrogen position has only ever benefited the fossil industry, and is laguhable considering the state of the industry in 2026 (gestures broadly at China). Their arguments are simply disingenuous (e.g. obviously efficiency doesn’t matter because bikes are more efficient than cars, so let’s all agree to use inefficient cars). Hydrogen will be a thing for some industries, but not cars.
They’re creative, original arguments (AKA out there), but I haven’t seen any evidence of malice.
Edit: So much of what comes at you on Lemmy is the same tired canards over and over again. If someone wants to say hydrogen is actually winning, or I dunno, that Abraham Lincoln never existed, that’s fascinating.
You’re a bit less cynical than I am, so I applaud you for that. I’m not sensing mailce per se, but I’ve noticed the same pro-hydrogen content for years from this particular user and it’s getting pretty wild considering the massive, observable growth in the EV sector and the proven viability. There will always be folks tilting at windmills, however. For me, I’m going to continue promoting walkable/bikable/transit focused communities with EVs as a backstop.
As far as I can tell like a million people use them no problem. They need less maintenance and drive better. The limits they have only come up in niche cases, like “I need to cross the Australian outback”.
There was the one commercial hydrogen car, but I only remember hearing about it from southern California where the gas stations were, and I’m not sure if it’s still being made or they gave up.
It’s important to note that the car itself is a luxury or extravagance. The most practical form of a car is a bicycle, which most people don’t want. So inevitably, cars always become a way of showing off capacities that you don’t need. Cars with any kind of deficiency get weeded out, simply because they can’t show off those extra capacities. And battery cars have something like that. People will move away from them specifically they can’t do things like crossing the Outback.
The most practical form of a car is a bicycle, which most people don’t want.
If you have a white collar job and live in a very urban area, maybe. They’re slow and have a low capacity even with a trailer; the advantage is that they’re cheap, small and lightweight, and that you get some exercise. If you’re not mobile and in reasonably good health also forget it.
In terms of getting you and some cargo anywhere you need to be in a hurry, I’d guess the most practical vehicle is a small car, like the BYD Seagull or a Smart, or transit where it exists. If your personal cargo needs are elevated, like if you’re a plumber, it’s a full-size van.
Many people need a change in lifestyle or livelihood to adapt to BEVs. It is hypocritical to claim that people can’t further adapt to bikes or at least e-bikes.
Cargo bikes exist too. You can carry significant cargo with them.
I have heard about about those, and they probably could carry as much as a small car, but do they work anywhere remotely hilly? Hauling your own weight up a hill on a normal bike already sucks, unless you’re really really good at it. You could add an electric motor to do most of the work, but at some point you just have the car again. Looking at the physics, human power provides maybe 50 sustained watts, and there’s only so much you can do with that.
It’s a matter of degree. You have to plug in your EV, and on the rare road trips have to plan charge stops. That’s it. Getting on a bike is completely different experience, and for the majority of people at least in North America, would require a relocation and complete change of architecture to really fully be possible. And a significant minority would still need motor vehicles for their job.
Can’t vs. won’t might be an important thing to bring up here. Even if it can and should happen…
I mean, to make e-fuel you still need the e (which stands for electricity). It’s ~guaranteed to have lower round-trip efficiency and higher cost in a car than just a battery. Ditto for green hydrogen. Theoretically blue hydrogen or white hydrogen could be used instead, but it’s not certain how much white hydrogen there is, and blue hydrogen needs carbon capture and storage which will add a lot to the cost.
Gas generators are pretty much the same as ever, while renewables have gotten much cheaper than them. If your power bill went up, it’s some local issue doing it.
(Air-breathing aviation is the other application I didn’t mention. Battery planes work but not well, so it’s closer to rockets. I don’t know if anyone has tried hydrogen, but that’s where e-fuel comes up a lot)
Round-trip efficiency is not that important. If it really was as important as claimed, we wouldn’t be talking about cars at all. It would all be about bikes, buses, trains, walkable neighborhoods, etc., instead. But in the real world, we will need to accept less-than-perfect solutions. So as long as the idea is green, it should be tolerated.
We also have far more renewable energy available to us than we could ever hope to use. It is orders of magnitude more plentiful than fossil fuel energy. As a result, there will be an overabundance of green energy in the long run. It is fine to use that excess of energy to make stuff e-fuels or hydrogen.
Okay, but then why not just go with battery cars? You’re the only person I’ve heard say hydrogen cars will make a comeback, if that is what you’re saying.
Hydrogen cars are dead and EVs won already. This pro hydrogen position has only ever benefited the fossil industry, and is laguhable considering the state of the industry in 2026 (gestures broadly at China). Their arguments are simply disingenuous (e.g. obviously efficiency doesn’t matter because bikes are more efficient than cars, so let’s all agree to use inefficient cars). Hydrogen will be a thing for some industries, but not cars.
They’re creative, original arguments (AKA out there), but I haven’t seen any evidence of malice.
Edit: So much of what comes at you on Lemmy is the same tired canards over and over again. If someone wants to say hydrogen is actually winning, or I dunno, that Abraham Lincoln never existed, that’s fascinating.
You’re a bit less cynical than I am, so I applaud you for that. I’m not sensing mailce per se, but I’ve noticed the same pro-hydrogen content for years from this particular user and it’s getting pretty wild considering the massive, observable growth in the EV sector and the proven viability. There will always be folks tilting at windmills, however. For me, I’m going to continue promoting walkable/bikable/transit focused communities with EVs as a backstop.
I did not say you can’t have battery cars. It is just a limited technology and would likely shrink to a niche market without subsidies.
As far as I can tell like a million people use them no problem. They need less maintenance and drive better. The limits they have only come up in niche cases, like “I need to cross the Australian outback”.
There was the one commercial hydrogen car, but I only remember hearing about it from southern California where the gas stations were, and I’m not sure if it’s still being made or they gave up.
Millions, sure. But that’s still a niche.
It’s important to note that the car itself is a luxury or extravagance. The most practical form of a car is a bicycle, which most people don’t want. So inevitably, cars always become a way of showing off capacities that you don’t need. Cars with any kind of deficiency get weeded out, simply because they can’t show off those extra capacities. And battery cars have something like that. People will move away from them specifically they can’t do things like crossing the Outback.
If you have a white collar job and live in a very urban area, maybe. They’re slow and have a low capacity even with a trailer; the advantage is that they’re cheap, small and lightweight, and that you get some exercise. If you’re not mobile and in reasonably good health also forget it.
In terms of getting you and some cargo anywhere you need to be in a hurry, I’d guess the most practical vehicle is a small car, like the BYD Seagull or a Smart, or transit where it exists. If your personal cargo needs are elevated, like if you’re a plumber, it’s a full-size van.
Many people need a change in lifestyle or livelihood to adapt to BEVs. It is hypocritical to claim that people can’t further adapt to bikes or at least e-bikes.
Cargo bikes exist too. You can carry significant cargo with them.
I have heard about about those, and they probably could carry as much as a small car, but do they work anywhere remotely hilly? Hauling your own weight up a hill on a normal bike already sucks, unless you’re really really good at it. You could add an electric motor to do most of the work, but at some point you just have the car again. Looking at the physics, human power provides maybe 50 sustained watts, and there’s only so much you can do with that.
It’s a matter of degree. You have to plug in your EV, and on the rare road trips have to plan charge stops. That’s it. Getting on a bike is completely different experience, and for the majority of people at least in North America, would require a relocation and complete change of architecture to really fully be possible. And a significant minority would still need motor vehicles for their job.
Can’t vs. won’t might be an important thing to bring up here. Even if it can and should happen…