Tesla announced it had quit the FCAI on Thursday and Polestar followed it up on Friday, saying the FCAI campaign – driven largely by Japanese car makers led by Toyota – is intolerable.

Tesla and now Polestar’s announcement that they intend to leave the FCAI adds to mounting pressure on CEO Tony Webber who last month came under fire for threatening to run a 2010 anti mining tax style fear campaign against the government’s New Vehicle Efficiency Standard.

The fossil car lobby group CEO claimed that the NVES would cost the entire car-buying public $38 billion in the first five years, which led to the AFR running a story titled “Labor’s new EV-boosting rules will cost $38b, auto group says” followed by Coalition leader Peter Dutton and Nationals Senator Matt Canavan parroting claims that the NVES would see the price of popular vehicles increase by up to $25,000. Claims that have been widely rejected including by the Electric Vehicle Council.

  • zurohki
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    The best technology doesn’t always win a standards war. There are some benefits to green hydrogen cars over BEVs, just like Beta had some benefits over VHS.

    As far as I can tell, the only benefit is green hydrogen can be faster to fill as long as the filling station has had a rest between cars.

    The disadvantages include some killers: the woeful energy efficiency ensures the cost of driving a FCEV can never be less than three times the cost of driving the same distance in a BEV, and that’s even if someone just waves a magic wand and a trillion dollars worth of hydrogen infrastructure appears out of thin air.

    Fuel cell EVs kind of make sense as plug-in hybrids, where you have around 80km of battery range for daily use and use hydrogen for longer trips. You need a lot less filling stations and spend a lot less time using expensive hydrogen that way, but that’s not Toyota’s vision.

    Comparing charging infrastructure and hydrogen infrastructure isn’t really an apples-to-apples comparison, because charging reuses a lot of pre-existing infrastructure. You can buy and drive a BEV with zero charging stations, just plugging it in to an outlet in your garage overnight. In the early days there was a lot of charging from caravan parks and the like. I’ve got a portable charger that plugs in to the three phase outlets you find in parks and showgrounds. There’s no hydrogen equivalent to any of that, 100% of your energy needs to come from a FCEV filling station.

    • No1
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Fuel cell EVs kind of make sense as plug-in hybrids, where you have around 80km of battery range for daily use and use hydrogen for longer trips.

      I get this. But my brain just can’t wrap itself around that you have the complexity and disadvantages of both systems in the one vehicle.too.

      I’m in the city. Apparently having batteries means you couldn’t drive far enough and would catch on fire lol. I was asking someone the other day how often they drove more than 50km from their home, and they looked at me like I was an alien. Full on tilt.

      • zurohki
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Well, fuel cell EVs already need a battery because the fuel cell can’t do regen. So it’s already a hybrid, you’re just making the battery a bit bigger and adding a plug.