The cost isn’t what they are demonstrating here. It’s the feasibility of the tech. Electric cars had to pass the feasibility test before anyone was going to pay the high new tech prices. I think Tesla’s were 100k to begin with? The range was about the same or less than a gas car but I can’t imagine it being successful if it only had a 150mile range.
Once people think the tech is good enough they will be hoping the price comes down so everyone can use it not just rich people
This isn’t just a feasibility demonstrator, it’s the first unit of a four unit order that’s supposed to enter service this year. The testing in Colorado is for federal certification to use the train in revenue service on railroads in the U.S. Setting a Guinness World Record was just a side effort for publicity and to show the full capabilities of the system.
For those who are curious, they did this at the Transportation Technology Center near Pueblo acorrding to this article.
deleted by creator
These stories almost never mention fuel used, or fuel cost, in case someone does the math and figures out just how expensive these vehicles are to run.
Because that’s not the point, hydrogen is the most abundant fuel we have access to. The idea that we shouldn’t be using it is just dumb. It’s what’s more than likely going to fuel our ships to other planets eventually. It’s one of the reasons finding water on planets and moons is a big deal. The thought from the battery crew that we shouldn’t pursue hydrogen is just stupid.
Yeah, but it’s attached to other molecules, and it’s really hard to separate the stuff.
Hydrogen is a really shitty and inefficient battery, it would be cheaper, easier, and more efficient to just put batteries on the train.
Or an overhead wire and don’t worry about batteries.
Overhead lines are almost as expensive as laying the track in the first place though.
Not if you do it simultaneously… cost is higher than just rail, but rains wouldn’t have range limits at all, and would weigh less, meaning less energy used to accelerate (and better emergency brake response).
I’m very pro EV, but even more a fan of distributed power systems that aren’t chemical based.
That ship has, for the most part, sailed though.
Yea totally why large companies are still pursuing it, apparently you and all the EV fanboys know something they don’t.
Also you saying it’s really hard to do something is like the same people who said we shouldn’t be flying, it’s to hard. That’s not how innovation works. To you eating raw meat and living in caves is where humanity should have stopped apparently, because everything else is hard to do.
OK buddy.
We did pursue it. Batteries won for common use cases. There may yet be niches where it’s useful, but they’ll be the exception.
We’re still pursuing it. Batteries do not work for basically anything other than average passenger vehicles in the city or near cities. They do not work in construction, they do not work for heavy equipment, long haulers or even large sea vessels…they do not work for shit in aircraft that carry anything other than itself or tiny payloads…and they really are pointless for any sort of space propulsion. A mixed energy planet is what is needed, not this “batteries are the end all be all” thought so many of you have.
Most of the items you mention are being overtaken by better batteries. Long haul trucking batteries will likely be at cost parity with diesel trucks this year. Big cargo ships should probably go to SMRs. Airplanes no longer look as out of reach as they once appeared.
Space flight is such a specialized use case. Of course hydrogen will be the predominant fuel there. More because there’s limited options than anything else.
