Net-zero in road transportation: Is the exclusive focus on eletric vehicles wrong?

[Cheimoon]

In short, my question is this: did governments worldwide make the wrong choice by focusing fully on electric vehicles (in terms of road transportation emissions) to achieve the emissions reductions we need?

Obviously, reducing global emissions is a top priority, and cutting car tailpipe emissions (or even removing them entirely) must play a crucial role in achieving goals like net zero by year x. However: electric vehicles are not a great solution for this. Yes, of course, they do deeply cut emissions, but they are much heavier than hybrid or gas cars and therefore generate a lot more particular matter emissions. Basically: while we cut tailpipe emissions, we increase non-tailpipie emissions - which is a real problem for things like air quality. Additionally, there are serious issues around the need for rare earth elements and other materials to create batteries and the proper disposal of discarded batteries.

For those who are interested (and have access...) this review article from March 2023 in Science of The Total Environment (yes, a serious scientific journal) goes into those things, but they key points are nicely summarized in these two figures:

People might say that this is all very nice, but everything is better than allowing global temperature to continue rising, so we'll have to accept those new issues as the worst of two evils. That's what I used to think as well, but the full magnitude of these other problems (around non-tailpipe emissions and battery production and disposal) has slowly been dawning on me the past few months - while there are actually alternatives!

Or at least, one is already available: hydrogen-powered cars. Toyota and Honda already have working models. They're still expensive, there aren't many charging stations yet - sure, but that was all the same around electric cars until quite recently. Also, hydrogen had the issue of being dirty to produce: it's relatively clean as a by-product of gas production, but that will slow down when those industries scale down, and hydrogen is polluting when created on its own. But in recent years, natural hydrogen deposits have been found underground (see e.g. this article from Science), and those are currently estimated to hold enough hydrogen for humanity for centuries of use (or whatever the exact number was that I read elsewhere recently - but it's a very long period).

So again, did governments make the wrong choice, putting all our transportation eggs in the electric vehicle basket?

 

[Cheimoon]

Maybe I should clarify: I am not against the current and increasing use of electric vehicles. Obviously, we need to act now against global emissions (or rather: should have started taking this seriously in the 90s already, since the science has been clear at least since then, if not earlier), and it's not like we have good alternatives to electric vehicles available on the market right now. Moreover, governments can do more within the electric vehicle market, to limit the constant growth of cars. (Which, on average, are much bigger and heavier now in North America than they used to be.)

My issue is rather the the sole and exclusive focus for 'clean' transportation seems to be on electric vehicles, and that, outside scientific discussions, I hear next to nothing about other technologies. And that's while hydrogen cars are close to being ready for the big time, and there might be other things I'm unaware of.

So my issue is really that it seems to be all electric now - while I think the figures above show that we should be looker at other solutions long-term.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

In short, my question is this: did governments worldwide make the wrong choice by focusing fully on electric vehicles (in terms of road transportation emissions) to achieve the emissions reductions we need?

Obviously, reducing global emissions is a top priority, and cutting car tailpipe emissions (or even removing them entirely) must play a crucial role in achieving goals like net zero by year x. However: electric vehicles are not a great solution for this. Yes, of course, they do deeply cut emissions, but they are much heavier than hybrid or gas cars and therefore generate a lot more particular matter emissions. Basically: while we cut tailpipe emissions, we increase non-tailpipie emissions - which is a real problem for things like air quality. Additionally, there are serious issues around the need for rare earth elements and other materials to create batteries and the proper disposal of discarded batteries.

For those who are interested (and have access...) this review article from March 2023 in Science of The Total Environment (yes, a serious scientific journal) goes into those things, but they key points are nicely summarized in these two figures:

People might say that this is all very nice, but everything is better than allowing global temperature to continue rising, so we'll have to accept those new issues as the worst of two evils. That's what I used to think as well, but the full magnitude of these other problems (around non-tailpipe emissions and battery production and disposal) has slowly been dawning on me the past few months - while there are actually alternatives!

Or at least, one is already available: hydrogen-powered cars. Toyota and Honda already have working models. They're still expensive, there aren't many charging stations yet - sure, but that was all the same around electric cars until quite recently. Also, hydrogen had the issue of being dirty to produce: it's relatively clean as a by-product of gas production, but that will slow down when those industries scale down, and hydrogen is polluting when created on its own. But in recent years, natural hydrogen deposits have been found underground (see e.g. this article from Science), and those are currently estimated to hold enough hydrogen for humanity for centuries of use (or whatever the exact number was that I read elsewhere recently - but it's a very long period).

So again, did governments make the wrong choice, putting all our transportation eggs in the electric vehicle basket?

Obviously, focusing on any one solution is wrong. You need to also work on improving public transport and reducing the reliance we have on cars, as well as stuff like cutting out the need for a daily commute (Covid has helped with this a lot)

On the heavier vehicles (particulate matter etc) the main issue here isn’t an increase in EV’s it’s the increase in SUV’s, both ICE and EV. So many extra pointless tonnes of metal being hauled around the place, because people want to sit slightly higher above the ground. Madness.

 

[Cheimoon]

Obviously, focusing on any one solution is wrong. You need to also work on improving public transport and reducing the reliance we have on cars, as well as stuff like cutting out the need for a daily commute (Covid has helped with this a lot)

Sure, but this is not super realistic. Getting people out of their cars means a wholesale change in people's mindsets and the arrangement of public space, as well as a significant upgrade to public transport networks. I would love for all of those things to happen, but I think it's less realistic than improving the cars we all drive.

I mean, at the start of the pandemic with all the lockdowns, it seemed like we were heading for real change in a number of these areas - but a few years later, and most things are back to pre-pandemic levels. (Except that work-from-home rates are still higher - but actually nowhere near as high as people working from home tend to assume, including myself.)

On the heavier vehicles (particulate matter etc) the main issue here isn’t an increase in EV’s it’s the increase in SUV’s, both ICE and EV. So many extra pointless tonnes of metal being hauled around the place, because people want to sit slightly higher above the ground. Madness.

It's both though. Look at the second graph above: electric vehicles are seriously aggrevating the vehicle weight issue. Cause people are not buying smaller EV cars: they buy and EV SUV now. As I said in my second post: governments should indeed implement measures to reduce (and ideally reverse) vehicle growth (see these Equiterre and Transport & Environment articles for some numbers and arguments); but that won't solve everything. I don't want to focus exclusively on hydrogen here, but that's an example of a technology that would be ready for mass use with a little more push behind it, and would return non-tailpipe emissions to the level of gas cars.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Sure, but this is not super realistic. Getting people out of their cars means a wholesale change in people's mindsets and the arrangement of public space, as well as a significant upgrade to public transport networks. I would love for all of those things to happen, but I think it's less realistic than improving the cars we all drive.

I mean, at the start of the pandemic with all the lockdowns, it seemed like we were heading for real change in a number of these areas - but a few years later, and most things are back to pre-pandemic levels. (Except that work-from-home rates are still higher - but actually nowhere near as high as people working from home tend to assume, including myself.)

It's both though. Look at the second graph above: electric vehicles are seriously aggrevating the vehicle weight issue. Cause people are not buying smaller EV cars: they buy and EV SUV now. As I said in my second post: governments should indeed implement measures to reduce (and ideally reverse) vehicle growth (see these Equiterre and Transport & Environment articles for some numbers and arguments); but that won't solve everything. I don't want to focus exclusively on hydrogen here, but that's an example of a technology that would be ready for mass use with a little more push behind it, and would return non-tailpipe emissions to the level of gas cars.

Unless I’m misreading those graphs there’s not much difference between the heavier EV and ICE vehicles?

I also think you’re overstating the issue of non-tailpipe pollution. It’s not even close to the level of existential threat that greenhouse gases are creating. If the issue was just swapping one type of pollutant for another (and I don’t think this really is the choice here) it would be a no brainer.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

@Cheimoon The solution is fairly simple anyway. Tax cars based on a combination of emissions and weight. I’m sure I read somewhere that they’re already doing this in some scandi/nordic countries?

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Cheimoon = ecoterroist.

Whitetext

 

[Cheimoon]

Unless I’m misreading those graphs there’s not much difference between the heavier EV and ICE vehicles?

I also think you’re overstating the issue of non-tailpipe pollution. It’s not even close to the level of existential threat that greenhouse gases are creating. If the issue was just swapping one type of pollutant for another (and I don’t think this really is the choice here) it would be a no brainer.

Yes, it's definitely not like tailpipe emissions. I was trying to make that point, also in my second post: obviously we need to act now (and should have acted ages ago) and EVs are the only vehicles currently available that would enable the huge emisions cuts we needs. If there were no alternatives in sight, then sure, the other issues the EVs introduce would be acceptable also long-term. But there are (such as hydrogen-based), so why don't governments and industry speak about that more, and instead seem to be leading a way to a 100% EV future?

It seems mistaken to me - especially since we are currently going through a transition anyway, so this is the moment we can still be flexible. If , in a decade or so, everything has been redesigned for EVs, it will be much harder to pivot again.

@Cheimoon The solution is fairly simple anyway. Tax cars based on a combination of emissions and weight. I’m sure I read somewhere that they’re already doing this in some scandi/nordic countries?

I'm not aware, but yes, taxing weight, or otherwise legislating around that issue, woudl be an important step forward either way. (I mean, if hydrogen cars would have the future, then they should still be much smaller on average.)

Cheimoon = ecoterroist.

Whitetext

Yes, I want to take your SUV away! Guilbeault's got nothing on me.

 

[Buster15]

In short, my question is this: did governments worldwide make the wrong choice by focusing fully on electric vehicles (in terms of road transportation emissions) to achieve the emissions reductions we need?

Obviously, reducing global emissions is a top priority, and cutting car tailpipe emissions (or even removing them entirely) must play a crucial role in achieving goals like net zero by year x. However: electric vehicles are not a great solution for this. Yes, of course, they do deeply cut emissions, but they are much heavier than hybrid or gas cars and therefore generate a lot more particular matter emissions. Basically: while we cut tailpipe emissions, we increase non-tailpipie emissions - which is a real problem for things like air quality. Additionally, there are serious issues around the need for rare earth elements and other materials to create batteries and the proper disposal of discarded batteries.

For those who are interested (and have access...) this review article from March 2023 in Science of The Total Environment (yes, a serious scientific journal) goes into those things, but they key points are nicely summarized in these two figures:

People might say that this is all very nice, but everything is better than allowing global temperature to continue rising, so we'll have to accept those new issues as the worst of two evils. That's what I used to think as well, but the full magnitude of these other problems (around non-tailpipe emissions and battery production and disposal) has slowly been dawning on me the past few months - while there are actually alternatives!

Or at least, one is already available: hydrogen-powered cars. Toyota and Honda already have working models. They're still expensive, there aren't many charging stations yet - sure, but that was all the same around electric cars until quite recently. Also, hydrogen had the issue of being dirty to produce: it's relatively clean as a by-product of gas production, but that will slow down when those industries scale down, and hydrogen is polluting when created on its own. But in recent years, natural hydrogen deposits have been found underground (see e.g. this article from Science), and those are currently estimated to hold enough hydrogen for humanity for centuries of use (or whatever the exact number was that I read elsewhere recently - but it's a very long period).

So again, did governments make the wrong choice, putting all our transportation eggs in the electric vehicle basket?

The is a very good question backed up with valid data.

As an ex engineer, not in road transport but gas turbines for jet aircraft mainly, the one thing I know is that you don't get something for nothing.
Everything in engineering is a compromise. And most importantly, there is no one size fits all.

For cars and vans, battery electric power is perfectly suitable. And it is available now which is crucial.
I have an EV and it works perfectly well. I definitely would not go back to an ICE car.
Interestingly, a fair amount of the weight increase you mentioned is due to the move to bigger SUVs which are inherently heavier anyway.
That is not the fault of the transition to EVs.

But for the much heavier vehicles like trucks and buses and coaches and the like, battery electric power is not suitable.
Hydrogen as a fuel looks to be more suitable. Albeit expensive.
And even hydrogen is not without its difficulties. It is not available now in sufficient quantities. The availability of Green hydrogen has s not yet been solved.

So in summary, I don't have a problem with the transition to EVs. But battery electric power is not suitable for the heavier road vehicles.

 

[Maagge]

Sure, but this is not super realistic. Getting people out of their cars means a wholesale change in people's mindsets

I'd argue you cannot do anything about the climate crisis without a wholesale change in people's mindset. If every family needs two cars we haven't solved anything no matter if they're running on batteries or fossil fuels. But that's pretty inconvenient so we'd rather pretend we're doing our part while driving a Tesla.

 

[11101]

Of course they have got it wrong. Governments needed to do something to hit emissions targets so they panicked and went all in on the first idea they saw, now they're stuck as people don't want them unless they've got massive tax breaks and incentives behind them.

The Toyota boss probably has it right, EVs should be about 30% of the transport mix. In 10 years time we will look back at the zero emissions transition as a glaring example of failed policy.

 

[Cheimoon]

Of course they have got it wrong. Governments needed to do something to hit emissions targets so they panicked and went all in on the first idea they saw, now they're stuck as people don't want them unless they've got massive tax breaks and incentives behind them.

The Toyota boss probably has it right, EVs should be about 30% of the transport mix. In 10 years time we will look back at the zero emissions transition as a glaring example of failed policy.

So what's your suggestion for what they should have done instead? I've just been beating the hydrogen drum here, but I'm hoping there's more than just that alternative.

 

[11101]

So what's your suggestion for what they should have done instead? I've just been beating the hydrogen drum here, but I'm hoping there's more than just that alternative.

A good start would be to increase the tax on the standard lease cycle of a brand new car every 3 years. Lower the tax on used cars. That would be the biggest single thing they could have done but cretins like Sadiq Khan wouldn't be able to bang on about how green his city is (to hell with anywhere else).

Then tax cars based on weight.

The other biggest thing would have been to have a more open mind early on and not be swayed by EV lobbyists and the likes of Elon Musk. A massive amount of R&D funding has been diverted away from other power sources in this quest to make EVs workable.

When you have to have so many incentives, tax breaks, penalties and other tricks and still people won't buy them, you know you're going down the wrong road.

 

[Rado_N]

 

[nimic]

When you have to have so many incentives, tax breaks, penalties and other tricks and still people won't buy them, you know you're going down the wrong road.

Seems to be working fine in Norway. In fact, the tax breaks and incentives have been and are still being reduced, and it doesn't really change much.

Definitely agree that cars should be taxed based on weight, though.

 

[sparx99]

Like anything there should always be a mix of solutions.

- E-fuels as Porsche are working on
- Hydrogen vehicles
- Incentivising lower vehicle sizes and weights (both through taxation or through tax breaks). 2.5 tonne EV's aren't just worse environmentally but heavier cars take longer to stop and more weight involved in accidents isn't a good thing. Given that taxes used to be based on tailpipe emissions, we need a replacement for road tax anyway as once people transition to EV's we've lost crucial funds for road maintenance in both road tax and fuel duty.
- Also, ICE vehicles can still have a place. So much of a vehicles lifetime emissions are in the manufacturing process so maintaining existing vehicles of longer is actually amongst the cleanest solutions.

 

[Morty_]

Seems to be working fine in Norway. In fact, the tax breaks and incentives have been and are still being reduced, and it doesn't really change much.

Definitely agree that cars should be taxed based on weight, though.

Norway's economy is largely based on selling fossil fuel.

As a result, buying power at home is quite high, but that high standard of living is backed by exporting pollution abroad, i'm not so sure we make up for that by importing lots of EVs.

Things are not as easy as they seem.

 

[nimic]

Norway's economy is largely based on selling fossil fuel.

As a result, buying power at home is quite high, but that high standard of living is backed by exporting pollution abroad, i'm not so sure we make up for that by importing lots of EVs.

Things are not as easy as they seem.

Partially true, but in effect it doesn't matter where the buying power comes from. Sweden also has very high buying power, and they could probably have done similar things to what we're doing, if not quite at the same level. Even so they're way ahead of the UK in this.

Edit: We would be importing cars anyway, so why not make them EVs? Our electricity is also generally cheap (though not always), and that has nothing to do with fossil fuels. Now obviously that's not an advantage every country has.

 

[11101]

Seems to be working fine in Norway. In fact, the tax breaks and incentives have been and are still being reduced, and it doesn't really change much.

Definitely agree that cars should be taxed based on weight, though.

I dont know much about the Norwegian car market but that shows you there is no one size fits all solution, which is why it's so braindead for a country like the UK to be pursuing one.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

In short, my question is this: did governments worldwide make the wrong choice by focusing fully on electric vehicles (in terms of road transportation emissions) to achieve the emissions reductions we need?

Obviously, reducing global emissions is a top priority, and cutting car tailpipe emissions (or even removing them entirely) must play a crucial role in achieving goals like net zero by year x. However: electric vehicles are not a great solution for this. Yes, of course, they do deeply cut emissions, but they are much heavier than hybrid or gas cars and therefore generate a lot more particular matter emissions. Basically: while we cut tailpipe emissions, we increase non-tailpipie emissions - which is a real problem for things like air quality. Additionally, there are serious issues around the need for rare earth elements and other materials to create batteries and the proper disposal of discarded batteries.

For those who are interested (and have access...) this review article from March 2023 in Science of The Total Environment (yes, a serious scientific journal) goes into those things, but they key points are nicely summarized in these two figures:

People might say that this is all very nice, but everything is better than allowing global temperature to continue rising, so we'll have to accept those new issues as the worst of two evils. That's what I used to think as well, but the full magnitude of these other problems (around non-tailpipe emissions and battery production and disposal) has slowly been dawning on me the past few months - while there are actually alternatives!

Or at least, one is already available: hydrogen-powered cars. Toyota and Honda already have working models. They're still expensive, there aren't many charging stations yet - sure, but that was all the same around electric cars until quite recently. Also, hydrogen had the issue of being dirty to produce: it's relatively clean as a by-product of gas production, but that will slow down when those industries scale down, and hydrogen is polluting when created on its own. But in recent years, natural hydrogen deposits have been found underground (see e.g. this article from Science), and those are currently estimated to hold enough hydrogen for humanity for centuries of use (or whatever the exact number was that I read elsewhere recently - but it's a very long period).

So again, did governments make the wrong choice, putting all our transportation eggs in the electric vehicle basket?

Yes, infrastructure for public transport. Always felt like a silver bullet ideal/short term "first station" thinking.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Maybe I should clarify: I am not against the current and increasing use of electric vehicles. Obviously, we need to act now against global emissions (or rather: should have started taking this seriously in the 90s already, since the science has been clear at least since then, if not earlier), and it's not like we have good alternatives to electric vehicles available on the market right now. Moreover, governments can do more within the electric vehicle market, to limit the constant growth of cars. (Which, on average, are much bigger and heavier now in North America than they used to be.)

My issue is rather the the sole and exclusive focus for 'clean' transportation seems to be on electric vehicles, and that, outside scientific discussions, I hear next to nothing about other technologies. And that's while hydrogen cars are close to being ready for the big time, and there might be other things I'm unaware of.

So my issue is really that it seems to be all electric now - while I think the figured above show that we should be looker at other solutions long-term.

I've raised similar articles, concerns and stuff in the EV thread and am usually rounded on as a fear monger, luddite, shill etc so will be fun to see the usual suspects descend into here with the same verse and zest.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Of course they have got it wrong. Governments needed to do something to hit emissions targets so they panicked and went all in on the first idea they saw, now they're stuck as people don't want them unless they've got massive tax breaks and incentives behind them.

The Toyota boss probably has it right, EVs should be about 30% of the transport mix. In 10 years time we will look back at the zero emissions transition as a glaring example of failed policy.

Absolutely, my general cynicism on the subject isn't about EVs but in the fact it's humans in capitalism making very poor decisions.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

So what's your suggestion for what they should have done instead? I've just been beating the hydrogen drum here, but I'm hoping there's more than just that alternative.

A mix, I like sustainable fuels using agriculture waste for ethanol for use in aviation, haulage, marine.

I also like EVs in smaller cars/short journey options.

I think hybrids work well in the right circumstances.

Hydrogen I think would be amazing but a tad, well blue sky dream.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Partially true, but in effect it doesn't matter where the buying power comes from. Sweden also has very high buying power, and they could probably have done similar things to what we're doing, if not quite at the same level. Even so they're way ahead of the UK in this.

Edit: We would be importing cars anyway, so why not make them EVs? Our electricity is also generally cheap (though not always), and that has nothing to do with fossil fuels. Now obviously that's not an advantage every country has.

Why is the electricity in Norway so cheap?

 

[nimic]

Why is the electricity in Norway so cheap?

It's almost entirely hydro.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

It's almost entirely hydro.

That's cool, not sure that can be done here?

 

[nimic]

That's cool, not sure that can be done here?

Read to the end of my post.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Read to the end of my post.

Oh missed that. Yeah, we must be able to use our geography in some way

 

[nimic]

Oh missed that. Yeah, we must be able to use our geography in some way

Every Norwegian is aware that we won the geography jackpot, except the weather (which is still very mild for the latitude). For the modern world, anyway. So I'm definitely not expecting other countries to match what we're doing in those areas. I do think there's more to it than purely wealth, though.

 

[Conor]

Of course they did, they picked whatever thing they could to push blame and cost to the consumer, instead of properly investing in infrastructure and public transport. The main idiot in the Green party in Ireland is focusing basically everything on getting people onto bikes, in a country with shit weather, where nobody wants to cycle a bike.

 

[Cheimoon]

Of course they did, they picked whatever thing they could to push blame and cost to the consumer, instead of properly investing in infrastructure and public transport. The main idiot in the Green party in Ireland is focusing basically everything on getting people onto bikes, in a country with shit weather, where nobody wants to cycle a bike.

Well: the Netherlands have shit weather as well (rain and wind) and it wasn't the cycling country it is now before the 1960s (or some such decade). They got where they are now through some serious design choices that could be made almost everywhere - including in winter countries. The Not Just Bikes YouTube channel has some excellent stuff on that:

https://youtube.com/@NotJustBikes?feature=shared

I would agree that cycling can't be the only infrastructure solution though, but it can definitely be important to reduce local car use.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Well: the Netherlands have shit weather as well (rain and wind) and it wasn't the cycling country it is now before the 1960s (or some such decade). They got where they are now through some serious design choices that could be made almost everywhere - including in winter countries. The Not Just Bikes YouTube channel has some excellent stuff on that:

https://youtube.com/@NotJustBikes?feature=shared

I would agree that cycling can't be the only infrastructure solution though, but it can definitely be important to reduce local car use.

Agreed, the 15 min towns are ideal tbh

 

[Cheimoon]

Agreed, the 15 min towns are ideal tbh

Exactly. That's not a short-term thing, but every instance of urban (re-)development should focus on that (kind of) approach.

Did you know there's a conspiracy theory about that idea btw? It's supposed to be a government ploy to restrict people's movement. The world can be so hopeless sometimes...

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Exactly. That's not a short-term thing, but every instance of urban (re-)development should focus on that (kind of) approach.

Did you know there's a conspiracy theory about that idea btw? It's supposed to be a government ploy to restrict people's movement. The world can be so hopeless sometimes...

Insane really. Basically we're fecked because we cannot make progress due to idiots.

 

[whitbyviking]

Exactly. That's not a short-term thing, but every instance of urban (re-)development should focus on that (kind of) approach.

Did you know there's a conspiracy theory about that idea btw? It's supposed to be a government ploy to restrict people's movement. The world can be so hopeless sometimes...

The conspiracy theory has been allowed to come about because the planning and roll out of 15min cities has been poor, as usual. Baffling choices for road closures and causing huge inconvenience without much consultation.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

I've noticed a couple of articles in my newsfeed the last few days that suggest some big manufacturers are ditching electric and focusing on hydrogen powered vehicles instead.

 

[Cheimoon]

I've noticed a couple of articles in my newsfeed the last few days that suggest some big manufacturers are ditching electric and focusing on hydrogen powered vehicles instead.

Interesting. Do you have some links maybe?

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Interesting. Do you have some links maybe?

Possibly these two:

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-...t-to-Soar-Past-USD-78-92-Billion-by-2030.html

https://lagradaonline.com/en/hydrogen-cars-futue-automakers/

 

[AjaxNL]

Possibly these two:

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-...t-to-Soar-Past-USD-78-92-Billion-by-2030.html

https://lagradaonline.com/en/hydrogen-cars-futue-automakers/

Didn't read the first article, but there is nothing in the second article that backs up the title that FC cars will overtake EV cars. Just that the market for FC cars will grow over the next decade.. duh. There will be far to little (green) hydrogen, or tanking infrastructure, available in the next decade for FC cars to make a serious claim for the sustainable automobile industry. long haul transport might be different though, eventually.

 

[Cheimoon]

Possibly these two:

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-...t-to-Soar-Past-USD-78-92-Billion-by-2030.html

https://lagradaonline.com/en/hydrogen-cars-futue-automakers/

Thanks. As @AjaxNL says, a little lacking in concrete evidence; but my understanding from a few years ago is that hydrogen vehicles do get sold (a bit) in Japan, and I think there were some charging stations in California and Vancouver. So I guess (admittedly a fairly wild guess) you could say the whole thing is now where electric was about 10 years ago.