Besoeker wrote:Care to cite comparative figures for vehicle fires?
Do people ever think before asking this type of question?
The alleged risk of hydrogen cars is not based on comparative figures since there are no hydrogen cars. Thus, questioning the risk cannot be based on "comparative figures" either.
layman wrote:The bigger problem is the inherent weaknesses in lithium batteries that @Atlantis mentioned. They are expensive, heavy and resource intensive to produce.
There are more than 1 billion cars in the world at present. Producing and disposing of 1 or 2 billion very powerful lithium batteries every 10 years, or so, is an ecological nightmare.
There will be technological advances in batteries, but there will also be technological advances in hydrogen technologies. It would be a mistake to put all our eggs into one basket. At the beginning, one never knows which technology will win in the end.
For the rail, hydrogen is already viable today. Since the rail will always be more ecological (and economic) than the road, we have every interest in moving as much traffic as possible to the rail.
And I'm sure @layman will particularly appreciate the fact that rail-networks connecting the economies of the Eurasian continent are our best bet of neutering the maritime Anglo-Empire.
Edit: A lifespan of 10 years is probably too optimistic for lithium car batteries. Present owners of electric cars seem to notice a decline in performance after 4 to 5 years. And as we know from other devices, manufacturers claims regarding battery performance and lifespan are usually not reliable.