No, actually, this is not the main objection. The main objection I hear is that it is actually not a fuel. Rather, it is an energy conduit.
This objection is a bunch of bull. No serious person has ever suggested that we use hydrogen as a energy source to power everything. Much of everything is a "energy conduit." You don't put coal in your computer. Someone converts that coal into electricity, essentially wasting 2/3rds of the energy, so you can turn on your lights. It is no different. You don't put oil into your car. You convert it into products, wasting a lot of the energy, so you can run your car. Energy conversion is required in pretty much everything except for heating.
Not so. That initial enthusiasm, according to all the development and promise, was in the battery-electric field, not the hydrogen. People never stopped tinkering with hydrogen, and the enthusiasts going into actual business in the field—like me—never dismissed it, knowing that it would be a good compliment to battery electrics. But it was always farther in the future than most cared to admit.
Battery research is alive and well. I'm not sure about the rest of this, as a fuel cell vehicle still requires a large set of lithium-ion batteries, the same ones that are required in a electric car. Any advancement in battery technology is not only an advancement for electric cars, but also fuel cells. You can't have a fuel cell vehicle without batteries, but you can have an electric vehicle without fuel cells. Your theory that GWB killed batteries by going the fuel cell route makes little sense.
no subject
This objection is a bunch of bull. No serious person has ever suggested that we use hydrogen as a energy source to power everything. Much of everything is a "energy conduit." You don't put coal in your computer. Someone converts that coal into electricity, essentially wasting 2/3rds of the energy, so you can turn on your lights. It is no different. You don't put oil into your car. You convert it into products, wasting a lot of the energy, so you can run your car. Energy conversion is required in pretty much everything except for heating.
Not so. That initial enthusiasm, according to all the development and promise, was in the battery-electric field, not the hydrogen. People never stopped tinkering with hydrogen, and the enthusiasts going into actual business in the field—like me—never dismissed it, knowing that it would be a good compliment to battery electrics. But it was always farther in the future than most cared to admit.
Battery research is alive and well. I'm not sure about the rest of this, as a fuel cell vehicle still requires a large set of lithium-ion batteries, the same ones that are required in a electric car. Any advancement in battery technology is not only an advancement for electric cars, but also fuel cells. You can't have a fuel cell vehicle without batteries, but you can have an electric vehicle without fuel cells. Your theory that GWB killed batteries by going the fuel cell route makes little sense.