who cares about EFFICIENCY if you're burning hydrogen? it doesn't matter that hydrogen burning motors share the same 30% or lower efficiency as petroleum burning... not one bit! the only byproducts are heat & water.
there are some REALLY nasty chemicals involved in battery tech you know, right?
round 1: hydrogen wins the chemistry battle
all you need to CREATE hydrogen is electricity & water IF you could chop mobil's head off and get the hydrogen cell/generator technology they most certainly DO hold the patents on back. they ARE keeping the tech off the market on purpose no matter what any of you apologists who apparently either never watched who killed the electric car? or payed attention to it say. GM bought the tech and then sold it to an oil company (kinda sounds like an anti-trust issue to me)
round 2: (PROVISIONAL if only the generator tech weren't buried) tie between electric & hydrogen as both use electricity which is infinitely renewable with any number of techs i'm not going to repeat. the only difference would be whether you get your electricity off the grid or on site. hydro stations without on site renewable generation WOULD suck, but windmills etc. should be part of a "let's save the planet" strategy which of course will be fought tooth & nail by every industry that bribes politicos to keep their profits maxed.
electric power SUCKS for range whereas hydrogen refills would be available coast to coast if only there were the will to adopt the tech. sorry, no EV is EVER going to get me to vegas or disneyland etc. heck, where i am, it won't get me anywhere but a couple of small towns i'd never visit even if i could
round 3: hydrogen beats the living daylights out of electric for range and then takes a steaming dump on it
unless some sort of "fast charge" tech is ever invented, you'll never be able to recharge vehicles at a station like you could refueling a hydrogen tank/cell which can be done in MINUTES! that would be especially important for delivery vehicles etc.
round 4: hydrogen kicks butt yet again in the "refueling" department
cost? don't even try and lie. electric cars cost an insane amount to build (new!) yet offer terrible performance (range). you know, that leaf car everyone is psyched about doesn't include the $10k or so needed to put batteries in it. i haven't seen many EV conversions that cost under $10K, but most modern fuel injected cars can be converted to burn hydrogen for just a COUPLE thousand. (that is, unless the builders of the hydro burning festiva lied about it)
round 5: hydro totally kicks EV's butt in conversion costs at about 30% on a bad day and much less if infrastructure were built.
taking range out of the equation, EV conversions totally win the infrastructure battle as owners can charge at home instead of waiting for oil scum to invest in hydro stations which ain't EVER gonna happen as long as there's a drop of dead dinosaurs left in the earth's crust.
round 6: electric owns the infrastructure battle as long as you don't want to go anywhere out of town
of course you need to get your water from SOMEWHERE and that too is a dwindling resource, but sooner or later we'll need to move to desalinization plants to keep up with demand, but in my mind i see a top to bottom infrastructure reform that would take that into account too.
round 7: without researching the scarcity of materials needed to make batteries, i'll give that tech the benefit of the doubt in the material availabilty department, but it shouldn't be too difficult to incorporate water reclamation into cars so they dump the water they've burned back off at the station which will turn it back into hydrogen again. i'd call it a tie, but i'm trying to be unbiased and just stick with facts.
being generous, hydro still wins 3 to 2. just because as EV fans, you're willing to accept range limitations, don't project that on the rest of the world who absolutely has no interest in taking a step backwards & surrendering freedom. i'd add a "desirability" round for an extra point, but that would be dishonest as the reasons are already covered.
these are all FACTS. deny them, and you're either a flat out idiot or a lying sack of crap, either way unworthy of debating.
i would say that hydrogen power's lack of highly toxic battery chemistry far outweighs the efficiency issue. as long as you have access to sytations that generate hydrogen on site with wind, solar or hydropower, you can go ANYWHERE you want with water & heat being your only byproducts.
if it weren't for the oil scum who DO hold the hydrogen cell tech you're in denial about because you aren't in full possession of the facts (or are a flat out liar) after the market EASILY adapts to burning hydrogen, could then adapt to hydrogen cell EVs that use the very same "quick refill" tech at hydro stations.
the only way you could win an argument against that is to be a liar. facts are facts. the only thing keeping it off the market is greed. if it weren't for that, hydrogen power is the pragmatic solution. why am i even arguing with EV fanboys who deny reality & practicality? no one can say anything to you you don't want to hear.
if EVs were practical & affordable without so many compromises, i would be the first to support them. hydrogen does the same thing cheaper, further & less toxic.
BTW... there's an entire world out there beyond 100 miles! you won't fall off the earth if you drive 500 miles. honest.
there's no way i'm wasting $20k to go anywhere i can for free or just a couple dollars with an all day bus pass. without range, EVs suck rotten eggs when there are zero emission techs out there that can do that CHEAPER in an ideal world not ruled by greed and lies and where people are motivated by what's right & necessary.
if you want to make EVs attractive (besides the way they kick much butt in drag racing) then you either need to come up with a quick charge tech to extend range or make stations where one can swap batteries to keep going after 100 miles. otherwise, the range limitation is an unbearable straightjacket hardly anyone will be willing to pay a 5x premium for.