Still, in a package that looks to be about the size of four or five AA batteries (exclusive of the light) it holds the energy of 10. Not seeing the downside here - instant recharging, more power in a smaller package, what's not to like? Again, why are we still messing around with the stagnant tech that is batteries to power cars?
Better question is, why is it not in our laptops???? There is certainly enough room in there...
Because your information is, pardon my French, full of shit. By "the work of 1000 AA batteries" you mean contain the same amount of energy, right?
Well, let's see... an alkaline battery might contain 6Wh of energy (1.5*4), a rechargeable one might contain 3.5Wh (1.2*2.9ish). One charge for this fuel cell contains 12Wh of energy. By my maths that's the work of two AA batteries or 3.5 rechargeable ones. I'd say there's your answer why we still are dealing with this stupid battery crap.
OK so if you can get roughly same amount of power in a similar sized package that is extremely easy to recharge and lasts longer on a charge, then WHY in the world would you still use batteries?
See my ENTIRE problem with batteries in cars is the fact that there are no tangible benefits to using batteries instead of fuel cells.
Advantages of batteries:
- Can be recharged at home (somewhat dubious as not everyone has a parking lot/garage they can use)
- Regenerative braking
- No fossil fuels used (though it largely depends on the power plant)
- Potential infrastructure available now (if we can get quick charge times down to say 10 minutes or so we could install chargers at all the gas stations)
Disadvantages of batteries:
- Take a long time to recharge (even quick charge is 30 minutes or so right now)
- Additional weight (we also how Tesla was driving around TG's track, and that's a sports car based on a Lotus)
- Limited life (especially with quick charge they last what about 3 years or so?)
- Susceptible to environmental conditions (less power in the winter because cold)
- Difficulty in proper range estimation (things like HVAC, infotainment systems, lights, etc... make a much bigger difference in range for a BEV than ICE for instance)
- Power loss over time (leave the car for a week and you will lose a decent amount of charge, hell a friend of mine couldn't even start her car after it was sitting for 2 weeks because her battery went flat)
- Technology not quite there yet as far as range and speed of refuel is concerned
Advantages of Fuel Cells:
- Quick refill (basically works same as ICE as far as refill goes)
- Less weight
- No power loss over time? (not sure about this one but AFAIK it works similar to ICE where the fuel is in a tank and is only fed to the FC when being used)
- Potential infrastructure in place (easy enough to convert gas stations to pump hydrogen instead of petrol/diesel)
- No fossil fuel use (again highly depends on how hydrogen is being produced)
- Can utilize excess power of nuclear power plants (since nukes always make power they can hydrocrack at night)
- Easier range estimation, since FC's have a fuel tank you can keep an eye on actual fuel level
- Technology is already proven (navy uses it) and can easily replace ICE given availability of refueling infrastructure
Disadvantages of Fuel Cells:
- No regenerative braking (can be easily overcome by using a small battery as an auxiliary power source for say HVAC, Infotainment, etc... or a KERS like system)
- Cannot be refueled at home
Common:
- Lack of infrastructure
- Requirement to redesign current vehicles
And now for the party piece:
The MAIN reason to go for Fuel Cells over Batteries is the fact that FC tech is already here and available while battery tech is always "5 years away". However if the battery tech actually DOES make some sort of a breakthrough retrofitting FCEV to be a BEV would be TRIVIAL as you would not need to do anything but hook up a battery to the +/- terminals of the motor instead of an FC. So again WHY bother with batteries?