As James Carville once said, “It’s the economy, stupid."

We all may have our preferences and try to defend them, but things surely look ugly for the ones that love FCEVs. Not because they do not make sense as a clean mean of transportation, but mostly because of much stronger competitors in that field, BEVs. And this video from the Tailosive Tech YouTube channel gives a very technical and interesting perspective on why that is so. Basically, “it’s the economy, stupid.”

Please do not get offended. This remark was made famous as one of the pillars James Carville used to make Bill Clinton the 42nd POTUS. They had to focus on how the economy was performing in those days. We are not talking exactly about the economy, but of the business cases presented both by the battery electric vehicles and fuel cell electric vehicles.

Andrew Erickson starts from a very basic fact that is stepping stone for all his reasoning: cars need to get somewhere the energy they use to run around. BEVs get it from any outlet you may have on your house or on the streets. What about FCEVs?

They need hydrogen filling stations. And there are not that many around. In fact, they are very few. How will you buy a car you do not know where to replenish? And that is just one of the problems Erickson sees with FCEVs.

What's It Like To Drive 900 Miles In A Hyundai Nexo Hydrogen Car?

The video presenter also raises the problem of cost per mile. Although FCEVs normally get a decent range, refueling them is expensive. That’s a matter of the hydrogen-production scale. He does not even mention that hydrogen is mostly produced from natural gas. In other words, most of it currently comes from fossil origins.

FCEVs also need much more development in order to be cheaper and to perform better, but, again, there are bigger problems. Which Erickson addresses in his video. Watch it and share your thoughts on his arguments here with us.

Gallery: This Is Why BEVs Will Probably Beat FCEV In The Long Run