Make a critical assessment of the arguments presented in the media for and against fuel cells vs rechargeable batteries as the power source for electric transportation, using public debate between Tesla Motors and Toyota as a case example.
(Note: The debate referred to here, was in 2014 – 2015. What has been debated since? Has the discussion changed as Toyota Mirai has moved on?).
Scope: Limit your analysis to the actual arguments given by the two parties, and the technoeconomic facts that might lie behind them.
Tasks:
Elon Musk of Tesla Motors has called fuel cells “silly” while investing Billions to forward battery electric cars. Toyota that has criticized electric cars for range anxiety, and Tesla Motors for “putting all eggs in the same basket”, while investing on fuel cell car manufacturing.
The debate gives a handle to discuss the future of electric cars, or more specifically their power sources. 1) Search the internet for reports and news about the arguments of both parties and list them.
2) List also the sources and rank them according how reliable they are from your perspective.
3) Discuss and analyze the arguments by contrasting them with objective information from independent sources. Do the arguments of the two parties disagree with each other? How? Are some of them perhaps comparing “apples and oranges” instead of debating on the same issue? Under which conditions or assumptions each argument would be right? Make your own judgment in a neutral perspective.
Reporting: the technical report should include a description of the team’s approach to the tasks described above.

Abstract:

Intro:
1- The importance of the renewable energy
2- Rechargeable batteries
3- What is fuel cell?
4- Why do we need to use other options to fuel cars instead of the conventional way?

Methodology:
A description of the team’s approach

Body:
1- Tesla motors
2- Toyota motors
3- Comparison between them briefly
4- List the sources and rank them according how reliable they are from your perspective.
5- Discuss and analyze the arguments by contrasting them with objective information from independent sources. Do the arguments of the two parties disagree with each other? How? Are some of them perhaps comparing “apples and oranges” instead of debating on the same issue? Under which conditions or assumptions each argument would be right? Make your own judgment.

Conclusion:

References: