Why Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars Are Not Competitive – From A Hydrogen Fuel Cell Accomplished, CleanTechnica

Why Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars Are Not Competitive – From A Hydrogen Fuel Cell Accomplished

One of our wonderful regular commenters, “neroden,” recently dropped a very interesting link into the comments of an article about Hyundai’s apparent shift in concentrate to battery-electric cars. As he prefaced it:

There’s actually a long list of problems with fuel cell cars.

It is a long chunk, and it’s only Part 1! Admittedly, it would be nice if the author updated it to match the current market – it was published in February two thousand fifteen and is dated in a duo of parts. But the key points are the same nonetheless, and they aren’t switching. These key points are laid out in bullet points at the beginning of Part 1, Part Two, and Part Three:

Very first of all, HFC cars are perceived to be a good bridge inbetween fossil fuels and utter electrified because:

You can still pack up like you do with a gasoline or diesel powered car
The mileage you can get out of hydrogen is perceived to be more adequate than what you get from batteries
Hydrogen fuel cells are thought not to wear out as quickly as batteries (or conversely, batteries are thought to wear out very quickly)
Hydrogen as a fuel is perceived to be a relatively puny infrastructural switch from gasoline and diesel
Hydrogen is perceived as a cleaner solution than gasoline, diesel or natural gas

You cannot pack up like you do with gasoline or diesel. It is actually pretty ridiculous how hard it is to pack up a HFC powered car
You won’t even go one hundred miles on current tech hydrogen tanks that are still safe to carry around in a car
Fuel cells wear out crazy rapid and are hard to regenerate
Hydrogen as a fuel is exceptionally hard to make and distribute with acceptably low losses

Hydrogen fuel cells have bad theoretical and practical efficiency
Hydrogen storage is inefficient, energetically, volumetrically and with respect to weight
HFCs require a shit ton of supporting systems, making them much more complicated and prone to failure than combustion or electrical engines
There is no infrastructure for distributing or even making hydrogen in large quantities. There won’t be for at least twenty or thirty years, even if we commence building it like crazy today.
Hydrogen is actually pretty hard to make. It has a horrible well-to-wheel efficiency as a result.
Effortless ways to get large quantities of hydrogen are not ‘cleaner’ than gasoline.
Efficient HFCs have very slow response times, meaning you again need extra systems to store energy for accelerating
Even tho’ a HFC-powered car is essentially an electrified car, you get none of the benefits like packing it up with your own power source, using it as a wise grid buffer, regenerating energy during braking, etc.
Battery electrified cars will always be better in every way given the speed of technological developments past, present and future

Physicist Joe Romm, PhD, who oversaw oversaw $1 billion in R&D, demonstration, and deployment of low-carbon technology in one thousand nine hundred ninety seven as acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy under President Bill Clinton, has written several articles and an entire book on why hydrogen cars are overly hyped, not competitive with battery-electric cars, amazingly dumb, and (obviously) not a winning strategy.

The author of the lump above was involved in the very first international hydrogen racing championship, and as you can see if you read his articles, knows a lot about the technology.

Elon Musk, another vocal HFCV critic, is a physicist by training and was interested since college, at least, in advancing sustainable transport. He specifically went the route of battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) rather than HFCVs because of inherent, ample advantages for BEVs. As he has noted, the theoretical limit for HFCVs isn’t even as good as current-tech BEVs…. As he stated last year:

Hydrogen fuel cell cars “are enormously stupid.”
“Hydrogen is an exceptionally dumb” fuel.
“Fuel cell is so bullshit, it’s a fountain of rubbish. The only reason they do fuel cell is because… they don’t truly believe it, it’s something that they can… it is like a marketing thing.”
“There’s no need for us to have this debate. I’ve said my peace on this, it will be super visible as time goes by.”

EV accomplished Julian Cox wrote an article for us a duo years ago on why hydrogen cars are simply not green. The article got a lot of attention and was referenced widely (including by Joe Romm and some mainstream media outlets), but the message doesn’t seem to have violated through to many people in the “green” and “cleantech” community. Furthermore, hydrogen fuel cell cars proceed to get subsidies from governments … which is both a waste of money and counterproductive. Sure, keep investing a little bit in R&D, but don’t take away from the cash that should go toward battery-electric vehicles in order to quickly decarbonise transportation and help stop global heating.

Anyone peddling HFCVs at this point is either not connecting key dots or knows what the situation actually is and is simply engaging in corrupt, unethical behavior.

I hope this will be my last lump on hydrogen fuel cell cars. I hope….

Check out our fresh 93-page EV report, based on over Two,000 surveys collected from EV drivers in forty nine of fifty US states, twenty six European countries, and nine Canadian provinces.

About the Author

Zachary Shahan is tryin’ to help society help itself (and other species) with the power of the typed word. He spends most of his time here on CleanTechnica as its director and chief editor, but he’s also the president of Significant Media and the director/founder of EV Obsession, Solar Love, and Bikocity. Zach is recognized globally as a solar energy, electrified car, and energy storage accomplished. Zach has long-term investments in TSLA, FSLR, SPWR, SEDG, & ABB — after years of covering solar and EVs, he simply has a lot of faith in these particular companies and feels like they are good cleantech companies to invest in.

Fresh Munich Carsharing Service Uses Hyundai Fuel Cell Vehicles →

World Green Car of the Year Award is Just Another Bad Joke →

Phi Suea Solar Homes Store Excess Energy As Hydrogen →

Marty, you’re grabbing for straws.

We need to build no HVDC transmission in order to charge EVs. We already have the capability to charge more than 80% of all US cars and light trucks were they to turn into EVs overnight.

The facts are not in your favor, Marty. Why don’t you take a little time and question why you are so strongly advocating for a technology which as severe and likely fatal flaws?

“Now six European companies have announced a consortium that will build four hundred hydrogen refueling stations across Germany by 2023. The group consists of Air Liquide, Linde, Daimler, OMV, Shell and Total.”

Daimler and five companies in the business of selling fuel.

“The cross-sector joint venture will be known as H2 MOBILITY Deutschland. according to Electrical Car Reports. It is based in Berlin and is already working hard on Stage One of the plan — the construction of one hundred packing stations over the next few years.”

That’s one hundred H2 stations of the next few years. Not four hundred H2 stations now.

You might reflect on the one hundred H2 stations that were to be built in California. Nine have been built and eighteen have been funded. There seems to be significant problems getting companies interested in getting into the hydrogen business. They just aren’t watching a future.

Your very first article describes how the Japanese government believes hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are the future. Then it describes the cost problem of a hydrogen based transportation system and how EV battery prices are rapidly pulling down.

Your 2nd article describes how the Japanese government is using taxpayer money to subsidize both FCEVs and hydrogen packing station construction. Their hope is that by doing so they can bring the price of both FCEVs and hydrogen stations down in price.

The article contains some untrue claims such as –

” hydrogen cars have two big leads over their battery-powered competition: they fuel up much faster—about three minutes as compared to several hours for most EVs—and the Mirai’s range of three hundred twelve miles hits even the Tesla. “

You can fully charge a Tesla at a Supercharger in seventy five minutes. And that time will shorten as Tesla increases the ‘size of the pipe’. The Tesla 85P has a three hundred twenty mile range.

It talks about EVs not being fully ‘clean’ until the grid is carbon free. But talks about carbon free FCEVs using hydrogen made from that same grid. Obviously we get to a carbon free grid quicker with EVs than with FCEVs because EVs need less than one third as much electric current.

Or put another way, as long as the grid is not carbon free FCEVs will have a carbon footprint three times that of EVs.

Just look at this quote –

“Given Japan’s current energy sources, building up a clean-powered hydrogen supply chain looks less daunting than decarbonizing the electrical grid.”

Whoever wrote this article simply didn’t pay attention to what they were writing.

What the article does not discuss is the cost of hydrogen and why the cost of operating FCEVs make them an evolutionary dead end.

Sorry, Marty, you don’t further your argument with these two articles. You just underline the flaws in your thinking.

“Even tho’ a HFC-powered car is essentially an electrified car, you get none of the benefits like packing it up with your own power source, using it as a wise grid buffer, ***regenerating energy during braking***, etc.”

I’m as anti-fool-cell as the next fellow, but gravely, what does this mean? FCEVs are designed like hybrids. I’m sure a majority of braking energy is saved to their battery buffer in most designs. You just said they require a large battery bank to ensure good acceleration.

Very interesting. But why do some of the leading car makers still stick with fuel cells?

Could be a few things.

Tesla is using something like half the LiON batteries in the world. And are now making their own. Not an effortless option for established auto companies.

Tesla does not receive $Two,500 extra per car but FCEV manufacturers do.

Hydrogen uses more fossil fuels to make and run than do gasoline cars. So hydrogen is being shoved strongly by the oil industry. Possibly some money is being transferred too?

But hydrogen does not use any fossil fuels when made one hundred % with RE, right? I heard that some countries invest a lot in hydrogen storage infrastructure because they can´t use all the excess energy of their offshore wind mills.

Yes. It’s possible to make hydrogen with 100% RE. Presently almost all is being made with fossil fuels. Northern Germany has been experimenting with RE for hydrogen for a while now. However it’s much more cost effective to sell the excess energy to other countries and build HVDC lines to southern Germany. Both of which they have also been doing.

Wind turbines. We aren’t grinding corn offshore.

There will not be “excess” energy in any appreciable amount. EVs will gladly suck up any tens unit that is priced below the typical price. We’ll need storage so that “excess” will get stored.

Were we to use H2 FCEVs we’d have to build hydrogen production and compression plants. Those plants, like oil refineries, would have to run 24/7, not just a few hours a month when there might be very low priced tens unit.

People who talk about making hydrogen (or synfuel) with excess electric current have not thought through the scale of powering transportation.

“The majority of modern windmills take the form of wind turbines” (source en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windmill). So yes wind turbine is more specific and I’m all for that but a bit harsh to ding the boy for using the more general term windmill.

Anti-renewable folks commonly refer to wind turbines as wind mills.

Come on, in a hydrogen economy no hydrogen is made of fossil fuels anymore. Did you read Bela Liptak´s book about that? It´s very clear how this would work and what the benefits are. The very first countries to adopt this strategy now are Japan and Germany, other countries in Europe and Asia will go after. Grid capacity is not HVDC always the solution, distributed power plants using grid-scale fuel cells might be better in some geographies, also for political reasons as in Germany. They just commenced the worlds largest electrolyzing demo plant near Frankfurt. this is just the beginning.

“Presently, the majority of hydrogen (∼95%) is produced from fossil fuels

by steam reforming or partial oxidation of methane and coal

gasification with only a puny quantity by other routes such as biomass

gasification or electrolysis of water”

Evidently reality doesn’t get in your way.

Yes, presently. This is already going to switch. Wikipedia is not the best reference for rapid switching facts.

You do realize you are already contradicting yourself. Now you say it is presently true but before then you said “Come on, in a hydrogen economy no hydrogen is made of fossil fuels anymore”.

Could it be you like the idea of hydrogen but are not aware of all the pitfalls to it. Perhaps you just need a few months to get up to speed? (I once believed in hydrogen like you do presently but I got past it after a year or two.)

Since we are not yet living in a hydrogen economy, this is not a contradiction. I don´t care about today, I am talking about tomorrow. Let me know about the pitfalls you are afraid off. That´s interesting.

I too once thought H2 fuel cells might get us passed the diminishing stock of economically extractable oil. Since then lead acid batteries and NiFe cells are no longer the only option for EVs. NMhi and subsequently Li-ion have has switched all that. The end of economically extractable oil seems as far away as ever however which would be nice if it weren’t for the about to be devastating affect on the environment and its inhabitants.

It is odd how just the idea or even *word* hydrogen has an irrational allure to certain individuals, isn’t it?

Because they know better? Who indeed knows. We know that BEVs are not a big success so far. Tesla doesn´t earn any money yet and BMW´s i3 is also not permanently outsold. If I had the choice, and there were enough H2 stations, I would undoubtedly go for FCEV. Why? Cause I can use it in the same way as my current car. Anytime, anywhere. Let the price go down a little bit more and let there be enough H2 stations and here we go.

There are very few places in the world that over produce by 400% their electrical needs. In fact a duo states in Germany may be it. Everywhere else they need to efficiently treat all the electro-therapy they produce. Hence FCEVs don’t make a lot of sense. When the world is packed with too much energy maybe then FCEVs will make sense. But I suspect they’ll use excess energy to purify ocean water and clean out the CO2 from the environment long before there is enough energy to waste on FCEVs.

No one will invest in hydrogen packing stations. Existing gasoline station owners won’t take the risk.

Guess I never read an article about EVs that was more wrong and misleading. Just a few examples:

– There is no distribution problem with H2 (Germany just commenced building the next four hundred H2 fueling stations, using excess wind energy to produce H2).

– FC efficiency is even higher regarding combined fever and power and fever is a mobility requirement in over eighty % of the use-cases worldwide.

– Refueling FCEVs is as effortless as refueling gasoline. All you need is an H2 station.

– Conversion losses are irrelevant when H2 will be produced based on excess wind and solar power for now and one hundred % based on RE in the future (AZ alone could fuel the entire US based on PV and H2 only).

– H2 will be distributed in pipelines and stored under the earth in salt caverns in the future. Air Products already operates a six hundred miles pipeline in TX, no problems.

– MIT recently found a fresh catalyst for FCs that avoids ninety % of the platinum used while gaining efficiency in the same time. Overall FC cost will drop by up to fifty %.

– FCEVs cover all possible mobility use-cases in all geographies and climates, BEVs cover a petite subset of urban use-cases in moderate climate. Elon Musk might once want to leave California to understand what “mobility” truly means.

– For the same reason, BEVs were sucked away by ICVs over one hundred years ago, they will be gone again as soon as H2 has substituted gasoline, diesel and natural gas.

– Current reach of FCEVs is about one hundred km per kg. Recently introduced models of Daimler and BMW go around five hundred km with one packing of 5kg (refueling time four minutes) in any (!) temperature including heating (attempt this with a Tesla in Alaska in December but don´t leave behind your survival package).

– Safety: how many H2 (or natural gas) cars exploded yet and how many Teslas burned down to ashes?

– Infrastructure: for every H2 refueling point you need sixty battery chargers based on refueling time. Cost?

– And what is the problem to produce your own H2 with a PV roof?

– Brainy grid with car battery buffer? In theory, but sorry, look at the grids blast curve. Cars would charge during peaks, even more grid capacity would be necessary. Cost?

Want more? Shall we discuss recycling and life-cycle issues of batteries vs. fuel cells? What do you think a total energy and emission balance “batterie vs. fuel cell” would look like? Batteries will be necessary for some reasons but we need to keep it at a minimum and think “environment” and “usability” for all of our energy requirements which are mobility and fever beside others. The overall efficiency is the question. At home, on the road and in the air.

Hydrogen economy is coming up. Now. In the grid, in your basement and in your car.

The only valid point to your rant that wasn’t total of partial truths was the range. If you are gravely deluded and want answers attempt making posts on a single subject instead of a shotgun treatment where pages and pages would be needed to reply to all the delusions.

I just attempted to correct some of the statements in the article and, sorry, but there is a lot to correct Just pick one issue of your choice if you think something isn´t fully accurate. I am blessed to discuss any misunderstanding.

lol, you just attempted to correct? Yeah. That’s it.

Statements like “- Safety: how many H2 (or natural gas) cars exploded yet and how many Teslas burned down to ashes?” truly don’t look like a correction. More like BS propaganda. Could just be me.

Just correct me, please. How many? Sounds sarcastic but is still true. I have never heard about any FCEV that burned down, did you? Shall I post some links of Tesla wrecks?

Hard to burn them down when there aren’t any.

True I heard about a Mercedes SUV too with fuel cell coming next year. Isn´t Mercedes also building a petite hydrogen car? Can´t be so wrong if they do it and Toyota and BMW? Japan and Germany are the worlds leading car manufacturers for some reason, aren´t they?

Toyota and Honda have released hydrogen fuel cell cars.

They are not selling.

A few years back hydrogen fuel cell cars looked to be the way we would get off fossil fuels. Batteries were far too expensive.

Since then EV batteries have gone from $1,000/kWh to under $200/kWh and should be down to $100/kWh in a few more years. No one spotted that incredible price drop coming.

Car companies began fuel cell programs. That looked like where the market was heading so they ready. Now battery prices have knocked the gams out from under fuel cells.

Price is not the issue, the issue is use-case: charging time and reach. No real improvement there and still more than poor in cold condition. FCEVs did not work yet due to availability of H2 stations. All we know is that so far, no EV was indeed successful. Tesla wasn´t, BMW wasn´t either.

Germany and Japan are now going to prove what the better solution will be for them. Four hundred fresh H2 stations until two thousand twenty three in Germany, fresh FCEV models from AUDI, BMW, Daimler, VW in the next four years. Plus existing models from Toyota, Honda, Hyundai. Grid-scale fuel-cells and electrolyzer are in the pipeline for some european countries as well as for Korea and Japan. China is doing very first demo projects on hydrogen as well and there is a substantial hydrogen program running here in the states as well. We´ll see.

Price is not the issue? Please. Price controls just about everything we do.

Packing H2 tanks is swifter but one has to go to a gas station every time they need fuel. People driving an EV just butt-plug in when they park.

Range is only a makeshift issue. The longest range Tesla has as much range as the Toyota Mirai. Battery capacity has enlargened about 7% per year on average. If capacity resumes to increase at that rate (it will very likely go swifter) then we’ll stir from two hundred mile range EVs to four hundred mile range EVs for the same price.

Your claim that EVs have not been successful is lacking truthfulness. Tesla is taking market share away from other luxury car makers (Mercedes, BMW, etc.) and there are almost 400,000 people who have paid for a place on the list to purchase a Tesla Three.

Toyota introduced the Mirai and the world went “Ho-hum”.

You can find lots of places where people are dabbling with hydrogen. But EVs are selling and request is high.

Take off your hydrogen fan cap and take a careful look at the cost of driving with hydrogen. It’s a deal killer.

The most latest support program for BEV in Germany grants five thousand € to everybody who buys one. Want to know the influence of that program so far? It is a single number: 0

Price is not he issue. Tesla is even providing the charge on top and it is not selling in Germany. Why?

And here I thought Germany was only suggesting €4,000 for BEVs and €3,000 for PHEVs. Where did you get the €5,000 number? Link?

Right, it is Four,000 not Five,000. No effect on sales anyway yet.

Truly? I call BS.

So when did the most latest support program for BEV in Germany go into affect ?

Anyway here is a quote from Forbes, April 6th two thousand sixteen about Eastern European sales :

“In 2015, according to British-based newsletter Automotive Industry Data (AID) quoting what it called its off the hook statistics, Tesla sold 15,787 Model S sedans, hitting out the Mercedes flagship S-class’s 14,990”. It was in fact the “best selling luxury car in Western Europe”. The same can be said of US sales of course.

Model S compares to E Class, BMW five or Audi A6. It´s not a luxury car. check those numbers.

That’s not where the S is stealing sales away from Mercedes and friends. Evidently luxury car purchasers think the S is pretty luxurious.

Where in the world would anybody compare these cars? Not in Europe and not in Asia. This comparison is nonsense, sorry. Ever driven an S-Class or seven Series? The car that comes closest to the Model S is the Audi A7, based on the A6 platform. Just compare dimensions, features and price.

Doesn’t matter, Marty. The kind of people who normally buy Merc S-Class and BMW 7-Series are buying Teslas.

It began in May I believe.

Hydrogen is a very inefficient method of storing energy. I’ll give you a chart at the bottom. Begin with a given amount of renewable energy and over 70% of that energy is lost on the way to where the rubber meets the road.

Batteries/EVs are about 3x as efficient.

That means that we would have to install 3x as many wind turbines and solar panels to produce clean hydrogen than we would have to install were we to use EVs.

Input energy would cost three times as much for a hydrogen energy transportation system. Three times as much.

Hydrogen would need a transportation, storage and distribution system. We’d need plants where the H2 was extracted from water and where the H2 was compressed for transportation or use.

Those plants would cost a lot of money and would need to be maintained and staffed. That’s another cost that would add to the cost of input energy.

Hydrogen is a poor storer of energy in terms of volume. 2nd graph below. A given amount of energy stored in the form of compressed H2 requires about 10x as much space compared to storing it as gasoline or diesel. That means that we’d need 10x as many tanker trucks to budge H2 from plant to gas station. We’d need storage tanks 10x what we now need.

Now we have accruing costs. Three times as much energy input. Massive infrastructure costs for producing and compressing hydrogen. A meaty amount of transportation and storage capacity. These things make a hydrogen expensive.

Now let’s look at EVs.

Only a third as many solar panels and wind turbines needed.

The transportation and infrastructure is almost all in place. Since EVs would mostly charge late at night when request is down the grid is capable of charging without any appreciable modification. (Some neighborhood transformers may need to be upsized.)

The economics simply do not work for a hydrogen transportation system.

Efficiency has some dimensions. You are only talking about the drive train. What about warmth? What about battery capacity in cold climate? Did you make a calculation of well-to-wheel for Alaska once? Attempt it, its funny. CHP of an actual FC goes up to eighty five %, ninety % seems possible. If you use the warmth because it is cold, FC are far more efficient than batteries. Plus: battery capacity drops at low temperatures. Those are the reasons why BEV are not successful, beside charging time.

Hydrogen does not have the energy density of gasoline or diesel, true, but it is one hundred % emission free and can be produced one hundred % based on RE. This is the argument. The energy input is irrelevant, just install more and you are done. PV generators produce electrical power for over thirty years, almost unattended once installed, H” just flows into the salt caverns for storage and into the pipelines for distribution. Almost all of the infrastructure is maintenance-free or can be automized. Plus: distributed micro-grids are the only option in some geographies anyway.

But even in urban areas with advanced grids, massive amounts of BEV would have a significant influence on the flow curve and unluckily, the infrastructure is not sufficient.

So find an alternative for a future hydrogen economy with zero emission and don´t leave behind: we still want to fly somehow, right?

How would you store excess RE?

“BEV are not successful”

We have gone from negligible to

1.Two million EV’s in five years.

Right. And that is what share of all cars built in the last five years? And what was the target for BEV? And what is the profit so far? How much money did Tesla earn yet? Or BMW with it´s i series? How do you define “success”?

And how many FC cars have been built in the last five years? And what was the target for FC? And what is the profit so far? How much money has Toyota earned from the Mirai? How do you define “success”?

If you want to sum up FC cars you just need to look at the hydrogen vehicle wiki page. And there, at the commence of the 2nd paragraph is the phrase that highlights the folly of these vehicles “Hydrogen does not occur naturally on Earth.”

Sorry, I don´t read wikipedia. There was almost no FC car maker and no H2 infrastructure until now. Let´s wait for a real competition. Have a reasonable amount of both charging and H2 refueling stations, get to competitive cost and in the end, usability will be the point. And that´s reach and refueling time. FCEV will win this battle. Clearly.

I’m very glad to wait and see how FCEVs do. So far they’ve failed.

Let some country set up some packing stations. Hopefully not with my tax money.

FCEVs will win in terms of fueling/charging times. But that’s a hollow victory.

As battery capacities grow and superchargers grow in output capacity EV drivers will simply stop once a day during a long (500 mile) day drive and butt-plug in while they have lunch.

FCEV drivers will spend some time packing. And then they’ll drive to where they are going to have lunch. FCEV drivers will get to where they are going after the EV drivers have already arrived.

The rest of the year? FCEV drivers are going to need to take time to stop at a packing station about forty times a year while EV drivers will just buttplug in when they park. Or park over a wireless charger.

Would you like to add a winning lottery ticket to that extensive wish list?

Tesla has one of the higher Gross Profit Margins (GPM) in the car industry. Their GPM generally is above 20%. I’m aware of only one manufacturer (Porsche) with a higher GPM and it’s not that much higher.

Companies such as Toyota and Ford have GPMs that are about have as good.

Tesla makes a lot of money from building EVs. The company “loses” money because they are powerfully investing in growth and future profits.

“What about battery capacity in cold climate? “

Preheat your batteries while plugged in.

In indeed cold places people use block heater for their ICEVs on the coldest of nights/days. Places in the north have outlets in parking lots so that people can cork in during the day.

Worst case. Volvo has an ethanoyl heater for their cars. Heats batteries and passenger cabin.

Batteries give off warmth when discharging. They can keep themselves warm while driving.

” The energy input is irrelevant, just install more and you are done.”

Bullshit, Marty. “Install more” means pay more. Cost is the FCEV killer. You need to get that into your head.

“But even in urban areas with advanced grids, massive amounts of BEV would have a significant influence on the explosion curve and unluckily, the infrastructure is not sufficient. “

That is absolutely incorrect, Marty. Totally incorrect. The NREL found that the current grid could charge 80% of all US cars and light trucks right now if they turned into EVs overnight.

“So find an alternative for a future hydrogen economy with zero emission and don´t leave behind: we still want to fly somehow, right?

How would you store excess RE?”

There is no hydrogen economy coming our way.

We won’t fly using hydrogen. The tanks would be so bulky that there would be no place for passengers and luggage.

The best large scale storage solution is pump-up hydro. About 85% efficient compared to 30% for hydrogen. Much cheaper per kWh. Even CAES is superior to hydrogen for long term energy storage.

For brief term storage batteries are kicking off to take over.

Just look at the long run. Sure we need to invest now, but it pays back cause fuel is for free. the transition is expensive, I would not deny that. But there is no other option.

The fuel is not free.

Hydrogen will cost more than 3x what running with electro-therapy costs.

One needs a 3x energy input to produce low carbon hydrogen.

The one needs to pay for the hydrogen plant, transportation, storage and distribution system.

There is clearly another option. EVs are now on roads and sales are accelerating. We should see a yam-sized hop in sales as the two hundred mile range Bolt and Tesla three begin rolling out of factories.

“FC are far more efficient than batteries” do you have a reference for that ?

While it is true that battery capacity drops with temperature, the capacity comebacks when the battery heats up.

The Norwegians know a thing or two about cold weather and they buy more BEVs per capita than any other nation.

Sure, but it´s pretty effortless to make a calculation yourself. If you are talking about eff. you need to consider the circumstances like temperature and the use-case. If you just look at electrical power at room temp., the battery is superior. FC is at about forty seven % max right now. If you look at combined fever and el. power, their head-to head at about eighty %. If you are looking at lower or higher temperatures, battery efficiency drops too. So its not a surprise, that FC at low temperatures looking at combined fever and power efficiency is higher. That is just thermodynamics. Now you may response yourself which use-cases are more likely in transportation if you consider the entire planet and not only California. Hope that helps.

Dang, left behind the charts….

FCEVs need 3x the amount of renewable energy to drive a mile than do EVs.

Hydrogen needs 10x the number of tanker trucks and 10x the amount of storage tanks of a similar energy amount of gasoline or diesel.

Thx but again, diesel and gasoline are not options for zero emission. Sorry. And btw, you left behind the life-cycle part of the total energy balance in your chart. Battery vs. FC, production, recycling, maintenance, … and don´t leave behind the latest MIT findings which safe ninety % of FC platinum while gaining efficiency. Cost (your beloved) might go down by fifty % for next gen FC.

Marty, you’re prompt on the keyboard but I’m afraid that it’s costing you contemplation time.

The cost of H2 is input energy and infrastructure.

Energy input, that’s a physics thing. It takes energy to break the hydrogen/oxygen bond in H2O and it takes energy to compress any gas. It takes about 3x as much energy to power a FCEV as it takes to power an EV.

And the cost of infrastructure. Lots of hydrogen plants. Lots of hydrogen tankers. Lots of hydrogen storage tanks. Lots of hydrogen packing stations. EVs need none of that, they avoid all those costs.

Cutting the cost of the electrode is puny switch. The cost of hydrogen is in the plants, transportation, storage and distribution.

EV batteries will be recycled. They’re a source of concentrated lithium and more valuable materials.

Well, today we have lots of oil tankers, lots of coalmines, lots of nuclear power plants, gas, coal and oil plants etc. right? So that and even the factor three doesn´t bother me. The US consumes twice as much power per capita as Europe. Let´s be more efficient in general.

Attempt to imagine in the absence of all fossil and nuclear power plants how would your energy generation, transmission and conversion look like, supporting a common grid fountain curve? It won´t happen today but it will happen one day. What are the options? Why not kicking off now? Gotta get CO2 down right?

Nuclear plants are closing because the power they produce is too expensive. Coal plants are closing in Germany because the wholesale cost of electric current has dropped below their operating cost.

FCEVs are not likely to be the transportation solution because EVs will be far less expensive to own and operate.

Want to get CO2 down? Crush your ICEV and drive an EV. EVs take only a third as much electric current per mile as does a FCEV.

Let´s be more efficient in general.

…Just not in this one specific area.

Switch on your heating while driving in low 40s and you are more efficient in this area too.

No one here is arguing for fossil fuels. Maybe H2 might be marginally better than gasoline but that is a very big maybe. It is much worse than current generation BEV tech and shows no sign of ever being superior.

As to distribution it is presently delivered via ten long tubular tanks on 44′ trailers at low pressure (3200psi) but Linde do have a higher pressure version that can transport a 1100kg per trailer explosion, enough to pack from empty one hundred ten Toyota Mirai cars. Six times that number of gasoline cars can be packed from the contents of one tanker truck.

Then you have the problem that H2 gets into the molecular structure of steel, both weakening it and making it brittle. When dealing with a gas that is much less picky about precise air fuel ratios to render it an explosive combination than say gasoline and is compressed to Ten,000 psi for delivery to FCEV you truly don’t want compromised plumbing.

I get the feeling you are aware of all these arguments against H2 already but for reasons I can only guess at you trot out these evidently practised arguments in favour of a hydrogen tranport economy.

You are right, I am aware of this. The storage problems are very likely solved already, BMW and Toyota have developed a carbon-steal tank that shows almost no H2 excess and surface altering. But I don´t want to say everything is solved and everything is effortless with H2, I am just persuaded, that there is no better option than H2 for a zero emission energy future in general. And it wont come overnight. Two thousand fifty is my scope. It only starts now.

” I am just persuaded, that there is no better option than H2 for a zero emission energy future in general. And it wont come overnight. Two thousand fifty is my scope. It only starts now.”

We are utterly aware of your beliefs. Most of us here operate on facts, not belief.

2050 for H2 FCEVs to be a player. Let’s think about that.

EVs are on track to reach purchase price parity with ICEVs in about five years. And then are expected to become less expensive than ICEVs to purchase. Driving using electro-therapy is already much cheaper than driving with gas or diesel.

That suggests that by ten years from now, if trends proceed, the fresh car market will be shifting intensely to EVs. By two thousand forty the fresh car market may be close to 100% EV.

Now, according to you, FCEVs will stir into the market in larger numbers somewhere around 2050. One has to ask why.

Why would anyone determine to purchase a car which will cost more to purchase, more to operate, have poor acceleration, and be inconvenient to operate?

You seem to be suffering a logic failure.

“EVs are on track to reach purchase price parity with ICEVs in about five years. ” That is why Tesla pulled the super charger option away for the Model Trio, right? Let´s see what the price of Daimlers GLC FC will be next year. Or BMWs five series or the Audi A7 h-tron. They are all ready to go, just wait for the packing stations. I think you have no idea what size of an influence a combined activity towards FCEVs of the entire Japanese and German car industry would have!

No, not including unlimited Supercharger use was one way to bring a $35k two hundred mile range EV to market. The three is about 20% smaller than the S which was another way to lower cost.

The least expensive S is $66k. A drop of close to 50% in selling price is an excellent step on the way to purchase price parity.

“I think you have no idea what size of an influence a combined activity towards FCEVs of the entire Japanese and German car industry would have!”

Come on Marty. You’re just wasting our time. You’ve gone from elementary lack of skill about EVs and ICEVs to to some sort of hydrogen fantasyland.

I think you’ve had an excellent chance to make your point and now you’re just going off into weird tangents. I’m going to shut down comments on this topic so that we can get back to the real world.

I’m just a casual reader with almost no technical skill or awareness of details, but I’m going to have a bit of joy and ripple my mental muscles to react to as many of these points as best as I can.

– There is no distribution problem with H2 (Germany just began building the next four hundred H2 fueling stations, using excess wind energy to produce H2).

There’s even less of a distribution problem with EVs. The electrical infrastructure is already in place, barring a few upgrades here and there. It takes very little time, money or resources to buttplug in a fresh charging point. How much will it take to build a fresh H2 packing station?

– FC efficiency is even higher regarding combined warmth and power and fever is a mobility requirement in over eighty % of the use-cases worldwide.

But no matter how you slice it, the maximum possible efficiency of using H2 as an intermediate storage medium can never be higher than that of direct charging. See Bob Wallace’s replies in this regard.

– Refueling FCEVs is as effortless as refueling gasoline. All you need is an H2 station.

Very first of all, not is… “will be”. It will only become true when/if we have an H2 station on every street corner, like we do with gas stands now. In the meantime “refueling” a BEV is even lighter, and for the most part already available. Just butt-plug it in wherever there’s an outlet available. Most people just let it do its magic at home while they sleep.

Another “will be”, and indeed an “irrelevant” point. This doesn’t even count as an argument for FCEVs, since it applies even more strongly to BEVs. AZ alone could also power the entire US with PV and EV/battery storage alone, and even more efficiently.

– H2 will be distributed in pipelines and stored under the earth in salt caverns in the future. Air Products already operates a six hundred miles pipeline in TX, no problems.

Yet another “will be”. On the other forearm, electric current is distributed by a comprehensive network of copper cables, which just coincidentally happens to already exist. It can be stored in a myriad of different ways. Why bother to build a downright fresh infrastructure when you can just make minor upgrades to one you already have?

– MIT recently found a fresh catalyst for FCs that avoids ninety % of the platinum used while gaining efficiency in the same time. Overall FC cost will drop by up to fifty %.

Super! Be sure to let us know when that discovery actually leads to the savings it promises. In the meantime battery technology is also making excellent strides in improving storage density and cost savings.

And of course by “puny subset” you truly mean the vast majority of all vehicular traffic. Most driving is done inwards city boundaries and within daylight hours. Long distance travel without stopovers is actually the exception, not the rule.

In point of fact I’d say this is the only real advantage that FCEVs have (excuse me, “will have”, if they ever get the fueling infrastructure in place), over the current crop of BEVs. But of course BEV range, charging speed and infrastructure are improving all the time, and so the number of people affected by this “problem” will also keep getting smaller and smaller. It won’t be all that long before it ceases to be an issue at all.

Oh, and you are aware that Tesla owners have already demonstrated that it’s possible to travel in one all the way across the U.S. right?

– For the same reason, BEVs were throated away by ICVs over one hundred years ago, they will be gone again as soon as H2 has substituted gasoline, diesel and natural gas.

This is nothing but an unsupported assertion. There is very little parallel inbetween current conditions and the one a century ago, except for the fact that BEV charging points proceed to expand in a way very similar to how gasoline stations did back then. In contrast, I’ve seen very little activity happening on the H2 front, except in areas where the FCEV fanatics keep attempting to hype it. Or to put it another way, the EV charging infrastructure is growing quickly and naturally due to market compels, while the H2 structure is only being coerced reluctantly into place by a few vested interests.

Assuming, once again, that you have an H2 packing station available to refuel at. Just how many of those are available in Alaska right now? But as I mentioned before, nobody denies that BEVs are presently more limited range-wise, or that they are particularly affected by colder climates. Strangely enough, however, that didn’t stop the Model S from becoming the number one selling car in Norway a duo of years ago. BEVs do have a ways to go before they are suitable for everybody, but that doesn’t mean they will never get to that point, and they are certainly suitable for many already.

– Safety: how many H2 (or natural gas) cars exploded yet and how many Teslas burned down to ashes?

Some level of danger always exists whenever you have to store large amounts of energy in a puny volume. The real question is how much danger there is relative to the benefit and to other comparable solutions. So far all the evidence suggests that BEVs are much safer than any fossil fuel burner, and that all of the “fire disasters” that have happened so far have been sucked greatly out of proportion by anti-EV critics. The brief of the matter is that BEVs are already very safe, and will get even safer as time goes on.

As for FCEVs, it seems to me that we can only say that no cars have exploded yet, and that’s most likely only due to the still very puny numbers of them actually in operation. It seems a tad bit early for you to be hyping the relative safety of one over the other. Also, how safe will the pressurized pipes and containers in that massive number of H2 packing stations be compared to the risks faced of your standard EV charging station?

– Infrastructure: for every H2 refueling point you need sixty battery chargers based on refueling time. Cost?

Yes, indeed… “cost”. How many battery chargers can you install for the cost of a single H2 refueling station? How much land is needed for each? And how much does it cost to keep each one in operation? How many employees are needed to operate them? How many service vehicles, maintenance checks, replacements of worn-out equipment are needed? How much will it cost to decommission them?

Also, is the 60:1 ratio indeed justified, since with BEVs the entire usage paradigm gets flipped on its head? With BEVs one no longer needs to visit dedicated stations at regular intervals to pack up. Instead, primary charging is done at home, work, or other dedicated locations, and charging stations are mostly needed only for those relatively infrequent emergency situations in which you cannot get back in time for a top up.

In this respect BEVs behave more like your cellphone than your ICEV. 90% of the time a single charge is good enough to get you through the day, but sometimes you find you need to find a free outlet or something similar to give you that extra boost. But just imagine it if you had to go to a cellphone “packing station” once a week to charge up!

– And what is the problem to produce your own H2 with a PV roof?

Another non-argument that if taken at face value actually works in favor of BEVs. It will always be much lighter and more efficient to charge a BEV directly from a solar panel than to throw away half of what it generates in an unnecessary intermediate storage stage. And how many people are going to want, or be able to have, dedicated electrolysis and compression machinery in their homes, when they can have a single plug-in cable, or even a wireless charger, instead?

– Wise grid with car battery buffer? In theory, but sorry, look at the grids flow curve. Cars would charge during peaks, even more grid capacity would be necessary. Cost?

You know all this, how? Looks like more baseless assertion to me.

Want more? Shall we discuss recycling and life-cycle issues of batteries vs. fuel cells? What do you think a total energy and emission balance “batterie vs. fuel cell” would look like? Batteries will be necessary for some reasons but we need to keep it at a minimum and think “environment” and “usability” for all of our energy requirements which are mobility and warmth beside others. The overall efficiency is the question. At home, on the road and in the air.

Yes, exactly how does the “overall efficiency” work out? Don’t leave behind to include the total life cycle cost of operating the necessary dedicated H2 distribution system in your calculations, compared to that of the multi-purpose electrical grid BEVs will use.

Hydrogen economy is coming up. Now. In the grid, in your basement and in your car.

Sure it is. Wanna bet?

1st, the current el. infrastructure is not even supporting all RE that is installed and in addition, you need a lot more charging options if BEV would have a noticeable market share. That is a giant investment too and what is more cost effective in the long run? Nobody knows yet. Lots of H2 facilities are maintenance free, that is why H2 is considered now as the dearest option for RE excess storage in all countries that have a significant share of RE. And if you compare the different way if heating systems in other countries in the world, H” all of a unexpected becomes very efficient. Why do you think europeans per capita power consumption is half of US? They don´t fever electrified, they use CHP. Same in Korea, Japan …

2nd, you are right with H2 efficiency and losses, but what other options do we have beside fossils or nuclear? Hydro-pump doesn´t work everywhere. Actually power-grids also don´t work everywhere. Think global.

The infrastructure for charging EVs is largely in place. It’s called the electro-stimulation grid.

Very likely more than 90% of all EV charging will be done while parked and that just requires a ordinary outlet. The other petite percent will be when people are taking long trips and Tesla has already shown how that is done. A startup company will have covered most of the US (lots of Europe and some of Asia) in only four years. Look below.

” Lots of H2 facilities are maintenance free, that is why H2 is considered now as the dearest option for RE excess storage in all countries that have a significant share of RE.”

You need to prove that apparent false claim.

You’re switching the topic by moving to space heating. Let’s stay on topic.

Actually, I think you make several good points:

FCEVs are not difficult to fuel and much swifter to fuel than EVs, albeit cost of H2 filing stations is high.

Range of FCEVs is much higher than for EVs. That could bring H2 back into the game later on. We’ll see.

ICEVs are far more of a fire hazard than either FCEVs or EVs.

MIT (Nocera) did come up with a lower cost catalyst for electrolysis, but I don’t think they enhanced the efficiency any.

Here is what it comes down to …in your words:

“The overall efficiency is the question.”

H2 is less than half as efficient as direct use of electrical play in an EV.

That’s it. …and of course FCEVs still cost way too much.

Maybe we’ll see H2 for range extension of EVs later on …when the cost comes down …maybe …or maybe not because batteries get better …we’ll see. Right now EVs have it totally over FCEVs. That’s clear.

The Honda FCX Clarity has a two hundred forty mile range.

The Toyota Mirai has a three hundred twelve mile range.

The Tesla S85 has a three hundred twenty mile range.

Ok, I’ll byte and pick this one at random: “Refueling FCEVs is as effortless as refueling gasoline. All you need is an H2 station.”

OMG LOL… don’t know where to begin, but how about: “It’s effortless to make a unicorn pot roast. Very first, kill or buy a unicorn. Then roast it in a pot.”

Yes, all you need is an H2 station. And what do you need to get one of those and have it operate as consistently, economically and continually as a gas station?

150,000 gas stations in USA

Hydrogen Fuel Station $Three,000,000

Only $450,000,000,000 to build out Just the refueling stations.

I see Exxon and BP munching their lips.

Thanks, Zach. I have some FC die-hard friends to whom I forward all such articles. They will catch on to the point that EVs are more efficient than FCs at some point.

This is a fine summary! Thank you Zach!

One way to fight the EV revolution is to redirect funds to less productive areas. This is what Thicket Jr did when he gave $1 billion to FCEV development. He and others in the fossil fuel industries and ICEV industries knew even then that EVs were getting closer to being competitive. FCEV were, and still are, twenty years away. He gave money to the technology that wouldn’t switch anything for them. Look ma, renewables don’t work! Subterfuge!

Musk has an interesting advantage over most engineers: he thinks like an engineer but his mental concentrate has always been *cost-effective* engineering. Which is evidently uncommon in an engineer. He loves to figure out how to design things which work more *cost-effectively* – it’s just not the way most engineers think. Big advantage for running a business.

Spot on! Most engineers over concentrate on how to build it better and tend to neglect design trade-offs still permitting a good product, but at a lower cost. Certainly not my bounty either.

Cost-effective engineering means, if some other industry is already producing the parts you need and they’re getting better and cheaper every year, then adapt them for your project. I love engineers who find clever uses for off-the-shelf parts. The refusal of mainstream carmakers to evolve laptop cells instead of creating fresh battery form factors from scrape has been a disastrous anchor on their EV progress… tho’ the Bolt should turn things around.

Not entirely. Look at the price of those gull-wings. Or the price of the $Two,500 wind shields. Hopefully the model three will use wind shields that are already being mass produced by other cars and cost less than $200. And screw all the sensors and computers. Just give me enough sensors and computers to monitor the battery and motor. The rest I can do myself. Let Musk prove he can make a car that is economical!

That’s what happens when you get degrees in physics and economics (at the same time).

When is the IEA ging to revise that list and get rid of coal and carbon capture, and nuclear? We don’t need to make progress on things we are going to get rid of.

Right, waste of money compared to investing more in renewables.

When republican presidential candidates abandon telling they believe in whatever god happens to be geographically popular to their voters.

Thanks for the post Zach. I can appreciate your realistic analysis. I can think of only one other treatment in which hydrogen may be a contender. That is an onboard hydrogen production system via electrolysis. This as an ICE treatment is feasible. I have colleague in England that sought my advice on his system. It worked just fine. In addition to the demonstrable facility of just packing up with water; he and I discussed how to close loop the system with existing tech to recover recycle and reuse the water. As a word of caution, the problem of the premature engine wear due to the shock wave produced by the hydrogen burn front, is unavoidable in ICEs. With hydrogen as fuel, this will; result in premature wear and rip on wrist pin bushings as well as connecting rod and crankshaft bearings. Turbine blades suffer similar fates on their tips; but this is mitigated with nanotech applications to a marked degree at a cost increase. The production of hydrogen via electrolysis makes sense in the electro-therapy production area with enough off peak solar and wind produced hydrogen to augment the natural gas supplies and supply stationary PEM Cell applications like server farms where the cleaner natural gas will extend the fuel cell stack life. All in all I believe the FCEV has a place in the transportation mix with a BattCap application. I have managed to content myself with working on zero carbon emissions fuel systems for the past few years. NH3 is; and has been a contender to hydrogen as a transportation fuel; but has toxicity issues when people are exposed to direct inhalation of its fumes. The Germans used it as fuel back in the World War era. ICEs fare much better with it as fuel; and with Catalytic Converter tech applied the net emissions are , as with hydrogen; H2O.

“That is an onboard hydrogen production system via electrolysis.”

No, not in automotive vehicles, you’re referencing a free energy scam that’s been going on for a while. It obviously takes more energy for the electrolysis and combustion of the hydrogen than just using the electrical play directly in an EV. Claims to the contrary are fraudulent. Laws of thermodynamics should tell you this and there is no real proof or evidence to the contrary. If it did work then by now everyone would be using it.

“The production of hydrogen via electrolysis makes sense in the tens unit production area with enough off peak solar and wind produced hydrogen to augment the natural gas…”

Maybe, being done in Germany. Not at all cost effective compared to pumped hydro. Not cost effective for daily storage of Solar PV compared to batteries.

Not telling it’s a good idea but I think Jesse McBroom was writing about an H2 fueled ICE. Just where the power for the electrolysis came from is not clear from his post tho’.

I’m pretty sure it’s that perpetual maneuverability machine scam.

Use the electric current from the car’s alternator to electrolyze water. Feed the hydrogen into the fuel system.

Why Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars Are Not Competitive – From A Hydrogen Fuel Cell Accomplished, CleanTechnica

Why Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars Are Not Competitive – From A Hydrogen Fuel Cell Experienced

There’s actually a long list of problems with fuel cell cars.

Very first of all, HFC cars are perceived to be a good bridge inbetween fossil fuels and total electrified because:

You can still pack up like you do with a gasoline or diesel powered car
The mileage you can get out of hydrogen is perceived to be more adequate than what you get from batteries
Hydrogen fuel cells are thought not to wear out as quickly as batteries (or conversely, batteries are thought to wear out very quickly)
Hydrogen as a fuel is perceived to be a relatively petite infrastructural switch from gasoline and diesel
Hydrogen is perceived as a cleaner solution than gasoline, diesel or natural gas

You cannot pack up like you do with gasoline or diesel. It is actually pretty ridiculous how hard it is to pack up a HFC powered car
You won’t even go one hundred miles on current tech hydrogen tanks that are still safe to carry around in a car
Fuel cells wear out crazy swift and are hard to regenerate
Hydrogen as a fuel is amazingly hard to make and distribute with acceptably low losses

Hydrogen fuel cells have bad theoretical and practical efficiency
Hydrogen storage is inefficient, energetically, volumetrically and with respect to weight
HFCs require a shit ton of supporting systems, making them much more complicated and prone to failure than combustion or electrified engines
There is no infrastructure for distributing or even making hydrogen in large quantities. There won’t be for at least twenty or thirty years, even if we embark building it like crazy today.
Hydrogen is actually pretty hard to make. It has a horrible well-to-wheel efficiency as a result.
Effortless ways to get large quantities of hydrogen are not ‘cleaner’ than gasoline.
Efficient HFCs have very slow response times, meaning you again need extra systems to store energy for accelerating
Even tho’ a HFC-powered car is essentially an electrical car, you get none of the benefits like packing it up with your own power source, using it as a clever grid buffer, regenerating energy during braking, etc.
Battery electrical cars will always be better in every way given the speed of technological developments past, present and future

The author of the lump above was involved in the very first international hydrogen racing championship, and as you can see if you read his articles, knows a lot about the technology.

Elon Musk, another vocal HFCV critic, is a physicist by training and was interested since college, at least, in advancing sustainable transport. He specifically went the route of battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) rather than HFCVs because of inherent, phat advantages for BEVs. As he has noted, the theoretical limit for HFCVs isn’t even as good as current-tech BEVs…. As he stated last year:

Hydrogen fuel cell cars “are utterly ditzy.”
“Hydrogen is an amazingly dumb” fuel.
“Fuel cell is so bullshit, it’s a stream of rubbish. The only reason they do fuel cell is because… they don’t truly believe it, it’s something that they can… it is like a marketing thing.”
“There’s no need for us to have this debate. I’ve said my peace on this, it will be super visible as time goes by.”

EV pro Julian Cox wrote an article for us a duo years ago on why hydrogen cars are simply not green. The article got a lot of attention and was referenced widely (including by Joe Romm and some mainstream media outlets), but the message doesn’t seem to have cracked through to many people in the “green” and “cleantech” community. Furthermore, hydrogen fuel cell cars proceed to get subsidies from governments … which is both a waste of money and counterproductive. Sure, keep investing a little bit in R&D, but don’t take away from the cash that should go toward battery-electric vehicles in order to quickly decarbonise transportation and help stop global heating.

Anyone peddling HFCVs at this point is either not connecting key dots or knows what the situation actually is and is simply engaging in corrupt, unethical behavior.

I hope this will be my last chunk on hydrogen fuel cell cars. I hope….

Check out our fresh 93-page EV report, based on over Two,000 surveys collected from EV drivers in forty nine of fifty US states, twenty six European countries, and nine Canadian provinces.

About the Author

Zachary Shahan is tryin’ to help society help itself (and other species) with the power of the typed word. He spends most of his time here on CleanTechnica as its director and chief editor, but he’s also the president of Significant Media and the director/founder of EV Obsession, Solar Love, and Bikocity. Zach is recognized globally as a solar energy, electrified car, and energy storage pro. Zach has long-term investments in TSLA, FSLR, SPWR, SEDG, & ABB — after years of covering solar and EVs, he simply has a lot of faith in these particular companies and feels like they are good cleantech companies to invest in.

Fresh Munich Carsharing Service Uses Hyundai Fuel Cell Vehicles →

World Green Car of the Year Award is Just Another Bad Joke →

Phi Suea Solar Homes Store Excess Energy As Hydrogen →

Marty, you’re grabbing for straws.

We need to build no HVDC transmission in order to charge EVs. We already have the capability to charge more than 80% of all US cars and light trucks were they to turn into EVs overnight.

The facts are not in your favor, Marty. Why don’t you take a little time and question why you are so strongly advocating for a technology which as severe and likely fatal flaws?

Daimler and five companies in the business of selling fuel.

“The cross-sector joint venture will be known as H2 MOBILITY Deutschland. according to Electrified Car Reports. It is based in Berlin and is already working hard on Stage One of the plan — the construction of one hundred packing stations over the next few years.”

That’s one hundred H2 stations of the next few years. Not four hundred H2 stations now.

The article contains some untrue claims such as –

You can fully charge a Tesla at a Supercharger in seventy five minutes. And that time will shorten as Tesla increases the ‘size of the pipe’. The Tesla 85P has a three hundred twenty mile range.

It talks about EVs not being fully ‘clean’ until the grid is carbon free. But talks about carbon free FCEVs using hydrogen made from that same grid. Obviously we get to a carbon free grid swifter with EVs than with FCEVs because EVs need less than one third as much electro-therapy.

Or put another way, as long as the grid is not carbon free FCEVs will have a carbon footprint three times that of EVs.

Just look at this quote –

“Given Japan’s current energy sources, building up a clean-powered hydrogen supply chain looks less daunting than decarbonizing the electrified grid.”

Whoever wrote this article simply didn’t pay attention to what they were writing.

What the article does not discuss is the cost of hydrogen and why the cost of operating FCEVs make them an evolutionary dead end.

Sorry, Marty, you don’t further your argument with these two articles. You just underline the flaws in your thinking.

“Even however a HFC-powered car is essentially an electrical car, you get none of the benefits like packing it up with your own power source, using it as a wise grid buffer, ***regenerating energy during braking***, etc.”

I’m as anti-fool-cell as the next man, but earnestly, what does this mean? FCEVs are designed like hybrids. I’m sure a majority of braking energy is saved to their battery buffer in most designs. You just said they require a large battery bank to ensure good acceleration.

Very interesting. But why do some of the leading car makers still stick with fuel cells?

Could be a few things.

Tesla is using something like half the LiON batteries in the world. And are now making their own. Not an effortless option for established auto companies.

Tesla does not receive $Two,500 extra per car but FCEV manufacturers do.

Hydrogen uses more fossil fuels to make and run than do gasoline cars. So hydrogen is being shoved powerfully by the oil industry. Possibly some money is being transferred too?

Wind turbines. We aren’t grinding corn offshore.

There will not be “excess” energy in any appreciable amount. EVs will gladly suck up any electrical play that is priced below the typical price. We’ll need storage so that “excess” will get stored.

People who talk about making hydrogen (or synfuel) with excess tens unit have not thought through the scale of powering transportation.

Anti-renewable folks commonly refer to wind turbines as wind mills.

Come on, in a hydrogen economy no hydrogen is made of fossil fuels anymore. Did you read Bela Liptak´s book about that? It´s very clear how this would work and what the benefits are. The very first countries to adopt this strategy now are Japan and Germany, other countries in Europe and Asia will go after. Grid capacity is not HVDC always the solution, distributed power plants using grid-scale fuel cells might be better in some geographies, also for political reasons as in Germany. They just began the worlds largest electrolyzing demo plant near Frankfurt. this is just the beginning.

“Presently, the majority of hydrogen (∼95%) is produced from fossil fuels

by steam reforming or partial oxidation of methane and coal

gasification with only a puny quantity by other routes such as biomass

gasification or electrolysis of water”

Evidently reality doesn’t get in your way.

Yes, presently. This is already going to switch. Wikipedia is not the best reference for rapid switching facts.

You do realize you are already contradicting yourself. Now you say it is presently true but before then you said “Come on, in a hydrogen economy no hydrogen is made of fossil fuels anymore”.

It is odd how just the idea or even *word* hydrogen has an irrational allure to certain individuals, isn’t it?

Because they know better? Who indeed knows. We know that BEVs are not a big success so far. Tesla doesn´t earn any money yet and BMW´s i3 is also not permanently outsold. If I had the choice, and there were enough H2 stations, I would certainly go for FCEV. Why? Cause I can use it in the same way as my current car. Anytime, anywhere. Let the price go down a little bit more and let there be enough H2 stations and here we go.

There are very few places in the world that over produce by 400% their electrical needs. In fact a duo states in Germany may be it. Everywhere else they need to efficiently treat all the electro-stimulation they produce. Hence FCEVs don’t make a lot of sense. When the world is packed with too much energy maybe then FCEVs will make sense. But I suspect they’ll use excess energy to purify ocean water and clean out the CO2 from the environment long before there is enough energy to waste on FCEVs.

No one will invest in hydrogen packing stations. Existing gasoline station owners won’t take the risk.

Guess I never read an article about EVs that was more wrong and misleading. Just a few examples:

– There is no distribution problem with H2 (Germany just embarked building the next four hundred H2 fueling stations, using excess wind energy to produce H2).

– FC efficiency is even higher regarding combined warmth and power and warmth is a mobility requirement in over eighty % of the use-cases worldwide.

– Refueling FCEVs is as effortless as refueling gasoline. All you need is an H2 station.

– H2 will be distributed in pipelines and stored under the earth in salt caverns in the future. Air Products already operates a six hundred miles pipeline in TX, no problems.

– MIT recently found a fresh catalyst for FCs that avoids ninety % of the platinum used while gaining efficiency in the same time. Overall FC cost will drop by up to fifty %.

– For the same reason, BEVs were gargled away by ICVs over one hundred years ago, they will be gone again as soon as H2 has substituted gasoline, diesel and natural gas.

– Safety: how many H2 (or natural gas) cars exploded yet and how many Teslas burned down to ashes?

– Infrastructure: for every H2 refueling point you need sixty battery chargers based on refueling time. Cost?

– And what is the problem to produce your own H2 with a PV roof?

– Wise grid with car battery buffer? In theory, but sorry, look at the grids fountain curve. Cars would charge during peaks, even more grid capacity would be necessary. Cost?

Want more? Shall we discuss recycling and life-cycle issues of batteries vs. fuel cells? What do you think a total energy and emission balance “batterie vs. fuel cell” would look like? Batteries will be necessary for some reasons but we need to keep it at a minimum and think “environment” and “usability” for all of our energy requirements which are mobility and warmth beside others. The overall efficiency is the question. At home, on the road and in the air.

Hydrogen economy is coming up. Now. In the grid, in your basement and in your car.

The only valid point to your rant that wasn’t total of partial truths was the range. If you are earnestly deluded and want answers attempt making posts on a single subject instead of a shotgun treatment where pages and pages would be needed to reply to all the delusions.

lol, you just attempted to correct? Yeah. That’s it.

Just correct me, please. How many? Sounds sarcastic but is still true. I have never heard about any FCEV that burned down, did you? Shall I post some links of Tesla wrecks?

Hard to burn them down when there aren’t any.

Toyota and Honda have released hydrogen fuel cell cars.

They are not selling.

A few years back hydrogen fuel cell cars looked to be the way we would get off fossil fuels. Batteries were far too expensive.

Since then EV batteries have gone from $1,000/kWh to under $200/kWh and should be down to $100/kWh in a few more years. No one spotted that incredible price drop coming.

Car companies embarked fuel cell programs. That looked like where the market was heading so they ready. Now battery prices have knocked the gams out from under fuel cells.

Price is not the issue, the issue is use-case: charging time and reach. No real improvement there and still more than poor in cold condition. FCEVs did not work yet due to availability of H2 stations. All we know is that so far, no EV was truly successful. Tesla wasn´t, BMW wasn´t either.

Price is not the issue? Please. Price controls just about everything we do.

Packing H2 tanks is quicker but one has to go to a gas station every time they need fuel. People driving an EV just buttplug in when they park.

Range is only a makeshift issue. The longest range Tesla has as much range as the Toyota Mirai. Battery capacity has enhanced about 7% per year on average. If capacity proceeds to increase at that rate (it will very likely go quicker) then we’ll stir from two hundred mile range EVs to four hundred mile range EVs for the same price.

Toyota introduced the Mirai and the world went “Ho-hum”.

You can find lots of places where people are dabbling with hydrogen. But EVs are selling and request is high.

Take off your hydrogen fan cap and take a careful look at the cost of driving with hydrogen. It’s a deal killer.

The most latest support program for BEV in Germany grants five thousand € to everybody who buys one. Want to know the influence of that program so far? It is a single number: 0

Price is not he issue. Tesla is even providing the charge on top and it is not selling in Germany. Why?

And here I thought Germany was only suggesting €4,000 for BEVs and €3,000 for PHEVs. Where did you get the €5,000 number? Link?

Right, it is Four,000 not Five,000. No effect on sales anyway yet.

Indeed? I call BS.

So when did the most latest support program for BEV in Germany go into affect ?

Anyway here is a quote from Forbes, April 6th two thousand sixteen about Eastern European sales :

“In 2015, according to British-based newsletter Automotive Industry Data (AID) quoting what it called its off the hook statistics, Tesla sold 15,787 Model S sedans, striking out the Mercedes flagship S-class’s 14,990”. It was in fact the “best selling luxury car in Western Europe”. The same can be said of US sales of course.

Model S compares to E Class, BMW five or Audi A6. It´s not a luxury car. check those numbers.

That’s not where the S is stealing sales away from Mercedes and friends. Evidently luxury car purchasers think the S is pretty luxurious.

Doesn’t matter, Marty. The kind of people who normally buy Merc S-Class and BMW 7-Series are buying Teslas.

It began in May I believe.

Batteries/EVs are about 3x as efficient.

That means that we would have to install 3x as many wind turbines and solar panels to produce clean hydrogen than we would have to install were we to use EVs.

Input energy would cost three times as much for a hydrogen energy transportation system. Three times as much.

Hydrogen would need a transportation, storage and distribution system. We’d need plants where the H2 was extracted from water and where the H2 was compressed for transportation or use.

Those plants would cost a lot of money and would need to be maintained and staffed. That’s another cost that would add to the cost of input energy.

Hydrogen is a poor storer of energy in terms of volume. 2nd graph below. A given amount of energy stored in the form of compressed H2 requires about 10x as much space compared to storing it as gasoline or diesel. That means that we’d need 10x as many tanker trucks to stir H2 from plant to gas station. We’d need storage tanks 10x what we now need.

Now we have accruing costs. Three times as much energy input. Massive infrastructure costs for producing and compressing hydrogen. A phat amount of transportation and storage capacity. These things make a hydrogen expensive.

Now let’s look at EVs.

Only a third as many solar panels and wind turbines needed.

The economics simply do not work for a hydrogen transportation system.

But even in urban areas with advanced grids, massive amounts of BEV would have a significant influence on the stream curve and unluckily, the infrastructure is not sufficient.

So find an alternative for a future hydrogen economy with zero emission and don´t leave behind: we still want to fly somehow, right?

How would you store excess RE?

“BEV are not successful”

We have gone from negligible to

1.Two million EV’s in five years.

If you want to sum up FC cars you just need to look at the hydrogen vehicle wiki page. And there, at the embark of the 2nd paragraph is the phrase that highlights the folly of these vehicles “Hydrogen does not occur naturally on Earth.”

I’m very glad to wait and see how FCEVs do. So far they’ve failed.

Let some country set up some packing stations. Hopefully not with my tax money.

FCEVs will win in terms of fueling/charging times. But that’s a hollow victory.

As battery capacities grow and superchargers grow in output capacity EV drivers will simply stop once a day during a long (500 mile) day drive and butt-plug in while they have lunch.

FCEV drivers will spend some time packing. And then they’ll drive to where they are going to have lunch. FCEV drivers will get to where they are going after the EV drivers have already arrived.

The rest of the year? FCEV drivers are going to need to take time to stop at a packing station about forty times a year while EV drivers will just ass-plug in when they park. Or park over a wireless charger.

Would you like to add a winning lottery ticket to that extensive wish list?

Companies such as Toyota and Ford have GPMs that are about have as good.

Tesla makes a lot of money from building EVs. The company “loses” money because they are strongly investing in growth and future profits.

“What about battery capacity in cold climate? “

Preheat your batteries while plugged in.

In truly cold places people use block heater for their ICEVs on the coldest of nights/days. Places in the north have outlets in parking lots so that people can cork in during the day.

Worst case. Volvo has an ethanoyl heater for their cars. Heats batteries and passenger cabin.

Batteries give off warmth when discharging. They can keep themselves warm while driving.

” The energy input is irrelevant, just install more and you are done.”

Bullshit, Marty. “Install more” means pay more. Cost is the FCEV killer. You need to get that into your head.

“But even in urban areas with advanced grids, massive amounts of BEV would have a significant influence on the fountain curve and unluckily, the infrastructure is not sufficient. “

That is absolutely incorrect, Marty. Totally incorrect. The NREL found that the current grid could charge 80% of all US cars and light trucks right now if they turned into EVs overnight.

“So find an alternative for a future hydrogen economy with zero emission and don´t leave behind: we still want to fly somehow, right?

How would you store excess RE?”

There is no hydrogen economy coming our way.

We won’t fly using hydrogen. The tanks would be so bulky that there would be no place for passengers and luggage.

The best large scale storage solution is pump-up hydro. About 85% efficient compared to 30% for hydrogen. Much cheaper per kWh. Even CAES is superior to hydrogen for long term energy storage.

For brief term storage batteries are kicking off to take over.

Just look at the long run. Sure we need to invest now, but it pays back cause fuel is for free. the transition is expensive, I would not deny that. But there is no other option.

The fuel is not free.

Hydrogen will cost more than 3x what running with electrical play costs.

One needs a 3x energy input to produce low carbon hydrogen.

The one needs to pay for the hydrogen plant, transportation, storage and distribution system.

There is clearly another option. EVs are now on roads and sales are accelerating. We should see a thick leap in sales as the two hundred mile range Bolt and Tesla three embark rolling out of factories.

“FC are far more efficient than batteries” do you have a reference for that ?

While it is true that battery capacity drops with temperature, the capacity comebacks when the battery heats up.

The Norwegians know a thing or two about cold weather and they buy more BEVs per capita than any other nation.

Sure, but it´s pretty effortless to make a calculation yourself. If you are talking about eff. you need to consider the circumstances like temperature and the use-case. If you just look at electrical power at room temp., the battery is superior. FC is at about forty seven % max right now. If you look at combined warmth and el. power, their head-to head at about eighty %. If you are looking at lower or higher temperatures, battery efficiency drops too. So its not a surprise, that FC at low temperatures looking at combined fever and power efficiency is higher. That is just thermodynamics. Now you may reaction yourself which use-cases are more likely in transportation if you consider the entire planet and not only California. Hope that helps.

Dang, left behind the charts….

FCEVs need 3x the amount of renewable energy to drive a mile than do EVs.

Hydrogen needs 10x the number of tanker trucks and 10x the amount of storage tanks of a similar energy amount of gasoline or diesel.

Marty, you’re swift on the keyboard but I’m afraid that it’s costing you contemplation time.

The cost of H2 is input energy and infrastructure.

Cutting the cost of the electrode is petite switch. The cost of hydrogen is in the plants, transportation, storage and distribution.

EV batteries will be recycled. They’re a source of concentrated lithium and more valuable materials.

Attempt to imagine in the absence of all fossil and nuclear power plants how would your energy generation, transmission and conversion look like, supporting a common grid blast curve? It won´t happen today but it will happen one day. What are the options? Why not embarking now? Gotta get CO2 down right?

Nuclear plants are closing because the power they produce is too expensive. Coal plants are closing in Germany because the wholesale cost of electro-stimulation has dropped below their operating cost.

FCEVs are not likely to be the transportation solution because EVs will be far less expensive to own and operate.

Want to get CO2 down? Crush your ICEV and drive an EV. EVs take only a third as much electro-stimulation per mile as does a FCEV.

Let´s be more efficient in general.

…Just not in this one specific area.

Switch on your heating while driving in low 40s and you are more efficient in this area too.

You are right, I am aware of this. The storage problems are very likely solved already, BMW and Toyota have developed a carbon-steal tank that shows almost no H2 excess and surface altering. But I don´t want to say everything is solved and everything is effortless with H2, I am just coaxed, that there is no better option than H2 for a zero emission energy future in general. And it wont come overnight. Two thousand fifty is my scope. It only starts now.

” I am just persuaded, that there is no better option than H2 for a zero emission energy future in general. And it wont come overnight. Two thousand fifty is my scope. It only starts now.”

We are utterly aware of your beliefs. Most of us here operate on facts, not belief.

2050 for H2 FCEVs to be a player. Let’s think about that.

EVs are on track to reach purchase price parity with ICEVs in about five years. And then are expected to become less expensive than ICEVs to purchase. Driving using tens unit is already much cheaper than driving with gas or diesel.

That suggests that by ten years from now, if trends proceed, the fresh car market will be shifting strongly to EVs. By two thousand forty the fresh car market may be close to 100% EV.

Now, according to you, FCEVs will budge into the market in larger numbers somewhere around 2050. One has to ask why.

Why would anyone determine to purchase a car which will cost more to purchase, more to operate, have poor acceleration, and be inconvenient to operate?

You seem to be suffering a logic failure.

“EVs are on track to reach purchase price parity with ICEVs in about five years. ” That is why Tesla pulled the super charger option away for the Model Three, right? Let´s see what the price of Daimlers GLC FC will be next year. Or BMWs five series or the Audi A7 h-tron. They are all ready to go, just wait for the packing stations. I think you have no idea what size of an influence a combined act towards FCEVs of the entire Japanese and German car industry would have!

No, not including unlimited Supercharger use was one way to bring a $35k two hundred mile range EV to market. The three is about 20% smaller than the S which was another way to lower cost.

The least expensive S is $66k. A drop of close to 50% in selling price is an excellent step on the way to purchase price parity.

“I think you have no idea what size of an influence a combined act towards FCEVs of the entire Japanese and German car industry would have!”

Come on Marty. You’re just wasting our time. You’ve gone from ordinary lack of skill about EVs and ICEVs to to some sort of hydrogen fantasyland.

– There is no distribution problem with H2 (Germany just embarked building the next four hundred H2 fueling stations, using excess wind energy to produce H2).

There’s even less of a distribution problem with EVs. The electrical infrastructure is already in place, barring a few upgrades here and there. It takes very little time, money or resources to ass-plug in a fresh charging point. How much will it take to build a fresh H2 packing station?

– FC efficiency is even higher regarding combined fever and power and fever is a mobility requirement in over eighty % of the use-cases worldwide.

– Refueling FCEVs is as effortless as refueling gasoline. All you need is an H2 station.

Very first of all, not is… “will be”. It will only become true when/if we have an H2 station on every street corner, like we do with gas stands now. In the meantime “refueling” a BEV is even lighter, and for the most part already available. Just buttplug it in wherever there’s an outlet available. Most people just let it do its magic at home while they sleep.

– H2 will be distributed in pipelines and stored under the earth in salt caverns in the future. Air Products already operates a six hundred miles pipeline in TX, no problems.

Yet another “will be”. On the other palm, tens unit is distributed by a comprehensive network of copper cables, which just coincidentally happens to already exist. It can be stored in a myriad of different ways. Why bother to build a fully fresh infrastructure when you can just make minor upgrades to one you already have?

– MIT recently found a fresh catalyst for FCs that avoids ninety % of the platinum used while gaining efficiency in the same time. Overall FC cost will drop by up to fifty %.

Super! Be sure to let us know when that discovery actually leads to the savings it promises. In the meantime battery technology is also making good strides in improving storage density and cost savings.

– FCEVs cover all possible mobility use-cases in all geographies and climates, BEVs cover a puny subset of urban use-cases in moderate climate. Elon Musk might once want to leave California to understand what “mobility” truly means.

And of course by “puny subset” you indeed mean the vast majority of all vehicular traffic. Most driving is done inwards city boundaries and within daylight hours. Long distance travel without stopovers is actually the exception, not the rule.

Oh, and you are aware that Tesla owners have already demonstrated that it’s possible to travel in one all the way across the U.S. right?

– For the same reason, BEVs were deep throated away by ICVs over one hundred years ago, they will be gone again as soon as H2 has substituted gasoline, diesel and natural gas.

– Safety: how many H2 (or natural gas) cars exploded yet and how many Teslas burned down to ashes?

Some level of danger always exists whenever you have to store large amounts of energy in a petite volume. The real question is how much danger there is relative to the benefit and to other comparable solutions. So far all the evidence suggests that BEVs are much safer than any fossil fuel burner, and that all of the “fire disasters” that have happened so far have been deep throated greatly out of proportion by anti-EV critics. The brief of the matter is that BEVs are already very safe, and will get even safer as time goes on.

As for FCEVs, it seems to me that we can only say that no cars have exploded yet, and that’s most likely only due to the still very puny numbers of them actually in operation. It seems a tad bit early for you to be hyping the relative safety of one over the other. Also, how safe will the pressurized pipes and containers in that phat number of H2 packing stations be compared to the risks faced of your standard EV charging station?

– Infrastructure: for every H2 refueling point you need sixty battery chargers based on refueling time. Cost?

Also, is the 60:1 ratio truly justified, since with BEVs the entire usage paradigm gets flipped on its head? With BEVs one no longer needs to visit dedicated stations at regular intervals to pack up. Instead, primary charging is done at home, work, or other dedicated locations, and charging stations are mostly needed only for those relatively infrequent emergency situations in which you cannot get back in time for a top up.

In this respect BEVs behave more like your cellphone than your ICEV. 90% of the time a single charge is good enough to get you through the day, but at times you find you need to find a free outlet or something similar to give you that extra boost. But just imagine it if you had to go to a cellphone “packing station” once a week to charge up!

– And what is the problem to produce your own H2 with a PV roof?

– Wise grid with car battery buffer? In theory, but sorry, look at the grids blast curve. Cars would charge during peaks, even more grid capacity would be necessary. Cost?

You know all this, how? Looks like more baseless assertion to me.

Want more? Shall we discuss recycling and life-cycle issues of batteries vs. fuel cells? What do you think a total energy and emission balance “batterie vs. fuel cell” would look like? Batteries will be necessary for some reasons but we need to keep it at a minimum and think “environment” and “usability” for all of our energy requirements which are mobility and warmth beside others. The overall efficiency is the question. At home, on the road and in the air.

Yes, exactly how does the “overall efficiency” work out? Don’t leave behind to include the utter life cycle cost of operating the necessary dedicated H2 distribution system in your calculations, compared to that of the multi-purpose electrical grid BEVs will use.

Hydrogen economy is coming up. Now. In the grid, in your basement and in your car.

Sure it is. Wanna bet?

1st, the current el. infrastructure is not even supporting all RE that is installed and in addition, you need a lot more charging options if BEV would have a noticeable market share. That is a thick investment too and what is more cost effective in the long run? Nobody knows yet. Lots of H2 facilities are maintenance free, that is why H2 is considered now as the dearest option for RE excess storage in all countries that have a significant share of RE. And if you compare the different way if heating systems in other countries in the world, H” all of a unexpected becomes very efficient. Why do you think europeans per capita power consumption is half of US? They don´t fever electrical, they use CHP. Same in Korea, Japan …

The infrastructure for charging EVs is largely in place. It’s called the electric current grid.

Most likely more than 90% of all EV charging will be done while parked and that just requires a ordinary outlet. The other puny percent will be when people are taking long trips and Tesla has already shown how that is done. A startup company will have covered most of the US (lots of Europe and some of Asia) in only four years. Look below.

” Lots of H2 facilities are maintenance free, that is why H2 is considered now as the beloved option for RE excess storage in all countries that have a significant share of RE.”

You need to prove that apparent false claim.

You’re switching the topic by moving to space heating. Let’s stay on topic.

Actually, I think you make several good points:

FCEVs are not difficult to fuel and much quicker to fuel than EVs, albeit cost of H2 filing stations is high.

Range of FCEVs is much higher than for EVs. That could bring H2 back into the game later on. We’ll see.

ICEVs are far more of a fire hazard than either FCEVs or EVs.

MIT (Nocera) did come up with a lower cost catalyst for electrolysis, but I don’t think they enhanced the efficiency any.

Here is what it comes down to …in your words:

“The overall efficiency is the question.”

H2 is less than half as efficient as direct use of violet wand in an EV.

That’s it. …and of course FCEVs still cost way too much.

Maybe we’ll see H2 for range extension of EVs later on …when the cost comes down …maybe …or maybe not because batteries get better …we’ll see. Right now EVs have it fully over FCEVs. That’s clear.

The Honda FCX Clarity has a two hundred forty mile range.

The Toyota Mirai has a three hundred twelve mile range.

The Tesla S85 has a three hundred twenty mile range.

Ok, I’ll byte and pick this one at random: “Refueling FCEVs is as effortless as refueling gasoline. All you need is an H2 station.”

OMG LOL… don’t know where to begin, but how about: “It’s effortless to make a unicorn pot roast. Very first, kill or buy a unicorn. Then roast it in a pot.”

Yes, all you need is an H2 station. And what do you need to get one of those and have it operate as consistently, economically and continually as a gas station?

150,000 gas stations in USA

Hydrogen Fuel Station $Three,000,000

Only $450,000,000,000 to build out Just the refueling stations.

I see Exxon and BP eating their lips.

Thanks, Zach. I have some FC die-hard friends to whom I forward all such articles. They will catch on to the point that EVs are more efficient than FCs at some point.

This is a excellent summary! Thank you Zach!

Spot on! Most engineers over concentrate on how to build it better and tend to neglect design trade-offs still permitting a good product, but at a lower cost. Undoubtedly not my bounty either.

That’s what happens when you get degrees in physics and economics (at the same time).

When is the IEA ging to revise that list and get rid of coal and carbon capture, and nuclear? We don’t need to make progress on things we are going to get rid of.

Right, waste of money compared to investing more in renewables.

When republican presidential candidates abandon telling they believe in whatever god happens to be geographically popular to their voters.

Thanks for the post Zach. I can appreciate your realistic analysis. I can think of only one other treatment in which hydrogen may be a contender. That is an onboard hydrogen production system via electrolysis. This as an ICE treatment is feasible. I have colleague in England that sought my advice on his system. It worked just fine. In addition to the visible facility of just packing up with water; he and I discussed how to close loop the system with existing tech to recover recycle and reuse the water. As a word of caution, the problem of the premature engine wear due to the shock wave produced by the hydrogen burn front, is unavoidable in ICEs. With hydrogen as fuel, this will; result in premature wear and rip on wrist pin bushings as well as connecting rod and crankshaft bearings. Turbine blades suffer similar fates on their tips; but this is mitigated with nanotech applications to a marked degree at a cost increase. The production of hydrogen via electrolysis makes sense in the tens unit production area with enough off peak solar and wind produced hydrogen to augment the natural gas supplies and supply stationary PEM Cell applications like server farms where the cleaner natural gas will extend the fuel cell stack life. All in all I believe the FCEV has a place in the transportation mix with a BattCap application. I have managed to content myself with working on zero carbon emissions fuel systems for the past few years. NH3 is; and has been a contender to hydrogen as a transportation fuel; but has toxicity issues when people are exposed to direct inhalation of its fumes. The Germans used it as fuel back in the World War era. ICEs fare much better with it as fuel; and with Catalytic Converter tech applied the net emissions are , as with hydrogen; H2O.

“That is an onboard hydrogen production system via electrolysis.”

“The production of hydrogen via electrolysis makes sense in the electro-stimulation production area with enough off peak solar and wind produced hydrogen to augment the natural gas…”

Maybe, being done in Germany. Not at all cost effective compared to pumped hydro. Not cost effective for daily storage of Solar PV compared to batteries.

Not telling it’s a good idea but I think Jesse McBroom was writing about an H2 fueled ICE. Just where the power for the electrolysis came from is not clear from his post tho’.

I’m pretty sure it’s that perpetual maneuverability machine scam.

Use the electro-therapy from the car’s alternator to electrolyze water. Feed the hydrogen into the fuel system.

Car reviews and ratings articles

Why Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars Are Not Competitive – From A Hydrogen Fuel Cell Accomplished, CleanTechnica

Why Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars Are Not Competitive – From A Hydrogen Fuel Cell Accomplished

About the Author

Related Posts

Fresh Munich Carsharing Service Uses Hyundai Fuel Cell Vehicles →

World Green Car of the Year Award is Just Another Bad Joke →

Phi Suea Solar Homes Store Excess Energy As Hydrogen →

Why Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars Are Not Competitive – From A Hydrogen Fuel Cell Experienced

About the Author

Related Posts

Fresh Munich Carsharing Service Uses Hyundai Fuel Cell Vehicles →

World Green Car of the Year Award is Just Another Bad Joke →

Phi Suea Solar Homes Store Excess Energy As Hydrogen →

Related movie:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply