Hydrogen vs. Battery

[Reykjavik]

Replacing an oil burning car with a cleanly powered hydrogen one is a net positive, though more could be gained by running half of those power plants to charge an EV and the other half to replace coal burning power plants.

And as it becomes clear that batteries are better, the power generation for those hydrogen stations can be plugged into the grid.

 

[derekt75]

This is really the only problem with todays BEVs. Gasoline has a hugely expansive and expensive fueling network. Electricity (for charging large auto-scale batteries) not so much.

Whatever replaces gasoline (an something will replace it) will have to build out another network (retrofitting the gasoline network might work partially, but there will have to be a large temporal overlap with both networks operating to allow the slow vehicle transition). And the cost of an electricity network will be dwarfed by any fluid based replacement.

I disagree that the fueling network is the problem with today's BEVs. The problem isn't the lack of network, but rather the length of time it takes to charge.
Elon has rolled out a limited network for Teslas and has wondrously dropped charge time, but it still takes a while to charge. 40 minutes for 200 miles vs. 5 minutes for 350 miles. and while running out of gas means someone brings you a few gallons, running out of electricity basically means a tow (even if AAA could charge you at 10 kW, it's still faster to just tow you where you need to go than to sit there and wait for your charge). It's a big difference that is apparently very important to a lot of people.

When batteries can charge as fast as Hydrogen can, Hydrogen will have no advantage over BEVs.

As it is today, I think Hydrogen has no real advantage over gasoline, but many are hoping that some miracle (e.g., Johan's hypothetical fusion reactors) will occur that will provide an endless supply of cheap clean Hydrogen. If that miracle happens before the miracle in BEV charge times, Hydrogen would make sense for some people.

- - - Updated - - -

I have a fundamental problem with the efficiency of hydrogen so-called "clean" sources. If you have to build 3x - 4x as much solar or wind generation to create enough hydrogen versus charging an EV, that doesn't sound terribly green to me. You could use that clean energy to offset dirty grid power instead.

I'm sure there are good uses for hydrogen power... I just don't think this is one of them.

Agreed. That was my point above.

 

[JRP3]

Reforming natural gas doesn't make much sense when you could simply fuel the car with it and burn it in an ICE.

More efficient to burn NG in a combined cycle generating plant to charge an EV than to use energy to transport and compress it into a tank and burn it in an ICE.

 

[Takumi]

In regards to safety:

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140523/METRO01/305230052/Detroit-motorists-under-siege-Carjack-City-

 

[JRP3]

A fairly good article about why fuel cells vehicles are just compliance cars: http://www.fool.com/investing/gener...not-fuel-cells-owns-the-automotive-futur.aspx

One error, he claimed that charging stations cost $100-$250K but only superchargers are in that price range, all the others are much less expensive. I tried to post the correction in the comment section but the comment box keeps locking up on me and won't let me type.

 

[JST]

A fairly good article about why fuel cells vehicles are just compliance cars: https://music.yahoo.com/blogs/the-n...pires-with--unbreakable--video-011026555.html

One error, he claimed that charging stations cost $100-$250K but only superchargers are in that price range, all the others are much less expensive. I tried to post the correction in the comment section but the comment box keeps locking up on me and won't let me type.

I think you may have pasted the wrong link.

 

[Johan]

A fairly good article about why fuel cells vehicles are just compliance cars: https://music.yahoo.com/blogs/the-n...pires-with--unbreakable--video-011026555.html

One error, he claimed that charging stations cost $100-$250K but only superchargers are in that price range, all the others are much less expensive. I tried to post the correction in the comment section but the comment box keeps locking up on me and won't let me type.

That link was for another one of your web browser's open tabs

 

[JRP3]

Ha, too funny. Fixed.

 

[roblab]

When batteries can charge as fast as Hydrogen can, Hydrogen will have no advantage over BEVs.

AAA won't be bringing you a tank of hydrogen that they can pump into your FCV. It's not at all like carrying a can of gas around.

You won't be manufacturing, compressing, and pumping hydrogen into your car at night. No. You will have to find the one station in your area (unless of course you live in a highly urban area such as LA). Where I live, I can't imagine a hydrogen station closer than 30 miles. My BEV is far more convenient.

And here again, we will learn to not run out of battery, which is at this time only a problem when driving new highways on long trips. With a 300 miles range (OK, I'll concede 265) you don't run out. Whatcha gonna do when your H2 tank gets low. You gonna have to drive to town. Hopefully you can combine that drive with some shopping or business, but the H2 car is not going to be, not nearly at all, as convenient as Tesla is right now.

How long do you think it will be before hydrogen stations (at 2 million dollars each) stretch across the US, a la Superchargers? Far out in the boonies. And at 10,000 lb pressure, are you comfortable with having an uneducated journalist figure out how to use the high pressure valves and connections? I suspect there will have to be techs to do the fill up. It's not like pumping gas or plugging in.

So, it's not a matter of being as "fast" as gas, but convenience. Even now, plugging in at your home to get a full tank every morning far outweighs driving to a service station, and when those fueling stations are hydrogen, and the nearest one is 50 miles away, well.... I don't think there's a comparison. Hydrogen has no advantages now, and that's not even counting the huge CO2 emmisions in making hydrogen.

 

[ggr]

How long do you think it will be before hydrogen stations (at 2 million dollars each) stretch across the US, a la Superchargers? Far out in the boonies. And at 10,000 lb pressure, are you comfortable with having an uneducated journalist figure out how to use the high pressure valves and connections? I suspect there will have to be techs to do the fill up. It's not like pumping gas or plugging in.

The TeslaClubLA people did a fun event a few months back, a kind of treasure hunt, and one of the places you had to figure out and find was the Santa Monica Hydrogen filling station. It was self-serve, as far as I could tell. Also unoccupied .

 

[roblab]

The TeslaClubLA people did a fun event a few months back, a kind of treasure hunt, and one of the places you had to figure out and find was the Santa Monica Hydrogen filling station. It was self-serve, as far as I could tell. Also unoccupied .

Interesting! Thanks for that.

But I still worry about those journalists. :wink:

 

[Aury]

Toyota's technical arguments in favor of Hydrogen Fuel Cells over EV.

I found the slides of their japanese presentation in English fro a few weeks ago.

They actually make sense to and I get their arguments against EV in a way, what do you think.


Slide pointing out the range and charging benefit of FC over EV. One negative that still exists for FC is less developed infrastructure.

They do see a future for small vehicle EV. Not larger cars. Again, they mentioned the range, charging and lithium supply demands as a negative for EV.

They point out the benefits of energy density over EV, the lack of supply issues compared to EV, they believe EV will run into supply issues when demand ramps up.

They argue the cars are just as safe as gasoline or EV.

The m ain issue with the Hydrogen cars was the cost of the platinum needed as a catalyst, but now the amount of platinum needed is very small, no more than what is in a gasoline car,so they got the cost down a lot.

Is Elop smart by saying this tech is “********” or is making a mistake? I really wonder who will win.

 

[Zythryn]

Hydrogen is incredibly inconvenient to refuel.
Sure, if you are going to stand and wait for your vehicle to fuel, H2 takes less time. I prefer to start every morning with a full tank though.
My range with an EV, so far is 5000 miles. I doubt you could, or will be able to take a 5000 mile vacation using a FCEV.

Oh, and don't forget that FCV use batteries too. As the fuel cells require quite a few minutes to warm up. So they include batteries to run the car for that time.

An individual also has no control over how their H2 is produced. While many can choose exactly how much renewable electricity is used.

As for brass tacks issues, compare the performance numbers of a FCV vs an EV.

 

[Doug_G]

What they don't say is well-to-wheel CO2 is always better for EV than hydrogen, often massively so.

What they don't say is efficiency is 4X better for EV over hydrogen. Either you make it from natural gas, resulting in CO2 emissions, or with terribly inefficient electrolysis.

What they don't say is that hydrogen isn't actually that fast on refuelling. Home charging is essentially "instantaneous" since it's done while you are asleep. Superchargers are slower yes but not that bad.

What they don't say is the infrastructure rollout cost is three orders of magnitude higher.

What they don't say is that EVs can and do have decent cruising range, e.g. Tesla.

What they don't say is that EVs are far safer than hydrogen will ever be.

 

[GSP]

"Is Elon smart by saying this tech is BS?"

Yes, Elon is smart and H2 is still BS.

Many of the statements on the slides posted are incorrect. I love the "EVs take too long to charge" immediately followed by "EVs need quick charge infrastructure installed." Yes EVs do need quick charging infrastructure. However it will be much, much, less expensive than H2 fueling infrastructure, and when installed EVs will NOT "take too long to charge."

Another statement that I take issue with is that H2 distribution is less expensive than electricity distribution. Pipelines are the lowest cost and fastest way to distribute liquids and gases, but there are no H2 pipelines anywhere. Electric distribution is similar to pipelines, and has been installed all over the world.

Yet another mis-statemet is "poor range" and "poor charging time." The auto industry loves to ignore Tesla, but customers do not. Tesla's 300 mile range and 300 mph Supercharging earn at least a "good" rating. Not quite as good as liquid fuels, but close enough to be competitive, and plenty good enough in my opinion.

GSP

 

[Zythryn]

Oh, and let's not forget!
90% of the electrical infrastructure is already in place. For trips, the remaining 10% is being built out.
For hydrogen, 1% of the infrastructure is in place (being generous).

Tesla (customers of Tesla) is paying for that remaining infrastructure to be built.
Toyota is asking CA taxpayers to pay for the H2 infrastructure buildout, even though the vast majority will never use it.

 

[Johan]

It will be very very interesting to see the actual timed comparison between an ordinary customer with a consumer version FCV and a Model S owner when "refueling" the equivalent ammount of fuel/electricity to go the equivalent range at highway speeds. We all know the refueling time with a SC is not "poor" however I am very much in doubt the refueling time for the FCV is actually "excellent" (I guess they compare with filling petrol).

 

[ZsoZso]

I love how they say "Zero CO2 during use" and "Zero emissions when driven" while keeping silent about the fact that CO2 emissions during production of H2 will be same or higher than equivalent mileage use of a gasoline vehicle. In the press conference video, they talked about 3-phase hydrogen economy. First phase is just a technology demo with limited infrastructure and vehicle numbers until 2020. Second phase is major infrastructure build-up and wider use (more FCVs) but still H2 is produced from fossil fuels with full CO2 pollution. Only in phase 3 (2040-2050) do they envision clean generation via CCS (carbon capture and storage -- a pipe dream never demonstrated in reality with fundamental problems) and "renewable supported generation", i.e. electrolysis using electricity from solar and wind power -- which BTW blows the whole efficiency away, wasting 3-5 times as much electricity than using BEVs.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

What it comes down to, fundamentally, is that they absolutely fail to recognize the potential for EVs with larger batteries. Note the message that EVs are suitable for short commutes. That's not surorising coming from Toyota, because that fits with PHEV. It also fits with Japanese thinking, where K cars sell well in a market that's not performance oriented. It also fits with the 1990s when HFCVs were first pushed. When you start with a view of small batteries, without a paradigm shift in industry and custoner attitudes, BEV couldn't be a significant part of the solution.

When you open your mind to the idea thst batteries will become cheaper and denser, at the very least sub $200/kWh, and allowing 60kWh in a mid size, approach it from the luxury market downwards and center thinking around the demands of the US, Eueopean and Chinese markets, you understand that instead of EV being suitable for short commutes, instead it's excellent for long commutes and the vast majority of other trips. Then, whether it's suitable for other, longer trips is a matter of compromise, usage pattern and charging capability: the contention issue.

Larger batteries allow for less OTR refueling and faster OTR refueling. If Supercharging is at, say, 4 miles per minute, it still needs to get faster, but it doesn't need to become as fast as hydrogen, natural gas or even gasoline, simply because home refueling takes away the vast majority of miles, and destination charging would, in a plug-in future, remove more. That gives me an idea for a new Tesla world thread...

 

[PaulusdB]

Nice to see how one Toyota Auris owner can upset so many people in his first post.
He must have struck a cord, somewhere.