Hydrogen vs. Battery

[RobStark]

I think what I find worrysome is the friction at Tesla to acknowledge hydrogen cars as viable, and calling the tech itself "bs".

The article mentions Musk ridicules hydrogen. Exactly what benefit does either Musk or Tesla have by ridiculing tech.

The problems is hydrogen cars are not viable.

It benefits humanity when truth is spoken to power.

It tells the informed consumer not to buy this ridiculous diversion of resources.

It helps inform public policy makers even when they refuse to listen. The facts on the ground will make them listen at some point.

Fuel cell cars don't benefit humanity. They are far more expensive than BEVs, and the only reason they are leased to the public is because they are subsidized by the sale of ICE cars and taxpayers so legacy auto companies can keep selling ICE cars while pretending that 20 years from now they will sell zero emission fuel cell cars. Legacy auto companies have been telling the Public zero emission fuel cell cars will be here in 20 years since the 1970s. FCEV are the cars of the future and always will be.

Steam reforming of natural gas results in hydrogen that is ~$12.50 per kg and that derived from water electrolysis cost ~$75 per kg. That is why clean hydrogen will never be economically viable. However efficient renewables become they will always be more cost effective to put into BEVs than used to create H2.

Lying by omission and remaining silent regarding fuel cell vehicles serves no one. Aside from legacy auto companies that want to delay the conversion of ICE mobility to electric mobility.

 

[GoBlue88]

There isn't a compelling argument for FCVs right now. There are just deluded car company CEOs who are after ZEV credits made by selling compliance cars that will never go into mass production and will rely on a small number of filling stations financed by other entities.

Agreed.

 

[evme]

I think what I find worrysome is the friction at Tesla to acknowledge hydrogen cars as viable, and calling the tech itself "bs".

The article mentions Musk ridicules hydrogen. Exactly what benefit does either Musk or Tesla have by ridiculing tech.

We all know hydrogen cars work by now, unless you're living in a cave, the cars are out there and they work well, it's viable tech, Tesla should acknowledge that it is viable tech, they should respect what Toyota is doing for the environment, and all other hydrogen makers, and stop the hostility / friction they create. I thought we were in this together, apparently not. Apparently it's not about being green but about something else.

And it doesn't help Tesla itself that the toyota relationship is broken, Toyota is working together with BMW on hybrid cars like the Z4. People might think car are single entities, they're not, most car manufacturers have extremely close relationships and most of them work together.

Hydrogen cars are not viable, having one running does not mean they are viable. The problem as many havementioned is the infrastructure costs too much to build and the hydrogen cars they are making are far worse than EVs in both performance and for the environment.


What is going on is there is a limited amount of money that is being spent on having clean cars by the government. So all alternative sources are fighting for funding. California for example plans to spend 200 million to build 100 hydrogen stations over 10 years, all of them using fossil fuels to make hydrogen. 100 stations would be no where close to enough to cover california alone and uses up a lot of money. In comparison, if that money was spent on building something similar to Tesla superchargers. They could make 1,000 superchargers + ~25,000 level 2 chargers which would be enough money to covermost of the US.


And yes, hydrogen can be made in different ways, but at what cost? And even in the best case scenario they still will be dirtier than EVs.


Since we know that hydrogen cars will never be as clean as EVs, are much worse, why waste time and money? Musk is correct to bash it, Hydrogen cars are a distraction to having a true clean environment.

Also a side note, the water vapor that these Hydrogen cars release pose 2 issues. First of all, water vapor is a green house gas, and second of all, during winter that water is going to cause slippage.

 

[Matias]

I don't think, that it is relevant to auto industry, whether HFCs cause more CO2 emissions than BEVs or not. HFCs clearly are not the answer to global warming, but auto industry is not interested about that. Toyota's purpose is to create shareholder value, not fight global warming. If they think HFCs are better for shareholder value than BEVs, then they favor HFCs.

 

[Tedkidd]

The problems is hydrogen cars are not viable.

It benefits humanity when truth is spoken to power.

It tells the informed consumer not to buy this ridiculous diversion of resources.

It helps inform public policy makers even when they refuse to listen. The facts on the ground will make them listen at some point.

Fuel cell cars don't benefit humanity. They are far more expensive than BEVs, and the only reason they are leased to the public is because they are subsidized by the sale of ICE cars and taxpayers so legacy auto companies can keep selling ICE cars while pretending that 20 years from now they will sell zero emission fuel cell cars. Legacy auto companies have been telling the Public zero emission fuel cell cars will be here in 20 years since the 1970s. FCEV are the cars of the future and always will be.

Steam reforming of natural gas results in hydrogen that is ~$12.50 per kg and that derived from water electrolysis cost ~$75 per kg. That is why clean hydrogen will never be economically viable. However efficient renewables become they will always be more cost effective to put into BEVs than used to create H2.

Lying by omission and remaining silent regarding fuel cell vehicles serves no one. Aside from legacy auto companies that want to delay the conversion of ICE mobility to electric mobility.

Starting to get the picture?

Do you really want an underpowered car, one you can't power at home, one that has fewer fueling stations than Europe has superchargers, with short range.

If you really believe that's viable, buy one and share your experience.

 

[evme]

I don't think, that it is relevant to auto industry, whether HFCs cause more CO2 emissions than BEVs or not. HFCs clearly are not the answer to global warming, but auto industry is not interested about that. Toyota's purpose is to create shareholder value, not fight global warming. If they think HFCs are better for shareholder value than BEVs, then they favor HFCs.

The only business case for FCVs is ZEV credits, otherwise, it is not going to get far or anywhere.

 

[eepic]

I wish I had time to read that all, but it seems one sided and it has the quote from Musk which I disagree with on principle, both technologies can coexist.
...
It's hard to read things when people have already made up their mind that tech A or B is superior, without willing to look or even accept, that both technologies likely have benefits and negatives.

A little contradictory within the same post, no? If you look into the facts, it's obvious there is no business case apart from regulatory credits with fuel cell vehicles - there's a reason they will only sell FCV in California.

And here's the TL;DR version:

Hydrogen cars are basically electric cars with a small battery, backed up by fuel cell that feeds power into the battery. There are two ways to obtain the fuel, via electrolysis of water or from fossil fuels.

1. Using electricity to do electrolysis makes an FCV essentially an indirect electric car with terrible energy efficiency, the amount of electricity to charge the car would likely cost MORE than gasoline in an ICE.
2. Using fossil fuels for refuelling is economically feasible, but then you've really gone in a big circle from ICE technology.

Beyond that, there's the infrastructure challenges and safety risks inherent to highly pressurized hydrogen if there's an accident.

 

[ggies07]

@Aury - This article was posted on here a couple of days ago and the guy in it talks about how he helped oversee the hydrogen and fuel cell and alternative vehicle programs at the Energy Departments Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in the 1990s, was for FCV at one time, but realized that they just don't work now.

Tesla Trumps Toyota: Why Hydrogen Cars Cant Compete With Pure Electric Cars | ThinkProgress

 

[miimura]

The problems is hydrogen cars are not viable.

It benefits humanity when truth is spoken to power.

It tells the informed consumer not to buy this ridiculous diversion of resources.

It helps inform public policy makers even when they refuse to listen. The facts on the ground will make them listen at some point.

Fuel cell cars don't benefit humanity. They are far more expensive than BEVs, and the only reason they are leased to the public is because they are subsidized by the sale of ICE cars and taxpayers so legacy auto companies can keep selling ICE cars while pretending that 20 years from now they will sell zero emission fuel cell cars. Legacy auto companies have been telling the Public zero emission fuel cell cars will be here in 20 years since the 1970s. FCEV are the cars of the future and always will be.

Steam reforming of natural gas results in hydrogen that is ~$12.50 per kg and that derived from water electrolysis cost ~$75 per kg. That is why clean hydrogen will never be economically viable. However efficient renewables become they will always be more cost effective to put into BEVs than used to create H2.

Lying by omission and remaining silent regarding fuel cell vehicles serves no one. Aside from legacy auto companies that want to delay the conversion of ICE mobility to electric mobility.

I agree with all your points, but your hydrogen production costs are high. You don't need to exaggerate the production costs of hydrogen to effectively make your point.

Last year's cost analysis by ITM shows a cost of $6.44/kg H2 including capital amortization, using their own elecrolysis system. I think a number of their cost basis figures are skewed a little in their favor, but it's at least in the ballpark and below $10/kg in any case. So, in comparison your "~$75/kg" is a little ridiculous.

 

[jerry33]

The cost argument probably doesn't account for the subsidies. The question is, what impact will it have on EV once they are removed

Removal of the subsidies didn't have any impact on Prius sales. I don't see why it would have one on EV sales. Fuel Cell cars are a non-starter, so the question is moot.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Removal of the subsidies didn't have any impact on Prius sales. I don't see why it would have one on EV sales. Fuel Cell cars are a non-starter, so the question is moot.

The Prius subsidy was small and gas prices were rising. Besides, Prius liftback sales peaked in 2007 a d Toyota cheapened it for Gen 3.

 

[jerry33]

The Prius subsidy was small and gas prices were rising. Besides, Prius liftback sales peaked in 2007 a d Toyota cheapened it for Gen 3.

The Federal subsidy for mine was $5000. I don't consider that small.

 

[hiroshiy]

It seems too much biased to say "fuel cell has no business case at all". At present the technology is not efficient nor cost-effective nor help reducing CO2 emissions, but at least I think as one of the infrastructure technologies to store temporary energy, Hydrogen and FCVs might have some potential in the future with further development (and investment).

Here are some use cases for Hydrogen and FCVs I can think of.
- If you need a long range car or truck, or a vehicle that carry a lot of cargo, at this time EV does not seem to fit. This is because of energy density difference.
- If you want to store a lot if energy for country security and if you don't have oil, Hydrogen is one of the most promising ways to do that with lower CO2 emissions.
- If a country doesn't have much undeveloped land or land too small (or divided into too small sections) so that solar or other renewal energy based electricity generation is not enough. In this case no way to "100% renewables", so import something. Then that could be oil or Hydrogen.

In the U.S., I think two of above apply and there is oil, thus no Hydrogen makes sense. For countries like Japan above three applies and Hydrogen might make some sense in the future. Maybe not.

EDIT: point 2

 

[Matias]

Considering point two, Finland has no oil reserves. We have huge caves filled with oil, in case of some crisis. Oil is much easier to store indefinite time.

 

[hiroshiy]

@Matias: on point 2 I forgot to mention "with lower CO2 emissions". Oil is the best if you don't consider CO2, but you may not be able to rely on it forever. If you ran out of oil you need to switch energy consumer equipment (e.g. cars) not to use oil.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

The Federal subsidy for mine was $5000. I don't consider that small.

The credit in the mid 2000s was $3,400. Significant, but given that once gas prices rose, the car still worked out cheaper than a conventional car for sig ificant miles, it's not surprising that Toyota didn't depend on them. Other manufacturers really did and saw numbers tank. As of now, most PEVs are highly dependent on their tax credits and ZEV 9rice cuts.

 

[JRP3]

Here are some use cases for Hydrogen and FCVs I can think of.
- If you need a long range car or truck, or a vehicle that carry a lot of cargo, at this time EV does not seem to fit.

At this time FCV's do not fit since there is no place to fill them. People have already driven across the entire US with the Model S, you can't do that with a FCV, now, or any time soon.

 

[ggr]

It seems too much biased to say "fuel cell has no business case at all". At present the technology is not efficient nor cost-effective nor help reducing CO2 emissions, but at least I think as one of the infrastructure technologies to store temporary energy, Hydrogen and FCVs might have some potential in the future with further development (and investment).

Here are some use cases for Hydrogen and FCVs I can think of.
- If you need a long range car or truck, or a vehicle that carry a lot of cargo, at this time EV does not seem to fit. This is because of energy density difference.
- If you want to store a lot if energy for country security and if you don't have oil, Hydrogen is one of the most promising ways to do that with lower CO2 emissions.
- If a country doesn't have much undeveloped land or land too small (or divided into too small sections) so that solar or other renewal energy based electricity generation is not enough. In this case no way to "100% renewables", so import something. Then that could be oil or Hydrogen.

In the U.S., I think two of above apply and there is oil, thus no Hydrogen makes sense. For countries like Japan above three applies and Hydrogen might make some sense in the future. Maybe not.

EDIT: point 2

But if the best, most economical way to make the hydrogen is to make it from natural gas, why not just store the natural gas? And run internal combustion engines directly from the CNG (compressed natural gas), which is commonly done around the world already. Hydrogen is actually much less convenient for pretty much everything than just using the gas it is made from... the only exception being Fuel Cells. This is a solution looking for the right problem.

 

[ecarfan]

Hydrogen is an inefficient energy storage solution because it takes so much energy to create the hydrogen in the first place, and then you have to create expensive containers to hold it! As @ggr points out, just store the natural gas, that's easy to do.

As has been repeatedly demonstrated in multiple posts on this forum and many other places, a complete analysis of well-to-wheel efficiency for FCVs compared to EVs shows that there is no remotely plausible case for FCVs at this time.

Stick a fork in it, it's done.

 

[Aury]

Without hydrogen production, a third of the people on this forum wouldn't be alive. You needto make hydrogen gas to make Ammonia, without Ammonia you would have a fraction of the world's food supply we have now. Ammonia is why crops grow the way they do, it's why farmers have fertilizers.

So before you start saying that making hydrogen is stupid.....realise that it's essential to our very existence.