BEVs cleaner than HCFVs according to Stanford University study

[ecarfan]

No surprises here Battery-electric vs. fuel cell vehicle: Which is greener?

Quote: "In terms of overall costs, researchers found that battery electric vehicles are better than fuel cell vehicles for reducing emissions. The analysis showed that to be cost competitive, fuel cell vehicles would have to be priced much lower than battery vehicles. However, fuel cell vehicles are likely to be significantly more expensive than battery vehicles for the foreseeable future. Another supposed benefit of hydrogen – storing surplus solar energy – didn’t pan out ".

 

[green1]

This falls under the category of "duh!"

You can't add multiple conversions, storage, and transportation steps to a fuel and come out cleaner and more efficient than using the original source directly (in this case electricity -> hydrogen -> transport/store/dispense -> electricity)

I'm not sure even the most die-hard fuel cell supporters ever claimed it was cleaner, more efficient, or better for the environment than pure EVs. The only things they cling to is fast re-fuelling and long range. Of course in the real world they haven't been able to get either of those features to work as well as they claim, and meanwhile batteries have improved on both fronts massively.

 

[ecarfan]

This falls under the category of "duh!"

Agreed. But there are still people, including I suspect upper management at Toyota and Honda and Hyundai, who still argue that HFCVs are at least comparable to BEVs when it comes to energy efficiency and overall "greenness".

 

[green1]

Agreed. But there are still people, including I suspect upper management at Toyota and Honda and Hyundai, who still argue that HFCVs are at least comparable to BEVs when it comes to energy efficiency and overall "greenness".

Honestly, I have never heard them try to claim that. I hear them say they're green, but never "greener than EVs" or even "as green as EVs" Instead they pretend that EVs can't be practical vehicles due to speed of charge and range, and that we must use HFCV to overcome those issues.

 

[ggr]

This falls under the category of "duh!"

You can't add multiple conversions, storage, and transportation steps to a fuel and come out cleaner and more efficient than using the original source directly (in this case electricity -> hydrogen -> transport/store/dispense -> electricity)

I'm not sure even the most die-hard fuel cell supporters ever claimed it was cleaner, more efficient, or better for the environment than pure EVs. The only things they cling to is fast re-fuelling and long range. Of course in the real world they haven't been able to get either of those features to work as well as they claim, and meanwhile batteries have improved on both fronts massively.

While I agree with you I have to point out that even pure BEVs do a similar conversion:
Electricity->chemical energy->electricity

 

[BluestarE3]

While I agree with you I have to point out that even pure BEVs do a similar conversion:
Electricity->chemical energy->electricity

True, but BEV eliminates all those other conversion steps that FCEV requires before the fuel even gets to the vehicle itself.

 

[green1]

While I agree with you I have to point out that even pure BEVs do a similar conversion:
Electricity->chemical energy->electricity

Except that HFCV do exactly that same conversion, in ADDITION to all the other ones. fuel cells the size they put in a car can't do the full output power of the car, all they do is charge batteries, which then power the drivetrain.

 

[SageBrush]

There are a host of reasons to be VERY* skeptical of FCHVs but fuel conversion efficiency may not be one of them. I have seen early studies of high temperature hydrogen production that are quite promising. IIRC about 60% of energy input is captured in hydrogen. That may not seem competitive to electricity from wind or PV but avoiding the radiation to PV conversion step is potentially a huge advantage.

*Not the least is that BEV's are a fast moving target.

 

[ecarfan]

Except that HFCV do exactly that same conversion, in ADDITION to all the other ones. fuel cells the size they put in a car can't do the full output power of the car, all they do is charge batteries, which then power the drivetrain.

Yes, and fundamentally, making electricity IN YOUR CAR to charge your battery which then powers the motor is crazy complicated and costly when the alternative is to plug your car in to charge your battery at literally thousands of locations in the country where you live as well as plugging it in at your place of residence -- a place you are normally at overnight every day -- where it is increasingly affordable to MAKE YOUR OWN ENERGY at very low cost and with zero emissions using free photos that hit your roof every day.

And yes, I know that TMC readers have heard that stated endlessly. I state it yet again for the benefit of future members and and transient readers who may still be buying the snake oil that Toyota, Honda, Hyundai and a few others continue to try to sell.

 

[ecarfan]

I have seen early studies of high temperature hydrogen production that are quite promising. IIRC about 60% of energy input is captured in hydrogen. That may not seem competitive to electricity from wind or PV but avoiding the radiation to PV conversion step is potentially a huge advantage.

"Early studies" of a technique that only works in the lab and is many many years from being commercially viable? Sounds like those miracle battery cells that are 5 times better than current Lion cells. How many of those have been announced with great fanfare over the past decade and then disappeared.

The inherent advantage of the "radiation to PV conversion step" is that the radiation/photos are free.

 

[SageBrush]

"Early studies" of a technique that only works in the lab

Grossly inaccurate characterization.

 

[SageBrush]

The inherent advantage of the "radiation to PV conversion step" is that the radiation/photos are free.

Sure, but the point is that using 100% of the radiation rather than ~ 20% is attractive.

Every time this topic comes up I think of the huge solar thermal plants and wonder if they would not be better utilized for H2 production in a future world that still uses liquid fuels for some applications. I do agree with you and Stanford that BEVs are an obvious choice for personal transport.