Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Fair to say the Model 3 killed Hydrogen!

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Yep, once you realize that hydrogen is basically a leaky, explosive, battery with a low return rate, hydrogen is a non-starter. Most hydrogen is made from natural gas nowadays, lets compare using NG as a fuel for FCVs and BEVs.

Converting NG to H2 has about a ~30% energy loss in steam reformation.

Compressing the H2 to 10,000 PSI is another ~15% energy loss

There is more nonzero losses for storage. hydrogen is just a single proton and can leak out of literally anything. It will be travelling much faster for a given temperature than any other material. The longer you store it the larger the loss. People have estimated a 10-20% leakage loss in a hydrogen infrastructure, we'll go with the lower 10% loss to be fair.

An FCV-sized fuel cell is about 50% efficient at converting H2 heat energy into electrical energy.

Electric motors are about 90% efficient at converting electrical energy into rotational energy. Some of this electricity will need to be stored into batteries, so the losses will be slightly higher, we'll say 12%.

Electric motors don't need complicated transmissions, but there still is some losses, around 5%, less than the ~15% for and ICE engine with a gearbox/etc.

So, 0.70 x 0.85 x 0.90 x 0.50 x 0.88 x 0.95 = 0.2238 NG thermal energy to wheels efficiency.

!!!

That's really only slightly better than a modern efficient ICE w/ hybrid drivetrain! (0.25 x 0.85 =0.213 )

Now lets compare a BEV using a modern NG CCGT.

an NG CCGT is a pretty efficient machine, it can convert ~60% of thermal energy into electricity.

after that you'll have an about 12% loss in the grid and utility self-usage.

about a 7% loss each way in the battery (Charge, discharge)

10% loss in the electric motor, and 5% loss in the drivetrain/wheels.

0.60 x 0.88 x 0.93 x 0.93 x 0.90 x 0.95 = 0.39 NG thermal energy to wheels efficiency. 74% higher than the FCV.


What about if you have some clean electricity as a energy source(Solar, Wind, Nuclear, etc)?

You'll need to electrolyze water to make hydrogen, you're looking at a ~40% loss doing that, then all of the other losses mentioned above after the hydrogen is created.

0.60 x 0.85 x 0.90 x 0.50 x 0.88 x 0.95 = 0.1918

LOL 80% of your clean electricity is wasted... what about BEVs? you can skip the losses converting heat to electricity.

0.88 x 0.93 x 0.93 x 0.90 x 0.95 = 0.651 more than triple the return of FCVs.

FCVs are a joke. anyone who has done the math (like Elon) knows this.
Thanks for doing this, I was about to post the same calculations to compare the efficiency of ICEV, EV, FCV.

Basically, ICEV is already at its cap. FCV is largely dependent on the efficiency of electricity generation which is the same for EV. But after that, FCV takes another 50% cut while EV takes 10%. Only exception here is sometimes you get some hydrogen as by-product from nuclear plants.

The human history is a history of increasing efficiency. Can't fight this.
 
I'm upset that California in particular spent so much money supporting Hydrogen that could have been better spent!

I understand past spending on hydrogen was a total waste, but isn't the bulk of subsidies still to come? The head of CARB drives around in a $67,500 Mirai and talks about attempting to drive from LA to Sacramento as if it will be a big achievement.
 
Last edited:
I'm upset that California in particular spent so much money supporting Hydrogen that could have been better spent!

waste of money in California? cough, cough, bullet train, cough, cough...

as far as hydrogen vs. EV, people need to think long term and remember that liquid hydrogen is the fuel of choice for space travel and I don't think that SpaceX is using electric propulsion.

That is what you call "chessmate" for this discussion.

Mods can close the thread now.
 
waste of money in California? cough, cough, bullet train, cough, cough...

as far as hydrogen vs. EV, people need to think long term and remember that liquid hydrogen is the fuel of choice for space travel and I don't think that SpaceX is using electric propulsion.

That is what you call "chessmate" for this discussion.

Mods can close the thread now.
What does that have to do with cars? Hydrogen has been in use in rockets for decades, but that doesn't mean it'll be viable for cars. Hydrogen cars simply don't make much sense given the advances of EVs. Even Daimler is saying they no longer see much hope for hydrogen (previously they were giving equal weight to both). It simply costs too much money to support even a modest amount of cars (the 68 stations in CA being supported by $200 million in grant funding will only support around 10k cars).
 
Last edited:
as far as hydrogen vs. EV, people need to think long term and remember that liquid hydrogen is the fuel of choice for space travel and I don't think that SpaceX is using electric propulsion.
Actually, it's not and hasn't been for quite some time. RP-1 (kerosene derived) & liquid oxygen (LOX) have been preferred over LH2/LOX because it's cheaper, safer, and more powerful by volume. RP-1/LOX has powered everything from the Saturn V rockets that took us to the moon, to the current Atlas V, and even SpaceX's own Falcon 9. In fact, the only modern launch vehicles that come to mind that run LH2/LOX are the Delta IV (to be replaced by the methane burning Vulcan) and Ariane 5.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: AlexT
What does that have to do with cars? Hydrogen has been in use in rockets for decades, but that doesn't mean it'll be viable for cars. Hydrogen cars simply don't make much sense given the advances of EVs. Even Daimler is saying they no longer see much hope for hydrogen (previously they were giving equal weight to both). It simply costs too much money to support even a modest amount of cars (the 68 stations in CA being supported by $200 million in grant funding will only support around 10k cars).

lol that's $20,000 in just fuel infrastructure cost per car!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: omarsultan
That's nice... but I'm talking about launch vehicles, not upper stages.

I hope you didn't hurt your back moving those goalposts.
I said it was the choice for space travel.
You quoted me and replied "Actually, it's not..."

Now you claim, oh, I wasn't referring to what you said which was "space travel" but rather just the launch vehicles.

Well okay then.
 
IMHO, the monetary expenditures and resources should be going into EVs and better batteries, not hydrogen. Not just for current sustainability, but for future space travel and colonization.

Anything that requires oxygen to generate power will be useless on let's say Mars or something. I'd rather we be breathing what little there is than using it for transportation. We are on the cusp of moving beyond the earth. We will need transportation on whatever planet that we encounter. Batteries do not need anything more than the sun. Better batteries may need less than that.

Yes this thesis may seem half-cocked and we're unlikely to be experiencing any of this in my lifetime, but we should be planning ahead.
 
General Motors has been playing with Fuel Cells starting in the 1960's, and are currently making a FCEV for the military.
They hit 3,000,000 miles in their fuel cell test vehicles by 2015.

It's funny that with several times the FCEV experience as Toyota, GM is not ready to release a retail FCEV. They are assisting Honda with FCEV development, but I doubt GM will bother to badge their own for retail sale.

Toyota lobbying can only go so far. Our Governor has a "tramp stamp" tattoo of the Toyota Logo, but he's pretty old so will soon be dethroned.
 
I hope you didn't hurt your back moving those goalposts.
I said it was the choice for space travel.
You quoted me and replied "Actually, it's not..."

Now you claim, oh, I wasn't referring to what you said which was "space travel" but rather just the launch vehicles.

Well okay then.
Goalpost moving? I think this is just a different idea of what you meant by "space travel"... you're narrowing your definition of space travel to the actual act of traveling through space, whereas I'm looking at the whole process. Launch vehicle first stages are what get you into space to start with and are where the vast majority of fuel is consumed (it's also, arguably, the most dangerous phase). Therefore, since the majority of the fuel used is RP-1, not LH2, it's the preferred fuel from my point of view. What good is your definition/assertion if it doesn't include, you know, actually getting into space?
 
Think of the comparison between a FCEV and a BEV as follows:

You are standing outside a 7-11 and you give your kid an ATM card and tell him to get some batteries for your flashlight. Does he:

A: Run to a sporting goods store and buy a skate board. Then skate to a bank to get a $20 bill. Then go to an ice-cream store to get a cone as well as some change. Then search out a department store to buy the batteries and then come back to you.

or does he:

B: Go inside the 7-11 and buy the batteries.

Both A and B will get you what you need, but one is much costlier, and in the long run much more time consuming.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cyclone