Hydrogen vs. Battery

[Alfred]

As Anticitizen said:
<< I believe that it really is the case that most of the actors in the automotive industry just cannot wrap their minds around a paradigm that doesn't involve a refill station. This isn't the first time we've seen this kind of paradigm shift completely blindside an industry.>>

This is indeed the main element and holds just as much for oil companies.
You have to consider that decisions in most large companies are results of a lot of team work. "Experts" from several walks of life will contribute. But what is the outcome, if the world of electronics and software is not yours? Will you be able to muster good judgement? Someone in this realm once remarked in a discussion about energy futures: "You cannot see the writing on the wall, if you've got your back against it". And that was actually in about 1978 and in an oil company.

For the auto industries in addition the following can be noted:
- The thinking was (and sometimes still is): "If we can get hold of a good battery, the rest is easy."
- This led them, and still leads some, to underestimate grossly the task ahead. So adequate and timely investment in suitable know how was severely neglected.
- The speed of development and what had become possible, as demonstrated early by the Tesla Roadster, took everybody by surprise.

The auto industry realized by about 2008, what could happen, but their hands were empty. As noted in Germany, suitably qualified electrical engineers were just not to be found anymore and certainly not at short notice.

*) Elon Musk was once asked why he did not place his company near Detroit, where the expertise for cars was. He said that in California he could get the best electrical and software engineers in the world.

 

[jerry33]

As Anticitizen said:
<< I believe that it really is the case that most of the actors in the automotive industry just cannot wrap their minds around a paradigm that doesn't involve a refill station. This isn't the first time we've seen this kind of paradigm shift completely blindside an industry.>>

This is just like the North American tire industry. First they poo-pood radial tires, then they created the diversionary bias-belted tire, then all but one went broke. The rest are now just sub-brands of the European or Japanese tire manufacturers.

 

[derekt75]

How about looking at the risk/reward for big companies?
If you're the CEO of a big company and you do what all the other companies are doing, and it turns out right, you have a job; if it turns out wrong, well you still have a job.
If you're the CEO of a big company and you do the opposite of what the other companies are doing, and it turns out right, you have a job; if it turns out wrong, you lose your job. In fact, even if you're right you can lose your job before everyone figures out that you're right.

I remember reading that in the financial collapse many realized that the subprime thing was going to fail. The problem was that if you didn't get on board the subprime market, you'd lose your job. Better to stay employed at a company that had years left of life in it than get fired from a company that you had set up for long term success.

 

[Grendal]

I remember reading that in the financial collapse many realized that the subprime thing was going to fail. The problem was that if you didn't get on board the subprime market, you'd lose your job. Better to stay employed at a company that had years left of life in it than get fired from a company that you had set up for long term success.

It was also set up that if you hit your monetary goal you got your huge bonus. The fact that it would all collapse like a house of cards was beside the point of the short term gain and bonus.

 

[ecarfan]

This article offers a healthy dose of realistic thinking about hydrogen fool cells.
Why Battery Electric Vehicles Will Beat Fuel Cells

Closing paragraphs: "In the automobile industry, fuel cells serve two purposes: a solution that is equivalent to (and more expensive than) the internal combustion engine and an excuse to explain away continued lack of progress in electric vehicle development. Fuel cells amount to nothing more than a publicity campaign for automobile manufacturers to delay battery powered electric vehicles and promote the status quo.

Just as the USA automobile industry underestimated the market potential for small cars in the 1970's and 1980's, auto manufacturers clinging to dream of fuel cells underestimate the appeal of battery powered electric vehicles. The fuel cell offers a perfect distraction: a way to divert attention away from battery powered electric vehicles by promising a better solution "in the future" while focusing today on the business model auto manufacturers understand best: petroleum powered automobiles."

 

[jerry33]

How about looking at the risk/reward for big companies?
If you're the CEO of a big company and you do what all the other companies are doing, and it turns out right, you have a job; if it turns out wrong, well you still have a job.
If you're the CEO of a big company and you do the opposite of what the other companies are doing, and it turns out right, you have a job; if it turns out wrong, you lose your job. In fact, even if you're right you can lose your job before everyone figures out that you're right.

If you're a CEO and the company does well you get paid millions.
If you're a CEO and the company goes bankrupt you get paid millions.
If you're a CEO and the company doesn't do well you get paid millions.
If you're a CEO and the board fires you, you get paid millions.

The main incentive you have as a CEO is to practice your golf game.

 

[ericspecullaas]

the one thing that really gets me with fuel cell cars is rust. yeah your taking a tank that can rust and filling it with pressure how many times can you fill it with out it exploding (when its all rotten)? to me its just a bomb ready to go off when it gets old.

 

[JRP3]

The tanks are not made of steel.

 

[Doug_G]

But they do nevertheless have a lifetime. And if people don't pay attention to that then someday they go kapow.

 

[rcc]

Auto company leaders are blinded by their own assumptions:

1) "EVs are toy cars - a niche market car not suited for mass market, everyday use." - Really, this was a valid statement before the Model S. The Roadster had the range but was a two-seater.
2) " EV batteries are too expensive. That makes the car so expensive that you can't make real money off them." - Again, true before the Model S. And true that even if you handed all the data on the Model S battery pack to Big Auto, they couldn't design a car that would use without redoing their powertrain design methodologies. Not going to happen.
3) "Tesla is making money off rich eco-nuts. They'll saturate that market soon and die." - No one understands how good the S is at hauling people and stuff until they sit in one and how addicting the instant power is until they drive one. Then they understand that the S appeals to everyone. Bet you money none of the Big Auto execs have ever driven a Model S.

If you are blinded by those assumptions, you write BEVs off as impractical and FCVs become your only hope.

 

[William13]

@aruy, I suggest you read some of the threads about competing tech to BEV. Mostly these are about the fact that HFC vehicles cannot be more CO2 clean than a Toyota Prius. They are a different version of petroleum cars. Toyota is the disingenuous manufacturer along with most others who are making HFC compliance cars. They get extra credits beyond BEV.

 

[ggies07]

nm. haha. William13 got to it before I did.

 

[Aury]

They are a different version of petroleum cars. Toyota is the disingenuous manufacturer along with most others who are making HFC compliance cars.

I'll need an explanation on how petrolium is related to hydrogen, because I think it's made from gas or electrolysis. I don't think any part of the process invovles petrolium.

 

[MikeC]

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.

Check out Julian's blog: Auto Industry Playing Dirty With Hydrogen - Blogs - Tesla Motors Club - Enthusiasts & Owners Forum

 

[Aury]

The cost argument probably doesn't account for the subsidies. The question is, what impact will it have on EV once they are removed, same questions can be asked for hydrogen too of course. Subsidies for EV / Hydrogen will eventually disappear, as they have in some countries already, either through budget cuts or simply because it was never meant to be a long term incentive.

 

[Aury]

Check out Julian's blog: Auto Industry Playing Dirty With Hydrogen - Blogs - Tesla Motors Club - Enthusiasts & Owners Forum

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.


Regarding hydrogen.

You can always look at things both ways. Salt water electrolysis is used to produce hydrogen and at the same time it can absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, because it's rich in hydroxide and hydroxide absorbs CO2. Resulting in production of hydrogen and reduction of CO2.

Hydroxide can absorb CO2 from the air and BASF and Solvay have been involved in this work for a while, the benefit is that hydroxide often results from hydrogen production, and hydroxide itself can be used to make hydrogen.

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.

There are more ways to produce hydrogen than I am willing to count, some produce CO2, some do not, some actually reduce CO2, it will be the job of government to support the right production methods.

If you want you can make hydrogen look horrible, if you want you can make lithium production look horrible, and if you want you can make oil production look horrible. I prefer to be somewhere in the middle and until we have seen what hydrogen can do, I am not willing to pick either side, because I know hydrogen production has just as many benefits as negatives.

 

[woof]

I'll need an explanation on how petrolium is related to hydrogen, because I think it's made from gas or electrolysis. I don't think any part of the process invovles petrolium.

That gas from which the H2 is obtained (CH4, methane, aka natural gas) is a byproduct of petroleum exploration. The same companies that drill for oil drill for gas. It's a hydrocarbon, even if it isn't "petroleum". And the real kicker is that the process of stripping the hydrogen off of methane leaves carbon behind, so using hydrogen fuel cells to move a car doesn't reduce carbon emissions over just burning the methane in an internal combustion engine, and costs a whole bunch more and is less efficient.

Using electrolysis to split hydrogen out of water can be as clean as the electricity source...but the power needed to crack water, combined with the energy losses from compressing the hydrogen, the loss of hydrogen during storage and transport, and the inefficiencies of the fuel cell converting the hydrogen back into electricity combine to create a system that is much less efficient than just putting the electricity directly into an existing battery. This is why Elon Musk says even the ideal fuel cell car of the future cannot match the efficiency of an actual electric car of today (which is not ideal).

 

[GoBlue88]

FCVs can't be refilled at home. Hydrogen filling stations will need to be installed, will probably require overcoming a lot of regulatory hurdles at each install site, will probably cost at least a million dollars per station, and the hydrogen itself will need to be transported to resupply each station. In each of those respects, it is no better than gasoline. Going beyond that, I'm not sure how comfortable I'd feel with a hydrogen bomb in my garage every night.

I "fill up" my Tesla every night in my garage on a NEMA 14-50 outlet that I paid $400 to install. While charging stations also have to be installed in public, they are far far cheaper than hydrogen stations, install faster, can be put almost anywhere, and the "fuel" delivery is constant and doesn't require transport. Furthermore, electricity is available everywhere, which means charging potential is everywhere.

Once they get the charging speed up to about 5-10 minutes for a 300-400 mile battery, and they will, I don't see a compelling argument for how FCVs survive.

 

[ecarfan]

Once they get the charging speed up to about 5-10 minutes for a 300-400 mile battery, and they will, I don't see a compelling argument for how FCVs survive.

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.

 

[geturchiru]

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.


Regarding hydrogen.

You can always look at things both ways. Salt water electrolysis is used to produce hydrogen and at the same time it can absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, because it's rich in hydroxide and hydroxide absorbs CO2. Resulting in production of hydrogen and reduction of CO2.

Hydroxide can absorb CO2 from the air and BASF and Solvay have been involved in this work for a while, the benefit is that hydroxide often results from hydrogen production, and hydroxide itself can be used to make hydrogen.

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.

There are more ways to produce hydrogen than I am willing to count, some produce CO2, some do not, some actually reduce CO2, it will be the job of government to support the right production methods.

If you want you can make hydrogen look horrible, if you want you can make lithium production look horrible, and if you want you can make oil production look horrible. I prefer to be somewhere in the middle and until we have seen what hydrogen can do, I am not willing to pick either side, because I know hydrogen production has just as many benefits as negatives.

Check the hydrogen production wiki page Hydrogen production - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Currently, the majority of hydrogen (∼95%) is produced from fossil fuels by steam reforming or partial oxidation of methane and coal gasification with only a small quantity by other routes such as biomass gasification or electrolysis of water.

Cost per unit of hydrogen is what decides the market not just the government intentions/funding. Few years back, solar was costly. Even with govt. intentions of encouraging clean solar energy market did not change until the production costs came down. The cost came down not just because of govt. research funding but mainly because of advancements in electronics which works based on moore's law which is density approx. doubles every two years. For chemistry, it is tough to achieve that level of advancements. Until that happens, Hydrogen production happens from hydrocarbons!!