Will Model 3 & Chevy Bolt Be The 1-2 Punch That Kills Fuel Cell Vehicles

[yesup]

Depends on what the energy source is to create the electricity to split the water molecule. If it is fossil based than yes you are correct, although the hydrogen itself comes from water. If the electricity is clean sourced (I.e. hydro, solar, wind) then it would not be tied to fossil.

Currently, majority of hydrogen produced in US today is made by "steam-methane reforming" (CH4 + H2O -> CO + 3H2) and subsequent water-gas shift reaction (CO + H2O -> CO2 + H2).

So it is not just the energy source, but the raw material for Hydrogen produced today is fossil fuel.

 

[Automaton]

The end for hydrogen AND gasoline cars will be when battery EVs can be recharged in the same or less time than filling a gas tank *and* when gas stations start converting to battery charging stations.

 

[techmaven]

Why on earth would we be cheering and advocating for "the end" of any alternative energy transportation?

Market competition is good. Exploring multiple alternatives to achieve the same goal is sound strategy.

Exploring... sure. But given the state of HFCEV technology, trying to spend many millions of dollars to push widespread adoption is foolhardy. BEVs have reached a state of maturity that pushing them into the marketplace makes sense. HFCEV's however, still require some fundamental scientific breakthroughs for them to make any sense for widespread adoption.

As a result, even if the government and industry dropped a few billion dollars on HFCEV to get over the hump of the initial infrastructure requirements, we still aren't in a much better place overall. The cost of energy would still be high, the carbon emissions would be no better than burning natural gas and far higher than BEVs on an immediate in-vehicle basis and on a total WTW basis.

There are two main reasons why HFCEV is still interesting to government and the automaker industry. One is the belief that people will not stand for the length of time to recharge BEVs and therefore the mythical 5 minute energy transfer time of HFCEV is still a desirable thing for a ZEV. The second is for those that have invested in HFCEV to realize some fruit of their investments and to use that fruit to try to block the widespread adoption of BEVs.

It should be very clear that the current state and the foreseeable state of HFCEV is a non-starter for light passenger vehicles as long as people would be willing to put up with recharging times. Now, that doesn't mean hydrogen fuel cell technology doesn't have a place somewhere, in some other context. For example, long haul trucking along consistent, repeated routes might benefit. Or even inside a warehouse.

 

[McRat]

Like has been said many times, if the government would have taken the money they spent on FCEV and put it into DCFC technology and charge sites, it would have had a greater effect on emissions.

Time to end the "shotgun" method of coming up with a ZEV solution. We have the winner. Now focus on it. That is how engineering works. You do your design testing and settle on the best solution.

 

[adiggs]

Why on earth would we be cheering and advocating for "the end" of any alternative energy transportation?

Market competition is good. Exploring multiple alternatives to achieve the same goal is sound strategy.

Exploration is good and I hope research into hydrogen and fuel cells continues. The tea leaves today though, suggests that the application of this technology into personal transport is a catastrophically expensive path to pursue. Continue research and lowering the cost - absolutely. Viably implementable technology today - no.

By catastrophically expensive, I mean that if the vision is for hydrogen to replace gasoline, then there are TRILLIONS of dollars in infrastructure to build to replace the existing gasoline distribution process. Arguably, that's the easy part of the problem. There isn't a corresponding requirement for trillions of dollars of infrastructure build to support supplying electricity to a 100% EV fleet.

And the progress being shown by BEVs and battery storage suggests that fuel cells in personal transport today are many orders of magnitude behind on cost, while being many orders of magnitude behind on carbon production (more cost, to keep the same carbon production as with gas vehicles, while gaining the benefit of concentrating where the carbon emissions are produced).


Security and safety around hydrogen is simultaneously easier and harder than with gasoline. More precisely, the likelihood of a fire/explosion is dramatically lower when the properties of hydrogen are used to construct the safety equipment. The impact of a problem is dramatically higher than with gasoline. Here is a case study of an explosion at a power plant that I found very informative:
Lessons Learned from a Hydrogen Explosion

One observation - FCEV's store hydrogen at 10,000 PSI. This explosion talked about above in the case study was from hydrogen being delivered at 2400 PSI. Lowering FCEV pressure to 2400 PSI would at minimum, shorten vehicle range by 75%. Starts to sound ilke a Neighborhood FCEV, and we know how popular Neighborhood BEVs are

 

[xmetal]

Having owned an EV for a while now, quite possibly the BIGGEST plus to them is the concept of "home refueling." I simply love, LOVE not having to visit the gas station anymore. Knowing that my car is always full, simply by plugging it in at night, is a huge benefit. This year we also plan on adding solar to our home, at which point my transport costs will be even lower.

Hydrogen does nothing in this regard, and for the foreseeable future would be far worse than gas because there are no hydrogren stations anywhere. Think it's hard to find an EV chargepoint? Just visit the gov't site and you'll see the laughable state of hydrogen affairs. It would be many years and billions of dollars to even get close to the current EV level of accessibility.

The only reason hydrogen is still talked about is because of the petroleum lobby, funneling money into politicians pockets.

 

[SageBrush]

It's been a while since I read about high temperature electrolysis (HTE), but if memory serves it is as efficient as direct electricity production when the plant is solar-thermal.

HTE is not ready for prime time, but I think the take home message is that clean, efficient hydrogen production on par with solar electricity is possible. The show stopper in the case of cars is infrastructure and use (pressure/tank/fuel_cell) costs. I have thought for years that hydrogen will end being a fantastic time shifter for the electricity grid.

In many ways it is not hydrogen Vs battery. Some applications will be better served by battery, some better served by hydrogen, and some by a mix of the two.

Edit: Linky

 

[manitou820]

Commercial trucks may still be a potential market. Batteries have a very long way to go to meet the demands of a large cross country semi truck. A Fuel-cell truck may work well and require a more limited amount of infrastructure compared to standard passenger vehicles.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Commercial trucks may still be a potential market. Batteries have a very long way to go to meet the demands of a large cross country semi truck. A Fuel-cell truck may work well and require a more limited amount of infrastructure compared to standard passenger vehicles.

Actually it is the LNG trunks that will probably be suitable for long haul. The problem with hydrogen for long haul is that it is still not anywhere close to the density of diesel and fuel cell costs scale with power (so a fuel cell powerful enough to handle that power demand is very expensive). The infrastructure costs also still remain a concern). Right now, like batteries, they are more suitable for short haul.

The bus application would seem to be a perfect fit (central fueling and no need to install stations on routes), but actually battery powered buses are doing a lot better.

 

[McRat]

... The show stopper in the case of cars is infrastructure cost. ...

There is another issue. The fuel cells themselves are expensive, heavy, and unless something has changed, their lifespan is not better than lithium batteries. According to the DOE (big time FCEV advocates, to the point of exaggeration), the first Toyota FCEV's had a FC lifespan of 75,000 miles and a pack cost of $100,000. The DOE now claims they will last 150,000 miles, but nobody else is saying that. Not even GM who has 3 million miles of testing. Toyota is silent as well.

But, Toyota is warrantying Mirai FC components for 8 years and 100,000 miles in California, but I think CARB makes them do that to get the $5,000 state rebate on the FCEVs. If you want to play with H2, you should lease ONLY.

 

[igotzzoom]

Actually, a promising fuel for over-the-road heavy trucks is dimethyl ether (DME). Volvo is doing a lot of pioneering research in this area. It's a gaseous fuel, but is much lower pressure than LNG, CNG or propane, and can run in a compression-ignition diesel engine with minimal modification.

 

[McRat]

For heavy equipment and aircraft, the existing greener solution for compression ignition engines right now is biofuel from rapeseed or algae, or synthetic diesel from natural gas. These are more efficient than ethanol; another darling of government wasteful spending.

Both of these sources are sulfur-free and have lower emissions than petroleum based fuels, both can be used for jet fuel, both require no engine modifications, and one of them is renewable.

All the research and infrastructure is ready. The only problem is that both are about $4 a gallon in the real unsubsidized world.

BUT! For the real sci-fi fans out there, another pie-in-sky technology with the backing of Audi is power-to-liquid technology. Take some water, add some CO2, juice it with 50 kWh of electricity, and get 1 gallon of diesel, jet, or gasoline fuel. Very pure, no net carbon gain if the electricity is carbon free. Sort of like making a liquid fuel battery. Look up 'blue crude'.

 

[cokata]

I think the Bolt will be a jab, but the Model 3 a knock out blow.

OTOH it's enough to blow gently on the hydrogen façade and it falls over all by itself.

Jabbing FCEV can have explosive results.

 

[Patrick0101]

Why on earth would we be cheering and advocating for "the end" of any alternative energy transportation?

Market competition is good. Exploring multiple alternatives to achieve the same goal is sound strategy.

That is answered here:

Fuel cells are used to say EVs are the wrong path. "FCVs are the distant mirage that keeps us walking in wrong direction down our fossil fuel status quo path." The state money that could be used for a lot of EVSEs is instead used to install one H2 filling station.

 

[AlanSqB]

We need more rail lines. Electric trains with pantographs.

Major highways with special lanes with overhead power lines. Trucks with pantographs.

Autonomous shipping vehicles that pick the most efficient routes.

3d printing and other tech that reduces the need to ship so much crap.

 

[chadever]

The end for hydrogen AND gasoline cars will be when battery EVs can be recharged in the same or less time than filling a gas tank *and* when gas stations start converting to battery charging stations.

What's holding EV's back is price. For me an electric car is more convenient AND cheaper to refuel. If people are willing to wait 20 minutes in a line at Costco for $40 I'm sure they will love charging at home for $10.

 

[igotzzoom]

What's holding EV's back is price. For me an electric car is more convenient AND cheaper to refuel. If people are willing to wait 20 minutes in a line at Costco for $40 I'm sure they will love charging at home for $10.

I can't wait until I don't have to do the Costco gas line slog. Well, I guess I don't have to do it now, but if I can save a few bucks, it's worth it.

 

[Snowdog]

Actually it is the LNG trunks that will probably be suitable for long haul. The problem with hydrogen for long haul is that it is still not anywhere close to the density of diesel and fuel cell costs scale with power (so a fuel cell powerful enough to handle that power demand is very expensive). The infrastructure costs also still remain a concern). Right now, like batteries, they are more suitable for short haul.

Fleet usage of CNG is already growing, because of simple economics.

It is cheaper and cleaner to run on CNG than diesel.

Perhaps not well known is that LA Bus fleet hasn't run a diesel bus in year, the fleet is almost all CNG.

Check what garbage trucks almost everywhere are switching to (Nearly every story is about switching to CNG.):
Refuse Trucks - Green Fleet Magazine


Long Haul might require LNG, which seems to be the way China is going(700 LNG stations for trucking already):
How China is Trucking into the Age of Gas - GE Reports

Those who support Hydrogen and make the point that BEVs won't power everything, are correct. But the truth is that BEVs have clear wins in personal local transportation niche (expanding distance as time goes on).

OTOH, Hydrogen doesn't actually have any niche where it wins. It's not the best solution to any transportation niche. If there are already better solutions on the market, why is anyone going to use problematic and expensive hydrogen, without a gun to their head?

 

[McRat]

One of the great luxuries of an EV is always waking up with a full tank.

 

[dhanson865]

I can't wait until I don't have to do the Costco gas line slog. Well, I guess I don't have to do it now, but if I can save a few bucks, it's worth it.

My solution to that was a sub $10,000 used Leaf you could get one for about $7000 now if you live close enough to work and you have a source of electricity for under $0.20 per kWh.

For me that was $9000 Leaf, 15 mile drive to work, $0.10 per kWh. I know that for Californians the math is different but there are dozens of other states with cheap electricity.