> in 10 years if you don't have a viable EV platform, you are closing your doors
I for once hope that the bragging from EU about the H2 infrastructure is not usual hot air. It is really good to see major manufacturers coming up with H2 power plant ideas. In 10 years, I’m looking to drive a fuel cell powered car.
It’s not going to be a popular opinion here but IMO, battery powered cars are a dead end. The range will always be limited by physics. Batteries are manufactured from resources dug out of the ground. It’s really dumb to carry a ton of empty batteries when running low on load, it only contributes to wearing tires faster. 10 ton hauling tractors? Who’s going to build the road infrastructure to support that. The grid has its capacity too. Today? Sure - as an alternative to ICE, an EV makes some people feel better. 10 years from now? I’m not sure.
Only recently (I guess 10 years) have we started seeing serious billions poured into this research. The battery tech is improving so fast we might see some serious breakthroughs in the next 10 years regarding materials used and energy density. It's really too soon to say something isn't possible in this landscape
Electric cars are going to slaughter hydrogen for one simple reason. Once people get used to the convenience of their car getting filled up every night when they are at home, they will never go back.
There may be a parallel H2 network for industrial vehicles of some kinds. But the vast majority of personal use is going to be electric.
You can probably refuel a hydrogen car at home eventually too. The problem with electric cars is that there's not a single thing that fuel cell cars can't replicate.
> You can probably refuel a hydrogen car at home eventually too. The problem with electric cars is that there's not a single thing that fuel cell cars can't replicate.
First. No, we're not going to have home electrolysis. It would be expensive and inefficient.
And that inefficiency is what will make hydro cars also ran. While EVs are heavier, they are less expensive to operate because there is energy loss in every phase of getting power to the wheels. Extracting hydrogen, compressing it, delivering it to the end point, and extracting power from it, each phase is an efficiency loss.
I already have what I need to charge an EV. It will take all night, but I rarely drive more than 300 miles in a day so that's just fine with me. And it's cheaper than hydro will ever be. Particularly if I put up my own solar to charge it.
Why not? A company called Lavo is selling such a thing right now.
You should realize that weight steals from your efficiency. A fuel cell can be less efficiency, but still gets you a similar distance on the same amount of energy.
If you can accept that a fuel cell car can match a battery powered one on efficiency, then it’s conceivable that it can be as cheap to drive too.
> A company called Lavo is selling such a thing right now.
A link would be nice. The only thing I could find is a home battery from Lavo which costs $26,000 and doesn't say anything about being able to compress and deliver hydrogen safely to a car.
> If you can accept that a fuel cell car can match a battery powered one on efficiency,
This is laughable. Here's some numbers direct from your Lavo home hydrogen battery:
> "But the process of generating hydrogen by electrolysis using a proton exchange membrane is only about 80 percent efficient, so you lose 20 percent straight away. And at the other end, you'll lose somewhere around half of what you've got stored in the process of converting the hydrogen back into energy through a fuel cell."
So ever watt of power you put into it you get 40% of the power back in the for of go-juice. That's not even accounting for carting all of the hydrogen around the country to keep fuel stations supplied. Nor does it account for any drain from compressing it to deliver it to a car at home.
By comparison, you lose about 15% efficiency pushing the extra 500 pounds of Tesla around.
> If you can accept that a fuel cell car can match a battery powered one on efficiency
Efficiency isn't even close. Why would I accept what is clearly something which only exists in the imaginary future in your head? It's not even in the ballpark.
There are a lot of potential future applications for this technology, but large scale adoption of hydrogen in personal vehicles is not going to happen.
If you can electrolyze water at home, the compression step is not a hard problem anymore. This is more trolling than a serious counterargument. Alternatively, you can have hydrogen piped to the house instead of home electrolysis.
You should understand that fuel cells will continue to improve in efficiency. 40% today will mean 50% tomorrow, and likely 60% at some point in the future. Losses for transport and compression of hydrogen is a surprisingly small amount. In fact, its more efficient to pipe hydrogen over long distances than to transmit electricity. In additional, you can always reuse the heat in either CHP or thermal energy recapture.
It's also important to realize that the electric grid is not perfectly efficient, nor is charging a battery. You're likely to lose around 30% to these types of losses. This figure is going to get worse once grid energy storage and long-distance power transfer become necessary. Combined with your 15% loss pushing the extra battery weight and it really does start to add up. Worse if you look at cold weather performance. The notion that fuel cells can never match batteries on efficiency is a very short-term worldview.
Yes, compression is a solved problem... one which adds additional inefficiency to an already terribly inefficient technology.
And of course your reply here we is more nonsense that hydrogen is going to continue progressing at miraculous rates while the rest of the world stands still.
Your quasi-religion about this is getting bad.
EVs are real. They are here now and don’t need future-magic to be viable and interesting. Hydrogen is essentially magic beans at this point being sold on promises and hot air.
Like everything you said in this conversation, you drastically exaggerate the inefficiencies of fuel cells. In practice, batteries and fuel cells are already close enough that it has ceased to be a major roadblock.
Fuel cells getting more efficient and cheaper is pretty much a default assumption. The only thing that's quasi-religious are the supposedly "pro-environment" people that strongly disagree with the idea of a green technology getting better. It's frankly a cult of batteries, and more than anything they're out of touch with reality.
The problem with EVs is that fuel cells are also real, and already viable and interesting. If EV fans actually paid attention, they'd realize we're heading towards a disruption event and prepare according.
I didn’t have to exaggerate the inefficiencies, the company you pointed me to detailed them quite well. I just pointed out your half-solution required some additional energy input to compress the hydrogen. Unless you are assuming Hydrogen will just magically jump from the home battery to the car?
Fuel cells are real. A viable consumer fuel cell infrastructure with competitive fuel costs? Not so much.
These inefficiencies aren't a big deal, and as I said they'll continue to shrink.
People are also totally unaware of just how much progress is being made. There's a global rush to deploy as much hydrogen infrastructure as possible right now. Too bad some pro-EV people still think it's the year 2015.
I think you are completely wrong, let me make the argument. As a whole, H2 cars are also quite heavy. You literally require everything that is in an EV plus multiple extra subsystems that are incredibly complex and not light by any means. The manufacturing and materials are very both complex and expensive.
You need the fuel cell itself, and that is not just some thin layer, but a whole complex subsystem that requires all kind of system around it. Then you need a very heavy high pressure tank and a high pressure fuel system. Looking at H2 cars and the amount of parts these system adds is illuminating.
Next up, you can make a battery completely structural, meaning the battery actually serves the function that the steel frame used to serve in a car. Integrated like that, the battery weight is almost negative.
Battery technology is improving fast, with both cost going down and energy and power density going up year over year. H2 cars can not compete in the current environment and there are no projection that they ever can.
Pretty much everybody has now given up on H2 cars ever being remotely viable. Some people are still holding on to the hope for H2 in trucking, but some large truck companies have already dropped it, and with Tesla Semi going into mass production, people will realize that H2 trucking has no future as they have realized it with cars.
You also seem to ignore all the negatives of H2. Fuel station that are about 100-1000x more expensive per station, and you need more of them. You can't charge over night at home with energy that is largely already available. Even if EU government funded H2 is successful, that would still not be enough for all of transportation, not even close.
The majority of hydrogen for the foreseeable future will by methane based and when the grid will already be almost totally carbon free, much of hydrogen on the planet will still not be carbon free.
And if you are talking 'in 10 years' you need to also look forward to what batteries will be like in 10 years. In 10 years its possible that we could have lithium sulphur batteries. Such batteries would be incredibly cheap and have crazy high energy density. Battery that cost a few 100$ and fits in a glove box could give multiple 100 miles to a small car. That is just one possible battery tech that might be viable in 10 years.
Last, let me address your point about mining. While of course the extra subsystems for H2 also need materials, a much bigger issue you have ignored. A FCEV is inherently significantly less efficient, this means that even if you are producing all the H2 with solar and win, the total amount of solar and wind required would mean you would need a significant amount more solar and wind. Guess what that requires, significantly more mining, more solar panels covering more nature, more wind turbines everywhere (that people already hate).
I really don't understand people love for these hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.
I think Hydrogen fuel cell tech doesn't belong in passenger vehicles; there batteries can do a fine enough job. I believe the future of H2 is in intermodal transport, that is, trucking and (previously diesel) trains.
Why?
Do the math on weight, and you'll quickly see that you can't fit enough batteries in a Semi to give them the range that they need for long haul, while still being able to carry any appreciable amount of goods (There's a 40T limit on the roads in Europe, YMMV).
Together with Green Kerosine for Airplanes, and you've got Carbon-neutral transport: Electric Cars, Hydrogen Trucks and Trains, and (Green) Kerosine Airplanes.
The waste majority of trucking is not actually super long range. So the waste majority trucking can be done perfectly fine even with current generation EV that are starting to come out this year.
There is a small amount of very long range trucking where there 'might' be a competition. However, I believe even that will quickly go electric.
So, even current generation trucks could do 80% of trucking. From there year by year they will be able to do more of the jobs. Hydrogen will lose against Diesel until BEV trucks will be good enough. In 5 years nobody will question if BEV trucks can do everything.
A properly engineered electric Semi is not actually that much heavier then a Diesel truck.
> As a whole, H2 cars are also quite heavy. You literally require everything that is in an EV plus multiple extra subsystems that are incredibly complex and not light by any means.
Toyota Mirai 2 curb weight 1925 kg vs Tesla P100 curb weight 2241 kg. Both have the range of 500 to 507 km. But with a Mirai, given that the infra for filling up would exist, I’d spend 5 minutes filling up instead of 40 at a charging station. My math is okay.
> more wind turbines everywhere (that people already hate)
Yeah, I have dozens of those around. But you know what, more battery cars also need those so it’s not like we will be removing these soon.
And one of these cars is incredibly fast, the other is a not a performance car. I can't find good data on Mirai 2 but I think the S is a considerably bigger car.
At least in comparison between the Mirai and the Model 3, the Model 3 is lighter.
Of course, the reality is that batteries are getting lighter fast.
> Yeah, I have dozens of those around. But you know what, more battery cars also need those so it’s not like we will be removing these soon.
Again, the simply fact is fuel cells are considerably less efficient. Therefore you need more of them.
> I’d spend 5 minutes filling up instead of 40 at a charging station. My math is okay.
On most weeks, an EV owner spends zero hours on fuel ups since they plug in at home. They will also save significantly on power since it's much cheaper to distribute power to your home than to drive hydrogen all over the countryside.
A fair enough statement. A bit of an electric divide.
I'll put it a bit differently though. Setting aside environmental concerns, why would you buy a hydrogen car as opposed to a regular old gasoline car?
Charging from home is a substantial benefit of EVs, performance is another. The Mirai is neither a particularly performant car, nor can you charge from home. Why would you switch to a car with a non-existent fuel network? Even once the network exists, why switch?
Obviously, the environmental issues still exist, but right now that is the only reason you'd buy the Mirai instead of many less expensive non H2 options. The Tesla is interesting even without the environmental aspects.
Eventually, you want the ownership experience of the gasoline car without the emissions. So much of the argument against them are short-term only. You have to assume there will be fuel cell cars that are fast and desirable as the technology improves.
> Eventually, you want the ownership experience of the gasoline car without the emissions
No I don't. I abhor getting into the car and realizing I need to stop at the gas station before I can drive to the trail head and ride with my friends. The idea of having a car that is ready to perform at maximum every time I step out the front door has a tremendous appeal. I hate gas stations, they stink, they are a waste of my time, often when I don't have time to spare.
Maybe you want to replicate that experience. I'll pass.
Unless you need to drive beyond the limits of your battery, at which point a gasoline powered vehicle makes more sense. I get the feeling your belief system is a post hoc rationalization since you’re just ignoring a major use case.
If it really bothers you, then you probably be able to refuel your fuel cell car at home at some point in the future. So you can avoid the refueling station altogether with fuel cell cars too.
> Unless you need to drive beyond the limits of your battery, at which point a gasoline powered vehicle makes more sense. I get the feeling your belief system is a post hoc rationalization since you’re just ignoring a major use case.
I have a pretty good handle on my driving. Its been over a year since I've driven more than 300 miles in a day. Even when I was driving 500 miles 20 times a year, that's still only 20 Supercharger stops versus easily twice as many stops for gas that I've made during those same years.
> If it really bothers you, then you probably be able to refuel your fuel cell car at home at some point in the future.
I won't have to bother, by the time those are affordable and efficient enough to make sense, batteries will be a fraction of their current weight. So there will still be no point in some arbitrary extra steps cutting into efficiency.
Your own driving needs are not everyone else's drivers needs. 20 supercharger uses per year means you wasted more time than refueling a gasoline car 40 times a year. Fuel cell cars that can do both would be more convenient than either.
Fuel cells of the future will also be superior to fuel cells of today. That likely includes a dramatic increase in efficiency that will great reduce or eliminate this issue.
You are comparing a hypothetically viable thing to an actual shipping, proven product. Without seeing the hydro network in place, seeing what retail prices are on hydrogen in volume, this is all supposition. While the Mirai is shipping, the fueling network is sparse and incapable of handling more than a few cars. Hundreds of thousands of EVs are out there in use. Fuel Cell cars are largely in prolonged beta while they figure out how to deliver fuel to a car that may never ship in volume.
That's just a big pile of misinformation. A fuel cell is pretty simple device. It's literally a type of battery not much different than a li-ion battery. The "complexity " you speak of is just a series of pumps and filters. Those cost nearly nothing and weigh very little.
A fuel cell cad is likely to eventually cost the same as a Toyota Corolla while also allowing for gasoline-like refueling time and range.
Finally, there's no reason for a fuel cell to be similar as efficient as a battery powered car. As I said, it's technically a type of battery. If your going to talk about batteries of the future, you also have to talk about fuel cells of the future.
And every car maker disagrees with you that it doesn't cost much.
Maybe in some future it can be built as cheap as you say, but not now. So you would really have to compare it to some future EV as well.
Fuel cell have been studied for 60 years, and their efficiency is still not good. Li-Ion has made far more progress in far less time and is still improving significantly year over year. Nobody has announced anything close to that in terms of improvement for fuel cells.
And even if there were such announcements, there is still a long way to go for fuel cells to catch up to current battery tech.
> Its a a series of pumps, filter and tubes, and that is if we don't consider the tank. All of that is IN ADDITION to everything a normal EV also has.
As if battery powered cars have no pumps, filters and tubes... And a tank is literally just a tank, with no complexity inside it. It allows you reduce the amount of batteries you need to carry by nearly 2 orders of magnitude. This is a significant reduction in cost and complexity.
You see a battery in the back, 3 hydrogen tanks, and the fuel cell stack in front. This is in fact quite simple.
> And every car maker disagrees with you that it doesn't cost much.
Most car makers have never even bothered to look seriously at fuel cell cars. The only companies that did think they can make one for the same cost as a Corolla. That should tell you something.
> Maybe in some future it can be built as cheap as you say, but not now. So you would really have to compare it to some future EV as well.
> Fuel cell have been studied for 60 years, and their efficiency is still not good. Li-Ion has made far more progress in far less time and is still improving significantly year over year. Nobody has announced anything close to that in terms of improvement for fuel cells.
> And even if there were such announcements, there is still a long way to go for fuel cells to catch up to current battery tech.
The problem is that you're just stuck in the past. Fuel cells have advanced to the point where they are a disruptive threat to battery electric cars. The notion that batteries have some massive lead is a claim completely at odds with reality. You're going to see cheap, long-ranged fuel cell cars in the coming few years. Due to advances in hydrogen related technology, batteries will lose every single advantage they enjoy, including the ability to refuel at home and cost per mile of driving. That is a big problem that battery powered cars will face.
I for once hope that the bragging from EU about the H2 infrastructure is not usual hot air. It is really good to see major manufacturers coming up with H2 power plant ideas. In 10 years, I’m looking to drive a fuel cell powered car.
It’s not going to be a popular opinion here but IMO, battery powered cars are a dead end. The range will always be limited by physics. Batteries are manufactured from resources dug out of the ground. It’s really dumb to carry a ton of empty batteries when running low on load, it only contributes to wearing tires faster. 10 ton hauling tractors? Who’s going to build the road infrastructure to support that. The grid has its capacity too. Today? Sure - as an alternative to ICE, an EV makes some people feel better. 10 years from now? I’m not sure.