not at all, i just don't understand the science. i haven't been able to find any scientific articles showing how converting one energy source to another, and then to another, is efficient or planet friendly
The subject of the OP article is about a group getting together in order to do more R&D on fuel cells for long-haul trucks. The goal is a truck FCEV system that can last a million miles. They hope to have something by 2030. There are other statements in the article about the benefits of hydrogen and fuel cells, without supporting evidence, like hydrogen being a lighter fuel system than diesel. That simply isn't possible if they are using high pressure gaseous hydrogen. 50kg of hydrogen with tanks would weigh over a ton. A 100 gallons of diesel is 700 pounds. The tanks would have to be really robust to get to a half ton. Liquid helium might be lighter, but the article just made a statement without details to back it up. Well, there are always losses when converting energy. Some paths are better than others. Electricity to chemical in a battery, and back loses less than the electrolysis to hydrogen to electricity in a fuel cell path for a car. So a BEV car will make better use of electricity than a FCEV for most daily drive cycles. But there are priorities that could trump the efficiency advantage of one method. Long haul trucks and trains may need the quick turn around time of faster hydrogen refueling to utilize them like their ICE equivalents. Then we could add a CO2 collector and other equipment to an industrial electrolyzer, and make methane. That would be less efficient than just making the hydrogen, but we already have millions of miles of natural gas pipelines, plus ships, trains, and trucks, to get where we need it. That's the big question. Batteries can work for a lot of things, but what do we use for when it isn't? Hydrogen in fuel cells is zero emissions, but we'll have to build the infrastructure from scratch, and the fuel cells aren't truly ready for commercialization. Making methane solves the green house gas emissions, can be converted into other fuels, even drop in ones for the existing fleet, and we already have the means of distributing it. There will still be the other emissions from burning it and any derivatives to deal with. Fuel cells could replace the ICE with these fuels, but emissions will likely still need to addressed.
It sounds like, ‘hey, batteries work pretty well, and are continually improving. But let’s keep researching alternatives to see if there’s anything that might be better in certain applications.’ I’m all for research, but let’s call a spade a spade, it’s still research. Ev’s are real, hydrogen vehicles are still prototypes
GM scales back partnership with electric truck startup Nikola GM will continue to work with Nikola to supply fuel cells for any semi trucks that Nikola comes up with, but everything else in the orginial deal is gone. No Badger truck.
