An interesting article from Edmunds yesterday gives a glimpse of what Toyota mentioned earlier this month.. "Hydrogen Cars Getting Closer, More Affordable; Lack of Fuel Network Threatens" Green Car Advisor
That has got to be one of the most pro-hydrogen articles I've read. If they can build a FCHV for $3600 more than the gas power equivalent by 2015, they've got a winner. Yes, I might even consider buying one for that price (and I am not a FC fan!). That is similar to the cost of the "hybrid premium" today. Considering that a FCHV is essentially an EV with a FC range extender, that would also mean that EVs will also be very affordable by that same time period. We shall see. Natural gas or electrolysis using water and electricity. Different risks, but the main issue is the pressures that H must be stored at. If you ever have a tank failure or car fire - watch out! Even natural gas stored at pressures much lower will seriously blow in a car fire. Gasoline is very tame in comparison.
Um, no ... it's not similar. Hydrogen extraction does not come from flowers & the laughter of small children. The process is extremely energy wasteful, on the magnitude of 400% ... not counting the pollution. Just because someone SAYS there'll be jet packs, or flying cars, or teleportation "any day now" does not make it happen. The industry has been saying, "we're THAT close" for some 4 decades now. The industry gets 100's of millions for research, so WHY WOULDN'T they keep saying, "we're really really close ... really! ... NO! this time we REaLLY mean it) Hey! ... wana buy the Brooklyn bridge? Same thing ... the silver bullet is not here. But ... as the industry keeps saying ... "soon!" Heck, the only thing different from the article is that it MAY be ready ... and the projection is now "only" 5 years, instead of the usual 10. Yes ... from electricity ... LOTS & LOTS of electricity. They forgot to mention in the article ... HALF the electricity generated here in the U.S. is from COAL. Great! Coal powered cars ... coal fired electricity that could have been recharging EV's in stead ... recharging FOUR times as many batteries, too, compared to the amount of Hydrogen gas created. And how much energy does it take on top of that, to pressurize THOUSANDS of pounds PSI of Hydrogen? It keeps getting uglier ... Then ... there's that other little thing ... a few TRILLION for hydrogen infrastructure. But let's not sweat the details. Yes ... don't get me started. End of rant. .
Fuel cell vehicles (FCV) have faults that make battery electric cars (BEV) look quite mature. The fuel cells themselves are still over $20,000 each and will not last as long as a battery pack. Impurities in hydrogen can destroy the $20,000 fuel cell. Making hydrogen is just too expensive. Of course new systems and catalysts may make it cheaper, but compared to directly charging a battery the efficiency just is not there. In ten years hydrogen may make sense, but BEV's are starting to make sense now.
I don't think we have much to worry about. The compressed hydrogen will cost more than $4.00 gasoline. We have nothing to worry about. Creating the hydrogen and then compressing it, is an extremely energy consuming process. Have you ever used a compressor in an autoshop, woodshop, or any other appication? Have you ever paid the electricity bill for a house that is air conditioned in the summer? Compressors consume massive amounts of energy. To compress the hydrogen for one car's fuel tank would consume more electricity than the average American uses right now in an entire day, and to compress the hydrogen for the hundreds of millions of cars that are on the roads in the United States would consume more electricity than the entire United States uses in a day. And that is in addition to the massive amounts of energy that would be required to form the hydrogen gas in the first place.
I've worked with hydrogen industrially so I have some respect for it (I have designed and operated numerous types of hydrogenation reactors among other things), though I'm not super fearful of it. The chances of me putting a hydrogen tank in my garage are slim...my master bath is above it. Gasoline in vehicles is bad enough. The other flammables: thinners, solvents, lawnmower/trimmer gas, camping fuel, charcoal lighter fluid, charcoal, LPG, gunpowder, etc. all go in a detached external shed...which I'm getting ready to move farther from the house. Thermodynamically hydrogen makes no sense as a fuel. It has to be generated from some other energy source with attendant losses, then it has to be oxidized again with still more losses. Electricity generation is already a rather low efficiency matter on average. Other than areas independent from the grid with limited fueling capacity and renewable generation, it is hard to see where this makes sense.
Zero. My own feeling is that we should be moving towards more energy efficient, less CO2 intensive vehicles. FCVs would be a serious, serious step backwards in this respect.
Ah, but that's where the study makes its worst "FC or nothing" bent so obvious. From one of the charts near the end, we find that in the same year that FCVs become so astonishingly affordable, that BEVs will have exactly the same price premium as they have today. Yeah. It's that bad. Remember that FCVs are obscenenely expensive, less efficient EVs... and you can see how this is all so silly.
When oil runs out, hydrogen (fuel cell or not) is needed for air and naval travel. Battery can not replace gasoline and/or diesel as far as I can see.
