Why hydrogen powered cars really suck

[NeoGreen]

https://www.treehugger.com/cars/why-hydrogen-powered-cars-really-suck.html

Why hydrogen powered cars really suck
Lloyd Alter (@lloydalter)
Transportation / Cars
July 3, 2017

They are not efficient, there is no infrastructure, and they are shills for the fossil fuel industry.

When I last wrote about hydrogen powered cars vs electric cars, there were 253 comments saying, “This is a horrible article with an extremely visible bias. Did Elon Musk pay the writer?” I sometimes feel lonely and depressed when I write about it, especially when I get “Total BS article. You have no idea what you are talking about.”

Fortunately I have reinforcement from Lance Turner, who writes in Australia’s wonderful Renew Magazine and asks, "Hydrogen as a fuel- Is it really viable?" He comes up with many more reasons be doubtful than I ever did.

(snip)

The hydrogen is stored at high pressure (700 atmospheres or 10,000 PSI). The tanks are expensive, and are made from carbon fibre composites because metal would be too heavy. Even so, the weight of the hydrogen that the tank stores in the Toyota Mirai weighs 87.5 kg in total and yet hold just 5 kg of hydrogen. Some people are nervous about what happens in a crash.

It takes a lot of energy to compress the hydrogen, “as much as 20 percent of the total energy stored in the hydrogen.” Compressing it generates heat, so it has to be cooled during compression, using yet more energy.

It’s really just reformed natural gas

Almost all the hydrogen available today is made by steam reformation of a good old fossil fuel, natural gas. “This requires a lot of energy to do, in fact more energy than you can recover from the resulting hydrogen that’s produced.”

(snip)

This is why we have hydrogen powered cars -- to provide another market for all that natural gas, and to keep centralized control of the fuel among the big fossil fuel companies. There is no other reason to even bother.

[hunter]

1. Exactly.

*** This is why we have hydrogen powered cars -- to provide another market for all that natural gas, and to keep centralized control of the fuel among the big fossil fuel companies. There is no other reason to even bother. ***

Any technology that allows people to commute too and from work without any dependency on fossil fuel service stations is a disruptive technology. Electric cars are such a technology. Walkable urban areas with good public transportation systems such that car ownership is unnecessary are such a technology.

Fuel pumps dispensing fossil fuel derived hydrogen sitting along side the diesel and gasoline pumps are business as usual.

[VMA131Marine]

2. Non of this is relevant for hydrogen generated through

solar electrolysis or any of the solar bio methods. Every hydrogen car advocate realizes that the current dependence on natural gas is necessary to prove and improve the fuel cell drive train technology. This is the classic chicken and egg problem: if there are no H2 powered cars no one will invest in the H2 fueling infrastructure. If there is no fueling infrastructure, no one will by hydrogen powered cars. Nat gas reformation is a necessary stepping stone from the present state to large scale production of H2 from solar power and water.

[hunter]

3. Hydrogen is just too squirrelly to be a useful fuel.

Plug in hybrids and pure electrics are here today. No additional infrastructure required.

[VMA131Marine]

4. Hydrogen is actually safer than gasoline

if it leaks in an accident it rises rapidly because it is so much lighter than air. Gasoline and diesel will pool under the vehicle.

[hunter]

6. So?

If I can plug in my car when I get home and commute to work and back the next day, why would I bother with hydrogen???

[VMA131Marine]

8. I believe that's called changing the goalposts in the middle of your argument.

But I'll play along.

If you can plug your car in at home, you don't need gasoline either. Hydrogen and gasoline still have much higher energy storage densities than batteries, and will for the foreseeable future. The question, if you want to go all electric, is whether you are willing to accept a vehicle than can go 200-300 miles on a charge with a 30-45 minute recharge time to get to about 80% capacity for much longer trips than your commute.

[kristopher]

9. No, that is half the question.

The second part is 'what's the total cost?'

To most of the people on this forum the fundamental issue we are addressing is a complete rebuild of the world's energy system away from carbon. The way technologies fit into that effort matters a hell of a lot. The round trip efficiency of hydrogen storage requires 300% more carbon-free generating infrastructure than batteries.
Secondarily, it's good to consider that batteries have a tremendous amount of upside development left. The research is moving at killer speed while battery giga-factories seem to be popping up like MacDonalds. That means cost figures on a solid trajectory south AND steadily improving charge capacity and discharge performance.

I know the arguments in favor of the fuel cell, and I know the actual progress being made to address the *important* challenges facing those fuel cell technologies. There are a lot of interesting developments in cost and longevity of key components, but their fundamental problem of physical energy costs has shown no signs of being amenable to significant improvement.

The market is going battery electric.

[Kaleva]

5. There are stations that produce hydrogen on site.

I'm using my tablet and I don't know how to provide links with this.

[kristopher]

7. Q: How much more renewable generating infrastructure does hydrogen require than batteries?

A: Approximately 3X. If you can power your BEV with the output of a 5Kw solar array, a comparable FCV will require a 15Kw array.

Most people without a horse in the race think that eliminates hydrogen from serious consideration as a transportation alternative.