Pushmi-Pullyu
Well-Known Member
How to Promote the Hydrogen Economy Hoax:
A Guide for Plug-in EV Haters and Big Oil Shills
We are taking our inspiration here from the more than slightly tongue-in-cheek "The EV-Hater's Guide to Hating Electric Cars", which is an exposé of all the myths, misinformation, and outright deliberate disinformation and FUD that EV haters commonly use in their anti-EV posts.
Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) are a dismal failure, doomed to be replaced in just few short years by clean, "green" Fuel Cell EVs (FCEVs). Or so we keep getting told by everyone from Toyota to the California Fuel Cell Partnership to the U.S. Government's Fuel Cell Technologies Office.
None of the claims from those promoting the "hydrogen economy" hoax hold up when exposed to daylight, actual facts, or real science. But that doesn't stop them. No, even when the actual facts, actual science, in short the actual Truth is shown to them, it doesn't even slow them down! So let's look first at the reality, and then at their entirely false claims.
* * * * *
Background, Part 1: Why is hydrogen fuel so utterly impractical?
Let's be clear here: The problem isn't the fuel cell itself, nor the engineering of the fuel cell car; it's the fuel. Specifically, what makes it entirely appropriate to give the label "fool cell car" to FCEVs isn't the fuel cell stack nor the way the cars are built. The problem is that compressed hydrogen gas is a horrendously impractical fuel, and in fact it's very difficult to find another fuel for everyday use which would be as impractical as compressed hydrogen! Let's list a few of the problems:
1. Hydrogen has very low energy content by volume. That means that it has to be very highly compressed, to 5000 or 10,000 PSI, for use in a FCEV.
2. Compressing hydrogen to that degree requires special expensive high-pressure pumps, along with high-pressure pipes and storage tanks. Dispensing stations also have to have such pumps, pipes, and tanks, which is one of several reasons why building a hydrogen filling station is so extremely expensive; construction costs are about $1 million for each dozen FCEVs serviced per day! And of course maintenance costs for such fueling stations will also be orders of magnitude higher than costs for a regular gasoline filling station, on a per-car basis.
3. H2 (the hydrogen molecule, composed of two hydrogen atoms) is so very tiny that ordinary seals won't stop it from leaking pretty rapidly. Special expensive seals are needed for storage of compressed H2, and even then there is some slow leakage past seals. In fact, the H2 molecule is so tiny that it will (very slowly) leak right through the solid metal walls of a storage tank!
Note this also means the fuel will be constantly, albeit slowly, leaking out of any FCEV which it's stored in.
4. Because compressed H2 has to be compressed to such a high pressure, existing pipe distribution systems for natural gas and petroleum can't be used to move H2. Generally, hydrogen fuel has to be moved using special (and again, expensive) high-pressure tanker trucks, which of course drives up the expense and the energy cost of distributing the fuel.
But actually, none of these is the biggest, most important reason why neither you nor any of your family will ever drive a FCEV!
* * * * *
Background, Part 2: The real reason why hydrogen is the worst fuel
The Second Law of Thermodynamics can be expressed, simply, as follows: No reaction is 100% efficient. Or to put it another way: Entropy happens.
More generally, the Second Law states that as energy is transferred or transformed, more and more of it is wasted. And that's the biggest, most fundamental problem with using compressed hydrogen as a fuel: The long, multi-step, energy-wasting supply chain between generating the gas to dispensing it into a FCEV, or "fool cell" car. That chain has several links, and at every link it's losing energy. In some cases it's losing a lot of energy.
[credit: Phys.org]
Another way to look at the same problem is the economic view. In economics there is a principle called "Energy Return On Investment", or EROI. Briefly, it's a ratio between the energy invested in making a product vs the amount of energy present in the end product. Ideally that ratio should be very high. For example, currently in gasoline production, the EROI is usually between 10:1 and 20:1, meaning for every 1 unit of energy invested in extracting and refining petroleum, 10 to 20 units of energy are contained in the refined gasoline. That high EROI is one of several reasons why gasoline is so practical and popular as a fuel.
Hydrogen fuel, on the other hand, requires such a massive investment of energy in several energy-wasting steps in the well-to-wheel supply chain that the EROI is only about 1:4 or 1:5, making it orders of magnitude less economical than gasoline by the time it's dispensed. That is reflected in the pump price, which for non-subsidized H2 is about USD $14-16. (Those promoting the "hydrogen economy" hoax often cite a significantly lower price; either a subsidized price or an outright fictional price.)
Let's list those energy-wasting steps. Caveat: these numbers are estimates:
1. Generating hydrogen: electrolysis or reformation
Hydrogen can be generated either using electricity and electrolysis to split water into oxygen and hydrogen, or it can be generated by taking natural gas and "reforming" it to split off the hydrogen. Reforming hydrogen may actually take a bit more energy than generating it by electrolysis, but here's the important difference: The energy used to reform natural gas is contained in the natural gas itself, so that's energy provided free by nature. Contrariwise, the energy used for electrolysis comes from electricity, and must be paid for. That's why about 95% of commercially produced H2 is reformed from natural gas, even though it may have a higher energy cost.
1a. Hydrogen from electrolysis: 70% efficient (30% energy loss)[1]
1b: Hydrogen from reforming natural gas: 65% efficient (35% energy loss)
2. Compression: 60-70% efficient (30-40% energy loss)
3. Storage/distribution:
3a. On-site generation/storage: 90% efficient (10% energy loss)
3b. Distribution by tanker truck: 70% efficient (30% energy loss)[2]
4. Fuel cell efficiency: 50% (50% energy loss)
In general, total supply chain energy losses, depending on the exact source and the exact technology used, are about 2/3 to 3/4 (67-75%) for H2 from reforming natural gas, and about 3/4 to 4/5 (75-80%) for H2 generated by electrolysis.
[Word count for a single post exceeded; essay continues in post below]
A Guide for Plug-in EV Haters and Big Oil Shills
We are taking our inspiration here from the more than slightly tongue-in-cheek "The EV-Hater's Guide to Hating Electric Cars", which is an exposé of all the myths, misinformation, and outright deliberate disinformation and FUD that EV haters commonly use in their anti-EV posts.
Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) are a dismal failure, doomed to be replaced in just few short years by clean, "green" Fuel Cell EVs (FCEVs). Or so we keep getting told by everyone from Toyota to the California Fuel Cell Partnership to the U.S. Government's Fuel Cell Technologies Office.
None of the claims from those promoting the "hydrogen economy" hoax hold up when exposed to daylight, actual facts, or real science. But that doesn't stop them. No, even when the actual facts, actual science, in short the actual Truth is shown to them, it doesn't even slow them down! So let's look first at the reality, and then at their entirely false claims.
* * * * *
Background, Part 1: Why is hydrogen fuel so utterly impractical?
Let's be clear here: The problem isn't the fuel cell itself, nor the engineering of the fuel cell car; it's the fuel. Specifically, what makes it entirely appropriate to give the label "fool cell car" to FCEVs isn't the fuel cell stack nor the way the cars are built. The problem is that compressed hydrogen gas is a horrendously impractical fuel, and in fact it's very difficult to find another fuel for everyday use which would be as impractical as compressed hydrogen! Let's list a few of the problems:
1. Hydrogen has very low energy content by volume. That means that it has to be very highly compressed, to 5000 or 10,000 PSI, for use in a FCEV.
2. Compressing hydrogen to that degree requires special expensive high-pressure pumps, along with high-pressure pipes and storage tanks. Dispensing stations also have to have such pumps, pipes, and tanks, which is one of several reasons why building a hydrogen filling station is so extremely expensive; construction costs are about $1 million for each dozen FCEVs serviced per day! And of course maintenance costs for such fueling stations will also be orders of magnitude higher than costs for a regular gasoline filling station, on a per-car basis.
3. H2 (the hydrogen molecule, composed of two hydrogen atoms) is so very tiny that ordinary seals won't stop it from leaking pretty rapidly. Special expensive seals are needed for storage of compressed H2, and even then there is some slow leakage past seals. In fact, the H2 molecule is so tiny that it will (very slowly) leak right through the solid metal walls of a storage tank!
Note this also means the fuel will be constantly, albeit slowly, leaking out of any FCEV which it's stored in.
4. Because compressed H2 has to be compressed to such a high pressure, existing pipe distribution systems for natural gas and petroleum can't be used to move H2. Generally, hydrogen fuel has to be moved using special (and again, expensive) high-pressure tanker trucks, which of course drives up the expense and the energy cost of distributing the fuel.
But actually, none of these is the biggest, most important reason why neither you nor any of your family will ever drive a FCEV!
* * * * *
Background, Part 2: The real reason why hydrogen is the worst fuel
The Second Law of Thermodynamics can be expressed, simply, as follows: No reaction is 100% efficient. Or to put it another way: Entropy happens.
More generally, the Second Law states that as energy is transferred or transformed, more and more of it is wasted. And that's the biggest, most fundamental problem with using compressed hydrogen as a fuel: The long, multi-step, energy-wasting supply chain between generating the gas to dispensing it into a FCEV, or "fool cell" car. That chain has several links, and at every link it's losing energy. In some cases it's losing a lot of energy.
[credit: Phys.org]
Another way to look at the same problem is the economic view. In economics there is a principle called "Energy Return On Investment", or EROI. Briefly, it's a ratio between the energy invested in making a product vs the amount of energy present in the end product. Ideally that ratio should be very high. For example, currently in gasoline production, the EROI is usually between 10:1 and 20:1, meaning for every 1 unit of energy invested in extracting and refining petroleum, 10 to 20 units of energy are contained in the refined gasoline. That high EROI is one of several reasons why gasoline is so practical and popular as a fuel.
Hydrogen fuel, on the other hand, requires such a massive investment of energy in several energy-wasting steps in the well-to-wheel supply chain that the EROI is only about 1:4 or 1:5, making it orders of magnitude less economical than gasoline by the time it's dispensed. That is reflected in the pump price, which for non-subsidized H2 is about USD $14-16. (Those promoting the "hydrogen economy" hoax often cite a significantly lower price; either a subsidized price or an outright fictional price.)
Let's list those energy-wasting steps. Caveat: these numbers are estimates:
1. Generating hydrogen: electrolysis or reformation
Hydrogen can be generated either using electricity and electrolysis to split water into oxygen and hydrogen, or it can be generated by taking natural gas and "reforming" it to split off the hydrogen. Reforming hydrogen may actually take a bit more energy than generating it by electrolysis, but here's the important difference: The energy used to reform natural gas is contained in the natural gas itself, so that's energy provided free by nature. Contrariwise, the energy used for electrolysis comes from electricity, and must be paid for. That's why about 95% of commercially produced H2 is reformed from natural gas, even though it may have a higher energy cost.
1a. Hydrogen from electrolysis: 70% efficient (30% energy loss)[1]
1b: Hydrogen from reforming natural gas: 65% efficient (35% energy loss)
2. Compression: 60-70% efficient (30-40% energy loss)
3. Storage/distribution:
3a. On-site generation/storage: 90% efficient (10% energy loss)
3b. Distribution by tanker truck: 70% efficient (30% energy loss)[2]
4. Fuel cell efficiency: 50% (50% energy loss)
In general, total supply chain energy losses, depending on the exact source and the exact technology used, are about 2/3 to 3/4 (67-75%) for H2 from reforming natural gas, and about 3/4 to 4/5 (75-80%) for H2 generated by electrolysis.
[Word count for a single post exceeded; essay continues in post below]
Last edited:
