How to Promote the Hydrogen Economy Hoax

I doubt many potential buyers of either battery or hydrogen cars are likely to take a lot of notice of enthusiasts in either camp. In general, people buy cars that suit their needs and most are bright enough to look at problems and advantages and weigh them up fairly.

We have two cars. A small petrol city car which we use for pootling around town. Easy to drive, cheap to run, and easy to park, and a larger diesel which we use for long trips. Neglecting costs, I could replace the little one with a BEV, except that I can't be bothered with plugging it in and charging it. A BEV would be quite useless as a replacement for the diesel. I don't relish having to find a charging point, probably wait for one to become vacant, and then wait for it to charge. A hydrogen car would be OK were it not for the fact that there aren't any charging points, and I'm not sure if they are sold in the UK anyway. So we will stick with ICEs for the time being.

Whether my logic is typical of average Brits or Americans I have no idea, but I note that whilst plug-ins seem to be growing (on average) at about 30% to 50% a year, that the one hydrogen car that is sold in the US seems to be growing at about 250% to 300% a year. If this differential is maintained it will be selling more than any plug-in within a year or two. Time will tell whether this happens or not I suppose.

As a matter of interest, I have a narrowboat powered by a diesel. I would love to change it to a plug-in battery boat, replacing much of the tons of ballast with batteries, were it not for the fact that power sockets are not generally provided along the tow-path. Gliding through the English countryside in silence rather than accompanied by a chugging diesel. would be a big improvement, and worth the battery nannying involved. Perhaps this makes me a partial BEV enthusiast!

 

"I'm quite confident that these people will have a way to charge in the relatively near future, though."

Well, I'd be very happy to see wireless charging points - or rather NOT see them - installed, but would take to the barricades to oppose hitching posts everywhere. Too many of our towns have been disfigured by ugly street furniture - signage, parking meters, street cabinets, etc. I'd like to see less rather than more.

Unfortunately, these are a lot more costly, so I can't see it happening whilst there is an alternative.

 

Sounds expensive to me, and a lot more complicated than a hydrogen pump. I would welcome it, though, if it kept more rubbish from cluttering the streets.

Be aware though that as the time taken to put a given amount of energy into a car is reduced, the power levels needed to do it climb rapidly. For example:
100kWh in 30 minutes requires a power level of 200kW
100kWh in 10 minutes requires a power level of 600kW
100kWh in 5 minutes requires a power level of 1200kW
100kWh in 2 minutes requires a power level of 3000kW
At some point it becomes too dangerous to allow people anywhere near it. The last example might be done with 10,000 volts at 300 Amps for instance. I'm not sure I'd want to be in a car with that sort of power applied to it, thanks. I guess you'd have to draw a line somewhere after investigating the risks, but I think it would be well below the last example.

100kWh, by the way, is roughly the same amount of energy contained 10 litres of diesel in thermal form. Not that I am suggesting diesel is better or more preferable, but rather that it is important to get a feel for what is involved in attempting to emulate filling a tank in electrical form.

 

I live in Huntsville AL. This is why I would buy a hydrogen fuel cell car today:

The tires would age out waiting for the local hydrogen fuel cell station to open up.

In contrast, we have two plugin hybrids and both have traveled further and faster than any BEV cars: 1,200 mi, 700 mi (twice), and 463 mi.

Around town, our plugin hybrids are as cheap per mile as any of today's BEV cars.

I'm reminded of the old joke: "Congratulations, you won first prize a brand new hydrogen fueled car. Second prize is two new hydrogen fueled cars."

Bob Wilson

 

I still think > 50% have financial interest. and may be BEV fans too. But being a BEV fan doesn't mean one should become blind or one sided, or has to develop an imbalanced view, and/or start hating all other alternatives.

Not sure why you call that an accusation. It's just my educated guess. Nothing wrong in holding Tesla shares, as long as arguments are based on facts and reasoning, no one should care. I wasn't talking of just this forum though. My comment was for internet forums on EV and other auto blogs in general.

Cannot agree with 'false narrative' part. Here are the links. if you do a fair and balanced analysis of whole life cycle, I'm quite sure the small efficient hybrids will come on top compared to long range EVs.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261917305433
https://www.thegwpf.com/new-study-large-co2-emissions-from-batteries-of-electric-cars/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-03-14/teslas-in-california-help-bring-dirty-rain-to-china

About "supreme leader": OK, I got carried away a bit! This is not the first time I hear "fool cells" repeated by Tesla fanboys and fan girls. This could be the mantra they learnt somewhere.

That's an odd statement, given the title of this thread and repeated use of derogatory words like "fool cells" by some frequent posters on insideevs. A hydrogen car is an FCEV, so technically it is also an EV, just 'fuel cell' added in front.
Seems you are a staff. So how about getting a word in to add FCEV sales statistics to the monthly sales chart from this year for completion?

You certainly have your right to be optimistic. I'll agree to disagree on this. To me, it seems more of a government push than a naturally growing demand. I have been a BEV driver for multiple years. I'm fully aware of its pros and cons. I can give you a long list, but my guess is you aren't interested.
But I will be interested to know what key weaknesses you have found to claim that hydrogen cars are not viable. What PP has presented in this thread are mostly opinions and anti-hydrogen propaganda, but very little actual data.

I think, the fuel cells took long but now their days are arriving. I at least see a path on how they can become viable for the masses. Batteries not so much, unless there are some giant leaps. There is simply not enough raw materials to convert all the cars to long range BEVs.

PS: OK, to give this thread the benefit of doubt, I went back and read the first post. The title and use of terms like "fool cells" in the anti-H2 propaganda piece doesn't come out as balanced. It comes off as an H2 hater's rant.

And the points in the first post don't even make any sense. "Hydrogen has very low energy content by volume" ? Come on, that's really funny. What's the energy density of electrons in the giant and heavy batteries that lose capacity over time? Hydrogen tanks are hollow; so when you store H2 in larger tanks, cost of storage falls by an order of magnitude. That's high school math. Electric batteries being solid, the cost of storage doesn't come down significantly. This alone is a huge advantage for the hydrogen based systems.

 

"...battery technology remains to have a lot of potential for improvement..."

This is true, in the sense that a near collapsing house is described by the vendors as having "...much scope for improvement...".

We shall have to see if any improvement actually takes place though. I am far less optimistic about this than you. On the other hand, I am more optimistic than you about hydrogen cars, particularly after noting the 150% January year on year growth in sales for the one hydrogen car on sale as opposed to what looks like a five or ten percent January year on year growth for all 40 or 50 models now being fielded.

It will be an interesting competition to watch, that's for sure!

 

Well, we shall see. I hope in a spirit of friendly rivalry rather than descending to ad hominem abuse.

I wish you luck with 1000 Wh/kg. Whilst this may be true if you consider only the electrodes and electrolyte, by the time the battery has been assembled into a practical assembly, including casing, wiring, protection circuits, cooling and heating etc. it will be well below that. At best 500 Wh/kg.

Hydrogen has an energy density of around 40,000 Wh/kg. even if you assume 50% efficiency in its use, it is a one or two orders of magnitude better than any battery. I am happy to sit back and wait to see what prevails, but I will make a promise now to admit defeat if battery cars win out. I don't think we'll have too long to wait. Maybe two years?

 

That's more or less irrelevant. The key measure for hydrogen is Wh/l. Actually, I think that may be true for batteries as well, but there it doesn't make much difference.

 

I'm reminded of the "brown hydrogen generator" frauds that call water "HHO" and claim amazing properties. Pseudoscience claims have always been around and the Internet seems to amplify their voice but it also leads to steady work, like Sisyphus, for fraud debunkers. After a while, I have to use 'ignore user' to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. In the meanwhile, look for ways to make it fun.

Bob Wilson

 

I think Hyundai is to introduce a fuel cell car this year - the Nexo - that claims 500 miles on a single charge. I will - like you - keep my fingers crossed for a breakthrough in battery technology that allows a BEV to match or exceed this. In my case in the hope of extending the interval between charging my phone.

Good hydrogen cars are here today. Good BEVs have yet to come. I would query the wisdom of basing huge amounts of investment into producing battery cars in the hope that some breakthrough will make them good enough for popular acceptance.

 

Funny, I would say just the opposite.