Hydrogen is the future, not BEVs?
Discussion
JC29 said:
Hi All,
Done a fair bit of work in this sector
Hydrogen cars will use li-ion batteries (and do already). Think of the hydrogen fuel cell like an onboard generator to recharge the li-ion cell pack
Totally true on limited H2 availability, but that is only relevant to Low Temperature Membranes like the current industry uses. The High Temperature Membranes for the next gen enable methanol to be used instead, with electrochemical combustion and the CO trapped in a reformer.
Its big for hub to hub (HGV, bus, etc) and in closed environments (warehouses, industrial sites, etc) where a private company can control the infrastructure for refilling
Regular cars will follow - but its a 2030 thing for mass uptake.
Yes , 2030 is a significant date in most projections I've seen.Done a fair bit of work in this sector
Hydrogen cars will use li-ion batteries (and do already). Think of the hydrogen fuel cell like an onboard generator to recharge the li-ion cell pack
Totally true on limited H2 availability, but that is only relevant to Low Temperature Membranes like the current industry uses. The High Temperature Membranes for the next gen enable methanol to be used instead, with electrochemical combustion and the CO trapped in a reformer.
Its big for hub to hub (HGV, bus, etc) and in closed environments (warehouses, industrial sites, etc) where a private company can control the infrastructure for refilling
Regular cars will follow - but its a 2030 thing for mass uptake.
Doesn't Sunfire require heat input, for example?
Coupled up to a steelworks, or similar, to utilise the waste heat from their processing.
The Wookie said:
To be fair fuel cell vehicles aren't a replacement for battery vehicles they are a replacement for PHEV's. If PHEV's die out before 2035 then your point will be valid.
I think using FCs instead of PHEVs is fair enough, but that's not what's been shouted by the H2 crew thus far. I think you're also likely to see even with PHEVs a migration to BEV, firstly those that give it a go first time around and then by those who take the PHEV and realise they run mostly on battery, and wouldn't it be good if it did all of it... Tax breaks are also going to encourage people to go EV. If FCs are going to work they need to be here now, not coming soon, for the reasons I mentioned, going back from a BEV to FC is a big challenge.
The Wookie said:
There's masses of money being thrown at putting H2 into shipping in particular but it's not commercially introduced yet. Have to say not a lot of it makes a great deal of sense to me when fossil fuels will still be required as part of the blend
And that's where I think H2 is going to work wonders... Batteries aren't the solution for everything, and the bigger you get the less sense they make. And that's where H2 comes in, making those same vehicles cleaner.phil4 said:
And that's where I think H2 is going to work wonders... Batteries aren't the solution for everything, and the bigger you get the less sense they make. And that's where H2 comes in, making those same vehicles cleaner.
This is where I wonder about H2. Massive re-engineering costs for H2 tanks and metering systems along with likely reductions in things like cargo capacity when they could just be making a few relatively minor modifications to deal with potential corrosion issues and loading in a methanol blendMethanol will presumably be more expensive than hydrogen per unit of energy due to the extra step required in production, especially if it involves carbon capture (although I wonder about the distribution costs of H2) so it will presumably come down to whichever makes the most sense over the life of the vehicle.
I just hope H2 doesn’t get railroaded in because of vested interests if it isn’t actually the best solution.
With Tesla saying their Lorry will pull 30 tons and give a 600mile range why would anyone want the hassle & cost of hydrogen?
All the big players have either preordered the Tesla lorry or are making their own EV lorries.
Hydrogen would never be able to compete on cost, so I can't see it working unless it's on cruise ships or the like.
All the big players have either preordered the Tesla lorry or are making their own EV lorries.
Hydrogen would never be able to compete on cost, so I can't see it working unless it's on cruise ships or the like.
jjwilde said:
With Tesla saying their Lorry will pull 30 tons and give a 600mile range why would anyone want the hassle & cost of hydrogen?
Tesla say their Model 3 performane will do 345 miles or something but the real world range is much lower (<250 in winter).Will it pull 30 Tons and do 600 miles?
or will it do 600 miles when it's unladen. Etc etc.
I still maintain the Infrastructure is a problem. A genuine 300 mile range and an ability to fully recharge in 30 minutes after doing 300 miles is acceptable.
But this needs to be possible at home.
320d is all you need said:
I still maintain the Infrastructure is a problem. A genuine 300 mile range and an ability to fully recharge in 30 minutes after doing 300 miles is acceptable.
Sounds uncharacteristically sensible 
320d is all you need said:
But this needs to be possible at home.
There it is... not going to happen.jjwilde said:
With Tesla saying their Lorry will pull 30 tons and give a 600mile range why would anyone want the hassle & cost of hydrogen?
All the big players have either preordered the Tesla lorry or are making their own EV lorries.
Hydrogen would never be able to compete on cost, so I can't see it working unless it's on cruise ships or the like.
To be fair unless the range and charging time (including infrastructure requirements to actually deliver it reliably for the number of trucks in operation) substantially exceeds standard driving hours it can only really be a niche application for fixed shorter routes like Milk Run logistics.All the big players have either preordered the Tesla lorry or are making their own EV lorries.
Hydrogen would never be able to compete on cost, so I can't see it working unless it's on cruise ships or the like.
Even that assumes a low number of double manned trucks where hydrogen/IC would end up being the niche if you see what I mean.
HGV’s are amazingly versatile vehicles in terms of usage profile and even without extended tanks they can have thousands of km of range.
Looking at the Megacharger proposal to make the Tesla Semi a practical proposition, 1MW is an insane amount of power per truck. In a typical motorway services it could potentially be hundreds of MW peak demand. It’s an order of magnitude more infrastructure issues above what’s even required for a half decent electric car charging network
I’m all for EV and there might be viable use cases for electric trucks but I don’t think it’s the best solution for every application.
The Wookie said:
Looking at the Megacharger proposal to make the Tesla Semi a practical proposition, 1MW is an insane amount of power per truck. In a typical motorway services it could potentially be hundreds of MW peak demand. It’s an order of magnitude more infrastructure issues above what’s even required for a half decent electric car charging network
I’m all for EV and there might be viable use cases for electric trucks but I don’t think it’s the best solution for every application.
Agreed.I’m all for EV and there might be viable use cases for electric trucks but I don’t think it’s the best solution for every application.
Another thing might be battery availability. The Semi would need enough batteries for 10 luxury vehicles. If battery is the limitation (as it seemed to be at one point) to deliver vehicles, I don't think the business is right to put it in the trucks?
The charging or fuelling infrastructure is an integral part of each particular drivetrain.
I do believe that hydrogen infrastructure will be more practical than BEV infrastructure when we're dealing with the pressures of much higher volumes of EVs on our roads and especially when we have peak hours and peak days on the roads with seasonal peaks focussing on certain geographic areas.
Any BEV owner's experience right now is not indicative of the future because there are millions of ICE drivers out there using their own existing infrastructure and not competing with the BEV driver for the fuelling systems they are accessing. When those people come on board more then things will be very different.
The very nature of hydrogen vehicle fuelling means it does not have to infiltrate our homes or our streets.
It is much more practical in those respects.
I have also seen a document that argues that BEV charging infrastructure becomes more expensive as it steps up to widespread coverage while hydrogen fuelling infrastructure does not so and ends up less expensive than BEV.
If you think of it this way - with BEV charging the easy targets will be dealt with first. The areas that might get the best returns are being dealt with first. The harder to reach places that need more planning, electrical engineering and civil engineering works will follow and will cost more, as will those that might not make as much economic sense for the operating companies. But they'll still need to be done.
So this is not saying BEV is bad but really saying that I feel hydrogen is a better solution for higher volumes.
I do believe that hydrogen infrastructure will be more practical than BEV infrastructure when we're dealing with the pressures of much higher volumes of EVs on our roads and especially when we have peak hours and peak days on the roads with seasonal peaks focussing on certain geographic areas.
Any BEV owner's experience right now is not indicative of the future because there are millions of ICE drivers out there using their own existing infrastructure and not competing with the BEV driver for the fuelling systems they are accessing. When those people come on board more then things will be very different.
The very nature of hydrogen vehicle fuelling means it does not have to infiltrate our homes or our streets.
It is much more practical in those respects.
I have also seen a document that argues that BEV charging infrastructure becomes more expensive as it steps up to widespread coverage while hydrogen fuelling infrastructure does not so and ends up less expensive than BEV.
If you think of it this way - with BEV charging the easy targets will be dealt with first. The areas that might get the best returns are being dealt with first. The harder to reach places that need more planning, electrical engineering and civil engineering works will follow and will cost more, as will those that might not make as much economic sense for the operating companies. But they'll still need to be done.
So this is not saying BEV is bad but really saying that I feel hydrogen is a better solution for higher volumes.
320d is all you need said:
an ability to fully recharge in 30 minutes after doing 300 miles is acceptable.
But this needs to be possible at home.
Why? I mean don't get me wrong, if you pay enough money you can pop a 250Kw supply into your home. It'll be staggeringly expensive though.But this needs to be possible at home.
But why would you need/want to? You can put 300 miles of range into one now overnight at home, why does it need to happen in 30 minutes?
Lets say I get home at 7pm, pop the car on charge, next morning at 6am I set off for another long day, and 300 mile drive... the car has had 11 hours at 7kw, which would fully charge a Model 3 LR and allow it to do another 300 miles.
You can rinse and repeat that every day if you want.
Ok, so there are going to be people who need to drive 400 miles a day, and people who get home later or need to leave earlier, and so the 11 hours isn't quite enough... no, it doesn't yet work for them.
But there's no reason most people would need to charge 300 miles in 30 mins at home. I'd guess the number needing to is absolutely tiny.
And as this is a H2 thread - you can't do with with an FC either... you'd need to take time out to go to a H2 station.
ZesPak said:
320d is all you need said:
I still maintain the Infrastructure is a problem. A genuine 300 mile range and an ability to fully recharge in 30 minutes after doing 300 miles is acceptable.
Sounds uncharacteristically sensible 320d is all you need said:
But this needs to be possible at home.
There it is... not going to happen.I'm sorry. Because you disagree, it's not sensible?
Every single EV Fan says "HOME CHARGING IS THE BEST THING EVER"
But then they only say that because they have a double garage, and a 4 car driveway.
Those of us who park on streets or who live in terrace houses are not given a solution. I guess we don't matter because we're too poor to be considered by those rich people who have gated Properties and exclusively post on Pistonheads
We're just told to charge at the public points.
Which are very slow. Only a few can do rapid charging. And not all cars can take rapid charging!
Then you end up having to sit in your car for 2/3 hours in a public place, absolutely wasting your time.
And then when everyone has EV's - the charging points are so slow, that you end up queuing for for hours and hours to get a slot, because it takes hours and hours to charge.
As I have said elsewhere. If the UK wants to support a fully EV network, everyone (or certainly a significant majority of people) needs to be able to charge at 75KW at home.
It shouldn't always be necessary, and as I also said elsewhere, feel free to charge people more if they decide to, but the capability should be there.
So you can plug in and it will charge at 7KW normally, but if you tell the app/charger/car that you need it to charge at maximum speed then it should have capability to do that.
Imagine in the UK if no-one had Television before.
However they had been using 55" 4K Projectors.
And you're wanting everyone to get Televisions.
As a country want the UK to be leading the Television revolution, you shouldn't be rolling out 32" 720p TV's , you should be rolling out the deployment of 55" high quality 4K TV's that are going to be good for a good time into the future.... AKA Future proof. Certainly they should not be WORSE than what you have now. That is not an advancement in technology. That is a step backwards.
7KW home charging is fine "for most" people who get home at 5PM and never leave until 8am the next day, but that is not not all.
Likewise as car batteries are getting bigger and bigger they need longer to charge.
So by adding excess capacity into the infrastructure that makes it future proof and then a lot of people will warm to EV when they realise they can fill up in not a substantially longer time than their equivalent ICE car.
(And as I've said before, on other threads for example having a 75KW capable charger is more expensive than a 7KW charger, but the costs will drop dramatically with increased supply/demand)
phil4 said:
And as this is a H2 thread - you can't do with with an FC either... you'd need to take time out to go to a H2 station.
Yes, and it takes 5/10 minutes to fill up your H2 car.Like it does with Petrol . Or diesel.
So in terms of "what we have now" v "what we have in the future" H2 is a much more closely aligned thing to how we use cars at the moment.
As I said, the capability should be there, it doesn't always need to be used, but why bother going for broke by banning ICE car sales and forcing everyone into an EV if the infrastructure isn't there.
Not a single person has been able to answer any of the very key points regarding infrastructure (public and private charging points, terraced houses, charging speeds and so on). They just say "you don't need that".
you might not, but spare a thought for the people who do.
320d is all you need said:
Not a single person has been able to answer any of the very key points regarding infrastructure (public and private charging points, terraced houses, charging speeds and so on). They just say "you don't need that".
You derailed it completely and there is a separate thread running on this. On top of that I already posted a picture on this very thread on how it's going to work. What are these key point's you're so afraid of?Let me humor your statement... why would you need to be able to 200kw charge... at home?
So when you said home charging you meant on street public charging.
Ok, I get where you're coming from now. But I still think you're missing something there.
If it's a public charger that you go to, like you do a petrol station, then yes I agree, 30 mins 300 miles sounds like a good plan.
But I don't think that's needed for on street or home chargers... and here's why. See above for my thinking on Home chargers. Why does that differ if there are plenty of onstreet chargers too? I don't think most people who park on the street go and move their cars a few times through the night. So provided there are enough on street chargers, you too can charge for 11+ hours and do as I said home people can with theirs.
Ok, so are there enough on street chargers now? No. No one is telling anyone to go buy and EV now. We've 9 years to sort this out. In that time, yes people with drives (no, I don't have a double garage, nor parking for 4 cars on the drive) will benefit from the tax breaks, that's one of those things.
That doesn't suddenly make an FC the future or the right way to go either.
Ok, I get where you're coming from now. But I still think you're missing something there.
If it's a public charger that you go to, like you do a petrol station, then yes I agree, 30 mins 300 miles sounds like a good plan.
But I don't think that's needed for on street or home chargers... and here's why. See above for my thinking on Home chargers. Why does that differ if there are plenty of onstreet chargers too? I don't think most people who park on the street go and move their cars a few times through the night. So provided there are enough on street chargers, you too can charge for 11+ hours and do as I said home people can with theirs.
Ok, so are there enough on street chargers now? No. No one is telling anyone to go buy and EV now. We've 9 years to sort this out. In that time, yes people with drives (no, I don't have a double garage, nor parking for 4 cars on the drive) will benefit from the tax breaks, that's one of those things.
That doesn't suddenly make an FC the future or the right way to go either.
As I mentioned in this thread, Hydrogen will need new stations that come with a very high cost. And to please some people on here, you'd need about 8000 of those (because anything less than what you have now for petrol is a step back).
Public chargers (street, parking lot,...) are very simple in comparison with a very fast ROI (if they are used). You probably would need hundreds of thousands of them, but roll out and installation is a LOT easier and I'm sure the amount of chargers you can install for the cost of one H station would blow our collective minds.
The infrastructure for H isn't there yet, and imho the hurdles are a lot higher to jump than for BEV. So it seems a bit crazy to dismiss BEV because of infrastructure concerns.
Public chargers (street, parking lot,...) are very simple in comparison with a very fast ROI (if they are used). You probably would need hundreds of thousands of them, but roll out and installation is a LOT easier and I'm sure the amount of chargers you can install for the cost of one H station would blow our collective minds.
The infrastructure for H isn't there yet, and imho the hurdles are a lot higher to jump than for BEV. So it seems a bit crazy to dismiss BEV because of infrastructure concerns.
You can't separate either car from its infrastructure.
The infrastructure has to work for the car to work practically.
I'm not dismissing BEV but I'm suggesting that, for higher volumes the nature of FCEV fuelling infrastructure should cope better with the pattern and the ebb and flow of our road travel.
Another factor that should give hydrogen passenger cars a boost is the need for hydrogen fuelling stations for HGV and freight traffic. Diesel trucks came first, diesel cars followed. The infrastructure will be needed.
However, if hydrogen is not going to work for road HGVs then it'd be great if anyone has any realistic alternatives to.put forward.
Can some BEV advocates note their opinion of what JJ is saying regarding battery HGVs being the future please?
The infrastructure has to work for the car to work practically.
I'm not dismissing BEV but I'm suggesting that, for higher volumes the nature of FCEV fuelling infrastructure should cope better with the pattern and the ebb and flow of our road travel.
Another factor that should give hydrogen passenger cars a boost is the need for hydrogen fuelling stations for HGV and freight traffic. Diesel trucks came first, diesel cars followed. The infrastructure will be needed.
However, if hydrogen is not going to work for road HGVs then it'd be great if anyone has any realistic alternatives to.put forward.
Can some BEV advocates note their opinion of what JJ is saying regarding battery HGVs being the future please?
320d is all you need said:
We're just told to charge at the public points.
Which are very slow. Only a few can do rapid charging. And not all cars can take rapid charging!
Then you end up having to sit in your car for 2/3 hours in a public place, absolutely wasting your time.
And then when everyone has EV's - the charging points are so slow, that you end up queuing for for hours and hours to get a slot, because it takes hours and hours to charge.
This is why I don't think blanket residential street charging will make much sense but as a principle if you own a car you probably use it to go to places. Those places should have charging, appropriate for the time you spend there. Thus in normal everyday life your car spends enough time hooked up to get enough charge to do your mileage with a minimum of hassle. Which are very slow. Only a few can do rapid charging. And not all cars can take rapid charging!
Then you end up having to sit in your car for 2/3 hours in a public place, absolutely wasting your time.
And then when everyone has EV's - the charging points are so slow, that you end up queuing for for hours and hours to get a slot, because it takes hours and hours to charge.
For some people, they can do that at home - great, they won't need to be sharing the public ones much. For the rest - if shopping centres, retail parks, gyms, cinemas, supermarkets, restaurants, tourist attractions, workplaces, train stations, all these places where people leave their cars sitting there for anything from 30 mins to several hours had charging then it needn't be an inconvenience.
It's not there yet but local to me now it's pretty close. Local rapid chargers are at the nearby supermarket and gym, and there's a few options for parking in town with 7kW chargers if we're there for a few hours. A rapid charger has also popped up next to a little supermarket but also close to a few streets that are all on-street parking. It changes the game a bit if you can leave your car there for an hour and walk a couple of minutes home.
Obviously that's not the same for everyone everywhere but it'll get there. Places that want to attract visitors or differentiate from rivals will offer charging. Already you can get enough to cover an average week's usage (140 miles) during the time a normal supermarket shop takes (45 mins) - as batteries get bigger and charging speeds get quicker that'll reduce even further.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Yep, I mentioned that before. HGV's may make way for passenger vehicles.A good point by another poster is that by that time though you'd possibly have to get people out of their BEV...
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Nope, not convinced yet especially for international travel. The batteries in there are going to be huge, take a toll on payload and cost the moon. Although a year before Tesla arrived with the Model S I wasn't convinced we'd ever see a viable EV either.I'd like to see a study on travel distances of trucks though. I have a friend with a transportation company and about 10 trucks. They hardly leave the harbor, he'd jump on the opportunity and a BEV could work for him easily.
But no idea that's the norm to make a truck for or niche use.
Either BEF or FCEV would be great for all sorts of stuff that also operates hydraulics as well.
ZesPak said:
320d is all you need said:
Not a single person has been able to answer any of the very key points regarding infrastructure (public and private charging points, terraced houses, charging speeds and so on). They just say "you don't need that".
You derailed it completely and there is a separate thread running on this. On top of that I already posted a picture on this very thread on how it's going to work. What are these key point's you're so afraid of?Let me humor your statement... why would you need to be able to 200kw charge... at home?
The discussion meandered.
Where have I said you need to charge at 200kw at home
Please quote me
I'll wait.
320d is all you need said:
jjwilde said:
With Tesla saying their Lorry will pull 30 tons and give a 600mile range why would anyone want the hassle & cost of hydrogen?
Tesla say their Model 3 performane will do 345 miles or something but the real world range is much lower (<250 in winter).Will it pull 30 Tons and do 600 miles?
or will it do 600 miles when it's unladen. Etc etc.
I still maintain the Infrastructure is a problem. A genuine 300 mile range and an ability to fully recharge in 30 minutes after doing 300 miles is acceptable.
But this needs to be possible at home.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff