Hydrogen is the future, not BEVs?

[GT9]

Zero Fuchs said:

I'm just trying to play catch up as I've not looked into hydrogen that much but it does seem like tech that'll keep a section of society happy (for pure convenience) but it's a lot more difficult to scale up.

The only practical way to store hydrogen for road vehicles is as an ultra-pressurised gas at 700 bar.

Liquid boils off over about a week in the very best thermally insulated tanks.

Which means venting it to avoid over-pressure, otherwise you may as well have built the tanks for high pressure in the first place and avoid the thermal insulation issue.

At 700 bar, the gas is close to the point where Boyle's law falls over so it's never going to get any better than 700 bar, which is of course, stupidly high anyway.

The obvious form factor for a tank that can withstand this pressure is a thick-walled domed-end cylinder, constructed from filament wound aero-grade carbon fibre composite. Most vehicles require multiple tanks, for example the Mirai has three.

The tanks have a plastic internal liner to prevent the pressurised hydrogen from directly attacking imperfections in the bore of the composite, hydrogen being both corrosive to some materials and having the smallest known molecule size. They also typically have a kevlar outer sleeve for impact protection. They are filled and emptied at one end using high-grade metal plumbing.

The tanks are limited in diameter to keep the radial stresses in the composite matrix manageable. Particularly because they are subject to low cycle fatigue at each refill, as well as an incremental weakening of the structure due to moisture absorption.This usually results in a fatigue life limit that means after a certain number of cycles they are scrapped. The materials for the tanks are almost entirely sourced from fossil fuels and are typically non-recyclable.

The cylindrical form factor and the high wall-thickness (circa 20 mm) combined with the poor volumetric energy density of gaseous hydrogen results in an effective volumetric energy density which is nearly 10 times lower than petrol.

Therefore, for an ICE burning hydrogen, the tank count and the total volume in the vehicle consumed by the tanks and their plumbing precludes the use of two rows of seating, essentially the entire rear compartment including potentially the boot is filled with tanks, probably somewhere between 4 and 8 tanks depending on the engine capacity, e.g. 1 tank per engine cylinder. Not only that, trying to get a driveshaft through all that to the rear wheels is not ideal.

The car either needs to be a full-length FWD 2-seater like the Toyota Corolla race car, or a rear-engined RWD 2-seater car like an elongated 911 without the rear seats. Bonkers.

There are flat tanks being developed in Germany the use a drop-thread technology similar to how an inflatable stand-up-paddle board is constructed, but this can only incrementally increase the volumetric energy density by improving the form factor. Fatigue life remains to be seen....

For a fuel cell car, the higher thermal efficiency of the fuel cell reduces the onboard volume require fro the tanks to the point where it becomes possible to build a viable 4-door 5-seat car. Such cars for their class size are not going to be spacious, i.e. the Miria has the accommodation of a Tesla model 3 in the body of a Tesla Model S.

Now comes the interesting bit.

The tanks in the Miria weigh in at 88kg, that's to store 5 or 6 kg of hydrogen.

Multiply that by the number fuel cell cars you want to make per annum and then divide that by the present global production of all carbon-fibre composites, which is just over 100,000 metric tons.

Nobody anywhere as far as I know has demonstrated a viable means of drastically increasing production of what is essentially a bit of a black-art quasi-hand-made technology.

Not only is the manufacture of aero-grade filament wound structures highly intensive in terms of labour and skillsets, but so is the QA. And remember, it's fossil-fuel sourced and not typically recyclable.

As an example, BMW produced around 250,000 i3 cars over a decade. Thats using about 100 kg of carbon fibre per car, maybe a little bit more. They have openly admitted that increasing production quantities above that level is not commercially viable. And I don't think its just cost, it's also the lack of capacity in the supply chain and the scale of operations required.

I don't believe that producing hydrogen-powered cars at a rate of even 1 million globally is remotely achievable, let alone tens of millions.

If someone can demonstrate otherwise, I'm all ears.

Compare that to battery packs that are fully recyclable, not sourced from fossil fuels, and can be produced in their tens of millions per annum, and you might understand why I'm so dismissive of the idea we can all tool around in hydrogen cars.

That's before we even start on the energy efficiency gap you alluded to:

Edited by GT9 on Thursday 27th July 09:30

[Zero Fuchs]

Wow, thanks GT9. I haven't quoted for efficiency but appreciate the detail. Having worked on propellant tanks on space craft I appreciate at least some of what you're saying. Flat tanks sound like an absolute nightmare (as a stress engineer) and can't see that being an efficient use of materials at all. A cylinder (with domed ends) works precisely because of the form. Something with flat sides does not, hence why we rarely if ever see pressurised rectangles

I did note that the Mirai had an impressive 1000km range. But then I looked at the tank(s) capacity. 140 litres. Is that correct!? A far cry from my 40 litre tank in the MR2!

I guess this is why the application is better suited to certain types of vehicle as a bus can easily swallow the required amount of hardware necessary.

Genuinely interesting, thanks!

[GT9]

Zero Fuchs said:

Wow, thanks GT9. I haven't quoted for efficiency but appreciate the detail. Having worked on propellant tanks on space craft I appreciate at least some of what you're saying. Flat tanks sound like an absolute nightmare (as a stress engineer) and can't see that being an efficient use of materials at all. A cylinder (with domed ends) works precisely because of the form. Something with flat sides does not, hence why we rarely if ever see pressurised rectangles

I did note that the Mirai had an impressive 1000km range. But then I looked at the tank(s) capacity. 140 litres. Is that correct!? A far cry from my 40 litre tank in the MR2!

I guess this is why the application is better suited to certain types of vehicle as a bus can easily swallow the required amount of hardware necessary.

Genuinely interesting, thanks!

No problem!

Here is a link to the flat tank tech. https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/tu-munich...

The Mirai tanks are indeed 142 litres internally, but consume a lot more than that externally.

Here are 4 of the Mirai tanks in use in the rear compartment of a hydrogen-powered Corolla ICE race car: https://www.racecar-engineering.com/wp-content/upl...

The plumbing you see is production spec plumbing also used in the Mirai, it's not just a lash up.

Toyota have now converted this car to liquid hydrogen, to increase range. That's fine for a racing car that uses all the fuel straight away, completely impractical for a passenger car.

A cutaway of a typical 700 bar tank showing the high wall thickness and the layers of carbon filaments wound into a cylindrical shape:



The stress in the hoop fibres themselves is obviously very high, but that's not where the design limit usually lies.

The limit is usually in the radial compressive strength of the inner section of the resin in the black composite matrix and its ability to withstand inter-laminar shear stress.

In addition to the pure hoop fibres, some run at an angle across the axis to give the cylinder its axial strength.

The resin loses strength by up to 30% due to moisture absorption from the atmosphere, so that needs to be included in the FofS.

Any bore scratches, micro-cracks, inclusions, voids or resin-rich areas in that matrix are susceptible to low cycle fatigue failure, which is why the QA (using NDT) is so critical.

Either that or you accept a certain failure rate in the population or build in an even higher FofS which will force a reduction in internal volume and/or pressure per tank.

Acceptable failure rates where each vehicle carries multiple tanks need to be incredibly low for obvious reasons.

If a hydrogen tank fails catastrophically, the chance of preventing ignition is severely hampered by the fact that hydrogen has a very low ignition energy, combined with the widest flammability range in air.

If ignition occurs, the flame speed is approximately ten times faster than a typical hydrocarbon, which, combined with the pressure inside the tank, results in an explosion with an incredibly destructive pressure wave. If the heat doesn't get you, the pressure wave will.

This is not a substance to dick about with.

Any questions, fire away, I have a few decades of design time with EV and alternative powertrains, as well as filament wound composite structures.

[Zero Fuchs]

Thanks again. To be honest I've sat on the fence with hydrogen as I'm loathed to be a naysayer for the sake of it. My initial reservations, as a lay person, stem from just the relative efficiencies of drivetrains etc. But just looking at that tank tells me straight away that this is no straightforward undertaking.

A picture says a thousand words, as they say!

I do chuckle as an engineer sometimes, because of the things people say and it's taken only a few posts (of yours) for me to appreciate just how little lay people know (I class myself in that boat). It's easy to throw out a comment like, "hydrogen is the way forward" and slam EV but the realities of implementation are something else entirely. Naturally as engineers our job is to solve problems but not all solutions are equal and some you just want to run a mile from!

I applaud Toyota etc for trying to develop this technology as it definitely looks interesting. I'm sure these things are manageable in time but if EV could well be too advanced in another 10 years to make hydrogen a worthwhile pursuit for personal transport.

Much appreciated.

[GT9]

Zero Fuchs said:

It's easy to throw out a comment like, "hydrogen is the way forward" and slam EV but the realities of implementation are something else entirely. Naturally as engineers our job is to solve problems but not all solutions are equal and some you just want to run a mile from!

Music to my ears!

[LasseV]

Zero Fuchs said:

Thanks again. To be honest I've sat on the fence with hydrogen as I'm loathed to be a naysayer for the sake of it. My initial reservations, as a lay person, stem from just the relative efficiencies of drivetrains etc. But just looking at that tank tells me straight away that this is no straightforward undertaking.

A picture says a thousand words, as they say!

I do chuckle as an engineer sometimes, because of the things people say and it's taken only a few posts (of yours) for me to appreciate just how little lay people know (I class myself in that boat). It's easy to throw out a comment like, "hydrogen is the way forward" and slam EV but the realities of implementation are something else entirely. Naturally as engineers our job is to solve problems but not all solutions are equal and some you just want to run a mile from!

I applaud Toyota etc for trying to develop this technology as it definitely looks interesting. I'm sure these things are manageable in time but if EV could well be too advanced in another 10 years to make hydrogen a worthwhile pursuit for personal transport.

Much appreciated.

There are few posters (GT9, DA) who just stpost anything other powertrains than BEV's. Keep that in your mind.

Toyota, Hyundai, BMW and Honda&GM are developing or manufaturing passenger FCEV. These are very big companies and they know what they are doing.

Energy efficiency is not only important aspect and it is not that simple matter. For example Germany aims to import 70% of all their hydrogen what they need. Then it is natural to use h2 in cars.

This picture is good to understand. This is from BMW press material.



It is same for wind, for example nordic countries does posses very high wind power potential and we are building it very rapidly.

Btw:

The European Council has today (July 25) adopted legislation that will see hundreds of hydrogen refuelling stations deployed across the continent.

https://www.h2-view.com/story/number-of-european-h...

[otolith]

It's still beyond me why anyone would want a slower, less roomy, more expensive to run, less convenient EV.

[Fastlane]

otolith said:

It's still beyond me why anyone would want a slower, less roomy, more expensive to run, less convenient EV.

You need to discuss this with LasseV and anyone else in involved/invested in the H2 sector...

[GT9]

LasseV said:

There are few posters (GT9, DA) who just stpost anything other powertrains than BEV's.

Absolute rubbish.

I have far more direct experience with these things than you do.

I post accurate factual information so people with a rational and intelligent approach to trying to understand these technologies can evolve their own informed opinions.

I've also commended Toyota many times on their efforts so far.

You hate EVs because you hate Elon Musk and will just latch onto anything from any source, regardless of credibility, that mentions the word hydrogen, often without comprehending what it is actually saying.

[Zero Fuchs]

LasseV said:

There are few posters (GT9, DA) who just stpost anything other powertrains than BEV's. Keep that in your mind.

Toyota, Hyundai, BMW and Honda&GM are developing or manufaturing passenger FCEV. These are very big companies and they know what they are doing.

Energy efficiency is not only important aspect and it is not that simple matter. For example Germany aims to import 70% of all their hydrogen what they need. Then it is natural to use h2 in cars.

This picture is good to understand. This is from BMW press material.



It is same for wind, for example nordic countries does posses very high wind power potential and we are building it very rapidly.

Btw:

The European Council has today (July 25) adopted legislation that will see hundreds of hydrogen refuelling stations deployed across the continent.

https://www.h2-view.com/story/number-of-european-h...

Thanks. I appreciate the alternative view. It's definitely an interesting subject and to be honest I've no bias either way. Neither are perfect and it remains to be seen how mass uptake of EV will impact the grid, especially when combined with solar.

However that's one aspect that I don't think hydrogen can quite offer. When I look at the way EV is going with 'vehicle to load', it's quite interesting when combined with solar and the promise of balancing overproduction of electricity. The idea of charging overnight, solar feeding the grid during the day whilst powering the house with the car, or putting it back into the grid is a seriously interesting proposition. So far from the fear of EV's overpowering the grid, they could do the exact opposite and smooth out the current production profile.

Whether this ultimately works in practice is another thing but I'm keen to find out.

As a petrol head the prospect of hydrogen is hugely exciting and can see why people are desperate for it to work. But I can't help feeling that, production and delivery aside, fuel cells and converted engines have to be more efficient. They can't be anything else or producing hydrogen is just going to be wasteful. Personally we've been developing ICE so long I don't think there's much more scope. Sadly it's destined for the scrap heap, much as love them. Fuel cells may be different but engineers need to get cracking to improve on 40-60% efficiency. Perhaps then we can have both, which is a nice compromise.

[DonkeyApple]

LasseV said:

There are few posters (GT9, DA) who just stpost anything other powertrains than BEV's. Keep that in your mind.

Nope. You just post every article relating to hydrogen, even the clear scams and the grant deals without applying any critical thinking.

I'd be interested to see your workings for the erroneous claim that I stpost anything that isn't EV. Good luck with that.

There is only one zealot on this thread.

[GT9]

Zero Fuchs said:

Thanks. I appreciate the alternative view. It's definitely an interesting subject and to be honest I've no bias either way. Neither are perfect and it remains to be seen how mass uptake of EV will impact the grid, especially when combined with solar.

However that's one aspect that I don't think hydrogen can quite offer. When I look at the way EV is going with 'vehicle to load', it's quite interesting when combined with solar and the promise of balancing overproduction of electricity. The idea of charging overnight, solar feeding the grid during the day whilst powering the house with the car, or putting it back into the grid is a seriously interesting proposition. So far from the fear of EV's overpowering the grid, they could do the exact opposite and smooth out the current production profile.

Whether this ultimately works in practice is another thing but I'm keen to find out.

As a petrol head the prospect of hydrogen is hugely exciting and can see why people are desperate for it to work. But I can't help feeling that, production and delivery aside, fuel cells and converted engines have to be more efficient. They can't be anything else or producing hydrogen is just going to be wasteful. Personally we've been developing ICE so long I don't think there's much more scope. Sadly it's destined for the scrap heap, much as love them. Fuel cells may be different but engineers need to get cracking to improve on 40-60% efficiency. Perhaps then we can have both, which is a nice compromise.

It's nice to see a petrolhead who also understands the importance of engineering excellence reaching similar conclusions. I approach this subject objectively, without emotion. I leave the emotional element for existing petrol cars. I have no emotion for EVs, but it is glaringly obvious to me how good they are as an engineering solution to the challenge of powering a whole country's cars renewably. And not just by a fractional amount. By a massive stretch.

The usage-phase efficiency angle is of highest importance when looking at decarbonisation from a system level for the entirety of country's car population. Anybody claiming otherwise is either talking niches or is being paid to say so. There is simply not going to be enough renewable energy otherwise. Which means cheating on where the true source of that energy is. Surely we've had enough of that now.

Doing a simple energy audit to quantify where all the energy actually goes highlights another aspect that is mostly overlooked. Efficiency breeds efficiency. If your upstream stage/s are inefficient, then you are forever on the back foot and no amount of downstream improvement can overcome that.

For EVs, most of the energy consumed goes towards either pushing the car through the air of overcoming rolling resistance. These are the last energy consumers in the whole pathway, and because they occur on the car itself, the two criteria that are defining them, CdA and kerb mass, car designers can actually attack them head on.

Proof of this is that Mercedes have already demonstrated a 4 door 4-seater EV that betters 7 miles/kWh under normal driving conditions. That's equivalent to more than 300 mpg on a tank to wheel basis. Any alternative based on hydrogen or combustion will be languishing at the 1-2 miles/kWh for the foreseeable future, probably forever.

So while most current comparisons are based on EVs achieving 3-4 miles per kWh on average, they are not done yet in how far the efficiency angle can be pushed. Not by a long shot.

Trying to make the same aerodynamic and kerb mass improvements to combustion or hydrogen propelled cars simply won't make anywhere near as much difference. Reason being that the majority of the energy was lost upstream, either in producing the fuel or burning it, long before it got anywhere near drag or rolling resistance.

Then add in the aspect of energy reversibility that you mentioned and it's potential value to load management on the grid, which is unique to battery-based storage, and the alternatives are so clearly going to play second-fiddle. There is no future where EVs are not the vast majority of cars, that's the truth of it. EVs used in some combination with existing petrol cars and edge-case hydrogen/efuel solutions where necessary.

As a petrolhead, I've made peace with that.

[Zero Fuchs]

GT9 said:

It's nice to see a petrolhead who also understands the importance of engineering excellence reaching similar conclusions. I approach this subject objectively, without emotion. I leave the emotional element for existing petrol cars. I have no emotion for EVs, but it is glaringly obvious to me how good they are as an engineering solution to the challenge of powering a whole country's cars renewably. And not just by a fractional amount. By a massive stretch.

The usage-phase efficiency angle is of highest importance when looking at decarbonisation from a system level for the entirety of country's car population. Anybody claiming otherwise is either talking niches or is being paid to say so. There is simply not going to be enough renewable energy otherwise. Which means cheating on where the true source of that energy is. Surely we've had enough of that now.

Doing a simple energy audit to quantify where all the energy actually goes highlights another aspect that is mostly overlooked. Efficiency breeds efficiency. If your upstream stage/s are inefficient, then you are forever on the back foot and no amount of downstream improvement can overcome that.

For EVs, most of the energy consumed goes towards either pushing the car through the air of overcoming rolling resistance. These are the last energy consumers in the whole pathway, and because they occur on the car itself, the two criteria that are defining them, CdA and kerb mass, car designers can actually attack them head on.

Proof of this is that Mercedes have already demonstrated a 4 door 4-seater EV that betters 7 miles/kWh under normal driving conditions. That's equivalent to more than 300 mpg on a tank to wheel basis. Any alternative based on hydrogen or combustion will be languishing at the 1-2 miles/kWh for the foreseeable future, probably forever.

So while most current comparisons are based on EVs achieving 3-4 miles per kWh on average, they are not done yet in how far the efficiency angle can be pushed. Not by a long shot.

Trying to make the same aerodynamic and kerb mass improvements to combustion or hydrogen propelled cars simply won't make anywhere near as much difference. Reason being that the majority of the energy was lost upstream, either in producing the fuel or burning it, long before it got anywhere near drag or rolling resistance.

Then add in the aspect of energy reversibility that you mentioned and it's potential value to load management on the grid, which is unique to battery-based storage, and the alternatives are so clearly going to play second-fiddle. There is no future where EVs are not the vast majority of cars, that's the truth of it. EVs used in some combination with existing petrol cars and edge-case hydrogen/efuel solutions where necessary.

As a petrolhead, I've made peace with that.

I think that's the crux of it for me and am glad you raised the Merc, which seems to highlight what I was thinking about but unable to elucidate.

It's astonishing to think that we've reached a state where aero (amongst other things) is going to start factoring more and more into design (or should do). It's almost like we need to redefine what we know about car design. Hopefully all that CFD will be combined with low mass targets and we'll be getting somewhere.

Hyundai claim the IONIQ 6 is capable of 385 miles on 18's but fitting 20" wheels results in 330 miles. With these kinds of differences, its clear to me that ICE/hydrogen has a tough time on its hands, especially when these kinds of efficiency percentages are just lost through heat and other losses.

[LasseV]

Zero Fuchs said:

GT9 said:

It's nice to see a petrolhead who also understands the importance of engineering excellence reaching similar conclusions. I approach this subject objectively, without emotion. I leave the emotional element for existing petrol cars. I have no emotion for EVs, but it is glaringly obvious to me how good they are as an engineering solution to the challenge of powering a whole country's cars renewably. And not just by a fractional amount. By a massive stretch.

The usage-phase efficiency angle is of highest importance when looking at decarbonisation from a system level for the entirety of country's car population. Anybody claiming otherwise is either talking niches or is being paid to say so. There is simply not going to be enough renewable energy otherwise. Which means cheating on where the true source of that energy is. Surely we've had enough of that now.

Doing a simple energy audit to quantify where all the energy actually goes highlights another aspect that is mostly overlooked. Efficiency breeds efficiency. If your upstream stage/s are inefficient, then you are forever on the back foot and no amount of downstream improvement can overcome that.

For EVs, most of the energy consumed goes towards either pushing the car through the air of overcoming rolling resistance. These are the last energy consumers in the whole pathway, and because they occur on the car itself, the two criteria that are defining them, CdA and kerb mass, car designers can actually attack them head on.

Proof of this is that Mercedes have already demonstrated a 4 door 4-seater EV that betters 7 miles/kWh under normal driving conditions. That's equivalent to more than 300 mpg on a tank to wheel basis. Any alternative based on hydrogen or combustion will be languishing at the 1-2 miles/kWh for the foreseeable future, probably forever.

So while most current comparisons are based on EVs achieving 3-4 miles per kWh on average, they are not done yet in how far the efficiency angle can be pushed. Not by a long shot.

Trying to make the same aerodynamic and kerb mass improvements to combustion or hydrogen propelled cars simply won't make anywhere near as much difference. Reason being that the majority of the energy was lost upstream, either in producing the fuel or burning it, long before it got anywhere near drag or rolling resistance.

Then add in the aspect of energy reversibility that you mentioned and it's potential value to load management on the grid, which is unique to battery-based storage, and the alternatives are so clearly going to play second-fiddle. There is no future where EVs are not the vast majority of cars, that's the truth of it. EVs used in some combination with existing petrol cars and edge-case hydrogen/efuel solutions where necessary.

As a petrolhead, I've made peace with that.

I think that's the crux of it for me and am glad you raised the Merc, which seems to highlight what I was thinking about but unable to elucidate.

It's astonishing to think that we've reached a state where aero (amongst other things) is going to start factoring more and more into design (or should do). It's almost like we need to redefine what we know about car design. Hopefully all that CFD will be combined with low mass targets and we'll be getting somewhere.

Hyundai claim the IONIQ 6 is capable of 385 miles on 18's but fitting 20" wheels results in 330 miles. With these kinds of differences, its clear to me that ICE/hydrogen has a tough time on its hands, especially when these kinds of efficiency percentages are just lost through heat and other losses.

Production car (Toyota Mirai) went over 1300km with 19" wheels. Toyota's new FCEV Crown does have 800km official range. So FCEV's does have upper hand in range.

BEV efficiency varies greatly. In german winter, consumption rises approx 30%. Its quite equal to FCEV in those conditions. So there is that.

Hydrogen station is also way to store huge amount of energy. If hydrogen is made locally, it helps to balance the grid and it can distribute hydrogen without straining the grid. In EU, those station needs to be at least 1000kg station and that is a lot of energy. (Can be smaller stations too but they doesn't count as a ten-t station)

It's not black and white. Thats the reason why EU (also Japan, usa and korea) is betting so hard on hydrogen. In EU there will be both, hydrogen cars and bevs.

[ruggedscotty]

LasseV said:

Production car (Toyota Mirai) went over 1300km with 19" wheels. Toyota's new FCEV Crown does have 800km official range. So FCEV's does have upper hand in range.

BEV efficiency varies greatly. In german winter, consumption rises approx 30%. Its quite equal to FCEV in those conditions. So there is that.

Hydrogen station is also way to store huge amount of energy. If hydrogen is made locally, it helps to balance the grid and it can distribute hydrogen without straining the grid. In EU, those station needs to be at least 1000kg station and that is a lot of energy. (Can be smaller stations too but they doesn't count as a ten-t station)

It's not black and white. Thats the reason why EU (also Japan, usa and korea) is betting so hard on hydrogen. In EU there will be both, hydrogen cars and bevs.

As said you have some personal interest in hydrogen. I have given you links and information before giving you reason why hydrogen isnt for cars and that those fuel cell cars will disappear in due course.

for one unless there is a miracle Hydrogen is always going to be a lot less than the sum of the energy used to produce it. You say high energy
storage.... Well what ever it cant store the amount of energy that a battery will store. It is inefficient.

Production of hydrogen will result in release of hydrogen to the atmosphere. That is a huge issue, and if the produce more hydrogen then those escapes to atmo is going to be a worry....

And when we look at the relative warming impact from continuous instead of pulse emissions — which are more representative of the real world — hydrogen is 100X more potent than CO2 emissions over a 10-year period. 10 Kg of hydrogen has the same effect on the atmosphere as a ton of co2.

Putting it in gas mains.... like what the actual ? seriously ?

That is a huge concern and a huge reason to be wary of hydrogen. Too much not in its favour.

What is it that you refuse / cant see about hydrogen ? anyone with any sense and not blinkered / personally swayed by hdrogen would see those issues.

As for the fueling issues....

[ruggedscotty]

In February 2004, a study by the National Academies’ National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council concluded, “In the best-case scenario, the transition to a hydrogen economy would take many decades, and any reductions in oil imports and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are likely to be minor during the next 25 years.” Realistically, a major effort to introduce hydrogen cars before 2030 would actually undermine efforts to reduce emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases such as CO2.

https://issues.org/romm-hydrogen-clean-energy/

Fossil fuel companies are also using hydrogen to justify building more pipelines, claiming that this infrastructure can be used for “clean hydrogen” in the future. But hydrogen is a highly flammable and corrosive element, and it would be costly to repurpose oil and gas infrastructure to make it safe for hydrogen.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/0...

https://energypost.eu/hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars-comp...

What ever you may think... Hydrogen isnt anywhere near as good as its made out in certain areas.

[GT9]

LasseV said:

Production car (Toyota Mirai) went over 1300km with 19" wheels. Toyota's new FCEV Crown does have 800km official range. So FCEV's does have upper hand in range.

Funny that you elected not to mention that Toyota recently announced a 1500 km solid-state battery with a 10 minute charging time due for production 2027....

The upper hand will be lost long before anyone will be making lots of green hydrogen.

[TheDeuce]

GT9 said:

LasseV said:

Production car (Toyota Mirai) went over 1300km with 19" wheels. Toyota's new FCEV Crown does have 800km official range. So FCEV's does have upper hand in range.

Funny that you elected not to mention that Toyota recently announced a 1500 km solid-state battery with a 10 minute charging time due for production 2027....

The upper hand will be lost long before anyone will be making lots of green hydrogen.

I've always said that the biggest hurdle when it comes to investing in FCEV infrastructure, even in places where BEV's currently don't make sense, is the imminent risk of all the investment proving totally pointless before it's even up and running by a leap in battery technology.

And the planet needs far better batteries for all sorts of reasons, far more than it needs a cobbled together FCEV supply and distribution network - so guess where the big money is going

Hard to put too much faith in Toyota's claim specifically, it's very bold.. But with hundreds of billions chasing solid state commercially ready cells, it's only a matter of time before it's a reality. And whoever gets the working patents in will have more money than God once they get up and running.

[Fastlane]

TheDeuce said:

I've always said that the biggest hurdle when it comes to investing in FCEV infrastructure, even in places where BEV's currently don't make sense, is the imminent risk of all the investment proving totally pointless before it's even up and running by a leap in battery technology.

And the planet needs far better batteries for all sorts of reasons, far more than it needs a cobbled together FCEV supply and distribution network - so guess where the big money is going

Hard to put too much faith in Toyota's claim specifically, it's very bold.. But with hundreds of billions chasing solid state commercially ready cells, it's only a matter of time before it's a reality. And whoever gets the working patents in will have more money than God once they get up and running.

And LasseV will be driving a Mirai powered by fairy dust...

[What The Deuces]

Fastlane said:

And LasseV will be driving a Mirai powered by fairy dust...

To be fair to him the likes of Bosch are about to start producing SOFC in large numbers to power commercial activity and property.

The infrastructure for hydrogen storage and distribution will be in place to support this and no doubt it will also support a number of commercial vehicles, the UK is predicted to have 1 million hydrogen vehicles on the road by 2035 (mainly commercial) so sharing a little of that infrastructure with a few Mirai users isn't that much of a stretch of the imagination.