Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[TonyWilliams]

I'm certainly missing your point, if you're saying that range anxiety doesn't exist. Care to clarify?

Driving any hydrogen car would be the very definition of "range anxiety". I'm currently traveling coast-to-coast and my Tesla Model S-70D, and I have no range anxiety. It's pitifully easy. I'm also doing something that no hydrogen car can do today, or any point in the proposed future.

I believe the point that he was making is that the report says that all roads lead to hydrogen (except maybe around town travel), because of the subjective "range anxiety".

 

[GRA]

I'm certainly missing your point, if you're saying that range anxiety doesn't exist. Care to clarify?

Driving any hydrogen car would be the very definition of "range anxiety". I'm currently traveling coast-to-coast and my Tesla Model S-70D, and I have no range anxiety. It's pitifully easy. I'm also doing something that no hydrogen car can do today, or any point in the proposed future.

I believe the point that he was making is that the report says that all roads lead to hydrogen (except maybe around town travel), because of the subjective "range anxiety".

Tony, 3 years ago you would have been suffering range anxiety in your Tesla too, and that would include most of California; hell, until a few months ago you would have been forced to travel several hundred miles out of your way to stay on the only available coast-to-coast SC route. Infrastructure is required for any vehicle technology to be viable, and doesn't appear overnight, as you well know. Remind us again of your 10-15 mph nighttime drive up Highway 1 to make it to Big Sur in your LEAF, with your daughter in the car and your emergency flashers on. Do you think driving an FCEV with 3 or 4 times the range, and stations in San Jose and say San Luis Obispo would have given you more or less range anxiety than that? As it is, you can now do L..A -S.F. or Sac via I-5 with zero range anxiety in an FCV at flow of traffic speeds, and with only one 5 or 10 minute stop enroute, just like any fossil-fueled ICE. And it's no big deal.

Just as Tesla did, H2 stations will begin in California and the NE corridor (Boston - Washington), then (I expect) will be extended the length of I-5 and south down I-95. If an early X-C route is desired for PR purposes, one thing we can all expect is that the initial one won't be chosen at the whim of a CEO suffering from nostalgia. Per my AAA U.S. map, it's 2,906 miles from S.F. to New York, and 2,790 from L.A.- N.Y.C. by the most direct routes. Depending on the average spacing between stations, you can cover those distances with anywhere between 16 and 20 stops (including one at each end) in a Tucson, and 13-15 stops in a Mirai, even being very conservative since we don't know yet know their energy usage under a variety of conditions (I had a look at how the Model S' range varies under a variety of conditions and speeds using both Tesla's range calculator and EVtripplanner, then subtracted up to 105 miles from each FCEV's EPA range, to allow for freeway speeds up to 80 mph, headwinds, dense air, A/C use and/or climbs plus a 30 mile reserve). For example:

Tucson EPA range 265 miles, S.F. - NYC 2,906 miles / average station spacing 160 miles (2 hours at 80 mph, plus 30 mile reserve at same speed; longer spacing at slower speeds, flatter ground, no A/C use etc.) = 18.2 stops = 20 total (S.F. + 18 + NYC). 180 mile spacing only requires 18 stations, (1+16+1), and 200 mile spacing only 16 (1+14+1). You can subtract 1 station for LA - NYC.

Mirai EPA range 312 miles, 2,906 / 210 miles = 13.8 stops = 15 total (1+13+1). 230 mile spacing, 14 stations ((1+12+1); 250 mile spacing, 13 stations (1+11+1). LA-NYC requires the same. If you wanted to push it you could space them further apart, but I prefer to design for worst case in the area.

The end stations are going to be built in any case, so there'd only be a need to build the middle ones specially. Unlike SCs, you want to build H2 stations in heavily populated cities, so the act of building the X-C route has the double benefit of also opening up more local FCV markets, whenever the auto companies decide to expand into them. If we assume that they'll all be added to existing gas stations (likely), and that the cost of same is $1.5 million each (assuming virtually no economies of scale or learning curve cost reductions will apply compared to early California low-level production, which isn't likely), then with 20 stations you're looking at a total capital outlay of just $30 million for the whole route. If each station will be built ab initio and will cost $3 million, that's still only $60 million. Whatever the number, this is hardly stretching any state or major corporation's finances. A big corporation's advertising budget is many multiples of that, and just as the SCs do for Tesla, station networks can be a major marketing point. Toyota's committed or paid out something like $7.2 million in loans to finance stations in California, and some more in the NE. Honda has also committed/paid out millions in loans ($13.8 million to FirstElement) likewise, so building a X-C H2 route is hardly a major stretch for them, if it helps sell the cars and the tech. After all, Toyota's already spent several billion developing the tech, and Honda probably well upwards of a billion; do you think they're going to nickle and dime themselves now, when they're beginning the move to commercialization?

 

[GRA]

I don't think I saw this article or one related to it when it came out, so although it's from August I think it's interesting for some of the comments/photos re size and Pt loading, especially given the earlier article I posted which discussed Pt loading and the DoE target of 10g/stack. Via autonews:

GM, Honda cut cost of fuel cell stack

http://www.autonews.com/article/20150810/OEM01/308109956/gm-honda-cut-cost-of-fuel-cell-stack

Q: Does the fuel cell continue to shrink?

A: Absolutely. It shrinks in active area [the part of the cell that produces electricity]. And it shrinks in the height of the stack, the number of cells and how much current we can put through it. All the stuff that makes it work also shrinks: the compressors, injectors and all the manifolding. There is a lot of opportunity there.

Q: How's the progress on the fuel cell stack?

A: It's coming down very, very quickly in terms of precious metal loading. The workhorse fuel cell stacks have 29 grams of platinum. The next-gen stack is down in the 10 gram range. The next generation is running in our laboratory now. Weight is down by almost one half. Size is also down by almost one half. And cost has come down in orders of magnitude. . . .

Check the article for the photo of the side-by-side size comparison of the previous and current gen Honda stacks.

 

[ydnas7]

Some H2 fuel cell vehicles drivers already demonstrate fear of driving to a refueling station because they may not make it back if the station is somehow inoperative.

A review of the H2 facebook page makes that quite obvious.

Difference between theory and practice, in theory H2 is good, in practice its surprisingly painful.

 

[GRA]

Some H2 fuel cell vehicles drivers already demonstrate fear of driving to a refueling station because they may not make it back if the station is somehow inoperative.

A review of the H2 facebook page makes that quite obvious.

Difference between theory and practice, in theory H2 is good, in practice its surprisingly painful.

Sure, for prototype stations that have been both scarce and (unsurprisingly) unreliable. You could say the same for early gas stations, and do we really even need to mention the reliability issues of the first generation of J1772 EVSEs and QCs? We're now moving into the early full commercialization phase with H2, with more stations in a given area, using more reliable, higher performance and standardized designs that have incorporated lessons learned. How does this differ from any other new technology?

Which isn't to imply that they will work infallibly; that's never been the case with any mechanical device, but as long as you've got some redundancy, preferably at the same site as well as at others nearby, any inconvenience should be fairly minor. I'm glad to see that my local station will have two separate dispensers, as well as several other fueling stations with a reasonable distance (there's only been a single public H2 station in the entire east bay area for the past several years, and that's 15 miles away). Anyone who's going to be an early adopter is going to have to be willing to put up with some inconvenience, whether that involves balky L2s and non-existent QCs or the equivalent in H2 stations. Hopefully, we're moving past that phase in both technologies.

 

[knightmb]

Tony, 3 years ago you would have been suffering range anxiety in your Tesla too, and that would include most of California; hell, until a few months ago you would have been forced to travel several hundred miles out of your way to stay on the only available coast-to-coast SC route. Infrastructure is required for any vehicle technology to be viable, and doesn't appear overnight, as you well know. Remind us again of your 10-15 mph nighttime drive up Highway 1 to make it to Big Sur in your LEAF, with your daughter in the car and your emergency flashers on. Do you think driving an FCEV with 3 or 4 times the range, and stations in San Jose and say San Luis Obispo would have given you more or less range anxiety than that? As it is, you can now do L..A -S.F. or Sac via I-5 with zero range anxiety in an FCV at flow of traffic speeds, and with only one 5 or 10 minute stop enroute, just like any fossil-fueled ICE. And it's no big deal.

The infrastructure for either the Tesla or Leaf has been around for over a hundred years and found everywhere all over the US. You know, electric outlets. The infrastructure for faster charging is what needed to be built to decrease the wait time.

The same can't be said for Hydrogen. You can't stop at a stranger's house and plug into their "hydrogen" outlet for a refill. I think that is more the point that Hydrogen has to start from nothing where as Electric vehicles already had power everywhere, just needed a big enough charger to use what was already available. Given the cost of building a Hydrogen refuel station compared to just having the local electrician plop in a new QC anywhere (no need to worry about storing exploding fuel), the logistics of hydrogen refueling is much more expensive, complex, and solves nothing that gas vehicles have not already figured out over the last hundred years.

 

[downeykp]

Tony, 3 years ago you would have been suffering range anxiety in your Tesla too, and that would include most of California; hell, until a few months ago you would have been forced to travel several hundred miles out of your way to stay on the only available coast-to-coast SC route. Infrastructure is required for any vehicle technology to be viable, and doesn't appear overnight, as you well know. Remind us again of your 10-15 mph nighttime drive up Highway 1 to make it to Big Sur in your LEAF, with your daughter in the car and your emergency flashers on. Do you think driving an FCEV with 3 or 4 times the range, and stations in San Jose and say San Luis Obispo would have given you more or less range anxiety than that? As it is, you can now do L..A -S.F. or Sac via I-5 with zero range anxiety in an FCV at flow of traffic speeds, and with only one 5 or 10 minute stop enroute, just like any fossil-fueled ICE. And it's no big deal.

The infrastructure for either the Tesla or Leaf has been around for over a hundred years and found everywhere all over the US. You know, electric outlets. The infrastructure for faster charging is what needed to be built to decrease the wait time.

The same can't be said for Hydrogen. You can't stop at a stranger's house and plug into their "hydrogen" outlet for a refill. I think that is more the point that Hydrogen has to start from nothing where as Electric vehicles already had power everywhere, just needed a big enough charger to use what was already available. Given the cost of building a Hydrogen refuel station compared to just having the local electrician plop in a new QC anywhere (no need to worry about storing exploding fuel), the logistics of hydrogen refueling is much more expensive, complex, and solves nothing that gas vehicles have not already figured out over the last hundred years.

I just have not seen where the economy of scale is going to bring hydrogen stations into the mainstream. The cost of producing hydrogen and the technology with keeping stations operational doesn't appear to be cost effective. To roll out hydrogen throughout the country would cost an amazing amount of money.
The massive amount of energy used to make hydrogen makes it bad for the environment.
Plugging into an outlet at a charging station or an rv park will always be available. If Toyota et.al. want this to work let them build the infrastructure like Tesla is doing.

 

[smkettner]

I'm certainly missing your point, if you're saying that range anxiety doesn't exist. Care to clarify?

The article did not seem to study range anxiety at all. Small reference some study but no real details. But still BEVs are doomed because of it. Conclusion seemed disconnected from the analysis.

 

[TonyWilliams]

GRA, first, there is zero public plan for nationwide hydrogen. Zip. Nada. Nothing. If you think 20 hydrogen stations through the middle of the country somehow makes hydrogen viable, let's just say that I disagree.

That might seem like a smart idea to you until basic finances come into play. The numbers that I've gotten from somebody who ACTUALLY OWNS A HYDROGEN PLANT include $1 million per year to operate. While some government largess might pay for dozens to a hundred hydrogen stations, with auto manufacturers paying at the pump (the very few that are committed to the hydrogen game), who will pay the upkeep and maintenance of these plants?

It won't be the earnings selling hydrogen!!! We already have the sales projections from the big players for at least the next 5 years.

So who? The state of Nebraska? Good luck. The Chamber of Commerce of Podunk, Indiana?

My Tesla travels are not just hops from the very well done Supercharger network that expands every week. Certainly that is primary, but I find great use from the 1500 or so CHAdeMO stations in the USA, which greatly outnumber Supercharger locations (huge convenience). Also, camp grounds with 50 amp service that are in every hamlet. And, even normal J1772 (that are tens of thousands in the USA) that I jut used last night at a hotel while sleeping. I even used a 120v outlet for a few hours, of which there are probably a BILLION in the USA.

None of the above is available for hydrogen. And it won't be, because of the costs involved, both now and in the future. Hydrogen won't be subsidized forever, and Toyota won't feel compelled to pay $15,000 per car for hydrogen.

I would not have considered this trip in a hydrogen car with your proposed build out. And since the folks promoting hydrogen with their money on the line are NOT even suggesting coast to coast USA travel, I'm going to suggest that this is yet another pipe dream.

 

[Stoaty]

Difference between theory and practice, in theory H2 is good, in practice its surprisingly painful.

"The difference between theory and practice is a lot less in theory than it is in practice."

 

[keydiver]

[off topic]

I'm currently traveling coast-to-coast and my Tesla Model S-70D, and I have no range anxiety.

Tony, are you coming to Florida? Stop by and we'll compare new 70D's! We took our first road trip over to Sanibel Island 2 weeks ago. The SC network is great! [/off topic]

 

[GRA]

Tony, 3 years ago you would have been suffering range anxiety in your Tesla too, and that would include most of California; hell, until a few months ago you would have been forced to travel several hundred miles out of your way to stay on the only available coast-to-coast SC route. Infrastructure is required for any vehicle technology to be viable, and doesn't appear overnight, as you well know. Remind us again of your 10-15 mph nighttime drive up Highway 1 to make it to Big Sur in your LEAF, with your daughter in the car and your emergency flashers on. Do you think driving an FCEV with 3 or 4 times the range, and stations in San Jose and say San Luis Obispo would have given you more or less range anxiety than that? As it is, you can now do L..A -S.F. or Sac via I-5 with zero range anxiety in an FCV at flow of traffic speeds, and with only one 5 or 10 minute stop enroute, just like any fossil-fueled ICE. And it's no big deal.

The infrastructure for either the Tesla or Leaf has been around for over a hundred years and found everywhere all over the US. You know, electric outlets. The infrastructure for faster charging is what needed to be built to decrease the wait time.

The same can't be said for Hydrogen. You can't stop at a stranger's house and plug into their "hydrogen" outlet for a refill. I think that is more the point that Hydrogen has to start from nothing where as Electric vehicles already had power everywhere, just needed a big enough charger to use what was already available. Given the cost of building a Hydrogen refuel station compared to just having the local electrician plop in a new QC anywhere (no need to worry about storing exploding fuel), the logistics of hydrogen refueling is much more expensive, complex, and solves nothing that gas vehicles have not already figured out over the last hundred years.

Yes, you need central stations (for now) to get H2, but you've put your finger on the main issue, Hydrogen doesn't need to solve anything that gas vehicles haven't already, from the customer and fuel seller standpoint it's exactly the same system that people have been using reasonably contentedly for a century, and most of the H2 stations are going in at existing gas stations; the safety concerns are real, but no more so than storing thousands of gallons of flammable gasoline in neighborhoods is.

To say that the infrastructure for the Tesla or the LEAF has been around for a century is only true as long as you're only driving them around the immediate area, or else you're content to waste an inordinate amount of time waiting to charge when you venture outside it. As yet, the routes/areas that have QCs/SCs are quite limited, and are being built out slowly; even public L2s increase slowly, and still aren't profitable.

Yes, H2 is starting from nothing; so what? QCs did the same 4.5 years ago, and SCs 3 years ago. Gas stations started from nothing too (prior to them, you bought gas from hardware stores, livery stables or wherever you could find it 102 years ago (and they built 13,000 of them in the U.S. over the next 8 years, and 100,000 more in the following decade). The reason the expansion was so fast was that people building them could make a profit running them, something that no pay QC has yet achieved, and Tesla's SC model is unsustainable once they move to a mass market. Vehicle H2 isn't profitable yet, but there's no doubt that if they can get the costs of H2 and the cars down, they have an existing, profitable business model that everyone knows works.

 

[GRA]

I just have not seen where the economy of scale is going to bring hydrogen stations into the mainstream. The cost of producing hydrogen and the technology with keeping stations operational doesn't appear to be cost effective. To roll out hydrogen throughout the country would cost an amazing amount of money.
The massive amount of energy used to make hydrogen makes it bad for the environment.
Plugging into an outlet at a charging station or an rv park will always be available. If Toyota et.al. want this to work let them build the infrastructure like Tesla is doing.

The companies and the government agencies who are actually doing this, do see the economies of scale along with technological improvements making H2 cost effective. I've provided links in this thread (at least a couple of times) to the papers laying out just how they see things and the steps that they believe need to be taken, cost breakdowns, etc. Doesn't mean they'll succeed, any number of things can go wrong between here and there, including competition from batteries or sustainable bio-fuels beating them out. But they're hardly going into it with their eyes shut, or ignoring the issues.

And once again, as I've pointed out time and time again including in a recent post upthread (but people continually ignore), Toyota and Honda are paying to build stations. Why people keep raising that as an issue is beyond me.

 

[GRA]

I'm certainly missing your point, if you're saying that range anxiety doesn't exist. Care to clarify?

The article did not seem to study range anxiety at all. Small reference some study but no real details. But still BEVs are doomed because of it. Conclusion seemed disconnected from the analysis.

We must have read different articles. Please point out anywhere in the article where it said BEVs are doomed. What I read said given current technical limitations of current and near future batteries, mid-size and smaller BEVs are probably limited to ranges of about 200 miles max., owing to space, weight and cost issues, and that FCEVs currently cost less if the range requirement goes up to 300 miles. Do you have any evidence that would show this not to be the case, given the actual capabilities of existing FCEVS as well as existing and 2nd gen. BEVs?

It also drew a distinction between actual range needed and perceived range needed, and said that reconciling the two and cost would determine the success of BEVs if their ranges were so limited. Further, it laid out the technical developments needed by BEVs and FCEV to achieve the goals that have been set for them.

 

[GRA]

GRA, first, there is zero public plan for nationwide hydrogen. Zip. Nada. Nothing. If you think 20 hydrogen stations through the middle of the country somehow makes hydrogen viable, let's just say that I disagree.

It makes it no more or less viable than Elon's Road to nowhere much, but look at all the ballyhoo that generated.

That might seem like a smart idea to you until basic finances come into play. The numbers that I've gotten from somebody who ACTUALLY OWNS A HYDROGEN PLANT include $1 million per year to operate. While some government largess might pay for dozens to a hundred hydrogen stations, with auto manufacturers paying at the pump (the very few that are committed to the hydrogen game), who will pay the upkeep and maintenance of these plants?

It won't be the earnings selling hydrogen!!! We already have the sales projections from the big players for at least the next 5 years.

So who? The state of Nebraska? Good luck. The Chamber of Commerce of Podunk, Indiana?

My Tesla travels are not just hops from the very well done Supercharger network that expands every week. Certainly that is primary, but I find great use from the 1500 or so CHAdeMO stations in the USA, which greatly outnumber Supercharger locations (huge convenience). Also, camp grounds with 50 amp service that are in every hamlet. And, even normal J1772 (that are tens of thousands in the USA) that I jut used last night at a hotel while sleeping. I even used a 120v outlet for a few hours, of which there are probably a BILLION in the USA.

None of the above is available for hydrogen. And it won't be, because of the costs involved, both now and in the future. Hydrogen won't be subsidized forever, and Toyota won't feel compelled to pay $15,000 per car for hydrogen.

I would not have considered this trip in a hydrogen car with your proposed build out. And since the folks promoting hydrogen with their money on the line are NOT even suggesting coast to coast USA travel, I'm going to suggest that this is yet another pipe dream.

Tony, we've argued all these points multiple times, and you don't need to argue with me, you need to argue with the companies and government agencies that disagree with you, and who have spent far more time analyzing the technical and financial issues than either of us could or would. Are they right? Beats the hell out of me, but I'm willing to let them try, until BEVs , FCEVs, or sustainably-produced biofuels prove to be able to replace fossil-fueled ICEs. However, this is about the 30th go-round of this particular argument cycle (don't know why I let myself get sucked into them), so I'll just remind myself that nothing we say here has the slightest effect on the plans for H2/fuel cell development/deployment, or bio-fuels, or probably BEVs; I think MNL has had its 15 minutes of fame/outsized influence.

 

[GRA]

Difference between theory and practice, in theory H2 is good, in practice its surprisingly painful.

"The difference between theory and practice is a lot less in theory than it is in practice."

I prefer the late, great Yogi's version. In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.

 

[GRA]

Via ievs:

Toyota Provides Mobile Half-Fill Hydrogen Refuel Stations For Mirai In US While Waiting On Infrastructure

http://insideevs.com/toyota-provides-mobile-hydrogen-refuel-stations-for-mirai-while-waiting-on-infrastructure/

. . . Currently two public stations are Mirai-friendly, with another three coming online by the end of the month (see chart at right of all the known/planned stations through the end of 2016 – as provided by Toyota at the end of September). http://insideevs.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/California-planned-Hydrogen-station-september-2015.jpg

53 stations currently are at some stage of construction. . . .

Given the widespread nature of the dealers, and the potential for so many Mirais limited to just a handful of stations this year, Toyota is setting up mobile hydrogen refuelers at 4 of the dealerships through next summer 2016: Roseville, Sunnyvale, San Jose, and San Francisco

In an email to Doug, Roseville stated that all fuel from these units will be no charge and not included in the $15,000 worth of hydrogen Toyota is already offering with each Mirai purchase.

The only catch? These units “only dispense hydrogen at 5000 psi, or 350 BAR, so it will give the Mirai half the distance on a full fill (150 miles),” and a call ahead appointment is needed to fill up. . . .

The chart dates from 9/30, and is a little out of date, as San Juan Capistrano has opened and Coalinga (Harris Ranch) is complete and either already commissioned or about to, as we know it was used by those 5 M-B F-cells the other day. Air Products seems to have jumped out early, with FirstElement (who's using Air Products equipment) a bit behind. Linde and ITM Power only have a single station each in the first batch. In addition to the 4 stations (incl. SJC) shown commissioning, the chart shows 15 stations under construction as of the end of September with another four approved for building, so they're definitely picking up steam.

 

[GRA]

Via Reuters:

BMW plans to market sedan fuel cell vehicle after 2020

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/29/autoshow-japan-bmw-idUSL3N12T3TN20151029

Oct 29 BMW AG on Wednesday said its first fuel cell vehicle would likely be a larger-sized sedan which would put on the market after 2020, when a hydrogen development partnership ends between the German luxury automaker and Toyota Motor Corp.

Under its partnership with Toyota, BMW is developing a way to compress hydrogen at ultra-low temperatures to increase its storage volume, using as a base a fuel cell stack developed by Japan's largest automaker. . . .

While the Mirai can travel around 700 kilometres on a single hydrogen fueling, the German automaker said it was developing a vehicle which would travel further, using compressed hydrogen, a process which would take a few more years to perfect. . . .

[Added] Via GCC: Upthread we'd discussed where fuel cells could be used other than in cars, and I'd mentioned switching engines. If a BEV can't do the job, this strikes me as a good application for a fuel cell range extender (PHFCEV) to replace the diesel:

Audi using Alstom H3 plug-in hybrid shunting locomotive at Ingolstadt

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/10/20151030-audi.html

 

[Reddy]

I'm going out on a limb here, but wonder if H2 will be best for fleet and heavy vehicles, much like natural gas. That way the number of stations would be fewer. In the perfect future, when renewables are too abundant, the excess electricity could be used for water electrolysis, H2 compression, and storage. Kinda a load leveling thing. BEVs for in-town, short distances, enclosed spaces (warehouses), etc. Sure, there will be excess renewable energy going into batteries as well, but perhaps some will go to H2. Hmmm, where will all those SpaceX rockets get their H2?

 

[RegGuheert]

I'm going out on a limb here, but wonder if H2 will be best for fleet and heavy vehicles, much like natural gas. That way the number of stations would be fewer.

That's the position of most of the commenters in this thread. The disagreement comes when discussing the use of hydrogen for passenger vehicles.

In the perfect future, when renewables are too abundant, the excess electricity could be used for water electrolysis, H2 compression, and storage. Kinda a load leveling thing.

Yes, but it only makes sense to throw away over half of your excess production if you need to store the energy for a long time, like over a week. If you want to use it tomorrow, it's probably better to store it in Li-ion batteries and be able to use 90% of what was produced. But batteries cost too much for long-term storage.

BEVs for in-town, short distances, enclosed spaces (warehouses), etc. Sure, there will be excess renewable energy going into batteries as well, but perhaps some will go to H2. Hmmm, where will all those SpaceX rockets get their H2?

Agreed, but H2 should be used ONLY when batteries do not suit: fleets, heavy equipment, long-term energy storage. Let's not try to shoe-horn it into applications where it cannot beat ALL of the following: BEVs, gasoline, CNG, etc.

We cannot afford to waste the limited resources we have by using hydrogen when better alternatives exist.