Benefits of hydrogen cars?

Toyota, Honda and Nissan along with many other automobile manufacturers are developing hydrogen cars. While I can certainly see hydrogen cars filling some needs that are currently unfulfilled by electric vehicles, I can only imagine that hydrogen is a temporary solution that will be replaced by EVs in the long run. In other words, I do not see what Toyota and Honda see in hydrogen cars that makes them want to put that development ahead of BEVs.

So I thougtht I would start a thread on the topic.

Here are some comments:

C1) While hydrogen is a fuel, it is not sitting around in any usable form. You need to extract it from other molecules to use it in a vehicle. You can either get it from ethanol or petroleum products through the use of a reformer or you can add energy to something like water to produce it. Neither seems very attractive to me.
C2) One of the attractive features for BEVs is being able to refuel at home. While this is also possible with a hydrogen vehicle, I can imagine the cost and maintenance for home hydrogen fueling equipment will be significantly higher than that of an EVSE.
C3) Fuel cells typically use rare, expensive metals such as platinum as a catalyst, which does eventually get consumed, so I do not see this as overly sustainable. If batteries can be made more reliable, I would ink they would be much more attractive. Plus batteries (or some other form of storage) will likely be necessary in a fuel cell vehicle to reduce the impedance of the source.

Now some questions:

Q1) What do Toyota and Honda see as the primary selling points of hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles? I get that they can be refueled more quickly, but any lead in over BEVs in that area is not likely to last long.
Q2) What are the primary target markets for hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles? Are they focused on consumer applications, or are there other areas where hydrogen has big benefits over BEV such as farm tractors or long-haul trucking?
Q3) Are all of the hydrogen vehicle offerings fuel-cell-based or are some companies developing ICE hydrogen vehicles?
Q4) Are their any efficiency benefits of hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles over BEVs, or are they always less efficient?
Q5) How loud is the compressor in a home hydrogen fueling station?

I can only imagine that my beliefs (or biases) must be way off base here somewhere, or large companies like Honda and Toyota would not be investing so heavily in this area. Perhaps someone can explain the hydrogen economy idea in a way that makes sense even to RegGuheert!

RegGuheert said:

Toyota, Honda and Nissan along with many other automobile manufacturers are developing hydrogen cars. While I can certainly see hydrogen cars filling some needs that are currently unfulfilled by electric vehicles, I can only imagine that hydrogen is a temporary solution that will be replaced by EVs in the long run. In other words, I do not see what Toyota and Honda see in hydrogen cars that makes them want to put that development ahead of BEVs.

So I thougtht I would start a thread on the topic.

Here are some comments:

C1) While hydrogen is a fuel, it is not sitting around in any usable form. You need to extract it from other molecules to use it in a vehicle. You can either get it from ethanol or petroleum products through the use of a reformer or you can add energy to something like water to produce it. Neither seems very attractive to me.
C2) One of the attractive features for BEVs is being able to refuel at home. While this is also possible with a hydrogen vehicle, I can imagine the cost and maintenance for home hydrogen fueling equipment will be significantly higher than that of an EVSE.
C3) Fuel cells typically use rare, expensive metals such as platinum as a catalyst, which does eventually get consumed, so I do not see this as overly sustainable. If batteries can be made more reliable, I would ink they would be much more attractive. Plus batteries (or some other form of storage) will likely be necessary in a fuel cell vehicle to reduce the impedance of the source.

Now some questions:

Q1) What do Toyota and Honda see as the primary selling points of hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles? I get that they can be refueled more quickly, but any lead in over BEVs in that area is not likely to last long.
Q2) What are the primary target markets for hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles? Are they focused on consumer applications, or are there other areas where hydrogen has big benefits over BEV such as farm tractors or long-haul trucking?
Q3) Are all of the hydrogen vehicle offerings fuel-cell-based or are some companies developing ICE hydrogen vehicles?
Q4) Are their any efficiency benefits of hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles over BEVs, or are they always less efficient?
Q5) How loud is the compressor in a home hydrogen fueling station?

I can only imagine that my beliefs (or biases) must be way off base here somewhere, or large companies like Honda and Toyota would not be investing so heavily in this area. Perhaps someone can explain the hydrogen economy idea in a way that makes sense even to RegGuheert!

Click to expand...

A couple of corrections. First, fuel cell cars are EVs, in fact the acronym for them is FCEV. Second, Hydrogen isn't a fuel, it's an energy carrier.

My opinion is that FCEVs won't make any sense energy, environment or cost-wise until we have cheap, on-site electrolysis from water, powered by renewables. We're quite a ways from having that, but judging by Green Car Congress there is at least some progress being made on getting catalyst costs down for the fuel cells themselves, by using cheaper materials. Whether any of those can be commercialized remains to be seen.

I could see renting a suitcase size FC to extend EV range as needed.
And if you think there is a lack of QC stations... good luck with hydrogen.
No fill up at home so that convenience does not exist.
Honda already has a hydrogen car and I can't imagine it is anything close to cost effective.

RegGuheert - I have been wondering the same thing, and here are some of my observations and speculations:

Q1.) They are electric vehicles so have all of the "clean" credentials without any range anxiety issues. According to DOE (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fcv_sbs.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false the Honda FCX Clarity gets 240 mile range. So for the mainstream ICE buying public, they are just like "regular" cars with respect to range, but instead of filling up with gasoline, you fill up with Hydrogen gas.

Q2.) I have only seen consumer vehicles

Q3.) I have read research from U.C. Riverside on Hydrogen ICE that was going on in the 90's - but I don't think that is the main focus now (speculation on my part)

Q4.) I'm not sure what you are asking here. The fuel cell catalyzes hyrdogen and generates electricity which powers the motor. So motor and drive train efficiency should be about the same. Are you asking if the energy density of hydrogen gas is lower than a battery? I'm not sure, but anecdotally the Honda FCX Clarity gets 240 mile range - so that is approximately 3x Leaf battery energy storage efficiency.

Q5.) Don't know.

I have been thinking that it would be very cool to have a Fuel Cell range extender in my Leaf - so for longer trips, I could fill up a range extender with Hydrogen, but leave it empty if I only needed the battery range.

Hydrogen stations run $1,000,000 -$2,000,000 each.

How many QC's would that buy?

Rental fuel cell range extender exchange stations is a great idea.

This is the sort of thing I think will be required, but it will take an order of magnitude improvement in costs, not just 1/3rd. From GCC:

"EPFL/Technion team develops “champion” nanostructures for efficient solar water-splitting to produce hydrogen"

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/07/epfl-20130715.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and here's an article about catalyst improvements:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/06/acal-20130627.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RegGuheert said:

...Q1) What do Toyota and Honda see as the primary selling points of hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles? I get that they can be refueled more quickly, but any lead in over BEVs in that area is not likely to last long....

Click to expand...

I'll wear my cynic's hat and say the reason for developing FCEVs is to scam CARB requirements for zero emission vehicles.

Why? Hydrogen is an impractical fuel. It takes a lot of energy to make and, H2 being about the least dense molecule around, a lot of energy to compress for storage. It is also a very small molecule and tends to escape through containment vessels and lines unless they are made from very sturdy and dense materials.

The main way H2 is made at present is to strip it from fossil fuels. If we are trying to get away from using fossil fuels, this doesn't seem too practical, but it is a big plus in its favor for oil and gas companies. The other way to make H2 is to crack water with electricity (electrolysis), which takes a huge amount of energy (something like 286kJ/mole — that's a lot). Then one has losses at all the usual compression, transportation, and refueling steps. When it comes to making H2 from electrolysis it would be more efficient to just put the electricity in a BEV and skip the whole hydrogen fuel cell step.

Hydrogen fuel cells were fine for the Apollo space program where cost was no object, but for ground transportation? Makes no sense at all. Hence my view that FCEVs are a scam intended to delay the impetus to electrify the auto fleet with BEVs. "We're working on FCEVs, be patient: just a few more years". It is a variant of the old joke: "FCEVs are only five years away from mass production... and always will be".

RegGuheert said:

Q4) Are their any efficiency benefits of hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles over BEVs, or are they always less efficient?

Click to expand...

As was mentioned before, this is a bit vague. However to try to answer the question, I think the comparison needs to be done from:

• hydrogen generation, or battery charging, to
  electricity generation

The hydrogen process and the battery charging process are very similar. In both cases, you have an ionic carrier.

In our LEAFs, we carry our lithium ions in the battery and create potential by charging with electricity.

In a hydrogen system, the hydrogen is the ionic carrier, and its external creation (via electrolysis or fossil fuel reformulation) is what creates the potential.

However the hydrogen process always adds some levels of cryogenics, transportation, and storage of a very volatile element. This alone means the hydrogen process has to be less efficient than the battery process which doesn't need these.

So I think if you look properly at it from potential creation to electricity generation, yes, hydrogen is always less efficient. Several studies have reported you could drive four times as far in a BEV as you could in a FCEV for the same amount of energy.

From BetterPlace:

You get many bonus CARB points because you can refuel as quickly as you can with any liquid fuel. Basically a fast fueling ZEV.

SanDust said:

You get many bonus CARB points because you can refuel as quickly as you can with any liquid fuel. Basically a fast fueling ZEV.

Click to expand...

BINGO!!!

7 credits per vehicle through 2017 for fast charging 300 mile range cars. If you ever wondered why Tesla called their car a 300 mile car (and Nissan calling the LEAF a 100 mile car), this is one of the HUGE reasons (CARB ZEV credit thresholds).

A hydrogen car could conceivably be a 7 credit car, hence Toyota can make far less hydrogen cars than the 2600 Rav4 EVs that they are making, and the same for Honda with the 1100 Fit EVs for model years 2012-2014.

Hydrogen is the dream car for 2015-2017 for lowest cost compliance.

Hydrogen is the dream car for 2015-2017 for lowest cost compliance.

Click to expand...

Uhh no, it will be the nightmare car, in terms of astounding cost.
If it were the dream car, Honda Clarity leases would exceed the Fit EV.

The hydrogen cars will be constrained to lease for no more than a low spec Tesla, but they will cost their makers much more to produce.

Hydrogen fuel cells are really not feasible when in comparison to EVs

- as some have mentioned is an energy carrier, meaning it will never be as dense or awesome in energy storage as a fossil fuel
- its dirty and difficult to make, if you use clean sources, the efficiency goes way south of being completely wasteful. All that talk of "but EVs get their electricty from dirty sources?" yea...making hydrogen will require more of it. Those that say - why not use electrolysis from solar power - because after you get the electricty only ~20-40% is actually converted to energy through electrolysis - you loose 60-80%! How efficient is that if you can just dump it into a battery thats ~85% effiecient.
- It adds an additional step in the fuel process, and with basic physics you always loose energy in transfers, it will never be as efficient as an EV: for an EV - generate electricity, charge & store in battery, use from battery. Fuel cell: generate electricity, make hydrogen, convert hydrogen to electricty and store in battery, use from battery. Why add the extra step - its a waste.
- Transport and logistics make our entire system worse. Pretending we actually have enough hydrogen stations, it takes 3 hydrogen semis to equal one fuel gas semi (due from the less energy dense hydrogen). You would triple the amount of heavy trucks on the roads - causing more traffic (that opens up a huge cost of congestion issue) and degrading roads at a faster rate, requiring more repair money we barely have.
- Hyrogen fuel cell vehicles produce on byproduct from the car - water and water vapor. Being someone who works in air quality, water vapor has a dirty secret: its a greenhouse gas and worse than CO2. Why its never discussed because its not man-made and we can't control it, CO2 is. BUT with FCs, it starts to become man made, meaning we are agrivating our climate change problems. If all current cars are replaced with FCs there has been discussion that this may cause a net increase in climate change problems since water vapor is a far more potent green house gas even though we probably would acculate less tons of overall green house gas (maybe, depending on how clean combustion cars get, we could generate more green house gases).

I think many of these car makers are deluding themselves into hydrogen. Fuel cells are the darling child of the car industry. For some reason, the public is enammered with it and its always seen as "THE future" for transportation - the pennicle. Car companies capitilize on that some. In addition they really want to keep the "status quo" as most people are resistant to change, most don't want to even try to make people change. That change is: I stop at a "gas station" fuel a car in a few minutes and can travel the long distance my car takes me and I can fuel up again anywhere quickly. EVs change all of that - you fuel at home and at locations instead of a "gas station," range is limited, fueling times are longer if you need to go farther. They are betting its too much of a hassel to change how we fuel our cars, and that EVs will never charge the speed of a gas car and will never equal the range. Fuel cells are the closest mirror to gas. Personally, I think its easier to change the process than betting on a very expenese future fuel that will only loose in the end to better efficieny and cleaner EVs. But they still think people won't chance and delude themselves that hydrogen is better.

On the subject of density, it's worth noting that there's more hydrogen in a gallon of diesel fuel than in a gallon of liquefied hydrogen. Problem is, they're bonded to Carbons so you have to break them off before you can use 'em. That means there's more net energy in the raw hydrogen, since you don't have to spend any energy breaking molecular bonds.

On the subject of efficiency, hydrogen only makes sense if you are already producing hydrogen for some other purpose, such as energy storage from wind/solar. It takes a goodly amount of energy to obtain the hydrogen, then to compress it for storage, and even more if you decide to continue on and liquefy it. Compressed hydrogen is about the same as CNG: 3600PSI for vehicle tanks, nominal. If you intend to use your electricity as a vehicle "fuel" then it makes much more sense to cut out the middleman and use a battery EV... but if you're making the hydrogen anyway you may as well tap that resource.

On the subject of infrastructure, the US basically has none for hydrogen. We have massive and pervasive distribution systems for liquid and gaseous fuels, and electricity, but nothing for hydrogen which is a special beast. I'd prefer we take the hydrogen and proceed to methane from there, as we already have everything we need in place to distribute, store and use it.

On the subject of water being a greenhouse gas: True, but there is a physical limit on how much water vapor the atmosphere can hold, which is reached all the time naturally.... and then it rains. But on the flip side, having the relative humidity of an inner city area be close to 100% all the time would be murderous.

On the subject of CARB compliance: it's sad that a company would strive merely for compliance, and not use the opportunity to make a move to stand out in the industry. Despite their fumblings I still have to give Nissan credit for making an effort to be more than merely compliant.
=Smidge=

Hi all,
This section is very helpful in gathering details about the benefits of hydrogen cars. Thanks for sharing this type of useful and informative articles..

Hydrogen is a scam. It has no benefit to the consumer outside of being zero emissions, and the market for that was small enough already.

being that a FCEV car is likely to be very expensive, lets compare it with the Tesla Model S to see which one wins:

• Driving Range - its about a wash between the two.
• Acceleration Performance - Tesla Wins
• Cost of Fuel - Tesla Wins
• Cost of the car - Tesla Wins
• Environmentally Friendly - Probably a wash depending on how you calculate it.
• Time to refuel - Tesla Wins (using battery swap) Supercharger isn't that much further behind.
• Fueling Infrastructure - Tesla Wins

So I've yet to see a compelling argument as to how or why a FCEV would be better than an EV. Having said that, it is obvious why some entities want to keep teasing the consumer with the idea - it takes their attention away from the EV. I've heard many arguments that "the EV is like Betamax, don't waste your money. Fuel Cells are right around the corner." This is intended to instill a fear to people that the EV may be a short lived product, replaced by this fantastic hydrogen future. But its a lie. Will never happen. Before Tesla came along, there might have been a grim hope that FCEV vehicles would see the light of day. But now that Tesla has raised the bar for EVs, there is no way to put the cat back in the bag. FCEV has no future unless they can reduce the cost of the car by an order of magnitude, and also reduce the cost of making the fuel by an order of magnitude.

Smidge204 said:

On the subject of water being a greenhouse gas: True, but there is a physical limit on how much water vapor the atmosphere can hold, which is reached all the time naturally.... and then it rains. But on the flip side, having the relative humidity of an inner city area be close to 100% all the time would be murderous.

Click to expand...

ICE cars already produce copious amounts of water vapor, but probably more per mile for a Hydrogen car...

Nubo said:

ICE cars already produce copious amounts of water vapor, but probably more per mile for a Hydrogen car...

Click to expand...

Burning a gallon of gasoline produces ~7 pounds of water (and 20 pounds of CO2). Burning/reacting one GGE of hydrogen produces ~20 pounds of water. The Honda FCX gets 74 miles per GGE, which is generously twice that of a decent ICEV, so a FCEV would produce ~1.5x the water per mile.

You learn something new every day!
=Smidge=

adric22 said:

Hydrogen is a scam. It has no benefit to the consumer outside of being zero emissions, and the market for that was small enough already.

being that a FCEV car is likely to be very expensive, lets compare it with the Tesla Model S to see which one wins:

• Driving Range - its about a wash between the two.
• Acceleration Performance - Tesla Wins
• Cost of Fuel - Tesla Wins
• Cost of the car - Tesla Wins
• Environmentally Friendly - Probably a wash depending on how you calculate it.
• Time to refuel - Tesla Wins (using battery swap) Supercharger isn't that much further behind.
• Fueling Infrastructure - Tesla Wins

Click to expand...

Hydrogen 300 mile range car gets 7 CARB-ZEV credits per vehicle through 2017, and so does far more sexy and capable Tesla Model S.

It's a tie... the only metric that really matters to the manufacturers. Plus, Tesla will sell 100,000 Model S cars (or more) and Toyota and Honda combined won't sell more than a few thousand FEV total through 2017.

HUGE WIN for Toyota/Honda!!!!

So, help me get this right: hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles are being developed by major auto makers to leverage CARB credit requirements more efficiently, and probably not for any other reason, save "green" PR bragging rights. Is that about it? The same reason Tesla may (or may not) implement battery-swapping?

Don't wanna go off the deep end into the pool of cynicism, but it's better to see things as they are, right?

adric22 said:

..
being that a FCEV car is likely to be very expensive, lets compare it with the Tesla Model S to see which one wins:

• Driving Range - its about a wash between the two.
• Acceleration Performance - Tesla Wins
• Cost of Fuel - Tesla Wins
• Cost of the car - Tesla Wins
• Environmentally Friendly - Probably a wash depending on how you calculate it.
• Time to refuel - Tesla Wins (using battery swap) Supercharger isn't that much further behind.
• Fueling Infrastructure - Tesla Wins

..

Click to expand...

Couple more..

• Powertrain longevity - Tesla Wins

I say this because there's good evidence now that Tesla batteries last a long time, and fuel cells have historically been plagued by premature "poisoning" due to fuel that is not 100% pure.

"If even minute quantities of carbon monoxide are present in that gas, it can poison the platinum catalysts that are key to driving the fuel cell."

Click to expand...

• Accident Safety - Tesla Wins

With any battery, you can have a short that leads to a fire, but test cases (NHTSA Volt example) show that this happens slowly enough to give the drivers some time to exit safely. And we have some real-world accidents we can look at which seem to confirm this.

With hydrogen, you have the tremendous pressure of the tank, and the fact that hydrogen burns invisibly.

With batteries you can have a stationary vehicle catch fire (eg.. parked Fiskers), but most cases seem to have been due to manufacturing flaws.

With hydrogen, you have the possibility of manufacturing flaws as well, but you also have the inevitable leaks that will arise due to seals failing, etc.. Fuel cell facilities have to use buildings that are designed a certain way to allow escaped H2 to vent properly, and not pool at the ceiling.