Michael Barnard is a racist, and it is disgusting that he is resorting to anti-Japanese rhetoric as a way to attack hydrogen
Perhaps many people here know who Michael Barnard is. He's an idiotic Tesla fanboy who has no credentials whatsoever with regards to energy topics, and seems to have found a market for writing pseudoscientific rants against hydrogen. But as his credibility collapses and with very few bothering to listen to him, he has taken a new direction as a way of rationalizing his views: Outright racism.
Just like his cult leader Elon Musk, he is resorting to using extreme right-wing arguments as a way to deny reality. In this case, one cannot continue believing that widespread adoption of hydrogen is impossible while also witnessing large government and commercial projects doing just that. But instead of admitting a mistake, he is resorting to conspiracy theories as an explanation for why reality doesn't conform to his views. Eventually, this type of cognitive dissonance will lead you to the "Fox News" territory of reporting.
It starts off with a weird attack focused mainly on attacking Japanese history and it uses that as a jumping-off point for attacking Japanese culture. It then rambles on for a long time before it even gets to the point where it is criticizing hydrogen, but nearly as a side argument to all of the Japanese stereotypes and sweeping generalizations he is expressing. It legitimately resembles one of those antisemitic polemics you might have read in history classes. The whole thing is just a big racist rant.
So the conclusion is pretty straightforward: Michael Bernard is a racist, and is using racist rhetoric and is propagating Japanese stereotypes as a way to justify his views against hydrogen. He is also not the only one, as you sometimes run into other people who use similar tactics to explain away why Japan, among many other countries, is investing in hydrogen. Everyone here should be aware of this kind of tactic, and do not be shy in calling out racist language when you see it.
An overlooked fact: Hydrogen pipelines are cheaper than HVDC at transferring energy
There seems to be no end to the discussion over hydrogen as part of the green energy transition. But a number of facts always get overlooked in this discussion, and mostly it is due to the dishonesty of the anti-hydrogenists. In short, people have a vested interest in seeing hydrogen fail, so they are prone to simply spread lies about hydrogen. One of them is cost of distribution: It is fundamental cheaper to move hydrogen around than electricity [1]. In fact, the advantage can be steep:
Purely from a transport perspective, it is shown that hydrogen pipelines are less costly than HVDC cables over very long distances (> 740 km) [17, 18, 19]. However, Semeraro and Taieb & Shabaan [18, 19] assume that hydrogen is converted back to electricity at the end of its transportation, which incurs extra energy losses. On the other hand, Franco et al. [20] find that when hydrogen is sold to end users, pipeline costs become less than HVDC cables at distances between 150-250 km from land.
In other words, it make sense to move energy around in the form of hydrogen pipelines. At long enough distances, it even makes sense to convert electricity to hydrogen and back again than to bother with HVDC lines. And if the purpose is for something that directly needs hydrogen, then hydrogen pipelines make sense even at relatively short distances. This is already proving itself as a viable solution for distributing energy from off-shore wind power (see ref [1]).
This is a huge deal, and means that in the future, much of the "grid" will consist of moving around hydrogen in pipelines rather than bothering with more power connections. And if we project into the future, and assume significant improvements in hydrogen production and utilization, then hydrogen pipelines will make sense for shorter and shorter distances. The electrical grid will only be necessary for very short-ranged connections, possibly even to the point of only making sense for microgrid-level distances.
And if all of this is true, then hydrogen fundamentally replaces our conventional notion of what a grid is. Even BEVs will be charging with hydrogen generated power much of time, if not the overwhelming majority of the time. This is also why hydrogen fuel cell cars make sense. They are simply being powered by the new energy transfer and storage mechanism of the grid that will happen in the future.
It also means many of the other use cases for hydrogen, such as for heating or cooking purposes, hold real viability. Most of the attacks on hydrogen just assume it will be made on top of an electricity grid, and therefore having two stages of inefficiency. But in reality this could be reversed, as the grid will run on hydrogen much of the time if not nearly all of the time. So hydrogen could have a wide range of viable uses, include things that the critics specifically claim are impossible or undesirable.
Why BEVs are not meaningfully more efficient than other kinds of green cars (even if you assume everything they say about BEVs is true!)
Conclusion
So long story short, BEVs are not as efficient as their advocates claim they are. In fact, once you really dig down into the numbers and look at how efficiency really works, those claims quickly fall apart or at least become very underwhelming. To reiterate the main points, a BEV only saves 27% more fuel compared to a hybrid as a percentage of the fuel a conventional car uses. And only 16% when compared to an FCEV under the same situation. That is the result of the law of diminishing returns.
And when you look at the upfront emissions of the battery and compare that to the same for hybrids or FCEVs, you quickly find out that you need to drive an absurd amount of miles to make up for it. Over 168,000 miles over a hybrid and a nutty 300,000 miles over an FCEV! Even with 100% green electricity, it is still over 73,000 and 90,000 miles respectively. And that of course ignores the possibility of green fuel such as eFuels or green hydrogen.
In the end, this proves my point that producing BEVs is just wasting resources on the pursuit of small efficiencies. A classic example of throwing good money after bad. And all of this comes from just accepting the optimistic numbers for BEVs without challenging them. I made it point to not question those numbers. Meaning that even if you accept all of the boisterous claims make by BEV fans, you still get a lousy result. And if you do challenge those claims, in particular when looking at cold weather performance, or the need for energy storage to back up renewable energy, or the environmental damage that mining for battery related minerals causes, or even just excess weight and tire wear, the argument for BEVs really begins to fall short.
Why BEVs are not meaningfully more efficient than other kinds of green cars (even if you assume everything they say about BEVs is true!)
Part II: The amount of emissions generated by battery production
Now at this point, some BEV fan might come in and say: "It's still the most efficient car! Might as well get the most efficient one regardless!" This however ignores one major problem: The amount of emissions generated by battery production. Now, you might have heard this argument before, and it's usually dismissed by someone claiming that "it is a tiny thing, and it pays itself back after just a few years of driving!" But this claim misses a major point. This is only true when compared to conventional cars that are highly inefficient. When compared to other green cars, that payback period is much longer. If you understood the first half of this post, then you'll will realize this is not going to happen so fast. I will compare the BEV to the FCEV and hybrid.
First, we need to figured out how much upfront emissions a BEV produces as part of its battery production. To do that, I will take the difference in battery capacity and multiple by CO₂ per kWh of capacity. I will use the Model 3 as a stand-in since many EVs have about the same battery capacity. The Model 3 LR has a battery capacity of 78.1 kWh [1] and I will assume that both the hybrid and FCEV will have 1.5 kWh (which is close to the real numbers). Or a difference of 76.6 kWh. Li-ion batteries apparently have a emissions of 150 - 200 kg-CO₂ per kWh of capacity [2].
To ensure that I stay impartial, I will use just the low end of this figure, 150 kg-CO₂ per kWh, because someone will simply accuse the higher numbers of being too high. Also, it works as a way to hedge against the argument that I am missing the emission numbers for the production of components found exclusively in the hybrid or FCEV. If someone brings that part up, I can point out that I am using the low end of the range for battery production and that it is being generous to the BEV. Ultimately, this gives us 11,490 kg-CO₂ more upfront emissions when compared to the other two cars.
Next is to figure out how much CO₂ these vehicles emit per mile of driving. To do that, we must find out how dirty each source of energy is, and divide that by the MPG/MPGe figures of each type of car. I will use these numbers [3] [4]. Again, I will not challenge them and I will accept them as is nor will I will try to use any fudge factors. The goal is to be impartial again. Electricity is grid electricity, gasoline is conventional gasoline, and hydrogen is gray hydrogen. Like in part I, I will convert to GGE (33.7 kWh/gallon) where convenient. Also, the figure for gray hydrogen is converted from 9.3 kg-CO₂/kg-H₂.
Electricity production in the US averages 0.371 kg-CO₂/kWh, or 12.5 kg-CO₂/GGE
Gray hydrogen is 9.4 kg-CO₂/GGE
Gasoline is 8.78 kg-CO₂/gallon
When combined with the MPG/MPGe figures of each car, you will get this:
Type of car
MPG/MPGe
CO₂ per gallon/GGE
CO₂ emitted per mile
BEV
141
12.5 kg
88.7 grams
FCEV
74
9.4 kg
127 grams
Hybrid
56
8.78 kg
157 grams
Now that we have the CO₂ emitted per mile, now we can figure how long it takes for a BEV to make up the upfront emissions of the battery via driving. The result is the following: Compared to the hybrid, it will take (11,490 kg) / ((157 - 88.7) grams) = 168,228 miles of driving! Compared to the FCEV, it will take (11,490 kg) / ((127 - 88.7) grams) = 300,000 miles of driving!
Those are ridiculous figures! You will need to drive an insane amount of miles to make up for the battery in the BEV! This is especially notable when comparing the BEV to the FCEV. Your BEV battery might not last long enough to see 300,000 miles, and therefore it might never happen. And in any case that is going to be more than 20 years of driving for most people. Even if you can get 100% green electricity, this still takes the following amount of miles: (11,490 kg) / ((157 - 0) grams) = 73,185 miles versus the hybrid, and (11,490 kg) / ((127 - 0) grams) = 90,472 miles versus the FCEV.
Those are still big miles, and suggest that break-even is still a long ways off even in the ideal situation. And of course, if you can assume 100% green electricity, it becomes fair to assume green fuels (such as eFuels) or green hydrogen as a point of comparison. In that scenario, break-end never happens.
Why BEVs are not meaningfully more efficient than other kinds of green cars (even if you assume everything they say about BEVs is true!)
Part I: The law of diminishing returns
So for a while now, BEV advocates have endless extolled the supposed superior efficiency of BEVs. I'm sure everyone reading this post have at least heard of that argument. What people haven't realize is that this is only true when compared to conventional ICE vehicles. It is not true against other green cars such as hybrids or fuel cell cars. Now, most people who support hydrogen cars already know that the efficiency of BEVs have been exaggerated. But that is not the point of this post. The point is that even if you assume everything they say about BEVs is true, it is still not meaningful more efficient!
The reason being is simple: The law of diminishing returns. The problem is that there is only so much useful efficiency that can be extracted. Only so much waste to be eliminated. Beyond a certain point, you are spending more resources pursuing efficiency than you get back via that efficiency (more on that in part II). This is analogous to the classic example of throwing good money after bad.
To explain what I mean, let's list the efficiency numbers of BEVs, FCEVs, and hybrids when compared to the average car being sold in the US. All of these numbers are pulled directly from the EPA numbers. In fact, I am pulling the highest numbers I can find. I am simply taking them as is, and I make no qualms over how valid they are. This is to ensure that this is done impartially. The only thing to note is that I'm comparing MPGe to MPG, using the assumption that 1 gallon of gasoline is 33.7 kWh (this is a standard assumption):
A BEV with a fuel economy of 141 MPGe
An FCEV with an 74 MPGe
A hybrid with an 56 MPG
A conventional car with an 25 MPG (this is the average fuel economy of new cars sold in the US)
At first glance, the BEV looks significantly more efficient than the rest. But people who are familiar with this terminology will know that it is the wrong way to look at it. The better way to measure it is via amount of fuel consumed per distance. In Europe, this is usually defined as L/100km. For this example, I will use a different one for convenience sake: Gallons per 1000 miles, or GGE (gallons of gasoline equivalent) where applicable:
Type of car
MPG/MPGe
Gallons/GGE per 1000 miles
BEV
141
7.09
FCEV
74
13.51
Hybrid
56
17.86
Conventional car
25
40
When you list things like this, you immediately can tell how much fuel you are really saving. And by doing it this way, you should notice something: The biggest jump is going from a conventional car to the hybrid, a savings of 22.14 gallons per 1000 miles. The FCEV and BEV nets you a decrease of 26.49 and 32.91 GGE per 1000 miles respectively. These later drops are comparatively smaller than the first. But the real interesting part is how minor the suppose big increase in efficiency at the top of the chart really becomes. As a percentage of how much fuel the conventional car is using, the BEV is only saving 27% when compared to the hybrid. And compared to the FCEV, it is just a paltry 16%!
This is the law of diminishing returns in action. You already saved more than half of the maximum possible fuel savings with just the jump to the hybrid. The rest is just gravy and not really that big of a deal. This is also the reverse of what many BEV fans have said. They are often adamant that BEVs have this giant efficiency gap, but rarely do the mention that the competition is already very efficient and further improvements net you very little in terms of actual gains.
Finally, he ends his article with a rather ridiculous counterexample: Flex-fuel cars that can run on both gasoline and ethanol. The problem is that ethanol is not an environmentally friendly idea. Furthermore, since it is dependent on corn production it is entirely non-scalable. We will have to utterly destroy the environment to have enough land to make enough ethanol, not to mention driving the world to mass hunger. Furthermore, agriculture is quite carbon-intensive, so biofuels do very little and reducing CO₂ emissions.
As an aside, this just reminds me of just how dumb green energy policy has been in the past, and in fact still is. The modern obsession with BEVs is just a repeat of the flex-fuel car idea. Just with metal mines replacing farmland expansion, and wishful thinking about a green grid replacing wishful thinking about green biofuels.
The only real point he has correctly made is that retrofitting existing cars to run on a new hydrocarbon fuel is a lot simpler than building up a new infrastructure. But advancements in chemistry has presented us with a major new trick on this matter: the ability to make synthetic gasoline from green hydrogen and CO₂ pulled from the air. So even if this is the solution, the hydrogen economy will simply transition to making synfuels instead of directly powering cars with hydrogen.
I recently read this article "The Hydrogen Hoax" by Robert Zubrin published on New Atlantis.
As someone new to studying the hydrogen economy, the argument against using hydrogen power as presented seems compelling.
Does anyone have a link to a rebuttal to that article in particular, or a document that would give lie to some critical support to it's argument?
Thanks in advance!
A lot of what he wrote in that article is very outdated. This might have held up in 2007, but by now it's just laughably incorrect. In particular, much of what he's saying are based on economic assumptions and not physical laws. Unfortunately, the last 14 years have proven much of that wrong. BTW, physicists can be notoriously bad at analyzing costs.
To give an example, he has made the claim that a 1.9 MW electrolyzer will cost around $10M, or about $5263/kW. Modern electrolyzers are around 1/10th this cost. Future electrolyzers are likely to go below $200/kW (Reference 1). The same can be said of his even more absurd estimates for fuel cell costs. He's claiming that it will cost $7,000/kW to make a PEMFC, and that "it has proven impossible to cut the cost of such systems..." In fact, as of last year the cost of PEMFCs, even with maintenance and durability issues taken into account, have dropped to $76/kW (Reference 2). This is about 2 orders of magnitude off, and shows just how dreadful his cost calculations really are. The rest of his economics analyses are similarly off, and can be easily dismissed by anyone who bothers to check his numbers.
Another thing he is doing is while explaining how something might be accomplished, he then says at the last moment "but this will never happen." The two obvious examples I've noticed are the use of carbon fiber tanks and hydrogen pipelines. Both of which he dismissed as being too expensive or too dangerous, but those are exactly what we're implementing on a large scale today.
I've already debunked his crazy cost claims, but it is still unclear why he's insists that those ideas are too dangerous. My guess is that aerospace engineers are simply not safety engineers. Hydrogen tanks are no more dangerous than gas tanks, and arguably safer since thick layers of carbon fiber are much more durable than thin steel sheets. Hydrogen also dissipates much faster than gasoline, making fires less concerning. Hydrogen pipelines have been used for decades and are no more dangerous than natural gas pipelines. Fearmongering about hydrogen embrittlement shows a lack of real-world experience and historical analysis. He also did not realize that hydrogen-resistant linings are possible, meaning that nearly all concerns over this issue can be made irrelevant.
He is also clearly not an chemical engineer. He makes an interesting claim that a hydrogen will need much thicker pipes and require significantly more energy to be transported when compared to natural gas. He bases this on the fact that hydrogen has about 1/3rd the energy density of natural gas. What he is unaware of is that hydrogen has much lower flow viscosity compared to natural gas. In an equal diameter pipe, the amount of hydrogen you can push through it is very similar to that of natural gas(Reference 3). Hydrogen simply flows much faster at a given pressure when compared to natural gas, mostly eliminating this concern.
Personal observation: We are witnessing the beginning of the end of the BEV Pt. 2
Technologies in a position of strength don't generate this type of reaction as no one takes the challenger seriously. After all, no one expects typewriters to replace computers or vinyl to replace streaming audio. Even if those technologies did have a resurgence it's often greeted as a kind of nostalgic revival or a fad. Only technologies that are seriously threatened generate this type of fearful response. And going by that reaction, we can safely say that BEVs are being very badly threatened.
Case in point, even when the topic of hydrogen is brought in something completely unrelated to cars, such as steel production or grid energy storage, someone inevitably says something to the effect of "this is great, but hydrogen won't work in cars" or "this is the niche that hydrogen belongs in, not cars." As if no one notices this unprompted and very Freudian response to an unrelated subject. Just going by their psychological reactions, you can clearly tell that hydrogen in cars is something that they're subconsciously upset about.
The conclusion from all this is that we are likely witnessing the beginning of the end of the BEV. There's so little real progress in batteries, (ignore the BS you hear about magic batteries from the future) and so much progress in fuel cell and related technologies that it seems obvious that society is going to shift away from BEVs. Combined the lack of any real reason why this can't happen with the many good reason why it should, there should be huge societal motivation for this to happen. So instead of living deeper in denial, perhaps it's time more people embraced the idea of FCEVs taking over the car world and simply accept the benefits of such a shift.
Personal observation: We are witnessing the beginning of the end of the BEV Pt. 1
Every time the conversation of BEV vs FCEV comes up I'm always greeted by the same, stale, decade-plus old arguments. They're always are in the form of how there's no infrastructure, or that a specific measure of efficiency is the only thing that matters, or that the lead is so massive that it could never be overcome. None of these claims are true and all of them have been debunked many times now. Not only that, they are mirrors of the criticisms made against BEVs themselves in the past. Meaning that these people are not only just wrong, they're playing the same role as climate change deniers and old-fashioned naysayers of the past.
I'm not going to go into all of the minor details regarding this debate, as it's both tedious and filled with complex subjects that not everyone can understand. I will only briefly go over the basics: First is that the infrastructure for hydrogen refueling and distribution is rapidly growing. At this rate, we should be seeing benefits of economies of scale soon. This should mean that hydrogen will be both widely available and cheap. Talk of $1.50/kg by 2025 would imply that hydrogen will be as cheap if not cheaper than BEVs to own.
The second is that the advocates of BEVs are distorting the meaning of efficiency and that this distorted version has very little meaning in the real world. They're not talking about full life-cycle efficiency or the energy needed to move a passenger or shipment of goods. Instead, they're focusing exclusively on the ability to turn input energy into kinetic energy, ignore all other factors like weight of the vehicle or driving in non-ideal weather. This is a highly reductive definition of efficiency that very few people care about. Cost and practicality are far more important. Even then, as electrolyzers and fuel cells improve in efficiency, this reductive argument is likely to become wrong eventually. Furthermore, most users of this argument have failed to realize that this we aren't facing any kind of shortage of green energy. So they are demanding that we optimize for a problem that doesn't need to be solve.
And finally, the notion that BEV have any kind of lead or even any kind of staying power is completely silly. Only about 1% of the cars in the world are plug-in vehicles of some kind, and there are numerous types of transportation needs that batteries are totally incapable of meeting. This is most notable in areas such as long-haul trucking, ships, planes and trains. There are so many sectors where BEVs are nowhere to be found and only a few sectors were they see any success at all. In fact, in some areas companies are switching from batteries to fuel cells, such as in the forklift industry, simple because the benefits of fuel cells surpass that of batteries. So it doesn't take long to realize we only require that FCEVs become better vehicles than BEVs for their supposedly insurmountable "lead" to fall apart. If anything, FCEVs can displace BEVs rapidly.
Which takes me to the central point that I am trying to make: When advocates of a technology are only citing old or irrelevant facts, playing the role of naysayers or even luddites, and are regularly caught lying or distorting facts, it usually means we are seeing the end of that technology. Just like supporters of the Blackberry or Windows Phone raged against the iPhone, pro-BEV supporters are raging against FCEVs. And in both phones and cars the reaction from opposing fans really means that they are secretly afraid of the incoming new technology.
Personal Observation: The loudest pro-BEV advocates are secretly climate change deniers (2nd Edition) Pt. 2
And finally, they've show no interest in solving problems that can't be solved with batteries, even if it kills people. And I do mean that last part. Dozens of people died in the cold snap in February of this year, mostly due to the failing power grid that can't generate enough electricity in the cold. The same is true of the heat waves of late last year, where air conditioning demands exceeded the grid's ability to power them. These problems simply can't be solved by batteries or more electrification. However, none of these issues are ever address by the loudest pro-BEV advocates. Even worse, any real solutions that people do bring up are immediately dismissed, often in a manner that is highly unscientific. It is as if they rather see people die than to question batteries. Which brings up a major issue: How can you serious about global warming if you don't care to save anyone in it? It's seems doubtful such callous people have any real concern about the environment.
There is however, one thing that is highly consistent with their behavior. That is, their behavior is highly consistent with pure greed. If you see them as people who just want to get rich or famous, and don't care how it happens, then things make a lot more sense. It would explain why they aren't concerned about the poor or people with different lifestyles. It also explains their personal lifestyles which is highly environmentally unfriendly. And finally they only care for solutions that benefit BEVs or batteries because it benefits their bottom line. Their pro-BEV behavior is really just to defend their investments or the businesses they own, and often nothing more. At best, they're ambivalent about climate change and they put their personal goals above it.
Anyways, if there is a conclusion to this rant, it's that these people are simply not allies in the fight against climate change. If anything, they are an obstacle to serious solutions to fight climate change. People who are serious about fighting climate change should have a very different set of beliefs. They should be able to change their minds if the facts don't suit their existing worldview. They should be able to accept ideas that have been shunned by other groups, like nuclear power or fuel cells. That's because this is a pure physical and scientific problem where public opinion is not an authority. Furthermore, they should be able to abandoned ideas that clearly won't work, even if there are greedy investors who insist that they will. And finally, they should be more concerned about helping people along them way, not about forcing morals onto others. That's because fighting climate change is not about getting rich or famous, but rather about providing greener ways for people to live their lives. This means green technology need to adapt to needs of the masses, not the other way around.
Personal Observation: The loudest pro-BEV advocates are secretly climate change deniers (2nd Edition) Pt. 1
This is an updated version of a previous post.
I've noticed that the biggest pro-BEV advocates have a weird tendency towards climate change denial. At the very least, they are not particularly interested in fighting it, and often abandon the cause as soon as its convenient for them. Instead, their motivation seems to come from elsewhere. This is based off of a few years of observing what they say and how they act. Although this claim might initially seem to be ridiculous, I have good reason to think that this is case. I've observed three main reasons why someone who is extremely pro-BEV would really not be a believer in climate change.
I'll start with a caveat: This is clearly not about everybody who believe in BEVs. Only those who are ideologically obsessed with them, or behave as if they were members of a cult. Basically, only those who worship BEVs are the ones guilty of this. There are probably many casual fans of BEVs who don't act like this. This is not about them. It is about those who have major contradictions in their beliefs.
The first reason is that they are oblivious to people who's circumstances aren't the same as their own. For instance, blue collar workers who need trucks or heavily equipment to do their jobs are just ignored. Same is true of poor people who live in apartments or multi-family buildings and don't have access to charging. None of these people can easily switch to battery powered cars. Instead, their needs are ignored or handwaved away, often with ridicule or mockery. This type of behavior will ensure that only a minority of people will ever switch to BEVs. In the end, they act like owning a BEV is a privilege, and people who can own one are shunned. It's hard to square this type of behavior with a belief system that actually cares about climate change.
The next is that they tend to lives lavish lifestyle, and only use their BEV as a way to "virtue signal." This is partly due to the fact that they tend to be upper-middle to upper-class individuals, and live lives consistent with that demographic. That means big houses with big carbon footprints, usually filled with expensive and environmentally harmful purchases like big TVs or expensive clothes. The most extreme examples are the ones who own private jets and fly around the world. Even the modest members of this group still buy multiple cars and seem more obsessed with the amount of horsepower in their car rather than the energy efficiency of them. The only time they do seem concerned with the environment is to shown off when everyone is looking. Basically, they're just paying lip-service to the environmental cause, primarily to deflect from their non-environmentally friendly lifestyle. Ultimately, it's hard to overlook the excesses of the lifestyles of these people and still believe these are serious advocates of climate change.
Personal Observation: Fuel cells are a type of battery, and could easily displace other types of batteries Pt. 2
So the conclusion is simple: Fuel cells will eventually do anything lithium-ion batteries can do with basically no exceptions, while also having all the upside of being able to fill up a tank of fuel akin to gasoline or diesel. This is truly the best of both worlds. There are few if any downsides here. Sure, people can beat around the bush and say that there are good reasons why this can't happen anytime soon. But that's ultimately an irrelevant argument since we've clearly shifted from a matter of "if" to a matter of "when."
And if we can reach that point in the conversation then it's also obvious that it's suicide to go all-in on lithium-ion batteries. It would be like investing in the early 2000s and you had a crystal ball, and you knew that the iPhone was going to come out. You clearly wouldn't invest much in the Blackberries or the Nokias of the world since you would know they only had a few good years left.
Perhaps a real-world example of this is what happened to physical media like CDs, DVDs and Blu-rays. Even when DVDs and Blu-rays were still relatively new technologies everyone knew that streaming media will eventually win. I think we are reaching that point with BEVs now. Everyone should realize that FCEVs will win out eventually too. In the former, smart companies understood this and planned their investments appropriately. Smart companies in transportation should be starting to reach the same conclusion with the latter as well, and should also plan appropriately.
Personal Observation: Fuel cells are a type of battery, and could easily displace other types of batteries Pt. 1
Some months ago, I had a discussion with a pro-BEV† fan. The subject was over future battery technology, in particular the potential of metal-air batteries. Now, I'm sure the guy was totally confident that BEVs are "the future," and that fuel cells couldn't possibly play anything but a minor role in this. One reason he was so confidence was that metal-air batteries potentially offered such a massive leap forward over what is possible with current batteries. He basically said something to the effect that "if we had batteries with over 1000 watt-hours per kilogram, it would totally changed the world!" I'm pretty sure he wrote that with a gleeful face, because in his mind this was an unbeatable argument against hydrogen fuel cells.
Unfortunately, he made a rather serious error in his analysis. Because you see, hydrogen fuel cells are metal-air batteries. More precisely, they're a type of flow battery that involve hydrogen and air, and the hydrogen playing the role of the metal. Since hydrogen is the lightest element, this also happens to have the highest theoretical energy density of any battery type too (around 40,000 watt-hours per kilogram). Even going with practical designs that exist today, we're still well past 1000 watt-hours per kilogram. Or in other words, the revolutionary battery that will change the world already exists and has existed for decades. It's just something BEV fans have totally dismissed this entire time.
So once you realize that there's no difference between what we consider to be batteries and fuel cells, you should also realize that there's no reason for fuel cells to have any kind of unavoidable disadvantage. We've heard a litany of supposed "facts" about the limitations of fuel cell technology, but absolutely none of them have to exist. Everything you can do with li-ion batteries, such as home recharging or fast accelerating cars, can also be done using fuel cells instead. It's just a matter of thinking about the problem as if fuel cells are a kind of electrochemical system and not some exotic combustion process.
Of course, you do tend to hear some of the truly Luddite nonsense about hydrogen, like that hydrogen will always explode like the "Hindenburg" or that fuel cells are ridiculously complicated. None of that is remotely true, as hydrogen is extremely safe if handled properly and fuel cells are very straightforward devices. There's no point in even bothering to answer all of those dumb questions, and the simplest solution is usually to just call them for what they are: Luddites, naysayers, old-fashioned fogeys, or people stuck in the past.
The only argument of that nature that maybe holds water is the argument that fuel cells are somehow "inefficient." Their position is that in the future, we'll naturally gravitate towards the most efficient solution for all things. If fuel cells are less efficient than lithium-ion batteries, then the conclusion is that they can't be the part of the future. This of course ignores two problems: The first is that there are many definitions of efficiency and energy efficiency is just one of them. With hydrogen, you ultimately end up using just using water and air, whereas with nearly anything else you'll require a vast increase in mining metals that aren't nearly as plentiful. A solution that uses extremely plentiful materials is going to be much more efficient than anything that uses rarer materials under that metric.
The second point is that since fuel cells technically are batteries, they aren't really limited in energy efficiency either. Sure, given the current state of fuel cell technology there are limitations. But these limitations don't need to exist in the long-term. In fact, according to this paper, the theoretical limit of fuel cell efficiency is 100%, or basically the same as any other type of battery. You might have heard other sources like Wikipedia‡ claim that it is less than this, but those claims are based on fundamental misunderstandings. Many people, including even well-educated ones like physicists, have made the false conclusion that fuel cells are a kind of combustion engine. As a result, they've generated all sorts of invalid figures like 83%, or 85-90%, or 94% or whatever. None of them are correct. It's 100% and that's the clear-cut answer.
† For clarity's sake, "BEVs" refers to lithium-ion powered cars unless I state otherwise.
‡ Wikipedia's articles on fuel cells and related subjects are total garbage. Not only are they biased, they have made factual errors regarding fundamental physics. Someone really need to bring these issues up with the editors at Wikipedia and force them to fix those errors.
People who oppose hydrogen because they are financially threatened by it are literal Luddites
It's the original definition of Luddism: They were textile workers who opposed textile machines because they felt their jobs were threatened. With hydrogen, it is now people who have jobs related to batteries or BEVs, or perhaps they have investments in those same companies, who are threatened. If their opposition to hydrogen originates from this, then they are literal Luddites.
It's an interesting factual note once you read about the history of Luddism. So it's not a slur to use it against them. In fact it's the most accurate description of the loudest critics of hydrogen.
We have already reached cost parity between hydrogen and gasoline in many cases
This might come as a surprise to many, but the cost of refueling a hydrogen car is basically the same as a gasoline car of a similar spec in places where both fuels are available. And this is true right now. That's because hydrogen in California costs $13.14/kg† with newer stations. Regular gasoline in California costs $4.095‡ on average. Premium gasoline costs $4.399‡. Since the Mirai gets 74 miles per kilogram, that's approximately $0.1776 per mile of driving. Compare this to various RWD gasoline cars and it is basically the same. Here is the chart:
Car
Fuel Economy††
Cost of fuel
Cost per mile
2021 Toyota Mirai
74
$13.14 (H₂)
$0.1776
2021 Kia Stinger 2.0L
25
$4.399 (Premium)
$0.1760
2021 Chrysler 300 3.6L
23
$4.095 (Regular)
$0.1780
2021 BMW 530i
28
$4.399 (Premium)
$0.1571
2021 Mercedes-Benz E350
25
$4.399 (Premium)
$0.1760
2021 Genesis G80
26
$4.399 (Premium)
$0.1692
2021 Infiniti Q50
23
$4.399 (Premium)
$0.1913
I think the facts speak for themselves. Refueling a Mirai is basically the same cost as refueling any of the above RWD large sedans. And since many of these cars are luxury cars, the up-front cost is the same or worse for those cases (Mirai starts at $50k, less than many luxury cars). In other words, among the luxury car segment fuel cell cars already have a similar or lower cost of ownership.
So anyone who talks about hydrogen or fuel cell cars being too expensive has already been disproven in a major way. While this is a common criticism of hydrogen, it is rapidly falling as an argument. It's also interesting how quickly this went from being a credibly argument to one that is turning into a comically bad one.
Finally, I believe we are heading for a massive wake-up call with regards to hydrogen. So many people are still holding obsolete beliefs from the early 2000s. They forgot that FCEVs were getting around 150 miles of range for cars that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to make. They also forgot that no one was investing in green hydrogen at the time, so we had no path the zero emissions via hydrogen back then. All of these facts have radically changed in the last few years. But rather than updating their viewpoints, they are in stasis. I suspect there will be a fairly dramatic impact with the truth in the near future.
It's patently obvious the BEV has no future. Fuel cells are well on their way to disrupting this sector.
This is something that people seem to forget: We don't buy cars to save money. We buy them because we want to. Hence why some companies can sell cars for over $100,000. In some cases, like with supercars, they can even exceed $1 million. It's pretty clear that these aren't purchases made with rational intent. And in fact, many sectors of the car market are exclusively irrational purchases like this. The few sectors that are rational are almost always internal combustion powered small cars; segments where BEVs are nowhere competitive right now.
However, economics is repeatedly brought up as "proof" as to why the fuel cell car can't catch on. As if a car that cost $50-60k is somehow impossibly expensive, or that running costs no different than any other large luxury car is somehow unaffordable. In fact, the opposite is already true: Except for the most cost conscious sectors of the car market, FCEVs already are competitive. And this is with just thousands of vehicles sold, not millions. Which means we even though we haven't see the "Model T" of FCEVs, they are already competitive. See my post about FCEV running costs for more info†. FCEVs can easily succeed in the car market right now, without any necessary breakthroughs or major advancements in technologies.
Which also means that once there is a "Model T" of fuel cell cars, FCEVs will easily beat BEVs on cost and practically. We should see upfront costs similar to a Toyota Corolla‡, and the cost of hydrogen around $1-1.5/kg*, making owning a FCEV the cheapest type of car in the world. Furthermore, there will be no compromises on either range, charging times, or noise/vibration. Even home refueling is possible when taking into account hydrogen piping⁂. So it's clear that hydrogen is the best of both worlds, having the upside of both electric and combustion cars. And for those who do insist on internal combustion no matter what, there's always hydrogen combustion engines††.
So the conclusion should be clear: BEVs have no future. There are simply no real advantage that BEVs will hold against FCEVs in the long run. The fact that their supporters desperately attack FCEVs regularly (now a daily occurrence) suggest that they have no confidence in BEVs. If anything, they are subconsciously already worried that BEVs will lose to FCEVs. Certainly, they are behaving exactly like what we expect deeply insecure people would behave.
Hydrogen internal combustion will allow the ICEV to last forever
This is going to be a short post, but it will get to the point. We are now seeing people develop internal combustion engines powered by hydrogen. Examples are [1], [2], [3], and [4]. This is a big deal as it means that we don't need to fundamentally change the car industry in order to reach zero emissions. In fact, this is a such a simple solution to the problem that it seems likely it will definitely succeed in many sectors. Even as just a way to preserve the sound of the ICE, this is more than enough to justify it's viability.
It also wouldn't surprise me if the ICEV outlives the BEV. This is because the BEV will only exist if it is the the best type of zero emissions car. As soon as the BEV is no longer the best type of zero emissions car, it will die. The ICEV however, will carry a romantic nature to them that will always persist. This mirrors the revival of vinyl record and mechanical watches in recent years. All of which have long outlived their technical obsolescence.
Real world testing has proven that fuel cell buses are cheaper to operate than battery buses
This is based off of real world numbers and testing from LA county that demonstrations that fuel cell buses (FCEB) are actually cheaper to operate than battery buses (BEB).
This is likely to repeat itself in all other experiments of a similar nature. FCEBs are going to be consistently cheaper than BEBs to operate. We can expect a future of FCEBs in the vast majority of situations.
Meanwhile, BEBs are proving themselves to be a nightmare of unreliability and limited capacities. There are an extraordinarily large number of examples of this:
Even before the issue of higher costs comes up, the terrible reliability and lack of capabilities have likely already doomed BEBs to oblivion. I think this is a dead technology walking given all of the problems seen so far.
The facts are overwhelming: Hydrogen is fundamentally necessary to the construction of an all-renewable grid. There are absolutely no other energy storage options that could come even remotely close to working.
The results are clear: We will need hydrogen, and a lot of it, before such a grid can be made to work. This is due to a phenomenon known as Dunkelflaute, or basically a long period of time with very little wind or sun. These periods can last for over a week, and multiple Dunkelflaute periods can occur consecutively. This can end up creating months of very low renewable energy availability.
Such long shortages of electricity will break virtually all non-hydrogen types of energy storage. Alternatives to hydrogen can only alleviate only part of the problem or for only short periods of time. That's because Germany needs about 56 TWh of energy storage, which is fall beyond what either pumped hydro or batteries can provide. Of that 56 TWh of storage, hydrogen will represent about 98% of total energy storage capacity. That's such a large number you actually have to question whether any of the alternatives need to exist.
And what's more interesting, this study is only looking at the grid itself, not the problems of heating, air conditioning, transportation, industry, etc. Nor even ordinary growth in energy usage that is likely to happen. In short, this is just a limited analysis of what it would take to just bring the existing grid to zero emissions with renewables. Which means the need for hydrogen is likely underestimated, and we will need far more than what this study proposes to reach a truly zero emissions society.
So we should expect vast growth in hydrogen production and usage. Not just in the expected areas such as steel or ammonia production, but in nearly every other sector too. Even the act of charging an electric car will imply significant hydrogen usage. In fact, it's becoming increasingly more difficult to even conceive of sectors that can avoid hydrogen. Even the ones that were initially thought to not need hydrogen are in reality incredibly dependent on hydrogen being available. In short, hydrogen is just being ever more important and unavoidable now.
