Battery Electric vehicles and fuel cell electric vehicles

[cabmandone]

First, if you can't keep politics out of this, don't comment. This isn't about the politics of either but rather why one is seemingly better or more cost effective than the other.

My quest to buy a plug in hybrid has sent me down a rabbit hole. I was looking into PHEV's which brought me to articles about "BEV" and "FCEV" with most seemingly taking the position that BEV is better from a cost perspective. I don't get it.

The primary thing seems to be the cost of added infrastructure related to fueling stations vs charging stations. I haven't read any article that accounts for additional generating capability along with grid upgrades that would, in my opinion, be necessary in order to be able to handle the increased demand for electricity. And if we're moving away from internal combustion engines it would seem that gas stations would be converted more readily to "hydrogen stations".

I'm sure there's a lot that I'm missing but it just seems odd to me that there's this push for electric vehicles by many of the major manufacturers rather than hydrogen. I know Hyundai is investing in hydrogen and that Honda was.

If anyone has good links on this, I'd be interested in reading more about the two.

[masraum]

I wonder about the safety of hydrogen. To me it feels like it could become Pinto 2.0 New and Improved NOW with EXTRA explosive power!

I haven't really done any research. But my gut tells me that hybrids are the way to go, and batteries are not good for the world or sustainable (at least until new, good, cost effective tech comes along). But like I said, I've not really done any/much reading on the state of things.

Following to learn some more.

[cabmandone]

From the limited reading I've done on BOOM, there's no greater risk with a hydrogen fuel cell than a gas tank.

Here's something I read from Edmunds
https://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/8-things-you-need-to-know-about-hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars.html

"The short answer is that hydrogen behaves differently from gasoline. But generally it is about as safe as the gasoline we now put in most vehicles' fuel tanks. In fact, the average gasoline tank holds three to four times the energy — and thus three to four times the explosive power — of the hydrogen tanks that the first fuel-cell electric vehicles will be using."

[mattdavis11]

You won't have to worry about driving when no one buys oil (gas, diesel) because there will be no more roads.

[cabmandone]

There will always be roads. The way the roads are paid for will be the major change. That is, unless we move to flying cars! Dammit it's about time!

Did you know we've had flying cars for a really long time?

[masraum]

Originally Posted by cabmando

From the limited reading I've done on BOOM, there's no greater risk with a hydrogen fuel cell than a gas tank.

Here's something I read from Edmunds
https://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/8-things-you-need-to-know-about-hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars.html

"The short answer is that hydrogen behaves differently from gasoline. But generally it is about as safe as the gasoline we now put in most vehicles' fuel tanks. In fact, the average gasoline tank holds three to four times the energy — and thus three to four times the explosive power — of the hydrogen tanks that the first fuel-cell electric vehicles will be using."

Which is interesting and surprising to me because hydrogen is explosive. My understanding, and this is going back a long, long time, is that it doesn't really burn, it explodes.


And if you add Oxygen, it's even more impressive. (3:1 hydrogenxygen)


bump it up a notch

[cabmandone]

I think the main point came in the first video where he mentions they're using a "perfect blend" rather than the stochiometric blend. I would have to wonder what your odds are of getting that perfect or optimal blend to create an explosion in the case of a car accident.

[Mahler9th]

Can you be more specific about what type of perspective you seek?

I have a bunch of friends and biz associates that are experts in this space, and I have done some poking around.

Are you interested in historical perspective?

Infrastructure perspective?

[Steve Carlton]

Mike, what’s your take on the adoption of hydrogen and the expansion of the infrastructure beyond California?

[masraum]

Originally Posted by cabmando

I think the main point came in the first video where he mentions they're using a "perfect blend" rather than the stochiometric blend. I would have to wonder what your odds are of getting that perfect or optimal blend to create an explosion in the case of a car accident.

Hydrogen is explosive, but you get more bang with the perfect blend. I'm sure you won't get the perfect blend, but I'd rather not have the smaller explosion either.

[Mahler9th]

I don't have an opinion, but a lot of observations.

Infrastructure?

For passenger vehicles?

Commercial vehicles?

Both?

One thing that may make sense for folks to realize is that time frames for corporate decisions can be longer than most realize.

Folks have been thinking about these things for a long time. Really long.

They've had to!

The future of mobility space is likely on 4th or 5th level investment and strategy level these days in terms of bets being placed.

Here are perhaps some places to help one start considering more questions and search for additional perspective (some broader and some narrower):

https://www.anl.gov/es/fuel-cell-and-hydrogen

https://driving.ca/column/motor-mouth/motor-mouth-the-numbers-that-decide-whether-hydrogen-or-electric-cars-win-out

[cabmandone]

Originally Posted by Mahler9th

Can you be more specific about what type of perspective you seek?

I have a bunch of friends and biz associates that are experts in this space, and I have done some poking around.

Are you interested in historical perspective?

Infrastructure perspective?

Mike,
Infrastructure cost for both would be interesting to see. As I pointed out, the articles I have read approach it from a cost of putting up charging stations vs cost to put up hydrogen fueling stations. I haven't read much relating to the ability to generate enough electricity to charge all of these vehicles and how much more generation we would need in order to meet the added demand if EV's were to rule the roads.

[tadd]

Nothing wrong with hydrogen. Nor fuel cells. It is just a liquid battery.

Every fuel has its lean and rich burn limits. Hydrogen just has one of the largest.

Current hydrogen is from fossil fuel stocks so that is a no go... but excess electric doing water electrolysis would be easily scalable.

Storing under pressure is a doable solution, but not optimal. Liquid (cryogenic) is also doable but expensive energy wise overall.

Optimum seems to be some sort of solid state storage bit it metal hydrides, nanoporus carbons or whatever.

[cabmandone]

Originally Posted by tadd

Nothing wrong with hydrogen. Nor fuel cells. It is just a liquid battery.

Every fuel has its lean and rich burn limits. Hydrogen just has one of the largest.

Current hydrogen is from fossil fuel stocks so that is a no go... but excess electric doing water electrolysis would be easily scalable.

Storing under pressure is a doable solution, but not optimal. Liquid (cryogenic) is also doable but expensive energy wise overall.

Optimum seems to be some sort of solid state storage bit it metal hydrides, nanoporus carbons or whatever.

That's something that I had read as well and my first thought was, well! That kills that!

[tadd]

Originally Posted by cabmando

That's something that I had read as well and my first thought was, well! That kills that!

Hydrogen does have its drawbacks.

Personally I think propane is a better choice. Easily transportable at reasonable pressure to make a liquid. Super clean burn. 110 octane if using liquid injection. Also able to make from the basics of CO2 and water.

I have never looked up the total energy conversion between direct electrolysis of water and something like the watergas shift reaction.

There are hydrocarbon fuel cells, so you can have direct conversion with a nice boost in efficiency avoiding all that waste heat from combustion.

Bottom line with either is you would have to have a nuke infrastructure to do either in the quantity we need.

[jyl]

Quickie reading suggests the energy required to create "green hydrogen", compress that hydrogen, and the energy lost in converting it back to electricity are roughly 40% the energy in the resulting electricity available to move the car, in other words FCs are 60% efficient. With batteries, almost all of the energy input is available for output, EV batteries are >90% efficient.

In addition, EVs have regen braking. Granted a FC can have regen braking but that means grafting part of an BEV into the FC.

Overall, I think battery EV is going to be more efficient than FC.

That ignores 1) how the input electricity is generated and transmitted, and the 2) process of mining materials and making the battery. 1) doesn't seem to favor one or the other - they both require a lot of electricity, which can be "clean" or "dirty", arguably the electricity used to create and compress hydrogen is used in some centralized places which the electricity used to recharge batteries has to be widely available. 2) can perhaps be ameliorated with recycling / reuse, but still has geopolitical implications.

The range and refueling differences seem to be shrinking, now that BEVs have 300+ mile range and fast charging, and the network of fast chargers is expanding much faster than the network of hydrogen refueling.

At the end of the day, if the goal is to have a vehicle that is practical to use in a general purpose way in the infrastructure of today, I think EV beats FC. For specific fleet or industrial uses, it could be different.

Of course, I also think plug-in hybrid beats either, while still offering all-electric operation for around-town and very high mpg (40+) for longer trips with range anxiety.

[cabmandone]

Originally Posted by Mahler9th

https://driving.ca/column/motor-mouth/motor-mouth-the-numbers-that-decide-whether-hydrogen-or-electric-cars-win-out

Your second article was a good short read that touched on both passenger and commercial use.

In my own case, a BEV would be perfect for about 90% of the driving I do. BUT, if we take a vacation where we drive to our destination, something I enjoy doing, a BEV in its current form would inconvenient to say the least.

[Mahler9th]

There is a lot of info on the US DOE web site. Lots of downloadable pdfs.

Here are some more links on infrastructure:

https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/operations/our-insights/the-future-of-ev-charging-infrastructure-executive-perspectives

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ev-charging-infrastructure-market-size-to-reach-usd-27690-million-by-2027-at-cagr-18-5---valuates-reports-301363571.html

[Tobra]

Depends where the electricity comes from to get the hydrogen in a tank.


Takes a lot of energy to isolate hydrogen.

[Mahler9th]

The "answers" might be "maybe," "yes," and "it depends" on many related questions.

Or more simply put "capitalism."

There are likely many funded startups working on advertising plays for charging stations... think about it.

We are headed very, very quickly to the middle of the 21st century.

Some of my friends/colleagues did an eclectic "exploration" on the future of energy with a focus on distributed and renewable energy in partnership with a corporate client/sponsor.

Really just the tip of the iceberg.

There are a lot of corporates in overlapping verticals thinking about these things.

Did you know that over 50% of venture $$ is corporate? And its growing.

Low hanging fruit is plucked. Lots of crossover in opportunities between verticals with emerging technologies in many areas. Many, likely most new opportunities will best be identified via exploration.

Many folks would be very surprised to learn the depth and breadth of what is going on behind the curtains... and there are lots of curtains.