Cars

Published on April 27th, 2015 | by Christopher DeMorro

254

Toyota Mirai “Fueled by Bullsh*t” Ad Is Total BS

April 27th, 2015 by Christopher DeMorro

Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk has come out against hydrogen fuel cell vehicles on more than one occasion, even going so far as to call them “bullshit” and “fool cells” because of all the energy required to collect fuel-grade hydrogen, and the fact that most hydrogen is currently sourced from natural gas and fracking.

But Toyota won’t let those pesky facts get in the way of a good greenwashing campaign, co-opting Musk’s comments to try to prove the Mirai FCV is green in one of the worst ways possible. The video below, entitled “Fueled by Bullsh*t,” attempts to showcase how the hydrogen gas used to power the Mirai can be found, well, everywhere. And it’s true, hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, found in just about every piece of organic matter we’ve ever discovered… and yes, that includes cow manure. The cow crap is collected, left to dissolve at a special fermentation pit, and then brought to a steam reformation center where the raw biogas has the hydrogen stripped away, which can then be used to fuel the Mirai. Sounds pretty green, right?

There’s just one problem with Toyota’s storyline; it is, itself, fabricated bullshit. First and foremost, the electricity for those energy-intensive steam reformation machines must come from somewhere, and about 95% of it comes from natural gas, which in the US and many other places comes from fracking. Last I checked, natural gas from fracking hardly qualifies as a renewable energy source, and hydrogen itself is merely an energy carrier… much of which is lost during the capture, transportation, and reformation stages. So while the Mirai itself may only emit water vapor, if we’re going to take into account all of the well-to-wheel emissions of electric vehicles, it’s important to factor in hydrogen’s sources as well.

But wait, it gets even worse, as numerous studies have pointed out that cow flatulence is one of the major contributors to the global CO2 emissions epidemic. While I don’t expect the beef industry to just up and disappear, numerous studies have said that if we want to save the planet, we should simply eat less red meat. It has been estimated that more than 18% of the world’s methane emissions come from some 1.5 billion cows and other cattle spread out across the planet, which is more than any other industry, including transportation and fracking — and that’s the “conservative” estimate, with the higher-end estimate being 51%.

While I can imagine that capturing cow-sourced methane and turning it into hydrogen en masse would have a positive overall impact on the environment, it downplays the fact that a multi-trillion dollar infrastructure system would be required to transport the high-pressure, highly reactive hydrogen gas from the reformation centers to fueling stations. Vancouver was shipping fuel-grade hydrogen from thousands of miles across Canada to the other in container trucks to power their hydrogen buses before the city finally gave up on its expensive experiment. Some studies estimate that by the time hydrogen reaches the fuel tank of a car like the Toyota Mirai, between 60% and 75% of its total energy potential has been lost. Meanwhile, a car like the Tesla Model S can turn up to 90% of its source electricity into forward motivation.

There’s just no comparison.

And let’s not forget this: while there are many ways to create hydrogen for FCVs like the Toyota Mirai, reformation of natural gas makes the most financial sense, which is why that’s how that large majority of it is sourced.

Toyota’s attempt to make a clever play on words only highlights the cognitive dissonance it has constantly demonstrated in its efforts to make hydrogen fuel cell vehicles seem greener than they are, while disparaging plug-in cars. The Japanese automaker would be better served by highlighting its efforts to bring solar electrolysis sourcing of hydrogen to the masses, a truly green way of sourcing hydrogen, rather than trying to ride the coattails of the ever-quotable Elon Musk.

Or just take that solar power and pump it directly into battery-electric vehicles, which takes out all the inefficiencies and infrastructure woes of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.

Anyhow, here’s the Toyota marketing department’s BS video:

Check out our new 93-page EV report, based on over 2,000 surveys collected from EV drivers in 49 of 50 US states, 26 European countries, and 9 Canadian provinces.

Tags: cow, Elon Musk, emissions from cows, fueled by bullshit, hydrogen steam reformation, methane emissions, Toyota, Toyota Mirai

About the Author

Christopher DeMorro A writer and gearhead who loves all things automotive, from hybrids to HEMIs, Chris can be found wrenching or writing- or else, he's running, because he's one of those crazy people who gets enjoyment from running insane distances.

Cbizz

this article is completely missing the point, of course it would be extremely expensive and take a lot of time to let fcv’s roam the streets. How much money has been spent the past century on creating an infrastructure to support our mindless research & development for internal combustion gas motors?? The point is to CHANGE the infrastructure completely because I don’t think it can get any worse. These fcv’s wouldn’t be a terrible idea if our cities adapted to it but there will always be an excuse why we shouldn’t change… Stupid humans should just stop using fossil fuels and talking down on new clean ideas. Open ur minds look at the big picture
- Bob_Wallace
  
  I’m not sure what your point is. Are you saying that we should switch from one fossil fuel to another fossil fuel or saying something different?
Will Bass

But Tesla’s electricity is supplied by coal and natural gas…. How is that any more green than Hydrogen?
- Bob_Wallace
  
  No grids are 100% coal and NG. Over time grids will get cleaner and cleaner.
  
  Hydrogen is financially locked into reformed methane. The market would not tolerate the cost of ‘green’ hydrogen. The market probably won’t accept ‘dirty’ hydrogen.
  
  Toyota has stated that fueling their Mirai with methane-hydrogen will cost 17 cents a mile which is a lot more expensive than driving an ICEV. A 30 MPG ICEV burning $3/gallon gas costs 10 cents per mile.
  
  Due to the high cost of fuel (I assume) is why Toyota is offering to give drivers free hydrogen for the first two years after purchasing.
Bob_Wallace

Wholesale rates are available to utilities. Unless hydrogen producers build their own distribution system (grid) they will be purchasing at the industrial cost level.

There will be labor involved in the production of hydrogen. Electrolysers do not do their own maintenance and bookkeeping.

Basing the idea of cheap hydrogen on almost free electricity is an unrealistic dream.
Leah McMillan

I’m not familiar with the industrial side of the green car movement, but can’t the argument against the biogas plant be used against Tesla and all electric cars? Yes they are electric, but most of our energy comes from natural gas anyway so using that fact to argue against the hydrogen car can also be turned on the electric car movement.
- Mike Shurtleff
  
  No, because our source of grid power is transitioning to have more and more Wind and Solar as their price continues to fall. In 20 years time EVs will be powered more by renewables than be NG, and very little coal will be used at all. Hydrogen cars cannot make this transition.
  
  Doesn’t matter, hydrogen cars are more expensive than EVs and H2 fuel is more expensive than electricity. Unless something changes radically H2 vehicles will not survive in the market place.
EclecticLip

I’ll preface by saying that I think Toyota’s anti-EV stance is super counterproductive.
I agree with Greenpeace in their Energy [R]evolutions 2012 document that EV’s are a fantastic solution for many (most?) people to reduce their emissions today, while fuel cells will be needed for people who can’t charge at home, and for larger vehicles where battery weight will be a problem (trucks, long-distance buses, larger SUV’s). The Union of Concerned Scientists has also come out with similar conclusions, and support for both technologies.

Now, a few points:
– steam methane reforming barely uses any electricity; it uses the chemical energy from the natural gas to strip off the hydrogen
– pointing out that 95% of hydrogen right now comes from natural gas, opens EV proponents to the counter-allegation that in the US, 67% of electricity comes from fossil fuels, most that being coal. (I only have 2011 data handy, it’s probably a bit lower now.)
– furthermore, just as many EV early adopters go clean by putting PV on their roofs, early hydrogen deployments will involve renewable energy. (California will requires that either 33% or 40% of the hydrogen at fuelling stations will have to be renewably sourced.)
– the Whistler fiasco was a good example of this. The original plan was to source the hydrogen from a nearby chlor-alkali plant (produces enough byproduct hydrogen for about 20,000 vehicles – the hydrogen is currently burned for heat, which is easy to source renewably, e.g. through biomass). The financial meltdown in 2008/2009 made it difficult to raise money for that project, which is why they reverted to plan B, driving it across-country from Quebec.
– diet and driving are two very different things.
– all that said, it’s absolutely true that EV’s are a lot more efficient than FCV’s. And it’s probably appropriate that automakers are putting a lot more money into EV’s right now than FCV’s. That said, if Toyota wants to do its thing, that should be OK too. Fuel cell vehicles are unlikely to come at the expense of the electric vehicle market; they’re going to attract buyers for whom EV’s aren’t a practical or desired option. This would of course be easier to accept if Toyota wasn’t obnoxious about EV’s — though one must admit that Elon Musk is a lot more obnoxious about FCV’s.
- Bob_Wallace
  
  Right now EVs make up less than 1% of our cars, FCEVs make up approximately 0%, wind generates about 5% of our electricity and solar is closing on 1%. But it’s not about “today”, it’s about where we go in the future.
  
  Almost certainly our grids will become cleaner. Ten years from now coal will have likely lost a very large portion of its current market share. Storage will be eating into NG’s business.
  
  Ten years from now reformed natural gas hydrogen will still be as dirty and unacceptable.
  
  Ten years from now it’s extremely likely that green hydrogen will still take 2x to 3x as much electricity to produce and drive an FCEV a mile as it would take to drive an EV a mile. That extra electricity demand would mean that we would be burning a lot more coal and natural gas than if we had switched to EVs.
  - EclecticLip
    
    Hi Bob,
    I agree with you that our grids will definitely become cleaner, as solar and wind continue their exponential growth!
    And that’s actually why I disagree with you that hydrogen will continue to be sourced from natural gas via steam-methane-reforming going forward.
    Wind is already driving monthly-average wholesale electricity prices very low in Europe an the US — to 2 Euro cents per kWh and sometimes lower. Which means electricity is going to be essentially free, some of the time. (See Figures 15, 21, 24 in the European Commission’s Quarterly Report on European Electricity Markets for Q3 2014)
    Those prices will trend lower, even as fossil fuel plants get uprooted (and good riddance to them). And that means clean hydrogen from electrolysis will become cheaper than natural gas-reformed hydrogen, meaning the latter will go away (and good riddance to it).
    
    It is very true that EV’s are much more efficient at using renewable electricity than fuel cells. At the same time — again, agreeing with Greenpeace — EV’s won’t be suitable for every vehicle type. For those other ones, and perhaps for apartment-dwellers, FCV’s remain a complementary ZEV option… albeit one whose commercialization is lagging EV’s by about 10 years.. 🙂
    - Bob_Wallace
      
      Electricity won’t be free or even close to free. Generation costs may drop to around 2 cents per kWh but there will still be other costs such as distributive. I expect electricity will drop some, but not an extreme amount.
      
      And even if electricity drops it will still take 2x to 3x as much to produce hydrogen as to run an EV. Add in the hydrogen infrastructure and labor costs. It will take workers to run hydrogen plants, drive the delivery trucks, staff the filling stations.
      
      Both EVs and FCEVs could run using clean energy. Same cost to generate. FCEVs would need much more of that clean electricity and pile another level of costs on top of the electricity.
      - EclecticLip
        
        Hi Bob,
        The paper I cited gives purchase prices for electricity. If you’re able to pay wholesale rates (e.g. if you have a MW-scale electrolyzer; there are a few in operation now) you will pay the equivalent of 2 euro-cents / kWh on a monthly-average basis — and probably 1 euro-cent or nothing, on windy evenings. At wind penetrations that are a lot lower than what’s coming in 10 to 20 years. Electrolyzers can ramp up and down in seconds, so they can stay off until those windy nights drive prices way down.
        
        There are a few comparisons here:
        – is electrolyzer hydrogen likely to be cheaper than SMR hydrogen soon? Steam-Methane Reformed hydrogen is the cost of natural gas plus about $2 per kg in labour, compression, etc. With cheap (and getting cheaper) electricity, electrolyzer hydrogen will win. That is a very good thing
        – are EV’s more efficient than FCV’s? Yes. But are they competing for the same electrons? Not really. People like you and me pay regulated, residential electricity rates (probably 15 cents/kWh, possibly with time-of-use effects). We can’t access the wholesale prices industrial users can, and we charge our vehicles relatively steadily every night (I drive a PHEV). Electrolyzers can and will kick in and shut off at different electricity price thresholds when the wind picks up (or dies down), alongside other demand-response technologies such as pumped-storage hydro, batteries, compressed air, etc.
        – are FCV’s a threat to EV’s? No, because EV’s outsell them something like 1000:1, and that ratio is unlikely to change for a few years at least. The thing is, not everyone is going to buy an EV. Giving that 10% or 1% (or if you prefer, 0.1%) of the population another ZEV option through fuel cells and electrolysed hydrogen, will only help us kick fossil fuels sooner.
        Cheers,
        Matthew
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        US industrial electricity prices are currently 7.07c/kwh and residential prices are currently 12.29. (Feb 2015. Latest EIA numbers.)
        
        If H2 plants ran and EVs charged 24/7 then a good portion of the 2x to 3x premium would be eliminated but 2x 7.07 is still more than 12.29.
        
        Accessing least expensive electricity.
        
        EVs will need to charge less than three hours a day. That means that they can take advantage of the least expensive ~3 hours per day without additional capital investment. Drivers who have average or less driving habits (~35 miles a day) can build up charge on windy late nights and skip nights when power is more expensive. EVs can work as dispatchable loads and receive even lower than normal rates for absorbing supply peaks.
        
        To run H2 plants only 3 hours a day we would have to build and staff 8x as many which would drive the capital and operational costs high.
ScepticMatt

Actually cows are more likely to burp methane rather than farting it :p

(methane is produced by produced by digestive bacteria in the cows rumen – a process called Enteric fermentation)
sjc_1

The author wears a mask, the anonymous flamer.
Jason hm

I never got how the Cow fart methane thing got traction. Humans didn’t create ruminants even if domestic ruminants produce more than the wild versions and I don’t think they do, Well even if they did the simple fact that there about 20 million cattle in the US vs a buffalo population that ran in excess of 50 million 150 or so years ago. This doesn’t account for all the other ruminants that ran around by the millions like moose and Caribou. Global warming is real but I’m pretty sure that if humans where to go extinct today a hundred years from now there would be more animal farts than ever.
- Bob_Wallace
  
  Without humans cows would largely disappear. We’ve bred the aggressive/defensive abilities out of domestic cattle.
  
  BTW, it’s not farts. Burps are the methane route out of Old Bossy….
omar

When we talk about efficiency we shouldn’t forget that fuel efficiency is bad to, 50 % of it is lost as heat so with hydrogen 30 % efficient and green then hydrogen can find a place in the energy world.
- Bob_Wallace
  
  To run your car on green hydrogen rather than electricity you will have to pay for 2x to 3x as many solar panels and wind turbines. And you will have to pay to replace the ~120,000 gas stations we now have in the US.
  
  You want to pay the extra or do you want to drive with cheaper electricity?
  - omar
    
    We should be ready a bit of sacrifice for green environmant
    - Bob_Wallace
      
      The less sacrifice we ask people to make, the more success we will have in limiting climate change.
      
      Moving from fossil fuels to renewables will not change the way electricity works and will make the cost of electricity cheaper.
      
      Moving from petroleum to electricity for personal vehicles will make driving more convenient and will greatly reduce the cost per mile to operate.
      
      We aren’t quite to the cheaper/more convenient era yet, but we are making significant progress. In the places where the most wind/solar has been installed we are starting to see electricity prices fall. We are apparently short years from longer range, affordable EVs.
NRG4All

I think using hydrogen will fail on the economics alone. As it has been stated before, with my PV array, my fuel is free. With hydrogen I’m still chained to the pump. Although maybe some engineers out there can compare to cost of miles driven on hydrogen versus the cost per kWh for people without PV on their roof.
Rick

Did he just say we should not drive Evs because “about 95% of it comes from natural gas, which in the US and many other places comes from fracking”?
Shane 2

Many of those snickering about H2 from fracking are getting their grid electrons from fracking and coal. I realise that the important factor is efficiency, but don’t pretend your grid is pure renewable, or that the infrastructure doesn’t have a lot of embodied fossil fuel, or that your EV doesn’t have embodied fossil fuel. And remember, your Chinese PV panels have embodied coal power. Renewable purity doesn’t exist. It won’t exist for some time. The goal is to move in that direction.
- sault
  
  There’s a few shortcomings in your logic. First of all, how clean or dirty an electricity grid is varies wildly depending on where one lives. In the Pacific Northwest, Norway, Iceland and other similar places, the grid has very little fossil fuels powering it. And places like Germany, Spain, California and most of the rest of the world are gaining renewable energy at a rapid clip.
  
  Regardless of the fuel source, most people opposed to hydrogen cars, myself included, are more concerned about the paths that hydrogen cars lock us into compared to EVs. Even if we use a lot of fossil energy to make and power EVs right now, a lot more fossil energy will go into making and powering FCVs. With how inefficient and wasteful FCVs are compared to EVs, they make the transition to a fossil-free economy that much harder. And we are all aware how FCVs were used as an excuse to gut California’s zero-emissions vehicle law at the behest of the oil and car companies. So don’t blame us if we’re just a little suspicious.
  - SMG_VII
    
    More anti-science, conspiracy theory nonsense. You’re an absolutist and that kind of thinking has no place in a responsible and realistic conversation about technologies that have the potential to help reduce emissions in the short, medium, and/or long term. Electricity has historically been cheapest when generated from coal up until recently. That doesn’t mean electricity could only ever be generated from coal. The fact that hydrogen is most cheaply sourced from natural gas right now doesn’t necessarily mean that that will always be the case. If r&d was never done or was always done at low levels for solar, it never would have decreased the costs of it or increased the efficiencies by so much. The same principle could absolutely apply to hydrogen technology going forward.
    - eveee
      
      So why wouldn’t I use cheap electricity to charge an EV for less than an FCEV per mile?
      Why would I buy an FCEV right now with no place to get hydrogen?
      Why would I buy a Mirai instead of a model S that’s faster, more luxurious, and goes farther?
      They both have to compete with ICE. The mirai competes with neither. There are no advantages. How is that going to make inroads in the market. There are lots of ideas that have come and gone. They did not find the right market and could not compete.
      - SMG_VII
        
        Not one single person here has talked advocated buying HFCVs right now. Your willful ignorance and willful misinterpretation of everything said in this thread is intellectually offensive. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
      - nakedChimp
        
        Right back at ya.. no one here is anti-science you shameful person.
      - eveee
        
        Spare the moral indignation and explain yourself. I am not against fuel cell vehicles. They just have to meet criteria. Lower GHG and affordability. Thats not happening yet. You noticed I see that Power 2 Gas works, just not needed quite yet. And I said long haul trucking is still an option. There might be a place for it, but it has not found its niche. I don’t buy the fractured gas to hydrogen path. Math says it produces too much GHG.
      - eveee
        
        Hasn’t stopped anyone from criticizing EVs for charging and parking spaces right now and the subject appeared on this articles comments. I commented to Michael G, that the guy wants to buy an FCEV right now. And Toyota is hyping them right now. So I don’t get your moral indignation. Try reason next time. It works better.
- eveee
  
  We keep going over this. Methane to hydrogen produces CO2 more than ICE. Dead end. Biogas methane is too small to make a dent in transport needs. Dead end. Comparing electricity sources, BEV are 2x greater efficiency. End of story. Cheaper electricity doesn’t change that comparison.
  - GCO
    
    Reforming methane to hydrogen to propel an FCV is more efficient, and results in less emissions (including CO2), than burning it in an ICEV.
    - eveee
      
      That’s where we disagree. And it’s still more than EV. And EVs improve with the improving grid. Not so FCEV from methane. No thanks.
      - sjc_1
        
        You can not disagree on facts, One gallon of gasoline burned in a I.C.E. car create more CO2 than one kilogram of hydrogen reformed from natural gas used in an FCV
      - eveee
        
        We agree gasoline is dirty and gives us too much CO2. Lets find the numbers. Maybe we agree on the CO2e for gasoline.
        
        Your statement didn’t show any number for CO23 for reformed methane. How about a reference for that?
        
        I don’t disagree on facts. I am not going by my opinion. Heres a reference. You are free to find a reference to support your assertion. I don’t assume you are wrong, I just need to see some references. Like showing your id for buying beer 🙂
        
        “Hydrogen produced by the most efficient commercial route emits a minimum of 14.34Kg CO2e versus 11.13Kg CO2e for a US gallon of Gasoline (of which 13.2Kg is actual CO2 gas in the case of Hydrogen).”
        
        http://cleantechnica.com/2014/06/04/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-about-not-clean/
        
        Another reference gives 19.64lb/gallon gasoline which is 8.9kg CO2.
        
        http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=307&t=11
        
        But thats just from burning it. I believe some of the rest comes from considering refining. And indeed, refinery efficiency causes more CO2 to be emitted. From this reference, you can see the numbers. Once you apply the extra needed for refining, you get close to the 11 kg CO2e.
        
        http://www.electricforum.com/cars/cost-per-mile-fuel-efficiency-emissions/320-dirty-truth-gasoline.html
        
        This NREL reference shows 11.888 kg CO2/kg hydrogen reformed from natural gas. Since 1kg hydrogen is equivalent to 1 gal gasoline. That sets the number at 11.888 kg CO2e.
        
        I don’t know why the other reference has 14kg CO2/kg, but its 11.888kg for this reference, which is higher than the gasoline CO2e.
        
        http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/27637.pdf
        
        So there is two sources and calculations. Have at.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        Did you show your math somewhere? It differs from the math I’ve seen.
        
        The math needs to be in terms of CO2 per mile.
- jeffhre
  
  Takes about 18 months of use to pay the energy costs of PV cell production. How many months of driving will FCEVs need to pay for the embedded costs of development and ongoing energy costs of steam reformed methane with H2 storage and compression?
TedKidd

disliked – love that about YouTube…
Joseph Dubeau

“But wait, it gets even worse, as numerous studies have pointed out that cow flatulence is one of the major contributors to the global CO2 emissions epidemic. ”

I think you meant methane which is a far worse GH gas than CO2.
Free range cattle’s is better for your health and better for the environment.
- nakedChimp
  
  sure, but less people can eat beef then.. 😉
  - Joseph Dubeau
    
    I’m not big fan of beef. Fish and vegetables are better.
    - sjc_1
      
      Well that is staying right on topic.
      - Joseph Dubeau
        
        Haven’t you talked to your doctor about eating red meat?
      - sjc_1
        
        I believe the topic is FCVs and H2.
      - Joseph Dubeau
        
        Well, you wrong on the topic.
        Your trolling is not going help sell any more Nature Gas.
        We are too smart and your side is dumb.
      - sjc_1
        
        Toyota Mirai is the topic, not red meat and doctors.
      - Joseph Dubeau
        
        The chimp and I were having a conversation and you weren’t invited.
GCO

Does the author understands at all how steam methane reforming works? Does he even realize that natural gas and fermented cow dung turned biogas are both mostly the same thing, methane?

the electricity for those energy-intensive steam reformation machines must come from somewhere, and about 95% of it comes from natural gas, which in the US and many other places comes from fracking

FAIL & FAIL.
First, electricity doesn’t come mostly from natural gas, therefore not mostly from fracking either.
It’s pointless anyway, as SMR usually simply use some of the methane fed to it as its main energy source, not electricity.
And in this case, all the methane comes from… yes, bullshit. So yes, a Mirai can run entirely on that.

Sorry Mr DeMorro, Toyota is correct all along:
1) Hydrogen can (and in California, at least 30% has to) be made from renewables.
2) In SMR, methane, regardless of whether from natural gas or biogas, provides both half the hydrogen molecules (the rest is from water) and the energy necessary.
- jeffhre
  
  Yep, that sounds mighty affordable.
- eveee
  
  SMR produces CO2 greater than ICE. So why do it?
  
  Steam reforming of natural gas – sometimes referred to as steam methane reforming (SMR) – is the most common method of producing commercial bulk hydrogen. Hydrogen is used in the industrial synthesis of ammonia and other chemicals.[4] At high temperatures (700 – 1100 °C) and in the presence of a metal-based catalyst (nickel), steam reacts with methane to yield carbon monoxide and hydrogen.
  
  CH4 + H2O ⇌ CO + 3 H2
  Additional hydrogen can be recovered by a lower-temperature gas-shift reaction with the carbon monoxide produced. The reaction is summarized by:
  
  CO + H2O ⇌ CO2 + H2
  
  http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming
  - GCO
    
    Why do SMR? Because HFCVs are about twice as efficient as ICEVs (check e.g. their MPGe ratings), meaning a Mirai or Clarity emit significantly less CO2 than e.g. a Civic CNG.
    
    (That CO2 would also be much easier to capture, as it is produced at stationary locations instead of spewed from a bunch of moving tailpipes)
    
    Also, no combustion byproducts (NOx etc).
    - eveee
      
      But it’s still more expensive fuel than electricity and emits more carbon, so why do it?
      - nakedChimp
        
        that’s simple, look only at a certain subset of features at any moment and block out the remainder.
        Reading through the discussion it seems GCO is good at arguing with different subsets and jumping from one to the next all the while ignoring the big CO2 elephant in the room.
      - eveee
        
        nakedChimp – Yes. For some reason, some FCV proponents don’t seem to be able to look at analyzing things by difference. You have to compare by starting from the same source, like electricity. Then you don’t have to look at the source, just the differences.
        When it comes to methane to hydrogen, its more complicated and harder to compare EV vs FCEV, electricity vs methane. But the government has done it already and you don’t have to. Looking at DOE or DOT numbers shows mpge numbers or what have you and EVs are ahead.
        Then there is cost of fuel. Methane to hydrogen is cheaper, but its messy and produces CO2.
- eveee
  
  How much methane from biogas? Enough to power the US fleet? No. Show some citations for that. Only 3-5% of total methane by 2040. That’s not enough.
  http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/10154/duke-university-report-characterizes-u-s-biogas-potential
sjc_1

80% gas to H2 times 50% H2 to electricity is 40%.
40% gas to electricity at the power plant minus transmission losses, minus AC to DC losses, minus battery electrochemical round trip losses makes for less than 30%.
- darth
  
  100% solar from my rooftop to my BEV with DC/AC/DC conversion losses > 80% efficient
  - GCO
    
    And we could go on pointing out that PV modules are only 15~20% efficient, counter that a cow is probably <1% "efficient", etc…
    
    When the energy source is free, abundant and just begging to be collected, be it sunlight or manure, does efficiency matter anyway?
    
    What matters is that both approaches are zero-emissions, and in the case of turning sh!t into biogas, even beneficial for the climate (methane is a very potent GHG).
    - darth
      
      I’m all for biogas digesters, just fueling cars with the reformed hydrogen seems inefficient. Just use the gas on-site to generate power and/or heat or feed it into the natural gas grid.
      - GCO
        
        SMR is actually quite efficient, around 75%, about twice as much as a gas power plant.
        
        FCVs powered this way are therefore almost as efficient as EVs, and can even be better if some of the fuel cells waste heat ends up being useful, e.g. in colder climates.
        At any rate, both handily beat ICEVs, including CNG vehicles.
      - Philip W
        
        Have you incorporated energy losses from compressing the hydrogen and bringing it to the fueling station?
      - sjc_1
        
        The fueling station IS the power plant. You use waste heat to reform.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        You’re going to reform natural gas into methane at your corner mini-market?
        
        The high school dropout who operates the cash register is going to run a methane reforming plant?
        
        Fred who runs the country store in Outer Bugtussel is going to be a methane/hydrogen technician?
      - sjc_1
        
        Ever hear of SOFCs? Those create heat, electricity and reform NG without any intervention. You also don’t have gasoline trucks crashing on the highways.
      - jeffhre
        
        Fred will be fine. He wears his hair cropped short and only dons low static electricity clothing – ever since that incident that got him dishonorably discharged from the military!
      - Philip W
        
        Please elaborate.
        You want to produce hydrogen at every fueling station that exists around the world? Because all those fueling stations somehow need to get hydrogen.
      - GCO
        
        Yes, and hydrogen can (and usually will) be produced on-site, from already-piped-in water, electricity and if available/desired, natural gas.
        E.g:
        – Oakland, CA (SMR): http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/permitting/fueling_case_studies_california.cfm
        – White Plains, NY (electrolysis): http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/permitting/fueling_case_studies_newyork.cfm
      - GCO
        
        Fro the DoE: compressing H2 to 70 MPa can take as little as 1.7 kW⋅h/kg (actual implementations as of 2009) [link].
        
        Transport is nill if done on-site.
    - Tom Capon
      
      Renewable energy will never be free as in beer. The cost of the panels/turbines need to be amortized over their lifespan. This can produce very low costs, approaching zero as lifespan increases, but is never zero.
      
      Until we have 110% of our grid needs met by renewables, there will always be an opportunity cost to using solar to make hydrogen/diesel/etc versus using it in other more efficient processes.
      - jeffhre
        
        Um no, LOL. There is still an opportunity cost. Whether it is taking a few minutes to talk someone into letting you use their “free electricity.” Or when they politely say no, then in taking the time install a few more “free PV panels.” Which which are of course being given away due to having no market from 110% of the grids needs already being met, 🙂
      - Tom Capon
        
        Sure, you can put it that way. But until we actually have a grid oversupply of renewables, every bit of renewable we waste making hydrogen or diesel is that much less fossil fuel we can displace.
      - GCO
        
        What I meant was, the energy sources (e.g. sunlight) are free, and as long as they remain plentiful, it doesn’t matter how much is “wasted” during collection.
        
        Obviously, the hardware and its installation cost something, but these costs will be weighted against the whole system’s output, not its input nor the ratio between the two.
      - Tom Capon
        
        And I could continue this pedantic discussion by claiming that the only efficiency that matters is the conversion of *dollars* into Watts. All other efficiencies can be expressed in these terms, whether the fuel is free or not. Besides, even if the solar panels were free, it would cost money to maintain them, so it’s not like we would install twice as many as the world needed without realizing it.
        
        But all of that is moot because until we have 100% grid penetration, every bit of solar power we waste on inefficient processes means we displace that much less fossil fuel energy. It will slow down the transition dramatically if taken seriously.
      - jeffhre
        
        Rocks are sitting on the ground cost free. Trees and plants grow cost free thanks to sunlight. And dirt, well it’s dirt cheap. But I know a guy that just spent $20,000 to landscape his yard, the front only – and all that stuff is free. How can that be?
      - eveee
        
        Hydrogen demand competes between other uses like heating. If heating is more efficient, the demand will crowd out the use for transport. Your economic theory of cheap RE electricity is wrong. It assumes no competition for hydrogen.
    - eveee
      
      Stop. Use the same electrical source for both. BEV is 2x FCEV efficiency. If you use nat gas, carbon is worse than ICE. There is no viable path for transport.
      - sjc_1
        
        Carbon is NOT worse than I.C.E. not to mention NOX and other pollutants from I.C.E.
      - eveee
        
        I guess we disagree. Can you find a source to support your statement?
        
        This data ultimately comes from NREL.
        
        FCEV 365g CO2e/mile.
        
        ” In fact the worst environmental performance of any low performance vehicle under 200 hp discussed here was and is the average official Fuel Cell Vehicle NREL test subject at 356g CO2e/mile. Replacing an EV, PHEV, HEV (or even a small-engined diesel or gasoline vehicle) with this FCV will represent an environmental set-back. This is a fact that cannot have escaped either Mercedes (Daimler) and Hyundai-Kia who were both NREL test subjects alongside Ford and GM, BP, Shell and Chevron. Of this group, only Ford, to their credit, has publicly stated that there is no significant environmental benefit to Fuel Cell Vehicle Technology – all be it at the bottom of a web page discussing the merits of tackling climate change.”
        
        http://cleantechnica.com/2014/06/04/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-about-not-clean/
        
        Even NREL, the most enthusiastic for FCV, shows BEVs with lower GHG from the grid vs reformed methanol hydrogen. They only came close because they assumed CCS, an expensive option much too expensive to use and essentially abandoned.
        
        http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/13005_well_to_wheels_ghg_oil_ldvs.pdf
        
        Then for a real squealer, you see that they assumed the mix for electricity in 2035 was the completely erroneous EIA projects. Wrong.
        That means the 2035 GHG numbers for EVs are much lower.
      - sjc_1
        
        “A fuel cell vehicle would produce 200 grams of carbon dioxide-equivalent per mi (CO2e/mi), compared to 235g CO2e/mi for a HEV”
        
        just search fcv co2
      - eveee
        
        NREL says 190 CO2e GHG/mile for FCEV from steam reformed gas.
        
        220 for gasoline. Not much difference, but a little better for FCEV.
        
        http://www.a3ps.at/site/sites/default/files/conferences/2014/papers/01_doe_satyapal.pdf
        
        They show 160g/mile for BEV.
        Bottom line, BEV are better now. They can get better as the grid gets cleaner. FCEV can’t do that from steam reformed methane. It loses the chase.
        Incidentally, current grid mix is 39%. The 45% is dated. Its already gotten cleaner.
        BEV uses less electricity than electrolyzer.
        High cost of FCEV and few hydrogen filling stations.
        Square 1.
      - eveee
        
        Yes. I found that. There is a lot of insideev references. Some sources show mpge per kg (gallon equiv) of FCEV is better, but its hard to assess with all the apples to organs. Thats why it can start out with a higher GHG number from the fuel but wind up OK. I think thats what you are saying about efficiency, right?
        
        How do you explain the high CO2e numbers in the NREL tests? Or the 245g/mile for the Mirai from the source I gave?
        
        Why are the numbers from sources so different?
        
        Anyway, right now the numbers are looking a little bit better FCEV vs ICE from some sources, not all, but steam reformed hydrogen still loses out to BEV.
      - sjc_1
        
        FCV reformed methane
        161 g/mile
        ICE at 25 mpg
        362 g/mile
        
        Source: Insideevs (they block postings with links here)
      - eveee
        
        So we have sources that disagree. Now we will have to analyze the sources. Those are different metrics, g/mile, not CO2e. Can you explain the higher CO2e for natural gas reformed hydrogen from the NREL study?
        
        Just write out the insideevs source quote, I will google it. The g/mile don’t come up.
        
        As far as insideevs is concerned, I am not sure how you could get any of that. Here is the money quote.
        
        “Toyota Mirai driven on steam reformed hydrogen _____ 245 g/mile”
        
        http://insideevs.com/2016-chevy-volt-vs-toyota-mirai/
        
        Run on ICE, the Volt is about the same.
- sault
  
  Fuel cells are only 50% efficient if they’re run at 20% load. That’s fine and dandy if you want to buy 5x as much fuel cell as you need, but since they’re so expensive, you’ll more likely run them at 60% load or more and only get 30% efficiency: http://www.intechopen.com/source/html/37718/media/image34.jpeg
  - sjc_1
    
    So you get 30% from NG to FCV power. You get 20% from PV, so 15% for EV power.
    - Bob_Wallace
      
      Natural gas is a non-starter. It is a carbon source.
      
      The efficiency of solar panels is not a factor. Sunlight is free. Efficiency math for EVs and (clean) FCEVs needs to be done from the “electricity is in hand” point onward.
      
      It will take 2x to 3x as much green electricity to drive a FCEV a mile as it takes to drive an EV a mile.
      
      Electrolysis is close to its theoretical efficiency level. Compression is very efficient. Unless someone can find away around the known laws of physics there will be no efficiency improvements for clean H2.
  - eveee
    
    sault – Really nice reference. Kudos. I wasn’t going to bother to bring that up, because people get lost in the details and miss the simple stuff, but yes. There is a big problem with density and efficiency, both for electrolyzers and FC. They can be run efficiently at low density, but when current density is raised, efficiency drops. Thats one reason FC in transport are used with batteries. Its a better energy source than a power source. The battery provides the energy for short spurts. Been waiting for someone to realize that a FCEV SUV is going to drag up long mountain passes because the battery will empty and all you will have left is the power from the fuel cell. That means the stack will have to be bigger and more expensive.
    The same with EREV. The gas motor will have to be sized for the maximum continuous load, not just transients, if you want to go up a mountain faster than the trucks. Some have already found out the range extender on the i3 is too dinky.
Omega Centauri

Extracting methane from manure has been around for a while, its called biogas. Its usually used locally on the farm, or added to the natural gas pipelines, so this (potential) use competes against other biogas users. I see the making of biogas as a useful component of a renewable future, we can’t make a lot of it, but it can be stored and used for dispatchable power, which should be worth a premium in a nearly fully renewable world.
SMG_VII

This site’s obsession with being anti-hydrogen is ridiculous. It’s a developing technology that has been researched with a much smaller set of financial and manpower resources and is therefore quite imperfect at this stage. Many of the same “arguments” made against hydrogen could have been (and were) made against battery electric vehicles and other clean energy technologies at earlier stages of their development. The implication that hydrogen fuel cell technology (and associated processes) is not worth researching and improving further is nothing more than anti-science shilling for people with absurd confirmation biases towards other forms of clean energy production, distribution, and application.

If you care at all about cleaner forms of energy, you should support r&d into any and all clean tech. If you’re just going to go around advocating only for brands, companies, and technologies that you like on a personal level, then just admit it already.
- Michael G
  
  Thanks so much for talking some sense! There are a lot of brilliant scientists and engineers working on all facets of replacing FF as a motive source. For anyone to claim they know the one, true, way and all non-believers must be denied support is really, really foolish (putting it mildly).
  
  I just finished watching “The Emperor of All Maladies” (PBS.org) about finding the “cure” for cancer. There were a lot of false turns and at any given time the ways that looked the most hopeful to experts and even seemed to work on a small scale turned out to be dead ends while paths that looked pointless sometimes yielded spectacular results. And now, it takes many different approaches to “cure” cancer. The same will be true for the “cure” for global warming.
  
  Concern for life-cycle GHG emissions will only be satisfied with a world-wide Carbon Tax.
  - darth
    
    There is no hydrogen infrastructure. Nearest hydrogen fueling station is 309 miles away from my location. Nearest EV plug is < 1 mile. EV plugs are cheap and easy to put in, and you can have one in your house. You cannot have a hydrogen station in your house. This makes hydrogen fueled cars just an inconvenient as gas ones.
    
    Battery costs are steadily dropping, Gigafactory will only increase this trend. BEV's are already commercialized and have over 750K on the roads today.
    
    So its not that this site is anti-hydrogen, it is just based on the facts as they are now. if hydrogen magically solves all of its issues, I'm sure this site will support it.
    - Michael G
      
      Here’s a home desk-top Hydrolyzer on Amazon for small fuel cells.
      
      http://www.amazon.com/Brunton-Hydrolizer-Recharge-Station-CORE/dp/B00IG9JZSA
      
      Of course, a larger one would be necessary for a car. Honda provides a home H2 generator based on NG.
      
      Here’s a map of existing H2 stations. Some are for private use, others are publicly run, others are retail. I am sure they could be built as quickly as any gas pump.
      
      https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=z2V7q1oi2b_Q.kHW1nFqlRWI0
      
      I would not rely on my information on FCs solely from journalists. They may have their own biases and are usually not experts. Research it yourself and look at what various *experts on both sides* say.
      - jeffhre
        
        Cool stuff. Only $235 to fill a D sized cell! Not including the canisters and fuel cells in the price of course. Or the solar panel and inverter.
        
        The first reviewer gives it 5 stars and says it all in the first line, “It’s not very economical, I’ll grant you that. But if you’re interested in green energy, this is the product of the future.”
      - Michael G
        
        Solar panels and Li-Ion batteries weren’t economical at first either. I was addressing the idea that one HAD to refuel outside the house. I established that it is not necessary so that objection is shown to be invalid
      - jeffhre
        
        I stand corrected. I now realize that it is possible to power a matchbox sized car at home for only about $300. Not including the solar panel of course. How many bars do those canisters get to? What kind of warranty did you see on the H2 generator?
      - eveee
        
        Cmon Michael, the guy just wants to do it now. He can do it with an EV now. He can’t do it with a fuel cell car now because he doesn’t live next to a hydrogen refueling station. Claiming he can buy an electrolyzer on Amazon is not remotely real.
        Hydrogen has to be created, pressurized, and safely dispensed, hopefully with approved, safe hardware. That just doesn’t exist for the home. And that spdoesnt even consider how expensive it will be.
        Comparing a home based electrolyzer vs an EV highlights the difference.
        A user would consume 2-3x the electricity.
        Why wouldn’t a user prefer the cheaper cost charge?
        After EVs get to 200 mile range in 2017, there will be no appreciable transportation market left for FCV. Not even aircraft can tolerate the poor energy density of hydrogen. Now heating on the other hand could be a much better market for power to gas. Less steps means good efficiency and density is not as critical.
        The obsession with hydrogen transport is unfortunate. Methane is superior.
      - GCO
        
        Given the high efficiency of SMR, I trust that an HFCV would remain more efficient than any internal-combustion vehicle even if using methane/CNG directly.
        
        HFCVs also don’t emit anything locally, and only CO2 upstream (assuming SMR; possibly nothing if using electrolysis).
        
        Agreed though on at-home hydrogen refills being unrealistic. If one has a place to install an electrolyser, then a PEV might be a better fit than an FCV…
      - eveee
        
        I don’t think so. SMR from fractured methane produces too much carbon. Biogas methane is ok, there’s just not enough.
        It’s not working for regular transport. It might work for long haul, but that’s not too big.
        Long haul is truck because of direct to destination time. Transport costs by truck in bulk are more expensive. We pay a lot to of money for speed. Truck carries the bulk on land, even tho it should logically by cost should use rail. For short haul an EV truck would be fine.
        
        Hydrogen Doesnt work well for air unless you convert to liquids and burn it, but it’s more expensive than av fuel now. At least it’s there if we need it.
        But electrolyzer from RE overcapacity works well for heating. Germany would do it now, but the market is too small. It needs way more overcapacity to drive it. Energiewende estimates another ten years for power to gas.
      - nakedChimp
        
        I wonder what would happen once technology (software) is going into a market for logistics and the rail-networks of old would be reformed to carry competition on them instead of belonging to a rent seeking monopoloist…
      - Joseph Dubeau
        
        It’s not clear what you are going to power with this toy.
        Kids make hydrogen in their chemistry lab.
        It’s a meaningless amount.
      - Michael G
        
        You could have said the same about the first solar panels. Are we assuming unending progress in battery technology but no progress whatever in FC technology?
        
        Are you asserting the technology won’t scale up to bigger uses when demand develops?
        
        FCs have a growing market niche in large (6-ton) forklifts for warehouse and factory material handling – displacing lead-acid batteries. Walmart and BMW are two of the biggest users. Walmart’s are 100% green – H2 formed by Hydrolysis.
        
        The US Army finds them useful for recharging electronics in the field (lighter than batteries). The US Navy thinks they will be useful in smaller submarines (greater energy density). Solar panels found their first uses in NASA. So did FCs.
        
        Technology advances despite your objections.
      - Joseph Dubeau
        
        “You could have said the same about the first solar panels. Are we assuming unending progress in battery technology but no progress whatever in FC technology?
        Are you asserting the technology won’t scale up to bigger uses when demand develops?”
        
        You were talking generating hydrogen not a FC cell.
        The article is about the Toyota Mira.
        Are you suggesting this toy on Amazon is going to power your Mira?
        
        ‘FCs have a growing market niche in large (6-ton) forklifts for warehouse and factory material handling – displacing lead-acid batteries. Walmart and BMW are two of the biggest users. Walmart’s are 100% green – H2 formed by Hydrolysis.’
        
        I’m very aware of FC applications. None of these are used for personal transportation. Niether Walmart nor BMW are asking the government to pick their business expenses.
        
        “The US Army finds them useful for recharging electronics in the field (lighter than batteries). The US Navy thinks they will be useful in smaller submarines (greater energy density). Solar panels found their first uses in NASA. So did FCs.” Technology advances despite your objections.”
        
        You are now comparing a toy you found on Amazon with US Army, Navy, and NASA.
        That is just silly.
      - jeffhre
        
        I had a kit where I made H2 when I was 11. Great stuff. Decades ago though.
      - Joseph Dubeau
        
        I bought my nephew a hydrogen powered rocket.
        It made it’s own fuel from batteries and water all in one kit.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        A battery, a bit of wire, a couple of nails, a glass of water….
      - jeffhre
        
        Packaging too.
    - Will E
      
      nearest EV plug in is at home charge point in carport with solar rooftop.
      - GCO
        
        PEVs are great for whoever can plug at home, but what about the others, including about half of the US households? [link]
      - Joseph Dubeau
        
        Or in Japan, you have to prove you have place to park.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        Plug in at work or school. Outlets are already being installed.
        
        Plug in in the apartment or condo parking lot that does not yet have outlets. Outlets are already being installed.
        
        Plug in along the street. Many streets are already wired for street lights and parking meters.
        
        Or plug in at a “SuperCharger” once or twice a week while you shop, go to the gym, whatever….
      - eveee
        
        I just questioned this figure before. Home ownership is 64%.
        http://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files/currenthvspress.pdf
        Although apartment charging is not ubiquitous yet, this is how apartment charging is done.
        The charging company sells the charger to the EV on a monthly basis and the landlord pays nothing.
        That’s one plan utilities have others.
        
        http://cleantechnica.com/2015/04/15/chargepoint-offering-solution-charging-apartments-condos/
    - MrL0g1c
      
      There is no hydrogen infrastructure.
      
      Worst argument ever, at one point in time there was no network of gas stations, did that stop gas cars?
      - Philip W
        
        But did gas stations cost a few millions to build?
      - jeffhre
        
        Each one in the US would cost about $1.3 million to replace.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        It currently costs $5 million per station in Japan.
      - jeffhre
        
        Does that include land?
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        In the fuel cell dream those fueling stations and the hydrogen extracting/compressing infrastructure have no cost.
        
        Apparently they will be gifted to us by unicorns or something….
      - Mike Shurtleff
        
        I see the cost of the H2 fueling stations as one of the smaller problems. Creating H2 from hydrolysis is roughly twice as expensive as using the electricity directly in EVs. Add to this the fact HFCVs are still much more expensive then EVs. Where is the marketing advantage argument for HFCVs in that?
        
        The much bigger problem is HFCVs are being pushed by fossil fuel companies. Fossil fuels will still be used to produce the H2 because it’s cheaper than H2 from electrolysis. As an added bonus, maybe they can slow the adoption of EVs by re-allocation of development funds that might be spent on pushing EV tech/infrastructure farther along.
        
        HFCV supporters are knowing, or unknowing, supporters of continuing fossil fuel use. Chris is quite right when he says renewables combined with EVs is a solution that can work now. …not the HFCV promise for tomorrow …maybe.
      - sjc_1
        
        In 1915 the same could be said about gasoline stations, refineries and gasoline tanker trucks.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        If we had good batteries and inexpensive solar/wind electricity in 1915 would it have made sense to build gas stations?
        
        We are now at a bifurcation of the transportation highway. Do we take the more expensive or less expensive road?
- Offgridman
  
  I might be mistaken, but I don’t think that there is anyone here saying that there shouldn’t be more research into fuel cells and more economical and or renewable sources of hydrogen. In fact I know that millions of my tax dollars this year were awarded to this type of research and I have no problem with that.
  But there does need to be some honesty in advertising from Toyota or any company. Not worried about the cost of that experiment in the advertisement, but would you mind figuring out for me just how many miles on the road was the Mirai able to get from the hydrogen from that one truckload of BS?
  The reason I am curious is because when figuring out how much manure it would take to replace the gas for our cookstove it would have been necessary to keep 10-15 55 gallon drums of slurry (half manure half water) fermenting year round. Having to dump two barrels every week and refill them as it takes approximately two months for the slurry to reach production and off gas all the methane that can be reasonably recovered.
  It is my suspicion that the one truck load probably only made enough hydrogen to move the car a mile or two if that. Not the miles and miles that seemed to be portrayed in the advertisement.
  So if you could figure out an accurate assessment it would be very much appreciated and maybe help to stop some of what you think is criticism going on here..
  Because actually I think that is what people are asking about here, what is the truth about how useful manure would be at fueling FCV’s? What Toyota provided doesn’t seem to offer any facts about how practical this could actually be. Yes we need to research and find new sources of hydrogen, but these new sources need to be cost effective and not cause more of the same types of problems that we are getting from fossil fuel use.
  - SMG_VII
    
    The criticism is not specific to this article and is not defending Toyota’s claim. It’s criticizing an easily identifiable trend I (and apparently others) have noticed on this site.
    - Bob_Wallace
      
      Please find comments or articles which state that no further research on hydrogen or fuel cells should be carried out.
      
      If you can’t find some then please do not repeat that charge.
    - Offgridman
      
      Yes some of the articles (Tina is an obvious exception) and commentors criticize the use of FCV’s right now. That is obviously because the economics and sources of hydrogen just don’t work right now.
      If and when hydrogen can be sourced without causing further ecological harm in an economical way then yes let’s go full blast on using fuel cell vehicles. Toyota is putting the cart before the horse because they are pushing for people to start using fuel cell vehicles when the hydrogen sources are not clean or economical. So it ends up looking like a support of the fossil fuel companies where most of our hydrogen is sourced from now. What is wrong with criticizing that.
      When Toyota can show us “That the hydrogen is coming from everywhere” and not mainly from natural gas we will all support them
      - Mike Shurtleff
        
        “Toyota is putting the cart before the horse” because they want to hold onto their share of the HEV market. Why will HFCVs ever be better than EVs? Could that happen? Yes. Will it ever happen? Nobody really knows. There are still significant technical problems to solve, like the inefficiency of electrolysis to make H2. Are EVs already improving in performance and cost to the point they might replace ICEVs? Heck yes. Throw out a sure thing (EVs) for a maybe, or maybe never, (HFCVs)? Toyota is nuts. They are only looking at short term marketing profits on HEV and ICEV market share.
      - eveee
        
        Toyota is jumping into the FCEV market now with immature FCEV tech, because they know that if they can’t make it happen now, they never will. 200 mile 30k EVs spell the end of the bulk of FCEV market. After that, the niches get smaller and smaller. Works for power 2 gas, though, for heating.
      - juxx0r
        
        Exactly, it’s now or never for fuel cells. According to Tesla’s projection of 1,000,000 EVs by 2019, it’s all going to be over for FCV by then.
      - Mike Shurtleff
        
        Thank you. I hadn’t thought of that. Blind. Makes good sense. Begs the question: Why is FCV market important anyway if EVs can and are doing the job?
        Still makes more sense to me to go with EVs for light trucks and cars, and e-fuels for other larger transport.
        Guess that’s why we have a free market economy (well sort of) instead of letting goofs like me decide. 😉
      - eveee
        
        Better you than some other goof. At least you are thinking rationally.
        But demand is irrational some times.
        Like I said in todays most recent articles about PHEV and HEV SUVs, if people want to drive SUVs, don’t question the irrationality of their choices. Just give them efficient SUVs. Thats what Tesla is doing. Now Volvo just figured out they couldn’t meet demand for their hybrid SUV.
        If you can’t fight em, join em.
        I don’t even see why we use long haul trucking, but I guess the shipment time direct is a bit better. Piggyback rail and long distance bulk rail is more efficient and cheaper.
        So long distance hauling might work with synfuels. Same with air.
        Long distance hauling might work with battery swaps now, though.
    - Mike Shurtleff
      
      HFCVs are being pushed by fossil fuel companies. Fossil fuels will still be used to produce the H2 for HFCVs because it’s cheaper than H2 from electrolysis. As an added bonus, maybe they can slow the adoption of EVs by re-allocation of development funds that might be spent on pushing EV tech/infrastructure farther along.
      
      HFCV supporters are knowing, or unknowing, supporters of continuing fossil fuel use. Chris is quite right when he says renewables combined with EVs is a solution that can work now. …not the HFCV promise for tomorrow …maybe.
      - SMG_VII
        
        Nice conspiracy theory you’ve got there…
        
        You might as well make an absurd claim like “the mining industry is pushing electric cars and batteries in order to increase lithium demand to levels said demand causes responsible mining practices are overlooked/ignored.”
      - Mike Shurtleff
        
        🙂 Suit yourself. I’m not that excited about the problem. EVs are already a viable and growing market. My conspiracy, imagined or real, will fail. You however are misguided to back HFCVs. They cost to much, are not ready for prime time, and EVs are ready. HFCVs could be ready in 10 more years, big maybe.
      - SMG_VII
        
        So you openly admit your ludicrous level of confirmation bias and total disinterest in pursuing all possible methods of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the long term. All that means is you don’t care about reducing emissions overall, but rather only in ways that you’re emotionally attached to. Thanks for clearing that up for us. You must have a crazy amount of stock in Tesla or something to be shilling that hard.
        
        (I even have stock in Tesla and I’m sure as hell not about to be anti-hydrogen because of it.)
      - Mike Shurtleff
        
        I don’t have stock in Tesla. I’m not anti-hydrogen. It’s simply not a good economic choice compared to the better alternative of EVs. EVs will reduce CO2 output faster, more economically right now. I’m in favor of continuing research work on H2 from electrolysis and on HFCVs, but Toyota’s position is out of line. They have become the enemy of CO2 reduction, as are you to promote high investment in H2/HFCV technology that is not ready to compete on the market. It’ll fail! More importantly, Toyota should quit talking dirt about EVs and put their HFCV sales (and HFCV reduction of CO2) where their mouth is. You too.
      - SMG_VII
        
        So then you didn’t at all read this thread. It was already EXPLICITLY stated that I (and others) are not defending Toyota’s specific claims or specific strategy.You are using the exact same logic against hydrogen technology that was used by some against solar and BEV technology 20 years ago. And now those solar/BEV detractors from 20 years ago are all eating crow for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
      - Mike Shurtleff
        
        Yes, I did not read the whole thread carefully. Guilty as charged. I am well aware of the rest. Difference is the argument in favor of FCVs does more to defend continued FF use than the argument in favor of EVs. Most H2 comes from NG, with CO2 output resulting. This will continue to be the case until H2 from electrolysis becomes feasible. Solar PV did not need fundamental breakthroughs in physics 20 years ago. The inefficiency of electrolysis for H2 is a fundamental physics problem. It may be solved tomorrow. It may not be solved for 100 years. Nobody knows. Different animals.
        
        Please explain how H2 provides us any advantage over EVs in the long term. Why H2? Why not e-fuels instead? Way easier to store, transport, and handle. We already have the oil, diesel, and gasoline infrastructure for that.
      - eveee
        
        Yes, really. Why does Toyota have to sling dirt on EVs to promote FCEV? I agree Musk could tone it down a little. But Toyota is doing it in commercials. Thats tacky and counterproductive.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        Please stop your attacks on others based on your false accusations that they oppose hydrogen research.
        
        Try to understand that failure to buy into the feasibility of H2 FCEVs is based on economics.
      - SMG_VII
        
        They aren’t false accusations. They are valid interpretations of intent/meaning based on tone, context, and style.
        
        People in this very thread have said ‘you shouldn’t support HFC technology’ or ‘you’re actively supporting the tactics of the fossil fuel industries by supporting the concept of HFCs’. (That’s paraphrased)
        
        The (negative) “economics” argument is hypocritical nonsense that at one point also applied to solar, wind, BEV, and basically all other forms of technology. Everyone should just shut the hell up already and let hydrogen technology run its course, whatever that course ends up being. We already did that with the aforementioned technologies and this shouldn’t be any different.
      - Rick
        
        Do you know a good replacement site for cleantechnica/IST? You know… one that isn’t so…
      - juxx0r
        
        You can join the nut jobs over here:
        
        http://bravenewclimate.com
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        You might search for a site along the lines of “We love climate change”.
      - Rick
        
        Yeah, that’s it. Accept no criticism. Thinking is wrong. Anyone whose opinion deviates slightly from the established bobian canon must surely be one of those evil illuminati bastards. So long. It was not nice meeting you.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        I’d say, rather than evil illuminati bastards, dumber than dirt climate change deniers might be a better fit.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        I have no information about oil companies and hydrogen.
        
        I’ve no doubt that natural gas companies would be glad to sell NG to plants that turn it into hydrogen. And I find NG->H2 entirely unacceptable. It’s teh carbon.
        
        I cannot imagine that either gas companies or NG companies are supporting ‘green’ H2.
        
        At one time EV batteries were too expensive and many of us thought H2 FCEVs our best route off petroleum. Just as many of us thought nuclear our best route off coal. But over time the cost of EV batteries, solar panels and wind turbines rapidly and significantly fell.
        
        No one has presented a rational description of how we might bring down the cost of green hydrogen and nuclear energy. If either somehow become cheaper then they can get into the game. But until that breakthrough happens both are simply unaffordable.
        
        I have no idea what you mean by telling us that we should shut the hell up and let hydrogen run its course.
        
        Do you mean that hydrogen should be given a special status under which it is not discussed?
        
        Should we simply spend billions and billions to build a hydrogen infrastructure simply because the idea of FCEVs puts a bump in your tighty whities?
  - eveee
    
    Research dollars should be apportioned appropriately, with smaller funds for pure research not directed to narrow areas, but with an eye for best fit applications. Applied research funds should be apportioned according to practical realities and goals, otherwise too much funds are wasted. IMO, a lot of money has been wasted on fusion that could have been put to better use on more practical research.
    - Offgridman
      
      Yes definitely research money needs to be apportioned appropriately and while the system we have isn’t perfect, it has accomplished a lot over the past century or more with the side benefit of adding to the general knowledge base and sometimes totally new uses coming from the research that were never expected.. I don’t know if the money put towards fusion was a waste because it seems that it probably helped to contribute to the field of physics in general. Just as the research into clean sources of hydrogen make sense to me, it may not end up being used in fuel cells, but I can see the US reaching a point like Germany is now where at times there is excess renewable electricity and fossil fuel natural gas is to expensive or hazardous to use so the hydrogen can help supplement the renewable methane.
      Research needs to be done and supported or you can end up in a case like the EU and solar with the Chinese taking over the market, this is a situation they are now trying to address with a recoordination between the universities and facilities with what industry needs. So at some point the US will probably go through a similar adjustment period.
      Like you with fusion I don’t care for how much the military directs research in the US, but my opinion has adjusted because it has become more obvious just how much they are now the leaders in renewable energy usage, efficiency measures, and recognition of climate change.
      Every individual has an opinion as where they would prefer research to be directed, but we have to live within the constraints of the systems that we have for directing it and realize that it all helps to contribute to the general knowledge base and there is no telling how or where that knowledge might be beneficial at some time.
      - eveee
        
        There comes a point when its more than a little bit evident, that the reason that we are spending funds has more to do with politics and thinking at the time than reason.
        We spent big on fusion after the first gas crisis. This was stupid for two reasons. One, its way far off. Two, we had no way to harness fusion for liquid fuels. A lot of money was spent decades ago. But it had military implications, too. So that is an example of unbalanced spending in my opinion. I will go with my comments. Sure, spend some on general research. But if so, don’t spend it all in one place. Spend more on applied research and make it count. When the results start telling you its a dry hole, stop spending.
        Thats not how Congress works. Spending has nothing to do with reason or purpose. Its about lobbying and constituencies.
      - sjc_1
        
        The U.S. spends billions on weapons R&D to make sure the oil keeps flowing from the middle east. Compare that to the millions spent on renewable energy, fuel cells and batteries to make sure we never need to go to the middle east ever again to protect oil flowing to the west.
- Bob_Wallace
  
  So, SMG VII and Michael G wish for us to not oppose research into hydrogen and fuel cells.
  
  It will be extremely to oblige them. I’ve seen exactly no one state that we should not research H2 and fuel cells. (I.e., it’s strawman argument they fling out.)
  
  What I do see stated, and apparently what SMG VII and Michael G also do not want to see mentioned, is that –
  
  1) Running FCEVs off H2 from reformed natural gas does little to nothing to reduce our climate change problem.
  
  2) The cost of H2 from reformed natural gas is more expensive than gasoline per mile.
  
  3) The cost of “green” H2 obtained by spitting water using electricity is even more expensive.
  
  They apparently wish for us to ignore the fact that people will not buy FCEVs and then pay far more to drive than what ICEVs would cost.
  
  Apparently we should ignore the obvious problems in order to keep their dream alive.
  We should plan our futures on the hope that someone, someday soon, will find a way to drastically reduce the energy required to break the bond between the oxygen and hydrogen atoms in water and will also find a lower energy way to compress gases. We should base our dreams on the discovery of a new set of laws of physics.
  
  All we need is the black swan of Physics III, the step past Newton and Einstein. We’ll split the water molecule using only a fourth as much energy and compress hydrogen with only a tiny scoch of power.
  
  Did I get that right, boys? CleanTechnica should dream the impossible dream….
  
  Oh, I forgot. We also need to believe in very large amounts of almost free electricity with will be of a type unusable in electric motors and only by hydrogen plants. That a hydrogen infrastructure will be built for spare change. And some other stuff….
  - Steve N
    
    Deep breath Bob. 15 years ago electric cars were the impossible dream. I agree hydrogen is still to far away, but let the dreamers dream. I kinda like Mr. Musk’s dreams.
    - Bob_Wallace
      
      I have no problem with people dreaming.
      
      It becomes a problem when someone can no longer distinguish between reality and fantasy.
  - SMG_VII
    
    Good work willfully misinterpreting a general criticism and taking it personally.
    - Bob_Wallace
      
      I do take it personally when you and Michael accuse the rest of us of opposing research into hydrogen and fuel cells.
      
      This is a false accusation that Michael has repeatedly made.
  - GCO
    
    Let’s see, how efficient is it really to run an FCV on natural gas, vs an EV?
    
    FCV: pipes 98%, SMR 75%, compression 95%, fuel cell 40%: ~28%.
    EV: power plant 40%, transmission 94%, charging 92%: ~35%.
    
    You seem to think that only the 2nd is clean, yet there is little difference between the two.
    What are we missing here?
    - Mike Shurtleff
      
      Your missing the fact that Wind, Solar, and Storage continue to get cheaper. They are starting from a small base, but will soon provide the greater majority of our electricity. If we convert to EVs and EREVs over the next 20 years, then this will reduce our fuel costs and dramatically reduce CO2 output. If we convert to HFCVs then we’ll still be in the same boat, a limited FF supply and AGW from CO2.
      
      Also, HFCVs are more expensive than EVs by a good margin. They would catch on in the larger market till later …if ever.
      
      I live in Washington State. Most of our electricity is already from hydro with some wind. I can cut my FF use dramatically by going to an EV. Not the same for an HFCV. Same for the rest of the country later.
    - Bob_Wallace
      
      You are missing, no misleading, by assuming electricity from fossil fuel plants.
      
      I hope you’re starting to understand that moving to green hydrogen would only postpone closing of fossil fuel plants. We would have to install 2x to 3x as many solar panels and wind turbines to make up for the inefficiency of the hydrogen route.
      - GCO
        
        I don’t assume. I don’t like it either, but it’s a fact that the US derives only a tiny fraction of its electricity from solar and wind; see http://www.eia.gov/electricity/
        
        And why would you even suggest burning fossil fuels to produce electricity, to then perform electrolysis, when SMR is dramatically more efficient??
        If anything, EVs are the ones which would delay closing FF power plants, not FCVs, as hydrogen can be produced from methane (NG, biogas) directly.
        http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/outlet-graph-large.jpg
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        At this point in time the US is getting about 5% of its electricity from solar and wind. EVs make up less than 1% of all cars. FCEVs make up essentially 0% of all cars.
        
        On this site we talk about where we are and where we are likely headed. The grid will almost certainly get greener.
        
        It makes zero sense to switch from petroleum to natural gas converted to H2 for FCEVs. That does not get us away from adding more carbon to the above-ground carbon cycle.
    - eveee
      
      You are missing an awful lot of math.
      Let’s ignore pipes efficiency and take your word. Apparently the cost of creating a pipe infrastructure is no object. Why you want to talk pipes is beyond me. There’s no advantage over the electric grid. You might as well send the electricity to the electrolyzer.
      Here’s your biggest error, I think. The electrolysis comes from electricity.
      You have to count the electrical losses and Carnot efficiencies for both if you start from electricity. Or just ignore the electricity source because it’s the same for both paths and only count the differences.
      SMR comes first, not pipes, but 75% might work.
      Compression 95%. Nope. PV=nRT. That means pressure generates heat. It’s hard to recover low temperature heat. The losses will be greater in the real world, but show me a reference.
      Fuel cell 40%, ok.
      So the reality is that if they both start from electricity, the EV is 90% efficient and the FCEV is 35%. That’s greater than 2x efficiency.
      http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_to_gas
      - GCO
        
        You missed the starting point: natural gas. That’s what the pipes are for, and they already exist.
        
        Re hydrogen compression, source is http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/9013_energy_requirements_for_hydrogen_gas_compression.pdf
        
        What I was showing is that there’s little difference between an EV charged with electricity coming from a natural-gas power plant, and an FCV fed steam-reformed hydrogen.
        
        As a large portions of the grid run on natural gas (hello California), and this proportion is even increasing slightly as coal thankfully decreases, criticizing FCVs because hydrogen currently comes mostly from NG is misguided at best, or dishonest.
      - eveee
        
        Then you missed where there is not enough biogas to power the U.S. fleet and fractured methane used in SMR produces more CO2 than ICE.
      - GCO
        
        Why does it matter whether all methane can be from biogas?
        Does the current fleet run on renewable gasoline? Do EVs all run on renewables?
        
        And please stop repeating your misconceptions about SMR. Research the topic a bit, and you’ll notice that it’s actually much more efficient than any ICE. Like 2× to 3×.
      - eveee
        
        SMR from fractured gas matters because it produces more CO2 than ICE. EVs on average are much better than either.
        http://cleantechnica.com/2014/06/04/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-about-not-clean/
      - sjc_1
        
        Now you mention fractured NG, how about the carbon produced by coal and natural gas plants making electricity for EVs?
        How about the pollution from refineries making gasoline as well as the pollution coming out of cars burning gasoline?
      - eveee
        
        NREL analysis also includes a mix of electricity sources for EVs, so they take into account CO2 in electricity. The NREL study assumed EIAs 2035 electricity mix which is lousy and posits very little renewable growth. The EIA is just wrong. The grid can be much cleaner than they think by 2035. EIA projections are already wrong.
        
        NREL considers well to wheels, so refinery etc. is considered.
        
        NREL is the most optimistic scientific assessment there is.
        
        You can dig into details in the paper and an analysis of it. The link is in the article.
        
        http://cleantechnica.com/2014/06/04/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-about-not-clean/
      - eveee
        
        No the pipes don’t already exist. The pipes have to be built for hydrogen, regular methane pipes don’t do so well. Hydrogen embrittlement.
- James
  
  There are lots of people with shares in Tesla. Thus we have articles such as this one which try to ramp up support for Tesla by shouting anti-hydrogen slogans 🙂
  - Bob_Wallace
    
    James, that is a very offensive claim.
    - GCO
      
      How else do you explain this article?
vensonata

A hydrogen powered world is a brilliant idea…until you think about it. I am sure many of the readers of Clean Technica were once enamored of the hydrogen economy. Maybe even “nuclear produced hydrogen”. Now there is a neat package! But then, they, we, I, thought about it. Not such a good idea after all. Now, when we say this we often get flack from hydrogen enthusiasts. Sorry, we are not trying to frustrate your vision for a better world, believe me. There are just better ways of solving our clean energy problems.
- Zachary Shahan
  
  Exactly. On first introduction, it sounds wonderful. But then you dig beyond the surface PR, and things get less and less attractive, until a HFCV looks worse than a Prius, and the idea of a “hydrogen economy” makes you shudder.
  
  I’m open to any technology or solution that makes our world a better place. It’s why I now love wind power, solar power, and battery-electric vehicles, and it’s why I can no longer support HFCVs.
  - Will E
    
    along with battery storage and heatpump heating and warm water storage.
    today again 24 Kwh from the Sun.
    And the King was transported with the whole family in an Electric bus. Kingsday Netherlands 27 april.
  - GCO
    
    @ZShahan3:disqus, I’m curious, if not HFCVs, what do you suggest for appartment dwellers who park on the street (link: about half the US households don’t have their own parking spot), for those driving long distances, especially in larger/heavier vehicles like big rigs or buses (e.g. Greyhound)?
    Just keep burning oil while hoping for some break-through battery and charging tech?
    
    I don’t think we humans can afford to further delay our shift away from fossil fuels, starting from the dirtiest ones like coal and oil.
    We better start using the technologies we already have, and build on them, than sit and wait for some perfect universal solution.
    - djr417
      
      Hydrogen is farther away than EV’s for even 50% of the population (which would be amazing). For apt. buildings, the only real option is retrofitting for plugins, or onstreet plugin (ive seen a prototype of a plug in/parking meter- cant remember what site though). Big rigs… biodiesel? in the meantime till battery tech catches up. Im sure Zach or others can come up with even more solutions.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        Big rigs could run right now on battery packs for about 200 miles and swap packs in less than two minutes.
      - Jason hm
        
        Yard trucks and delivery vehicles can work with battery run EV’s but the math doesn’t work for commercial vehicles that run several hundreds of miles each day. How many kilowatt hours of battery will you need to run 40,000 plus pounds of freight on top of a chassis and trailer than weigh up to 30,000 pounds. Hell Add another 10,000 pound just for the hell of it and top off the 80k GVW. 10k is nothing in the commercial vehicle market but in the ev world it’s two Tesla whose batteries cost about 50 grand?
        
        For big trucks your talking about massive batteries mega watt hours not kilo watt hours it would cost millions for enough batteries to keep one rig rolling.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        Here’s my math….
        
        There are 37.87 kWh in a gallon #2 diesel (Wiki)
        
        An efficient loaded 18 wheeler can get 8 MPG (RMI), thus is using 4.7 kWh worth of diesel per mile.
        
        The 18 wheeler is about 45% efficient. Ouf of the 4.7 kWh used about 2.1 kWh is turned into kinetic energy, the rest into waste heat.
        
        Running on a 85 kWh Tesla ModS battery pack the 18 wheeler could travel 39.9 miles.
        
        In order to travel 200 miles the 18 wheeler would need a about 5.5 packs to allow for the 10% inefficiency of the electric motor/drivetrain. Round up to 6 packs per 200 miles.
        
        One claim has been that batteries would be too heavy. The ModS pack weighs 1,200 pounds, so 6 packs would weigh 7,200 pounds.
        
        An 18 wheeler can carry up to 300 gallons of diesel. At 7 pounds per gallon that’s 2,100 pounds. The dry weight of a Detroit Diesel engine is 2,763 lbs. So at least 4,863 pounds for the ICE version. Add in cooling and exhaust system and you’d be well over 5,000 pounds.
      - Cliff Anstey
        
        Bang on bob. that technology is comming soon.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        I’d love to see Tesla build a couple of demonstration trucks for hauling lithium to their GigaFactory. I think the mine is about 200 miles from the plant.
    - Mike Shurtleff
      
      1. bio-diesel, bio-gasoline, and bio-butanol.
      2. e-diesel, e-gasoline, and e-butanol.
      3. (third) use NG directly instead of pretending it’s clean and using even more energy, maybe even more FF, to make it into H2 before burning it.
      
      [60% of oil use is as fuel for light trucks and cars. I’d say turning those all into EVs or EREVs would be a heck of a good start on reducing our oil use. The grid electricity to charge them is increasingly changing over to clean wind and solar already. Get them EVs built and on the road!]
      - MrL0g1c
        
        And what about airplanes, large transporter ships and cruise-liners? – these all have big carbon foot-prints that could be fixed with e-fuels. Cars can be easily be 100% electric, but can a passenger plane or large ship be?
        
        It would be handy to have a way of storing massive amounts of energy, e-diesel can do that. Right now we’re using coal and gas power to backup renewables, we need ways to move away from that. I think we should be investing more into tidal, geothermal, pumped hydro and clean fuels.
      - Mike Shurtleff
        
        Yes, I’m saying:
        1. Battery Electric for light trucks and cars and short distance trucks and buses.
        2. bio-fuels and e-fuels for long distance trucks, buses, and for planes and ships.
        
        I totally agree about e-fuels being very promising for long term storage of renewable power. Much easier to store and transport than H2.
        
        I agree with every dang word you wrote in that last comment.
      - elo
        
        Can computers ever be the size of a watch?
        
        10 years ago, this wasn’t even a reality. Today, I can dictate the response to this post on my $200 smartwatch.
        
        There’s your answer on why we’ll eventually have large planes and commercial ships running on batteries.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        It is theoretically possible. We’ve got a long way to go with battery development, but with all the research now going into batteries we might get there in “couple of decades”.
        
        I have no guess about the pace capacity growth going forward. We’ve seen 8% annual capacity increases in the past. That’s a 9 year doubling. A couple of capacity doublings would bring about a brand new world.
      - MrL0g1c
        
        Bad analogy, the size of computer chips is irrelevant.
        
        It is a question of energy density/chemistry, what is the largest battery size allowed by physics to get a passenger plane across the ocean. And can we create a battery of that size or smaller that will hold enough energy to do the job.
        
        Maybe.
    - Mike Shurtleff
      
      Another point for you here:
      Toyota is not building HFCVs that are heavy trucks or buses. They building HFCVs that are cars. This offers little for reduction in FF use, litlle for reducing our CO2 output.
      - eveee
        
        Or FCEV create an increase in GHG when the hydrogen comes from fractured gas.
      - Mike Shurtleff
        
        Right. FCEVs for light trucks and cars do not currently makes sense from an environmental point of view.
    - eveee
      
      I question that half households don’t have their own parking spot. The home ownership rate is running about 64%.
      http://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files/currenthvspress.pdf
      One way apartment charging is enabled is via a program with no costs to the landlord and a monthly payment from the EV owner. The utility in San Diego is setting up a program also.
      http://cleantechnica.com/2015/04/15/chargepoint-offering-solution-charging-apartments-condos/
      It’s a surmountable problem, but it’s new so early adopters have more to deal with. I have seen a Tesla Model S parked charging at a health business building where a charger was installed at a regular parking space.
      - GCO
        
        I understand “home ownership” as including e.g. apartments. Anyway, that number wasn’t mine, but theirs: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/smart-transportation-solutions/advanced-vehicle-technologies/electric-cars/bev-phev-range-electric-car.html
        
        Yes, more EVSEs will get installed at apartment complexes etc, allowing more people to consider PEVs, but it will take time, and won’t solve the main problems I see:
        1) people parking along the street. It’ll be really hard to guarantee them a place to charge, short of covering a huge percentage of all parking spots, at a cost dwarfing those of a hydrogen infrastructure.
        2) people who won’t consider an alternative which doesn’t refill as quickly as gasoline (whether they actually need this capability or not).
        3) Large/heavy-duty/specialty vehicles for which batteries remain ill-suited for the foreseeable future.
      - eveee
        
        Stop it. The same references shows home ownership separate from apartments as a different category, it does not lump them together. That’s why I selected the reference. Read it. 64% is the number, not half. Your claim was parking spots. Even apartments have parking spots, so your claim is off. The problem with apartments is installing chargers. I showed a reference solution.
        Look. The EV market is huge compared to supply. Nothing is stopping its growth now, and it will accelerate in ways no one can comprehend when 30k 200 mile EVs hit the road. By the time it grows, those people you say have irrational emotional objections will have an irrational emotional need to keep up with the joneses that have all those cool shiny things in that new fanged electric car.
- Kyle Field
  
  What’s important is to keep the infighting (among renewables) to a minimum. Yes, we believe BEVs are currently superior…but at the rate tech changes these days, that could literally change overnight. Let’s keep the focus on replacing petro with sustainable renewables (soas to eliminate wood chip burning from the mix which is NOT sustainable) and move forward with arms linked.
  - Michael G
    
    Thanks! This circular firing squad among “greenies” helps no one except the oil cos.
    - Mike Shurtleff
      
      No, you’re being used by the FF companies. Toyota should market EVs and EREVs right now! They should continue their HFCV development, along with H2 electrolysis research, and market this stuff when it becomes cost effective. It is a ruse, so they slow down EV/EREV sales and continue to sell ICEVs and HEVs.
      The energy inefficiency and cost ineffectiveness of producing H2 from water cleanly (electrolysis) is a major technical challenge. It remains just around the corner, just as fusion energy has been just around the corner since WW2.
      - Michael G
        
        I’m not being used by anyone. I am by nature and training very skeptical of anything and everything. Until this site went so crazy anti-FCVs I hadn’t really thought much about them. But all the talk against them got me interested enough to learn a lot about them and I think they need to be explored.
        
        Excitement over BEVs is understandable. Teslas are beautiful and hold out a lot of hope. But BEVs may not scale to larger vehicles, they may not win public acceptance beyond a few hundred thousand, battery breakthroughs expected and needed may not come. Anything can go wrong so we need every possible avenue explored and developed until ICEs and FFs are dead.
        
        You are mistaking hope for reality.
      - Mike Shurtleff
        
        “But BEVs may not scale to larger vehicles”
        True enough, but light truck and cars are 60% of our oil use. I figure that’s a good start. I already made a comment on long distance trucks and buses elsewhere here. Short distance trucks and buses can and are going electric.
        
        “they may not win public acceptance beyond a few hundred thousand”
        Nonsense! They are already great fun to drive. It’s all about getting the initial cost down to ICEV cost. That’s happening. Three more years. EVs are already cheaper to operate, so when the initial cost comes down we’ll have a mass transition. …bet on it.
        
        “battery breakthroughs expected and needed”
        They absolutely are not! Current Li-ion batteries are good enough now. Tesla vehicles, for example, are good enough now. We just need to get the cost down and this is happening by incremental improvements in production, the manufacturing learning curve.
        
        “we need every possible avenue explored and developed”
        
        I have no problem with continuing to explore and do research development on HFCVs. I support that. This article is about Toyota spreading FUD about EVs that are ready for prime time, to promote their HFCV that is not ready for prime time. It’s going to be too expensive.
        
        It is you who are confusing HFCV technology with being ready for marketing.
        
        EVs are ready, are being sold on the market, and are still dropping in cost which is going to win them the market, not hope, reality!
      - MrL0g1c
        
        battery breakthroughs expected and needed may not come.
        
        I think that’s highly unlikely, every university on this planet knows that patent for a substantially better battery could be worth a trillion dollars and physics doesn’t say it’s not possible.
      - Michael G
        
        You could same for a cure for cancer, or fusion power, or a host of other breakthroughs. Sometimes throwing money and smart people at a problem solves it. Sometimes it doesn’t.
        
        “Highly unlikely” doesn’t cut it when we’re talking about the survival of our species.
      - Mike Shurtleff
        
        You could say the same for energy efficient electrolysis.
      - Michael G
        
        Yes – which is why we have to support all techs that hold promise. Cancer R&D, Fusion R&D, and FC R&D
      - Mike Shurtleff
        
        R&D, yes. Commercial build out, no. Not till it offers a reasonable advantage over other perfectly good solutions …or if is the only solution, of course, but it’s not.
      - Michael G
        
        What does “Development” in R&D mean to you if not building some limited number of stations to support the practical use of the Research in R&D. We’re talking $25M/year from CA’s budget of $164B/year for a handful of H2 stations in southern CA. Are you under the false impression FCs are not in commercial use? Here’s a map of all the H2 stations in N.A. including commercial and retail:
        
        https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=z2V7q1oi2b_Q.kHW1nFqlRWI0
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        Development does not mean spending money to implement a failed idea.
        
        1) Do research.
        
        2) If someone can find a way to make hydrogen affordably to the point at which it would be superior to electricity then build hydrogen stations.
        
        Do not build gold stores until you’re sure Rumpelstiltskin can actually turn straw into gold.
      - Kyle Field
        
        It doesnt have to be efficient, it just have to work which it does. With Solar and silicon prices dropping just about every day, affordable solar powered electrolysis is just around the corner.
        
        Batteries improve in density and price about 7% / year so that’s happening. We don’t need a breakthrough, just a decade or two to optimize them…though I fully expect the massive increase in battery research funding to yield some breakthroughs along the way.
        
        Oh what exciting times we live in 🙂
      - Mike Shurtleff
        
        “It doesnt have to be efficient”
        Yes it does, that is exactly the point. If not efficient, or more precisely if not more economical, than other options (e.g. electricity directly into BEVs and more importantly ICEVs) then it will not win in the market place. If it does not win in the market place then those economics do not work to build it out. Go that route and you’re stuck listening to Congress debate whether the earth is flat or not …a better analogy …whether there are enough trees for everyone to burn until there are no trees left …Easter Islanders.
      - Mike Shurtleff
        
        “affordable solar powered electrolysis is just around the corner”
        
        Really? Like fusion for the last 60 years? Your psychic guide is way better than mine. Mine says “I don’t know”. Fundamental physics or chemistry problem.
        
        Prove me wrong. That would be excellent! Lower cost H2 from electrolysis would be very useful for making e-fuels. Those are easier to store and transport …with existing infrastructure. H2 for HFCVs? More expensive BS so far. Keep the development going and see if it can bypass battery storage. Better for fueling time and range already. Not enough yet and bio-fuels or e-fuels in EREV fixes range problem at lower cost so far.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        There’s the King of the Mountain problem that FCEVs face….
        
        EVs are likely to achieve a solid 200 mile range in the next two years. And if that happens then sub $25k 200 mile EVs are likely to follow shortly.
        As that plays out we will see charging outlets for the “other 46%” appear and level 3+ rapid chargers build in large number along our highways.
        
        EVs are likely to take most of the market from ICEVs. Buy them for the same price or less. Pay a lot less per mile to drive. Enjoy the convenience of just plugging in rather than spending time at filling stations. EVs become the King.
        
        On what basis might FCEVs push EVs off the mountain top? Longer range? Not important very often. Faster filling/charging? Only counts on long trips and not much then. Plus FCEV drivers would have to visit filling stations about four dozen times a year when not on long trips. I don’t see any advantage there which would create a large enough market to bring down FCEV prices and pay for fueling infrastructure.
        
        Had FCEVs been first then they might have knocked ICEVs off the top and development money may not have gone into EVs/batteries. But they weren’t….
      - Mike Shurtleff
        
        “EVs are likely to achieve a solid 200 mile range in the next two years. And if that happens”…
        Isn’t that pretty much already in play for 2016?
        
        “I don’t see any advantage there which would create a large enough market to bring down FCEV prices and pay for fueling infrastructure.”
        Only advantage I see to H2/FCV is shorter fueling times for long distance travel. EREVs can already do that with existing fuel delivery infrastructure. Why spent billions to build out H2 delivery infrastructure? You’re right imho, not gunna happen.
        
        “Had FCEVs been first then they might have knocked ICEVs off the top and development money may not have gone into EVs/batteries.”
        Maybe, but there are several cost disadvantages to H2/FCVs …which has some to do with why they weren’t first:
        1. Inefficiency of electrolysis = higher cost of fuel
        or continued use of SMR means same. (Electricity is going to be cheaper going forward.) I’d include cost of compressing H2 to put in vehicle tanks here too.
        2. Cost of H2 fueling stations is high.
        3. Cost of H2 distribution infrastructure build out.
        4. Cost of H2/FCVs remains higher. (H2 embrittlement)
        Even if the last cost problem had won out, as you say, the others would be dragging it down in the market.
        
        BTW
        Nice way to explain it though. Thanks Bob
  - Mike Shurtleff
    
    The bigger problem is HFCVs are being pushed by fossil fuel companies. Fossil fuels will still be used to produce the H2 because it’s cheaper than H2 from electrolysis. As an added bonus, maybe they can slow the adoption of EVs by re-allocation of development funds that might be spent on pushing EV tech/infrastructure farther along.
    
    HFCV supporters are knowing, or unknowing, supporters of continuing fossil fuel use. Chris is quite right when he says renewables combined with EVs is a solution that can work now. …not the HFCV promise for tomorrow …maybe.
    - GCO
      
      I drive an EV, and highly recommend this. Yet I’m realistic, this can’t work for everything and everyone. HFCVs offer another, IMHO complementary, low to zero-emission option.
      
      It’s not either/or. One size doesn’t fit all. We need both.
      
      As long as most of our electricity continues to come from fossil fuels, EVs are about as clean as FCVs anyway.
      The main thing is, both are dramatically better than pretty much anything oil-powered.
      - Mike Shurtleff
        
        I disagree. The grid is getting cleaner. Wind, Solar, and Storage are taking over. Start converting to EVs today and we’ll be producing less CO2 tomorrow.
        
        Why does anybody “need” an FCV? For driving longer distances? What about Bio-fuel or E-fuel?
      - SMG_VII
        
        Because hydrogen can only apply to personal vehicles… oh wait. It has potential applications in things like heavy trucks, freight locomotives (UP has been using some hydrogen locomotives in rail yards for nearly a decade), and cargo ships. Maybe batteries will also work their way into those sectors (still worth looking into as well), but they have yet to prove they will do so effectively. And considering heavy trucks are responsible for a disproportionately high amount of our transportation-related emissions, I’d say it’s still worth pursuing hfc tech (even if you ignore every other potential application).
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        No one is arguing against research. Please try to understand that very important point.
        
        Both you and Michael.
        
        People are very skeptical that there will be a significant breakthrough in hydrogen production and compression but are not opposed to researchers looking for new routes.
        
        Hydrogen isn’t a very good option for locomotives, airplanes and oceanic shipping. Hydrogen is a low density fuel and packing enough to move a large vehicle for the long distances required would be problematic.
      - SMG_VII
        
        Numerous people here and throughout this site have been both implicitly and explicitly been derisive towards hydrogen research and technology. It basically amounts to “Oh that’s cute. Keep trying with your little experiments. It’ll never work.” It’s textbook passive-aggressive, anti-science thinking. Many people far, far smarter than any of us think it’s worth pursuing and don’t believe it’s a dead end. I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt (until it is sufficiently proven one way or the other) over anyone here.
      - nakedChimp
        
        Show me the hand that feeds those ‘smart people’ and I tell you whose song they sing.. 😉
        With HFCV you’re leaving the scientific area and enter the political/economic area with big interests.
        With electrical/chemical energy storage for the masses a lot of centralized rent-seeking enterprises is going into a very very dark future.
        With hydrogen not at all.
        If your single dwelling ESS shortens out and your house burns down no one cares. If instead your single dwelling hydrogen generator storage tank leaks and blows your house and a couple of neighbors into heaven they will notice and the public will demand to stop this, so you can go back lining up at the central fuel station to pay your rent.
        
        Look, they did put in research for hydrogen tech for the last 20-30 years and have nothing really to show.
        On the other hand for mobile phones and laptops they developed those nice batteries and today we can use them to drive a car.. BEVs never got the help that hydrogen got and still did come out on top.
      - Mike Shurtleff
        
        Sure, but not FC cars as Toyota is doing. That’s a waste of resources and a ruse, just like when Bush, the oil man, gave a billion $ to FC research.
    - Kyle Field
      
      Neither or those are true arguments against the technology but against how it’s being deployed. It is completely feasible to locally produce H2 from clean solar and leverage it to speed the migration to a clean transport infrastructure.
      
      I encourage you to shift your focus from the negatives to the opportunities presented and see what we collectively can to to move those forward.
      
      For the record, I’m still a fan of BEVs but do see promise for H2, even though none of the current prospects fit the bill.
      - Mike Shurtleff
        
        “It is completely feasible to locally produce H2 from clean solar and leverage it to speed the migration to a clean transport infrastructure.”
        Yes, completely technically feasible. NOT ECONOMICALLY COMPETITIVE. Look what Elon Musk is doing. He is leveraging competitive technological innovation in a capitalist competitive market to build out the solution. (Except in those red states whose auto dealers won’t allow competition and whose citizens allow that behavior 😉 Customers, all of us, will pay the freight if it saves us money and/or works better than what we’ve been doing. That’s the only way this transition happens and H2 ain’t there yet.
        You cannot pass a carbon tax, or carbon market, in our country.
        You end up debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin with empowered idiots.
        You will never get our government to mandate the changes needed to transition to clean power generation and clean transportation in order to stop AGW. We’ll all be dead when they figure it out. There is only one way, one thing they will respond to, MONEY! Your alternative MUST be more economical, than the burn’em till you die alternative. Wind, Solar PV, and now Storage are there. EVs are about three years away from competing directly for cost on the sales floor. (They are already much cheaper to operate.) When that happens a massive change over happens. Everybody buys’em and the MONEY source for congress changes.
        H2 is not there. It may be some day, but it is NOT visibly just around the corner. Why? Because direct electricity to BEVs is ahead in reaching the economic threshold.
        
        Sorry to go on. Get wound when rested at times. Maybe that will help you see why Musk says H2/HFCVs are BS. He’s not just good at technical understanding. He’s also really good at the intersection of that with marketability.
- Coley
  
  And we will all become hydrogen enthusiasts again, should a clean and green and (cheap) way of producing it be discovered.
  - vensonata
    
    Exactly.
- Roger Pham
  
  Not a hydrogen-alone-powered world, but in combination with direct solar PV, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, BATTERY, biogas, synthetic hydrocarbon etc…AND Hydrogen. Please read the following as a typical scenario of cooperation between Plugged-in EV and FCEV:
  
  If there will be sufficient number of 20-mi-PHEV’s, then there will exist a market for solar carport charging at work. You’ll pay to park underneath that charging solar carport via a monthly subscription fee, which will rent you a cool and shaded place to park that will be closer to the building, or with a covered walkway always from the parking lot to the building. The covered walkway will also be covered with solar PV panels. No need for expensive power meter at every solar parking slot because of a fixed monthly parking fee, so no extra accounting or billing costs.
  
  With DC charging, you’ll gain higher efficiency at lower cost. No need for expensive grid-compatible DC to AC inverters. Weekend solar output will be used to make H2 for FCEV’s or for FC-PHEV’s, so still DC to DC consumption. So, people who have FCEV’s or FC-PHEV’s will fill up their H2 tanks at their workplaces, right after the end of each Fridays for their weekend travels, allowing room for more weekend H2 production.
  
  Cloudy days are usually windy, in that case, there will be excess wind power for charging or for making H2. Having an ability to soak up the extra solar and wind energy will encourage more rapid adoption of RE by being able to obtain high-value transportation fuel out of the EXCESS RE that otherwise would go to waste, with very high penetration of RE into our future power grid.
  
  If you work for Mr. Musk, please persuade him to expand his Solar City
  business into solar carports for at work charging. He can also work out a deal with ITM-Power to provide H2 fillup facilities in the work place, as well as working with Intelligent Energy to provide FC for the Model S and X, while working with Quantum Fuel System to obtain H2 tanks for those future Model S and X in FC-PHEV format. Those FC-PHEV’s can be plugged-in daily at work for low-cost and high-efficiency solar charging, as well as using rapid-fill H2 made from EXCESS RE for long-distance travels on the weekends and holidays.
  
  If you work for the petroleum industry, you may also wanna persuade your employer to diversify into RE, batteries and hydrogen. Shell Oil is now building H2-filling stations in Europe. Exxon-Mobil, Valero, Texaco, Chevron…etc can and should do the same to build H2-filling stations here in the USA. Then, you will not have to worry about NO INFRASTRUCTURE for H2 ever again.
  
  No more worrying about using public money to build H2 stations ever again, when the deep-pocketed energy companies will build those H2 infrastructure.
  
  Notice how PEV’s (Plugged-in EV) and FCEV’s can complement each others nicely and completely in the exploitation of Renewable Energy. With more RE developments thanks to cooperation between PEV’s and FCEV’s, we will be much faster on our way with energy security, environmental cleanup, and averting the GW crisis!
  
  Utility solar power costs around $1,500-2,000 per kW. Each car will need about 2 kW of solar capacity to provide on average about 10 kWh per day to drive about 35 miles. Utility solar PV cost per kW includes the cost to clear the land, build the drive way, and the electric transmission lines as well as grid-compatible inverters.
  
  When building DC charging solar carports, the land is already developed and the driveway already exist, and the transmission powerlines are already there, and no need for DC to AC inverters. No need for electric meter per parking slot due to a fixed subscription fee per month. Can you see the enormous savings in investment cost? Should cost less than $4,000 per car each having 2-kW of DC charging to build the solar charging carports.
  
  If each parking-charging subscription will cost $50 per month, then $600 per year per car. Dividing $4,000 by $600 = 6.6 yrs payback time for an investment that will last 30 years.
  
  Furthermore, assuming 10 kWh per day per car and 22 days per month, each $50 subscription fee will pay for 220 kWh of power, which means 23 cents per kWh of revenues. Weekend power will fetch 5 cents per kWh additionally, x 10 kWh per car slot per day x 8 weekend days per month, to add $4 more to the subscription fee revenue, so $54 per month x 12 = $648 . Dividing <$4000 by $648 per yr = <6 yrs of payback time. A real good financial investment, wouldn't you say, in well under 6 yrs payback time for a structure that will last for 30 years?
  
  Do you now see the potential for profit for Solar City to build this?
MrL0g1c

What do you guys think of this:

LINK:Audi creates green ‘e-diesel fuel of the future’ using just carbon dioxide and water

The CO2 is apparently taken from the air so the system appears to be carbon neutral (if using renewables).

PS, this would be ideal for airplanes IMO.
- Adrian
  
  It’s a decent science experiment and may be a way to soak up excess renewable generation. Certainly “nicer” than GTL as it is using already-emitted carbon. Diesel combustion still has the fine and ultrafine particulates problem, of course.
  - MrL0g1c
    
    Of course there would be a direct correlation between the amount of e-diesel and an absence of particulates. 100% = no particulates.
  - Jason hm
    
    Secondary combustion burners can reduce or eliminate particulate emissions but they reduce fuel efficiency. If fuel cost and carbon issues become a non-issue the particulates can be mitigated.
- Coley
  
  Bit retrograde, why turn hydrogen into diesel?
  - Tom Capon
    
    Because it’s less reactive, easier to transport and fits into existing infrastructure systems. It’s actually a brilliant idea.
    - jeffhre
      
      If cost has no bearing – then yes brilliant.
      - Tom Capon
        
        If you’re comparing it with building a hydrogen economy from scratch, I’d say you’re already at that point…
      - sjc_1
        
        We can make synthetic and bio synthetic fuels now at competitive prices, but there are those that actually say it would impede the adoption of EVs.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        Who says that?
- sjc_1
  
  Audi gets the CO2 from a biogas plant.
  - Bob_Wallace
    
    That’s great.
    
    Now do the math to fuel several hundred million cars.
    
    Biodiesel from french fry oil seemed promising for a couple of minutes. Right up until one considered supply and demand volumes.
    - MrL0g1c
      
      You beat me to it. The real question is what would this fuel cost compared to normal diesel.
    - sjc_1
      
      I have seen nothing from Audi that states they intend to power millions of cars.
- Roger Pham
  
  @MrL0g1c,
  I hope that you will enjoy reading those answers to your questions.
  The cost of synthetic diesel from RE is listed to be 1 Euro per liter, or roughly $4 per gallon US. Not quite as yet cost-competitive with petroleum, because if adding profit and tax, would be priced about $6 per gallon.
  
  Hydrogen using electricity rate at 5 cents per kWh and 53 kWh per kg
  would have an energy cost of $2.65. Adding $0.50 facility cost would
  raise the cost per kg to be $3.15 per kg. A FCEV is twice as efficient
  as an ICEV, so, if this H2 will be sold at $4.65 per kg when adding
  profit and taxes, then it would be equivalent to gasoline at $2.35 per
  gallon, thus is cost-competitive with petroleum TODAY.
  
  FCEV can fulfill the ZEV mandate while Diesel vehicles cannot.
  
  Eventually, when the majority of summer power demands will be
  satisfied by RE, then there will be a major surplus of power in Springs
  and Falls. In Southern States, summer power consumption may be as high
  as 3x that of springs and falls. If we are going to stop using fossil
  fuels as much as possible with competitively priced solar, wind, and
  even NUCLEAR power, then eventually, we will need to install enough
  solar, wind and nuclear energy to cover the heavy consumption of
  summers.
  
  Then, we will have a lot of excess electricity generation in falls and
  springs when the weather is mild and no A/C nor heating required. Most
  lighting and TV’s by then will be by LED, with 1/10 th the consumption
  of incandescent bulbs and <1/2 that of fluorescent bulbs of today.
  PC's will become more and more power efficient with miniaturization.
  
  From these surplus electricity of Springs and Falls, we will then be
  able make H2 or synthetic diesel fuel for transportation use out of the
  seasonal surplus of RE, because NG may still remain too cheap for "power
  to gas" replacement with H2 for home heating and home power generation,
  while H2 for transportation is already competitive with petroleum.
  - Bob_Wallace
    
    Ah, the dream of almost free electricity.
    
    What we’re going to enjoy is abundant ‘give it away’ electricity for a few weeks in the spring and summer.
    
    And the cost of hydrogen extraction, compression and storage is going to be so cheap that in those few weeks (during late night hours) we’ll generate, compress and store enough H2 to carry us through the other months.
    
    Let’s be generous. 26 weeks a year. Five hours a night. During that 10.4% of the year we will generate and store away enough H2 to power us for the other 89.6% of the time.
    
    Infrastructure would need to be what? About free?
    
    And then staff? Pay them an annual salary for working a few hours now and then? You thinking migrant workers?
    - Roger Pham
      
      All the costs of production and distribution of H2 will be borne by the end users, just like gasoline now. Nothing will be free. H2 from excess RE on weekends and during Springs and Falls will be cost-competitive with gasoline even at currently low gasoline prices. Plus, with FC-PHEV, 80% of driving will be done with direct solar or wind power charging, and only 20% using H2.
      - Joe Viocoe
        
        So why would anyone pay so much more to buy an FCV, only to pay more for Hydrogen, at fewer stations?
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        Hydrogen will not succeed if it becomes cost competitive with gasoline. It will need to become cheaper per mile than electricity/EVs.
    - MrL0g1c
      
      Lol, you seem to hate hydrogen enough to forget that some wind farms are producing electricity for 3.65c per kWh and new solar will likely reach that price before the end of the decade.
      
      This technology could make air flights and shipping a lot greener, hydrogen could be made where the sun shines the hardest or where the wind blows the most. UK diesel is currently $6.91/gallon(US) it was closer to $8/gallon recently.
      
      My main concern would be the carbon monoxide emitted, it helps green house gases to stay in the atmosphere according to what I’ve read but I don’t know how great this effect is.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        Hate hydrogen? That’s silly.
        
        What I dislike is people who cannot look at facts and adjust their opinion when the facts do not support their beliefs.
        
        Wind farms producing electricity for 3.65c/kWh.
        
        Assuming one could purchase directly for that price and not pay distribution costs then running an EV would cost about 1.1 cents per mile.
        
        Running a H2 FCEV would cost between 2.2 cents and 3.3 cents per mile plus the cost of the hydrogen infrastructure. The first 2.2 to 3.3 is only the cost of the electricity input.
        
        Hydrogen is only an energy storage technology. A very lossy battery.
  - jeffhre
    
    And a BEV is about 50% more efficient than a FCEV and needs no conversion from electricity to H2 with high pressure storage losses either. Thus we would see much more “excess electricity generation in falls and springs when the weather is mild and no A/C nor heating required” as soon as businesses survive by giving stuff away for free, or pigs actually fly powered by unicorn emissions.
    - Roger Pham
      
      Actually, a BEV is more than 100% higher efficiency than a FCEV. But, a FCEV can take advantage of weekend and seasonal EXCESS RE that would otherwise go to waste, so efficiency is a relative thing. It will take BOTH PEV (Plugged-in EV) and FCEV to fully exploit Renewable Energy, like both sides of a coin. They are truly inseparable in their mission of decarbonizing our energy consumption.
      - jeffhre
        
        I was talking about from tank to wheels though. And I pretty much covered the large scale excess RE though.
      - eveee
        
        Why wouldn’t that excess RE be used for heating rather than transportation? The extra steps for transportation are efficiency busters.
        Electricity > gas ~ 60%
        Has better efficiency than
        Electricity>gas>electricity ~ 35%
        
        You forget that economics dictates that other demands like heating will vie for energy.
      - MrL0g1c
        
        Because cheap energy from wind varies from week to week rather than from day to day, even solar has it’s bad days, here in the UK we often have several dark overcast days in a row. And solar will struggle here in winter with our short days, dark at 4pm-ish etc.
        
        I want to know how we’re going to get to 100% renewable energy, the 1st 50% is easy and bad because we have gas and coal stations as back-up, the next 50% will take a lot more effort with regards to re-distributing loads chronologically and geographically.
      - eveee
        
        Yes. UK and some other EU countries have needs that are special. Those cold winter nights are going to need a combination of storage and dispatch able renewables like biomass and hydro.
        Its going to take the EU countries working together to solve them economically. UK will need ties to France and Scandinavia and is setting them up now, for example. Ireland needs to be tied to UK, too smooth things out. UK is setting up ties to Scandinavia now to tap hydro and puHS.
        I see power to gas could be used for some transportation, particularly if its converted to methane. I just don’t see it for the bulk of transport. And Germany plans on using it for seasonal space heating demands, but not for at least a decade. The studies show power to gas reasonable on economics, just the market is not ready yet.
        100% renewable will utilize power to gas IMO, unless something comes along better in the meantime. Also, pumped storage, transmission lines, ground source heat pumps.
        That scenario is harder to explain because its a much wider scenario with a grab bag of responses. But those are some. You get into reading Ecofys studies of Germany, and some other papers for that.
        Its more speculative, too, because there are many options. Jacobson et al spent a lot of time figuring out all energy solutions for the US.
        It takes time to read all that. You ever look at how many studies Stanford has done in this area and the reference lists? Its really difficult to keep up with all that reading. Its deep. People that dismiss it have probably never read it.
  - MrL0g1c
    
    The cost of synthetic diesel from RE is listed to be 1 Euro per liter, or roughly $4 per gallon US.
    
    Of course the taxes could be favorable to such a fuel, whilst we may all disagree about how and when the electricity used is generated, we can agree that $4 is close enough to conventional FF price to be useful.
    
    Note: Diesel in the UK is currently on average $6.91 per US gallon(£1.19 per Litre), The price is similar in the rest of the EU.
- Joseph Dubeau
  
  Need a solution like e-diesel. Look at the U.S. or U.K. military, we not going throw away our planes, tanks, or vehicles.
- Jason hm
  
  Takes crap tons of electricity mad hat crazy amounts of electrical power it makes makes aluminum refining look like a lightweight. Fortunately for us this much power might become a reality in the not so distant future.
  - MrL0g1c
    
    If it takes crazy amounts of power with no room for improvement then it wouldn’t likely ever be able to compete with batteries etc.

CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
news & analysis site in the world. Subscribe today!
The future is now.

Toyota Mirai “Fueled by Bullsh*t” Ad Is Total BS

About the Author

Advertisement

Advertisement

Top Stories On CleanTechnica

Quick News

Advertisement

Our New 93-Page EV Report!

30 Electric Car Benefits

10 Top Solar Facts

Cost of Solar Panels

Wind & Solar Prices Beat Fossils

Advantages of Solar Power

7 Reasons Why Solar & Wind Win

50 Tips For Trolling EVs

44 Tips For Trolling Solar

CleanTechnica Answer Box

Search the IM Network

Toyota Mirai “Fueled by Bullsh*t” Ad Is Total BS

About the Author

Related Posts

Tesla’s Hyperloop Pod Breaks 220 MPH Threshold During Testing →

Gym Built from Bamboo, Solar+Storage for Hawaii Schools, & Solar Flowers (New Cleantech in Action Series) →

Hawthorne Approves 2 Mile Boring Company Test Tunnel, Tesla Model S Goes Inside →

Environmental Defense Fund’s Dynamic Methane Detectors Challenge →

Advertisement

Advertisement

Top Stories On CleanTechnica

Quick News

Advertisement

Our New 93-Page EV Report!

30 Electric Car Benefits

10 Top Solar Facts

Cost of Solar Panels

Wind & Solar Prices Beat Fossils

Advantages of Solar Power

7 Reasons Why Solar & Wind Win

50 Tips For Trolling EVs

44 Tips For Trolling Solar

CleanTechnica Answer Box

Search the IM Network