9 ms·

Honda's New Hydrogen-Powered Vehicle Feels More Like a Real Car

28 points by radiorental 11y ago

Mikeb85 11y ago
This is the real future for EVs. Quick refueling means you can actually take a proper road trip (at least when fuel stations are built), and it may actually be practical for a country like Canada (big, sparsely populated). Also it needs less batteries, which is likely to reduce its ecological footprint.
- tammer 11y ago
  I thought the issue with H was transportation: a critical hurdle for new fuel technology adoption is safety (as seen in Tesla's quick and overprotective addition of an armored underbody on the Model S when a few stray stories of crashes caught flames in the press). Tankers of H hurdling down our freeways? I feel like range anxiety on full-on EV's will dissipate in the next few years as we get to 300+ miles on a charge. After that, what's the downside?
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    > I feel like range anxiety on full-on EV's will dissipate in the next few years as we get to 300+ miles on a charge. After that, what's the downside? For users? Nothing. For centralized energy providers? They're about to lose out in a huge way.
  - JumpCrisscross 11y ago
    > Tankers of H hurdling down our freeways? Perhaps self-driving and hydrogen cars are co-dependent technologies.
  - dalke 11y ago
    The dream expressed in the article would be to have high-pressure electrolysis to produce hydrogen on-site. I won't disagree if you think that 300+ miles/charge will come first.
    - Retra 11y ago
      Electrolysis is a fairly inefficient way to produce hydrogen. If you've got enough energy to do electrolysis, then you've got enough energy to run a motor. The only technical reason you'd want to use hydrogen is that you can do combustion and long-term fuel storage. It would be valuable if you were using something like sunlight to produce hydrogen, since sunlight can't really run a car.
- vvanders 11y ago
  There's no reason you can't take a "proper road trip" with a Model S these days. Stopping for a break every ~3-4 hours isn't a huge issue and 120kw charging goes surprisingly quick. Heck, when I was at a supercharger yesterday I barely had time to grab coffee before I had the 40% charge I needed to make the end of my trip.
hugh4 11y ago
That's nice, but is there any real advantage to hydrogen over batteries, or have batteries at this stage left hydrogen in the dust? Cost? Weight? Overall efficiency? No numbers are given for any of these, but they've all traditional weakpoints of hydrogen. Hydrogen also requires a lot of fancy infrastructure, whereas batteries can be charged (slowly) practically anywhere. One advantage is that you could refill your tank in a long road trip, hypothetically, if you found a hydrogen filling station, faster than you could recharge your electric car. But that's a rare use case. Anything I'm missing? Or is hydrogen just a zombie technology?
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  You are correct. Hydrogen is dead technology for mobility.
  - tachyonbeam 11y ago
    It's even more dead because electric vehicles have a huge lead at this point. Tesla has released several working vehicles that are plenty capable enough for most people and has its network of superchargers in place. Other companies have already started developing competing options. At this point, battery capacity will keep going up, price will keep going down and electric infrastructure will keep improving. I don't see hydrogen vehicles standing much of a chance now, in a few years even less so.
- _rpd 11y ago
  It is very hard for hydrogen to overcome it's 25% grid to motor efficiency [1]. It means that it will always be significantly more expensive per kWh delivered to a motor. However, the market may value quick refueling very highly. [1] http://iqsoft.co.in/images/The%2021st%20Century%20Electric%20Car_img_3.jpg http://iqsoft.co.in/images/The%2021st%20Century%20Electric%2...
  - avmich 11y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell#Efficiency_of_leading_fuel_cell_types https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell#Efficiency_of_leadin... "According to the U.S. Department of Energy, fuel cells are generally between 40–60% energy efficient." I feel like I'm reading a beauty contest gossip :) . Strong opinions, weak arguments...
dhd415 11y ago
BMW's been developing hydrogen-powered cars for over a decade. One of their advantages is that the same engine could use either gasoline or hydrogen making it a much more practical car for a world in which there is not yet the same distribution infrastructure for hydrogen as there is for gasoline. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to get as much press as EVs which have both serious operational drawbacks (short range, long charging periods, etc.) and manufacturing costs (lithium batteries, etc). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_Hydrogen_7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_Hydrogen_7
- Retric 11y ago
  The energy efficiency is much worse for Hydrogen. PS: It's actually significantly more efficient to burn crude oil and charge high mileage electric cars from that than instead of refining oil and then using an IC engine.
  - mschuster91 11y ago
    > PS: It's actually significantly more efficient to burn crude oil and charge high mileage electric cars from that than instead of refining oil and then using an IC engine. That might be, yet burning crude oil produces a horrible amount of nasty stuff - sulphurous molecules turning into acid rain, radioactive trace elements concentrating in the exhaust...
Animats 11y ago
Garages have a big problem: "Hydrogen collects under roofs and overhangs, where it forms an explosion hazard; any building that contains a potential source of hydrogen should have good ventilation, strong ignition suppression systems for all electric devices, and preferably be designed to have a roof that can be safely blown away from the rest of the structure in an explosion." (Wikipedia) Hydrogen storage tanks tend to leak slowly. The molecules are so small that they diffuse through solid metal.
- existencebox 11y ago
  This is likely an absolutely stupid idea, but in a structure where ventilation isn't an option, what would be the impact of having a "pilot light" in areas where hydrogen accumulates? Essentially burn it off before it accumulates to the point of presenting a significant hazard. Additionally, (perhaps primarily) if the molecules seep through a sealed tank, wouldn't they escape an overhang/roof with far more ease?
  - ori_b 11y ago
    They tend to be pressurized in a storage tank, which will increase the leakage rate.
  - beeboop 11y ago
    If the pilot light fails for long time and then is fixed, boom.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      And if not boom, you're burned alive by an invisible flame.
- semi-extrinsic 11y ago
  > Hydrogen storage tanks tend to leak slowly. This used to be a problem in the past, but from what I understand it's currently a solved problem. See e.g. https://www.google.com.ar/patents/US6787007 https://www.google.com.ar/patents/US6787007
eip 11y ago
Japan has been quietly developing Stan Meyer technology. Once they release it the only competition will be permanent batteries.
edent 11y ago
What on Earth is a "Real" car? My electric car drives just like a real car - only faster, quieter, and with less pollution. 90% of the time, my car is parked at home or work - so it can fully recharge over 3-4 hours. At a rapid charger it will fill up in 30 minutes. I still don't quite see the point of creating hydrogen, shipping or piping it across the country, storing it, and regularly stopping at speciality shops in order to purchase it. We already have a existing electrical infrastructure and the reality is that most people aren't driving 400 miles every single day, so don't need to be constantly refuleing.
- dalke 11y ago
  What I infer from the article is that a real car has space for luggage, can be driven in cold weather, and is not "too heavy." By those criteria, your electric car appears to be a real car.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  > I still don't quite see the point of creating hydrogen, shipping or piping it across the country, storing it, and regularly stopping at speciality shops in order to purchase it. We already have a existing electrical infrastructure and the reality is that most people aren't driving 400 miles every single day, so don't need to be constantly refuleing. Hydrogen allows the existing supply chain (ie centralized fueling providers) to survive. Electric vehicles causes it/them to die a slow death (think about those 170K gas stations across the US that aren't needed anymore). You'll charge at home, possibly at work if your employer provides it as a perk, or at Superchargers when on the road. EDIT: Hydrogen refueling stations: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/images/facts/fotw523.jpg http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/images/facts/fo... Tesla Superchargers (as of today; Tesla goes live with a new supercharge roughly once a week, although I've seen them move as fast as once per day): http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/images/supercharger/maps/today-northamerica.jpg http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/images/superc...
- 48snickers 11y ago
  > We already have a existing electrical infrastructure and the reality is that most people aren't driving 400 miles every single day, so don't need to be constantly refueling. For the millions of people that rent in high density buildings and work in office buildings, there typically is no charging infrastructure available either at home or work. Sure, the buildings are wired to the grid, but putting enough chargers to support a volume greater than first-adopters is extremely expensive. In the office building I work in (40 stories), there are exactly two chargers to support approximately 1000 parked cars. In the building I live in, there are exactly zero chargers, and there are no wall outlets either. Not an uncommon scenario. I'm not arguing that hydrogen is the solution to this scarcity problem, just that the existing infrastructure isn't adequate either.
barryhaanstra 11y ago
So, for cars this looks like a dead technology because batteries are probably going to win. What about airplanes? They won't be battery powered anytime soon?
halayli 11y ago
I cannot navigate this page. 4 adsense ads at the top. scrolling broken, and a photo of the car in the middle. I wonder how forbes test their stuff.
- mschuster91 11y ago
  > I wonder how forbes test their stuff. Probably, like any techie with a bit of knowledge, using adblockers...
SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago
I am surprised that it hasn't been mentioned yet: Elon Musk, who has some experience in this field and we can also assume has done the math, says that hydrogen cars are a dead end http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/12/3621136/tesla-elon-musk-hydrogen-dumb/ http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/12/3621136/tesla-el... http://www.wired.com/2013/10/elon-musk-hydrogen/ http://www.wired.com/2013/10/elon-musk-hydrogen/ http://insideevs.com/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-are-mind-boggingly-stupid/ http://insideevs.com/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-hydrogen-fuel-cell-... Does Honda think otherwise, and if so, why?
- lazaroclapp 11y ago
  In all fairness, Elon Musk makes electric cars - and, batteries - so he has every incentive to exaggerate how bad of a bet fuel cells are ;) I know very little about this debate and what little I know makes me side with the electric car crowd. But Elon Musk has a hell of a horse in this race and thus his statements should never be taken as unbiased.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago
    > Elon Musk has a hell of a horse in this race Tesla is a recent entrant, so actually it may have been the other way around: Musk looked at all the horses, and worked out that there was a potential winner before even deciding to enter the race. Compare with Honda, who have been making Internal combustion engines since the 1940s. If anyone has a pre-existing horse in the race, they do.
steffenfrost 11y ago
Best case Fool Cell technology will be as good as battery technology is today. "Extremely silly" according to Musk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_e7rA4fBAo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_e7rA4fBAo
cpprototypes 11y ago
Hydrogen cars are probably a dead end. Not enough benefit for the infrastructure costs required. I think the future options will be EV and synthetic gas. As batteries improve further, EV will have a lot of advantages. But it will only be available for those who have personal garages. For everyone else, it makes more sense to create gasoline instead of building an entirely new hydrogen infrastructure. There is already technology in early stages that can create gas from just electricity, water, and CO2 from the air. It seems refining that technology is a much better idea than trying to use hydrogen.
- smcl 11y ago
  Wait - gas as in gasoline or some other gas (LPG?)
  - cpprototypes 11y ago
    Gasoline - Audi is working on the technology http://www.audiusa.com/newsroom/news/press-releases/2015/05/researchers-produce-first-audi-e-benzin http://www.audiusa.com/newsroom/news/press-releases/2015/05/... The first version requires biomass, which means it has all the disadvantages of current biofuels. But their next goal is to remove that requirement. If they succeed, then they will have a process that only needs power, water, and CO2. It's early stage technology and investment is probably very small right now. Why wouldn't it be when oil is so cheap. But someday the oil fields will start running dry and peak oil will truly come. When oil hits $200, $300 per barrel, the demand for this kind of technology will be immense. EV sales will increase dramatically, but many will be unable to use EV due to lack of personal garages (even Supercharger times are not enough if thats the only way to charge. And only Tesla has access to that, what about Leaf, Bolt, etc?). A brand new hydrogen infrastructure doesn't seem to fit anywhere in the future. It's too expensive and the benefits are marginal compared to gas (a lot of legacy infrastructure) or EV (an entirely new paradigm using existing electric infrastructure).
- godzillabrennus 11y ago
  Disagree entirely. Despite the fact that batteries are getting worlds better there are big wins for the environment when we eventually implement a hydrogen infrastructure. Batteries are an evolutionary win while hydrogen will be a revolutionary win.
mschuster91 11y ago
I could imagine that a source of hydrogen could be medical institutions - after all, a hospital consumes large amounts of pure oxygen, and electrolysis provides lots of it.
jessaustin 11y ago
I wonder why they're using hydrogen instead of ammonia, which is like hydrogen except better in every way? Ammonia has hydrogen's good properties: not a greenhouse gas and doesn't produce greenhouse gases, doesn't cause smog, numerous production methods including electrolysis, easily transported in liquid form, can be used in fuel cells or in ICEs. However it doesn't embrittle, in liquid form it's actually denser in hydrogen atoms than liquid hydrogen is, and due to its agricultural applications there is already an established distribution infrastructure (in the Midwest, at least).

28 points by radiorental 11y ago

This is the real future for EVs. Quick refueling means you can actually take a proper road trip (at least when fuel stations are built), and it may actually be practical for a country like Canada (big, sparsely populated). Also it needs less batteries, which is likely to reduce its ecological footprint.

tammer 11y ago
I thought the issue with H was transportation: a critical hurdle for new fuel technology adoption is safety (as seen in Tesla's quick and overprotective addition of an armored underbody on the Model S when a few stray stories of crashes caught flames in the press). Tankers of H hurdling down our freeways? I feel like range anxiety on full-on EV's will dissipate in the next few years as we get to 300+ miles on a charge. After that, what's the downside?
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  > I feel like range anxiety on full-on EV's will dissipate in the next few years as we get to 300+ miles on a charge. After that, what's the downside? For users? Nothing. For centralized energy providers? They're about to lose out in a huge way.
- JumpCrisscross 11y ago
  > Tankers of H hurdling down our freeways? Perhaps self-driving and hydrogen cars are co-dependent technologies.
- dalke 11y ago
  The dream expressed in the article would be to have high-pressure electrolysis to produce hydrogen on-site. I won't disagree if you think that 300+ miles/charge will come first.
  - Retra 11y ago
    Electrolysis is a fairly inefficient way to produce hydrogen. If you've got enough energy to do electrolysis, then you've got enough energy to run a motor. The only technical reason you'd want to use hydrogen is that you can do combustion and long-term fuel storage. It would be valuable if you were using something like sunlight to produce hydrogen, since sunlight can't really run a car.
vvanders 11y ago
There's no reason you can't take a "proper road trip" with a Model S these days. Stopping for a break every ~3-4 hours isn't a huge issue and 120kw charging goes surprisingly quick. Heck, when I was at a supercharger yesterday I barely had time to grab coffee before I had the 40% charge I needed to make the end of my trip.

hugh4 11y ago

That's nice, but is there any real advantage to hydrogen over batteries, or have batteries at this stage left hydrogen in the dust? Cost? Weight? Overall efficiency? No numbers are given for any of these, but they've all traditional weakpoints of hydrogen. Hydrogen also requires a lot of fancy infrastructure, whereas batteries can be charged (slowly) practically anywhere. One advantage is that you could refill your tank in a long road trip, hypothetically, if you found a hydrogen filling station, faster than you could recharge your electric car. But that's a rare use case. Anything I'm missing? Or is hydrogen just a zombie technology?

toomuchtodo 11y ago
You are correct. Hydrogen is dead technology for mobility.
- tachyonbeam 11y ago
  It's even more dead because electric vehicles have a huge lead at this point. Tesla has released several working vehicles that are plenty capable enough for most people and has its network of superchargers in place. Other companies have already started developing competing options. At this point, battery capacity will keep going up, price will keep going down and electric infrastructure will keep improving. I don't see hydrogen vehicles standing much of a chance now, in a few years even less so.
_rpd 11y ago
It is very hard for hydrogen to overcome it's 25% grid to motor efficiency [1]. It means that it will always be significantly more expensive per kWh delivered to a motor. However, the market may value quick refueling very highly. [1] http://iqsoft.co.in/images/The%2021st%20Century%20Electric%20Car_img_3.jpg http://iqsoft.co.in/images/The%2021st%20Century%20Electric%2...
- avmich 11y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell#Efficiency_of_leading_fuel_cell_types https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell#Efficiency_of_leadin... "According to the U.S. Department of Energy, fuel cells are generally between 40–60% energy efficient." I feel like I'm reading a beauty contest gossip :) . Strong opinions, weak arguments...

dhd415 11y ago

BMW's been developing hydrogen-powered cars for over a decade. One of their advantages is that the same engine could use either gasoline or hydrogen making it a much more practical car for a world in which there is not yet the same distribution infrastructure for hydrogen as there is for gasoline. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to get as much press as EVs which have both serious operational drawbacks (short range, long charging periods, etc.) and manufacturing costs (lithium batteries, etc). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_Hydrogen_7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_Hydrogen_7

Retric 11y ago
The energy efficiency is much worse for Hydrogen. PS: It's actually significantly more efficient to burn crude oil and charge high mileage electric cars from that than instead of refining oil and then using an IC engine.
- mschuster91 11y ago
  > PS: It's actually significantly more efficient to burn crude oil and charge high mileage electric cars from that than instead of refining oil and then using an IC engine. That might be, yet burning crude oil produces a horrible amount of nasty stuff - sulphurous molecules turning into acid rain, radioactive trace elements concentrating in the exhaust...

Animats 11y ago

Garages have a big problem: "Hydrogen collects under roofs and overhangs, where it forms an explosion hazard; any building that contains a potential source of hydrogen should have good ventilation, strong ignition suppression systems for all electric devices, and preferably be designed to have a roof that can be safely blown away from the rest of the structure in an explosion." (Wikipedia) Hydrogen storage tanks tend to leak slowly. The molecules are so small that they diffuse through solid metal.

existencebox 11y ago
This is likely an absolutely stupid idea, but in a structure where ventilation isn't an option, what would be the impact of having a "pilot light" in areas where hydrogen accumulates? Essentially burn it off before it accumulates to the point of presenting a significant hazard. Additionally, (perhaps primarily) if the molecules seep through a sealed tank, wouldn't they escape an overhang/roof with far more ease?
- ori_b 11y ago
  They tend to be pressurized in a storage tank, which will increase the leakage rate.
- beeboop 11y ago
  If the pilot light fails for long time and then is fixed, boom.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    And if not boom, you're burned alive by an invisible flame.
semi-extrinsic 11y ago
> Hydrogen storage tanks tend to leak slowly. This used to be a problem in the past, but from what I understand it's currently a solved problem. See e.g. https://www.google.com.ar/patents/US6787007 https://www.google.com.ar/patents/US6787007

eip 11y ago

Japan has been quietly developing Stan Meyer technology. Once they release it the only competition will be permanent batteries.

edent 11y ago

What on Earth is a "Real" car? My electric car drives just like a real car - only faster, quieter, and with less pollution. 90% of the time, my car is parked at home or work - so it can fully recharge over 3-4 hours. At a rapid charger it will fill up in 30 minutes. I still don't quite see the point of creating hydrogen, shipping or piping it across the country, storing it, and regularly stopping at speciality shops in order to purchase it. We already have a existing electrical infrastructure and the reality is that most people aren't driving 400 miles every single day, so don't need to be constantly refuleing.

dalke 11y ago
What I infer from the article is that a real car has space for luggage, can be driven in cold weather, and is not "too heavy." By those criteria, your electric car appears to be a real car.
toomuchtodo 11y ago
> I still don't quite see the point of creating hydrogen, shipping or piping it across the country, storing it, and regularly stopping at speciality shops in order to purchase it. We already have a existing electrical infrastructure and the reality is that most people aren't driving 400 miles every single day, so don't need to be constantly refuleing. Hydrogen allows the existing supply chain (ie centralized fueling providers) to survive. Electric vehicles causes it/them to die a slow death (think about those 170K gas stations across the US that aren't needed anymore). You'll charge at home, possibly at work if your employer provides it as a perk, or at Superchargers when on the road. EDIT: Hydrogen refueling stations: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/images/facts/fotw523.jpg http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/images/facts/fo... Tesla Superchargers (as of today; Tesla goes live with a new supercharge roughly once a week, although I've seen them move as fast as once per day): http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/images/supercharger/maps/today-northamerica.jpg http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/images/superc...
48snickers 11y ago
> We already have a existing electrical infrastructure and the reality is that most people aren't driving 400 miles every single day, so don't need to be constantly refueling. For the millions of people that rent in high density buildings and work in office buildings, there typically is no charging infrastructure available either at home or work. Sure, the buildings are wired to the grid, but putting enough chargers to support a volume greater than first-adopters is extremely expensive. In the office building I work in (40 stories), there are exactly two chargers to support approximately 1000 parked cars. In the building I live in, there are exactly zero chargers, and there are no wall outlets either. Not an uncommon scenario. I'm not arguing that hydrogen is the solution to this scarcity problem, just that the existing infrastructure isn't adequate either.

barryhaanstra 11y ago

So, for cars this looks like a dead technology because batteries are probably going to win. What about airplanes? They won't be battery powered anytime soon?

halayli 11y ago

I cannot navigate this page. 4 adsense ads at the top. scrolling broken, and a photo of the car in the middle. I wonder how forbes test their stuff.

mschuster91 11y ago
> I wonder how forbes test their stuff. Probably, like any techie with a bit of knowledge, using adblockers...

SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago

I am surprised that it hasn't been mentioned yet: Elon Musk, who has some experience in this field and we can also assume has done the math, says that hydrogen cars are a dead end http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/12/3621136/tesla-elon-musk-hydrogen-dumb/ http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/12/3621136/tesla-el... http://www.wired.com/2013/10/elon-musk-hydrogen/ http://www.wired.com/2013/10/elon-musk-hydrogen/ http://insideevs.com/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-are-mind-boggingly-stupid/ http://insideevs.com/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-hydrogen-fuel-cell-... Does Honda think otherwise, and if so, why?

lazaroclapp 11y ago
In all fairness, Elon Musk makes electric cars - and, batteries - so he has every incentive to exaggerate how bad of a bet fuel cells are ;) I know very little about this debate and what little I know makes me side with the electric car crowd. But Elon Musk has a hell of a horse in this race and thus his statements should never be taken as unbiased.
- SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago
  > Elon Musk has a hell of a horse in this race Tesla is a recent entrant, so actually it may have been the other way around: Musk looked at all the horses, and worked out that there was a potential winner before even deciding to enter the race. Compare with Honda, who have been making Internal combustion engines since the 1940s. If anyone has a pre-existing horse in the race, they do.

steffenfrost 11y ago

Best case Fool Cell technology will be as good as battery technology is today. "Extremely silly" according to Musk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_e7rA4fBAo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_e7rA4fBAo

cpprototypes 11y ago

Hydrogen cars are probably a dead end. Not enough benefit for the infrastructure costs required. I think the future options will be EV and synthetic gas. As batteries improve further, EV will have a lot of advantages. But it will only be available for those who have personal garages. For everyone else, it makes more sense to create gasoline instead of building an entirely new hydrogen infrastructure. There is already technology in early stages that can create gas from just electricity, water, and CO2 from the air. It seems refining that technology is a much better idea than trying to use hydrogen.

smcl 11y ago
Wait - gas as in gasoline or some other gas (LPG?)
- cpprototypes 11y ago
  Gasoline - Audi is working on the technology http://www.audiusa.com/newsroom/news/press-releases/2015/05/researchers-produce-first-audi-e-benzin http://www.audiusa.com/newsroom/news/press-releases/2015/05/... The first version requires biomass, which means it has all the disadvantages of current biofuels. But their next goal is to remove that requirement. If they succeed, then they will have a process that only needs power, water, and CO2. It's early stage technology and investment is probably very small right now. Why wouldn't it be when oil is so cheap. But someday the oil fields will start running dry and peak oil will truly come. When oil hits $200, $300 per barrel, the demand for this kind of technology will be immense. EV sales will increase dramatically, but many will be unable to use EV due to lack of personal garages (even Supercharger times are not enough if thats the only way to charge. And only Tesla has access to that, what about Leaf, Bolt, etc?). A brand new hydrogen infrastructure doesn't seem to fit anywhere in the future. It's too expensive and the benefits are marginal compared to gas (a lot of legacy infrastructure) or EV (an entirely new paradigm using existing electric infrastructure).
godzillabrennus 11y ago
Disagree entirely. Despite the fact that batteries are getting worlds better there are big wins for the environment when we eventually implement a hydrogen infrastructure. Batteries are an evolutionary win while hydrogen will be a revolutionary win.

mschuster91 11y ago

I could imagine that a source of hydrogen could be medical institutions - after all, a hospital consumes large amounts of pure oxygen, and electrolysis provides lots of it.

jessaustin 11y ago

I wonder why they're using hydrogen instead of ammonia, which is like hydrogen except better in every way? Ammonia has hydrogen's good properties: not a greenhouse gas and doesn't produce greenhouse gases, doesn't cause smog, numerous production methods including electrolysis, easily transported in liquid form, can be used in fuel cells or in ICEs. However it doesn't embrittle, in liquid form it's actually denser in hydrogen atoms than liquid hydrogen is, and due to its agricultural applications there is already an established distribution infrastructure (in the Midwest, at least).