3 ms·

I would insist that the future is really fuel cell cars. Battery electric will be a short-term transitional class of vehicle. Most car companies need to plan fo

by Hypx 6y ago

I would insist that the future is really fuel cell cars. Battery electric will be a short-term transitional class of vehicle. Most car companies need to plan for the real future pretty soon now.

epistasis 6y ago
I can't imagine any future where that seems remoter plausible. Hydrogen requires 2x as much energy according to anything we know right now. Unless the hydrogen capital expenses have a way of getting cheaper than lithium ion capital expense, then there's little chance of this ever happening. So when you say "pretty soon now," you must mean 2040 at the earliest. There's certainly a chance, when you look at the progress of PV solar over the past 40 years, for example, but it is hugely speculative and a long term bet, not a short term one.
- Hypx 6y ago
  That’s the thing: Hydrogen is getting much cheaper as we speak. Cheap enough to become a real threat to companies not on board. It’s following the curve of PV solar right now and not some decades in the future. Besides, what do companies have to gain by waiting for the technology to be ready before investing? It’s weird how people here lament the lack of foresight in the car industry, and yet on this subject immediately reject any kind of forward planning. Finally, most of the negative stuff you heard is probably marketing or propaganda from businesses that don’t want to see fuel cell succeed. “2x more energy” is a misleading claim, as fuel cells are technically batteries and should close the gap eventually. Plus, you save energy by avoiding heavy batteries, do better in cold weather, and need less raw materials during production.
  - epistasis 6y ago
    Electrolyzers are expensive and capital intensive enough that we don't anticipate that green hydrogen will compete with natural-gas derived hydrogen on cost before 2030. By 2030 batteries will haven fallen dramatically in cost. It's not enough to show that electrolyzers are falling in cost, it also needs to be shown that they are falling faster than batteries, and will be able to catch up. That's the missing logical link, and I haven't seen even the most optimistic hydrogen boosters produce numbers that show it to be possible. Definitely not before 2030. There is a massive hydrogen PR push right now from natural gas companies with the hope that they can eek a few more years out before transitioning to the modern renewable economy. But even those folks don't say that fuel cell is going to be cheaper than typical passenger vehicle sized batteries. Every single hydrogen powered vehicle is already going to have a battery in it, to manage variable output. The question is, if hydrogen machinery gets cheaper than battery, at what range capacity does it make sense to include both battery and hydrogen. If it's at 1000 miles, 500 miles, or 300 miles, or 100 miles, and that all depends on the cost ratio of the two, and hydrogen being significantly cheaper than battery.
    - Hypx 6y ago
      Except that electrolyzers have plunged in cost in way that's catching many people off guard. And 2030 is just 9 years from now. Even if what you say is true, disruption is still within a decade's time. If you wait until that event has already happened before you start investing, then it will be too late. So basically everyone has to start investing in fuel cells right away or risk being disrupted. I don't think people fully grasp that hydrogen is made from water, and has a theoretical lowest possible cost of almost $0. A tank of hydrogen is just a dumb tank too, not a series of sophisticated battery cells. It's batteries that will have trouble keeping up on cost, not hydrogen. In fact, on a cost per range basis, the latest Mirai is already cheaper than competing battery electric cars. This suggests that the crossover point is nearly reached. So we should stop thinking about batteries as if they have any kind of permanent lead here. The real missing logical link is ignoring the speed of hydrogen and fuel cell advancement, not the other way around. What about the PR from big battery and electric car companies? These companies might too be dead within a decade or so. And yes, the hydrogen boosters very much say that fuel cell cars will be cheaper than battery powered cars. Toyota thinks fuel cell cars will be as cheap as the Corolla is today. Some fuel cell cars use a capacitor instead. You only need 1-2 kWh for a passenger car for that purpose anyways. Probably anything past 100 miles will make more sense using fuel cells than batteries.
      - bryanlarsen 6y ago
        The laws of physics and chemistry demand that producing hydrogen and oxygen from water requires at least as much energy as is released when they are combined in a fuel cell. The laws of physics demand that compressing hydrogen so that a usable amount can be stored in a vehicle requires energy. So by saying "almost $0" you're saying that electricity is "even less than almost $0". Which might be correct, industrial scale solar PV energy is cheap and will get a lot cheaper over the next decade. But of course electric cars benefit from cheap electricity even more than hydrogen cars do. > In fact, on a cost per range basis, the latest Mirai is already cheaper than competing battery electric cars. Sure, if you use grey hydrogen created from natural gas rather than green hydrogen created from water and electricity. Grey hydrogen is far from carbon-free. > It's batteries that will have trouble keeping up on cost That's a strong claim, given that battery prices have historically dropped 80% per decade and show no signs of slowing down. > These companies might too be dead within a decade or so. The lack of hydrogen filling stations is the biggest roadblock for this among many big roadblocks.

by Hypx 6y ago

I would insist that the future is really fuel cell cars. Battery electric will be a short-term transitional class of vehicle. Most car companies need to plan for the real future pretty soon now.

epistasis 6y ago

I can't imagine any future where that seems remoter plausible. Hydrogen requires 2x as much energy according to anything we know right now. Unless the hydrogen capital expenses have a way of getting cheaper than lithium ion capital expense, then there's little chance of this ever happening. So when you say "pretty soon now," you must mean 2040 at the earliest. There's certainly a chance, when you look at the progress of PV solar over the past 40 years, for example, but it is hugely speculative and a long term bet, not a short term one.

Hypx 6y ago
That’s the thing: Hydrogen is getting much cheaper as we speak. Cheap enough to become a real threat to companies not on board. It’s following the curve of PV solar right now and not some decades in the future. Besides, what do companies have to gain by waiting for the technology to be ready before investing? It’s weird how people here lament the lack of foresight in the car industry, and yet on this subject immediately reject any kind of forward planning. Finally, most of the negative stuff you heard is probably marketing or propaganda from businesses that don’t want to see fuel cell succeed. “2x more energy” is a misleading claim, as fuel cells are technically batteries and should close the gap eventually. Plus, you save energy by avoiding heavy batteries, do better in cold weather, and need less raw materials during production.
- epistasis 6y ago
  Electrolyzers are expensive and capital intensive enough that we don't anticipate that green hydrogen will compete with natural-gas derived hydrogen on cost before 2030. By 2030 batteries will haven fallen dramatically in cost. It's not enough to show that electrolyzers are falling in cost, it also needs to be shown that they are falling faster than batteries, and will be able to catch up. That's the missing logical link, and I haven't seen even the most optimistic hydrogen boosters produce numbers that show it to be possible. Definitely not before 2030. There is a massive hydrogen PR push right now from natural gas companies with the hope that they can eek a few more years out before transitioning to the modern renewable economy. But even those folks don't say that fuel cell is going to be cheaper than typical passenger vehicle sized batteries. Every single hydrogen powered vehicle is already going to have a battery in it, to manage variable output. The question is, if hydrogen machinery gets cheaper than battery, at what range capacity does it make sense to include both battery and hydrogen. If it's at 1000 miles, 500 miles, or 300 miles, or 100 miles, and that all depends on the cost ratio of the two, and hydrogen being significantly cheaper than battery.
  - Hypx 6y ago
    Except that electrolyzers have plunged in cost in way that's catching many people off guard. And 2030 is just 9 years from now. Even if what you say is true, disruption is still within a decade's time. If you wait until that event has already happened before you start investing, then it will be too late. So basically everyone has to start investing in fuel cells right away or risk being disrupted. I don't think people fully grasp that hydrogen is made from water, and has a theoretical lowest possible cost of almost $0. A tank of hydrogen is just a dumb tank too, not a series of sophisticated battery cells. It's batteries that will have trouble keeping up on cost, not hydrogen. In fact, on a cost per range basis, the latest Mirai is already cheaper than competing battery electric cars. This suggests that the crossover point is nearly reached. So we should stop thinking about batteries as if they have any kind of permanent lead here. The real missing logical link is ignoring the speed of hydrogen and fuel cell advancement, not the other way around. What about the PR from big battery and electric car companies? These companies might too be dead within a decade or so. And yes, the hydrogen boosters very much say that fuel cell cars will be cheaper than battery powered cars. Toyota thinks fuel cell cars will be as cheap as the Corolla is today. Some fuel cell cars use a capacitor instead. You only need 1-2 kWh for a passenger car for that purpose anyways. Probably anything past 100 miles will make more sense using fuel cells than batteries.
    - bryanlarsen 6y ago
      The laws of physics and chemistry demand that producing hydrogen and oxygen from water requires at least as much energy as is released when they are combined in a fuel cell. The laws of physics demand that compressing hydrogen so that a usable amount can be stored in a vehicle requires energy. So by saying "almost $0" you're saying that electricity is "even less than almost $0". Which might be correct, industrial scale solar PV energy is cheap and will get a lot cheaper over the next decade. But of course electric cars benefit from cheap electricity even more than hydrogen cars do. > In fact, on a cost per range basis, the latest Mirai is already cheaper than competing battery electric cars. Sure, if you use grey hydrogen created from natural gas rather than green hydrogen created from water and electricity. Grey hydrogen is far from carbon-free. > It's batteries that will have trouble keeping up on cost That's a strong claim, given that battery prices have historically dropped 80% per decade and show no signs of slowing down. > These companies might too be dead within a decade or so. The lack of hydrogen filling stations is the biggest roadblock for this among many big roadblocks.