4 ms·

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, di

by 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.
- Hypx 6y ago
  The same is true of batteries. You don't get more energy than you put into it. Fuel cells are just another form of batteries, but with a far higher energy density and much lower material costs. At best, you can claim there is one more step in fuel cells than with batteries, but even this is not necessary. Metal hydride hydrogen storage currently exists and can eliminant the compression step. The notion that batteries are superior than fuel cells at utilizing low cost electricity is fundamentally in error. People have traditionally made the argument batteries are more efficient, but the gap is continuously shrinking and likely will become a non-factor. Meanwhile, you benefit from lower weight, less material cost, faster refueling, cold weather performance, and various other advantages. So it could easily be more cost effective to power a car using hydrogen than with cheap electricity than with batteries in the majority of cases. > 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. You're conflating two different things: fuel cells and green hydrogen production. Fuel cell cars are in a lot of ways already competitive with battery electric on their own merits. Hydrogen production is going to be dependent on electrolysis. Even so, as electrolysis costs come down this too will be become cheaper than fossil fuel sources of hydrogen It's also a lazy argument, as fuel cells have the possibility of being zero emissions the same way batteries have. In fact, this was repeated against battery electric cars historically, since electricity production is heavily based on fossil fuels. So repeating it against fuel cell cars is just playing the role of luddite again. > That's a strong claim, given that battery prices have historically dropped 80% per decade and show no signs of slowing down. That's from a very high base and is misleading. Regardless, fuel cell costs are also dropping extremely fast, but unlike batteries don't have the floor of material costs. It's likely that fuel cells will be much cheaper than batteries in the long run. Toyota for instance believes that a fuel cell car can cost the same as a Corolla. Electrolysis costs are also dropping in a similar way and you can expect green hydrogen production to be minimally capital intensive. > The lack of hydrogen filling stations is the biggest roadblock for this among many big roadblocks. It's starting to look like the hydrogen refueling infrastructure will be cheaper than the equivalent battery charging infrastructure. Some recent studies are suggesting this.

by Hypx 6y ago

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.

Hypx 6y ago
The same is true of batteries. You don't get more energy than you put into it. Fuel cells are just another form of batteries, but with a far higher energy density and much lower material costs. At best, you can claim there is one more step in fuel cells than with batteries, but even this is not necessary. Metal hydride hydrogen storage currently exists and can eliminant the compression step. The notion that batteries are superior than fuel cells at utilizing low cost electricity is fundamentally in error. People have traditionally made the argument batteries are more efficient, but the gap is continuously shrinking and likely will become a non-factor. Meanwhile, you benefit from lower weight, less material cost, faster refueling, cold weather performance, and various other advantages. So it could easily be more cost effective to power a car using hydrogen than with cheap electricity than with batteries in the majority of cases. > 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. You're conflating two different things: fuel cells and green hydrogen production. Fuel cell cars are in a lot of ways already competitive with battery electric on their own merits. Hydrogen production is going to be dependent on electrolysis. Even so, as electrolysis costs come down this too will be become cheaper than fossil fuel sources of hydrogen It's also a lazy argument, as fuel cells have the possibility of being zero emissions the same way batteries have. In fact, this was repeated against battery electric cars historically, since electricity production is heavily based on fossil fuels. So repeating it against fuel cell cars is just playing the role of luddite again. > That's a strong claim, given that battery prices have historically dropped 80% per decade and show no signs of slowing down. That's from a very high base and is misleading. Regardless, fuel cell costs are also dropping extremely fast, but unlike batteries don't have the floor of material costs. It's likely that fuel cells will be much cheaper than batteries in the long run. Toyota for instance believes that a fuel cell car can cost the same as a Corolla. Electrolysis costs are also dropping in a similar way and you can expect green hydrogen production to be minimally capital intensive. > The lack of hydrogen filling stations is the biggest roadblock for this among many big roadblocks. It's starting to look like the hydrogen refueling infrastructure will be cheaper than the equivalent battery charging infrastructure. Some recent studies are suggesting this.