[David70]

I don't see it ever happening for general consumer use. You can't build a lot of cars until there are a lot of places to refuel and nobody will build the refuel stations until there are a lot of cars. Electric cars work pretty well as many people live where it is easy to plug in at night and never deal with a public station.

When it comes to getting the hydrogen to the fueling station, where is it coming from? There are gas pipelines all over the country, then trucked a short distance and electric is also well distributed.

[Bmmrr]

I think most people on here are missing quite a big part of the picture when it comes to hydrogen fueling stations and vehicles.

firstly, most car manufacturers including BMW have mentioned modular vehicles. In which case you would select a vehicle and than, just as you chose options, you would chose your drive train.
This would give you the option of BEV, FCEV or PHEV(which in time will be phased out).

The UK and EU have both commited to a complete ban on ICE vehicles within the next twenty years so alternatives to diesel trucks and lorries is needed.
They have also commited to providing more hydrogen filling stations.

I understand that at the moment infrastructure for hydrogen vehicles is not there and that production is somewhat expensive and requires a lot of electrical energy, but with that said, do you think that some of the largest fossil fuel suppliers(BP, Shell etc. etc.), are going to sit by and watch as the world changes to fossil free energy or will they simply look into producing green fuels as well as partially converting some of their existing fuel stations in hydrogen and ultimately fully converting to both hydrogen and electric refuelling station.

with this investment and improvements in tech we will see the availability of hydrogen fuel increase and it's cost decrease, even if it's only inline with existing fossil fuels.

ultimately, what will drive the future of vehicle fuel options is, cost, availability and range.
currently (discounting ICE), PHEV is winning in all areas closely followed by BEV with FCEV lagging behind.
in 10-15 years this list may well be completely reversed with both PHEV and ICE slowly disappearing from the market.

[Canuck335]

Originally Posted by Dog Face Pony Soldier

The failure in your assumption is that every buyer CAN charge at home. As a life-long NY-Metro resident, this seems like an obvious glaring omission. I guess I should give this a pass because some people just can't grasp this concept... But it is very real. There are literally millions of Metro-NY residents that will never have an ability to charge at their home. Further, many NYC residents mainly rely on mass transit, so they only buy a single car that is mostly used for extended trips. These buyers would be greatly motivated to stay in an ICE vehicle. I see the FCEV as a potentially-realistic option for them.

I see this as one of those situations where more options are better. The BEV devotees shouldn't feel threatened, as I see FCEVs as mostly picking away ICE buyers.

Battery technology is advancing at a fairly fast rate.
Faster than the infrastructure for wide adoption of hydrogen FCEV's

In about 8 years mainstream BEV's that charge up in 5-10 minutes will start appearing on the market. At that point passenger FCEV (and ICE) will be pointless.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by Canuck335

Battery technology is advancing at a fairly fast rate.
Faster than the infrastructure for wide adoption of hydrogen FCEV's

In about 8 years mainstream BEV's that charge up in 5-10 minutes will start appearing on the market. At that point passenger FCEV (and ICE) will be pointless.

I think it's foolhardy to minimize the value in diversifying sources of energy. Hydrogen already seems like a better solution for heavy trucks. Perhaps it can make sense for light trucks too.

[stefan]

Originally Posted by F32Fleet

Commercial OTR trucks will never use batteries. The weight penalty is just too high. They will always use diesel as a primary fuel.

Hydrogen fuel cell, never happen.

BTW It still burns hydrogen stored in tanks. Same limitations apply.


Oh and one more thing. Here's a telltale sign of why it will never happen. From the article,
"In our view, hydrogen as energy carrier must first be produced in sufficient quantities at a competitive price using green electricity"

I'm going to unpack this. Basically BMW has acknowledged that because generating hydrogen is highly polluting, they're trying to use as little as possible per vehicle in anticipation of the low quantities of hydrogen which are available using price competitive "green electricity".

Hydrogen is no more polluting than full lifecycle EVs. Both are better than ICE--though only marginally once you factor in lifecycle. It's nowhere near the 70% enthusiasts claim. Much closer to 15-20% less footprint when you factor in mining, shipping, dirty power sources, disposal, etc.

That said hydrogen is a great alternative to EV especially in countries with long distances between cities or extremely cold climates. Most importantly it doesn't require long charge times which will absolutely cripple our infrastructure if enough people switch to EV. So I really disagree that hydrogen isn't going to be in our future.

Further to all of this, consumers do not care. EVs can make ZERO sense, just like SUVs honestly, but people buy them anyway. People like "feel good" and not necessarily "do good" when it comes to going green. Reusable bags are a great example of this. BMW probably has some of the best analysts on the planet informing their exec where to take the company. So rest assured this is a smart move.

Originally Posted by Canuck335

Battery technology is advancing at a fairly fast rate.
Faster than the infrastructure for wide adoption of hydrogen FCEV's

In about 8 years mainstream BEV's that charge up in 5-10 minutes will start appearing on the market. At that point passenger FCEV (and ICE) will be pointless.

8 years is insanely optimistic and requires a total overhaul of decades of infrastructure evolution. Not everywhere is Toronto or LA I'll say that at least EVs are less dangerous than hydrogen cells, but again, your problem is adoption rates. If successful, they will be nearly impossible to use for long distance drives. For example take cottage country near you there. Everyone will be charging at the same predictable spots which will create massive lines. Hydrogen is better I think in this sense while using basically the same supply chain--like you can probably retrofit gas stations.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by Canuck335

In about 8 years mainstream BEV's that charge up in 5-10 minutes will start appearing on the market.

You may find that timeline to be optimistic. We shall see.

The other things that need to fall into place are:

- Batteries capable of DC charging hundreds of cycles with acceptable (10%-ish) loss in capacity
- DC charging infrastructure that supports your 5-10 minute charge times at all or at least most locations

All of that might be coming faster than hydrogen infrastructure, but plenty of wise people with deep pockets don't necessarily think so. If you truly believe you've outsmarted them, you can, as I say, play the game and win big.

[JorgenM]

Hydrogen is the way to go... NOT


Ooooops...

https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/ex...I7Q3SNN2IKNFQ/

Same thing happened here in Norway last year.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by JorgenM

Hydrogen is the way to go... NOT


Ooooops...

https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/ex...I7Q3SNN2IKNFQ/

Same thing happened here in Norway last year.

I guess those heavy trucks will have to keep on truckin with diesel then! Woo Hoo! Let's roll some coal!!

Do Norwegians even know what "rolling coal" is? 🤔

[Canuck335]

Originally Posted by stefan

Hydrogen is no more polluting than full lifecycle EVs. Both are better than ICE--though only marginally once you factor in lifecycle. It's nowhere near the 70% enthusiasts claim. Much closer to 15-20% less footprint when you factor in mining, shipping, dirty power sources, disposal, etc.

I'm not sure where you got that.
With hydrogen you lose about 60-70% of the original energy in conversion losses. Look at what VW's Krebs said in 2013 (before a bunch of battery advancements)
https://www.autoblog.com/2013/11/20/...ay-to-convert/

That level of loss by far exceeds any advantage hydrogen would have over electric. The guys at car companies aren't idiots.
They've done the math.
Their consultants have done the math.
Universities and other researchers have the math.
Hydrogen doesn't make financial or environmental sense.

Originally Posted by stefan

That said hydrogen is a great alternative to EV especially in countries with long distances between cities or extremely cold climates. Most importantly it doesn't require long charge times which will absolutely cripple our infrastructure if enough people switch to EV. So I really disagree that hydrogen isn't going to be in our future.

It may well be around but in limited applications.
I doubt you will see many FCEV cars. Even with trucks there are numerous companies working on EV trucks.
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/8-e...ies-watch-2020

Originally Posted by stefan

Further to all of this, consumers do not care. EVs can make ZERO sense, just like SUVs honestly, but people buy them anyway. People like "feel good" and not necessarily "do good" when it comes to going green. Reusable bags are a great example of this. BMW probably has some of the best analysts on the planet informing their exec where to take the company. So rest assured this is a smart move.

The exec that announced i Hydrogen, Klaus Fröhlich, is retiring later this year.
And he's being replaced by Frank Weber, who formerly worked on EV's at GM.

Originally Posted by stefan

8 years is insanely optimistic and requires a total overhaul of decades of infrastructure evolution. Not everywhere is Toronto or LA I'll say that at least EVs are less dangerous than hydrogen cells, but again, your problem is adoption rates. If successful, they will be nearly impossible to use for long distance drives. For example take cottage country near you there. Everyone will be charging at the same predictable spots which will create massive lines. Hydrogen is better I think in this sense while using basically the same supply chain--like you can probably retrofit gas stations.

8 Years maybe optimistic but hydrogen is much further behind in adoption than EV's.
Number of EV's on the road today is in the millions.
Number of FCEV's - less than 10,000
I don't think BEV range will be an issue with further battery technology developments. It will take a lot less money and time to improve batteries than it will to implement a hydrogen infrastructure.
And as for cottage country, everyone charges at the cottage. We all have electricity there, and the vehicles generally stay parked for the weekend while we're on the lake or drinking beer

[Canuck335]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

You may find that timeline to be optimistic. We shall see.

The other things that need to fall into place are:

- Batteries capable of DC charging hundreds of cycles with acceptable (10%-ish) loss in capacity
- DC charging infrastructure that supports your 5-10 minute charge times at all or at least most locations

All of that might be coming faster than hydrogen infrastructure, but plenty of wise people with deep pockets don't necessarily think so. If you truly believe you've outsmarted them, you can, as I say, play the game and win big.

I'd like to know who these people are.

[Canuck335]

Originally Posted by Dog Face Pony Soldier

I guess those heavy trucks will have to keep on truckin with diesel then! Woo Hoo! Let's roll some coal!!

Do Norwegians even know what "rolling coal" is? 🤔

Oh look... electric excavators with fast charging.
Who'da thought??

https://cleantechnica.com/2020/04/09...truction-site/

Bye bye diesel.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by Canuck335

Oh look... electric excavators with fast charging.
Who'da thought??

https://cleantechnica.com/2020/04/09...truction-site/

Bye bye diesel.

Your snarky comment actually comical. Believe it or not I have years of experience working as an excavator; so I can speak as somewhat of an expert on this. While I've never so much as been in Norway, never mind dig a hole there, I know how excavation companies operate in the US. These electric excavators *might* work in the application mentioned in the article... in the inner city... but it would be an expensive proposition to buy a dedicated machine that only works in that application. Most serious excavation projects are on a site before there's electric service. Almost all the time nothing is on site except maybe teams clearing trees. We bring fuel oil to the site for the machines with fuel tanks in the bed of pickup trucks. So for an electric excavator to work we'd either have to bring a diesel generator (what's the point there), or somehow bring massive batteries off-road to recharge the batteries in the equipment. It sounds like a disaster. I also chuckle at the poor electric excavator salespeople trying to talk to guys who work with dirt for a living that they should buy a "cleaner" machine. That would be fun to watch.

[kaputt]

I just think its hilarious how anti Hydrogen many EV fan boys are.

You would think if they were really as big into environmentally friendly vehicle propulsion as they say, they would be excited about all advancements in technology that work towards that end.

But I've noticed in multiple places on the internet that if you even mention Hydrogen Fuel Cells as a real option, let alone the possibility of Hydrogen overtaking batteries as the primary consumer choice, the EV fan boys jump on you as if you were an F250 driver rolling coal on a bunch of Prius's.

In my opinion I see both existing. City dwellers or those with short commutes can get away with a plug in EV. Suburban dwellers will want something with more range and a faster fill up time. Enter Hydrogen.

[mkoesel]

More players jumping in.

https://www.daimler.com/company/news...ure-volvo.html

[LOW4LYF]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

More players jumping in.

https://www.daimler.com/company/news...ure-volvo.html

Hmmmmmmm....

https://electrek.co/2020/04/22/daiml...ts-too-costly/

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by LOW4LYF

Hmmmmmmm....

https://electrek.co/2020/04/22/daiml...ts-too-costly/

Yes, I saw that too. But they are doubling down in the heavy truck sector with Volvo.

What you are seeing is the acknowledgement by the industry that it believes long haul trucks will be regulated off of fossil fuel before suitable battery technology exists to pick up the torch.

Also bear in mind that Electrek is strongly anti-hydrogen. They see it as a way for big oil conglomerates to continue to have influence and control over the distribution infrastructure. They also believe that everyone could and should trade in their current transportation immediately and find a way to make a BEV or other personal electric vehicle work for them.