[F32Fleet]

Waste of time and resources. This is just a means of delaying the inevitable sunsetting of the ICE for passenger cars. I only say this because creating hydrogen in quantities needed is highly polluting and the gas leaks out of the vehicle's tank (Hydrogen 7 some 15 yrs ago would go empty in about a week).

[TheBingoBalls]

Originally Posted by F32Fleet

Waste of time and resources. This is just a means of delaying the inevitable sunsetting of the ICE for passenger cars. I only say this because creating hydrogen in quantities needed is highly polluting and the gas leaks out of the vehicle's tank (Hydrogen 7 some 15 yrs ago would go empty in about a week).

I agree. I am not too educated on hydrogen tech and it's application in vehicles but if the end game is electric, why bother investing R&D into hydrogen? What is the long play here and if you're a prospective buyer of a non-ICE BMW, are you even looking at hydrogen instead of just going electric? It doesn't make sense to me.

I get that BMW doesn't think the infrastructure is ready but I think there's far more value in just continually working with electric than hydrogen as a very temporary stop gap.

[SteveinArizona]

Originally Posted by TheBingoBalls

I agree. I am not too educated on hydrogen tech and it's application in vehicles but if the end game is electric, why bother investing R&D into hydrogen? What is the long play here and if you're a prospective buyer of a non-ICE BMW, are you even looking at hydrogen instead of just going electric? It doesn't make sense to me.

I get that BMW doesn't think the infrastructure is ready but I think there's far more value in just continually working with electric than hydrogen as a very temporary stop gap.

Hydrogen IS electric. The only difference is whether one uses batteries (which need to be regularly charged) or hyrdrogen (which needs to be regularly replenished) to run the electric motor.

Hydrogen is the endgame. It is just a question of how long it will take to get there.

[GerryM5]

FYI, Hydrogen may not be the fuel for future cars but there are 20+ fuel station SF Bay Area.

[SEAT TIME RULES]

Its coming, and its going to replace batteries in the not to distant future...

https://www.furosystems.com/news/hyd...tric-vehicles/

They have just started to apply some serious R&D to the limitations that are holding back its growth.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Adding FCEVs to the marketplace seems more realistic than trying to cram the entire world into BEVs. The energy-to-weight ratio, all-climate range stability, and rapid refueling are all very attractive qualities. Now if only BMW could erase the memories of the Hindenburg disaster.

[SamS]

Originally Posted by SteveinArizona

Hydrogen IS electric. The only difference is whether one uses batteries (which need to be regularly charged) or hyrdrogen (which needs to be regularly replenished) to run the electric motor.

Hydrogen is the endgame. It is just a question of how long it will take to get there.

Hydrogen is not the endgame. The physics behind it dictate that it needs more volume than batteries, to produce the same amount of energy.

Do you really expect people to have hydrogen in their garage? Everyone has electricity there. Sure, you may need some ‘upgrades’. But that’s a few thousand dollars and a qualified electrician. Not an ‘explosive gas line’ upgrade.

[SamS]

Originally Posted by SEAT TIME RULES

Its coming, and its going to replace Electric in the not to distant future...

https://www.furosystems.com/news/hyd...tric-vehicles/

They have just started to apply some serious R&D to the limitations that are holding back its growth.

Did you even read that link?

Other issues are that storing hydrogen as a gas is expensive and energy intensive, sometimes as much as half the energy it contains, and even more so when it is stored as a liquid at cryogenic temperatures. In addition, it is highly flammable, tends to escape containment and reacts with metals in a way than renders them more brittle and prone to breakage. Eventually, although it is everywhere around us, hydrogen is hard, dangerous and expensive to produce, store and transport.

^^^ That’s a bit more serious than “limitations” that some R&D dollars will fix.

[///M TOWN]

Originally Posted by SamS

Hydrogen is not the endgame. The physics behind it dictate that it needs more volume than batteries, to produce the same amount of energy.

Do you really expect people to have hydrogen in their garage? Everyone has electricity there. Sure, you may need some 'upgrades'. But that's a few thousand dollars and a qualified electrician. Not an 'explosive gas line' upgrade.

SamS... You absolutely nailed it ‼️

[SEAT TIME RULES]

Originally Posted by SamS

Did you even read that link?

Other issues are that storing hydrogen as a gas is expensive and energy intensive, sometimes as much as half the energy it contains, and even more so when it is stored as a liquid at cryogenic temperatures. In addition, it is highly flammable, tends to escape containment and reacts with metals in a way than renders them more brittle and prone to breakage. Eventually, although it is everywhere around us, hydrogen is hard, dangerous and expensive to produce, store and transport.

^^^ That’s a bit more serious than “limitations” that some R&D dollars will fix.

Let me explain my thinking...

How long has the auto industry been working on battery storage, hybrid tech and pure electric? ~20 years.

Hydrogen has yet to have anywhere near the capital & time invested in it. Its literally just starting to see R&D $'s and time increase in the last few years.

I'm all in on Hydrogen. Many of todays hurdles will be easier to solve than squeezing much more out of chemical batteries.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by F32Fleet

Waste of time and resources. This is just a means of delaying the inevitable sunsetting of the ICE for passenger cars.

This is not a hydrogen combustion vehicle, so it will do nothing to delay the ICE phase-out. In fact, it could theoretically accelerate it since some ICE applications like long-distance heavy-duty transport could have their time-to-electrification shortened by hydrogen fuel cell commercialization.

I only say this because creating hydrogen in quantities needed is highly polluting and the gas leaks out of the vehicle's tank (Hydrogen 7 some 15 yrs ago would go empty in about a week).

That was a hydrogen combustion vehicle. BMW is not currently pursuing that technology. They are pursuing FCEV technology along with many other players in the industry. Large sums of money are being invested and it’s unlikely to result in zero advancement.

When you blow by those eighteen wheelers on the expressway pumping out tons of NOx, you might wonder when that will end. Maybe a huge battery, right? Like 200kWh, or 300kWh, or even 500kWh? Sure, but then you're idle for four or five hours charging it, even with DC charging. And how many DC charge cycles will that battery endure before it’s spent? So that’s a massive cost-center, and it potentially creates the new issue of increasing fleet idle time. But what if there were a way to instead use a refillable battery that could be ready to go again in just a few minutes and never wear out? Enter the fuel cell. And yes, that needs refinement, transport, and infrastructure which is also a massive cost-center. So who wins? The industry is hedging on both. If you think you know the answer, invest you hard earned $$ in BEV and short the FCEV suppliers.

What does this have to do with BMW? They can sell or license the tech. But also, when the coastal me-too crew gets wind of those big rigs with refillable batteries, they are going to demand it in their X7 or X8 or iX. Or maybe not. Like I say, if you think you’re crystal ball is better than that, you know where to put your money. Fuel cells or batteries - who wins in the end? It does not have to be winner take all. It’s about covering every use case so that electric propulsion can proliferate to all types of vehicles and we get to zero tailpipe.

[Kjenndal]

Regarding cars it's a waste of green electricity!

https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/news...-question.html

[hans007]

Originally Posted by SteveinArizona

Hydrogen IS electric. The only difference is whether one uses batteries (which need to be regularly charged) or hyrdrogen (which needs to be regularly replenished) to run the electric motor.

Hydrogen is the endgame. It is just a question of how long it will take to get there.

Yes it an FCEV. People make it seem like a company like toyota which doesn't have a lithium ion EV doesn't need to know how to build an EV at all when they'd been making the mirai for years. That hydrogen tank and fuel cell stack, can be replaced by a pile of batteries from LG chem or whatever which i'm sure is basically what an i4 is. BMW needs to hedge its bets they need to be prepared in case this also has a market. I'd imagine the electric parts are basically the same too. A smart company is still going to keep their options open.

I had a coworker who actually had a mirai a couple years ago and it worked fine, it was just a matter of number of stations in Los angeles but you could make it work. If hydrogen takes off and theres more stations then who knows. Hydrogen for the range probably weighs less than lithium batteries... the current gen mirai is 4000 lbs and 5 series sized (the fuel cell stack above was codeveloped with toyota.... so who knows maybe there could be a fuel cell 5 series too). the 2021 mirai is similar sized and even RWD supposedly 400 mile range. Its a lot lighter than say a taycan or a model s for the size

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by SEAT TIME RULES

Let me explain my thinking...

How long has the auto industry been working on battery storage, hybrid tech and pure electric? ~20 years.

Hydrogen has yet to have anywhere near the capital & time invested in it. Its literally just starting to see R&D $'s and time increase in the last few years.

I'm all in on Hydrogen. Many of todays hurdles will be easier to solve than squeezing much more out of chemical batteries.

Toyota Prius and Honda Insight around 2000.
BMW Hydrogen 7 circa 2005.

Hydrogen, unlike battery technology, is comparatively well understood so you can't just assume that throwing more time and money will change what is already known.

The limitations of hydrogen are a result of its physical properties which will never change. Burning NatGas (Methane) would've been the natural successor to gasoline from an air quality perspective and that technology has remained on the fringes for some 20 odd years.

Basically it's all about weight, energy density of the fuel, and ease of use. Hydrogen, Methane are simply not good candidates for vehicles.


BTW...Tesla (via Panasonic) is supposedly coming out with new battery tech which will significantly reduce weight. Batteries are where the money is at. It's not about engines or anything else which is why legacy car companies will become shells of their former selves.

Basically imagine BMW, Porsche, Benz, Ford buying their engines from a third party supplier like Bosch/ZF

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

This is not a hydrogen combustion vehicle, so it will do nothing to delay the ICE phase-out. In fact, it could theoretically accelerate it since some ICE applications like long-distance heavy-duty transport could have their time-to-electrification shortened by hydrogen fuel cell commercialization.

That was a hydrogen combustion vehicle. BMW is not currently pursuing that technology. They are pursuing FCEV technology along with many other players in the industry. Large sums of money are being invested and it's unlikely to result in zero advancement.

When you blow by those eighteen wheelers on the expressway pumping out tons of NOx, you might wonder when that will end. Maybe a huge battery, right? Like 200kWh, or 300kWh, or even 500kWh? Sure, but then you're idle for four or five hours charging it, even with DC charging. And how many DC charge cycles will that battery endure before it's spent? So that's a massive cost-center, and it potentially creates the new issue of increasing fleet idle time. But what if there were a way to instead use a refillable battery that could be ready to go again in just a few minutes and never wear out? Enter the fuel cell. And yes, that needs refinement, transport, and infrastructure which is also a massive cost-center. So who wins? The industry is hedging on both. If you think you know the answer, invest you hard earned $$ in BEV and short the FCEV suppliers.

What does this have to do with BMW? They can sell or license the tech. But also, when the coastal me-too crew gets wind of those big rigs with refillable batteries, they are going to demand it in their X7 or X8 or iX. Or maybe not. Like I say, if you think you're crystal ball is better than that, you know where to put your money. Fuel cells or batteries - who wins in the end? It does not have to be winner take all. It's about covering every use case so that electric propulsion can proliferate to all types of vehicles and we get to zero tailpipe.

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".

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by SamS

Hydrogen is not the endgame. The physics behind it dictate that it needs more volume than batteries, to produce the same amount of energy.

Funny you tout that advantage. I'm not sure you're on the right side of the facts...

Hydrogen used in fuel cells has an energy to weight ratio ten times greater than lithium-ion batteries. Consequently, it offers much greater range while being lighter and occupying smaller volumes.

Originally Posted by SamS

Do you really expect people to have hydrogen in their garage? Everyone has electricity there. Sure, you may need some 'upgrades'. But that's a few thousand dollars and a qualified electrician. Not an 'explosive gas line' upgrade.

No. With refueling hydrogen being so quick, the number of people installing hydrogen refueling stations in their home would be about the same as people installing gasoline refueling stations in their home. The point is quick, public hydrogen refueling works for people that find charging an EV at home impossible. Plus, your scenario points out a "few thousand dollar" disadvantage EVs have.

[SteveinArizona]

Originally Posted by Dog Face Pony Soldier

Funny you tout that advantage. I'm not sure you're on the right side of the facts...

Hydrogen used in fuel cells has an energy to weight ratio ten times greater than lithium-ion batteries. Consequently, it offers much greater range while being lighter and occupying smaller volumes.



No. With refueling hydrogen being so quick, the number of people installing hydrogen refueling stations in their home would be about the same as people installing gasoline refueling stations in their home. The point is quick, public hydrogen refueling works for people that find charging an EV at home impossible. Plus, your scenario points out a "few thousand dollar" disadvantage EVs have.

Exactly. Storing hydrogen fuel in a home will be as common as storing gasoline in a home. has the poster stored gasoline in garage and does his refueling from there? I somehow doubt it.

[mkoesel]

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.

Fantastic. You've obviously got all the answers, so why waste time here defending this inevitable reality? Go short every player in the hydrogen game. It's a sure thing, and you'll rake in millions.

[SamS]

Originally Posted by Dog Face Pony Soldier

Funny you tout that advantage. I'm not sure you're on the right side of the facts...

Hydrogen used in fuel cells has an energy to weight ratio ten times greater than lithium-ion batteries. Consequently, it offers much greater range while being lighter and occupying smaller volumes.

There are many studies that conclude that a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle uses 2-3x the energy to drive the same distance vs. BEV. Volkswagen has a very thorough study published driven by data:
https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/news...-question.html

Originally Posted by Dog Face Pony Soldier

No. With refueling hydrogen being so quick, the number of people installing hydrogen refueling stations in their home would be about the same as people installing gasoline refueling stations in their home. The point is quick, public hydrogen refueling works for people that find charging an EV at home impossible. Plus, your scenario points out a "few thousand dollar" disadvantage EVs have.

You assume that hydrogen fueling stations will be as ubiquitous as gasoline stations. Even today, electric car fueling stations are nowhere near that, as such fueling will have be augmented somewhere i.e. your home. Ask anyone who has experienced the convenience of "refueling" at home... there is no joy in going to a gas station. Plugging in overnight and waking up to 100% range when you want to is a terrific convenience.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by SamS

There are many studies that conclude that a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle uses 2-3x the energy to drive the same distance vs. BEV. Volkswagen has a very thorough study published driven by data:
https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/news...-question.html

Although it sounds like you've made your mind up already; to me, it sounds like it would be interesting to see people weigh their options... A FCEV using 2-3x more energy (includes losses at the production level) to drive the same distance; versus having 10x(!) advantage of energy-to-weight over BEV, with much greater range, and all-climate range stability. Additionally, what type of refueling works for them... A homeowner charging at their home; or a rental/apartment dweller filling the tank at a local hydrogen refueling station.

Originally Posted by SamS

You assume that hydrogen fueling stations will be as ubiquitous as gasoline stations. Even today, electric car fueling stations are nowhere near that, as such fueling will have to be augmented somewhere i.e. your home. Ask anyone who has experienced the convenience of "refueling" at home... there is no joy in going to a gas station. Plugging in overnight and waking up to 100% range when you want to is a terrific convenience.

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.

[SamS]

Originally Posted by Dog Face Pony Soldier

Although it sounds like you've made your mind up already; to me, it sounds like it would be interesting to see people weigh their options... A FCEV using 2-3x more energy (includes losses at the production level) to drive the same distance; versus having 10x(!) advantage of energy-to-weight over BEV, with much greater range, and all-climate range stability. Additionally, what type of refueling works for them... A homeowner charging at their home; or a rental/apartment dweller filling the tank at a local hydrogen refueling station.


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 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.

I can appreciate having as many options as possible. Although I do (did!) take mass transit for part of my commute, your driving patterns are certainly different than mine.

I welcome any type of technology that is more sustainable than gas/diesel. But over the past several years, I've just taken a more pragmatic view regarding the alternatives available today, or in the next couple of years.

As someone who has bought four brand new BMWs over the past 8 years, I'm sure BMW would love to have me as a future BEV or Fuel Cell vehicle customer. But until they step up their game, and/or there are serious infrastructure changes, I've got better alternatives than what BMW offers/envisions.

[mkoesel]

https://www.motorauthority.com/news/...range-extender