“Battery EV” vs “Hydrogen Fuel cell EV”

[not1xor1]

The CEO of Toyota is pushing internal combustion engines burning hydrogen as a carbon-neutral power source.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-13/japan-carmakers-showcase-carbon-neutral-fuels-in-road-race

To me, that's a step backwards from EVs and fuel-cell hydrogen cars. IC engines are inefficient (think of all of the waste heat they produce), and even when they're burning hydrogen they still produce NOx pollution that needs to be dealt with using a catalytic convertor.

hydrogen is still produced from fossil fuels (methane). All that hydrogen stuff is pure nonsense. In the meantime they are building a factory for new DC motors made just of copper, i.e. no rare earth elements for permanent magnets while Na-ion batteries are already in production and you get plenty of Na from the oceans...

[james_s]

Isn't an issue with hybrids the small battery? Something like 20-mile range, which isn't that much. However, I would have thought that with the rise in petrol prices, plugging it in whenever you can would be worth a fair bit! Clearly, your neighbour earns too much and should be paying more taxes 

The range of a hybrid is determined by the capacity of the fuel tank, just like any other car. The idea of a plug in hybrid is you can drive at least partially on battery power for the short trips that represent most driving people do. You have the engine powered by conventional fuel when you need to go further. My partner has a 2002 Prius which is the first generation, it has a small NiMH battery pack and can only operate entirely on electricity under about 5mph. The rest of the time the electric motor is just there to augment the torque of a relatively small ICE and provides some immediate acceleration from a stop to give the engine time to start up. The gas engine starts and stops as needed and the whole thing works remarkably seamlessly for being an early example of the technology.

[james_s]

Because that's how it's being sold to us. In London's ultra-low emission zone hybrids are classed the same as petrol and diesel. They get a free pass on the congestion charge, but only because they were the clean option when that was brought in. It is clearly full EV or filthy polluter - no middle way.

That's a political problem much more so than a technological problem. You get the government you vote for, or however they are appointed in your part of the world.

[ogden]

My partner has a 2002 Prius which is the first generation, it has a small NiMH battery pack and can only operate entirely on electricity under about 5mph. The rest of the time the electric motor is just there to augment the torque of a relatively small ICE and provides some immediate acceleration from a stop to give the engine time to start up. The gas engine starts and stops as needed and the whole thing works remarkably seamlessly for being an early example of the technology.

Right. ICE of hybrids is operated at maximum efficiency mode unless you floor it. When battery full - you can continue to be stuck in the city traffic on electric motor. So even (and only) in city mode it is indeed much more efficient than traditional ICE car. On the other hand - if you usually long-range travel and don't need city only or mixed city/highway, then better get diesel car [grin] or just EV if you are sure to be immune against Range Anxiety

[Sal Ammoniac]

The CEO of Toyota is pushing internal combustion engines burning hydrogen as a carbon-neutral power source.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-13/japan-carmakers-showcase-carbon-neutral-fuels-in-road-race

To me, that's a step backwards from EVs and fuel-cell hydrogen cars. IC engines are inefficient (think of all of the waste heat they produce), and even when they're burning hydrogen they still produce NOx pollution that needs to be dealt with using a catalytic convertor.

hydrogen is still produced from fossil fuels (methane). All that hydrogen stuff is pure nonsense. In the meantime they are building a factory for new DC motors made just of copper, i.e. no rare earth elements for permanent magnets while Na-ion batteries are already in production and you get plenty of Na from the oceans...

AC induction motors don't have permanent magnets, hence no need for rare earth metals like neodymium. The Tesla Model S uses an induction motor with a pure copper rotor and it seems to be efficient enough.

[tom66]

The CEO of Toyota is pushing internal combustion engines burning hydrogen as a carbon-neutral power source.

The other problem is it's pretty difficult to make a hydrogen ICE car - I mean it's not as if hydrogen FCEVs are easy *either* but hydrogen ICE introduces even more complexities.



To make an efficient one, you basically have the same problem efficient, powerful diesels have: NOx.  So you won't be getting rid of adblue any time soon.  'tho I suppose you could produce the ammonia from excess hydrogen.

It's also even less efficient than hydrogen FCEV, because an ICE is just not that thermodynamically efficient.   The best fuel cells are ca. 75-80% efficient, with a motor, maybe 60-70% of hydrogen goes to the wheels;  an ICE is what, 33-40%?  I am not sure how hydrogen changes that efficiency, but we also have to remember that a FCEV gets you "hybrid" for free, that is, regen braking, electric A/C, electric PS, and no ICE running under inefficient acceleration/coast profiles.  Those usually only come if you then bolt an electric motor onto the side of an ICE engine, so you still need a small battery pack and inverter.

It's really hard to see what the Toyota CEO is thinking here - he's clearly betting on battery EVs being too expensive (despite the fact you can now get 50kWh battery cars like e-208 which aren't *that* much more expensive than their ICE counterpart) - but at the same time thinks that we're going to have massive amounts of hydrogen infrastructure and hydrogen fuel to throw about.  Obviously, because we'd be throwing away 5x as much renewable energy per km travelled with hydrogen ICE than a battery EV.

I do see a strong future for hydrogen, but I think it will be in domestic/industrial heating, air travel, trucks and for trains where they are impractical to otherwise electrify.  It just doesn't add up for passenger cars.

[ogden]

It's really hard to see what the Toyota CEO is thinking here - he's clearly betting on battery EVs being too expensive (despite the fact you can now get 50kWh battery cars like e-208 which aren't *that* much more expensive than their ICE counterpart) - but at the same time thinks that we're going to have massive amounts of hydrogen infrastructure and hydrogen fuel to throw about.  Obviously, because we'd be throwing away 5x as much renewable energy per km travelled with hydrogen ICE than a battery EV.

Business as usual. In this case he is trying to convince petrolheads to buy hydrogen cars - to earn more

[SiliconWizard]

The CEO of Toyota is pushing internal combustion engines burning hydrogen as a carbon-neutral power source.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-13/japan-carmakers-showcase-carbon-neutral-fuels-in-road-race

To me, that's a step backwards from EVs and fuel-cell hydrogen cars. IC engines are inefficient (think of all of the waste heat they produce), and even when they're burning hydrogen they still produce NOx pollution that needs to be dealt with using a catalytic convertor.

hydrogen is still produced from fossil fuels (methane). All that hydrogen stuff is pure nonsense. In the meantime they are building a factory for new DC motors made just of copper, i.e. no rare earth elements for permanent magnets while Na-ion batteries are already in production and you get plenty of Na from the oceans...

Hydrogen production is absolutely nonsense at the moment from any efficiency or carbon-neutrality POV. But the whole point is that it can be - kinda - used as an almost direct replacement of classic fuels. The devil is in the details though, and the kinda is, in practice, kinda, but it makes the switch look easier than going for an EV, allows to reuse designs and patents - for the ICE approach in particular...

Everyone and their brother will jump on the hydrogen bandwagon these days. Doesn't mean it makes sense. Hydrogen is the new graphene.

[TimFox]

If a "free" source of power should become practical (e.g., fusion), water could be electrolysed into hydrogen and oxygen at the power source and distributed through pipelines.  However, it is true that 95% of current industrial production of hydrogen is from natural gas, where the rest of the feedstock is carbon. 
See  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production

[Sal Ammoniac]

That's the problem. Although hydrogen makes up 90% of the matter in the universe, on earth it's bound up in compounds that require lots of energy to create free hydrogen. The water in the oceans is a nearly unlimited source of hydrogen, but splitting it into oxygen and hydrogen by electrolysis requires 260 kJ/mole. Other methods, like treating methane with high temperature steam, has comparable energy costs and some of these techniques (like steam reforming of methane) produce CO2 as a byproduct.

[PlainName]

That's a political problem much more so than a technological problem.

Yep, and the solution will be political, not technological. Sure, you need the technology (and working technology at that) but scaling it and getting it accepted is generally a political thing. Unless you can go viral on TikTok, maybe.

You get the government you vote for

Seems to be you get the government everyone else voted for.

Votes aren't the answer. With most elections you have a couple of parties and several hatfulls of issues. If one of those parties happens to have in their manifesto the thing you really care about (which isn't often - many times no party will be onboard) the chances are very high that they'll be done on something else you really care for.

[ogden]

If a "free" source of power should become practical (e.g., fusion), water could be electrolysed into hydrogen and oxygen at the power source and distributed through pipelines.  However, it is true that 95% of current industrial production of hydrogen is from natural gas, where the rest of the feedstock is carbon. 
See  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production

Right. Some EU bureaucrats realized it hard way. This project deemed doomed to be inefficient and too costly compared to usual "wired" trolley bus. Who would thought, right?

[nctnico]

The extension cord to connect a jetliner to the grid in flight isn't free either.

Your point is what exactly? - That consumers do not care about "fuel" cost? Think again. It's 47.5 EUR to fill 500km range Toyota Miray compared to 15 EUR 500km range Tesla Model3 (2017 price).

That depends on where your electricity comes from. 500km range from a super charger along the highway costs you 80 euro!

Utter BS https://tm3een.home.blog/2021/06/06/kwh-prices-at-european-tesla-superchargers-20210606/

Tesla's superchargers aren't along the highway. Look at the prices from -for example- Ionity: 0.79 euro per kWh

[wraper]

The extension cord to connect a jetliner to the grid in flight isn't free either.

Your point is what exactly? - That consumers do not care about "fuel" cost? Think again. It's 47.5 EUR to fill 500km range Toyota Miray compared to 15 EUR 500km range Tesla Model3 (2017 price).

That depends on where your electricity comes from. 500km range from a super charger along the highway costs you 80 euro!

Utter BS https://tm3een.home.blog/2021/06/06/kwh-prices-at-european-tesla-superchargers-20210606/

Tesla's superchargers aren't along the highway. Look at the prices from -for example- Ionity: 0.79 euro per kWh

You said "super charger" which implies Tesla, then call for Ionyty prices. Still it won't cost EUR 80 to charge unless you have an inefficient garbage like Audi e-tron. As of Hydrogen, in Latvia we have a whopping single filling station which sells steam methane reformed junk for 14,50 EUR/kg.

[wraper]

Also you can get a discounted subscription price, it makes no sense to use Ionity otherwise. https://www.electrive.com/2021/10/01/ionity-launches-35-cent-kwh-subscription-model/
+ there are car manufacturer specific deals.

[SiliconWizard]

If a "free" source of power should become practical (e.g., fusion), water could be electrolysed into hydrogen and oxygen at the power source and distributed through pipelines.
See  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production

Of course, but at that point, we'll probably have other ways to use all this "free" power. But it's just not there, and basing major investments and strategies on something as uncertain as this while making things worse in the meantime is a questionable approach.

As the saying goes, if my aunt had a pair, I would call her my uncle.

[TimFox]

That goes without saying.
My point is that should that glorious day arrive when we have "free power" from centralized plants, we need to distribute it to the points of load.
The conventional manner is electrical distribution, and there is a large infrastructure in place.
A possible manner is the existing pipeline system, where there is also a large infrastructure in place.
It is an interesting calculation to compare the distribution efficiency of the two methods, but no incentive to invest until the "free power" become available (note use of subjunctive mood).

[tom66]

Tesla's superchargers aren't along the highway. Look at the prices from -for example- Ionity: 0.79 euro per kWh

Ionity's high pricing is very deliberate to keep their walled garden but since they have CCS they still attract EU funding/subsidies (stupid move by the EU to not cap the rates they charge at.)

If you have a VW subscription it's ~£14/m and then £0.25/kWh.
With Hyundai it's ~£11/m then £0.28/kWh.
Mercedes throw 3 years in free subscription with the car, energy @ £0.25/kWh.
Ford is completely free for a year (£0/kWh), then for the next 4 years is @ £0.27/kWh, no announced subscription fee.

(None of these 'passes' are available if you do not own one of the respective vehicles.  No idea if/how the charging station validates that it is 'that' particular car though.)

And I suppose this isn't surprising given Ionity is majority owned by VW, Hyundai, Daimler, Ford & BMW.

It's very clearly built with the intention of making Tesla and non-Ionity "supported" EVs expensive to charge.  It'll be interesting to see how this shifts as Tesla are charging at their superchargers about the same rate, but all car manufacturers get the same rate.

[SiliconWizard]

Regarding distributing hydrogen safely through pipelines, wouldn't that require major modifications to the existing ones anyway to reach any reasonable level of safety? Really wondering.

[tom66]

Regarding distributing hydrogen safely through pipelines, wouldn't that require major modifications to the existing ones anyway to reach any reasonable level of safety? Really wondering.

What, so natural gas is a totally safe and non-explosive gas? 

One issue is existing pipelines need to be replaced if they contain certain steel, as the steel is embrittled by hydrogen.

Many of these pipelines have been replaced with plastic/composite pipes already anyway.  They are cheaper to install, more flexible, and last longer.

A secondary issue is how you maintain a dual-fuel natural gas and hydrogen grid, without running two sets of pipes.  Some infrastructure won't cope with hydrogen, but others might require pure hydrogen.  I wonder how practical mass-separating the gases would be.

[TimFox]

Hydrogen and methane are both inflammable:  what is important to investigate is the range of gas:oxygen for an inflammable mixture.  Pure gas (hydrogen or methane) will not burn, and too high an oxygen content will not support combustion:  there is a large range in between that is hazardous.
(I am using the literal meaning of "inflammable", not the Underwriters' preferred usage of "flammable".)

[TimFox]

Regarding distributing hydrogen safely through pipelines, wouldn't that require major modifications to the existing ones anyway to reach any reasonable level of safety? Really wondering.

What, so natural gas is a totally safe and non-explosive gas? 

One issue is existing pipelines need to be replaced if they contain certain steel, as the steel is embrittled by hydrogen.

Many of these pipelines have been replaced with plastic/composite pipes already anyway.  They are cheaper to install, more flexible, and last longer.

A secondary issue is how you maintain a dual-fuel natural gas and hydrogen grid, without running two sets of pipes.  Some infrastructure won't cope with hydrogen, but others might require pure hydrogen.  I wonder how practical mass-separating the gases would be.

From an industrial website: (referrring to hydrogen embrittlement at room temperature).  https://www.imetllc.com/hydrogen-embrittlement-steel/
"High-strength steels with tensile strength greater than about 145 ksi (1000 MPa) are the alloys most vulnerable to hydrogen embrittlement."
"For applications where there will be hydrogen absorption while a component is in service, the use of lower strength steels and reduction of residual and applied stress are ways to avoid fracture due to hydrogen embrittlement."

About 20 years ago, the local natural gas utility put a plastic pipe inside the original steel gas pipe from the gas main to my house gas meter.  However, most of my gas piping inside is steel, with some copper.  Hydrogen embrittlement is also a concern with steam attacking iron, and was a limit to the superheated steam temperature in steam locomotives.

[nctnico]

Tesla's superchargers aren't along the highway. Look at the prices from -for example- Ionity: 0.79 euro per kWh

Ionity's high pricing is very deliberate to keep their walled garden but since they have CCS they still attract EU funding/subsidies (stupid move by the EU to not cap the rates they charge at.)

If you have a VW subscription it's ~£14/m and then £0.25/kWh.
With Hyundai it's ~£11/m then £0.28/kWh.
Mercedes throw 3 years in free subscription with the car, energy @ £0.25/kWh.

(None of these 'passes' are available if you do not own one of the respective vehicles.  No idea if/how the charging station validates that it is 'that' particular car though.)

And I suppose this isn't surprising given Ionity is majority owned by VW, Hyundai, Daimler, Ford & BMW.

It's very clearly built with the intention of making Tesla and non-Ionity "supported" EVs expensive to charge.  It'll be interesting to see how this shifts as Tesla are charging at their superchargers about the same rate, but all car manufacturers get the same rate.

That is another problem that needs to be hashed out first: fair rates for charging. At this point nobody knows for how long the charging infrastructure that is being build now is relevant. Given the rapid progress of battery and charging technology it would be foolish to think that is longer than 10 years so any investment needs to be earned back before that. With fast chargers you can choose between several competitors but with street level charging you are basically stuck with whatever company wins the bid for your street. Currently none of the companies that are building EV charging infrastructure are making a profit. That has to change at some point so I expect prices for charging to rise significantly.

And it is nothing new. For example: where I live there is district heating so I'm stuck with whatever company owns the heating infrastructure. It has taken 30 years to have a law passed that sets limits to the tarifs of district heating. I used to pay 35 euro per GJ. Since the law is in effect I pay 25 euro per GJ.

Regarding distributing hydrogen safely through pipelines, wouldn't that require major modifications to the existing ones anyway to reach any reasonable level of safety? Really wondering.

Gas is gas. Most of the natural gas infrastructure in the NL seems to be suitable for hydrogen.

[richard.cs]

What, so natural gas is a totally safe and non-explosive gas?

In comparison to hydrogen, yes. Methane in air is explosive from 5% to 17%, hydrogen 4% to 75%. In practice it means hydrogen is much more likely to make an explosive mix, even before you account for its greater tenancy to leak in the first place due to the small molecule.

[tom66]

That is another problem that needs to be hashed out first: fair rates for charging. At this point nobody knows for how long the charging infrastructure that is being build now is relevant. Given the rapid progress of battery and charging technology it would be foolish to think that is longer than 10 years so any investment needs to be earned back before that. With fast chargers you can choose between several competitors but with street level charging you are basically stuck with whatever company wins the bid for your street. Currently none of the companies that are building EV charging infrastructure are making a profit. That has to change at some point so I expect prices for charging to rise significantly.

And it is nothing new. For example: where I live there is district heating so I'm stuck with whatever company owns the heating infrastructure. It has taken 30 years to have a law passed that sets limits to the tarifs of district heating. I used to pay 35 euro per GJ. Since the law is in effect I pay 25 euro per GJ.

Well, it's a good reason that domestic charging has to be at a fair rate, for sure.  Actually, it would be best if the chargers are like electricity to your home.  They should have smart metering built in, but they form part of your energy bill at home. So you can still take advantage of discount electricity at night.  And choose different providers.

On the road, I would argue the competitive market is enough to keep rates fair, petrol station prices are generally competitive.  The average retailer makes a few pence per litre off fuel, they hope you come in and buy a sandwich and drink instead because that makes them more than 50 litres of fuel does.  Motorway services always more expensive but if you are prepared to go off the motorway for a mile or two you can save a small fortune.  I doubt that EV chargers will be any different.

Regarding profit, I am not sure that is fair.  IONITY is having a massive chunk bitten out of it by vulture capitalists.  BP own "bp pulse" (a useless, unreliable network, FWIW, but that's another matter).  The money is there and there's no reason EV charging can't be profitable but Amazon and Tesla took decades before they made a penny...