Hacker News Reader

Comment by Hypx | Hacker News Reader

The fundamental problem is that EVs might be doomed once fuel cell cars come around. Nearly all of the criticism of this argument are just a mirror of the arguments against EVs (often made by pro-EV people no less).

So the real misunderstanding isn't with anti-EV people, but with pro-EV denying that there's a future beyond EVs.

View on HN

Fuel-cell proponents keep claiming they're just around the corner but the issues with them are fundamental. ~3x the total energy use because of all the inefficiencies, and needing an all new infrastructure compared to BEVs where the grid is already everywhere. If FCEVs show up and are actually usable that would be fine but I wouldn't bet on it. They're mostly brought out as an argument for staying on ICEs until, real soon now, we'll finally have them. Maybe for long sea shipping hydrogen will work, but even for trucking the 3x energy input needed is hard to justify.

There's nothing stopping FCEVs from being as efficient as BEVs. Even now, huge improvements are being found like 90% efficient electrolysis[1]. Future improvements in hydrogen and fuel cell technology could close the gap entirely.

Like I said, you're repeating many arguments that are a mirror of the arguments made against BEVs. It's pretty ridiculous to just repeat anti-EVs for something else while being pro-EVs.

The other thing is that this viewpoint is increasingly outdated. A lot of these "facts" date to the 2010s or earlier. These are more inline with a person being out of touch than someone that is informed.

[1] https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/03/20210307-topsoe.htm...

90% efficient electrolysis doesn't matter when "getting hydrogen from the pump to your car's fuel tank" has 20+ percent energy losses. And from the tanker trailer to the pump. And...

This comes from the inherent thermodynamic inefficiencies of compressing something, letting it expand, and then compressing it again.

Those losses can be made much less than that. Theoretical minimal losses are on the order of 1-2kWh per kg, and in practice not much more than that[1]. Further efficiency improvements can get reality even closer to theoretical.

Most of these arguments are increasingly outdated, as I mentioned before. We're at the point where hundreds of billions of dollars are being spent on hydrogen right now[2]. So naysayers are more accurately described as being out of touch with latest events and not people with any special knowledge.

[1] https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/9013_energy_requirement...

[2] https://www.jwnenergy.com/article/2020/7/8/europe-unveils-pl...

I think fuel cells window of opportunity is closing fast and they have no traction despite a lot of investment.

EV's weight penalty is going away as battery energy density relentlessly increases. EV's capital expense penalty is also going away due to mass manufacturing improvements.

Charging infrastructure for EV's is basically a last 50 foot problem. Running 30 amp 240 circuit from a breaker box to an external outlet. Compare with the infrastructure needed for the 'hydrogen economy'. Every bit of it needs to be designed and built from scratch. Countries have built stuff like that but it takes decades. We don't have decades.

You can't build a "lead" as if this was a race. For one thing, there's no finish line. There's nothing stopping fuel cell cars from having their own technology revolution and a S-curve like adoption curve that displaces everything else. This could happen ever after EVs "win" over internal combustion so to speak. It's fully possible that EVs are still on-track to being replaced no matter what happens next.

The other thing is that we still have to pay attention to fundamental limitations. There are hard limits to battery energy density that likely to never be crossed. Extremely fast-charging will probably always be limited by its high power power draw. Meanwhile, fuel cell technology is advancing extremely quickly in its own right. We could be seeing fuel cell cars that cost as much as a Corolla[1], and cost only $1.5/kg[2] to refuel (or about 2-3¢ per mile). In a world were fuel cell cars cost <$20k and are cheaper to run than EVs, while also delivering 400 miles of range and 5-minute refueling times, EVs quickly lose much of their luster.

[1] https://www.thedrive.com/tech/26050/exclusive-toyota-hydroge...

[2] https://renewablesnow.com/news/nel-aiming-at-green-hydrogen-...

There is still a hard limit to hydrogen energy density that is likely to never be crossed. And safe consumer-friendly handling of pure hydrogen is much more expensive than electricity, that also stems from physical limitations. These limitations are being hit now. On the other side, batteries and chargers did not hit their hard physical limitations yet. Supercapacitors exchanging many megawatts of energy over superconductive wires are feasible.

Hydrogen energy density is around 39,000 Wh/kg. That's rarely going to the limiting factor. The physical limitations are nearly the same as natural gas, which is to say they are easily solvable. Superconducting wires will have their own major issues that are a long ways away from being solved.

In reality, we're nearly at the point where hydrogen is a solved problem, but batteries will be a very long ways away from being a car for everyone. In particular, you've ignored the limits on battery energy density which will likely limit battery powered cars to either expensive luxury cars or short-ranged urban cars.

You conveniently omitted the storage vessel factor from the energy density. And it's definitely not comparable to natural gas in other respects too, such as hydrogen is corrosive and needs special alloys or nonmetal materials.

Superconducing wires are already and increasingly used in practice. Even without superconductors we can just keep raising the voltage and use copper, there are new silicon carbide power transistors that make it possible. We aren't near physical limit yet.

Other assertions of yours are likewise unfounded, too.

I can totally see hydrogen airplanes but for cars it's too little too late.

From a theoretical standpoint, you don't need to worry about that. You can conceive of metal hydrides or other forms of dense hydrogen storage. Even as LH₂, you're still looking at around 2700 Wh/L of energy. That's well beyond any known rechargeable battery.

And the "special alloys" really just mean certain types of steel alloy, and "nonmetal materials" really mean certain types of plastics. This is not a big challenge.

You still need very low temperatures and exotic materials for superconducting cables. Not to mention the power generation needed to sustain that level of power draw. This is a long-term problem that we're nowhere near solving.

As I said before, this is not a race and there is no finish line. There's nothing stopping fuel cell cars from displacing EVs at an arbitrary point in the future.

From theoretical standpoint why not jump ahead to antimatter? :)

Electricity is a solved problem, most obstacles to additional power generation and transport are bureaucratic in nature.

As soon as everyone agrees to build more nuclear power... We're not anywhere near ready to use anti-matter, but the next best thing faces extreme opposition for some reason.

Hydrogen is pretty much a solved problem too. Most of the critics are just stuck in 2010 or earlier.

I did not have primarily nuclear in mind, but obstacles to extending long-distance electric grid to support renewables. But hydrogen pipelines are going to have even worse problem with this. And you did not really debunk any of my "stuck in 2010" criticism.

Hydrogen pipelines are a solved problem. We have been doing it for decades[1]. I could have said "stuck in 1930" but that might be overdoing it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_pipeline_transport

> Hydrogen energy density is around 39,000 Wh/kg

Lithium's energy density is 11,600 Wh/kg.

> In reality, we're nearly at the point where hydrogen is a solved problem, but batteries will be a very long ways away from being a car for everyone

I can buy a battery powered vehicle today. Seriously it's 5pm on a Sunday. However the dealer is open till 7pm and they have a couple of dozen Chevy Bolts on the lot.

That's much lower than hydrogen. So what was the argument here?

You can buy a fuel cell car today too. I've notice that many of you guys are stuck in 2010 or so. Fuel cells cars are far beyond your outdated viewpoints.

> The fundamental problem is that EVs might be doomed once fuel cell cars come around.

Fuel cell cars are EVs.

Yes, but people get confused. Hence why EVs should be referred to as BEVs, and fuel cell cars as FCEVs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com