Cost Of Hydrogen Cars Is Still Sky High
By Paul Homewood
h/t Doug Brodie
The cost of hydrogen mobility is “sky-high” and “far from being affordable”, the CEO of the world’s third-largest automaker Stellantis told an online event yesterday — a little over two months since his company introduced eight new fuel-cell vans to the market.
“Of course, hydrogen is bringing much more convenience because it’s much faster to charge [than battery electric vehicles]… but once you benefit from this convenience, and once you make the assumption that the energy you are using to produce hydrogen is clean, you still have the enormous challenge of cost,” Carlos Tavares told the Freedom of Mobility Forum, for which he is co-chairman of the advisory board.
“Right now, we see that the technology for hydrogen-based mobility is twice as expensive as the electric vehicles, which then means that we are very far from conventional [fossil-fuel] technology, so I’m afraid that for the time being affordability is going to be a major showstopper for hydrogen.”
Twice as expensive may be something of an underestimate, depending on the market, with Hydrogen Insight writing in September last year that it was almost 14 times more expensive to drive a Toyota fuel-cell car than a comparable Tesla EV.
Tavares added that hydrogen vehicles could be suitable for “big corporations”, but not “normal citizens”.
“Possibly for the fleets that come to the garage every day we can justify the investment of one hydrogen charging unit for big corporations, but still it’s going to be far from being affordable, but it is much more convenient as you can charge a tank of hydrogen in approximately three to four. So its convenience is better; cost is sky-high.
“And I think for the near future, it’s going to be a solution for fleets of big corporations, but certainly not for the normal citizens.”
Stellantis — which owns brands such as Chrysler, Citroën, Fiat, Peugeot and Vauxhall — said at the end of January it was introducing hydrogen versions of eight of its current battery-electric van models in a bid to “cement [its] standing as the undisputed leader in zero-emission propulsion in commercial vehicles in Europe”.
It cited the fast refuelling time as the main advantage for fuel-cell vans over battery models — for “intensive customer use”
Tavares’ point “once you make the assumption that the energy you are using to produce hydrogen is clean” is of course not sustainable. Nearly all hydrogen is made by steam reforming gas. It will be years before any significant amounts come from electrolysis, and these are likely to be used on site, rather than distributed.
The fact that hydrogen cars don’t take as long to charge up as EVs is hardly a selling point either!
Hydrogen may have a future in heavy transport, but it looks increasingly like a dead end technology for cars.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Just waiting for the fires and explosions. Probably won’t happen as not many will be mad enough to buy one.
… hydrogen cars sky high?
Hydrogen is the Basil Brush of fuels.
Boom Boom!
Like it 😁
I’m not at all an expert on this but as I understand it there are two ways of using hydrogen in vehicles. One is to burn it like a fuel and the other is to generate electricity from hydrogen fuel cells. Have I got that right and do you know which way the manufacturers are going?
They have been working hard on fuel cells since the 1990s and have made considerable progress, but like EVs the infrastructure is not there.
There have been a couple of fires/explosions, but not with the vehicles, it is the filling stations that are the problem. Handling Hydrogen during refilling is a dangerous process.
The thing is Hydrogen is not “green” in any way because you have to manufacture it which not only produces CO2, but also wastes a lot of the original energy put in to it.
It’s only advantage is it is cleaner for City use.
I know they have hydrogen fuel cells in spacecraft but from what you say the hydrogen powered vehicles currently being made burn the hydrogen as fuel. I understand that hydrogen fuel cells need some special and rare minerals for them to work.
@oomhead – the Toyota Mirai is a fuel cell powered car:
https://www.toyota.co.uk/hydrogen
“Hydrogen is clean, safe and all around us. It’s so common it makes up 70% of matter in the universe. This allows hydrogen to be locally sourced….”
Hmmm.
Stuart’s quote from Toyota is unbelievable!
Talk about marketing…
Hydrogen may be the most abundant element in the universe, but not on Earth, where it makes up less than 1%!
Fuel-cell. It’s in the first sentence.
They have been trying the fuel cell for aircraft propulsion. They were claiming 35% efficiency, but this leaves 65% of the energy as heat.
Since the catalytic fuel cells were in the fuselage, how on earth do you cool that amount of heat? (There is a reason jet engines hang off the wings.)
Rolls Royce had the same problem with its EfanX hybrid aircraft, with a jet engine in the back of the fuselage – it was impossible to cool. The EfanX was so hot and so heavy, it could not get airborne.
Rolls promised a 70% reduction in CO2, but achieved a 400% increase in Co2 per passenger. And they took £60 million of your tax money to do so, and have refused to give any of it back.
I have asked for the grant application, because this must have been filled with fantasy engineering and accounting. But they have repeatedly refused the FOI requests.
R
AC Osborn, you are clearly correct, hydrogen as an element is exceptionally dangerous, and this seems to be glossed over in the pursuit of net zero – i.e. ignore the chemical properties, the conflagration hazard in event of a car park fire for example., the ease of escape of the gas due to it being the smallest molecule, it’s highly flammable and explosive nature, and so many other issues with hydrogen as a gas. Surely, if a proper risk assessment is undertaken – vis a vis the pros and cons properly assessed, how can a tank of hydrogen integral to a vehicle ever be considered suitable? To me, these fundamental, risk heavy, issues have to outweigh the almost blind drive to achieve the unachievable. Those that push this technology are doing so through an ideology and ignoring the obvious risk factors attributed to hydrogen as a gas.
And you forgot the ultimate irony……Hydrogen is an indirect greenhouse gas.
When H2 escapes (and it inevitably will very frequently) it reacts with hydroxyl radicals (•OH) in the atmosphere that would otherwise be breaking down Methane (CH4) to CO2 and H2O. The IPCC have assessed free hydrogen in the atmosphere as having a “Global Warming Potential” (GWP) of eleven where CO2 is the benchmark of one. Worse still as it rises so rapidly it can have a devastating effect of statospheric ozone in a very concentrated locality.
So in the misguided pursuit of reducing greenhouse gas emissions the policy of switching to hydrogen could well enhance the greenhouse effect.
Years ago I was involved in a stainless steel tube cleaning furnace in the Westmidlands which was designed and built by a German Company. The furnace was filled with Hydrogen so it was a reducing atmosphere so that the tubes came out bright. The high quality tubes were made for use in power stations. There was an elaborate air lock system at the front end and back end of the furnace to allow tubes to be put in and taken out. The furnace was enormous with a square cross section and a conveyor system taking the tubes along the middle. I had a call one morning that there had been an explosion during commissioning so I went along. When I got there the furnace was no longer square in section but rather oval shaped. Luckily no one was seriously injured although one of the German engineers had his hearing damaged. There had been a fault in the air lock system.
So as to get a reasonable amount of energy in a reasonable space, hydrogen has to be stored at 15,000psi. Do we really want cars on the road with these pressure vessel bombs in them?
Climate is a complex thing…
Hydrogen 11 times worse than CO2 for climate, says new report (2022 article)
New reports show how fugitive hydrogen emissions can indirectly produce warming effects 11 times worse than those of CO2.
https://newatlas.com/environment/hydrogen-greenhouse-gas/
A hydrogen leak into a domestic integral garage could leak into the bedroom above, so no smoking in bed !
All hydrogen tanks leak, it is the nature of the (small molecule) beast. Plus they have to outgass, to prevent overpressure and explosions.
This was a bit of a problem. So BMW put their tank in a tank, and exhausted the inner air out through a catalyst, to convert excess hydrogen into water.
R
Netherlands may reverse motorway speed limit cut which ‘barely reduces emissions’
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/04/20/netherlands-may-reverse-motorway-speed-limit-cut-net-zero/
Another good, if you are a green, theory shot down by hard facts
The limit used to be 120kph, and was strictly enforced. In fact, it was just 100kph for some years after the 1973 oil crisis. Most of the network has gantries that provide driver information and lower speed limits, smart motorway style. If they switched to 50kph you knew there was a dead stop traffic jam ahead. ”Files 12km” and you were probably better to abandon your journey until later.
Dutch NOx production is almost certainly dominated by burning gas and by industrial processes.
BBC 2 Gardeners World yesterday. (53 minutes in)
Monty Don talking about leaving certain plants outside over winter rather than putting them in a heated shed (that was costing so much to heat etc) to protect from frost “which was contributing to climate change which was contributing to the extremity of cold and the extremity of wet and i just thought “this is nonsense””. Definitely nonsense Monty….. all this cold and wet this winter is due to you having your dahlias in a heated shed.?
Amazing how much climate b*llshit permeates all the BBC programming. Wonder if Monty has noticed how nicely his plants are blooming because of the increase in plant food.. you know, that gas CO2 which they depend on and which commercial growers pump into their greenhouses.
Solution to what?
What about tunnels? In the US if you carry propane cylinders or run on natural gas you cannot use tunnels, you have to go over a bridge. I would think this rule would also apply to vehicles carrying pressurized hydrogen.
My prediction so that in years to come I can say I told you so!
There have been recent significant advances in materials technologies ,most notably novel carbon allotropes, that are dramatically improving the efficiency (and reducing the costs) of thermo-electric generators (TEGs).
TEGs convert heat directly into electricity with no (or few) moving parts. They are incredibly reliable and durable even in hostile environments – the furthest man-made objects are currently winging their way to the Oort Cloud with radio isotope powered (RTGs) on board that are still functioning.
Up to now TEGs have had low (single figure) levels of efficiency making them only suitable for niche applications or useful gimmicks (fans on top of wood burners!), however, recent lab tests using fullerenes have gone past 15% and there is reasonable conjecture of 25% being surpassed with development of known materials. The automotive industry is known to be sponsoring R & D.
The exhaust temperature of an ICE is conveniently at a “sweet spot” for TEGs. A small diesel ICE running at optimum load can readily achieve over 40% efficiency, (MAN claim 55% for a static diesel two stroke) – it is varying output/overcoming inertia that drastically knocks back that level. A hybrid battery being charged continuously from say a quarter of the 60% ICE waste heat energy (as well as waste kinetic energy from braking/deceleration) could provide a large amount of continuous additional power thus hugely reducing fuel consumption. It would be quite plausible to achieve in excess of 120 miles per gallon of diesel in real world conditions, still enjoying excellent acceleration and being able to cover considerable urban distance from periods of battery alone driving.
Conventional refuelling, absence of range anxiety, sprightly performance and very low emissions per mile with likely none on short urban distances. Full battery, hydrogen fuel cell or even hydrogen combustion ICEs will have very little (if any) emissions benefits over such an efficient self charging/powering arrangement. More importantly the public will readily accept them and the motor manufacturers will be more than willing to supply in lieu of the alternatives being unwisely enforced.
Let’s see.
Thanks Ray, some encouraging news for once. I have a hurricane lamp that powers a radio, handy for listening to updates on the Nett Zero apocalypse.
If this turns out as you hope, it will be yet another Uniparty promoted (at taxpayers / energy users’ expense) genius “twisty & mercury filled lightbulb” wheeze; soon to be overtaken by cheaper and far superior LED lights.
I know these as Peltier Cells from a while back, when I was interested in how a 12V cool box worked. It was only later the fact it was a two way process became clear to me.
Is it possible to use the waste heat in a laptop computer using one of these devices to supplement the battery. Not perpetual motion but extended battery life?
Theoretically yes but….the Carnot cycle rather depends on the maximum possible temperature gradient from hot to cold side. With a laptop battery there is unlikely to be very much Gibbs free energy to utilise. Thermo-electric generation does have the ability to work at relatively low differentials but there simply isn’t much energy to “harvest” so little end result.
Thanks Ray, it would make a good Green selling point for when energy hungry AI is added to home computers. I have read a couple of articles recently saying that no internet can support AI and it has to be distributed
https://www.pcmag.com/articles/do-you-need-an-ai-pc
Ray, about 30 years ago, while I was still working at Fords I entered various ideas based on TEGs in to their Suggestion Programme, including using them for the Air Con as well as reducing the size of the Alternator.
Absolutely no interest at all.
That’s interesting, as it was Mazda who were one of the initial players in the TEG market and Ford would have had a stake in them back then.
It is the potential breakthrough to high efficiency of TEGs with fullerenes (only first discovered in the mid 80’s) coupled with the now mature hybrid technology that is driving the interest in options in lieu of EV/Hydrogen.
The hydrogen cycle, from wind-farm to wheel, is only about 15 to 20% efficient. So it always going to be expensive.
R
It’s never expensive when you use Other People’s Money.
Electrolysers are only c. 80% efficient so 20% + of energy is lost in manufacturing hydrogen. This alone should disqualify hydrogen use.
The IEA say Korea has the largest fuel cell car market with 32,000 vehicles by June 2023, US was second with 16,000 and Japan third although less than 1000 were sold in 2022. China had the largest fuel cell light commercial vehicles, though only just over 800. In mid 2023 there were over 8000 fuel cell trucks, 85% in China.
IEA ‘Global Hydrogen Review 2023’ (Revised version Dec 2023)
Hindenburg, anyone?
You brought it up . . . .
I saw a documentary recently that hypothesized that the Hindenburg disaster was caused by corrosion of the steel rods that provided the skeleton of the big bag. As they approached Lakehurst, a rod broke – perhaps triggering more – and ripped open a hydrogen bag.
Seemed plausible.
Would you have your daughter work at a hydrogen filling station?
There was a time when governments didn’t intervene in private business and consumer choice and allowed competition and freedom of choice to flourish
Paul, any thoughts on these guys? https://hysata.com/ They are claiming a 95% or higher efficiency hydrogen electrolyser.