Fuel cell hybrids aren’t dead yet
Fuel cell vehicles come in all sizes these days.
Hydrogen could still be the ultimate bio-fuel
At one time I was a huge hydrogen fuel cell fan. Then I became a fuel cell hater. Finally I became open-minded to the possibility of hydrogen fuel cells, as long as they weren’t an excuse against other forms of electrification.
Now, however, I believe hydrogen haters are going to end up with a lot of egg on their face. Fuel cell hybrids, even fuel cell plug-in hybrids, are inevitable.
That doesn’t mean we can’t all get along. Instead of dominating the automotive industry the way the internal combustion engine does today, fuel cells might just be one of many significant technologies that collectively power the future, but they are going to be part of the future.
With new fuel cells that use as much platinum, palladium and rhodium as a conventional vehicle already on the cusp of reality, fuel cells have appeared to be less and less the problem for the last few years. It’s been hydrogen that has put the reality of fuel cell hybrids in fairy tale land.
But biohydrogen is becoming less and less far fetched. In fact it’s quite real and looking ever more scalable based on the latest cyanobacterium research.
Ultimately, when it comes to hydrogen, it appears the wise person is the person whom realizes they know nothing, and many more breakthroughs now seem inevitable.
It’s a little surprising that alternatives haven’t taken off more robustly in Europe, particularly considering the much higher cost of fuel. I guess it just goes to show how difficult this revolution in the auto industry is going to be.
I agree that what we need is a portfolio approach to address improving automotive technology. Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrids (PEHVs) are great for a certain type of driver, one for whom the range is not an issue. Fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) are comparable to today’s ICE in terms of range and vehicle size, which is great for suburban and rural drivers.
A recent study from McKinsey and Company compared electric power trains for the European market. The study concluded that fuel cell vehicles are ready for commercialization, and that the barriers to developing a hydrogen infrastructure were not insurmountable. In fact, if companies work together, the risk of developing refueling networks would be diminished.
The report stresses that a mix of BEVs, PEHVs, and FCEV will be necessary to achieve the emission reductions required in Europe, none of them alone will get the job done. I was also impressed that FCEVs fared so well in Europe, because their cars tend to be smaller than ours, and trips shorter. Imagine the benefits we could see here from all three technologies if we got significant market penetration.
Those are good points, Kal, and I don’t really disagree that one solution makes scalability easier and more cost-effective. I know the Rifkin’s The Hydrogen Economy makes that argument. However, that doesn’t seem to be the near term future for the auto industry, especially as emerging markets become bigger and more important than the US and European markets. Biofuels, for instance, are going to be big in some markets, natural gas in others, oil in others, and electrification in even other markets. This diversity seems inevitable in the coming decades.
Likewise, the infrastructure costs of both a plug-in network and a fuel cell network are not that expensive, relatively speaking. According to Shah Agassi a plug-in infrastructure could be built for about 8 billion. Of course, if this infrastructure were to be fueled with clean energy and a new super grid were build, up to an additional trillion could be needed, at least several hundred billion based on the last estimates I’ve seen.
Similarly, according to GM, connecting the largest cities with a natural gas/hydrogen infrastructure would cost about 15 billion.
Apart from the supergrid, that kind of money has already been invested into battery powered vehicles, ethanol, etc., for instance, in subsidies, tax credits, etc.
So, yes infrastructure is a critical issue, but I don’t think it’s the one preventing change.
According to most battery research I’ve seen the problem with electric cars isn’t the lack of infrastructure, it’s the cost of the batteries. Today’s lithium technologies have been around 30 years and are pretty well understood. Scale and manufacturing improvements aren’t going to make them cost-effective compared to the cheap cost of gasoline in the US. Most experts believe a major technological breakthrough is still necessary. Unfortunately, they also claim such a breakthrough could take as long to cost-effectively scale into autos as current lithium technologies did. Thus, even if you build the infrastructure, it could be decades before well utilized.
Fuel cell vehicles, on the other hand, again according to GM, could achieve cost-effectiveness if 1 million per year could be produced. However, would cost effective fuel be available? Maybe after reformatting natural gas into hydrogen, but long term people want sustainable options. Moreover, despite the hype around the amount of natural gas that can be harnessed by new horizontal drilling techniques, many are still opposed. Can environmental mitigations and other compromises be achieved that ensure a cost-effective hydrogen solution until biohydrogen and/or solar hydrogen can be perfected?
I’m not sure.
Consequently, in my opinion, it’s the cheap cost of gasoline that is the number 1 barrier, not limited infrastructure, although limited infrastructure is still a major issue. Cheap gasoline makes it too easy not too fully embrace change, especially since there are still so many unknowns.
Still, I’d like to see more road maps to such infrastructures. Think of it as a business. Sell the US on a plan to move away from oil that utilizes real world costs. Is there long term ROI?
I really think there is, if the full, subsidized costs of gasoline, etc. are added into the mix. However, until ROI is established in a non-partisan way that the voters can buy into, I’m not sure a new infrastructure will be built anytime soon.
Interesting article… while I generally like what you’re saying, I always concerned about infrastructure and fragmentation of propulsion technology.
Isn’t one of the reasons that everyone clings so hard to ICE is that the infrastructure already exists and a new one is expensive to put in? The more fragmentation and uncertainty that is in the marketplace about future propulsion, the more difficult it is for anything to take root. Infrastructure development is delayed, scale can’t help drive down costs and rapid innovation in the new “standard” slows down.
I question the wisdom of “…just be one of many significant technologies that collectively power the future”. The longer we keep multiple things going, the longer all of them remain too expensive.