BMW, Honda and Hyundai (& Toyota) all still think hydrogen cars are the next big thing - here's why

[Caribbeans]

BMW, Honda and Hyundai all still think hydrogen cars are the next big thing – here's why

The tech will mature with commercial vehicles, but passenger cars will follow

Leon Poultney | techradar.com | January 19, 2024

This year's CES 2024 show in Las Vegas was littered with language learning models, in-car AI assistants and the ubiquitous gargantuan infotainment displays that look set to fill our future vehicle interiors.

But now the dust has settled, it appears that the subject of hydrogen and a refocus on fuel cell-powered passenger vehicles was a key takeaway overlooked by the masses...

..."We see hydrogen being a major player in the heavy goods industry, as the technology suits the requirements of large trucks. The predictable driving patterns also make it easier to create the infrastructure required. Learnings from this can then potentially inform future passenger vehicles," Mark Freymueller, Senior Vice President Global Commercial Vehicle Business at Hyundai Motor Company told me at CES this year.

Although Hyundai made it very obvious that hydrogen was a focus, Honda – another early proponent of hydrogen fuel cell technology with its FCX Clarity model – was keen to point out that it too sees hydrogen as an important factor in future transport...more
https://www.techradar.com/vehicle-tech/hybrid-electric-vehicles/bmw-honda-and-hyundai-all-still-think-hydrogen-cars-are-the-next-big-thing-heres-why

"The tech will mature with commercial vehicles, but passenger cars will follow"

Europe's beginning hydrogen infrastructure - Hydrogen stations mandated by law every 200 Km on the new Ten T core network
https://h2.live/en/

RELATED:

Honda predicts new era for hydrogen fuel cell cars.
Honda says fuel cell cars are the "next phase" after battery EVs, pending infrastructure improvements
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/honda-predicts-new-era-hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars

[OKIsItJustMe]

1. I don't believe it is either/or

Last edited Sat Jan 20, 2024, 07:57 PM - Edit history (1)

In my opinion, a small BEV is an ideal vehicle for the commuter who is able to plug it in at home (or at work) every day. Recharging the car should be more convenient, and less expensive than stopping at the station to refill a fuel tank. If the commuter owns one vehicle, and needs a longer range, or more cargo capacity (for a “road trip” perhaps or to move to a new house) they can rent one.

For larger vehicles, especially ones which must routinely travel long distances, then I feel a FCEV offers clear advantages, including less weight, greater range and shorter “recharge” times. I don’t believe we will see a time when the home electrolyzer becomes common, but I could be wrong.


At some point between the two, there is a crossover. The question is where that point is, perhaps something the size of mid-size pickup truck or a transit van? (Ford, for example has said that commercial vehicles larger than the F-150 are likely to use hydrogen.) The answer will vary, some people may want a sub-compact FCEV, some may want a BEV “Hummer.”

The only thing I’m confident of is that (at this time at least) there is no one correct answer.

[Caribbeans]

2. Agreed. Both.

Shouldn't be some kind of war of the Techs.

Battery cars will work great for some and H2 will be great for others.

There are many people - especially in N America - that want ONLY BATTERY Vehicles and wish H2 to die. Some own stock in battery only companies - in the US Government.

Depending on Lithium batteries - and only li-ion batteries - to power every vehicle in the world is simply absurd. And risky. And not in any way "green".

Batteries, hydrogen and whatever else hasn't been invented yet. Bring them all on. And stop trying to kill off a promising tech. Now that H2 stations have been mandated in Europe every 200 Km on the new Ten T core network Americans can watch hydrogen take off, while they struggle to make H2 work in only one state.

[NNadir]

4. They are indeed equivalently obnoxious and destructive to the environment.

Both are subject to the second law of thermodynamics, and both therefore waste energy, and both depend on fossil fuels, destroying the recoverable exergy in the process of their combustion.

Thus both will continue the trend pushed by bourgeois fools to rebrand fossil fuels as "green," and drive climate change's observed acceleration faster by appeal to dishonest marketing.

The second law of thermodynamics will not be repealed by dishonest marketing, nor is it subject to wishful thinking or appeals to ignorance.

Hydrogen is slightly worse than batteries of course, because of it possesses the third lowest critical temperature of all know gases, embrittles metals, and exhibits are much worse safety profile because of its extremely low viscosity. However both are materially obnoxious and unsustainable.

[orthoclad]

5. I favor the SEV

Solar Electric Vehicle.
I hope they come on market soon. A well-designed small vehicle with small batteries which is at least partially self-charging makes an awful lot of sense. Charge while parked, take some of that projected huge load off the power grid.
one example: https://aptera.us/

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. The Aptera could (in theory) provide a short driving distance from onboard solar panels - if you could buy one.

Toyota’s Prius Prime has a solar roof option:
https://www.motortrend.com/features/the-2023-toyota-prius-primes-battery-could-take-three-weeks-to-recharge/

In the end, an SEV is a BEV with solar panels glued to its roof. If a standard BEV is parked beneath a solar panel, it is (in essence) an SEV.

I like the design of the Aptera, but I’m afraid the solar roof is mostly a gimmick. I (for one) would prefer not to sacrifice the back window.

[orthoclad]

7. There are several SEV models in development

The online calculator Aptera provided said I would have to charge it 4 times per year. Four times. The rest of the mileage would be sunight.

It uses cameras for streamlining. The panels are on the dash top, too. Max solar packing is 900 W, iirc. The car would use mostly sunlight for a commuting load, if the car's parked outdoors.

I favor the super-streamlined design of Aptera over the other designs I've seen, like the Sion. The battery size of the Aptera is minuscule compared to BEVs because it doesn't waste energy pushing air out of the way, and the overall mass is small. BEVs waste a large part of their charge just moving the massive battery around. Some BEV batteries weigh more than the entire Aptera.

For "family" cars with large capacity I favor the PHEV: small battery, quick charge, no range anxiety. My experience has been that a PHEV burns a few tanks of gas PER YEAR. For the amount of lithium used for one BEV, you could build ten PHEVs, overcome range anxiety, and stillc overall reduce fossil usage.

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. I like the Aptera's design

The key feature of the Aptera is its efficiency:
https://aptera.us/

Aptera was created from the ground up with one purpose in mind — energy efficiency. Our unique shape allows Aptera to slip through the air using 30% of the energy compared to other electric and hybrid vehicles on the road today.

I’m sorry, but the “SEV” business is still (mostly) a gimmick/statement. Consider, the solar panels covering the hood and hatch are options (included in the “Launch Edition,” just like the “All Wheel Drive.”) If Aptera is really serious about solar charging, they would be standard equipment.

I may not be the only one who doesn’t want to cover the back window with solar cells, but, why not make the solar “hood” standard?

Perhaps my favorite feature is its use of "carbon-fiber” (like the Pre-Musk Tesla roadster.) It’s light, it’s strong, it will never rust. In an accident, the Aptera will act sort of like a Formula 1 race car. I expect those outrigger drive wheels will sheer off, carrying away kinetic energy, leaving its rugged “carbon-fiber” body largely intact (now, give me a 5-point harness!)

[orthoclad]

9. Not a gimmick

Most cars spend a majority of their time sitting outside. Why not harvest the free energy available?

One the things that worries me most about heavy quick-charging batteries is the huge instantaneous load they'll place on the grid. It's not really so noticeable now, but imagine when a hundred million cars connect to the grid for a fast boost of kiloWatthours to their massive long-range batteries. The demand will cause grid failures.

Every kiloWatthour harvested directly from sunlight at the car is a benefit to the grid.

The Sion is a standard box-on-wheels sedan with PV panels on the roof and sides. It might be more suitable for families, but it's not nearly as efficient as the Aptera, which is the first radical change in car design since the 1880s.

Maintenance costs should be near zero, mainly just replacing wiper fluid.There is no massive transmission or gearing; the motors are in the wheel hubs, giving both simplicity of design and low center of gravity. They use off-the-shelf electronic controllers, easily replaceable.

I'd love to see the company offer a "flex-fuel" option, with H fuel cells in the capacious cargo area. Combine small battery, solar charging, and H for triple redundancy.

I just hope it doesn't turn into vaporware. Been in development a very long time. Of course, all the development capital goes into huge BEV batteries for box-on-wheels SUVs and pickups.

[NNadir]

3. Pending infrastructure improvements? Clearly this wouldn't concern any changes to the fossil fuel infrastructure.

The awful physics and dependence on fossil fuels for the manufacture of hydrogen will not be undone by dishonest advertising.

It's a shell game scam.

Right now on this planet, production of hydrogen, a destructive and wasteful exercise when proposed as an energy carrier, promoted here and elsewhere by fossil fuel interests is expected, by 2030 to reach 115 million tons.

The paper to which I'll refer in this post is this one: Reducing Chloride Ion Permeation during Seawater Electrolysis Using Double-Polyamide Thin-Film Composite Membranes Xuechen Zhou, Rachel F. Taylor, Le Shi, Chenghan Xie, Bin Bian, and Bruce E. Logan Environmental Science & Technology 2024 58 (1), 391-399.

I discussed this paper, referring to the awful environmental effects of hydrogen yesterday: Dealing with Chlorine in the Electrolysis of Seawater to Make Hydrogen: Discussion of an Approach.

The energy content of this hydrogen at 120 MJ/kg, will be, should the soothsaying about 2030 prove true, about 13.8 Exajoules on a planet that in 2022 had an energy demand of 632 Exajoules. If we count the cost of compression and cooling along the the thermodynamic efficiency of reforming dangerous natural gas, coal, and oil that is used to make hydrogen, never mind the worse thermodynamic efficiency of economically unviable electrolysis, it is likely that the energy cost of producing this crap will be about 28 EJ, more if one counts the environmental cost of building infrastructure to reduce the awful danger associated with hydrogen.

At current rates, of approximately 2.45 ppm/per year that the accumulation of carbon dioxide is demonstrating, egged on my fossil fuel sales staff promoting greenwashing them with dishonest sequestration scams and hydrogen scams - the rate is rising - "by 2030" the concentration should be about 440 ppm, and still, as they've been doing for half a century, fossil fuel interests will be promoting hydrogen as if it were "green."

It isn't. It's a filthy fuel representing destroyed exergy and increased pollution.

The fossil fuel advertising squad here, seeking to rebrand fossil fuels as hydrogen, is now offering up automobile marketing teams as people to whom environmentalists should refer as purveyors of interest in the environment. This is in spite of the fact that automotive corporations have been huge drivers of climate change for a century.

The effort to make things even worse by hyping the unacceptable, the disastrous, and the filthy should surprise no one. It is unfortunate that dishonest marketing works, but it does so at peril to humanity.

A Giant Climate Lie: When they're selling hydrogen, what they're really selling is fossil fuels.