Who Picked Hydrogen Cars as the winner? -

To hear the most fervent hydrogen advocates speak, you would think hydrogen is the answer to practically every energy problem known to man. Maybe it is, but maybe it’s a dream. With government incentives for research, as we’ve already noted, everyone is joining the hydrogen race chasing hydrogen dollars but if you step back for a moment and look at hydrogen, you might start to question if the incentives in this area are the best place to put those dollars.
An article yesterday had this interesting paragraph about fuel cells:
The primary reason that businesses are not making profits in fuel cells, however, is the high capital cost. Fuel cells are expensive to make, and automakers say that the cost of fuel cells must be cut by at least a factor of 10 to be competitive with internal combustion engines. This does not even account for the cost of hydrogen production and distribution. The Dept. of Energy (DOE) notes that hydrogen production must reduce by at least a factor of 4 to be competitive with fossil fuels. It is expensive to extract hydrogen from sources like gasoline, and the process still produces air pollution. More importantly, hydrogen is not yet an efficient fuel because of its density. Even at ultrahigh pressures, hydrogen contains 7 to 10 times less energy per unit volume than gasoline. Aside from compacting hydrogen efficiently is the issue of safety, where fuel cell canisters can either be loaded with explosive hydrogen or highly flammable gasoline. To top it all off, the cost of building a hydrogen infrastructure could run $100 billion. These barriers need to be addressed before fuel cells can be profitably commercialized.
So, to summarize:
They’re too expensive to manufacture by a factor of 10
Hydrogen is too expensive to produce by a factor of 4
Hydrogen has 7 to 10 times less energy per unit volume than gasoline
There is no hydrogen infrastructure in place and construction could cost $100 billion.
But other than that, it’s right around the corner.
Hydrogen incentives have the earmarks of supporting a technology that was chosen as the winner before all of the factors were examined or were simply ignored. Fuel cell cars exist now at astronomical prices which keep the hope alive and advocates cheering but you have to conciously avoid looking at technologies already in place and gaining ground that could dramatically improve our energy outlook to continue asking for more government expenditures in this area.
Should hydrogen research continue? Absolutely. Should advocates come down to earth and give more realistic assessments of where we stand? Absolutely. Extreme promises and continuous predictions of “almost here” will begin to sour the public’s desire for hydrogen and increase skepticism. If you want long term results in this area, keep the hype to a minimum.
Hybrid vehicles are obviously gaining market share and could play a part in extending the time available to work out long term energy supplies. Biodiesel is growing at an extremely rapid pace, too. Both of these technologies use infrastructure already in place for the most part.
Electric motors have made some dramatic advancements in recent years and battery technology is improving, too. Both of these create more efficient hybrids and could eventually move us toward all electric vehicles.
Electricity generation is a huge issue and nuclear power has the multiple advantages of zero emissions, low cost per kilowatt and no dependence on fossil fuels. Nuclear is the key to a hydrogen future if hydrogen advocates really want one. Electricity from a nuclear powerplant could generate the hydrogen, especially during off peak hours, at a much lower cost than current methods and be sustainable as well. Combined with the above mentioned electic motor and battery improvements it could be enough to make the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle cost effective, if it’s ever going to be.