What Exactly Is the Attraction of Fuel Cell-Based Transportation?
From the current edition of Green Auto Market, published by my colleague Jon LeSage:
Will fuel cell vehicles be able to thrive and surpass plug-in vehicle sales? The question of which clean technology will prevail in the car of the future continues to permeate the auto industry.
Plug-in electrified vehicle sales led the way in recent months. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are starting to see new vehicle launches and more stations being built, but it still has a very slight presence in the global market. But long-term, global auto executives think fuel cell vehicles will win out over PEVs in volume sales. One of the issues involved is that California’s zero emission vehicles mandate counts battery electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles, but is phasing out plug-in hybrids; and nine other states are also following California’s PEV guidelines. A new study from KPMG took a deep look at this issue, and several other technology innovations and pressures shaping the next phase of the industry’s future.
Adam Smith’s centuries-old concept of the “invisible hand” is the postulated force that brings buyers and sellers together on products that are wanted and prices that are fair. This notion, time-honored as it may be, stands at odds with the way things actually happen in the real world, where products are pushed down consumers’ throats, regardless of the true demand on the part of the public.
A great example of this phenomenon exists in the ostensibly growing market for fuel cell vehicles. Here’s an industry that really serves no one–not the individual, and certainly not society at large. In fact, as I wrote recently, there’s exactly nothing to like about fuel cell-based transportation. There are numerous reasons for this as discussed here, including, to name a few: the complication and cost of making pure hydrogen, the well-to-wheels cost of hydrogen to the environment, the low efficiency of fuel cells, the alarmingly short longevity of fuel cells before they break down, the almost complete absence of a fuel delivery infrastructure, and the huge price tag.
It really is time to put all of this behind us.
I would be very surprised if hydrogen powered vehicles ever became common. It is conceivable that they could become useful in some very limited niche situations, but that is about all. For hydrogen powered vehicles to become common, several very difficult problems would have to be solved.
I was also surprised to see the results of the survey of “senior auto executives” 62% of whom felt that fuel cell vehicles were going to be the eventual zero emission vehicle winner.
As I try to understand this result there may be several possibilities:
— How the question was asked…
— That auto executives really don’t care where the hydrogen comes from or how clean it is as a fuel system.
— It is a demonstration of how narrow minded and conservative is the thinking of such executives.
— It is a demonstration of how the public is viewed as stupid and gullible
— There is something more to the back room deal that was struck when CARB included fuel cell vehicles as zero emission vehicles (and the EV1 was subsequently crushed)
— Either the executives or they believe the public will never understand that the hydrogen car is really a type of series hybrid electric vehicle that will prolong the use of fossil fuels (to make hydrogen.)
Craig,
” products are pushed down consumers’ throats, regardless of the true demand on the part of the public” ! Er,..ever heard of the Ford Edsel ?
This may come as a surprise to you, but very few business executives are interested in ideological social engineering.
Some, like Elon Musk, Akio Toyoda, Carlos Ghosn even Bill Ford etc, are keen to be at the forefront of innovative technology, but that’s pretty much the limit of their commitment.
As I’ve stated previously, in my opinion the future of EV -v- HFCV will depend on increases in the ESD capacity of EV’s and the continuing demand for ICEV. EV technology in the form of hybrids will continue to increase and dominate the traditional market providing remarkable levels of fuel economy and extending the life of demand for ICE technology.
In such a climate, there’s no incentive for auto-manufacturers to expand the demand for HFCV technology, although R&D will continue as an insurance policy.
Craig and Breath,
I think the auto industry understands you completely! They know that for all your loud condemnation of HFCV technology, you wont go out and buy an EV ! Nope, you’ll continue with an ICE, or maybe a hybrid, so why should they care about your opinion ?
HFCV’s may not meet you set of preferences, but then you’re not everyone!
If introduced on a grand-scale they would meet the demands of the average consider very well. Current EV’s simply don’t appeal for many reasons(or you’d all be driving one).
The decision concerning which technology will be decided by consumers. If EV ESD can be developed to met consumer requirement’s (real requirements, not someone’s ideological rationale) the EV’s will prevail, if not , the circumstances may arise to be sufficiently favorable to encourage the massive investment required for HFCV technology to prevail.
It really is that simple.
Everyone’s personal feelings and biases aside, it should be noted here that hydrogen in vehicle applications is best regarded and addressed as a carrier of energy, not a fuel. This is because the hydrogen must be produced/collected by processes that use energy to store energy in a usable, fungible and transportable form – hydrogen.
The obvious question becomes, “How is the hydrogen sourced, and what is the efficiency of that process, end to end, with regard to delivered vehicle work at the end point, versus energy supplied on production, transport and storage of the hydrogen?”
Ammonia is another carrier of interest, but the real issue is the energy source, and the process and work efficiency, not the carrier itself.
There is work going on to develop low cost robust fuel cells capable of running directly on liquified / compressed natural gas.Vehicles using this technology would be around twice as efficient as using a conventional engine, and there is already a fueling infrastructure.
Gary,
You make an interesting observation. Long before the current high demand for export LPG, during a time of very high gasoline prices the Aust5ralian government tried hard to promote it’s vast domestic surplus of natural gas as LPG for motor vehicles.
Despite the vastness of Australia an enormous LPG distribution infrastructure was established (the world’s largest) while government subsidies were available for production, sale and even conversion of ve4hicles, including the manufacture of new gasoline-LPG vehicles including the most popular models.
Over 40 or so tears, the technology has not proved a success with less than 1 % of vehicles powered by LPG.
I understand that you’re proposing a more advanced technology, but sadly, it seems really, really hard to stop people buying gasoline-diesel !