I disagree here.
I'll happily admit my knowledge shortcomings where relevant but this is a case of simple conservation of energy (I'm a working physicist in the real world). The issue with hydrogen is that while you are correct that it is abundant, it's locked up chemically in compounds. The cheapest hydrogen comes from methane but you still have to break the bonds to liberate the hydrogen. What people want is hydrogen from H2O and electrolysis (global warming and all that) but that's even more energetically expensive. Once you get the hydrogen, you have to cool it or compress it down (requires energy) and transport it to a fuel station (requires energy). Then going from hydrogen in the fuel cell BACK TO ELECTRICTY for the electric motor via an electrochemical process in the vehicle is another 40-50% loss. Think about that for a second. We do this long convoluted energetically wasteful path to ultimately run the same electric motor as in an EV.
The end result is that many of these losses are not present in EVs as the figure below clearly illustrates. CSIRO as an example has invested (and in my opinion wasted) a lot of dollars going down the hydrogen path (Toyota at least started way back unlike CSIRO) which is based more on hype than good physics. Toyota has had 25 years to perfect the fuel cell and is horribly uncompetitive with hydrogen stations closing all over the world. Hydrogen has no future in the personal automobile market based purely on energetics and efficiency. It might be viable for more high-power output applications like air travel etc but not cars.
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
