For those of you who struggled with high school chemistry, this one's a doozy.

Honda has opened up a hydrogen station in Saitama, Japan that converts sunlight into hydrogen that may be used to power fuel-cell electric vehicles such as the Honda FCX Clarity.

The station, which uses both juice from the grid and solar power, can produce 1.5 kilograms of hydrogen in 24 hours. That's enough to power an FCX Clarity for about 90 miles. In addition, Honda also added an electrical outlet to the FCX Clarity so that the car can function as a power source.

For those keeping notes, the station turns sunlight into hydrogen by way of a high-pressure water electrolysis system that was developed by the Japanese automaker. The installation is the latest step in a green-transportation partnership that Honda started with the prefecture in 2009. Saitama is about 20 miles northwest of Tokyo.

Honda became the first automaker to make a hydrogen fuel-cell electric vehicle available to the public when it started selling the FCX Clarity in Japan in late 2007. The vehicle is also in operation in California, and you can go here to read Autoblog's First Drive review.
Show full PR text
Honda Introduces Solar Hydrogen Station on Grounds of Saitama Prefectural Office, FCX Clarity Used in Electric Vehicle Testing Program to Serve as Mobile Electric Generator

TOKYO, Japan, 27 March, 2012-Honda Motor Co., Ltd. today unveiled a Solar Hydrogen Station on the grounds of the Saitama Prefectural Office. The initiative is part of the Electric Vehicle Testing Program for Honda's next-generation personal mobility products, in which Honda, Iwatani and Saitama Prefecture are currently collaborating. In a further initiative, Honda has equipped the FCX Clarity fuel cell electric vehicle with an outlet to function as a 9kW power source. Since the FCX Clarity uses a chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen to produce power with zero CO2 emissions, with its new outlet, the vehicle will be able to serve as a zero-emission mobile electric generator.

This is the first installation in Japan of a total system to produce, store and dispense hydrogen with ZERO CO2 emissions. A high pressure water electrolysis system, uniquely developed by Honda, produces hydrogen. With no mechanical compressor, the system is nearly silent and highly energy efficient. Using Solar and grid power, the system is capable of producing 1.5kg of hydrogen within 24hours which enables an FCX Clarity to run approximately 150km or 90miles. Honda aims to further develop the system to offer clean energy sources for the home in the future.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 104 Comments
      Chris M
      • 2 Years Ago
      Fuel cells might have a future in transportation, if the costs come down, reliability goes up, and it can use a better fuel than hydrogen. The problems with hydrogen make it a poor fuel choice for road vehicles.
      A A
      • 2 Years Ago
      Can you imagine? Road trips without having to stay at a hotel every couple of hours to charge your BEV?
        2 Wheeled Menace
        • 2 Years Ago
        @A A
        If this thing can only produce 90 miles worth of energy in 1 day, i think that EV is gonna pass you up, even if it takes a few hours on a quick charger to fill up a 70 mile battery..
        Spec
        • 2 Years Ago
        @A A
        I can imagine that . . . it is called 'A gasoline car'. I actually have one. Amazing technology.
          Joeviocoe
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Spec
          "and eventually those PHEVs will use fuel cells instead of ICEs." WHY?? There are no H2 stations around for that to make any sense. And why would anybody pay to build thousands of hydrogen stations needed to fulfill such small demand for fuel cells in PHEVs? This is the essence of the Chicken/Egg paradox! "better efficiency and less pollution (noise and air) than with an ICE" Yes, but efficient ICEs running Atkinson cycle running only at highway speeds... is not gonna bother many people. Chasing Perfectly clean tailpipe emission at the expense of reasonable costs is not wise. "Perfect is the enemy of Good". PHEVs with ICEs will have MUCH better fillup time than with FCs. You have to take into account finding a H2 station along your route. You cannot beat the 100 years of infrastructure already in place.
          Joeviocoe
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Spec
          "So now you're pretending that the automakers are forgoing gasoline PHEVs and only concentrating on FCVs?" Not at all... automakers are fine... it is the Hydrogen advocates here on ABG (and lobbying congress) that seem to be "forgetting" PHEVs when discussing FCVs. They shout about how, "you can't do this, you can't do that with a Battery Electric Car, therefore, Hydrogen Fuel Cells will save the day". No! Wrong! PHEVs (and NGVs) can and will fill in all the gaps that BEVs will leave behind. ---------------- I have no problem either with continued development on Hydrogen technology. But I DO NOT want hydrogen lobbyists to convince our government of some pipe dream in order to leech money for this boondoggle.. which has been happening already. The "demonstrating that they are ready and willing to move forward" is just the surface discussion that we see.. the real crime takes place in D.C. where these "demonstrations" are used to coerce public money... ignoring the economics of the Hydrogen problem. The technology is there... but this does not make economic sense. The oil/gas companies know this... and won't start building H2 stations until funded by the government. That should raise a flag that this is a farce.
          EZEE
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Spec
          If the electrics blow by you on the road, there is a problem. I had no idea the technology was this....poor.
          Joeviocoe
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Spec
          Spec... exactly. People here seem to only think in 2 dimensions. Either fully Hydrogen or fully Battery. There are plenty of hybrids out there. And a plug in hybrid is a lot easier than trying to build Hydrogen stations along your entire route.
          Joeviocoe
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Spec
          Of course, as I have said before... if a small, lightweight 25Kw fuel cell system (fits in a car) that uses gasoline, natural gas or diesel directly and reliably.. either through straight conversion or a micro/fast reformation.... then you've got a solution!
          Letstakeawalk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Spec
          "Chasing Perfectly clean tailpipe emission at the expense of reasonable costs is not wise." So now you're pretending that the automakers are forgoing gasoline PHEVs and only concentrating on FCVs? LOL. PHEVs with gasoline engines are a great stepping stone - I'll remind you how much of a fan I am of Fisker - and I believe the gasoline ICE will be around as part of automobile drivetrains for quite a long time to come. However, I can also see the progress that automakers are making with fuel cells, and I can see how a fuel cell can be integrated into a PHEV in the long run. I'm not discounting or ignoring any technologies, and I understand that it will take time to implement hydrogen refueling infrastructure. However, I think that the automakers and the hydrogen suppliers are doing a commendable job of demonstrating that they are ready and willing to move forward according to the time plans that they and the governments have established.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Spec
          EZEE, this is just one kind of hydrogen refueling station, and not typical of the type that are currently able to produce enough hydrogen to service many FCVs a day.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Spec
          ...and eventually those PHEVs will use fuel cells instead of ICEs. Best of both worlds, plug-in for pure BEV commuting, with the ability to quickly refill with hydrogen on long trips while getting better efficiency and less pollution (noise and air) than with an ICE.
      • 2 Years Ago
      I think people don't understand the context of the fuel cell technology. -There are homes in japan already powered by hydrogen fuel cells (natural gas). -Its not like homes in the future will be able to reverse meter their electricity from solar. (there maybe be no powerlines!!) -They are either going to have to store it in hydrogen or their electric battery. PS. Guess what we are going to be doing with the abundance of natural gas....
        Spec
        • 2 Years Ago
        Why would powerlines disappear? If you are talking about some mad max world then you are not going to have a natural gas pipe either nor would you be able to keep a fuel cell system running since you need replace the filters.
        JakeY
        • 2 Years Ago
        I find it hard to believe a home that has natural gas service won't have electricity service. I've heard of it the other way around (many homes in the US don't have natural gas service), but not the situation you are presenting. And from what I read, the home fuel cells only last about 3 years. You save about $50 per month and a 10 year lease costs about $10k (I'm assuming it includes the cost of maintenance and replacement every 3 years). That means you are paying about $4000 out of pocket (and this is for a test fuel cell that is likely subsidized). http://www.usatoday.com/tech/world/2008-03-03-japan-fuel-cell-home_N.htm
          JakeY
          • 2 Years Ago
          @JakeY
          @Letstakeawalk It seems like the commercial fuel cell in your link costs even more money (for the same 10 years it seems). You save about $80 per month in electricity, which works out to $9600 in 10 years (its service life). Your out of pocket costs are about $25k given the $35k cost! And that's only a 700W system ($50/Watt!). It doesn't make any financial sense right now (esp. compared to other alternatives, which are actually renewable). In the US, I would rather buy a solar water heater system ($2000-4000 unsubsidized). That would save me about $30 per month or about $4320 over 10 years (the warranty period). Plus it has an operating life of 30 years. Solar panels are now at about $3/Watt. I can buy a 1900 Watt system for about $5k unsubsidized (before the 30% federal tax credit, plus any state incentives) with a 25 year warranty. Monthly output would be about 150-250kWh. At about $0.13 per kWh, that would also save about $20-30 per month. It'll pay itself off in about 15-20 years. A fuel cell doesn't make any sense right now given the comparison. And even without transmission losses, the fuel cell system is about 90% efficient (that includes the water heating/co-generation). Transmission losses are only about 6% for electricity. And don't forget transmission losses for natural gas (which is a potent greenhouse gas). Why go with such a system when you can go renewable AND save money?
          Chris M
          • 2 Years Ago
          @JakeY
          $50 per watt makes the $4.50 per watt cost of solar look downright cheap! And then you must add in the cost of the Natural Gas fuel needed to run the thing... Nope, I don't think that's going anywhere very fast, unless there is a really huge drop in price.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @JakeY
          JakeY, here's some much more current info on the home cogeneration fuel cells than that article you dug up from four years ago... "ENE-FARM Type S utilizes ceramic electrolyte for the power generating cell stack which achieves a high operating temperature of 700 to 750 degrees Celsius. This high temperature heat can be efficiently used as energy to reform utility gas to hydrogen and thus a high power generation efficiency level of 46.5% is achieved — with an overall energy efficiency of 90.0%*2. The SOFC system includes a hot-water supply and heating unit which uses exhausted heat with a storage tank at a small size of 90 liters to optimally utilize the high temperature heat exhausted during power generation; as well as a high efficiency latent heat recovery type hot-water supply heating unit for the back-up boiler. Through these measures, the system is environmentally and economically enhanced, and eliminates annual CO2 emissions of about 1.9 tons while also reducing annual energy costs of about ¥76,000 compared to ordinary gas-powered hot-water supply and heating units*5. Moreover, due to the low number of parts and small quantity of exhaust energy, a compact design was made possible for both the power generation unit and the hot-water supply and heating unit — thus allowing it to be installed even at homes with limited installation space. In the future, the companies also plan to expand use of the system to apartment buildings." It has a ten-year maintenance life, meaning that's when it will need servicing. Odd are, after being serviced, it will continue to work well for another decade. Fuel cells are very simple devices, after all. It costs around 2.7 million yen ($35,000), but there are government subsidies (just as there are for solar, or wind, or battery storage) that reduce the homeowner's cost tremendously. http://global.kyocera.com/news/2012/0305_woec.html For those BEV purists who are *sincerely* concerned about having the highest possible overall efficiency, they really should consider have a home SOFC because of the boost in generation efficiency, and with the benefit of having absolutely no transmission losses through the grid.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @JakeY
          The problem with solar and other renewables is the intermittancy. Ask Apple why they went with fuel cells. Or Coca Cola, or Walmart, or any of dozens of other corporations, schools, hospitals, and military bases. Fuel Cells generate power efficiently and cleanly, and most important, *reliably*. The price is higher than grid power, but that will come down over time, and most companies can see a substantial economic benefit to generating their own power using fuel cells. Stationary fuel cells are also becoming much more viable for the private sector/residential markets, with growing market share in Asia and now being introduced into Europe. The US market isn't far behind. "Apple is building a fuel cell installation that, when online later in 2012, will be the largest non-utility fuel cell installation operating anywhere in the country. This 5-megawatt facility, located directly adjacent to the data center, will be powered by 100 percent biogas, and provide more than 40 million kWh of 24x7 baseload renewable energy annually." http://www.apple.com/environment/reports/docs/Apple_Facilities_Report_2012.pdf
        2 Wheeled Menace
        • 2 Years Ago
        Natural gas is just another imported fossil fuel ( to Japan ) with it's own carbon footprint. It's nowhere as energy dense as gasoline, and you lose quite a bit of energy when converting it to hydrogen. The only advantage is that you reduce localized smog. But on a little island ( even though the population is super high ), smog isn't much of an issue. Imported gasoline and nuclear power really make the most sense for Japan, despite the downfalls of both.
      Spec
      • 2 Years Ago
      "The station, which uses both juice from the grid and solar power, can produce 1.5 kilograms of hydrogen in 24 hours. That's enough to power an FCX Clarity for about 90 miles." I wish I could post images or emoticons here so I could post an image of a laughing guy.
      Letstakeawalk
      • 2 Years Ago
      This amount of hydrogen production will satisfy the average daily commute. No problems there, right BEV owner with 90-mile range? Of course, there's still the commercial hydrogen refueling station where you can get a full refill (4-6kg) in a matter of minutes when you want to go on a longer trip. Of course, the anti-hydrogen crowd is missing the point entirely - this station uses a new high pressure electrolysis system that eliminates the need for a mechanical compressor, make the production of hydrogen more efficient.
        Anne
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Letstakeawalk
        What you describe is not new technology. The Avalance "compressorless" high pressure electrolyser is available for years. That's where I got the 60 kWh/kg number from. It's in this document: http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/36734.pdf page 9: "Only Avalence’s energy requirement of 60.5 kWh/kg includes reaching hydrogen pressures in the 6000 psig range." The press release from Honda only tells us that their electrolyser is very efficient. That could mean anything. If you can post solid numbers, I'd gladly see them.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Anne
          http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress11/iii_10_lipp_2011.pdf FY 2011 Accomplishments Hydrogen Pressure: reached 6,000 psi hydrogen • pressure in a two-stage EHC system (Figure 1). Compression Efficiency: reduced specific energy • consumption to less than 5 kWh/kg H2 when compressing from atmospheric pressure to 2,000 psi (Figure 2).
          Letstakeawalk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Anne
          Thanks for pointing that out - it does seem as if there has been an improvement in output capacity though. The Avalence home unit was rated for 0.9kg per day, and this unit produces 1.5kg per day.
          Chris M
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Anne
          If those figures you mentioned are accurate, that means the higher pressure electrolysis require more energy - just the same as if a mechanical compressor was used. More proof that there is no way to evade basic thermodynamics. Jumping from 5 Kwh per Kg up to 60.5 Kwh per Kg indicates a huge increase of energy needed (12 x more!) and a substantial decrease in efficiency. Using electrolyzer based compression might make for simpler construction and fewer moving parts, but it doesn't do much to improve efficiency. Use of adsorbent materials for storage greatly reduces the pressures required, thus improving efficiency - but at the cost of greater weight, slower refill times, and higher costs.
          Chris M
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Anne
          Ah, that's why I specified "If those figures you mentioned are accurate", they did sound like they might be a bit too bad to be true. But the fact remains that it does require additional energy to compress hydrogen, even if the electrolyzing process itself does the compression. But with no moving parts and little friction, it could be more efficient than a mechanical compressor. It wouldn't help for hydrogen produced by steam reforming, however. That primary method of producing hydrogen still requires mechanical compressors, and hydrogen purification systems.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Anne
          I agree, you didn't get anything from the pdf. Based on their results, they expect just above 5kWh/kg at 6000psi and 6-7kWh/kg at 12,000psi. They have already achieved approx 8kWH/kg in testing, so it seems they are on a solid path. At any rate, it's much more up to date than your figures, and it points to the direction in which the technology is heading.
          Anne
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Anne
          Chris + LTW, You are confusing some numbers. The difference between the 60 kWh/kg that I quoted and the numbers you are discussing is that my 60 kWh/kg figure includes the energy for the actual electrolysis. The 5 kWh/kg from LTW is just for the compression. But to which pressure? LTW, In your reply above you state: "Compression Efficiency: reduced specific energy • consumption to less than 5 kWh/kg H2 when compressing from atmospheric pressure to 2,000 psi (Figure 2).". I didn't look at the figures that closely. It seems most energy is needed for compressing to 2000 psi, after that it takes much less. Need to study this more. Thanks for the insight.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Anne
          Here's what is the most recent 2011 US DoE Progress report concerning Electrochemical Hydrogen Compressor states: "FY 2011 Accomplishments Hydrogen Pressure: reached 6,000 psi hydrogen • pressure in a two-stage EHC system (Figure 1). Compression Efficiency: reduced specific energy • consumption to
          Anne
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Anne
          LTW, I think I saw that document before, but didn't get any useful numbers from them. The 5 kWh/kg is for pressurisation to 2000 psi only. The FCX Clarity uses 6000 psi, and the pdf talks of 12000 psi. Energy use is linear with pressure, so 12000 psi would require 30 kWh/kg. That seems to be a lost cause. Pressurisation or liquification are the main obstacles. How much I try, I can not see a viable hydrogen car using one of these two technologies. However, there is a third option: storage materials that absorb hydrogen. Maybe they will find some wonder stuff. But progress seems slow and when they finally find something suitable in the lab, it'll be years before it can be commercialized.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Anne
          Chris M, You're distorting numbers, by combining two different sets of numbers from two studies. Anne's numbers are from 2004, mine are from 2011. Go back and examine the PDF again, and you'll see the progress that has been made. Current tech is capable of pressuring hydrogen to 6000psi at just under 10kWh/kg, and 12,000psi at just a little more.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Anne
          Thanks for the clarification Anne. I looked up the Avalence 15 unit specs, and here is what an updated model is doing: "The Avalence Hydrofiller 15 is designed to produce 15 standard cubic feet (sfc) per hour through electrolysis. The Hydrofiller 15 draws 2kW per hour of production. The Hydrofiller is also capable of running at variable voltage from a renewable source such as a PV array. If this array was producing less then 2 kW then the electrolyzer would produce less then 15 sfc/hr. The process takes about 0.1 gallons of water per hour." http://documents.clubexpress.com/documents.ashx?key=y3owPIWPGGcynvF1pAhz0n0a7GI0QtmT09p3UI1ZwNI204xHI6T5Vu2RT9zwkCXnwyKq1iIrpVU%3D If it uses 2kW per hour, and runs 24 hours a day, that means it uses 48kWh to produce about 0.9kg - or about 53.3kWh/kg. Keep in mind, that's the Avalence 15 unit, and not the Honda unit.
      Dave
      • 2 Years Ago
      http://news.mk.co.kr/english/newsRead.php?sc=30800001&cm=Top%20Story&year=2012&no=209288&selFlag=&relatedcode=&wonNo=&sID=308 "South Korean carmaker Hyundai Motor will be producing 1,000 units of hydrogen fuel cell cars starting from the end of this year. This is the largest commercial production planned for hydrogen-based cars to date. "
        Joeviocoe
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Dave
        That is NOT even 1,000 PER YEAR. They've got a confirmed order of 10 so far. And they are only agreeing to build 1,000 because (if) the Danish government agrees to build the Hydrogen infrastructure. A business plan that entirely depends on a government using public money. What a waste! "..and will be supplying 10 units of its Tucsan ix models to the Danish government. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) concerning the deal will be signed as early as this week. Under this contract, the Danish government will be in charge of building necessary FCEV infrastructure such as hydrogen charging stations, while Hyundai takes responsibility for supplying the vehicles."
          Letstakeawalk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          "A business plan that entirely depends on a government using public money. What a waste!" Something tells me that you don't feel the same way about tax credits for EVs, solar PVs, and quick-charging infrastructure.
          Joeviocoe
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          You're right.. I don't feel the same way. There is no chicken and egg paradox with BEVs, and quick charging. The economics of Solar PVs is not something I know about, so I won't speak on that. But the charging infrastructure is 99% built already. The wires are run everywhere, and the power source is abundant enough.. you just need to "tip the connection" with EVSEs and DC chargers. Very localized expenses. But more importantly, public charging is NOT NECESSARY for the adoption of BEVs. A BEV driver can simply charge at home and never really need a public charger.. while an FCV driver is crippled on the way home from the dealership. Public charging infrastructure can help speed up adoption, but it is not going to be the life's blood of the whole economy. This is an important point that makes government subsidy a good idea for BEVs and a bad idea for FCVs.
      russellbgeister
      • 2 Years Ago
      i had know doubt that this could be done but how much energy do they need to make to produce this piddling amount of hydrogen lol some people are kidding themselfs not unusal for the japanese
      Dave
      • 2 Years Ago
      http://www.udel.edu/udaily/2012/apr/solar-reactor-040312.html "Doctoral student's novel solar reactor may enable clean fuel derived from sunlight"
      Dave
      • 2 Years Ago
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pK4P9z1sAjA "Uploaded by linde on Apr 10, 2012 Linde's newest hydrogen fueling station has begun operating at AC Transit's Emeryville, California, municipal bus operating division, fueling 12 fuel cell buses and up to 20 passenger cars a day."
        Dave
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Dave
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=sACg-SnsLws 360 kg per day. Enough to support a fleet of ~700 personal vehicles.
          Dave
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Dave
          http://www.actransit.org/2012/04/10/ac-transit-launches-innovative-hydrogen-fueling-facility/ "The station also features Linde’s latest advancements in compression and dispensing technology, enabling buses to be refueled at rates up to 5 kilograms/minute – a time comparable to refueling diesel buses." "Thanks to a major grant from the California Air Resources Board, one dispenser is accessible to the public for fueling hydrogen fuel cell electric passenger cars, including the Mercedes-Benz B-Class F-CELL, now on the road in both Northern and Southern California."
          Joeviocoe
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Dave
          I like how they make it seem like the Electrolysis of water to make hydrogen is not an energy intensive process. It looks like a simple filter (the Oxygen molecules are too big to fit in the holes, but hydrogen just detaches and goes through. That was not a harmless oversimplification. Linde would love for investors and lawmakers to focus compression since they can improve efficiency there... while trying to downplay the biggest energy cost by far, the hydrogen production, by making it look like a filter.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Dave
          To clarify - *NO* hydrogen stations are yet open to the "general public" because it is not yet legal to sell hydrogen as a motor fuel. You or I couldn't just walk up and purchase hydrogen. Stations like this *can* be accessed by members of the public who are participating in several of the on-going FCV fleet trials (eg GM Project Driveway, Honda Clarity and Mercedes F-Cell lease holders) because participation in those trials includes the cost of fuel.
          Chris M
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Dave
          "Enough to support a fleet of ~700 personal vehicles." And all of it dedicated to the AC Transit hydrogen bus fleet. It isn't open to the general public.
      joeboarder108
      • 2 Years Ago
      Out of curiosity, how much range could you get by putting that electricity straight into a BEV, rather than using it to refine hydrogen?
        Letstakeawalk
        • 2 Years Ago
        @joeboarder108
        Current systems can compress hydrogen to 6000 psi using 10kWh/kg, and more importantly 12000 psi using less than 15kWh/kg. Anne used 2004 numbers, which are certainly out of date. I'm using numbers from the 2011 Progress Reports from the DoE (link above).
        Anne
        • 2 Years Ago
        @joeboarder108
        Sorry, that was the power consumption of the FCX Clarity that I gave you. To answer your question: the 90 kWh to produce that 1.5 kg of hydrogen would propel an EV more than 250 miles.
          Chris M
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Anne
          And 250 miles / 90 miles = 2.77 times further, close to the 3x better efficiency previously calculated. Getting better, but it's still a long ways from being competitive, efficiency wise.
        Dave
        • 2 Years Ago
        @joeboarder108
        Out of curiosity - how many people will die if you try to put out a fire with a battery powered fire truck?
        2 Wheeled Menace
        • 2 Years Ago
        @joeboarder108
        I don't know the math, but a hell of a lot more. it takes a good bit of energy to transform one form of energy ( natural gas, water ) into another ( hydrogen ). All the hydrogen fuel cells / engines i have seen are 50% or less efficient. ..versus straight electricity going into something that is 70%-80% efficient from the plug to the wheels.
        Anne
        • 2 Years Ago
        @joeboarder108
        Including compression to 6000 psi, you're looking at ~60 kWh per kg of hydrogen. So that works out to 1 kWh per mile.
      EZEE
      • 2 Years Ago
      I have no emotional investment either way in hydrogen, but wow. Makes the range, compared to charging times of ANY of the electrics look great.
      Nick
      • 2 Years Ago
      Hydrogen is already debunked by its own science: No matter how much you perfect the machinery, it will always take more energy to produce, transport, store and deliver it to vehicles than charging an EV with the same amount of energy. After 15 years of "hydrogen R&D, not a single hydrogen car has been available for purchase, and nearly no hydrogen refueling station has been opened.
        Dave
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Nick
        "No matter how much you perfect the machinery, it will always take more energy to produce, transport, store and deliver it to vehicles than charging an EV with the same amount of energy. " Wrong.
          JP
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Dave
          Right, actually.
          Dave
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Dave
          "OMG... Dave, did you really just say that BEVs are more wasteful because they use energy to make heat when requested.. while FCVs are more efficient because they always have waste heat available for use?" Thats exactly what i said. BEVs send their waste heat out the chimney at the power plant where it goes to waste, while an FCEV uses its waste heat to defrost the window and heat the interior. Pretending that electricity is produced without waste heat is ridiculous. Youre making a fool of yourself.
          Dave
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Dave
          "We didn't even mention electricity production until you brought it up. " Not directly. Grow up. You are comparing electricity to hydrogen. Electricity production is less efficient (30% to 55%) than hydrogen production (~70% by SMR).
          Joeviocoe
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Dave
          "EVs send their waste heat out the chimney at the power plant where it goes to waste, while an FCEV uses its waste heat to defrost the window and heat the interior." The classic case of counting full Well-to-Wheels costs for one technology, but ignoring it for the costs of their own pet technology. 1) Many electrical power plants are Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and use wasted heat either to run an additional cycle of steam turbines or directly heat water for municiple use. Greater than 60% overall efficiency. 2) The industrial creation of Hydrogen will have HUGE losses too. Steam reformation of Methane is the way most hydrogen will be produced for FCVs and it has plenty of heat loss too. Why don't you mention that? When combining all the inefficiency and waste on both sides... complete Well-to-Wheels using various pathways... Hydrogen LOSES against BEVs. When using fair comparisons the studies have shown time and again that Hydrogen losses are much worse than electricity. You would have to skew the comparisons (like comparing solar made H2 with 50% Coal made Electricity or SMR made H2 with 100% coal made electricity) to get favorable numbers for Hydrogen. And plenty of biased individuals looking for investment money have done just that. -------------------- "Pretending that electricity is produced without waste heat is ridiculous. Youre making a fool of yourself." STRAW MAN ALERT! We didn't even mention electricity production until you brought it up. We were talking about consumption WITHIN the vehicle itself. You resorted to moving the conversation to powerplants to avoid the fact that Fuel Cells waste 50% of the energy ALL THE TIME... EVEN IN THE SUMMER! And BEVs have MUCH less waste heat.
          Joeviocoe
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Dave
          OMG... Dave, did you really just say that BEVs are more wasteful because they use energy to make heat when requested.. while FCVs are more efficient because they always have waste heat available for use? *I guess if it is always wasted energy, it must feel like it's free energy when you occasionally have a use for it.* And no, BEVs are not more energy intensive to manufacture than FCVs. That is really grasping at straws that you have no credible documentation to support.
          Chris M
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Dave
          Apparently Dave never stopped to realize that the "waste heat" from fuel cells comes from inefficiency in the fuel cell itself - typically about 50% to 60%. (some fuel cells using pure oxygen and pure hydrogen can get higher efficiency, but are totally impractical for automotive use). While the efficiency of electrical generation may be less than the efficiency of steam reforming of natural gas to produce hydrogen, adding in the energy losses from compression for storage, plus the much lower efficiency of fuel cells compared to batteries more than makes up the difference, the result being EVs are still more efficient than H2 FCVs. The advantage for EVs becomes much greater when water electrolysis is used to produce hydrogen - about a 3 to 1 advantage.
          Dave
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Dave
          "Always" is absolutely wrong. Because a BEV with an acceptable range will take more energy to manufacture. It will be heavier and larger. And it will wast electricity running the heater while an FCEV will simply use waste heat.
          Dave
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Dave
          "And no, BEVs are not more energy intensive to manufacture than FCVs. That is really grasping at straws that you have no credible documentation to support." Absolutely. Without a doubt, whatsoever, a FCEV with a 200+ mile range is far less energy intensive to mass produce than a BEV with a 200+ mile range.
          Joeviocoe
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Dave
          "Absolutely. Without a doubt, whatsoever, a FCEV with a 200+ mile range is far less energy intensive to mass produce than a BEV with a 200+ mile range." 1) Where is your documentation of the energy required to produce a 200 mile range FCV? Right now, they are not in production and only have optimistic estimates. 2) Why choose range as the your only metric? Cause you know, as you go higher, only a bigger tank is required for a FCV? That is like saying an 18 wheel semi-tractor trailer is less energy intensive to build than a Prius that can go 1000 miles. The whole point of a vehicle that can plug in every night at home is that you don't NEED comparable range. In contrast to the "central fueling model" of gas stations where the hassle of finding and visiting a station means you want to only visit that station once a week. ...So the whole comparison is ridiculous.
          Dave
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Dave
          "The advantage for EVs becomes much greater when water electrolysis is used to produce hydrogen - about a 3 to 1 advantage." Low temperature electrolysis is the most inefficient (and most expensive) way of producing electricity. That is why very little of it is produced in that manner. There are more efficient means, even in the realm of "renewables."
    • Load More Comments