Which technology will dominate in future? Why do you think so?
Both technologies are older than combustion system. First fuel cell was designed by Wiliem Grove in 1839 based on theoretical work of Christian Friedrich Schönbein in 1838 and first electric vehicle come up in 1835 and constructed by Sibrandus Stratinghem and Christopher Becker.
I can say that It doesn't matter who win this battle, the winner will be people and Earth's environment because we will have traffic without pollution and CO2 neutral as it is supposed. However, I can continue by many arguments why both solutions might not be so clean as we think at the first sight. It depends how the electricity is produced, how much energy is needed for producing of batteries and influence on environment in overall. And similar for fuel cell vehicles, it depends how the hydrogen is produced because decomposition of natural gas, which is most frequent way now, does not make sense with respect to the environment.
Actually, there is also 3th fighter - modern and redesigned combustion system as diesel or gasoline or even CNG which is interesting too. Again, it depends how the fuel is produced and synthesized. There has been done also big effort which is recently accelerated due to pushing down the emission limits.
Back to battery car vs fuel cell car. Even though my research field is fuel cell technology I admit that there is no reason to use sophisticated system as FC if you want to cross distance 10-15 km each day (work-shop-home triangle). Small electric car can do good job in this case. On the other hand you can go also by bus or by bicycle, which is definitely the best solution with regard to environment.
In case of this small electric car it is necessary to produce electricity by "green way" without burning coal or natural gas otherwise use CNG will be more effective and environment friendly for sure.
Electric car use battery for storage where the ratio:
ratio = (electrons released)/(protons in the system)
is always lower than in case fuel cell where this ratio for hydrogen is 1 = 2 protons/ 2 electrons. From this point of view, fuel cell car will be always more powerful. It will enable to cross longer distance and in addition it will produce heat in winter without loss of range. However, it depends how the hydrogen is stored. If we store hydrogen in metal-hydrides or even in heavy steel cylinders the above-mentioned ratio is decreasing. Lots of efforts have done in case of hydrogen storage and more efforts has to be done. I think that this ratio (electrons released)/(protons in the system) will be higher for FC car in the end especially for longer range of distances.
I think we will needs both technologies in near future and for longer distances the FC will be winner.
(I am sorry for longer text but it is interesting topic and thanks for question.)
Both technologies are older than combustion system. First fuel cell was designed by Wiliem Grove in 1839 based on theoretical work of Christian Friedrich Schönbein in 1838 and first electric vehicle come up in 1835 and constructed by Sibrandus Stratinghem and Christopher Becker.
I can say that It doesn't matter who win this battle, the winner will be people and Earth's environment because we will have traffic without pollution and CO2 neutral as it is supposed. However, I can continue by many arguments why both solutions might not be so clean as we think at the first sight. It depends how the electricity is produced, how much energy is needed for producing of batteries and influence on environment in overall. And similar for fuel cell vehicles, it depends how the hydrogen is produced because decomposition of natural gas, which is most frequent way now, does not make sense with respect to the environment.
Actually, there is also 3th fighter - modern and redesigned combustion system as diesel or gasoline or even CNG which is interesting too. Again, it depends how the fuel is produced and synthesized. There has been done also big effort which is recently accelerated due to pushing down the emission limits.
Back to battery car vs fuel cell car. Even though my research field is fuel cell technology I admit that there is no reason to use sophisticated system as FC if you want to cross distance 10-15 km each day (work-shop-home triangle). Small electric car can do good job in this case. On the other hand you can go also by bus or by bicycle, which is definitely the best solution with regard to environment.
In case of this small electric car it is necessary to produce electricity by "green way" without burning coal or natural gas otherwise use CNG will be more effective and environment friendly for sure.
Electric car use battery for storage where the ratio:
ratio = (electrons released)/(protons in the system)
is always lower than in case fuel cell where this ratio for hydrogen is 1 = 2 protons/ 2 electrons. From this point of view, fuel cell car will be always more powerful. It will enable to cross longer distance and in addition it will produce heat in winter without loss of range. However, it depends how the hydrogen is stored. If we store hydrogen in metal-hydrides or even in heavy steel cylinders the above-mentioned ratio is decreasing. Lots of efforts have done in case of hydrogen storage and more efforts has to be done. I think that this ratio (electrons released)/(protons in the system) will be higher for FC car in the end especially for longer range of distances.
I think we will needs both technologies in near future and for longer distances the FC will be winner.
(I am sorry for longer text but it is interesting topic and thanks for question.)
I would like to contribute by suggesting that both the electricity for cars (and all the rest) and the Hydrogen for cars should be obtained either with true renewable energy sources or with classic fossil fuels (and bio-fuels) using CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage).
Bio-CCS is the ultimate way to extract CO2 from air.
In my opinion during the next decade, battery will lead the battle, but in the future fuel cells will win.
I think that for the shorter range like city areas battery-powered vehicles will be ahead of fuel cell vehicles but for the long-range distance, fuel cell automobiles will be ahead. when we are in a discussion on the battle between the fuel cell and battery vehicles then we must be focused on hybrid fuel cell vehicles ( Better performance, longer distance)
Roman Fiala, thank you for your response. It's so comprehensive and interesting. But, what do you think about the economic point of view related to stations and infrastructure? I think the technology of infrastructure needed for hydrogen distribution and the fuel stations would be somewhat the same as fossil fuels, so FC car are ahead in this aspect, right?
Thank you, Mohammad Ali Emadi. I think that before Henry Ford started massive production of combustion engines it was impossible to imagine that gas station will be on every corner. I mean that nothing is impossible if there is a political will or will. It is only a question of money and time. Even completely new infrastructure can be built. In case of hydrogen fuel it is as you said. I also think that the current infrastructure can be used or redesigned. However, we need three or even four infrastructures:
1) Gas station for cars that use normal combustion engine
2) CNG gas station, we have it here in the EU but it is not so often you can use it perfectly.
3) Hydrogen infrastructure
4) Electric infrastructure for electric cars
I think that at the beginning of the hydrogen cars the point 2 (which is also often connected to point 1) needs to be improved for CNG and hydrogen use at the same time and increase the density in this network. So yes, redesigning the current network.
For electric infrastructure you do not need to do much. Slow charge of electric car you can at home in your garage. For fast charging you need a special charging point (which is not also complicated). However, what is the problem is the capacity of the electricity network. So far so good and even in my country we have some reserve but using electric car the capacity of the electricity network will be very fast fast. New power plants and stronger transfer network is necessary.
What is important in the first sight out of or from the customer. For electric cars the infrastructure is already done if we talk about slow charging in your garage at least and it is also a problem to build fast charging point. That is also the reason why electric cars are leaders in the "battle" now. Simply it is possible to use electric car in contrast to the hydrogen car which is impossible to use today.
However, when the electricity network is going to be depleted there is a cross junction: We are still improving the electricity network or simply take the hydrogen technology and redesign the current network for gas / petrol and so on. This is the time when the fuel cell technology comes up in a wide range. It can be stabilized in the same way as the current one between the petrol engine and the diesel engine: the electric car is cheaper with the shorter range while the car is more expensive but with longer range.
Second big reason while FC is not used in worldwide is that the catalyst is not cheap and when it is started to produce in massive range, the price will increase due to limited sources.
So to answer your question it is not easy to say. The economy of this problem is still developing. Actually, it depends on our work, how good we are. I can say that I thank electric cars for giving us time to fix all the remaining problems in FC and make it ready when it will be needed and completely necessary.
Hydrogen fuel is a synthetic fuel and can be produced locally. Hydrogen fuel can be supplied at petrol stations, but a charging station and a home charging system are required for electric vehicles. Vehicles can be filled with hydrogen fuel, such as at natural gas filling stations. Hydrogen fuel can be filled with high pressure gas or liquefied hydrogen fuel. Establishment of company, organization or country monopoly for hydrogen fuel can be prevented.Irregularly high electricity, such as hydrogen gas, solar energy power plant and wind energy power plant, can also store large capacity. However, large-scale energy storage of lithium ion batteries is not possible. Renewable power plants can make irregular and excessive energy production balanced and regular with hydrogen gas production. Large-scale energy storage may be possible with large hydrogen gas storage facilities.Aluminum recycling facilities can be recycled without any burden on the economy. Lithium recycling facilities are not common. When a vehicle engine has about 1000 parts, the electric vehicles have about 200 parts. This may cause vehicle manufacturers to shrink their firms and shut down suppliers. This will also have a negative impact on unemployment. More employment can be achieved with hydrogen fuel and it will be a positive effect of the economy. Due to the increase in electric vehicle production in Germany, 1 million factory workers are likely to be unemployed.Hydrogen fuel can be used for public benefit without bringing extra cost to the economy and without major infrastructure change. We have to produce our own energy for an independent economy and energy independence is essential for economic independence.A hydrogen-fueled vehicle is safer than electric vehicles if the necessary safety precautions are taken. A vehicle that uses fossil fuels can be converted to a hydrogen-fueled vehicle at an affordable cost.The exhaust emission of a vehicle operating with hydrogen is only water or water vapor. It should not be forgotten that if electricity is taken in fossil fuel power plants to charge electric vehicles, it will produce harmful greenhouse gases.
I would expect that the fuel cells driven by hydrogen as fuel will be dominating. Simply because it sums up the advantages of internal combustion engines and electric cars.They are fuel driven electric cars. The electric cars are based on energy storage devices which has limited capacity and relatively large weight. The charging of batteries is relatively slow process.
In addition hydrogen as a clean energy source can be utilized as fuel for such cars.
Best wishes
Dear Abdelhalim abdelnaby Zekry, I used to think the same thing. However, FC car will be always more complicated than electric car so I think that for short distance where enormous power is not necessary, electric car are feasible. Moreover, FC cars use Pt as catalyst and Pt sources are limited so would be very helpful if all traffic/transportation will not be realized by FC. Do you think that in future there will be FC cars only and no battery cars or you mean simply that FC cars will be more frequent?
Li basd battery posses excellent characteristics, probably metal-air battery will be optimized for transportation, but fuel cells need better electode catalyst and advances in the fuels to be carbon neutral
I expect that hydrogen fuel cells will have excellent future, if the technology overcome the dangerous aspects that appear with using hydrogen now.
Dear Roman,
I agree with you completely. The products must be matching their utilization imposed by economical factors. I speak about mass transport for long distance.One observes that no one technology will be suitable for all applications.
Best wishes
This is a very interesting topic. Some of my input is here.
For fuel cell cars driven only by a fuel cell system (e.g., PEM cell), there are still some bottle necks. For example, if use hydrogen directly as the fuel, how to store hydrogen in the car? With an ultra high pressure tank? danger! In addition, a hydrogen fuel station network needs to be built up in a country, which is expernsive. If a compact on-board reformer system is used to convert the fuels (gasoline, natural gas, ethanol...), the seperation system is complicated, and consumes a lot of energy to get quanlified hydrogen fuel.
For battery electric cars, it seems more feasible. But still need to build up a rechanging system in a country.
I guess in the future, in a certain transistion period, cars driven by the mxided power, that is, both Hydrogen fuel cell and battery, will be used.
Since we are here from many countries ... We can collect here interesting statistic data all around the world.
Question: What is current state in your country or in your surroundings? How many electric care are there and how many of hydrogen cars. Can you see them daily?
Answer for the Czech Rep (Prague).: There are several Tesla cars which are seen from time to time. But there are also Nisan Leaf, Renault Zoe, VW-eGolf, ... Czech car manufacture SKODA is planing to start sell electric SKODA citigo this year. The official data are that 0.3% of new registered cars are electric cars here in Czech Rep. No hydrogen cars here. Only one hydrogen bus here started since 2009 and more hydrogen buses or trains are planned also in others cities. No public hydrogen filling station yet.
I do not particularly believe in these technologies. In essence, this is fashion. If you look at the beginning of the chain, an enormous amount of energy is required to obtain lithium or other active battery material or hydrogen. Anyway, this energy must be obtained. Question: pollution in another country - is it environmentally friendly production for the consumer?
As for hydrogen, unfortunately, this euphoria till the first explosion. Hydrogen cannot be completely safe (for a reasonable price).
Roman Fiala, Here in Iran, I don't know if there is any FCV, and I don't think so, but there are electric vehicles, mostly operating as airport taxi. Also, recently a charging station is opened in Tehran city. Unfortunately, EV has not gotten much attention in our society.
Mohammad Ali Emadi , thank you for saying about current situation in your country. Here, because of emission limits manufacturers have to start with producing of EV car. But EV cars are still rare here and for FCV is missing infrastructure. However, you can see both also in Czech version of TopGear ..in TV show about cars.
The city of Shenzhen in China has already replaced all their buses with battery electric buses. A lot of countries have a goal of 100% electric by 20(??). So I guess electric is winning.
In Serbia practically there only few electric cars, and limited charging infrastructures. In Capitol Belgrade few buses are using natural gas as `clean vehicles?
Should it be good idea to built large fuel cell "gas stations" for examples SOFC or Phosphoric acid FC, to produce electricity from biohydrogen or some other biofuels that could be used to charge car battery on road
Dear T. H. Al-Noor ,
your link is not working since it is cut version only. I have found the original link and putting it here:
https://www.businessinsider.com/in-the-battle-between-electric-cars-and-fuel-cell-vehicles-we-currently-have-a-clear-winner-2016-2
Hi All,
It is a great question and many people will be gambling on the outcome.
I think the decision will be made by the customer, issues relevant to this are:
-cost of vehicle
-ease of refuelling
-Integration with other renewable energy sources
The issues of global warming and urban pollution need to be address and these will shape the general conditions under which we can operate. But these are likely to be government lead, not user/market lead.
The use of existing infrastructures is also a key issue for all those companies within existing supply chains.
It looks like heavy vehicles can be operated best on hydrogen and urban vehicles on electric.Both will have a beneficial effect on urban air quality. There is room for both as the mountain we need to climb is very high.
Andrew
Both of the technology are in the early stages of development especially the fuel cell cars due to the lack of methods for transporting and storing hydrogen efficiently and lack of hydrogen infrastructure. Both of them have certain advantage and disadvantage but the electric cars have come a long way especially some companies like Tesla have really invested on it creating exemplar electric cars in the process. Tesla has already established infrastructure in the US and slowly it will be spreading to other markets as well. The only problems is that most of the electric cars and hydrogen cell fuel cars are quite expensive as compared to equivalent diesel and gasoline run cars, but once it becomes widespread , but the cost of electric car will also come down as production cost will also lower. But both of them have the huge potential in replacing convectional diesel and gasoline cars and once the infrastructure is developed with the help of government and public support, it is only a matter of time when we will see electric and hydrogen cell cars at every location.
Basic chemical/physical principles lead to the conclusion that fuel cells will win. However the marketing power currently applied by Tesla will lead to a prolonged replacement process. Additionally I think that for low range mobility applications batteries will prevail for practicability.
Ewald Fernbach
It would be very interesting to read what "Basic chemical / physical principles" are in question ...
The winner will be the one that doesn't have accidents due to manufacturers mistake (for example will the hydrogen blow up while traveling?).
From this point of view: gasoline as well as Lithium-ion batteries can blow up after some accident. Hydrogen can be even the most safe. When it is released out from the reservoir from some reason it is disappeared top to atmosphere rapidly and the place of accident is safe for rescuers forces. In contrast to where gasolin make pool below the car and any spark can start the flame or in contrast to electric car where lithium ion battery which is burning cannot be extinguished and all car have to be moved by crane to the water pool and keep it there for one week otherwise flame is not stopped.
All three technologies must be designed for safe operation
This is an interesting questions and I would like to address it in following:
1- When it comes to comparison it should be a fair basis, as right now my answer would be EVs as its infrastructures are better established.
2- We need to look at availability, cost competences driving rage, fueling and charging time, LCA emission and other factors.
3- Please see the attached paper which is the prediction and says that for a long term H2 would be winner.
4- Another question which might have come to your mind. Can we replace all the existing ICE with H2 vehicle? Though questions as in H2 cars there are rare materials and they are expensive such as Platinum.
Thank you Pouria Ahmadi for interesting paper. Interesting is also model study presented in introduction of the paper. Where estimation of non pure gasoline cars is 75% in 2018 (Fig. 1) but reality is 95,3%. See reference for example here:
https://www.duffandphelps.com/insights/publications/m-and-a/millennials-and-auto-trends-report/market-share-of-hybrid-electric-vehicles-poised-to-increase
Another interesting result is that in that paper supposed some scenarios automotive and in case that 100% Gasoline Vehicles is taken account, 3.7 billions barrels of oil/year is consumed by light duty and medium duty vehicles (Fig. 3). And reality in the 2018 is roughly the same about 3.7 billions barrels of oil/year. See https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/01/20190128-eia.html
I mean, EV and other new technologies are obviously growing but much slower than it was supposed in 2005 and oil consumption is still increasing/constant according to estimation in presented paper and despite the fact that some EV and hybrid cars are here already.
Owing to the fact that these are environmentalist technologies, both vehicle alternatives are acceptable for our future. The way in which the energy needed by these vehicles to be obtained will be decisive. For example, if all the energy required for electric vehicles is provided from renewable sources, this is an important advantage. Of course, long-life batteries that will eliminate range anxiety will need to be developed.
According to my opinion, we will still be dependent from fossil fuels and we won't see the final outcome from this race in the near future. However, I think that fuel cells may have an advantage due to localized energy production (fuel to energy in the vehicle itself) especially if they run on liquid fuels instead of H2, while the batteries need to be recharged and thus are dependent from electricity point sources i.e. power plants. Moreover, a very well covered batteries-charging infrastructure should be built and nothing like that is necessary for the fuel cells-powered vehicles since the current gas stations could be upgraded for these types of fuels.
Fatih Ecer
The left one is Toyota Mirai and the right one is Tesla Model S.
Each technology will flourish in one specific market. Electric vehicles may take the dominant in the passenger vehicle market. Fuel cell vehicles may be the mainstream in long haul truck market.
I accept with Hossein Nami Battery Electric Vehicles will win the battle as storage of Hydrogen is a issue over here and we must be very careful while doing it.
Dear Muhammad,
Automotive-industry expert claims, hydrogen cars can overtake electric cars. Electric power for cars” has its limits” and cars will be hydrogen-powered from 2030. It is presumed that by 2030, especially in passenger cars that run long distances, or trucks. Hydrogen cars are likely to win over battery cars in coming future. Fuel cells are far more efficient than internal combustion engines, and a hydrogen fuel cell has cleaner emissions than an internal-combustion hydrogen engine.
Hydrogen fuel cell cars have batteries onboard which store hydrogen and oxygen and power the vehicle with chemical reactions between the two elements to create water and energy. Sometimes known as fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs), they have exhaust pipes but the only thing that escapes from them is water. The cars need refueling, but with hydrogen rather than petrol or diesel fuel. For each fill of hydrogen, the car will gain 320-405km (200-250 miles) of range (this is advantage).
Hydrogen car development has taken a back seat due to the fact that electric vehicles are more popular among the public. Hydrogen cell like many new technologies struggle getting to scale which is crucial for the reduction of costs, since every time the production levels of a new technology increase the costs will decrease. For battery technology, we see a cost reduction of 19% for every doubling of the production levels. Already we see the total number of BEVs being manufactured and sold globally in the millions, compared to hydrogen, which amount to just a few tens of thousands being sold to date.
Differences with BEV
There are pros and cons to both hydrogen fuel cells and battery-powered electric cars. For example, hydrogen fuel cell cars have a much greater range and take much less time to refill compared to a battery electric car. However, battery replacement costs can be prohibitive for battery electric vehicles.
Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles tend to be more frugal than their battery electric counterparts. According to Autocar, the Hyundai Nexo comes with a real-world range of 414 miles and filling up takes just five minutes, whereas electric charging can be an hour-long affair at the best of times.
Weakness in hydrogen cars
It lacks an internal combustion engine and uses electricity as its fuel rather than gasoline. What makes it different from a battery-electric vehicle (or BEV) is where the electricity comes from. Instead of a battery, a hydrogen fuel cell car has, well, a hydrogen fuel cell.
Hydrogen doesn't occur naturally, it has to be extracted, then compressed in fuel tanks. The first argument against hydrogen vehicles is that they are less efficient than EVs are. “Lithium-ion battery production [for electric vehicles] is very energy-intensive.
As such Hydrogen has an important role in the future as a replacement for imported petroleum, used currently in cars and trucks, but it has the disadvantages, although Hydrogen cells are being used to power hybrid cars, it's still not a feasible source of fuel for everyone. It is expensive.
“BEVs are already much cheaper, both the upfront and running costs for FCEVs (Hydrogen cars) are higher than for BEVs,”.
***Hydrogen car can be a bad idea also (if price not reduced or something concern about explosion etc.is not addressed properly)
1. Inhalation: High concentrations of this gas can cause an oxygen-deficient environment. Individuals breathing such an atmosphere may experience symptoms which include headaches, ringing in ears, dizziness, drowsiness, unconsciousness, nausea, vomiting and depression of all the senses.
2. You cannot fill up like you do with gasoline or diesel. It is actually pretty ridiculous how hard it is to fill up a HFC powered car. You won't even go 100 miles on current tech hydrogen tanks that are still safe to carry around in a car. Fuel cells wear out crazy fast and are hard to regenerate. First, hydrogen is not as energy-dense as other fuels, meaning that you need a whole lot of it to do a little bit of work.
3. Price wise, Hydrogen fuel prices range from $12.85 to more than $16 per kilogram (kg), but the most common price is $13.99 per kg (equivalent on a price per energy basis to $5.60 per gallon of gasoline), which translates to an operating cost of $0.21 per mile.
4. Hydrogen used in the fuel cells is a highly flammable gas and can cause fires and explosions if it is not handled properly. Hydrogen used in the fuel cells is a very flammable gas and can cause fires and explosions if it is not handled properly.
Alternative for support of hydrogen
Hydrogen car could be a best option in term of emission. Conversion of standard diesel commercial vehicles to run with hydrogen enables ultra low emission mileage today. In comparison to other technologies that reduce carbon emissions, hydrogen diesel combustion allows: +70% reductions of carbon dioxide emissions over standard diesel vehicles.
Ashish
Daer Mohammad Ali Emadi ,
Hydrogen is environmentally friendly, but it is very dangerous in terms of combustion .
Dear all,
I think mankind globally would be well-advised, NOT to use hydrogen as an energy storage.
As mentioned by others already, Hydrogen is not a source of energy in first place.
But public discussion only focuses on the energy needed to extract the hydrogen from its natural reservoirs.
In case CNG is used, the hydrogen isn't green at all - it still is a different form of fossil fuel.
Electrolysis from water as well only looks green in first place.
Efficiency is a desaster, storage is difficult and transportation gets even worse.
Considering the resistance in public towards simple things like DC-current lines, it remains save to assume that similar resistance will prevent H2-pipelines from being built.
Transport by truck?
Biggest capacity of H2-trucks tops out at about 1000kg of hydrogen.
Good enough for 2000 passenger cars every day.
Traffic for transporting H2 would be 6-10 times as high as for Diesel.
Local generation?
Nice try.
To generate 1kg of H2, it needs 55kWh of energy.
A solar array to do 1 ton per day - given a sunny day - would need to provide 55.000kWh - resembling a field of 1MW, consisting of 32.000 solar panels.
Operating 24/7 demands at least twice the size plus some windmills to work at night and huge buffer batteries to keep up operation in times of no-wind at night.
Besides all those physical drawbacks that won't improve due to development, there are aspects missed in this discussion:
For 1kg of H2, about 9 liters or water need to be split. Freshwater, as seawater is not useful in electrolysis.
Imagine a year 2040 with fuel cells in passenger cars, trucks and busses.
Germany alone has about 50 Million cars today - busses and trucks not included.
Each does 50km dayly, demanding about 0.5kg of H2 and about 4-5 Liters of water.
Adding heavy-duty transportation, urban buses and delivery vehicles, all freshwater used in Germany ends up in mobile applications.
Adding the energy demand for airplanes?
If you just want to supply the flights that take off form German airport Frankfurt, it would need all the freshwater from the town of Frankfurt.
Uuups - there is none lef already as it got stuck in all those street-based vehicles.
It also means, that not a single ship is on its way, as there is no fuel left for it.
As if this isn't bad already, it gets even worse.
H2 can't be stored without some of it diffusing to the atmosphere.
As the density is quite low - lowest in the world actually - H2 drifts up into the atmosphere and leaves the planet. No joke - not science fiction. Free floating hydrogen turns into stellar hydrogen.
Gone for good.
It is assumed - optimistically - that at least 10% of the H2 is lost this way.
Back to 2040 where H2 is used as energy storage in fuel, heating, ships, plains, cars and other applications around the world. By simple math, we would eliminate freshater from the planet in the scale of Lake Constance every 5 years.
One billion people around the world have no access to clean freshwater today.
Tendency - growing.
For the first time ever since humanobserve animals, elephants in Africa died of thirst.
In my mind?
Using a freshwater-based energy storage is ignorant towards mankind, climate and environment.
Dear Martin Schulz
Thank you a lot for your comment. I really enjoyed reading your calculations.
A different but accurate view. In our world where access to clean water is getting harder, expanding hydrogen vehicles will not be the right approach.
Dear Martin Schulz ,
Interesting approach to this issue. Drinkable water is getting be problem at least in some part of Earth. However, if we look at the Earth from space there is enough of water. For hydrogen production fresh water (drinkable water) is not necessary. You need demineralized or deionized water for electrolyzes application purpose and this can be produced from any water - even from see water. If in some part of Earth is not enough of any water, it is question of transportation. Now we are using gasoline everywhere even though source of petrol is only at some part of Earth (much less sources than in case of water). Of-course that use hydrogen everywhere instead of petrol means enormous change of infrastructure and perhaps of society, which I agree.
Dear Roman Fiala
let me willingly turn your words around into a blunt question:
Instead of demineralizing seawater to feed people and agriculture, you'd rather spent time, money, infrastructure and effort into powering traffic?
That's what you do if instead of wasting existing freshawater you create new freshwater for the same cause.
Just a thought ;-)
Dear Martin Schulz
demineralized water can be used for hydrogen production that can be used as energy solution after crude oil is depleted or after we decide to stop burn fossil fuels. At this time, you need to keep infrastructure runs - you need to agricultural machines to produce enough food for all people, which is essential for example.
I mean, it is not about traffic only and traffic does a lot of useful job. And waste product of fuel cell is water. Thus, all hydrogen is transformed to water back after it is used. It can be stored in stationary application.
However, I agree with meaning hidden in your question. If we can demineralize see water and used it for hydrogen production, we can used this water also to feed people and agriculture. Technology for this exists, for example in Israel is produced drinkable water from seawater. It is only question of spent time, money and effort to do that. However, still in some part of Earth it is not do that way.
Maybe if we add energy needs to group of needs based on water where now are listed to feed people and agriculture, we can increase motivation to manage water management to cover all needs.
I also agree with your calculations in your previous comment. Hydrogen production and transportation is a problem. I only put some numbers for the Frankfurt Airport because it is really interesting: For Frankfurt Airport would be: 1400 flights daily x 100t of gasoline /3 *9 = 422 000 t of water (still need to devide soma factor because efficiency of hydrogen can be higher). It is a lot, I agree, it is about 100% daily consumption of water in Prague, for example. On the other hand, now there is used 140 000 t of gasoline each day in Frankfurt Airport, which is a lot and this amount of inflammable gasoline has to be transported too.
But let me also ask. What can we do if we want to get rid of fossil fuels? Just a battery everywhere? Solution is not easy I think.
Dear Roman Fiala
Wherever work is done by electricity, batteries outperform hydrogen in efficiency, cost, and typically in volume too. Even compressed air in underground caverns has better efficiency than storing hydrogen. Well - if you could store hydrogen which today also is not possible for the mid- to long-term like weeks to month.
In all mobile applications, hydrogen prevents the use of batteries for vehicle-to-grid services.
A comparison from German VDI revealed, that even battery-electric trains are a better solution than using h2-fuel cells.
(see https://heise.de/~4850008 sorry it is in German only)
Back to the 50 million German cars in 2040...
If those were BEVs and considered as mobile, decentralized energy storage they could contribute to grid stability more than all pumped-hydro power plants in Germany today.
So - wherever the work targeted can be done by electricity, hydrogen is not a good idea.
Wherever hydrogen is used as chemical compound like in steel industry or chemical industry, it should be green H2 instead of black one.
But consumers would have to pay the price for it as the final products would grow more expensive
.
Using fluctuating energy sources like wind and water to produce H2 is a dead end because of availability and efficiency.
Potentially, generating H2 in countries like Iceland that use geothermal energy at ultra low cost, can become a viable option But even if the primary energy literally comes for free, the price per kg H2 would make it an expensive fuel. Additionally, physical problems like storage and transportation remain.
Carbonization into synthetic methane would be a technical solution but the fuel would be even more expensive as the additional process demands further investments, energy and infrastructure.
I too loved to see plains and ships powered by green fuels but today, price per liter crude oil is about 0.13€, The same energy in green H2 will be about 20 times as expensive - optimistic guess.
But I do see we get off-topic here. The threat is about electric vehicles and the energy storage that most likely will dominate the scene. :-)
Batteries are clearly to be favored.
Research today targets to increase energy density and capacity by a factor two in short-term, a factor 4 in mid-term and a factor 10 in long-term.
As battery is in favor today already, it will become inevitable in the very near future.
I am most assuredly not an expert, but it seems from this discussion, that we glossing over some of the so-far-unsolved problems associated with hydrogen generation/conversion efficiency and storage issues, while at the same time assuming battery technology will not continue to advance. For example, certain aluminum-air batteries may have as much as 8 times the energy density of current lithium-ion batteries, and some could argue the remaining technical hurdles are less than those of hydrogen technology. Not to mention, there are dozens of other new battery technologies of all types being investigated, any one of which could eventually outshine lithium-ion.
BEVs will probably be the most suitable for urban and small to medium-sized vehicles, while fuel-cell vehicles appear to be more applicable for the longer-ranged and larger vehicles.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Electrochemistry
- Battery