[CarParts.com]

Nearly every vehicle manufacturer has vowed to make all or most of its lineup electric in the near future, and the government is also pushing for increased EV adoption.

Still, there might be a future for FCEVs, even though there aren’t many on the road—yet. Click here to read the article.

 

[MikeR.]

I don't see much of benefit for most passenger vehicles. However, they could be very beneficial in large commercial vehicles like semi trucks.

 

[techguyga]

I don't see much of benefit for most passenger vehicles. However, they could be very beneficial in large commercial vehicles like semi trucks.

I see a huge benefit in passenger vehicles if they'd gone the hydrogen ICE route instead of this fuel cell nonsense. 2 of the main reasons I will never buy an EV:

1. In my opinion (and that of many others) the lifecycle of batteries is worse for the environment than just burning dino oil. From production and everything it takes to make a battery to the disposal/recycling process, it's just not pretty.

2. I can't decide to just hop in my EV and go on a road trip. Many of my normal destinations are 8-10+ hours away. The EV can't do that kind of range, and I honestly have no intention of having to plan where to stop for a charge and then wait for that charge as part of my trip time.

With FCEV, you might get the better range, but you still have to deal with the batteries. It just doesn't make sense to me. Why not just burn hydrogen in an engine where the only by-product is water?

 

[MikeR.]

I see a huge benefit in passenger vehicles if they'd gone the hydrogen ICE route instead of this fuel cell nonsense. 2 of the main reasons I will never buy an EV:

1. In my opinion (and that of many others) the lifecycle of batteries is worse for the environment than just burning dino oil. From production and everything it takes to make a battery to the disposal/recycling process, it's just not pretty.

2. I can't decide to just hop in my EV and go on a road trip. Many of my normal destinations are 8-10+ hours away. The EV can't do that kind of range, and I honestly have no intention of having to plan where to stop for a charge and then wait for that charge as part of my trip time.

With FCEV, you might get the better range, but you still have to deal with the batteries. It just doesn't make sense to me. Why not just burn hydrogen in an engine where the only by-product is water?

Hydrogen fuel cell still use batteries, just a smaller one. It is a full EV, with the addition of a fuel cell. The fuel cell is not fast enough or large enough to meet peak demand. It only meets average demand. The battery powers the motors, the fuel cell recharges the battery. Unless you are towing, or traveling to some far out remote destinations, or eat in the car and only stop to use the restroom every 4 or 5 hours, chances are the charging will be done before you are, and the car does all the planning on where to stop and for how long. Even if hydrogen was readily available at every gas station, not sure most would want to pay the cost for it. Toyota's Mirai holds about 5 KG of hydrogen. At $16 per KG, that's about 80 dollars to fill up. That's why they give you a hydrogen gas card with $15,000 on it when you purchase the car. It would be cheaper to just rent a vehicle for a trip, unless you do it every month or so.

The benefit of the fuel cell for semi's would probably not be in the recharging, but the fact they would be replacing most of the batteries for hydrogen (weight savings) so they could then have a higher payload. Semi companies and truck stops would also have an easier time setting up a distribution network.

 

[CarParts.com]

I see a huge benefit in passenger vehicles if they'd gone the hydrogen ICE route instead of this fuel cell nonsense. 2 of the main reasons I will never buy an EV:

1. In my opinion (and that of many others) the lifecycle of batteries is worse for the environment than just burning dino oil. From production and everything it takes to make a battery to the disposal/recycling process, it's just not pretty.

2. I can't decide to just hop in my EV and go on a road trip. Many of my normal destinations are 8-10+ hours away. The EV can't do that kind of range, and I honestly have no intention of having to plan where to stop for a charge and then wait for that charge as part of my trip time.

With FCEV, you might get the better range, but you still have to deal with the batteries. It just doesn't make sense to me. Why not just burn hydrogen in an engine where the only by-product is water?

There has been renewed interest in using hydrogen in ICE engines lately, as well. However, the reason that approach hasn't been as popular is that burning hydrogen in an ICE still creates NOx emissions.

 

[techguyga]

There has been renewed interest in using hydrogen in ICE engines lately, as well. However, the reason that approach hasn't been as popular is that burning hydrogen in an ICE still creates NOx emissions.

Ahh, for some reason I thought the hydrogen ICE emissions were water. I see now that depending on the type of hydrogen burned, there are zero to very little NOx emissions. I found this graphic which does a really good job of summarizing the differences in technology...

EDIT: Full transparency, this graphic was produced relative to heavy duty applications, but I think many of the points would scale to smaller vehicles also.

 

[CarParts.com]

Ahh, for some reason I thought the hydrogen ICE emissions were water. I see now that depending on the type of hydrogen burned, there are zero to very little NOx emissions. I found this graphic which does a really good job of summarizing the differences in technology...

That is a helpful chart. And you're correct, with selective catalytic reduction, like on a diesel vehicle, the NOx emissions from a fuel cell ICE are supposedly minimal.