[July 8, 2020]

Today’s vehicular energy debate always boils down to electric vs. gasoline. It’s the classic Ford vs. Chevy, Coke vs. Pepsi, or Monty Python vs. Mel Brooks death match we revel in. But what about hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, which use hydrogen as a fuel source to generate electricity to power electric motors? Indeed, it’s hard to build a compelling ecological case for hydrogen over pure electric BEVs, but to say hydrogen as a vehicle fuel source is utterly dead is disingenuous – especially today – which is what raised my eyebrow when I read this Forbes article.

The piece penned by U.K.-based and WhichEV editor James Morris lands some seemingly convincing blows against the case for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCVs). Here he argues efficiency:

“If one of your main goals is to save the planet, BEVs are considerably more energy efficient than FCVs, when you take into account the whole series of steps between power generation and propulsion. With a BEV, once the electricity is generated – hopefully from a renewable source – the supply of this to your vehicle charging location loses about 5%. The charging and discharging of the battery then lose another 10%. Finally, the motor wastes another 5% driving the vehicle. That makes for a total loss of 20%.”

“With a hydrogen fuel cell, however, you first have to convert the electricity to hydrogen via electrolysis, which is only 75% efficient. Then the gas has to be compressed, chilled and transported, which loses another 10%. The fuel cell process of converting hydrogen back to electricity is only 60% efficient, after which you have the same 5% loss from driving the vehicle motor as for a BEV. The grand total is a 62% loss – more than three times as much. Or, to put it another way, for every kW of electricity supply, you get 800W for a BEV, but only 380W for an FCV – less than half as much.”

The problem is, technological superiority and conversion efficiency doesn’t make for a win in the real world. Think I’m wrong? Was your last ICE vehicle a diesel? Per the U.S. Department of Energy:

“Diesel engines are more fuel-efficient and have more low-end torque than similar-sized gasoline engines, and diesel fuel contains roughly 10% to 15% more energy than gasoline. So, diesel vehicles can often go about 20% to 35% farther on a gallon of fuel than their gasoline counterparts. Plus, today's diesel vehicles are much improved over diesels of the past.”

The U.S. Department of Energy then explains that today’s diesel engines are also required to meet the same emission standards as gasoline. So if you want to talk efficiency always winning, why is diesel not dominating today’s ICE market? Or maybe the argument is that Europeans utilize diesel more than America, and Morris is writing with a British slant. But the fact is, diesel sales are not the majority in Europe, either, and they’re also on the decline.

The hydrogen FCV Honda Clarity has been on the market since 2008 and hasn’t…ahem…set the world on fire. (Image courtesy Honda)

Mr. Morris admits that hydrogen has clear advantages over strict electric when it comes to refueling time (minutes rather than hours), especially in heavy duty applications like trains, busses, and the like. But then he attempts to build an argument I can’t wrap my head around:

“...considering the number of BEVs already on the road, FCVs have lost this battle already and will never catch up. A BEV is a viable form of personal transportation right now in most developed Western nations. There are lots of options with over 200 miles of range, and Tesla...has even hit 400 miles. There are charging points springing up all the time, with more than twice as many EV charging points in the UK as petrol stations. The battle for the future of green personal transportation is over, and battery electric vehicles have already won.”

Since Mr. Morris is in the U.K. and the website you’re reading is U.S. based, I’m about to jumble numbers, but regardless of the country, what he wrote comes out as illogical.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, there are currently 26,007 electric charging stations in the U.S., 3,624 ethanol stations, 879 CNG stations, and just 44 places to fill a hydrogen-powered vehicle. Getting a firm fix on the number of gasoline stations in the U.S. is difficult, but it seems to be in the 150,000-160,000 range. Hydrogen availability is underwhelming to say the least, even if you live in California where nearly all of the hydrogen refueling stations are located.

Since numbers are king in this portion of Mr. Morris’ argument, let’s jump in the way-back machine and set it for 2008. Back then, you’ll find there were approximately 430 EV charging stations in the U.S. compared to about 165,000 gas stations. Using Mr. Morris’ logic, EVs never stood a chance as electric stations were far outnumbered by traditional gas. I guess we didn’t celebrate one million EVs on U.S. roads not too long ago.

Mr. Morris does have a point about BEVs winning over FCVs right now, but he neglects to consider wild cards. In the case of EVs back in 2008, that wild card was Tesla. GM had previously entered the EV world with the EV1, but it lacked commitment to the power source. Tesla, meanwhile, went all in and constructed a charging infrastructure to match its vision. Then yada, yada, yada, and Tesla is now the most valued car manufacturer in America.

Enter Nikola. Yes, the chances of the hydrogen-toting Nikola mirroring Tesla’s monumental success is slim, but that doesn’t mean Nikola can’t change the hydrogen game, even if the company eventually fails as a business. Nikola’s boss Trevor Milton is not afraid to make waves, and this is ultimately a trait that has led to Tesla’s success under Elon Musk’s control. Tesla knew early on that an EV world lay with the ability to quickly recharge, and thus charging stations were an equally quick priority.

Nikola’s Class 8 trucks will reportedly utilize a network of Nikola-built hydrogen fueling stations enabling the vehicles to run coast-to-coast with minimal downtime. (Image courtesy Nikola)

Likewise, Nikola has plans to build hydrogen stations across America for its Class 8 trucks (presumably its forthcoming consumer-grade FCV-BEV combo Badger pickup will initially ride on those infrastructure coattails), and while we’ve seen little actual movement on Nikola’s hydrogen production front, that doesn’t mean gears aren’t in motion. In fact, if you assume that Nikola’s Milton is following Musk’s Tesla playbook (and based on Nikola’s company name, it’s no leap to assume he’s doing exactly that), expect to see Milton go as all-in on hydrogen fueling as Musk did on EV charging, meaning hydrogen stations aplenty.

Existing hydrogen fueling stations, per the U.S. Department of Energy. Hopefully there’s a tailwind for that jaunt from Lake Tahoe to Connecticut.

Nikola’s proposed hydrogen stations across North America. (Image courtesy Nikola)

The argument that hydrogen vehicles haven’t skyrocketed to popularity despite Honda and Toyota both producing vehicles powered by the gas – and hydrogen filling stations not existing in any meaningful numbers – doesn’t mean hydrogen has “lost this battle already and will never catch up,” as Morris claims. If history has taught us anything, it could simply mean that the companies that have tried didn’t go in with the commitment of a billion dollar madman. Tesla went all in on EVs and did what GM couldn’t. Perhaps now it’s Nikola’s turn to prove the naysayers wrong about hydrogen.

With Trevor Milton around, it’s possible that Mr. Morris is utterly wrong in his Forbes analysis and hydrogen is not dead at all. In fact, it could turn out that the blow EVs have seemingly landed against hydrogen is, dare I say, just a flesh wound.

(Main image courtesy Nikola)

Follow us on Google News and like us on Facebook!