[electric_eel]

Originally Posted by Fiero

Everyone from Tata to Hyundai to Volvo have FCEV vehicles launched or launching soon. I don't see any long haul EV trucks yet.

Disclaimer I am not familiar with it but a quick search gets me these links

https://www.scania.com/group/en/home...ric-truck.html

https://www.volvotrucks.com/en-en/ne...ady-today.html

The second wave of renewable energy development in the country has just begun. There are many large scale renewable energy plants being built across the country which will be connected to storage facilities - this will for the first time enable round the clock supply of green energy to even energy hungry industries like steel plants, hydrogen and ammonia facilities.

For steel plants and ammonia production the H2 role is that of a chemical (not as an energy source). H2 is proposed to play the role that coke plays in current steel production. Similarly H2 is needed for ammonia as a chemical (The H in the NH3). That is the role it should play and we should try to use green hydrogen to de carbonise those industries. There is no alternatives as such for that. In such cases most likely these industries will have to produce H2 in situ and use it as soon as possible to avoid the challenges of storage and transport. Clearly this is not feasible for mobility applications.

This is perhaps true, but then for a fair comparison, wouldn't we have to calculate the entire energy and water consumption for EVs right from mining to transportation to manufacturing the 50kw battery as well? A green hydrogen plant will merely use green energy for electrolysis - and green energy is free after a point.

Firstly an FCEV will need a battery after all (much like say a hybrid car) for otherwise it cannot have something like regen. The water and mining consumption/emission is a "one time cost" for the battery good to go for 2000-3000 cycles. The FCEV will need the hydrogen for every run and they are staggeringly inefficient than BEVs at this. If you have a problem with coal power electricity for BEV then the same should apply for FCEV (in fact multiplied by 10x may be). If your claim is that Hydrogen for FCEV will be magically green then that same green energy can be better utilised (and transported via mere transmission wires) to the BEV. There are not two ways about this.

The entire move toward EVs requires 2x-3x-whatever x power capacity enhancement in India (largely through renewable energy) to support electric vehicles. So even if producing green hydrogen and using it for FCEVs requires more energy per kilometer, it's still emission less.

As I said green hydrogen needs green electricity ; how else would you generate and more importantly store/distribute hydrogen (do not ignore the store transport part that is the more challenging part). Why cannot you use the same green energy for BEVs ? How is it the case that BEVs will need 2x 3x power capacity enhancement and not hydrogen which is staggeringly wasteful in energy usage than battery. Again I am talking about hydrogen as an energy source/store and not as a chemical, the later has no alternative of course.

Another point. With current technology it is feasible to produce electricity for a BEV from roof top solar (many of us do so). When do you think such a green hydrogen facility will be possible ?

Also, transportation is only one of the many use cases - hydrogen has to be produced for several other industries anyways, so may as well produce some for FCEVs.

Production is only a minor part of the FCEV ecosystem. It is the distribution network that is the most challenging. Distribution network for electricity -- already exists and is technologically simple. Distribution network for H2 -- rocket science.

For all the non-energy applications of hydrogen that you quoted it will most likely have to be produced in situ so as to avoid the challenge of large scale transportation and storage. For example, a green steel company will have a hydrogen production facility which it will use directly for extracting steel. Anything else will not be
feasible economically.

Not saying that FCEVs will be anywhere as popular as EVs, but if I'd to take a guess, you will see more FCEV trucks than EVs on the road for the next 10-15 years.

In fact I do not see this happening at all. What is more likely is that railways will get more importance for long haul with last mile connectivity supported by lower powered BEVs. And for electrified railways, you dont need no hydrogen or battery.

[SKC-auto]

Originally Posted by Fiero

Green hydrogen is proposed to be produced in large quantities 5-10 years for various industrial usages. It is not specially being produced only for heavy vehicles, this will only be part of the potential demand. Everyone from Tata to Hyundai to Volvo have FCEV vehicles launched or launching soon. I don't see any long haul EV trucks yet.

We need lots of green H2 for industrial usage, which means convert existing grey H2(99% of todays H2) to green. If we add FCEV to the problem it becomes lot murkier.

Tata has just launched FCEV bus with a decade old technology, from pictures I believe the H2 tanks are placed overhead on the entire length of the bus, with a 70kw fuel cell, that bus needs a huge battery, still I believe it cannot to more than 150-200km. Volvo is selling lot many BEV trucks compared to FCEV trucks.

Electric buses are running in bangalore for over an year.

Just few days back an independent test agency used a Tesla Semi for 1600kms in 24hrs, with just 3 charging sessions, BEVs already won the long haul. No trucking company will choose an FCEV simply because it currently costs 20 times per km compared to BEV(extrapolating from Mirai vs BEV).

This is perhaps true, but then for a fair comparison, wouldn't we have to calculate the entire energy and water consumption for EVs right from mining to transportation to manufacturing the 50kw battery as well? A green hydrogen plant will merely use green energy for electrolysis - and green energy is free after a point.

Its fair to compare the energies required, as we are also not adding production of Fuel cell, electrolysers, platinum and Iridium mining etc. which come with their own limited life.

The entire move toward EVs requires 2x-3x-whatever x power capacity enhancement in India (largely through renewable energy) to support electric vehicles. So even if producing green hydrogen and using it for FCEVs requires more energy per kilometer, it's still emission less. Also, transportation is only one of the many use cases - hydrogen has to be produced for several other industries anyways, so may as well produce some for FCEVs.

First, EVs do not need 2x-3x increase in capacity, if what you said is true then a hydrogen economy needs 6x-9x power capacity increase. I think we all agree that first step is to convert all existing grey H2 to green H2, this itself will take few decades, why add FCEVs to the problem.

Not saying that FCEVs will be anywhere as popular as EVs, but if I'd to take a guess, you will see more FCEV trucks than EVs on the road for the next 10-15 years. You may never, of course, see an FCEV motorcycle. Lol.

Convenience and feasibility are not things I hope to see entirely banished in our lifetime.

As said above a Tesla Semi ran for >1600kms in 24hrs with 3 charging stops where the drivers have to anyway stop for food, rest, bathrooms. What convenience and feasibility benefit does a FCEV have over BEV?

As others have explained, transportation of H2 is the biggest problem, there is a reason why H2(grey) is produced onsite at steel plants etc.

How enormous the transportation problem? You need 16 tankers of H2 to service a refuelling station where a single tanker used to service for petrol.

Why do you want to have all our cities having 1000s of H2 tankers running 24×7 servicing the H2 pumps.

[ferrarirules]

Originally Posted by Fiero

.

The entire move toward EVs requires 2x-3x-whatever x power capacity enhancement in India (largely through renewable energy) to support electric vehicles. So even if producing green hydrogen and using it for FCEVs requires more energy per kilometer, it's still emission less. Also, transportation is only one of the many use cases - hydrogen has to be produced for several other industries anyways, so may as well produce some for FCEVs.

Let's see the whole lifecycle of EV battery manufacturing.

1. Mining lithium - It was already being done before EVs as well our phones, laptops and other devices are powered by lithium batteries. Lithium is recyclable so the process can be cleaner when recycled lithium is used. Companies world wide are setting up circular processing for batteries

2. Battery production - Yes it is today a polluting process because the power used for production is not green power.

Now let's compare the FCEV and EV, 1 kg of hydrogen can drive an FCEV for 100 km and requires 50 kwh to produce. So to drive 350 kms it will need 3.5 kg of hydrogen which will need 175 kwh of electricity. If I put the same 50 kwh of electricity in MG ZS EV, it would have driven 350 km and the left 125 kwh of electricity for upstream processes to use.

I have not accounted for the fact that FCEV car will also have some size of lithium batteries to be used for storing regen based electric power.

I am not saying FCEVs are not an valid option but they don't seem to be a better option as being portrayed by some specific manufacturers

[Fiero]

Couple of points (albeit disconnected) in response to the some of the above posts:

1. Power Requirement: There are over 320 million vehicles of different types operating in India. Even if you assume 30-40 watts per km for an e-bike, 130-150 watts per km for electric cars and probably 400-500 watts per km for electric buses and trucks, the additional annual energy required for all the vehicles presently on the road to be EVs would easily be in the 300-400 billion units per year (I really don’t have the full breakup of this 320 million yet so pardon the assumption – feel free to make your own). In FY 23, we produced 1617 billion units of electricity for the entire country, out of which wind/solar/biogas accounted for 201 billion units. I have excluded nuclear and river hydro as the capacity expansion in these areas will be negligible in future. https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIfram...x?PRID=1947380 See where this is going?

And it’s not only EVs, but the de-carbonization of the entire nations consumption which is the goal – EVs are just one of the consumers of energy, but a big one. We will easily need to up the current installed capacity of 172 GW to 500 GW+ to have any meaningful renewable energy penetration. This is what I meant by 3x. It will probably be much more by 2035-2040.

This goes back to my point on how hybrids could have been a worthwhile transitional technology while we wait for this to happen.

2. FCEV: I really don’t see what the opposition is about. Do we really think in 5-10 years India will have long haul trucks with 400-800 kw batteries and an entire network of tens of thousands of 500kwh+ charging stations to support them? Wishful thinking. And the production of green hydrogen is a self-sustaining ecosystem – I really do not see how some people are saying it’s like gasoline, really! FCEV’s have batteries you say? But only a fraction of the battery capacity of a regular EV. This is a technology worth exploring until EVs are able to cater to all vehicle types and all usages. A Bangalore or Mumbai EV bus doing 150 km/day may be okay being an electric, but fat chance our inter-state commercial transportation is. Most long-haul EV trucks are rated 250-350km WLTP. Nothing like a Tesla Semi (yet to be tested by real world owners) is coming to India in the next decade.

Hypothetically, if you ran a Tesla Semi on India's grid, it would be responsible for 1000g+CO2/km, roughly the diesel equivalent of 2.6 kmpl or less. Lol. An FCEV truck fueled by green hydrogen (produced through a captive RE plant) would hypothetically be zero emissions, just like an EV charged at home through solar panels - so even assuming that an FCEV is not as energy efficient as an EV on a per km basis, from an emissions perspective it doesn't matter. For someone who has better use for an FCEV that EV, good for them.

In any case, like I've been saying, the lifecycle raw material requirements and emissions is not as simple to compare as in some of the above posts. And the real world is more than a math problem. I don't think FCEVs are what we will ever use in our cars and bikes, but they will have their own place in industrial and commercial transportation in India, is what I feel.

[SKC-auto]

How FCEV trucks are not wishful thinking but EV trucks are wishful thinking? It is also wishful thinking Tata can deliver a long haul FCEV truck with decade old tech they have.

You are not addressing the below problems, please give us proper reasons, not future wishful thinking.

1) Cost per km.
2) Transportation of H2 to fuel pump.

Trucking is a business on small margins, and FCEV truck will never compete with BEV trucks on cost. We are not Toyota fanbois to accept H2 FCEV without proper reasons.

[Shresth_EV]

Originally Posted by Fiero

On hydrogen, a couple of things:
- If we start going into water and power requirement and what not, then again, what I said about mine to market and wheel to well applies - too many variables.

I think the meaning wasn't conveyed correctly, I never questioned the increased pollution caused by the grid to supply the said extra energy for the H2 production, vs charging EV directly. I was reffering to this part of your post :

There are enormous challenges in going all electric in terms of baseload power requirement and grid upgradation, which in themselves require vast amounts of new tracts of land, hundreds of billions of dollars of new power projects, storage technology to stabilize the grid and what not.

I only asked that IF (acc to your post) we don't have enough electricity and distribution infra for domestic applications alone, and due to this, going for EVs is counterintuitive, then H2 fares worse because it taps into the same "limited power which could've gone to the houses of poor rather than rich man's EQS".

Like I said, the pollution for extra energy isn't the issue. The ability to produce that electricity itself is being questioned, then how can we say that going to H2 is feasible when the same type of vehicle with FCEV will take 3x more energy to travel same distance or conversely, the amount of H2 to power 1 million FCEVs can power 3 million BEVs.
10% FCEV sales = 30% EV sales in terms of energy needs to travel same distance on similar cars.

Did you not think of the "baseload power requirement and grid upgradation, which in themselves require vast amounts of new tracts of land, hundreds of billions of dollars of new power projects, storage technology to stabilize the grid and what not" when hydrogen was the suggestion, and when the extra load is not even a slight increase for H2, rather, by a factor of three.

There are many heavy vehicle and industrial applications for hydrogen may be more feasible than being battery operated.

Sure, then why are toyota not making their Fuso an FCEV, rather than one single premium sedan with performance and boot space of a $20k Nexon EV for $70k? FWIW, there are more frauds in H2 mobility dream like the case of NIKOLA trucks (which is a terrible rip off to Tesla name for EVs, and a fraud over and above that)

Mirai is not even the best selling FCEV, Hyundai Nexo is.

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

Tata has just launched FCEV bus with a decade old technology, from pictures I believe the H2 tanks are placed overhead on the entire length of the bus, with a 70kw fuel cell, that bus needs a huge battery, still I believe it cannot to more than 150-200km.

Any idea on the pricing vs the existing olectra-byd or tata e-bus? I'm sure platinum palladium is nowhere as cheap as Li. And add to that, these are for public transport which barely break even due to high running cost of even diesel buses, and we have H2 at $36/kg in USA which comes to Rs30/km for running mirai for 600km on 6kg.

I wonder how profitable this bus will be vs EV bus. At least with EV bus, you recover the premium paid in the running and service cost. The running cost of H2 does not inspire confidence for the razor thin margings in public transit. I know because my dad is ARM at UPSRTC. Its bonkers someone thought H2 will be good for cost saving on already loss making business of city bus, nor does the reliability look good considering the points I mention below this :

Its fair to compare the energies required, as we are also not adding production of Fuel cell, electrolysers, platinum and Iridium mining etc. which come with their own limited life.

Via the Mirai User Manual (pg81 btw) :

■ Fuel cell stack
● Depending on the usage environment, the fuel cell power output may decline over the life of the vehicle.
In the following situations, the fuel cell power output may decline faster than normal driving:
• Extended use in areas with high amounts of dust
• Extended use in areas with high levels of sulfur (such as volcanoes or hot springs).
• The number of times the fuel cell system is started and stopped is excessively high
●It is necessary to periodically change the ion filter. (P.454) Contact your Toyota dealer for this periodic maintenance.

■ Hydrogen tanks
●The hydrogen tanks are the high- pressure storage containers that are filled with compressed hydro- gen gas. The vehicle can be refu- eled at hydrogen stations.
●The hydrogen tanks have an expiration date. Vehicles with expired hydrogen tanks must not be driven or refueled until the hydro- gen tanks are replaced. The expiration date is written on the inside of the fuel door. Consult your Toyota dealer.
●Consult your Toyota dealer if the hydrogen tanks or valves need to be disposed.

I'm surprised this data is absolutley slept on, at a time when the anti-EV brigade is more than happy to pick apart battery replacement and make mountain of a molehill. I wonder what their reponse to expiry date of H2 tank is. Surely carbon fibre and kevlar is not cheap.

Also interesting, that exceedingly dusty environment which INDIA DOES NOT HAVE will mean that the Fuel cell will also outlast the IP67 rated, sealed shut batteries, oh wait. Kinda counterintuitive from point of using it in construction equipment no?

And all this when there are already several thousand EVs all over the world which have very much exceeded their warranty life, continuing to work with minor range drop (<10%) over 200K km or more vs being banned on the road and refueling unless tank is replaced. How many 1 million mile Mirai's do we have, since Toyota themselves set the million mile benchmark with Hilux, LC and other reliable vehicles from their portfolio, how does the Mirai and other FCEVs match up to this legacy?

Originally Posted by electric_eel

What is more likely is that railways will get more importance for long haul with last mile connectivity supported by lower powered BEVs. And for electrified railways, you dont need no hydrogen or battery.

That remineded me, doesn't Konkan Railway have RORO service for trucks? So does channel tunnel in Europe.

Where electric trucks can't go, load them up on the trains. Simple. Actually, you know what, might as well put pantograph on each of the wagons too, and let those electric trucks charge from the 25kV catenary. Not only did the trucks reach their destination quickly and efficiently, they're also fully charged for the last mile delivery when landing in Delhi from say, Mumbai.

I know konkan is not electrified, but can work in other regions just fine with the massive electrification going on in IR at present (90%+)

[SKC-auto]

Originally Posted by Shresth_EV

Any idea on the pricing vs the existing olectra-byd or tata e-bus? I'm sure platinum palladium is nowhere as cheap as Li. And add to that, these are for public transport which barely break even due to high running cost of even diesel buses, and we have H2 at $36/kg in USA which comes to Rs30/km for running mirai for 600km on 6kg.

I wonder how profitable this bus will be vs EV bus. At least with EV bus, you recover the premium paid in the running and service cost. The running cost of H2 does not inspire confidence for the razor thin margings in public transit. I know because my dad is ARM at UPSRTC. Its bonkers someone thought H2 will be good for cost saving on already loss making business of city bus, nor does the reliability look good considering the points I mention below this :

I have no idea on the cost of the bus, it is only for testing by oil companies. This bus has 350bar H2 tanks, so large tanks placed overhead, 70kw Fuel cell, without the help of atleast a 100kwh battery I am sure it does not move a centimeter.

Yes, FCEV needs medical grade oxygen, which means replacing filters every few months in our dusty environment.

I just don't understand who will choose a FCEV at 170₹/km( @ 36$/kg) or 70₹/km(@15$/kg) when you can get a BEV truck with 15₹/km or a diesel one at 35₹/km.

How many 1 million mile Mirai's do we have

We will not have, the 15000$ Toyota fuel card lasts for 40000km at today's prices, after this they are usually kept in the garage before returned back at the end of lease.

[Fiero]

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

How FCEV trucks are not wishful thinking but EV trucks are wishful thinking? It is also wishful thinking Tata can deliver a long haul FCEV truck with decade old tech they have.

You are not addressing the below problems, please give us proper reasons, not future wishful thinking.

1) Cost per km.
2) Transportation of H2 to fuel pump.

Trucking is a business on small margins, and FCEV truck will never compete with BEV trucks on cost. We are not Toyota fanbois to accept H2 FCEV without proper reasons.

I am neither claiming FCEVs to be more efficient nor cheaper than BEVs. The below articles are an interesting read, though again not necessarily from an Indian context:

https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploa...s-us-apr23.pdf

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fcevs...devdutt-singh/ (look at the links embedded within this)

https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/...onundrum-86712

But how does additional cost (today) make them not worth pursuing? Over the past 15 years, the EV industry has pushed on (supported by governments) with the promise of better technology and cheaper batteries eventually making them price competitive with ICE on their own, because ultimately a consumer will not pay significantly more just for the sake of the environment. This has got us to where we are today where in many parts of the world the total cost of ownership of EVs can be lower than ICE. Interestingly though, just cost alone is not enough to convince everyone to buy only EVs, is it, even in countries littered with charging infra everywhere. We are still getting there. In India, no Nexon, no ZS EV will sell without the tax breaks they get (i.e. only 5% GST and minimal road tax), on the price parameter itself, forget range anxiety.

Now that EVs are coming of age, is the argument suddenly that the same benefit of subsidies and 10-15 years of incentivized advancement should not be given to FCEV technology because EV warriors have declared that BEV is the best and only possible technology to be used for transportation (this includes cars, LCVs, HCVs, tractors, cranes, even locomotives and aircraft perhaps)? Weren't EVs a joke 15 years ago, but we are here, right? The price argument is a bit unreasonable to me.

I don't know much about the logistics to really know why people think its such an insurmountable challenge to overcome H2 transportation, in comparison with a total complete overhaul of the nation's grid, multiplying our power generation capacity and what not. I would assume that if the government is expecting a few lakh crore in investment in green hydrogen and has itself earmarked twenty-thousand crore in subsidies (please see the Green Hydrogen Mission and related news), they have the transportation bits figured out?

Again I say, the primary purpose of H2 is not transportation - we anyways need this industry.

Originally Posted by Shresth_EV

I only asked that IF (acc to your post) we don't have enough electricity and distribution infra for domestic applications alone, and due to this, going for EVs is counterintuitive, then H2 fares worse because it taps into the same "limited power which could've gone to the houses of poor rather than rich man's EQS".

Going for EVs is not counterintuitive, it must be done, but increasing energy capacity and grid capacity takes time. If the growth of EVs outpaces this capacity enhancement, there will be trouble.

Now coming to your point "limited power which could've gone to the houses of poor rather than rich man's EQS" - you are absolutely right, but only theoretically. If only all the wealth in the world could be more equitably utilized, right? However, all the billions of private capital currently earmarked for development of green hydrogen plants and corresponding renewable energy plants (to feed the green hydrogen plants) would very possibly not be available merely for development of more renewable energy plants alone, for the poor man or for the EVs. We cannot direct private capital to go where we want it. Business decides. You cannot, for example, go to JICA and say, kind sirs, instead of giving us a low interest loan of twenty-thousand crore rupees to build the Mumbai-Ahmedabad bullet train, we will use the money to upgrade other train infrastructure to better serve some existing sectors since the money is better utilized that way - they will simply say no, go find your capital elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Shresth_EV

Did you not think of the "baseload power requirement and grid upgradation, which in themselves require vast amounts of new tracts of land, hundreds of billions of dollars of new power projects, storage technology to stabilize the grid and what not" when hydrogen was the suggestion, and when the extra load is not even a slight increase for H2, rather, by a factor of three.

Again, my assumption was never that it is FCEV vs EV that we are calculating the overall power requirement of FCEV vs EVs, just that FCEVs might find practical uses better than EVs. It may not be feasible for the government to upgrade grid infrastructure everywhere, like dense forests, mountains and what not. The army may never want to use EVs in sensitive areas. You may not be able to upgrade the grid in every far flung area or for every farmer to have enough to run EV tractors. FCEV's could help ease the load on the grid in certain usage scenarios, all without compromising emissions goals. It is certainly not unfathomable to me.

Originally Posted by Shresth_EV

Sure, then why are toyota not making their Fuso an FCEV, rather than one single premium sedan with performance and boot space of a $20k Nexon EV for $70k? FWIW, there are more frauds in H2 mobility dream like the case of NIKOLA trucks (which is a terrible rip off to Tesla name for EVs, and a fraud over and above that)

Mirai is not even the best selling FCEV, Hyundai Nexo is.

I never mentioned the Mirai. Infact i never even mentioned FCEV use for passenger cars. This is a conversation you are having with someone else, perhaps.

Originally Posted by Shresth_EV

I wonder how profitable this bus will be vs EV bus. At least with EV bus, you recover the premium paid in the running and service cost. The running cost of H2 does not inspire confidence for the razor thin margings in public transit. I know because my dad is ARM at UPSRTC. Its bonkers someone thought H2 will be good for cost saving on already loss making business of city bus, nor does the reliability look good considering the points I mention below this :

See my response above. Its an unfair comparison given that FCEVs are yet to come of age. Its like comparing an EV to an ICE car 10-15 years ago and wondering what the point is.

[SKC-auto]

Originally Posted by Fiero

But how does additional cost (today) make them not worth pursuing?
Weren't EVs a joke 15 years ago, but we are here, right?

Why jump from topic to topic, it really confuses me, lets first sort out H2 cost issues.

Yes, EVs were a joke 15years ago, but still they ran at 1₹/km, not 30₹/km, can be recharged at home, EV warriors know that the battery chemistry can be engineered and evolve over the years.

H2 is an element and is a dead end, you can only make better fuel tanks, fuel cell, electrolysers. Already H2 is compressed to 10,000psi( tyres are 30-40psi) how much more you can compress.

The only way to make a H2 vehicle to travel long distances is compress H2 at higher pressures or use more tanks.

I don't know much about the logistics to really know why people think its such an insurmountable challenge to overcome H2 transportation, in comparison with a total complete overhaul of the nation's grid, multiplying our power generation capacity and what not.

Yes, it is insurmountable because as I said before, you need 16 tankers instead of 1 petrol tanker for same energy, you need 16 ships instead of 1 ship. Hydrogen molecule can escape from pipelines, maintenance is a difficult task, it is far easier to transport energy through national grid.

The govt has announced 3 ports to ship hydrogen, from the scientists I follow on X(twitter) it is extremely stupid to ship H2 as a gas. You can say these scientists are also EV warriors, but they only follow science.

Again I say, the primary purpose of H2 is not transportation - we anyways need this industry.

I think we are only discussing about transportation, why again bring industry, no one disputed about need to change from grey to green H2 for certain industries.

Going for EVs is not counterintuitive, it must be done, but increasing energy capacity and grid capacity takes time. If the growth of EVs outpaces this capacity enhancement, there will be trouble.

How will H2 solve this problem? When H2 is 3x less effecient than an EV.

See my response above. Its an unfair comparison given that FCEVs are yet to come of age. Its like comparing an EV to an ICE car 10-15 years ago and wondering what the point is.

FCEVs were in sales for more than 15years, Honda clarity FCEV was launched in 2008 before the Nissan Leaf was launched in 2010. Still it has to come of age.

[electric_eel]

Originally Posted by Fiero

But how does additional cost (today) make them not worth pursuing? Over the past 15 years, the EV industry has pushed on (supported by governments) with the promise of better technology and cheaper batteries eventually making them price competitive with ICE on their own, because ultimately a consumer will not pay significantly more just for the sake of the environment.

By the way Fuel Cell is not a new technology and its expensive but it is believable that it might become cheaper (by replacing platinum/palladium or what not) with may be some other alloy. The proof is in the pudding though and we have to see that. But the even bigger challenge is the Fuel (H2) and not the cell. No amount of technological progress is going to negate the fundamental problems in storage/transportation of H2. I had previously explained why some of the properties of H2 as a gas makes it very difficult and I am not going to repeat it again.

Now that EVs are coming of age, is the argument suddenly that the same benefit of subsidies and 10-15 years of incentivized advancement should not be given to FCEV technology because EV warriors have declared that BEV is the best and only possible technology to be used for transportation (this includes cars, LCVs, HCVs, tractors, cranes, even locomotives and aircraft perhaps)? Weren't EVs a joke 15 years ago, but we are here, right?

May be worth reading and watching the documentary to see what kind of joke EVs were
about 15 years ago and who the joke was played on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Ki...lectric_Car%3F

See also section on hydrogen Fuel cell cars. Many of us feel this is the same trick that is being played again. Because the companies and the people who bring in hydrogen for mobility seem to be the same crowd, oil and gas industry, who have no intention of producing green hydrogen (an expensive affair) but blue hydrogen (which is essentially grey hydrogen with enough spin called emission capture) always saying that it is a stop gap for eventual clean green hydrogen.

Just to point out, yes we need green hydrogen for all the things you said and not for mobility. This green hydrogen needs to be produced in situ and used as quickly as possible to make the entire process efficient and not worry about transport and storage.

I don't know much about the logistics to really know why people think its such an insurmountable challenge to overcome H2 transportation, in comparison with a total complete overhaul of the nation's grid, multiplying our power generation capacity and what not. I would assume that if the government is expecting a few lakh crore in investment in green hydrogen and has itself earmarked twenty-thousand crore in subsidies (please see the Green Hydrogen Mission and related news), they have the transportation bits figured out?

The logistics is not "impossible" in that sense; after all if you need hydrogen you need hydrogen. But the basic physics makes it economically infeasible. It is like this proposal where instead of using coke for steel industry some one proposes diamond (which by the way is planned to be produced from charcoal by pressurising). Is it possible to use diamond for making steel? Most Likely. Will it make sense ? No.

Complete overhaul of grid is not such a difficult thing which by the way we anyway have to do. All the technology exists. The expertise exists. Laying down large cables probably is simpler than building express ways. And most importantly, electricity is rather trivial to produce locally.

Again I say, the primary purpose of H2 is not transportation - we anyways need this industry.

Completely agree no disagreement.

Now coming to your point "limited power which could've gone to the houses of poor rather than rich man's EQS" - you are absolutely right, but only theoretically. If only all the wealth in the world could be more equitably utilized, right? However, all the billions of private capital currently earmarked for development of green hydrogen plants and corresponding renewable energy plants (to feed the green hydrogen plants) would very possibly not be available merely for development of more renewable energy plants alone, for the poor man or for the EVs. We cannot direct private capital to go where we want it. Business decides. You cannot, for example, go to JICA and say, kind sirs, instead of giving us a low interest loan of twenty-thousand crore rupees to build the Mumbai-Ahmedabad bullet train, we will use the money to upgrade other train infrastructure to better serve some existing sectors since the money is better utilized that way - they will simply say no, go find your capital elsewhere.

Now you are making a very different point. You are saying that some how H2 will attract more investment and it is easier to attract investment by saying FCEV instead of BEV. I have not expertise in this but a technological dead end might attract investment from half literate venture capitalists but eventually the market forces will kill them.

May be oil companies are willing to invest in them, and I will not be surprised. They might earmark a portion of their advertisement/lobbying aka bribing budget any way to make a Technological demonstration green hydrogen fueling station. They have no real intention of producing green hydrogen in industrial scale.

Also finally why do you think private players will not be interested in setting up charging infrastructure (in fact we already seen private players with very small pockets like Zeon doing extremely well)

Again, my assumption was never that it is FCEV vs EV that we are calculating the overall power requirement of FCEV vs EVs, just that FCEVs might find practical uses better than EVs. It may not be feasible for the government to upgrade grid infrastructure everywhere, like dense forests, mountains and what not. The army may never want to use EVs. You may not be able to upgrade every farmer's electricity load enough to run EV tractors. FCEV's could help ease the load on the grid in certain usage scenarios, all without compromising emissions goals. It is certainly not unfathomable to me.

Here is another possibility. Dense forest and other such tricky places can be better served by CNG (mostly methane). Now you may ask where does the CNG come from. Yes the oil companies. Why is this promising to an electric advocate like me?


1. Other than oil wells we have another source for methane. Waste treatment. We any way have to treat the waste and even untreated waste emits methane a gas that is much worse than C02 when it comes to green house effect. So something needs to be done for this emission.

2. Unlike hydrogen, local production is easy particularly in farming and agricultural setting. Bio gas plants simple and effective technology

3. Methane as a gas is much easier to handle than hydrogen and we already have CNG technology.

4. If we are to produce hydrogen we would any way be producing it from CNG (Blue hydrogen). Might as well use the CNG directly for fueling.

Again, am I advocating CNG instead of EV ? No. but if we have some difficult to electrify sectors, there might be a not so clean option like CNG which needs to be offsetted by other means (better management of forests, grass lands better agricultural practices and waste management).

[Fiero]

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

Why jump from topic to topic, it really confuses me, lets first sort out H2 cost issues.

Yes, EVs were a joke 15years ago, but still they ran at 1₹/km, not 30₹/km, can be recharged at home, EV warriors know that the battery chemistry can be engineered and evolve over the years.

Right. And the batteries used to cost so much that even if you paid people a few bucks/km to drive it they wouldn't buy it. Even now, EVs sold in India would be too expensive to buy without tax breaks. How does 1₹/km matter if total cost of ownership is significantly more? No EV truck is cost competitive with diesel trucks today. In the US this will take till 2030 to happen. Should we stop investing?

I don't think I am digressing on anything. My previous posts (and the links I've posted) are clear that FCEVs will not be cost competitive with EVs in the forseeable future. However, my 2035 they will be cost competitive with diesel (and who knows even with EVs if we see a price drop in green hydrogen/fuel cells more than anticipated) and are for certain applications only.

Yes, it is insurmountable because as I said before, you need 16 tankers instead of 1 petrol tanker for same energy, you need 16 ships instead of 1 ship. Hydrogen molecule can escape from pipelines, maintenance is a difficult task, it is far easier to transport energy through national grid.

The govt has announced 3 ports to ship hydrogen, from the scientists I follow on X(twitter) it is extremely stupid to ship H2 as a gas. You can say these scientists are also EV warriors, but they only follow science.

Tell that to the companies investing hundreds of billions into green hydrogen, and the US, Chinese and Indian governments. Will be a revelation to them, as it is to me !

I think we are only discussing about transportation, why again bring industry, no one disputed about need to change from grey to green H2 for certain industries.

Like I've said before, no one is building green hydrogen plants just to fuel FCEVs. Its only a part of the total demand, which is why it makes any sense to begin with.

https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/poli...nt/2-1-1386618

https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/d...nTransport.pdf

Some more useful links, recognizing the challenges in transportation, but nonetheless pushing through. The US government has said FCEV has significant long term potential in long haul applications. The Chinese government is set to invest US 17 billion in green hydrogen/FCEV this year. The number of fools running the world I tell you, despite the several tweets by the experts !

[Fiero]

Originally Posted by electric_eel

May be worth reading and watching the documentary to see what kind of joke EVs were
about 15 years ago and who the joke was played on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Ki...lectric_Car%3F

See also section on hydrogen Fuel cell cars. Many of us feel this is the same trick that is being played again. Because the companies and the people who bring in hydrogen for mobility seem to be the same crowd, oil and gas industry, who have no intention of producing green hydrogen (an expensive affair) but blue hydrogen (which is essentially grey hydrogen with enough spin called emission capture) always saying that it is a stop gap for eventual clean green hydrogen.

Lol, yes. There are three sides, folks on the green group, folks on the oil group, and the folks who funds both sides !

Now you are making a very different point. You are saying that some how H2 will attract more investment and it is easier to attract investment by saying FCEV instead of BEV. I have not expertise in this but a technological dead end might attract investment from half literate venture capitalists but eventually the market forces will kill them.

May be oil companies are willing to invest in them, and I will not be surprised. They might earmark a portion of their advertisement/lobbying aka bribing budget any way to make a Technological demonstration green hydrogen fueling station. They have no real intention of producing green hydrogen in industrial scale.

I am very surprised even crony capitalism is risking this kind of capital on it, at least on green hydrogen. Lets wait and watch if green turns blue in India.

Also finally why do you think private players will not be interested in setting up charging infrastructure (in fact we already seen private players with very small pockets like Zeon doing extremely well)

Very much, but this is a very different crowd. All the capital earmarked for hydrogen (perhaps the oil barrens) will not necessarily come here and invest in charging infrastructure.

Here is another possibility. Dense forest and other such tricky places can be better served by CNG (mostly methane). Now you may ask where does the CNG come from. Yes the oil companies. Why is this promising to an electric advocate like me?

Fully agree. We don't need to go into maniac mode and ban anything. As long as we manage significant emissions reduction and clean up the air in the cities, go on using ICE petrol/diesel for certain applications for a couple of decades where electrification is difficult. Probably the cheapest option as well.

Separately, found an interesting article on Hyundai's plans: https://www.wapcar.my/news/bev-vs-fc...re-wrong-33296

[SKC-auto]

Originally Posted by Fiero

No EV truck is cost competitive with diesel trucks today. In the US this will take till 2030 to happen. Should we stop investing?

Do you have any data to claim this? I am sure many BEV trucks have reached(or crossed) TCO parity to diesel trucks. First the cars reached parity now the trucks reaching parity. H2 trucks are costly to buy, costly to run, costly to maintain. T & E says FCEV trucks to reach cost parity with diesels in 2040.

However, my 2035 they will be cost competitive with diesel (and who knows even with EVs if we see a price drop in green hydrogen/fuel cells more than anticipated) and are for certain applications onlytcompanies

EV tech is no sitting duck, also as someone pointed above, to generate 1kg of H2 you need 50kwh of electricity, IIRC even at 100% electrolyser effeciency you need 39kwh of electricity. You cannot reduce cost without using cheap electricity.

There is no perpetual energy generation, you need to always follow thermodynamic laws, "energy can neither be created or destroyed, but can only be converted from one form to another".

Tell that to the companies investing hundreds of billions into green hydrogen, and the US, Chinese and Indian governments. Will be a revelation to them, as it is to me !

That's not my job, I dont know why it is a revelation, look around show me a company which became successfull investing in H2 for transport. Billions only spent to convert grey to green H2, some very little investment goes to H2 transport.

There are several thousands of BEV trucks sold today compared to few thousands of FCEV trucks, I am sure it is going to be a revelation for those H2 truck owners.

Like I've said before, no one is building green hydrogen plants just to fuel FCEVs. Its only a part of the total demand, which is why it makes any sense to begin with.

Green H2 plants built next to industries which use them is a good approach, its incredibly stupid to transport to fuel pumps. Building electrolysers at fuel pumps may seem a better idea, but every station will become prohibitively expensive.

The Chinese government is set to invest US 17 billion in green hydrogen/FCEV this year. The number of fools running the world I tell you, despite the several tweets by the experts !

I will believe when I see them, mere talk will not do.
Below is Chinese EV and FCEV truck sales.

[Fiero]

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

Do you have any data to claim this? I am sure many BEV trucks have reached(or crossed) TCO parity to diesel trucks. First the cars reached parity now the trucks reaching parity. H2 trucks are costly to buy, costly to run, costly to maintain. T & E says FCEV trucks to reach cost parity with diesels in 2040 and the EV tech is no sitting duck, also as someone pointed above, to generate 1kg of H2 you need 50kwh of electricity, IIRC even at 100% electrolyser effeciency you need 39kwh of electricity. You cannot reduce cost without using cheap electricity.

There is no perpetual energy generation, you need to always follow thermodynamic laws, "energy can neither be created or destroyed, but can only be converted from one form to another".

Yes, the ICCT link and the wapcar link (which has Hyundai's take on this) posted earlier are both very interesting and on point on this. A very thorough study of US states suggests that only by 2030 will EV trucks have price parity with diesels.

That's not my job, I don't know why it is a revelation, look around show me a company which became successful investing in H2 for transport. Billions only spent to convert grey to green H2, some very little investment goes to H2 transport.

Good, because several companies would be out of business ! Especially the poor fools at Hyundai who are planning 500,000 FCEV vehicles per annum by 2030 https://www.hyundai.news/eu/articles...sion-2030.html. Toyota too https://mag.toyota.co.uk/toyota-help...hydrogen-fuel/. If only they had Elon Musk, they would understand thermodynamics better. Or maybe, life isn't just a math problem. There are limits and challenges to being 'carbon neutral' just with EVs. How does extra power consumption matter anyways if its 'renewable' and paid for by the H2 industry who would not otherwise fund power plants? If I run my household on a solar panel I have installed, I don't need to go out of my way to buy 5 star rated appliances every 5 years, do I?

There are several thousands of BEV trucks sold today compared to few thousands of FCEV trucks, I am sure it is going to be a revelation for those H2 truck owners.

Right, and there are millions of ICE trucks and only thousands of EVs. Lol. Doesn't in itself prove anything.

Green H2 plants built next to industries which use them is a good approach, its incredibly stupid to transport to fuel pumps. Building electrolysers at fuel pumps may seem a better idea, but every station will become prohibitively expensive.

Agreed, that it is impractical and expensive. Each Hydrogen Filling station costs US 1 million as opposed to USD 0.2 million for a 350 KW charger. But no reason this won't go down.

I will believe when I see them, mere talk will not do.
Below is Chinese EV and FCEV truck sales.

The Koreans, Japanese and the Chinese automotive industry disagree on this with the European and the American automotive industry. Interesting. Looks like this time perhaps the Asians are out to fool us for a change, whereas the Americans want to save the world !

Anyways, no one is trying to claim FCEVs are BETTER than EVs or trying to compete for 50% market share, but will have their place. You may have whatever last word you want to have. The future is near. We will all know anyways whether the east or the west has the last laugh on this.

[SKC-auto]

Originally Posted by Fiero

Good, because several companies would be out of business !

Who would have guessed Nokia, Kodak, Blockbuster .

Did we not hear Toyota saying H2 is the future for cars until recently, now you seem to disagree with Toyota and Hyundai, as you now believe FCEVs do not work for cars, is Toyota lied to you?

Right, and there are millions of ICE trucks and only thousands of EVs. Lol. Doesn't in itself prove anything.

Irrelevant, we are in the midst of transition. As said before FCEVs are not a new tech, they started before EVs were a joke, they still are a joke.

The Koreans, Japanese and the Chinese automotive industry disagree on this with the European and the American automotive industry. Interesting. Looks like this time perhaps the Asians are out to fool us for a change, whereas the Americans want to save the world !

Anyways, no one is trying to claim FCEVs are BETTER than EVs or trying to compete for 50% market share, but will have their place. You may have whatever last word you want to have. The future is near. We will all know anyways whether the east or the west has the last laugh on this.

Fact - The Koreans, Japanese and Chinese(see graph above) are selling more BEVs than FCEVs, which includes cars, buses and trucks. The east and west are on the same side.

Someone said on internet, "The price of flour(electricity) will always be lower than price of the Cake(H2)", no amount of engineering can change this fact.