Graphene Could Lower The Cost Of Renewable Hydrogen For FCEVs

Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News!

We’ve been calling graphene the nanomaterial of the new millennium, and among its many superpowers it looks like this ultra thin material with unique electronic properties could help lower the cost of renewable hydrogen fuel.

That’s great news for fans of hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs). With lower process costs, you could see more hydrogen fuel stations powered by on site renewable energy, and the way would also be cleared for large scale power-to-gas systems driven by solar, wind or even tidal energy.

graphene hydrogen catalyst

The Graphene Solution For Low Cost Hydrogen

Graphene is a sheet of carbon just one atom thick. Structurally it looks like chickenwire, and its unique electronic properties are tailor-made for application to renewable energy.

Somewhat ironically the new graphene-enabled catalyst, which could hasten the demise of petroleum fuel, comes straight out of Texas in a collaboration led by the lab of James Tour at Rice University, with the University of Texas at San Antonio and the University of Houston, along with the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

To get the significance of the new graphene catalyst, it’s helpful to recall that the active sites on a catalyst are at the surface, so the idea is to get the most action out of a material by increasing the ratio of surface to interior.

As Tour describes it, even when you get down to nanoscale particles, you wind up with a lot of interior atoms that “never do anything.” By introducing atom-thin graphene to the mix, the research team ended up with a material in which virtually all of the atoms driving the catalytic action are exposed.

Here’s a video showing the new material in action:

The new catalytic material is a blend of cobalt and graphene, which the team created by heating graphene oxide and cobalt salts. The study appears in the journal Nature under the title, “Atomic cobalt on nitrogen-doped graphene for hydrogen generation.”

In the introduction to the study, the research team makes it clear that the key to a sustainable hydrogen economy is the use of low cost, earth-abundant materials as catalysts for water-splitting. Platinum is the catalyst of choice today due to its high efficiency, but the tradeoff is cost.

Cobalt is one material that has caught the eye of researchers as a cheap substitute for platinum. The problem is its low efficiency as a catalyst, meaning there are too many interior atoms doing nothing. The solution is to disperse it on a substrate so that more atoms are exposed.

Graphene has been widely used in catalytic research for just such a purpose, but on a nanoparticle level rather than an atomic level. To dig down to the atoms — and to get your advanced catalytic material out of the lab and into the market — you need an efficient, low cost, scalable process for achieving the dispersion:

Here, we report an inexpensive, concise and scalable method to disperse the earth-abundant metal, cobalt, onto nitrogen-doped graphene (denoted as Co-NG) by simply heat-treating graphene oxide (GO) and small amounts of cobalt salts in a gaseous NH3 atmosphere. These small amounts of cobalt atoms, coordinated to nitrogen atoms on the graphene, can work as extraordinary catalysts towards HER [hydrogen evolution reaction] in both acidic and basic water.

So. There.

Renewable Hydrogen And The Texas Connection

We’re more familiar with Rice University for its extensive graphene research for clean energy and energy storage applications as well as graphene’s “cousin” molybdenum, but last spring we also happened across a cobalt-based catalyst for renewable hydrogen under development by the Tour lab and its collaborators.

That iteration of the catalyst consisted of a thin cobalt-phosphate film, with the advantage of producing recoverable oxygen as well as hydrogen.

Rice University is also behind another approach to low cost, renewable hydrogen production that involves capturing high-energy electrons before they have a chance to cool down.

As we mentioned earlier it’s somewhat ironic that Texas, America’s icon of fossil fuel production, is now staking out a claim to renewable energy leadership.

Graphene research and low cost hydrogen production are just two of the latest examples. Texas is also a wind energy leader, thanks partly to its investment in the billion-dollar CREZ wind energy transmission line.

The state has been breaking its own wind-generated electricity records. Just yesterday the San Antonio Express-News noted the latest mark under the headline, “Texas blows away wind power record.”

At 12:30 am Thursday, the main Texas grid operator reported that nearly 37 percent of demand was met with wind power. The Electricity Reliability Council of Texas, which manages nearly 90 percent of the state’s electric needs, said it used 12,237.6 megawatts of wind power at the time. That bested a previous record set on Sept. 13 of 11,467 megawatts.

Do read the full article for the scoop on Texas’s wind energy leadership.

Meanwhile the state has also been sharing the love with its solar energy resources, the latest development in that regard being a new utility scale solar-plus-storage system aimed at increasing grid reliability for the state’s notorious “electricity island.”

Follow me on Twitter and Google+.

Image (screenshot): YouTube via Tour Lab, Rice University, “a new catalyst made of nitrogen-doped graphene and cobalt atoms drawing hydrogen from water.”

Have a tip for CleanTechnica? Want to advertise? Want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.

CleanTechnica Holiday Wish Book

Holiday Wish Book Cover

Click to download.

Our Latest EVObsession Video

I don't like paywalls. You don't like paywalls. Who likes paywalls? Here at CleanTechnica, we implemented a limited paywall for a while, but it always felt wrong — and it was always tough to decide what we should put behind there. In theory, your most exclusive and best content goes behind a paywall. But then fewer people read it!! So, we've decided to completely nix paywalls here at CleanTechnica. But...
Like other media companies, we need reader support! If you support us, please chip in a bit monthly to help our team write, edit, and publish 15 cleantech stories a day!
Thank you!

CleanTechnica uses affiliate links. See our policy here.

Tina Casey

Tina specializes in advanced energy technology, military sustainability, emerging materials, biofuels, ESG and related policy and political matters. Views expressed are her own. Follow her on LinkedIn, Threads, or Bluesky.

Tina Casey has 3140 posts and counting. See all posts by Tina Casey

197 thoughts on “Graphene Could Lower The Cost Of Renewable Hydrogen For FCEVs

  • Looks like Texas are really covering all the bases!

    Sorry Tina, The San Antonio Express-News article is behind a paywall – Do you have another link?

  • The problem with treating graphene as the white knight to rescue FCEVs is that you can easily find similar lab reports of whizzo schemes using graphene to soup up solar PV. Super materials will not overcome the structural handicaps of FCEVs versus BEVs.

    I invite Tina to stop reporting on advances in hydrogen catalysis always in terms of FCEVs. These have become a decreasingly likely path to large-scale deployment of hydrogen energy compared to P2G, synfuels and heavy transport like ships.

    • I read a similar article on Daily Science.
      I enjoy reading about the latest developments in science.
      I enjoy reading Tina’s articles.
      If it disturbs you, I recommend you not read these articles.
      Don’t you worry about scaring old Mr. Hydrogen.

      • You miss my point. Like you I appreciate Tina’s reporting on hydrogen, but it’s not about FCEVs.

        • How do you know? Are you a time traveler returning with exciting news about how all this works out? Do the Mets win the Series?

          Anything on this site that isn’t a press release about a new PV installation is speculative. FCEVs are as speculative as 100% of all cars being battery run.

          • The existence of the Toyota Mirai is not speculative. That the research from Rice will apply to them could well be. Though I can’t say it’s a mortal sin to say attempts to improve FCEV clean fueling costs are not part of the long term big picture view of the story.

          • True – the Mirai itself and the Honda equivalent are not speculative in the sense that they do exist. So are BEVs in the sense they have negligible market share, though they obviously hold a lot of promise.

            I would say that what part of the overall solution to the GHG problem they provide is speculative. I think they are being promoted way too early, but what do I know?

            It may be part of a grand long term scheme to establish some sort of market feed-back from those very, very early adopters.

            Personally, i think a BE/FCV hybrid is the most likely long term outcome with the battery providing the regen capabilities and the quick response, while the FC part provides extended range.

          • You don’t suspect that combining two of the most expensive drive trains available, for light vehicles, into a passenger car offering may take quite a bit of time to become economical to mass produce?

          • Quite a bit of time. Probably on the order of 20 years.

            I agree with all the major auto makers. BEVs will be necessary for the next 15-20 years by which time FCs will be ready to replace the ICE for PHEVs.

            “If you have a fuel cell car, you have a longer range between visits to the gas station; but if you plug in at home, you never have to go to the gas station at all,” said Don Anair of the Union of Concerned Scientists. “It’s not an either-or proposition. It’s a both-and proposition.”


          • Even PHEVs are not economically sustainable cars. How on Earth you can think that hydrogen hybrid cars could ever have economic sustainability?

            Please note that if we have cheap and sustainable source for hydrogen, it is very cheap to make synthetic gasoline from that hydrogen and use that synthetic gasoline for range extender.

            Therefore plug-in hybrids that run on synthetic gasoline are always going to be more affordable than hydrogen cars.

            But of course even plug-in hybrids cannot compete with electric cars, because large EV battery provides enough revenue even if it is not used for driving more than 40 miles at a time, but it extra capacity is only used for smart grid balancing.

            Therefore no matter how you look it, the economics are impossible for hydrogen cars. Even if we assume that hydrogen is free and fuel cells are free and lasts forever.

          • Sure you didn’t miss something? You can’t *really* be absolutely sure until it all plays out and we can all see what were the deciding factors.

            If what you say is true then BEVs will win and FCEVs won’t. When BEVs get to 10% market share – vs. less than 1% market share now – your arguments will have more credibility.

          • Promoted too early?

            We need greater sales volume to help drive down costs. Promote heavily.

          • You’re dangerously too close to making sense with far too much frequency. Beware, this site has a mob which often swarms upon open minded views towards yet to be defined futures.

          • Thanks for the compliment. I have observed positions move to a more reasonable middle, with a few exceptions. No one would actually *admit* to modifying their opinions, but still…

          • the problem is the we do not want fuel cell cars, because they are worse than comparable gasoline cars. If fuel cell cars cannot compete even with gasoline cars. How on Earth they could compete with electric cars that are inherently better cars than gasoline cars?

          • If no one wants them then they won’t sell. If everyone wants BEVs then they *will* sell.

            It is called the free market.

    • Not going to happen. Tina’s hydrogen articles get some of the most lengthy discussions / flame wars on this site. The intended surge in page views as people come back to check on things and comment probably runs like clockwork, so CT is not going to stop putting her articles up.

      • I wish it were confined to technical issues. Jeffhre quoted it in which it said current density rose quickly. That’s not good.mI would like to discuss the effective series voltage and resistance.

    • methinks Tina is shill for the natural gas industry

      • How can you say that when all her FC related articles pertain to water-splitting, not natural gas?

      • Keep that thought to yourself.

    • I’m not sure this is a white knight for catalysis of hydrogen. If the problem is the cost of energy inputs, which was addressed by cobalt, then the material cost savings would only be for the catalyst. Leading back to…what are the efficiency gains from the process developed at Rice?

      “As expected, the Pt/C exhibits superior HER catalytic activity with a near zero onset η. The Co-NG catalyst shows excellent HER activity, as evidenced by the very small onset η of ~30 mV (inset in Fig. 4a), beyond which the current density increases sharply.”

      How much more efficient will the cobalt – nitrogen doped graphene be than using cobalt?

      • jeffhre – some might not get the implication of your quote. The increase in resistance and current density limits of today’s electrolysis make the process inefficient.
        Your question is same as mine. What’s the efficiency. Current density increasing sharply is not desired is it?

    • I think you meant to say … Increasingly Un likely.. ?
      My analysis of electrolysis is that there are inherent inefficiencies not easily overcome.
      The references I read say the internal voltage drops and resistance block hydrolysis improvements and they are innate.
      That’s why I agree it doesn’t match well for transport. What with all the other inefficiencies it loses to alternatives. It may compete in heating.

      • “..there are inherent efficiencies..” There is a major hole in the hydrolysis process that is inescapable – most of the energy must be added to restore the oxygen double bond, as this was the primary source of combustion energy in the first place. All that energy used in a shuttle liftoff came mostly from that double bond and it must all be restored. Discussions of improved efficiency are actually discussions of the extra losses incurred to restore the combustion energy. If it was possible to somehow reduce this large fundamental bond energy, the process would be the equivalent of a perpetual motion machine.

        • Yes, Well, sort of. Everything has its gotchas. Efficiency is the game.

          Electricity -> hydrogen
          In electrolysis, electrical energy becomes heat and is lost. Most of the losses in processes are due to not completely converting from one form to another.

          And in the reverse reaction,

          hydrogen -> electricy

          There are also losses.

          But that does not even include the transport of the electricity or hydrogen , and the compression and expansion of the hydrogen.

          What we are dealing with here, as in electricity production, is various forms of energy. The chemical equations also reflect enthalpy and entropy, terms which are confusing. If something converts to a gas, its more random, so the state has less energy, for example. The Nernst equation reflects the exchange between pressure, volume, and temperature. Heat is a form of energy as well.

          The more the transformations, the more the loss. Better to keep the transformations to a minimum and use ones that maximize conversion to only one from of energy if possible for efficiency.

          • What you say is true, but you may be missing my point. It’s like thinking that climbing a mountain would be a whole lot easier if you only had a better pair of shoes. There is an irreducible energy that you must supply to get from down here to up there and discussions of hydrolysis efficiency often seem to miss that fact.

          • Right on, right on, groovy baby. What I’m sayin. Yes. Throw some meat into it and start talking tech. Read that paper I sourced. It’s pretty readable. Anybody know a good chemist? Not the apothecary kind.

          • You are looking at it as if all energies cost the same. What if electrical energy is essentially free? Then convenience may be more important. And which convenience is more important – the convenience of refueling in a few minutes or the convenience of “just plugging in”.

            You are also looking at it as if batteries last forever. What is the cost of making and recycling batteries?

            The more you look at it, the more complicated it becomes and the wisest course is to give up trying to guess the future and see what the free market says.

            I am not arguing against FCs or BEVs, but *for* a “let the better tech win” agnosticism.

          • It will still take 2x to 3x as much “essentially free” electricity to power a FCEV as an EV. Add in the infrastructure to turn water into H2 and get it into your tank.

            And there’s simply not going to be enough “essentially free” electricity created by grid overbuilding in order to meet regular electricity demand. The extra electricity generation needed for EVs/FCEVs will have to be purposely built. Do we build 1x for EVs or up to 3x for FCEVs?

            FCEVs are less convenient than EVs. Every few days you have to take time out of what you are doing and drive to a filling station to get more H2.

            Batteries/EVs. are on route to becoming less expensive than ICEs/ICEVs. It’s unclear if FCEVs can become that inexpensive. Especially if, as Toyota states, that sales will have to reach 100,000 per year to create economy of scale.

            Who’s going to buy the hundreds of thousands of expensive FCEVs that would have to be sold while working up the “100,000 sale year”?

            Let the better tech should be the guiding principle. But that does not mean we should ignore the unsolved problems with a given technology.

          • Everything you say is speculative. Let it all play out in its own way. The future is unpredictable.

          • Future is not that unpredictable. we can assume the best possible case for hydrogen cars and current case for electric cars, and electric cars will win hands down hydrogen cars. The best possible case for hydrogen cars has hard time even to compete modern gasoline cars.

            Therefore, it is just do you uncritically accept the fud from Toyota, Volkswagen and oil companies. Due to recent fud-scandals by oil companies and VW, I would say that it is very likely that the lobbying of hydrogen cars by Toyota and VW is not that honest.

          • Let the market decide.
            Ultimately BEV will have to be competitive with ICE.

          • Electric cars are already competitive. And markets are bad with new technology, because markets abhors change and they want conserve status quo. Besides there are no free markets. E.g. German car industry is just an extension of German government. The amount of stranded assets in car industry is so enormous that there is zero chance for VW to survive the electrification of transportation without bailout.

          • In the US BEVs seem to require about $10,000 incentives. I don’t call that competitive.

          • If FCEVs won’t sell then what is your concern? I see no indication anyone here is accepting anything any car maker projects.

          • Because hydrogen cars are used as a decoy to divert R&D spendings away from electric cars. Today only Tesla is investing on electric cars. Although it has been shown in numerous occasions that electric cars are not only better cars but they are also cheaper cars compared to gasoline cars. Levelized cost of battery + electricity is lower than the cost of gasoline + maintenance.

            It is just that Toyota and VW has so much stranded assets that it is impossible for them to make the transition to electric cars without deep bankruptcy and bailout. Therefore expect that VW is in bankruptcy within five years.

          • Everyone is investing in electric cars. Spark EV, plug-in hybrids from GM, Ford, Toyota, BMW i3, VW eGolf, the list goes on and on.

            Many are also looking at fuel cells. Toyota has been doing both for many years.

            Electric cars are at 1% of market share and struggling. There is no shortage of PHEVs at any Ford or GM dealer, and plenty of Leafs and Spark EVs sitting around waiting for buyers. Yet you and others act as if they are at 50% market share and everyone wants one.

            No one is buying EVs except some early adopter eco-hipsters. BEVs aren’t there yet. Look around you.

          • in the US sales of all plug-in EVs was 0.72% of total sales. That is the biggest segment of your graph. And it is all subsidized.

            Get back to me when a PEV hits the top 10 in sales in the US unsubsidized.

          • It has been stated that in technology adoption the 1st 1% of the market is not only the most difficult to acquire but has the most steps to achieve. Even more than all the rest of the pathway to 100% of the market. Not only are plug ins closing rapidly in on 1%, but we know that electric scooters, utility vehicles, NEVs, eBikes, eMotorcycles, etc are selling by the hundreds of millions globally. Look around you. Objectively, who is buying FCEVs?

            Who will be buying FCEVs – when establishing a fueling network in just Los Angeles, would cost enough to establish a dense network of high speed EV chargers – globally?

          • You’re looking at the moment. I am looking 20 years out. The logistic curve predicts a rapid growth up to about 50% market saturation at which point things slow considerably. But there is no guarantee that market saturation is 100% of all vehicles. Market saturation might be 80% of all vehicles or 50% or 20%. No one knows.

            As for: “It has been stated that in technology adoption the 1st 1% of the market is not only the most difficult to acquire ..” Do you have some reference for that statement? My impression is the very earliest sales are the easiest because a certain number of people or companies are willing to try things out (early adopters).

          • Ultimately there might not be 2% saturation. That has no effect on existing trajectories until and unless market choices are revealed that stop demand at 2%, it’s a wonderful academic question. And anyone can ignore the existing price and demand curves. That doesn’t make it accurate though. So please do look 20 years out.

          • You’re blowing smoke, Michael.

            Plot the curve that is based on EVs becoming cheaper to purchase than ICEVs (pretty much guaranteed). Include almost 100% of all drivers having a place to charge where they normally park (work or home). And a very extensive network of rapid chargers for long trips and those who don’t have an outlet where they park.

            Plot with the cost of electricity for charging being less than average retail electricity costs. Utilities are likely to charge less for off peak charging and even less for drivers who allow the utilities to use their car batteries as dispatchable loads.

            ” there is no guarantee that market saturation is 100% of all vehicles”

            As a new technology reaches market saturation it becomes harder to maintain the older technology. As ICEVs lose market share companies will spend less to no money on advancing the technology. No new engine designs will be marketed, the R&D wouldn’t be recovered. It will become harder to find fuel and repair shops.

            The only way ICEVs will survive once EVs pass 80% or so of the market is if there is some significant use niche which EVs cannot serve.

            If there’s some remote destination which can only be reached using liquid fuels in the future look for transportation being “50 year old” vehicles kept running by cannibalizing parts off junked vehicles and fueled with something like biofuel shipped in by the drum.

            Know any company still making film SLRs? I don’t. I think you can still purchase some new ones that were made years ago and have been sitting in warehouses, but no freshly made ones.

          • The energy required to break the bond between oxygen and hydrogen in water is speculative.

            You heard it here first, folks.

            The laws of physics are unpredictable.

            OK, let’s all sit back and watch how magic determines our future.

          • No, it’s not. There is no unsubsidised path to commercial FCEVs. Taxpayers have subsidised the initial expansion of BEVs and PHEVs to the first million, just as German ratepayers subsidised the first 30 GW of solar pv panels. It will be much harder to persuade them to repeat the exercise for any competing technology. The first mover gets it, unless the technology is fundamentally unsound like corn ethanol or nuclear power.

          • You would have a lot more credibility if BEVs were more than 1% of market share and were unsubsidized.

            Why are you unwilling to let it play out in its own way? Which it will you do regardless of what you want or don’t want.

          • “first mover gets it” – which is why diesel engines never replaced steam engines? Or cars never replaced horses? Or telephone never replaced telegraph? How’s the Stanley Steamer doing these days? Got a good review from “Car And Driver”??

            Maybe you meant better technology replaces inferior technology? Which is pretty much indisputable. Is “B/FC hybrid EV” a better tech? I’m willing to let the competing and complementary technologies evolve and let the market decide – why aren’t you?

            And give it time. Coal and wood burning engines reigned supreme for a very long time before diesel took over. The first marine diesel engine was 1922. It took until the 1950’s before diesel ships had over 50% of the market. In rail transport, 100% dieselisation took about 40 years.


            (Picture is of a 1908 Stanley Steamer)

          • First mover replaces the technology in place.

            Jeez, Michael…..

          • And the free market says buy a model s. Jeez Michael. Seriously. What r u smokin? Bolt and Model 3 are around the corner. Don’t act like this is speculation or technical wizardry. We are past that for EVs. Trying to guess. Stop trying, start reading. Bolts a comin.

          • I’m looking 20 years out. The Bolt is not going to replace any of the top 10 selling vehicles in the US.

          • But what about the model 3? That one has tremendous potential if tesla can keep scaling up.

          • You are looking at the future which is fine, and it may herald the end of the ICE, along with the Bolt and Volt, and others. But it may not.

            Can we wait until BEVs replace ICEs before pronouncing them the obvious victor?

            At the moment, the only thing we really *know* is that BEVs have less than 1% market share.

          • I’m not trying to say that battery electrics will be the victor with 100% certainty. I’m just trying to say that BEVs have a lot more potential to win out.

            I don’t know why you’re so dead set against us trying to figure out which technology has a much better chance, but if you really think it’s worthless to anyone and compare the technologies and address their potential, then why don’t you leave and let the rest of us discuss this? I can’t see why you’re so dead set against us trying to figure out which technology will likely win out. It can be very helpful to debate new technologies. I’ve learned things I never would have known if not for these debates.

            If you’re so caught up on looking at the market share of BEVs, then why don’t we look at the market share of fuel cells? What is that? 0.00001%? Less?

          • I’m all for debate. Which sets me apart from some here who don’t even want information about FCEVs published, much less discussed.

            I am not arguing against debate at all. I am arguing against the attempt at closing OFF debate by those who feel the future is already known. I claim it is unknown, that it is too early in the technology to determine what the FF-free market will look like, and until we get a better picture of it, it is best to keep all options open – including FCEVs.

            If you really want to learn about batteries try Battery University at


            If you are asking for my opinion. I think the model 3 will sell well, and that in fact, BEVs will continue to grow rapidly in sales up to a point (maybe 10% market share, maybe 30%) at which it will get much harder to gain market share. Batteries have inherent limitations in terms of energy density, charging options, battery degradation, and weight. Whether those will be overcome later is too early to tell right now.

            The chart shows that at low range, batteries and EVs are about the same, but at higher ranges, the low energy density in batteries means weight becomes a serious limitation. No one is seriously talking about battery-powered transoceanic shipping, or long haul trucking.


          • Luckily, I never once tried to close off the debate and I certainly didn’t do so in this thread. That’s simply you misrepresenting/misinterpreting what I have said. There are certainly a few people here who don’t even want fuel cell developments published, but I don’t think it’s as many people as you seem to think it is. Please be careful that you aren’t misinterpreting people or putting words in their mouth.

            I personally believe that fuel cells have a crucial role to play in all of this eventually. I just do not believe it will be in the consumer vehicle market where Toyota and a few of the commentators here think it will be.

          • I wasn’t referring to you as wanting to close off discussion. I was referring to those others you mentioned.

            I am sure you are correct in that Fuel Cells will play an important part of the future. Whether it is FC/BEVs we won’t know for a while. The auto cos. all project a PHEV conversion first followed by a joining of the techs into a PHEV with FC replacing the ICE. Maybe they are right.

            I looked at a 2016 Volt yesterday. It is a very nice car and if I were about to buy a car it would be high on my list. It is small though – more cramped in the back than a Civic. My only interest in it is that it is PHEV. I wouldn’t even consider it if it were an ICE.

            If I buy one like it soon, I would have to hold onto my 22 MPG 1995 minivan for picking up and dropping off anything other than groceries. And that is currently the problem with the current (heavily subsidized) BEVs. The battery tech is not there to build a car that most Americans want. Look at the top ten selling vehicles in the US. 3 trucks, 3 SUVs, Camry, Accord, Corolla, Civic. BEVs can’t currently compete even with subsidies.

          • Your reply to my first comment certainly indicated you grouped me with those trying to pronounce a victor. You barely even touched on the question I asked.

            The battery tech is very rapidly getting there to build a car that Americans want. That was the whole point of asking your opinion on the model 3. It will have both a sedan and a crossover model.

            BEVs currently are competing very well in customer satisfaction surveys which shows that they are desirable vehicles amongst the people who have actually given them a chance. The volt had the highest customer satisfaction rating of all GM vehicles. The leaf is also doing quite well in customer satisfaction and we all know how much Tesla owners live their vehicles. The general public doesn’t know much about electric vehicles yet, but those who have looked into them have vastly liked what they see.

            Unfortunately, the misconceptions of the general public will have to be dealt with before you can expect to see an electric vehicle on the top ten. However, there are large economic factors that are preventing fuel cells from getting to the mass market. These are nothing that incremental change won’t take care of very soon for battery electrics based on previous trends.

          • I don’t know the dimensions of the model 3 but it will apparently be 20% smaller than a Model S.


            Seems like the size of a Chevy Volt. I suggest you go find a Chevy Volt (new or used), move the drivers seat to where you are comfortable and then sit in the passenger seat behind the drivers seat. It is manageable, but a bit claustrophobic. Check out the rear storage compartment. Groceries and not much else. Not going to fit the bunch of 2×4’s from Home Depot or the spare bed bought on Craigslist, or all a kid’s stuff when they move to college. A minivan, truck, or SUV will.

            The Chevy Volt or Ford Focus electric is fine for a daily commute car, but the best you can hope for in the “Top 20” selling vehicles in the US is to replace the Corolla and Civic. (Ha! Good luck with that!)


            You are basically looking at a Corolla/Civic class car for $35K (and up). Without govt. subsidies it is pretty much limited in appeal (after all the eco-hipsters get one), no matter how much leather and electronic goodies you pimp it up with. Which presents a paradox. if it is wildly successful, you will use up the limited number of tax rebates and then you have a $35K Civic.

            There will be a market for the Tesla 3. They may be back ordered for a while, but at some point to eliminate ICEs EVs have to replace Ford F-150s and Honda CR-Vs, Toyota Camrys and Honda Accords. I don’t see the Tesla 3 doing that, do you?

          • Michael, you are taking a PHEV and trying to say something meaningful about an EV.

            They are different beasts.

            Your anti-EV, anti-Tesla bias seems to cloud your thinking.

          • I was trying to estimate the interior size of a Tesla. You know them? I see Teslas go by every day. 20% smaller looks like Civic size.

          • You could just look up the specs on line.

            I just happened to have looked the interior specs for the S85 and Mercedes S550 a few minutes ago for a different purpose.

            Tesla S85

            Head room
            Front 38.8″
            Rear 35.3″

            Leg room
            Front 42.7″
            Rear 35.4″

            Shoulder room
            Front 57.7″
            Rear 55.0″

            Hip room
            Front 55.0″
            Rear 54.7″

            Seating capacity 5 adults

            Total cargo volume 31.6 cu ft

            Mercedes S550

            Head room
            Front 39.7”
            Rear 37.4”

            Leg room
            Front 41.4”
            Rear 34.1”

            Shoulder room
            Front 59.7”
            Rear 59.1”

            Hip room
            Front no data
            Rear no data

            Seating capacity 5 adults

            Total cargo volume 16.3 cu ft

          • And what I was really looking for at the time.-

            Tesla S85
            Curb weight 4,647.3 lbs

            Mercedes S550
            Curb weight 4,630 lbs

            The S55 sells for about $10k more than the S85

          • Fascinating. If the model 3 is 20% smaller as CleanTechnica said in May, then the Honda Fit will be roomier. In some dimensions (like total leg room) the Honda Fit is already roomier than the Model S:

            If CleanTechnica is to be believed, the Model 3 will be a small hatchback car, slightly smaller in size than a Honda Fit, slightly bigger than a Toyota Yaris. I am sure it will sell out.

            I’m not sure why you compared it to a Mercedes. Those are such ugly cars with such terrible repair records. I can’t understand why anyone would want one. Anyway, there aren’t any M-Bs in the top 20 for US sales so if BEVs are to replace ICEs you’ll have to find a better comparison.

            Tesla S:

          • I compared the Tesla S to the Mercedes S550 because someone was talking about how unusually heavy the Teslas were. I pulled rest of the data looking for size differences.

            As for the Tesla/Fit comparison, it depends on which dimensions one looks at. Both are larger in some ways, smaller in others.

          • OK, Michael, I did some more digging.

            The Tesla S is 77.3 inches wide. Shrink it by 20% and you get 61.8 inches. That’s 5.2 inches narrower than the Honda Fit.

            The Tesla is 196 inches long. Shrink it by 20% and you get 156.8 inches. That’s 0.8 inches longer than the Honda Fit.

            I’m guessing the Mod3 will shrink more in length than width.

            That tells us that the ModS can probably be shrunk 20% and still offer about the same passenger space as the S. What would shrink is the cargo space. The frunk would get smaller as would the rear cargo space. The Fit has only 52% as much cargo room as the ModS.

            Of course Cd would need to improve. The ModS has a Cd of 0.24 while the Fit’s is only 0.285.

            BTW, the Toyota Yaris is only a half inch shorter than the Fit. And it’s 66.7 inches wide while the Fit is 67 inches. Not any appreciable difference between those two cars in terms of outside dimensions.

          • Cargo Space:
            Seat Up:
            Fit = 16.6 Cu.Ft.,
            Mod S = 26.3 Cu. Ft. X 0.8 (Mod 3) = 21.04 = 127% of Fit
            Seat Down:
            Fit = 52.7 Cu.Ft.,
            Mod S = 58.1 Cu. Ft. X 0.8 (Mod 3) = 46.5 = 88% of Fit

            Add in the “frunk”, whatever size that will be, and the Fit is roughly comparable to (a guess of) the Mod 3.

            I like the Fit very much and it definitely holds it’s resale value, and the i3 seems to be selling well, so I am sure the Mod 3 will do well.

            It is too small to unseat the Camry or Accord from the top 20, and it’s too expensive to unseat the Civic or Corolla, so it will have it’s own niche.

          • I suppose Elon contacted you to tell you the Mod3 seat will not fold down like the Fit seat?

          • That’s kind of dumb since the Mod S apparently does. Why not?

          • The model 3 will supposedly be about the same length as a BMW 3 series.

          • Actually, I do see the model 3 being able to compete with some of the best selling cars out there in terms of sales. Tesla is all about showing that an electric car doesn’t have to be an “eco hipster” car as you say. Their current buyers definitely do not all fall into that crowd. I do think that they can change the public’s opinion on electrics over time. The volt wouldn’t be that small a car if you opened up the truck into a crossover shape and took the engine out of the front for more luggage room like tesla does.

            You’ll have to wait a bit longer for an electric truck, unless you want a custom one from VIA motors, but we’ll get there eventually. That may be the hardest market to get into because if the “manly man” attitude that is the reason many people (but certainly not all) buy trucks. However, the crossover version of the model 3 may do very well for people who want something bigger than a sedan. We don’t yet know enough details on the crossover version to make a good guess though.

            Food for thought: the average new car price this year is $33,560.

          • Fleets should snap up electric trucks if they have decent range and price. Companies do math fairly well. At least the ones that stay in business do….

          • This is true. I had forgotten about fleets. Elon did talk about making an electric truck eventually, but I’m not sure what the timeframe is on that yet. I’m kind of surprised that there aren’t more electrics and hybrids being adopted in industry, but I suspect they will be in time. Certainly there already instances where this is happening and Uber did offer to buy 500,000 model 3s if they could be made fully autonomous.

          • We’ll see what happens. Just another couple of years for the Model 3 to generate significant sales.

            The people I know who buy trucks either really need them for work or use them as a second car for camping. One friend bought a very basic pickup simply because it was cheaper than a car.

            The average of $33K is for new cars. 2/3 of all car sales are of used cars in the US. The avg. car goes through 3 owners. So the aftermarket sales are just as important to keep depreciation from being too much.

            Depreciation doesn’t matter much for luxury cars since those buyers either have too much money and don’t care or just write it off as a business expense.

            For the avg. new car buyer, depreciation matters a lot and that is part of why Corollas and Civics are such big sellers. They don’t depreciate that much. For there to be a viable aftermarket, used car buyers need to feel as comfortable with a BEV as new car buyers. If only 50% of Americans have a place to plug-in then that may limit the secondary market. If you are relying on everyone who buys a BEV to have solar panels, that may be a limiting factor.

            We’ll see.

          • I did acknowledge that there are quite a few people who do bed trucks. Is was just saying that the group of truck drivers that do not actually need them may be the hardest group to convince to try electric vehicles. Although I highly doubt they’d be open to hydrogen electrics either.

            Tesla vehicles have been holding their value pretty well so far, with the exception of those that are older than the autopilot software. Only time will tell how the model 3 does, but it’s not looking that terrible so far.

            The plug in location problem is much less of a problem than you think it is. Some people have already convinced landlords to allow charging ports to be installed at their parking location. If BEVs become more commonplace, this will get easier and some landlords will probably start installing then to attract business. Tesla is also installing destination chargers in some high population centers. Unlike hydrogen infrastructure, electric infrastructure really isn’t very expensive. Hydrogen is the fuel source that REALLY presents infrastructure problems. I hope you don’t want to drive outside of California/Japan.

            I’m not sure why I would be relying on everyone who has an electric to install solar. The grid is quite robust and can support a large fleet of electric vehicles without any changes needed. Although, if demand increases, you better believe electric companies will jump on and expand their electricity production. I can’t see the electric car adoption being too quick for the electric companies to keep up with.

          • If I recall, 80% of those with BEVs have solar panels. The problem if you don’t is that a BEV may tip you into the next higher tier of electric rates, which can be substantial, unless your utility has special night rates for charging. Some do, some don’t.

            For those buying a car, only half can charge at home, according to surveys. So your potential resale market just dropped in half

            For apt. owners, they see 50% turnover every year. If they put in a charger for one person will anyone else use it? For apt. dwellers, maybe they can get the current landlord to install a charger – but the next landlord? Basically a chicken and egg problem.

            In other cases, like big cities, there is no off-street parking *at all* for many, many people so overnight charging is currently impossible.

            For H2, the idea is you can refuel in a few minutes at numerous fuel stations (like now) when your battery runs down and your FC is out vs. 30 minuts or longer for BEV.

            Honda already makes a H2 generator for the home (with pressurizer). It isn’t that hard or very expensive. Only FC-haters make it such a big deal.

            We’ll see what happens.

          • “at numerous fuel stations (like now)”

            Over 50% of all drivers now have a place to plug in where they park.

            How many now have a place where they could fill up hydrogen tanks? Is it even 0.1%?

          • There are currently pretty good plans for many people using BEVs. I hear a few people actually have smaller electric payments as unbelievable as that seems. Plans will evolve as BEV adoption evolves. Even on current plans, it’s cheaper to fuel a BEV than a fuel cell vehicle. cleantechnica(dot)com/2015/08/11/get-electric-car-cut-electric-bill-wait-what/

            There is no chicken and egg problem with apartments because BEV sales are hardly completely dependent on sales to people living in apartments. There is every opportunity for BEVs to grow popular outside of apartment dwellers and then landlords can see the business case for installing chargers and then have them installed. Many, but not all, people have been able to get electric charging installed at an apartment by talking it over with their landlord, covering installation themselves (it’s really not THAT expensive unless a lot of wiring needs to be run as well), and having separate metering. This is certainly nothing compared to the hydrogen chicken and egg problem.

            There is no reason why street charging can not be installed, especially if electric vehicles become popular enough for energy companies or businesses to see a business case for them. Electricity is cheap enough for a substantial fee to be added for public charging without losing cost competitiveness. In some places, street charging is already being installed.

            There are not currently numerous hydrogen stations to refuel at, hence my statement about you hopefully not wanting to leave California, Germany, or Japan.

            The Honda hydrogen generator was news to me. I was curious how they did it because electrolysers do not scale down cost effectively at all. A little research reveals it to be a steam reformation generator. In my basic research, I haven’t seen anything posted on it since 2010. Did they actually end up making it and putting it up for sale? I don’t see it under Google shopping but maybe I’m overlooking something.

            I don’t see how you’re so pessimistic about the cheap electric infrastructure while being optimistic about the expensive, and currently very limited, hydrogen infrastructure.

          • I am neither optimistic, nor pessimistic about either technology. I see problems with both.

            That only *seems* pessimistic to those who see *no* problems with BEVs and insurmountable problems with FCEV. They want it all better now, or at least next Tesla model, and when I point out it isn’t happening that fast or that easily, people get mad – as if I told them there is no Santa Claus.

            As for the Honda H2 generator, it is gas reformation, but it still points out that much of the supposedly insurmountable problems such as H2 containment, pressurization, and production do not require the absurd amounts of cost or technology FC opponents argue.

            Here’s a small hydrolysis machine on Amazon for $250:

            If a market develops for H2, this can scale up without serious issue.

            My point is simply that the costs and difficulties of home made H2 are not the impossible technological or cost hurdle the BEV-Only advocates claim.

            Agnostic am I on what the outcome of all this will be. My experience says some problems that seem small now will prove much more an impediment than anyone expects. I still think a FC-B-EV hybrid is the most likely outcome because of weight and energy density considerations I showed in the chart earlier.

          • Natural gas reforming is not acceptable. Period.

            “My point is simply that the costs and difficulties of home made H2 are not the impossible technological or cost hurdle the BEV-Only advocates claim.”
            Show us the math, Michael. You don’t like for people to make predictions based on facts yet here you make claims based on nothing visible.

          • I see no significant problem with BEVs that can’t be solved well before fuel cells are ready for the mass market. When they will be solved, only time will tell. I just see them as less of a problem than you do. There is currently a large market open to BEV adoption once the next generation or two of vehicles are ready. Once the technology gains momentum from that, I don’t see any of the problems you bring up as being a showstopper for electric vehicles, only bumps along the way. Solutions for every problem you have brought up are already being worked on with decent success. There is even a charging cable being tested in Germany that would track where you are charging in public and handle the fees directly with no major hassle. www(dot)greencarreports(dot)com/news/1099363_ubitricity-german-charging-cord-for-wall-sockets-includes-billing

            I do see some problems with hydrogen that could very well be showstoppers for the public market. The first one is the fuel cost. The infrastructure chicken and egg problem could be overcome at great expense, but the fuel cannot be cost competitive with electric vehicles via electrolysis. Unless you have some other cheaper way to make the fuel, I think that could be an insurmountable obstacle preventing fuel cells from leaving a niche market. I can’t see hydrogen vehicles being ready for the mass market before BEVs have gained major acceptance. Based on that assumption, being cost competitive with gasoline eventually will not be enough.

          • I don’t think you are “anti-EV, anti-Tesla” for stating the obvious.
            “There are 2 billion cars and trucks. 100 million car and trucks are being sold every year and growing.
            If they all were electric, then it would take 20 years to replace all the existing cars and trucks.”
            I’m paraphrasing Elon.

            Without a concept and details from Tesla, at this point the Model 3 is just a theory.
            All this speculation is just that, speculation.
            I find it hard to believe that you be able to buy a 20% smaller Model S for half the price.

            “ some point to eliminate ICEs EVs have to replace Ford F-150s and Honda CR-Vs, Toyota Camrys and Honda Accords. “
            One company will not be able to do it alone.

            Both the Bolt and Model 3 along with other makes and models, will be a generation of EV.
            Is that EV 3.0, I don’t know?
            But, I do think generation 4.0 will be much more affordable.

          • “I find it hard to believe that you be able to buy a 20% smaller Model S for half the price.”

            A drop from 70 kWh to 50 kWh along with a 30% (or larger?) drop in battery price.

            Some ModS features such as the automatic opening doors dropped. Larger scale manufacturing. Probably a lower gross profit margin.

          • People are talking seriously about long distance battery powered trucks. Balcon builds the trucks. To make them long distance they would likely need to use battery swapping.

          • The total market for fuel cells actually doubled in the last year. The DOE labeled the growth as ‘unprecedented’ for such a market.

            The fact that the vehicles are actually getting sold is enormous growth year over year, and that will continue to be the case every year for the next decade.

          • 2 times an extremely tiny number is still an extremely tiny number. Hydrogen fuel cells ate still nowhere near ready for the mass market. The price of building them still needs to come down a LONG way and the infrastructure development needs to come an even longer way. I can’t see them ready for the mass market before BEVs get there and I’m having a hard time seeing how they will win over people if the BEV becomes the norm. The fuel cost can never match that of a battery electric. Hydrogen fuel cells will probably become a niche in the consumer market for racing or something. If they don’t overheat as quickly, they could find a niche market there.

          • $2.2 Billion in sales in 2014. Sales in the billions is not ‘extremely tiny’

            Your obsession to hate on fuel cells is bizarre. Don’t you understand the BIG problem with combustion? It has nothing to do with CO2; somehow the entire environmental community is obsessed with CO2, it’s like they have no idea of the NITROGEN issue.

            CO2 is not hazardous to our HEALTH. Nitrogen oxides are.

            You see; in a combustion engine, you take ambient air (79% nitrogen, 19% oxygen) and you combine that with hydro-carbons, compress it under heat at about 13 atmospheres, and then, while under great pressure, you IGNITE this NITROGEN rich mixture. Sure, you get a lot of hydrogen + oxygen conversion, but that exothermic reaction also helps create nitrogen oxides because of the abundance of nitrogen, it’s quite impossible to prevent. The best we can do is try and reverse some of the reaction with an ultra hot catalyst. This doesn’t even get into the dangerous particulate emissions that come from incinerating everything in the air to a micro-dust that now penetrates the smaller pores of our lungs. (PM2.5)

            Fuel cells are SO MUCH better, it’s not even funny. Not just in efficiency, but in the controlled reactions!

            Honestly, if we’re so worried about excess CO2 emissions from using things like methane, we should ‘greenhouse’ all of our factory farms and ventilate them with the CO2. Do some research on the topic, airborne CO2 is an amazing nutrient / fertilizer. After all, without it, all life on Earth would die. (NOT THE SAME FOR NITROUS OXIDES) <- these are deadly gases that cause nasty city smog, emphysema, asthma, lung cancer, etc, all of these even in children!

          • And what percentage of those sales were in the consumer vehicle market? That’s the area I have a problem with. There are definitely places where fuel cells and fuel cell vehicle are useful, that’s just not in the consumer vehicle market. Those fuel cell forklifts seem like an ok idea. Shipping boats will probably eventually have to go the fuel cell route. I could see semi trucks going either direction.

            I’m not advocating gas vehicles so I’m not sure how your nitrous oxide rant is relevant.

            Carbon dioxide is good, and even necessary, in MODERATION. That’s the key. However, we are not suffering from a carbon dioxide deficiency by ANY measure. Even water can be harmful/deadly if you have too much of it. We have too much carbon dioxide and it is not cost effective to try to capture and store it in greenhouses so that’s not going to happen. Even if it weren’t for the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming, I’d still be opposed to it because I kind of like that snow and winter sports stuff. Light winters disappoint me.

            I’m sorry, but you’ll have to find better reasoning to support fuel cell consumer than that. I’d prefer if you would compare them to electrics rather than gas because that’s what I am advocating and most everyone here agrees gas has to go.

          • No more all-caps shouting, Ben.

            Just because H2 FCEVs could replace ICEVs does not mean that we should use H2 FCEVs to replace ICEVs.

            We need to go with the most practical solution for getting ICEVs out of our lives.

          • “At the moment, the only thing we really *know* is that BEVs have less than 1% market share.”

            And we know that despite the billions governments and OEMs had previously spent, when it was assumed that FCEVs were the future of transportation, that it is plug ins that have expanded to “have less than 1% market share” now, and not FCEVs. Despite FCEVs having higher incentives and support.

            We also know what the cost curves for batteries, EVs and ICEs were for the last 30 years. As well as for NG, oil and gasoline, vs renewables that allow filling up at home sans fuel sellers.

            We know that OEMs and governments have spent billions on FCEVs for the past 30 years, only to be quickly overtaken by battery powered cars that have sold over a million globally. We know that electric scooters, utility vehicles, NEVs, eBikes, eMotorcycles, etc are selling by the hundreds of millions globally.

            We know that if we compare the 2011 Leaf and the 2016 Mirai on equal footing – that they most certainly are not on anything like equal footing, despite higher institutional support for FCEVs. We see plainly that the Mirai which now continues to garner higher government support from both Japan and the US, is not on the same arc of expansion as hybrids, let alone plug ins.

            We see that with existing technology, there is a vast and insurmountable difference between EV charging from the existing grid and future potential FCEV fueling. Just as there is a vast gap between ICE fueling infrastructure and any proposed H2 infrastructure. A gap often estimated to require trillions of dollars to close. We know that putting high pressure H2 tanks and supplying them with an as yet non existent H2 fueling infrastructure requires three times as much energy as storing the energy in batteries and running the electric motor without H2 conversions.

            We know that existing plans for FCEVs lead to the use of reformed methane to make H2, and that all plans to create clean H2, rely on vast amounts of cheap renewable power. Power which is expected to be so remarkably cheap, that it makes sense to use three times more of it, to run fuel cells in an FCEV, instead of directly powering EVs with it.

            All this we clearly know beyond, “At the moment, the only thing we really *know* is that BEVs have less than 1% market share.”

          • “We know that electric scooters, utility vehicles, NEVs, eBikes, eMotorcycles, etc are selling by the hundreds of millions globally.”

            Hundreds of millions???? You have some reference for this number? Sounds like a slight exaggeration.

            I’m looking at just cars here but Wikipedia says total global stock – ALL PEVs sold from 2003 to 2014 – is 712,000.


          • 712,000? For highway capable cars only, it passed 1 million in September 2015.

            Just look at your kids school. Or your nephews, if you don’t have kids. You’ll see from a couple to a half dozen low speed electric carts. From tuk tuks in Cambodia to a garbage truck in Illinois, buses to scooters, UPS to Fed Ex to USPS, to street venders to home conversions, to golf carts in Florida, ebikes in China and electric rickshaws in Mumbai – it sounds like a slight exaggeration – to everyone that believes FCEVs are meaningfully arcing upwards based on current technology.

          • So, okay you don’t have sources for the “millions” comment. Doesn’t really matter.

            The first trains ran on coal since it is very simple to make a hot water heater to make steam and power engines. Then diesel replaced those engines because although the diesel engines and fuel refinement are much more complicated they have higher energy density.

            BEVs might be the coal-burning precursors to B-FC hybrids.

            We’ll know in the future.

          • Except 100% of trains ran on coal, it was the initial technology, and there was not a mature market for millions of trains where engineers had not tried every advanced technology, on every scale of train on extensive railroads for the previous 100 years, until the market decided coal fired steam was the best choice.

          • “..until the market decided coal fired steam was the best choice” Which took 40 years to reach full market saturation. And some trains went electric and that is progressing even now.

            I’m betting on FC/B-EV hybrids. Care to make a bet payable in 2055?

          • No, I’ll just end up forgetting anyone had ever said that, and then die. But we should be putting money in the basic science that makes it possible. Instead of premature fueling stations that set it up to fail.

          • We’re putting tons of money into all sorts of research. Which is good, batteries, FCs, and many others. If you want to look at big money R&D that has little practical application right now look at fusion research, or elementary particle accelerators.

            The amount spent on FC fueling stations is far less than the amount spent annually on Halloween costumes – for pets ($310M)!

          • And the amount we spend on garbage bags is 100 times more than we spend on subsidies for EVs and EV charging infrastructure. I’m not interested in the expenditures for Halloween pets or the garbage bags it takes to clean up after the parties. As a society we’ll get what we ask for. It’s a matter of prioritizing. And ultimately get close up experience with Fermi’s paradox.

          • Gee, Michael. Such balance thinking. You put a million on the road EVs and chargers galore juxtaposed against a few FCEV sales and precious few hydrogen stations, and ignore the impending Bolt and Model 3 and say lets see how it turns out? Why don’t you look at how it has already turned out, eh?

            And despite this, you are confident that looking 20 years out,

            “The Bolt is not going to replace any of the top 10 selling vehicles in the US.”

          • Don’t forget the redesigned 200 mile range Nissan Leaf that is now expected in 2017.

            We’ve got three.

          • Just a little addendum. Audi is threatening to do a an EV, Honda, and now VW is much more serious. We always had Mitsubishi and Mercedes, but if they can get their hands on a nice battery from LG Chem, that would mean way more decent long range EVs in a hurry. Did I forget Ford? And Apple? All depends on LG. What we really need is another LG or three.
            And a bunch of long range EVs. That would cause a stampede to EVs and really stifle some skeptics.

  • Low-cost electrolyzer is the key to the exploitation of Solar and Wind energy (S&W) for both 100% Renewable-Energy electricity grid and ground transportation.

    The USA has an average electricity demand of 456 GW out of an annual electricity consumption of 4,000,000 GWh, with a maximum power generation capacity of 1,000 GW. If we combine both the electricity grid and ground transportation energy consumption using PEV and FCEV at 50:50 mix, we will need around 7,000,000 GWh of energy yearly.

    Capacity factor of solar PV is around 20%, while wind turbine is around 40%. For a 50:50 solar and wind mix, the capacity factor is around 30%, and to generate this 7,000,000 GWh of energy will require 2660 GW of combine Solar and Wind (S&W) capacity at 50:50 mix. This is almost 6 times the average electricity demand of the USA. This can ensure that even in cloudy and low wind days across a wide area of the continent, there will be enough solar and wind energy to satisfy the electricity grid for most of the time. Of course, this is only possible with the help of grid and home battery energy storage for short-term e-storage, and HVDC lines connecting wide areas of the continent.

    Now, it is obvious that with nearly 6 times S&W nameplate capacity over the average grid power demand, we will see a vast S&W energy surplus on days with combined strong solar and wind output. We may need as much as 1,500-2,000 GW of electrolyzer capacity on standby to capture those massive S&W energy surplus to make H2 for ground transportation to be used year round.
    This is where the low-cost electrolyzer part comes in.

    • What kind of salary and benefits does a paid troll receive? Just curious.

      • When do you contribute something besides name calling? Just curious.

      • Over the line, Jim.

    • How do you get from 4 petawatt-hours of current electrical consumption to 7 pwh? Electrifying ground transport is a big deal, but then the trend in other uses is down from efficiency. You can’t reason from the high share of transport in current primary energy consumptiom because ICE cars are only 15% efficient and BEVs 85%. Also most of the vehicle charging will be at night and interruptible, so the TOD excess capacity problem is much reduced.

      I agree that the key to electrolysis is low capital costs rather than efficiency, since the electricity will be virtually free. What output do you get from stainless steel electrodes in a plastic tank of seawater?

      • I believe it is better to think of power to gas as providing a floor for electricity prices rather than merely a way to mop up “free” excess capacity. In order to finance capacity investors will require a market for the electricity produced and not face the prospect of having to give away output. A large robust market for intermittent electricity supply would help including EV charging, power to gas, smelting, and water purification. I believe this will become increasingly important as intermittent RE comes to dominate electricity supply.

        Also solar may make excess capacity more common in the middle of sunny days rather than the middle of windy nights particularly after the bulk of inflexible thermal power has been shut down.

        • As long as power to gas, EV demand response, and time valued smelting – H2O purification etc are sufficiently economical with respect to available grid alternatives. If, for example curtailment and power to gas are shown to be far more economical than EV demand response or vice versa. The higher cost options won’t be wide spread as market choices.

        • Peaker plants are used in the summer, they are expensive, dirty and should become unnecessary. In the same way, base load may have to throttle back, becoming less efficient at times. Hydrogen production along with car charging can be done under program control, keeping grid production efficient.

          • Maybe. That’s the whole point. Still just possibilities to be sorted out. Likely the concept of baseload will disappear too.

            “Hydrogen production along with car charging can be done under program control, keeping grid production efficient.” If it meets market cost parameters.

    • Its good to lower the cost, but that is only one problem. Efficiency is a hurdle for some applications.

  • Now we just need solutions for the cost and safety aspects of compressing hydrogen, the fact that hydrogen makes metal brittle and prone to failure, hydrogen is explosive and extremely flammable and burns invisibly and has no odor, is a very slippery molocule and is difficult to contain, the fuel cells are extremely expensive and need maintenance and replacement on a regular schedule, and once we do all that we may be able to fill up a 100 kwh storage tank in the back of our vehicle for only 3 times the cost in equivalent electricity in a vehicle that cost many times more to manufacture and is less efficient and reliable than the BEV’s we have right now. And I’m sure none of the general public will question why they’d buy one of these things that has almost zero infrastructure support, when they could just buy a cheaper more reliable BEV that requires almost zero maintenance for half the price…

    • You mean building incredibly expensive infrastructure and support systems from scratch, and inserting them in between a source of power and a drive motor – is not a transport panacea? Dang, who’d a thunk!

    • Use the latest efficient electrolysis and compression at point of fill up, then sign power agreements with wind and solar fields…done.

      • Not done…till chapter 11.

        • chapter 11. Is that the one where goldilocks meets the three bears, or is that the one where the lawyers come in and the moving vans start removing capital equipment.

          Now back to our normal program. Here is a nice reference on electrolysis. Here is a quote about the process and efficiency.

          “Clearly, a thermodynamic discussion would lead to the conclusion that the overall cell reaction will occur and current will flow when the two electrodes of the cell are interconnected by an external electrical circuit and the cell reaction has either (i) a negative ΔGcell value or (ii) a positive ΔGcell value but a cell potential larger than Eecell is applied across the two electrodes to drive the chemical change. Although these conclusions are sound, they do not consider the rate at which changes can take place, i.e., the current that will flow. The rate of chemical change will depend on the kinetics of the two electrode reactions. Some reactions are inherently fast and give reasonable j values, even close to the equilibrium potential, Ee. In contrast, others are inherently slow, requiring an overpotential η (= E – Ee) to obtain any required j.”

          There is that over potential, nu.

          I like this source. Good explanations.

        • There are more considerations than cost and price. If the user can drive 300 miles on a fill up that costs them $30 they don’t care. With an FCEV there is enough battery storage for say 20 miles, which covers most around town trips. That power comes from the wall plug with solar/wind power contracts.

          • If the driver is you, you don’t care about price. For about 6.5 billion others price matters. A lot.

          • The people who can afford a $100,000 FCEV are not subsistence farmers in Africa.

          • Exactly, that is why I left an exception for you. and the 834,181,248 people out of 7.3 billion just like you.

          • Most FCEVs (today) have about 4.7 battery miles, including the battery preservation buffer. I have not seen plans for any FCEV with a large battery range.

          • A full up of the 5kg tank at $14/kg is $70. That’s our current hydrogen price point. My minivan gets the same range on about $45 of gas.

    • That has to be one of the longest sentences I have seen posted.

      • but it was very appropriately composed sentence. Good way to express sarcasm.

  • Here is a source that discusses the issues with hydrolysis. We should be discussing its content.

    For example,

    “Speed up does not necessarily have anything to do with higher efficiency. In electrolysis it is often the other way round: if you want to squeeze out the maximum free energy, you need to do the reaction infinitely slowly (despite thermodynamics having a dynamic name, it looks at infinitively slow processes).

    Thus, speeding up usually means that you find a way to put more power through your system. The big issue is to find a way of doing this without loosing (too much) efficiency.”

    Hydrolysis efficiency is still an issue. You can have high efficiency, but only if you generate hydrogen at a low rate. Its linked to the cost issue, because its a matter of current density, effectively.

    In this field, the discussion centers on “over voltage” or the minimum voltage that needs to be applied to get the process going. That limits efficiency.

    “As expected, the Pt/C exhibits superior HER catalytic activity with a near zero onset η. The Co-NG catalyst shows excellent HER activity, as evidenced by the very small onset η of ~30 mV (inset in Fig. 4a), beyond which the current density increases sharply.”

    How good is the efficiency? Can it be maintained at high volume production or high current?

  • seriously, clean technica should have some standards for not letting published this kind of biased bullshit. Hydrogen cars are not going to be economically viable even if the hydrogen was free. It is just delay tactic for slowing down the development of electric cars.

    Therefore my suggestion is to not publish anything about hydrogen cars, because that technology is at fundamental level unsustainable and unviable.

    • I think certain car companies and the oil and gas industry promote Hydrogen for exactly these reasons. 95% of Hydrogen produced in the US comes from fossil fuels like methane, coal, natural gas. Consumers will need to go to commercial filling stations to get fuel for their Hydrogen cars. The fuel will have to be trucked or piped to these stations from refineries- these are very familiar business models for oil companies. Plugging your car into an electrical outlet at home for pennies per mile makes far less sense to an oil company.

      Plus with hydrogen, car companies can say ‘the technology is still too expensive to mass produce zev’s.We need 10 more years to bring the cost down. We need 20 more years to build a few million filling stations. Let’s just build hybrids in the meantime. We’re sure if we couple a clean diesel to a hybrid we could reach 80 mpg- no plug needed!

      • If it were piped at more than a few percent H2 content in the US leaky gas pipeline system, a new technology for distribution would have to be developed.

        • I know! Think of all the billions of tax dollars that could be wasted building it! And we could extract all this clean hydrogen from our new ‘clean coal’ processing plants, Maybe get VW to write the emissions software for the plants so as to pass testing.Then we pump it all over the country at 3000-10000 psi, all to provide taxpayers the convenience of driving miles out of their way every week, waiting in line, and paying 5 times more per mile for fuel than plugging in at home would cost. About as intelligent as building a subway underground in L.A. right through a fault line with walls that are too thin and unreinforced- and then making the exact same mistake a year later!

    • The founder of the site is American and probably carries over some quaint ideas about “free press” and the “marketplace of ideas”. I must confess, I carry the same prejudices. I attribute it to my upbringing.

      • the problem is with the site credibility. Clean Technica is already in the borderline that can its content be used as a reference due to low quality. This kind of articles do not help with the credibility.

        • Really? You really want to go on record as saying that?

    • If Mr Hydrogen scares you, I suggest you don’t read the article.

      • of course I did not read the article. But happened to have a headline, that was more than enough.

        • “That’s great news for fans of hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs). ” That is the only FCEV reference.
          What in hell does San Antonio wind record have to do with fcev – nothing.

          I don’t see Oil Companies investing in fcv.
          These Oil conspiracy theories are a little batty.
          Fcv stories are worth covering.
          Governments are investing in this technology.

  • Maybe I missed something, but I didn’t see any references to the efficiency of the splitting. It seems to me that the reaction may be more efficient than some other splitting methods but doesn’t the fact remain that you will not get any more energy out of combining H2 and Oxygen in a fuel cell than what you had to input to get the water to split?

    • LOL! That is why it is such a popular notion that cheap and abundant Renewable Energy will allow this system of technologies to be economically and, incredulously efficiently, placed between the RE source and the on-the-road FCEVs electric motor.

  • Posted where it is, following your accusing someone of being a troll, yes it is.

    Given that this article has nothing to do with Monsanto, yes it is.

    • Do you honestly believe fossil fuel companies are not spending $millions on propaganda? Do you honestly believe that fossil fuel companies are ethical enough to not pay people to troll?

      • Jim, you’re wasting my time.

        Please knock it off.

        • In your opinion are FCVs being promoted by the natural gas industry or not?

          • Cut the crap, Jim.

            No more warnings.

          • What are you going to do? Kick me off a website that’s supposed to be about green cars but is helping to greenwash FCVs. Go ahead!

          • Jim, you make another unfounded attack on anyone and you are gone.

          • Will you miss me when I’m gone?

          • Have you ever contributed anything of value to our discussions?

          • On several articles about fuel cell vehicles I have said things like, “When the production and distribution of hydrogen is included, fuel cell vehicles are a very expensive and very complicated Rube Goldberg machine where fracked natural gas goes in one end and water vapor comes out the other end. Please let me know if you think this statement has any value. I really, really would like your honest opinion. By the way, I’m an engineer, so don’t be afraid to challenge me with a scientific argument.

          • I’d say that is correct as far as it goes. But it is far from unique information on this site. It’s more like an echo than useful information.

          • Information that reveals FCVs are a sneaky, underhanded why of burning fossil fuels is not useful information… on a green car website? Really? Not useful?

          • Jim, that’s a common topic on this site.

            It feels like you are just attempting to vent your irritation at being asked to behave yourself. If you’d like to maintain the ability to comment here then I’d suggest you be judicious with your posts for a while.

  • So even if we get a free catalyst, what do we do with the gas? Compressed/liquid H2 is not worth it, and according to recent news it could be 100x worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Building a brand new super expensive, captial intensive infrastructure is not going to happen when I can charge my car overnight with a dryer outlet and Tesla can install a supercharger for 250k. Your average gas station today in the NE is going to run you millions, and that’s just to sell you beer and cigarrettes.

    Give me a plug with 150kW, and I’ll stop every 4hrs for 15 minutes to stretch my legs. Save the graphene revolution for superconducting transmission lines.

  • When the vehicles are abundantly available, I see Texas going hydrogen in very little time. Things get done much faster here than in California, without as much red tape. The hydrogen handling experience is already here, and the abundant access to cheap renewable energy is going to give hydrogen a great way to have an edge to attract the more concerned citizens willing to spend the extra money.

    As far as the association with natural gas, if there are laws that require the source of the hydrogen to be labelled at the pump, it would force companies to think about what they want that label to say. It’s kind of like forcing GMO labels on food packages (which I personally support).

    Honestly, I wouldn’t mind if both options are available at one station, albeit at different prices. Let the consumer decide, and even if the renewable hydrogen costs more, I would be willing to bet it would still sell surprisingly well. It’s not that much different than with food. Many people buy organic food in the same regard, to support sustainable farming.

    • Some of us mind, Ben.

      The goal is to get off fossil fuels, not just switch to a different fossil fuels.

      • Well Bob. Without significant investment in renewable hydrogen, how do you suggest we all keep eating without the assistance of fossil fuels? I hope you understand the need for hydro carbons beyond the roads… our ammonia production is the second largest demand for hydrogen right now, only second to fuels from the refineries.

        In other words, we could have 200+ battery factories going, and it won’t do anything to curb our food’s appetite for the fossil fuel.

        • Oh, nicely twisted – you started off talking about using hydrogen for fuel and ended up talking about fossil fuel for food. Let’s tackle one at a time starting with the use of hydrogen for fuel… Oh, we’re doing that already.

          When the hydrogen cars are “abundantly available” I personally wouldn’t mind if both sorts of fuel were available at the pumps – I’d be filling up with nice clean electricity cheaper at home so wouldn’t need to visit a gas station (unless it’s for a history lesson!)

          • As Bob said; “The goal is to get off fossil fuels”

            Hydrogen is the only thing that can actually replace the hydro-carbon, because we don’t care about about the carbon, we want the hydrogen. And it’s not just for (fuel’s) sake, we need the hydrogen for many other purposes, fertilizer being a big one.

            If you can make a BEV work for you, that’s lovely. Personally, myself, and just about everybody I know (in Texas) could not tolerate the short ranges of a BEV paired with the long refuel times. We way too often will use our automobiles to jump across the state. I recently had work down in San Antonio, the same day I also had work up here in Austin. Because I35 is a nightmare between cities, I often take the longer, but faster path, which is 130 around the cities. The speed limit is 80 in many spots, which means you can go 85 if your tires are in good enough shape. And that’s how you do it if you plan on getting there in a decent amount of time, do your work, and then get back in town by again, a decent amount of time.

            And Austin to San Antonio is regular, Houston or Dallas less frequent. My wife takes a trip north of us to see her Grandma out in some small town. That’s 110+ round trip, plus other miles she may incur that day.

            A 200 mile BEV would be a stretch, as we’ll be using AC or heat 200+ days out of the year. Those nice California days are far and few between. Sometimes, overwhelmed by the humidity, you will run the AC over warm air just to dry out the cabin!

            Realistically, you need a 300+ mile BEV that can do 200+ miles with climate control on at high speeds. When you’re talking 100+KWh (even if the batteries afford-ably make it there) how on earth do you effectively recharge that in little time? You can’t, and you don’t. And that’s why battery swaps have always been a tempting solution in the BEV world. But by the time you factor in all the logistics to battery swap, the fact that the batteries themselves are prone to use damage and aging effects, you have a very complicated model that requires people somehow manage to get their original battery pack back. But – if you’re taking a long roadtrip, must you go in a straight line back and forth to reverse your battery pack swaps? If you effectively did a circle, you would muck up the organization like crazy! Every single battery pack station would all have to be in cahoots, all have the same standards,etc. Once you pick that ‘standard’ for packs, all manufacturers, and all cars must use the same one, otherwise the whole system just becomes a bigger bloody mess. The same goes for plugs – why do we have so many different charging standards!? It’s crazy… even from country to country, we can’t even get electricity on the same frequencies or voltages. We’re all operating at different wavelengths.

          • I agree with you – for your situation you need a really good range on your BEV. For me, living in the UK, It’s different as my max driving is about a 150 round trip maybe twice a year.

            The best EV that I know about for range is the Tesla model S, so out of interest, I looked at the relative ranges given AC on and driving at 70 (limit on website) – The 85D gives a range of approx 250 miles. Unfortunately, I can’t afford one, but then I might win the lottery this weekend (hopefully)

            To get the best out of a BEV, I think (I don’t own one) you have to modify your thinking a bit. With an ICE, you leave it at home, jump in the next morning and if it needs some more fuel stop at a gas station on route to your destination.
            With a BEV, you again leave it at home, but also plug it into a home charger which fills up the car overnight while you sleep giving you a full charge for the next day. If you’re getting low, there are a number of chargers around which will top you up while you have a meal break or if you stay overnight at a hotel.
            I don’t know what you do at work, but there could be a charger you could use, if needed, nearby whilst you do your work. There’s more being put in all the time.

            Yes, there’s a number of differenet cable types, but most of them can be adapted to each other – can’t do much about that until there’s a proper standard as you say.
            I also agree about battery swapping having to be standard size/fitting and that also goes the same for fuel cells as well if they’re removable from the car.
            The only area that has managed to get standardisation working over all countries is in the shipping container business which is why the sizes are 40 feet, 80 feet etc rather than metric. It would cost too much and affect too many to change.

          • “Hydrogen is the only thing that can actually replace the hydro-carbon”

            That is simply a dishonest statement, Ben, and you well know it. You have, I think, attempted to sneak in a misstatement while leaving yourself an escape hatch by later claim that in your opinion H2 is the only single solution for all needs.

            Getting a little fed up with your “stuff”, Ben. Best you start posting in a more honest fashion manner.

          • It’s not dishonest. The fact that you accuse my ‘opinion’ of being dishonest is very bizarre.

            How can long haul trucking possibly work with batteries? These guys should be able to cover about 800+ miles in a day. That’s easily 80-100 gallons of diesel assuming they are loaded and they are not hyper-mile’ing, Diesel has 40.7 KWh worth of energy, of which about 32% is utilized. That’s roughly 1,041 – 1,302 KWh of actual power going to the wheels.

            There’s no ‘stopping in for a lunch’ to refuel this guy, nor is there much of an option for ‘overnight’ charging.

            Notice the common element in basically every single fuel is hydrogen as that is the grand-daddy of volatility that makes theses fuels so damned potent.

            It’s not dishonest. IMHO, nothing can replace the hydro-carbon besides hydrogen itself. Otherwise, life as we know it will have to dramatically change, as we got so spoiled to the power of hydrogen, and now must live without. Never heard of a chef that preferred cooking on electric range- but they’re just going to have to make do as well. No hydrogen, no flame. Flame grilled anything – forget about it. Maybe solar cookers will become the new thing.

          • Four sets of Tesla 85 kWh batteries would more than power a loaded 18-wheeler 200 miles. A battery swap could be done in well less than 5 minutes.

          • It’s like to be far cheaper to pay extra for a 300 mile or even 400 mile range than to drive with hydrogen.

            ” And that’s why battery swaps have always been a tempting solution in the BEV world.”

            Battery swapping stations = 1

            Battery swapping station use ~0

            ” It’s crazy… even from country to country, we can’t even get electricity on the same frequencies or voltages. We’re all operating at different wavelengths.”

            A meaningless comment. Charging station standards will sort themselves out over time. It’s too early in the transition to set standards, we need to allow for more innovation for a while longer. “Superchargers” will be designed for the grid where they are installed. EVs won’t know what the input voltage or frequency might be.

        • “how do you suggest we all keep eating without the assistance of fossil fuels?”

          1. We electrify as much as we can. Swappable batteries offer a route to electrify much ag equipment.

          2. We weigh the cost of biofuel vs. synfuel and choose the least expensive/problematic.

          I’m not saying there is no role for turning electricity into fuel. Just that it is such an inefficient way to store energy that it will likely be our last choice, not the first that you push for personal vehicles.

          • How do you chemically make ammonia (NH3) without hydrogen or a hydro-carbon to get it from???

          • Ben, you’ve tried playing that silly game before.

            If we decide to make ammonia then we might obtain H2 from water as an intermediate step.

            That does not meant that H2 and FCEVs make a lick of sense.

    • Hydrogen fuel cell cars can only get economically feasible energy from dirty, fracked fossil fuel, making fuel cell cars dirtier than gasoline cars.

      Fuel cell cars should not be sold until they are clean and that won’t be remotely possible before, at least, 2030, if ever.

      Fuel cell cars also cannot reliably fill in under 1 hour and then, often, only to half full.

      Virtually anyone who knows the facts about fuel cell cars would not want one.

      The fossil fuel car companies like Toyota are lying about fuel cell cars the same way fossil fuel car companies lied about diesel cars.

      • Nothing you say is going to save the precious. The zev credits are drying up, and gas is cheaper than ever. Looks like fuel cells will be right on time by the time Tesla sinks and gas goes back up! (Timing really is everything!)

        Too bad BEVs couldn’t keep their lead in 1900 during their hay day when all they had to out preform was a steam car! LOL.

        • Ben brings us more of his special sauce.

          And it ain’t Awesome Sauce.

        • Wrong as usual.

          Tesla will grow by about 50% this year. There is still a waiting list for the Model S and the Model X is already sold out for about a year.

          They don’t rely on ZEV credits as that was less than 6% of their income so that point is another fail for you.

          Tesla has now outsold BMW and Audi in Europe as well as the US where it has outsold all gasoline competitors.

          Tesla still has the highest Customer Satisfaction scores of any car company on the planet.

          Comparing a Tesla to an EV from 1900 is like comparing a Bugatti to a Model T – quite desperate and brain-dead – as usual.

          Bob hit your dishonesty square on the head.

  • Both cobalt and graphene take a large amount of energy and resources to produce. Cobalt is more abundant than platinum and certainly cheaper, but there are serious doubts that we will have enough cobalt reserves and recycling of cobalt at this point is limited.

    Unfortunately, the situation is even worse with current battery technology. We simply don’t have enough lithium, copper, manganese, cobalt and nickel reserves for the entire world to drive an electric car. Even if we make a concerted effort to improve the recycling rates, we don’t have enough of these metals to move all 90 million cars that the world produces every year to electric vehicles. We have to start moving to public transport and concentrated residences, instead of promoting private vehicles and spread-out suburbia.

    Each time I read about a new technological advance like this, I realize that so-called “clean tech” won’t save us, if we aren’t willing to change our lifestyles.

    • “We simply don’t have enough lithium, copper, manganese, cobalt and nickel reserves for the entire world to drive an electric car.”

      Certainly wrong when it comes to lithium, probably other materials as well.

      Don’t confuse “reserves” with the amount that can be economically produced. People make that mistake all the time with lithium.

      The 100 mile Nissan Leaf uses 4kg of lithium in its batteries. Let’s say magic happens and between 2015 and 2035 we put 1.2 billion 200 mile range EVs on the world’s roads, each using 8kg of lithium in their batteries. (And that’s if range increase comes only from more batteries rather than the more likely improved anodes and cathodes.)

      That would mean that in that 20 year period we would need to produce 480,000 metric tons of lithium per year.

      And after that we could just recycle what we’ve already extracted.

      At 20 mg lithium per kg of Earth’s crust, lithium is the 25th most abundant element. Nickel and lead have about the same abundance. There are approximately 39 million tonnes of accessible lithium in the Earth’s crust. An 81 year supply.

      Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, China, Portugal and Zimbabwe have roughly 13,000,000 metric tons of lithium that can be extracted. That’s a 27 year supply.

      Bolivia has 5.4 million of the 13 million tons. Over 11 years.

      There are approximately 230,000,000,000 tons of lithium in seawater. A 479,167 year supply. Extracting lithium from seawater would increase the cost of EVs by only a few hundred dollars.

    • “I realize that so-called “clean tech” won’t save us, if we aren’t willing to change our lifestyles.”

      First, question your assumptions. You are clearly wrong when it comes to lithium. Make sure you are right about your other assumptions of limits. For example, “serious doubts that we will have enough cobalt reserves and recycling of cobalt at this point is limited”. The solution would seem to be to do more cobalt recycling.

      There’s not much sense in recycling a material until there is an adequate amount of it in the waste stream. Companies have already figured out how to recycle materials in EV batteries. But there are almost none to recycle at this point in time, so right now EV battery recycling is limited.

      Then, go to the mall or wherever you can see a bunch of your fellow citizens. Ask yourself how many of them would be willing to give up their cars or make another significant lifestyle change to save the planet.

      Those of us who have been involved in ecology for decades have tried to get people to change their lifestyle with only very limited success.

      The solution it, IMHO, to find solutions which do not require people to make more than minor changes in their lifestyles. Driving an EV will be cheaper, more convenient and more comfortable. People will move to EVs because that will improve their lifestyles.

  • Once again Tina is pretending that clean hydrogen is economically feasible when it is not.

    It is simple fact that fuel cell cars can only get economically feasible energy from dirty, fracked fossil fuel, making fuel cell cars dirtier than gasoline cars.

    Talking about research that may or may not make it to market in the distant future is meaningless.

    Fuel cell cars should not be sold until they are clean and that won’t be remotely possible before, at least, 2030. But Tina always hides this fact exactly the same way the fossil fuel car companies hide this fact.

    It is shameful that any article talking about fuel cell cars does not state these simple facts.

    These are the same kind of lies and tactics that lead to the wide adoption of dirty diesel in Europe and the diesel scandal we are dealing with now.

    • You didn’t read the article. Don’t make false accusations toward Tina.
      The majority of the grid electricity come from Fossil Fuel.
      So that make your Model S powered by Fossil Fuel.
      Which Consumer Reports not longer recommends because the car has a below average reliability.

      • You are being dishonest – again.

        I have made zero false accusations which proves your accusations are the ones that are false – as usual.

        I did read the article and you have completely failed to prove any of the facts I posted as untrue – as usual. I just proved you wrong – again.

        The Tesla puts out 4 time less CO2 than a gasoline car on the current US grid.

        Meanwhile the fuel cell car is dirtier than a gas car.

        You have been told these very simple facts many, many times.

        Explain why you are unable to hold this simple facts in your memory or are you just being dishonest – again.

        • You didn’t the article.
          Facts are something you don’t understand.
          You are never are honest.

          • You just wrote: “You didn’t the article.”

            You also just lied – again.

            Show where my facts are not honest or admit you lied.

            Those are your choices.

            I am waiting.

          • 2 days and still no facts from you.

            That proves that you lied -exactly as I said.

  • Well Tina, looks like the narrative got high jack again by anti-fc folks.
    I no discussion on power to gas or what to do with excess wind in South Texas.
    There is more than enough wind to supply the entire state with clean electricity.

    Little whirlwinds and gust of winds, I remember on some days the wind blow so violently, it makes people angry.

    • How much excess wind is there in South Texas?

    • Wrong as usual. You are making claims with zero facts – as usual.

      The is no economically competitive clean hydrogen as you7 have been told many, many times. Even Toyota has admitted this.

      Explain to everyone why you have so much trouble holding the most simple facts in your memory.

      • Thanks for supporting post. Tina, I rest my case.

        • Wrong. You have no case just like you have zero facts – as always.

          Where are they?

          We’re all waiting.

          • You are like an old man shouting at wall and there is nobody there. You never have any facts – just a rant.
            You never read the article. Do you need some help?

          • You are lying – again.

            This is a fact – The is no economically competitive clean hydrogen as you have been told many, many times. Even Toyota has admitted this.

            You need to show proof that the above is not a fact or admit you lied – again.

            Do you need some help?

          • Go troll somewhere else. All you want to do is fight.
            You don’t offer anything to the discussion.
            You are very dishonest. Nobody cares what have to say.

            You should consider yourself lucky, most people never reply to any of your post. Everybody ignores on GCR.
            You have been block more than once from GCR.

          • You are lying – again.

            You lied and said I was dishonest but you have completely failed to show a single fact that shows that to be true proving you to be the liar.

            You also just lied again.

            I have literally received thousands of up-votes on GCR alone.

            In this recent discussion on GCR –
            Tesla Model S Saves Woman, Child In Landslide – a single comment of mine received 14 up-votes.

            So I just proved you a liar – again.

            You should be honest for once and admit you have no facts and were completely dishonest since I have clearly proven it.

          • OK, guys, you’ve had your fun. Let’s knock it off.

Comments are closed.