You don't say....
Posted on 04/29/2025 11:58:19 PM PDT by Red Badger
From what I have read, kinesthetic events are non-events when it comes to hydrogen because it disperses almost instantly. Everybody brings up the Hindenburg as a permanent condemnation of hydrogen, but it was because of flammable paint and not leakage that caused that. They’ve done experiments, like having two locomotives crash into a hydrogen tank to rupture it and it doesn’t go up in flames on its own. It just disperses.
Yes, I understand infrastructure is a problem, but gasoline had that one problem at one time as well.
They can build a few nuclear plants out in Death Valley. I don’t think that part is a problem in the overall picture.
I’m not personally trying to hype it or anything like that. I just recognize hydrogen as a better solution to EV’s.
You don't say....
Ketjenblack? Is this an oblique homage to a Supreme Court Justice?
I’ll wait until it is on the shelf next to Mr. Fusion.
+1 for mentioning reality.
Water vapor turns back into a liquid at normal temperatures does it not? Thus it’s not worse than CO2.
+1 for reality.
No.
Of course there’s the [roblem that we have np volume source and delivery system for the exxplosive hydrogen gas that is the fuel. Each truck would have to have a large high pressure tank on board also. What could go wrong?
Whatever state matter takes is going to depend on temperature and pressure. For example, water might boil at 100C at sea level, buy you can boil it at 94.9°C at 5000.
Water can be a solid, or gas, or liquid, depending on temperature and pressure and it can be in any of the three phases at any temperature, depending on the pressure.
Certainly at room temperature and pressure water vapor loses heat and energy and forms condensation.
Under what operating conditions would the water vapor emissions from a hydrogen fuel cell car not at some point turn back into condensation?
Let’s ask Grok.
For water vapor emissions from a hydrogen fuel cell car to not condense back into liquid water, the surrounding environment must prevent the vapor from reaching its dew point. This occurs under the following conditions:
High Ambient Temperature: The air temperature must be sufficiently high to keep the water vapor from cooling to its dew point. If the air is warm enough, the vapor remains in a gaseous state.
Low Relative Humidity: Dry air with low humidity has a lower dew point, making it less likely for water vapor to condense. In arid environments, the vapor can disperse without forming droplets.
Strong Airflow or Ventilation: Rapid air movement, such as in windy conditions or when the car is moving at high speed, can disperse water vapor quickly, preventing localized cooling and condensation.
Low Water Vapor Concentration: If the emitted water vapor is diluted in a large volume of dry air, its partial pressure remains low, reducing the likelihood of reaching the saturation point needed for condensation.
In practice, these conditions are rare. In most environments, especially cooler or humid ones, water vapor from fuel cell exhaust often condenses into liquid water or forms visible mist, particularly near the exhaust or in cold weather. For example, in desert-like conditions with high temperatures and low humidity, condensation is less likely, but in temperate or humid climates, some condensation is almost inevitable as the vapor cools.
Is it feasible to use water as the storage media, battery to do the electrolysis, and use the resulting hydrogen to run the fuel cell to keep the battery charged and run the vehicle? Hydrogen storage is short term and infrastructure for water generally not an issue.
It can be done, but not very efficiently. Between a third and half of the energy in the battery would be spent just splitting hydrogen from water.
Is a battery powered hydrogen car feasible
A battery-powered hydrogen fuel cell car, often referred to as a Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (FCEV), is not only feasible but already exists in commercial markets, albeit with limited adoption compared to battery electric vehicles (BEVs). These vehicles combine a hydrogen fuel cell with a small battery to power an electric motor, producing electricity through an electrochemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen, with water vapor as the only tailpipe emission. Below, I’ll address the feasibility of such vehicles based on technology, infrastructure, efficiency, and market challenges, while also tying in the context of your previous question about water vapor emissions.
Feasibility of Battery-Powered Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars
1. Technological Feasibility
How It Works: In an FCEV, a hydrogen fuel cell stack generates electricity by combining hydrogen (stored in high-pressure tanks) with oxygen from the air. This electricity powers an electric motor and charges a small onboard battery (typically lithium-ion) that provides additional power for acceleration, regenerative braking, or idling. The battery is significantly smaller than those in BEVs, acting as a buffer rather than the primary energy source.
Existing Models: Vehicles like the Toyota Mirai, Hyundai Nexo, and the upcoming Honda CR-V e:FCEV (2024) demonstrate that the technology is mature enough for commercial production. These vehicles have ranges of 300–400 miles, comparable to or exceeding many BEVs, and refuel in 3–5 minutes, a significant advantage over BEV charging times.
Performance in Conditions: FCEVs perform well in varied conditions, including cold temperatures where BEVs may see reduced battery efficiency. The heat generated by the fuel cell reaction can also be used to maintain performance in sub-zero climates, unlike BEVs, which struggle with battery performance in extreme cold.
Relation to Water Vapor Emissions: The water vapor emitted from FCEVs is a byproduct of the hydrogen-oxygen reaction. As discussed in your previous question, whether this vapor condenses into liquid water depends on environmental conditions like temperature, humidity, and airflow. In high-temperature, low-humidity environments (e.g., deserts), the vapor is less likely to condense, remaining gaseous. This has little bearing on the vehicle’s feasibility but is a consideration for environmental impact in humid or cold climates where condensation is visible.
2. Efficiency and Energy Considerations
Energy Efficiency: FCEVs are less energy-efficient than BEVs. Producing, compressing, and transporting hydrogen requires significant energy, often resulting in an overall efficiency of 30–40% from source to wheels, compared to 80–90% for BEVs. If hydrogen is produced via electrolysis using electricity, it’s less efficient than directly charging a BEV battery.
Battery Role: The small battery in FCEVs (often 1–2 kWh vs. 50–100 kWh in BEVs) is used for peak power demands and energy recovery, not as the primary energy storage. This reduces weight but doesn’t eliminate efficiency losses in the hydrogen production process.
Environmental Impact: FCEVs produce zero tailpipe emissions, but their environmental benefit depends on how hydrogen is produced. Steam methane reforming (SMR), the most common method, emits CO2, while electrolysis powered by renewables is cleaner but costlier and less scalable. California mandates that at least 33% of hydrogen for vehicles comes from renewable sources, with goals for 100% renewable hydrogen.
3. Infrastructure Challenges
Refueling Stations: The biggest barrier to FCEV adoption is the lack of hydrogen refueling infrastructure. As of 2025, there are only about 60 public hydrogen stations in the U.S., mostly in California, compared to over 31,000 EV charging stations in the UK alone. Globally, there are 178 hydrogen stations in Europe, with half in Germany. This scarcity limits FCEV practicality outside specific regions.
Production and Distribution: Hydrogen is difficult to store and transport due to its low energy density and flammability, requiring high-pressure tanks or cryogenic systems. Building a hydrogen economy with widespread production and distribution would cost billions and take years.
Chicken-and-Egg Problem: Low FCEV adoption discourages investment in refueling stations, while limited stations deter consumers from buying FCEVs.
4. Economic Feasibility
Vehicle Cost: FCEVs are expensive, with models like the Toyota Mirai and Hyundai Nexo starting at $50,000–$60,000, compared to BEVs, which have become more affordable due to falling battery costs. The high cost of fuel cell systems and platinum catalysts contributes to this.
Fuel Cost: Hydrogen fuel is costly, often $10–$20 per kg, with 1 kg providing roughly 60–70 miles of range. This makes FCEVs more expensive to operate than BEVs, especially where electricity is cheaper.
Incentives: In regions like California, rebates ($4,500–$7,000) and HOV lane access encourage FCEV adoption, but these are not enough to offset high costs and infrastructure limitations.
5. Market and Industry Trends
Limited Adoption: As of 2023, only 70,200 FCEVs were sold globally, compared to 26 million BEVs. In the U.S., 3,143 FCEVs were sold in 2023 vs. 380,000 BEVs. Major automakers like Daimler have shifted focus to BEVs, while Toyota, Hyundai, and BMW continue to invest in FCEVs, seeing them as complementary for long-range or heavy-duty applications.
Niche Applications: FCEVs are more viable for commercial vehicles (e.g., buses, trucks, vans) where long range, fast refueling, and payload capacity are critical. Stellantis and Renault are developing hydrogen vans with ranges up to 500 km.
Future Potential: Innovations in hydrogen production (e.g., green hydrogen via electrolysis) and fuel cell durability could improve feasibility. However, BEVs currently dominate due to lower costs, better efficiency, and established charging networks.
6. Challenges Specific to Water Vapor Emissions
Condensation in Operation: In cold or humid conditions, water vapor from FCEVs can condense into liquid water or mist, potentially creating slippery surfaces near the exhaust in rare cases. This is a minor concern but could be relevant for fleet operators in specific climates. In hot, dry conditions, as noted earlier, condensation is less likely, making vapor emissions less noticeable.
Infrastructure Impact: Hydrogen production via electrolysis requires water, which could strain resources in water-scarce regions, indirectly affecting the environmental footprint of FCEVs.
Conclusion
Battery-powered hydrogen fuel cell cars are technologically feasible and commercially available, with models like the Toyota Mirai and Hyundai Nexo proving their functionality. They offer advantages like fast refueling (3–5 minutes), long ranges (300–400 miles), and zero tailpipe emissions, with water vapor as the only byproduct. However, their overall feasibility is limited by:
Lower energy efficiency compared to BEVs (30–40% vs. 80–90%).
Sparse refueling infrastructure, primarily concentrated in California and parts of Europe.
High costs for both vehicles and fuel, driven by expensive fuel cell systems and hydrogen production.
Environmental concerns tied to hydrogen production methods, which often rely on fossil fuels.
Regarding water vapor emissions, condensation is likely in cool or humid environments but can be avoided in hot, dry, or windy conditions, as outlined in your previous question. This does not significantly impact feasibility but is a minor operational consideration.
FCEVs are unlikely to overtake BEVs for passenger cars due to efficiency and infrastructure challenges but may find a niche in long-range, heavy-duty, or commercial applications where battery weight and charging times are prohibitive. For widespread adoption, significant investment in green hydrogen production and refueling networks is needed. For now, BEVs remain the more practical and scalable zero-emission option.
If you’d like me to dive deeper into any aspect (e.g., specific models, hydrogen production methods, or infrastructure plans), let me know!
Interesting.
And I would think even in "rare conditions", warmer, less dense water vapor would rise, cool and form condensation.
I don’t think you could generate the hydrogen fast enough to keep the vehicle rolling................
Interesting. Thanks for posting.
Thank you for that analysis.
After posting, I wondered if I was calling for a perpetual motion system. Now if only there was a catalyst that would split water.
I do remember reading somewhere that firefighters would use a broom to locate a hydrogen fire from a leaking storage tank.
Toyota has sold hydrogen powered vehicles in California in the recent past (last 10 years?). There’s a video of a guy going to one of the handful of fueling stations, and the fueling process was LONG. L O N G
If they’ve fixed that as well, we could be onto something.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.