Why the Hydrogen Feud Needs to End: Analysis

• hydrogen
• fuel cells
• alternative energy

Long Live Hydrogen: Automakers and Researchers Push Ahead

Even without criticism from the likes of Chu and Richter, hydrogen appears to be in trouble. Energy firm BP—part of the Big Oil crowd that EV conspiracists claim are behind the hydrogen push—has dropped its research into hydrogen for transportation. And while the restoration of DOE funds was seen as a victory by hydrogen supporters, $204 million is a pittance compared to the more than $8 billion in federal loans to automakers for EV production and research. Plus, there's the more ineffable sense of momentum. EVs have it, with new plug-ins announced monthly and the hype surrounding Tesla and Fisker's flashy vehicles, not to mention the auto industry's biggest gamble, GM's Volt. On the hydrogen side there is GM's tiny, blink-and-you'll-miss-them fleet of fuel cell Equinoxes and Honda's FCX Clarity, an unassuming sedan that requires approval from Honda to lease, based on your proximity to a hydrogen fueling station. Consider that GM's ill-fated EV1 was also lease-only, back in 1996, and it's easy to see the fuel cell vehicle as either seriously delayed, or headed for the same compactors that devoured hundreds of EV1's.

There are hydrogen holdouts, though, who point out that the inevitability of the EV may have been oversold. "There are a ton of ‘ifs' conspiring against batteries," says Craig Scott, manager of Toyota's Advanced Technologies Group. "People on the other side underestimate the challenge of electric-vehicle infrastructure. There are a very large percentage of people who don't have garages to plug into. And it will take billions to upgrade to a smart grid, so that, come 5 pm, you don't plug in and take down the neighborhood." Scott, it should be noted, also oversees Toyota's electrified vehicles. But the current anti-hydrogen sentiment has him playing defense. Technically speaking, Toyota takes the same stance as its competitors—hydrogen looks slow, but when you track the rate of progress, it's a research success story. "Take where we were in 1996 and where we are in 2009, and you'll see the fuel cell has had leaps and bounds greater development than the EV," Scott says. "The fuel cell vehicle used to have to tow around its power train in a gigantic trailer. Now we have refueling in 3 to 4 minutes and a range over 400 miles." By comparison, Scott claims that today's EV's are still plagued with short ranges and have "almost identical charge times" to that of Toyota's electric RAV4 in 1997. Like many automakers, Toyota plans to release plug-ins in the next couple of years, and hydrogen vehicles a few years later, possibly as soon as 2015.

That happens to be the same time frame cited by researchers like Joan Ogden, an associate professor of environmental science and policy at UC Davis. "At present, the cost of mass-produced fuel cells is estimated to be about 70 dollars per kilowatt," Ogden says. "The costs are coming down and the performance is good, over twice that of comparable internal combustion gas engine vehicles." A common thread among many hydrogen supporters is a big-tent approach—the belief that there's no single successor to the gasoline engine, but an array of vehicles and fuels that seem confusing in the abstract, but that future, cost-conscious drivers will be more than happy to figure out. Cynics might claim that automakers are simply hedging their bets with such multi-fuel talk, but researchers who study both hydrogen and battery vehicles are harder to shout down. "There's been a lot of very vocal and unfortunate sparring between the battery and fuel cell camps." Ogden says. "I see them as coexisting. It's not hydrogen as something that's 20 years beyond EVs. I really don't see that much of a difference in the timelines. Maybe batteries get out a couple years earlier."

The biggest problem facing fuel cell vehicles, though, might have nothing to do with technology. "People lose interest in things that don't produce results in 15 minutes," Scott says. "The reason everyone was talking about hydrogen in 2001, 2002, was because Bush made it his push. Before that, Clinton was pushing compressed natural gas. Now Obama's got batteries." The phenomenal rise and fall of ethanol is the most obvious lesson of the dangers of judging the merits of a given alternative fuel by its political momentum, and subsequent commercial interest.

There's no reason to assume that EVs will suffer an ethanol-like crash and burn, but one thing is clear: The bitterness of the EV–hydrogen feud, and the implication that any discussion of the benefits of one approach is a condemnation of the other, makes it almost impossible to assess the real potential of hydrogen fuel cell research. And the serious questions of who would build a hydrogen infrastructure, and what material could replace platinum as a catalyst, won't be answered with vitriol. Whether hydrogen is promising in the short-term, and whether it deserves more or less funding, are matters for scientists to debate. For now, the discussion is dominated by lobbyists and activists nursing wounds from another decade and politicians with no clear guidance or consensus from the scientific community. As in most wars, diplomacy has failed. That doesn't mean it's too late for a truce.

Comment Title
Your Name
Email Address
Website	make public
Comment
Please enter the characters shown below:
	Make sure your comment is relevant to the topic discussed. Comments not relevant to the topic will be deleted. Neither you nor Popular Mechanics has the ability to make your e-mail address public. However, we ask that you submit your e-mail address to us just in case we need to contact you. Thank you for your understanding--The Editors.