No more investing in EVs! Honda/GM joint venture into hydrogen for vehicles!!

[KokomoDave]

GM-Honda Joint Venture Begins Hydrogen Fuel Cell Production

A joint venture between General Motors Co. and Honda Motor Co. has begun producing hydrogen fuel cells at a plant in Michigan that are aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

www.investopedia.com

BMW already announced they are getting away from EVs and going this route when Honda/GM joint venture started gaining traction.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

How do you figure no more investing in EVs? A project that started over a decade ago finally went into production and it's a side show.

It makes sense in a nation that has a small footprint, relatively cheap electricity, and little mineral wealth. So, Japan. It makes no sense in North America, too much infrastructure to roll out, too high priced to compete with domestic petroleum, and still requires mass amounts of electricity to produce.

Hydrogen production is, and always will be, energy negative. It's a chemical battery, not a fuel, and it takes more energy to make it than you can get out of it even before transport, etc. You still need cheap reliable electricity to make it work. The main benefit over an EV is no battery related concerns like reduced range life, need for lithium, and long charge times. Still have the issue with roadside refueling not being an option (can't carry a jerry can of H2 to top off with..). Infrastructure roll out is the biggest obstacle. Electric lines already go everywhere. Hydrogen infrastructure is nearly non-existent. If you think subsidies for EVs are burdensome, the cost to displace existing petroleum distribution for economically viable means of transporting H2 throughout the US? Oof.

I just don't see this ever being a viable option domestically in my lifetime and will be a foreign market concept for the near future.

 

[spencer rifle]

So, if your H2 car tank is full, in it lighter than when it is empty?

I always thought it would make more sense to use it as fuel, and electrolyze water onsite to make it. We already have water and electric lines going everywhere. No storage or transportation problems. But we'd have to turn our carburetors upside down.

Bonus: we could use the oxygen to help power our Type 93 torpedoes!

 

[Hawkeye]

How do you figure no more investing in EVs? A project that started over a decade ago finally went into production and it's a side show.

It makes sense in a nation that has a small footprint, relatively cheap electricity, and little mineral wealth. So, Japan. It makes no sense in North America, too much infrastructure to roll out, too high priced to compete with domestic petroleum, and still requires mass amounts of electricity to produce.

Hydrogen production is, and always will be, energy negative. It's a chemical battery, not a fuel, and it takes more energy to make it than you can get out of it even before transport, etc. You still need cheap reliable electricity to make it work. The main benefit over an EV is no battery related concerns like reduced range life, need for lithium, and long charge times. Still have the issue with roadside refueling not being an option (can't carry a jerry can of H2 to top off with..). Infrastructure roll out is the biggest obstacle. Electric lines already go everywhere. Hydrogen infrastructure is nearly non-existent. If you think subsidies for EVs are burdensome, the cost to displace existing petroleum distribution for economically viable means of transporting H2 throughout the US? Oof.

I just don't see this ever being a viable option domestically in my lifetime and will be a foreign market concept for the near future.

You said basically everything I was going to.

 

[GunsCarsPlanes]

I don't believe the criticism from the media (and petroleum interests behind the curtain), electric vehicle (EV) sales are skyrocketing, growing exponentially actually. Sales numbers clearly contradicts claims that EVs are a "dud." While resistance to change is understandable, it's important to consider objective data: the market speaks for itself.

Some, like Honda, have such a hard on for hydrogen technology. Manufacturers greatly fear the idea of a "one-time sale" associated with EVs. They see potential in recurring revenue streams through ICE servicer and even subscriptions, a major profit source for them during a vehicle's lifespan as they wait 5-8 years for us to buy another vehicle. IMO the current anti-EV messaging as a last-ditch effort to protect their revenue model based on internal combustion engines (ICE) and their associated maintenance needs.

EVs are not the wonder solution, far from it actually, I don't like them but it is what it is they are taking over. ICE powered vechiles will be around for the rest of our lives but R&D will clearly focus on EVs. I fear our government will use crude pricing as a way to force us.

Give it a few more "oh sorry about the fuel pricing spike but we had no other option" cycles and we'll be paying $10 per gallon during the spike and it'll only come down to $7 after. It SUCKS

 

[Cameramonkey]

So, if your H2 car tank is full, in it lighter than when it is empty?

I always thought it would make more sense to use it as fuel, and electrolyze water onsite to make it. We already have water and electric lines going everywhere. No storage or transportation problems. But we'd have to turn our carburetors upside down.

Bonus: we could use the oxygen to help power our Type 93 torpedoes!

And we are back to coal fired cars.

My beef is unless you can harness 100% naturally occurring hydrogen, its not the clean zero emissions fuel they claim it to be.

And that crowd would be foolish enough to buy one with the smug feeling of saving the planet, not realizing its not clean, they just pushed the pollution up the chain to the production side. Out of sight, out of mind.

 

[ZurokSlayer7X9]

IMO the current anti-EV messaging as a last-ditch effort to protect their revenue model based on internal combustion engines (ICE) and their associated maintenance needs.

EVs are not the wonder solution, far from it actually, I don't like them but it is what it is they are taking over. ICE powered vechiles will be around for the rest of our lives but R&D will clearly focus on EVs. I fear our government will use crude pricing as a way to force us.

EVs not being a wonder solution would be a great understatement. Right now EVs are being touted out as some sort of magic machine that is superior to ICE in every way, and I believe this is a major factor in their increasing sales. However, there are major disadvantages with current EVs that will ensure ICE isn't going anywhere anytime soon that are not propaganda from ICE manufacturers and dealerships.

One is that they rely on huge quantities of rare earth elements that we mostly import (specifically from China), mainly for battery production. Two is that battery technology is not god enough to replace ICE in many applications. They often have problems in colder weather, take hours to recharge as opposed to a 5 minute long fill up, batteries degrade over time and are often very expensive to replace, similar to what @BehindBlueI's said you can't have a spare battery on the back of your Jeep, they don't have the energy density to replace large power applications like tractors, backhoes, and cranes (even though that's more of a diesel thing), and they can be really annoying to deal with for scenarios where a lot of distance needs to be covered like road trips (even though regenerative breaking can alleviate some of this, how much breaking are you doing on the highway). Three is that they are also hazmat disasters when things go wrong, again mainly because of the battery.

The way I see it, EVs are better suited for people who have small commutes (ten minute work commute, grocery store after that, maybe the gym). May not get the benefits doing an hour commute to work one way when it's near zero degrees on a daily basis, or for people who have to travel a lot on a daily basis for their jobs. Our field superintendents for example rack up well almost two hundred miles a day driving from job to job. Now as technology improves, some of those issues will go away, but until then, I just don't see EVs replacing ICE yet.

 

[indyblue]

Three is that they are also hazmat disasters when things go wrong, again mainly because of the battery.

And wait until you see the bill if you get into a fender-bender. Any damage to the pod that contains the battery pack is going to be wildly expensive, even for "apparently" minor damage. It will need to be removed, inspected for damaged cells and replaced in to the vehicle involving lots of labor. Heaven forbid there is any slight damage to a cell or cells the cost goes up exponentially to replace them.

 

[GunsCarsPlanes]

EVs not being a wonder solution would be a great understatement
...I just don't see EVs replacing ICE yet.

People who are purchasing EVs right now are different, they are the type who don't mind being "early adopters" and will give first gen quirks and issues a pass. Early adopters sorta remind me of Apple or Tesla zombies, they ignore so much because it's borderline a status symbol.

Until solid state batteries not only become the norm but are reasonably priced I just see too many negatives with current battery tech (weight/charge time/range/weather). Now give me a sub 30k Toyota Camry with 500-600 miles of range via solid state battery and charge time in 3 minutes....yeah now we can talk about replacing a daily driver.

ICE cars are damn expensive right now. EV choices are limited and even more expensive not to mention the cost to borrow money. With everything going on I'm running my cars into the ground unless things change. All those years of above and beyond preventative maintenance are paying off!!

 

[printcraft]

With everything going on I'm running my cars into the ground unless things change. All those years of above and beyond preventative maintenance are paying off!!

Sounds like you need an additional carbon tax for your environmentally unsound old tech vehicles.
Give the .gov your cash for your clunker.

 

[spencer rifle]

The original EVs (100 years ago) ran on mostly iron-air batteries, which are still around and still a possibility. Heavier, not as efficient, but lots less rare earths.

Our EV (actually a plug-in hybrid) is getting 54+ MPG over the last 7000 miles, with a range of around 500 miles. And it's being charged partly by solar. We get charged extra at license time by Indiana because we use less gas. Their taxes are more important than promoting efficiency. Go figure.

Whatever happened to our marvelous future powered by fusion reactors? I remember all the hype years ago, and now, nothing. Did it go the way of flying cars and jet packs? WHERE'S MY JET PACK?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

My beef is unless you can harness 100% naturally occurring hydrogen, its not the clean zero emissions fuel they claim it to be.

That's what's termed "white hydrogen" and, so far, it's been a loser for investors. Now, that's not to say it won't switch tomorrow, and exploration/extraction is for big boy investors who don't mind losing big boy amounts of money if it falls through. I haven't looked in to it for a bit, but last time I did there was one viable well feeding some village in Africa.

There is some advantage to being under developed with modern infrastructure, you don't have all the legacy stuff to overcome, so maybe it catches on there first if it is viable at some point.

I just think it's generations out before it's mainstream here, if ever.

 

[melensdad]

Hydrogen is a LONG way off in the future for cars.
From the article:

The companies said they spent a total of $85 million to establish FCSM in January 2017, and it includes a 70,000-square foot facility that has 80 jobs to date.​

That is a tiny facility, small investment and very few jobs, if you look at the size of the auto industry in comparison.

 

[ZurokSlayer7X9]

All those years of above and beyond preventative maintenance are paying off!!

Exactly. I have a 2002 Ford Explorer which was a hand-me-down from my dad. About to pass the 250K mark and still going strong, though the rust will probably kill it before the engine goes out. Its always had its oil, coolant, fluids, etc. replaced on time. It also helps having a stepdad who is a mechanic that will replace a bad water pump for a pizza.

 

[GunsCarsPlanes]

2002 Ford Explorer

2000 Honda Accord w/174,000 miles. The fuel tank was leaking vapors so I spent $140 on a new tank. The AC drips on front subframe not the ground so 23 years of that rotted out the front frame. I spent extra money on the fancy OEM subframe, new bolts and new OEM bushings and that ran me a tad over $325 including shipping. If you don't know a guy then you've gotta turn a wrench because the 2 items I listed done at the dealer would have been 4k or so.

I also have a 2008 Crown Vic p71, got it from Arizona Customs Border Patrol. The car only had 26,000 miles and it was a patrol supervisor's car. The car was never used, probably because everything went the way of Ford Explorer suvs. Check out these 5 pics showing the condition the car was in the exhaust manifolds didn't even have surface rust and the magic marker dots were still showing from the assembly link. It's a body on frame beast, old, outdated and slow but whatever it works.

 

[manifest destiny]

ICE is superior in every metric, currently. Things change, especially tech. As such, it's superiority could wane. If one demands "clean" then hydrogen wins with one caveat - it lacks energy density. That hasn't stopped the use of ethenol which also suffers from insuffecient energy density while claiming to be "clean"er.

If one wants easily expandable tech that might rival ICE, natural gas is an option. It's transported nationally, it's in abundance, it transfers quickly, etc.. EV's are dead in the water (or more likely on the side of the road...burning). Having said that, EV's as an option are likely to be available in some capacity for the rest of my life.

Unless our battery tech takes a gigantic leap, or our energy production takes a giant leap, EV's are clearly a loser vs. ICE. Geez, some regional areas can't keep the lights and A/C running and that's before any consideration to every suburbanite charging their status symbol.

Energy is everywhere. Harvesting, transporting and storing the energy is the bane of human existence.

Until solid state batteries not only become the norm but are reasonably priced I just see too many negatives with current battery tech (weight/charge time/range/weather). Now give me a sub 30k Toyota Camry with 500-600 miles of range via solid state battery and charge time in 3 minutes....yeah now we can talk about replacing a daily driver.

We'll have teletranporters by then. +1 for your thoughts on running your current ICE as far as they'll run. I'm on the same program. New trucks at $75-105k, Pfffft!! My first house was $114k and the new truck I bought while living there was $35k. Crazy times.

 

[Ingomike]

Just curious why this has its own thread and is not like all the other posts that are in the EV thread we discuss this in almost daily?

And if this topic interests you check it out here…

The Real Costs of Electric Car Ownership - CNET

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/electric-vehicle-ownership-costs/

www.indianagunowners.com

 

[thunderchicken]

EV sales maybe on the rise, but does anyone have the data for where those sales are highest? No doubt we can all speculate they are on the rise in major cities. Where most people are using them for daily commutes and not so much for long distance travel. EV's have their issues but I don't see them going anywhere anytime soon. If for no other reason than the politics behind them. No doubt all the millionaires in elected offices are invested in companies that manufacturer, supply and support the EV technology. That's why there's been so much push for them under the ruse of "clean energy".
Hydrogen is a technology that I know next to nothing about. But, I know they've been working on the technology for hydrogen powered vehicles for a while now. I think it's in it's infancy and is a ways down the road before we see them hitting the market.
ICE's are cleaner than what most people realize. Well, at least when all the systems are working as designed. Using a comparison from the HVAC industry, ICE's are currently at least 80+% efficient. The biggest problem with ICE's is that without Federal emissions testing being mandated, we have a bunch of cars running around that emit more emissions than they should because nobody wants to spend the money to fix them.

 

[GunsCarsPlanes]

ICE's are cleaner than what most people realize

Exactly.
It's our responsibility to get off ICE even though commercial pollution is through the roof
It's the responsibility of blue collared people to bear the brunt of this countries tax burden and not the billionaires making 10,000% more than me yet paying the same in taxes.
It's our responsibility to donate money to feed the hungry @ Target and let them take the credit
It's our responsibility to fix the stray dog/cat problem even though the ASPCA brings in $280,000,000.00 annually

While we consistently make sacrifices beyond our means, the problem goes unresolved. All we're doing is creating a cycle where those empowered to fix the problem, without experiencing hardship whatsoever, remain resistant to helping.

You know what the difference is......we can't afford a $1,000,000 lawyer to get out of a $10,000 obligation. What are we going to do, ask the rich people to to slap their own wrist and give up control?

 

[HoughMade]

Hydrogen fuel cell cars are EVs. The "battery" is hydrogen compressed to 5,000 to 10,000 psi.