Will be interesting see how it works out. I thought that Ca banned repowering anything that wasn't built originally with a Tier 4 powerplant, which would mean anything prior to a 2014 model year.
With the newer batteries, less range than electric vehicles (or gas/diesel for that matter). But the tank fills quickly. Even as liquid, hydrogen isn't very energy dense.
Good question. Electrolysis of water takes a lot of electricity. I've not really been following what other options there are, but none would be terribly energy-efficient. Hydrogen in the wild is generally bound up in stable compounds; converting it to the less-stable H2 molecule takes energy. It does burn clean, though...
Today, most hydrogen is produced from natural gas not water. There are a number of experimental catalysis processes.
The best possible technology would be a fusion reactor plugged into the ocean for electrolysis. Probably not in my lifetime.
I think that's about how Fukushima works, lol. Our Fusion energy future is just around the corner . . .
Most every manufacturer has officially or unofficially abandoned Hydrogen Fuel Cells. Makes for a great talking point but in reality turns out not to be practical at scale. Got to see behind the curtains at the California Fuel Cell Partnership in Sacramento, CA that was envisioned to pull the resources of the major players. Even President Bush visited back in the day as a PR stunt but it is just a shell that most companies have a presence to put their name on the door but little to no actual investment into he technology was ever made due to lack of viability. All smoke and mirrors for the perception of doing something.
I would love to see the efficiency numbers of natural gas derived hydrogen vehicles vs. natural gas ICE vehicles.
Given that hydrogen is mostly made from gas, coal, and oil, overall it isn't very good. Hydrogen isn't very energy-dense, so the natural-gas vehicle winds up having a similar range to the fuel-cell hydrogen vehicle despite being less efficient. I'm pretty sure I did that comparison for Henning some years ago when he was gung-ho about it. ~47% is from natural gas, most of the rest is from oil and coal. Only about 4% is electrolysis. Those catalysts have a long way to go to become useful. The last sentence is false unless you are talking about some greenwashing companies. We can make the stuff at scale, but the problem with hydrogen is that it isn't very energy dense. You can liquify the stuff and fill a tank and the newer electric cars have much more range. BMW has a concept car that goes over 600 miles on a single charge. Other cars have a range greater than 500 miles. The only advantage hydrogen has over an EV is that that a tank can be refilled quickly. However, that tank needs refilled more often. Dept. of Energy and others have been funding ways to improve the energy density of hydrogen for many years, but nothing has been practical for use in real life. People on PoA have complained about the lack of infrastructure for EVs- there is far less infrastructure for hydrogen vehicles. At least the entire country is electrified.
I believe there are issues with using NG derived hydrogen in fuel cells, issues with purity affecting the cells. Hydrogen is a very small molecule, that is not energy dense and requires a large heavy tank to contain it. There are a lot of strikes against it.
I can see the pennywise pounds foolish trying to jerry rig their H2 refueling. Reminds me of that scene in the Martian
Flew to Harris Ranch for lunch the other day and saw two cars at what looked like a hydrogen fueling station. First one I have seen to date. They had it pretty far away from the gas stations and EV spots.
I've owned a pair of NG powered hondas, they were fantastic. I hate that they got discontinued.. so I guess we can go back to flaring off NG? If the NG Honda could pressurize its tank (3600psi) like the Hydrogen-powered Toyota Mirai does (10,000psi), that civic would have gone 1000mi on a tank.
