Hydrogen efficiency will beat expectations

 From a Twitter thread by Gniewomir Flis

Hydrogen efficiency will beat expectations After spending the last six months looking at cutting edge hydrogen tech I believe that the prevailing view that hydrogen is inefficient needs an update. There’s much innovation to be excited about on the horizon.

Take this T&E [Transport & Environment] chart for instance, which assumes that electrolysis is 76% efficient, and fuel cells are only 54%, which together account for the bulk of the losses. Almost every paper out there uses similar, often worse, numbers.

Current tech is already better than that. For instance, Nel’s stack can be up to 93% efficient (3.8kWh/Nm3 H2). Those numbers are rarely achieved in practice though as the stacks are run at higher current densities (=lower efficiency, but less capex)

But efficiencies are getting better. See the performance of the Oort Energy stack. 90% efficiency at 2A/cm2. This is not some experimental stuff, it’s a full sized stack ready to be manufactured.

In addition to high efficiency, Oort can electrochemically pressurise H2 internally to 200 bar at less than half the energy cost of mechanical compression.

You may also have heard of Hysata which set a record breaking efficiency (98%), though tech is still several years away from commercialisation as it has serious degradation problems.


But more innovation is coming. From the less conventional architectures, we’ve got H2Pro which claims 95% efficiency. So, upcoming electrolysis solutions are looking pretty efficient to me, a step up from the 70-75% efficiencies assumed by many today.

On the fuel cell the innovation is just as good, if starting from a lower baseline (50%). The technology to watch for is high temperature PEM. By high temperature I'm referring to 200C, which aids in rejection of water, a rate limiting step.

Practically, this means that high temperature PEM fuel cells would enjoy a 30% increase in efficiency, i.e from 54% to 70%. Several companies working on this, like Hy-point, Advent, or Mebius. [See this article in Electrive]

Applying these innovations to the T&E chart: Hydrogen production with storage is now 82% efficient.

Round trip efficiency is now 54%, so only 1/3rd less efficient than using electricity directly. Compare with 42% T&E had assumed for… 2050!

And that’s not the end of it. In the storage part, companies like @RuxEnergy (metal organic frameworks) or @VerneH2 (cryocompression) are almost able to match the density of liquified hydrogen without 40% energy loss.Does this change the calculus for hydrogen? To a certain degree. On the road batteries have a significant first mover advantage which I think they’re likely to retain, especially since this up and coming hydrogen innovation won’t get commercialised overnight.


But hydrogen might feel a boost in heavier and infra sensitive applications. I think regional aviation will be a good case in point. Heavy trucking and construction too. Trains could be a good one.


High temperature process heat is another one which would also get a boost. Even if heating with hydrogen is 12% less efficient than with electricity, it may be simpler to repurpose gas infrastructure than it is to lay hundreds of MW of new lines. EU modelling sees a role here.


To conclude: electrolysis is becoming much more efficient than the 70% it gets quoted on. Fuel cells are also getting better. Does this mean we’re all getting FCEVs and hydrogen boilers in 2030? Probably not, but other applications may get a hydrogen boost.


To conclude: electrolysis is becoming much more efficient than the 70% it gets quoted on. Fuel cells are also getting better. Does this mean we’re all getting FCEVs and hydrogen boilers in 2030? Probably not, but other applications may get a hydrogen boost.


Perhaps the real prize here is not that FCEVs are more efficient, but that we will need much less renewable energy to introduce green hydrogen in feedstock applications.

See also his corrections in this thread

The key point is this: producing hydrogen from electrolysis is going to become much cheaper, and hydrogen fuel cells are going to get more efficient. That will mean hard-to-de-carbonise sectors like heavy-duty trucking, air transport and sea transport will be able to switch to hydrogen from fossil fuels. More efficient electrolysis will also make power-to-gas (producing green hydrogen to be later used to make electricity in the grid) will become much cheaper, allowing us to reach the holy grail of long-term storage via methane.

Oil companies know hydrogen is a dead end

 From CleanTechnica

Reasonable minds may differ on the question of whether hydrogen fuel cells have a place in the clean-energy future. However, it’s a fact that the fossil fuel giants have been heavily hyping hydrogen, and it’s not hard to see why, as the vast majority of hydrogen is currently produced from natural gas.

Oil companies (which now want to be known as “energy companies”) are keen to be seen as green these days. Shell, BP, and Total are investing large sums in EV infrastructure, at all levels of the charging value chain. They also present their hydrogen business as a tool to reduce carbon emissions. However, recent comments by an oil industry lobbyist concerning the industry’s efforts to undermine climate regulations indicate that Big Oil’s double-dealing strategy — butterflies and grandchildren for the press, lobbyists and campaign cash for policymakers — hasn’t changed.

Michael Liebreich, the founder of BloombergNEF (originally named New Energy Financing before it was purchased by Bloomberg), presents some new thoughts about the issue in a recent interview published in Recharge.

Liebreich (who is no tree-hugging liberal, but a pro-business supporter of the UK Conservative Party, and an advisor to Norwegian oil giant Equinor) isn’t against hydrogen per se, but he believes (as do many in the clean energy field) that it makes sense only in certain use cases.

“In an attempt to guide governments and industry players away from the [oil industry-sponsored] spin, Liebreich has created what he calls his Hydrogen Ladder, a simple chart showing which use cases for H2 are uncompetitive, which are unavoidable for decarbonization, and which sit somewhere in the middle,” writes Recharge’s Leigh Collins.

Green represents areas where H2 is essential, red where it's pointless, i.e.,
 where alternatives are cheaper and more efficient.  Source: @MLiebreich

At the top of Liebreich’s ladder lie applications such as ammonia-based fertilizer and oil refining, which currently use highly polluting grey hydrogen produced from fossil fuels, and are responsible for 3–4% of all global carbon emissions. In the middle are use cases in which hydrogen might make sense, such as seasonal power storage, steel, chemicals, shipping and long-haul aviation. At the bottom “uncompetitive” end of the ladder are light-duty vehicles and domestic heating, applications in which hydrogen fuel cells clearly make no sense (battery-electric vehicles and heat pumps are far more efficient, and already well established in the market).

In Liebreich’s view, the logical course would be to replace polluting grey[/blue] hydrogen with green hydrogen produced by electrolysis in the applications at the hydrogen-friendly top of the ladder, and to cease futile attempts to make hydrogen work for cars and other applications at the bottom of the ladder.

However, that’s not the approach that the oil companies are taking. They’re pouring money and lobbying efforts into convincing politicians to direct public investment to building a “hydrogen economy,” with considerable success, notable in Canada, Germany, and the UK.

This is not because oil company execs are ignorant of the science — you can bet they’re as well informed as you and I, if not more so. Liebreich believes that leaders of fossil fuel firms know that hydrogen is a poor choice for cars and home heating, but are pushing it as a solution in order to slow the pace of electrification.

“If you’re an oil and gas company, in a way, talking about hydrogen is kind of a two-way bet because if it works, then you’re embedded in the hydrogen industry — but if it doesn’t work, you’ve delayed the transition to the thing you don’t make, which is electricity,” he tells Recharge. “So why wouldn’t you promote hydrogen for inappropriate use? For the things that are not at the top of the ladder, that are fairly down — local trains, local buses, cars, delivery vehicles — why not promote it? Because at worst it creates confusion, which is great [for them]. And these companies have an interest in this [electric] stuff not moving too fast, I’m afraid — for all their good words.”

What's up with Toyota?

Toyota Prius being filled with petrol

Toyota developed the revolutionary hybrid engine with its Prius, and was the first car company to sell hybrids on a large scale.  Yet it has resisted pure EVs, instead throwing its cap into the hydrogen fuel-cell drive camp.  But fuel cell cars haven't really taken off.  They've remained pricey, while EVs just keep on getting cheaper, with longer ranges too.  One of the arguments for fuel-cell vehicles is that re-charge times are much less than with batteries, but now EV charge speeds have dramatically improved.  Tesla's new high-speed chargers can load 1000 miles of charge into the batteries in an hour, 75 miles in 5 minutes.    Meanwhile, you can charge your EV wherever you have a electric plug, which means wherever there is electricity, though that will take several hours.  For most people, though, that's not a problem, because you can charge your EV overnight in your garage, just as you would charge your mobile phone or your laptop.  Hydrogen refuelling on the other hand requires a whole new infrastructure, and where it doesn't exist, you have no way to refuel your car. 

So what has Toyota done?   DeSmogBlog comments:

There are at least 12 car companies currently selling an all-electric vehicle in the United States, and Toyota isn’t one of them. Despite admitting recently that the Tesla Model 3 alone is responsible for half of Toyota’s customer defections in North America — as Prius drivers transition to all-electric — the company has been an outspoken laggard in the race to electrification.

Now, the company is using questionable logic to attempt to justify its inaction on electrification, claiming that its limited battery capacity better serves the planet by producing gasoline-electric hybrids. 

For years, Toyota leadership has shunned investment in all-electric cars, laying out a more conservative strategy to “electrify” its fleet — essentially doubling down on hybrids and plug-in hybrids — as a bridge to a future generation of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. As Tesla, Nissan, and GM have led the technological shift to fully battery electric vehicles, Toyota has publicly bashed the prospects of all-electric fleets. (See, for instance, the swipe the company took at plug-in vehicles in this recent Toyota Corolla Hybrid commercial.)

Last week, at the Geneva Auto Show, a Toyota executive provided a curious explanation for the company’s refusal to launch a single battery electric vehicle. As Car and Driver reported, Toyota claims that it is limited by battery production capacity and that “Toyota is able to produce enough batteries for 28,000 electric vehicles each year — or for 1.5 million hybrid cars.”

In other words, because Toyota has neglected to invest in battery production, it can only produce enough batteries for a trivial number of all-electric vehicles.

Due to this self-inflicted capacity shortage, the company is forced to choose between manufacturing 1.5 million hybrids or 28,000 electric cars. Using what Car and Driver called “fuzzy math,” the company tried to justify the strategy to forgo electric vehicles (EVs) on environmental grounds.
As Toyota explained it, “selling 1.5 million hybrid cars reduces carbon emissions by a third more than selling 28,000 EVs.”

Ultimately, Toyota's strategic decision to invest in gasoline-electric hybrids and bet on fuel cells in the long term is the reason that it isn't currently producing any electric cars. The once-innovative company that mainstreamed hybrid-electric technology is now a global laggard in electrification, and is using dubious logic to justify its gas-powered fleet on environmental grounds.

By no reasonable measure is Toyota's fleet more eco-friendly without a single all-electric model. Electric cars are cleaner and greener from cradle-to-grave, including battery production, and regardless of where they charge. 

[Read more here]

It's sad to see Toyota, which invented and successfully sold the first hybrid, losing its way so badly.  But it is a lesson for all legacy car makers.  EVs are the future.  If you aren't making them, you are going to be superseded by manufacturers who are.  The window is very short.  By 2022, EVs will be close to ICEVs in "sticker price".  And then it's game over.