Nikola Badger pickup

[VI Tesla]

For me it comes down to basic physics. Any change in state is a loss of energy/efficiency.
Unless all of the following steps somehow become more efficient than the electrical grid, there is not a chance hydrogen will beat battery storage when it comes to energy storage:

1. electrolysis or catalytic reaction that produces hydrogen
2. compression of hydrogen
3. transport of hydrogen to consumer

I could see a scenario where for some reason (ie resource scarcity) battery cells become prohibitively expensive, then hydrogen could make more sense. But that doesn't change the fact that it is less efficient. Probably why Elon likes the term 'fool cells'.

Don't get me wrong if you're producing more energy than you need, you might as well store it somehow and hydrogen is an option. Even then I'm not sure it's the best one. Tons of other storage options beyond just batteries and hydrogen, i.e. kenetic and potential energy storage solutions abound.

Advertisement

 

[ajdelange]

For me it comes down to basic physics. Any change in state is a loss of energy/efficiency.

Not necessarily. But that's not, IMO, the way to look at the physics here. It may help to understand that the way these vehicles work is by passing electrons offered up by a metal (anode ) through a motor and thence on to oxygen (in a cathode) which captures them. In a BEV the metal is lithium. After the electrons have run through the motor and done their work they are held close by the oxygen in the metal's oxide (lithium oxide) in the battery's cathode. To get the car to continue operating we must get those electrodes back to lithium in the anode and this is done by charging the battery. An electric field pulls the electrons off the oxygen and runs it back through the same wire it ran in discharge to meet up with and be held by a lithium ion, which ion is conveniently supplied from the cathode, back at the anode. The beauty of the battery is that the metal (lithium) and the oxygen are both held in the battery so that if 100 watt hours of energy is used to push a certain quantity of electrons back to the anode 95 or 96 watt hours are available to us to turn the motor again when those same electrons are allowed to flow back to the cathode. The battery is very efficient in its use of electricity in that it converts over 90% of the energy used to charge it into useful motive power. The process, as described thus far, is at a disadvantage with respect to the battery in that more of the energy stored in the hydrogen - electron bond is available to the motor. Fuel cells generate heat steam in addition to electrical energy and that steam carries energy away from the fuel cell unless something is done to recover it as is the case in a building co-generation setup where, for example, the electricity supplies the lights and the steam the heat. Batteries produce heat too, of course, but much less of it as a fraction of the electric energy released.

Next we have to consider "recharging" the fuel cell which means replacing the anode with fresh hydrogen. As there isn't an abundant supply of hydrogen to be tapped anywhere on earth we have to do essentially what we did with the lithium battery which is get the electrons away from the oxide (water) at the cathode. Of course that's been tossed out but any water will do and so we go someplace where there is lots of electricity and water and use electricity to pull electrons off the oxygen and transfer it to hydrogen. At this point in history the technology for doing this requires quite a bit more energy than that which we can get back from the hydrogen because (guess what?) the electrolysis cell becomes warm - more heat (energy) is lost to the system. Now we add to all this that while we have a perfectly fine new anode it's not in the battery and we have to get it there. This requires compressing the gas from the cell or refrigerating it to the point that transportation of a reasonable quantity of it is feasible. These extra steps cost energy, of course.

At this point we have described 2 metal/metal oxide batteries with the significant difference between them being that we can recover perhaps 95 Wh from one for each 100 Wh used to charge it whereas from the other we could recover probably less than half. The other significant difference is, of course, that lithium is a lot heavier than hydrogen.

So concluding that BEV are twice as efficient as FCV we still have to observe that if the FCV user has a source of energy that costs less than half of what the BEV users supply costs him, the FCV driver wins.

 

[TyPope]

The other pan in the fire is the ability to carry enough power to get where you are going. If Hydrogen fuel cells get to a point where they offer more range, they could be worth using in many long-haul cases despite their inefficiencies.

 

[Balthezor]

Problem with hydrogen is that the ship has sailed. Electric has beaten it. What's the point of hydrogen when pure electric has exceed them. Also, I don't think they have the money to build a hydrogen station network.

 

[ajdelange]

Problem with hydrogen is that the ship has sailed. Electric has beaten it. What's the point of hydrogen when pure electric has exceed them.

When the ship sails it is much more likely to be sailing on hydrogen than batteries. Electric hasn't beaten hydrogen at all. The race isn't over yet. Electric is only out front at the moment because of economics. Hydrogen has a tremendous advantage over electric in terms of the fraction of GVW required per mile of range. It loses now because that hydrogen is so expensive. When hydrogen costs come down (and I include carbon load in the cost) then hydrogen will pull ahead. That may never happen in passenger cars but it probably will happen in commercial trucks, ships, and maybe even airplanes. Hydrogen already is at a cost advantage over batteries in fork lifts etc. in industrial settings.

Also, I don't think they have the money to build a hydrogen station network.

Have you been following their stock price? Nikola is already worth more than Ford and they haven't sold a single truck!

It is well to keep in mind that Nikola is a "razor blade" business i.e. their goal is to sell hydrogen, not trucks. Certainly the fuss that they have caused recently has put new life into hydrogen. There certainly seems to be a lot of smoke and mirrors surrounding their founder but who knows? They may pull it off with or without the Badger.

 

[ricinro]

I've tried many times to point this out to a fuel cell supporter I know. Hydrogen at the moment is brutally inefficient as compared to batteries. And you have to know that the hydrogen would just be the new big oil. All those gasoline service stations will become hydrogen stations run by you guessed it the Shells and Chevrons of the world.

True, The Bush Administration tried to declare the H2 economy because it was a Big oil derivative even though it was green-washed in the way it was presented. H2 was to be made using fossil fuels and distributed using similar networks. Our govt threw a lot of money at it but it fizzled.

 

[ajdelange]

It does indeed take more source electricity to deliver a kWh to the motor of an EV via a fuel cell than it does to do so from a battery. But who cares if it costs less and is less harmful to the environment? This is, of course, Nikola's strategy. Get the electricity from the utility at near wholesale. And do this at the refueling location so transportation costs disappear. Whether he can get this electricity at near wholesale in the right locations or not remains to be seen and that is Nikola's challenge (and why I'm not buying any of their stock). But if he can pull it off he's got a winner.

 

[MEDICALJMP]

Doubt they can overcome the infrastructure problem. Not unless they can get gas stations to stock hydrogen.

 

[ajdelange]

AFAIK they have no intention of trying to get gas stations to stock hydrogen. Their model involves the construction of hydrogen production plants at key spots along main trucking arteries. The other qualification for a location is that it has access to large transmission lines so that lots of wholesale electricity is available. This obviously won't be very convenient for the Badger driver. I can't quite dope it out but it appears that the FCEV version will have a large battery - enough to carry the vehicle about half its advertised range. Thus the driver would top up at the usual DC fast charger or with a level 2 charger at home unless he happened to be traveling along a major trucking route where he could get hydrogen at one of these plants/refueling centres. But some people think the Badger is nothing more than an attention geter intended to pump up the value of their stock.

I'll readily admit that I could be all wrong on this but I have seen nothing that suggests that Nicola intends to install a network of hydrogen fueling stations with density in any way comparable to the Tesla or EA networks.

I point out again that Nikola's goal is to sell hydrogen - not trucks. To do this profitably it has to be cheap. If it has to be made at one location and trucked or piped to another it won't be cheap enough.

 

[ajdelange]

I've just been back at the Nikola site and while it isn't explicitly said it does appear that one can buy (for delivery in 2022) the FC version and use it as a 300 mile BEV (charging it at home and at DC fast chargers as with any other BEV) with the option to top it off with another 300 miles worth of hydrogen if you can find a hydrogen fueling station. On a cross country road trip you would certainly be using trucking routes and thus, presumably, encounter Nikola's stations where you would top off the battery with a DC fast charger and take on 8 kg of hydrogen departing the station with 600 mile range. Apparently, then, you could get an additional 300 mi range as fast as it takes to pump in the H2 (a couple of minutes) but would have to add the time it takes to top off the battery in order to leave with maximum range on board. You've got to admit this is Elon Musk level clever. If, and of course that's a big if, he can pull off the hydrogen supply I think he's got something.

Going back to the "every gas station" concept: be aware that there is a company called Plug Energy that installs and provisions hydrogen fueling stations in, for example, Wallmart warehouses for fueling their fork lifts which are fuel cell powered.

I'm gradually starting to back away from my "fool cell" perception of this technology.

Note: I have not sent Trevor Milton $1,000 --- yet.

 

[ldjessee]

Except that the rest of the time you are carrying around a hydrogen tank and fuel cell (and paying for it), but only using it some time... and if you have to charge while getting hydrogen to get full range, why not just have a bigger battery and just charge and not bother with the hydrogen?
The Model S has a 400 mile range... if the CyberTruck has a 300 to 500 mile range, seems like you save yourself from paying for fuel cell and hydrogen tank and carrying it around.

 

[ajdelange]

Except that the rest of the time you are carrying around a hydrogen tank and fuel cell (and paying for it), but only using it some time...

Just like the extra 250 mi range I paid for in my Tesla and only use some of the time.

..and if you have to charge while getting hydrogen to get full range, why not just have a bigger battery and just charge and not bother with the hydrogen?

First because the battery is so much heavier than the hydrogen tank, fuel cell and hydrogen. Second because you can load the additional 300 miles range into a hydrogen tank much faster than you can load it into a battery.

The Model S has a 400 mile range... if the CyberTruck has a 300 to 500 mile range, seems like you save yourself from paying for fuel cell and hydrogen tank and carrying it around.

Sure but you don't use the top 200 range do you? So you are carrying around and have paid for a huge mass of battery you don't use in the S.

In any case hydrogen has, so far, been a flop in passenger vehicles because of certain specific problems the major ones being
1)Cost of hydrogen
2)Scarcity of places to refuel
3)Carbon load associated with the production of hydrogen

Number 1 is the killer. It seems Mr. Milton thinks he can solve that problem and numbers 2 and 3 as well. As I said I have not sent him any money nor bought any of his company's stock but if he can pull off No. 1 I just may.

 

[Dids]

Hydrogen is a great fuel!

 

[NefftheImpaler]

I can neither confirm, nor deny my thoughts concerning the Nikola products. However, rumor has it that there are only a hand full of people out there that can out-Elon Elon and Milton is, by his own account, one of them...

 

[Frank W]

I just recently watched a YouTube video of Milton bad mouthing Cathie Wood at Ark Invest (who I think is pretty sharp) and I got to say he was acting pretty childish. He has also stated that Nicola has a better business model than Tesla. He then goes on to say that they will make $250k profit on each semi or heavy truck that they build. This coming from a company that hasn’t produced or sold anything yet. Cathie looked into hydrogen verses electric and hydrogen was cost prohibitive and my limited knowledge of it thinks she’s completely correct In her analysis.