Is hydrogen dead with the constant falling costs of battery electric cars and subsequent disruptions to come?

 This is a relevant question representative of the opinion many people have about hydrogen, efficiently reflected by Elon Musk.

When we analyze the situation by considering the current available technologies, we can isolate five categories of arguments, which do not argue in favor of hydrogen:

1. If we consider renewable hydrogen is synonymous with hydrogen produced by electrolysis, then hydrogen is clearly to be compared to batteries, as using the same source of energy. But there is an important difference: with the same amount of electricity, we can cover a distance almost 3 times longer (2.87) with a battery electric car than with a fuel cell electric one!! That sole factor could kill hydrogen.
2. Battery electric vehicles with a range of 600 km are announced by several manufacturers.
3. The prices of electric vehicles are becoming more and more competitive, and much cheaper to buy than fuel cell hydrogen vehicles.
4. It is much easier to mesh a territory with charging points than with hydrogen filling stations, which are much more expensive.
5. To travel 100 km with a light vehicle, the zero-rated costs are about 2.5 € with a battery electric vehicle, 4 € with a fossil fuel vehicle, and 10 € with a hydrogen vehicle.

If we content ourselves with these factual and powerful arguments, the die of hydrogen is cast!

Yet, the situation is much subtler than what it seems. Some players of the industry may understand it too late to their cost, similar to what happened to KODAK, NOKIA, or NETSCAPE. One model can hide another, and there are indeed five strong arguments that suggest one must be wary of apparent evidence.

1. Assimilate renewable hydrogen to electrolysis would be the first analytical error. Disruptive processes for the hydrogen production from biomass, an abundant and competitive energy source, are on the verge of being commercialized. Hydrogen, like electricity, is an energetic carrier, with variable sources of production. Biomass brings an already proven new paradigm.
2. Everything cannot be based on electricity, which provides only 18% of the final energy on the planet. If everyone drove electric with batteries, it would require to almost double the global electricity production while closing fossil fuel-fired plants. Unrealistic when we add-up the fact renewable energy only represents 27% of the total worldwide electrical production.
3. Hydrogen allows users to regain the range and flexibility of gas vehicles (refuel in 5 minutes, over 600 km range) while keeping the advantage of a clean and silent drive, an H2 vehicle being an electric vehicle.
4. The hydrogen production itself is characterized by major disruptions, and our HYNOCA? process for renewable hydrogen production from biomass illustrates this. Thus, hydrogen from biomass will be distributed at the same cost as zero-rated fossil fuel. Correlatively, TOYOTA announced late 2017 that hydrogen vehicles will be at the same price as a hybrid vehicle by 2025.
5. The growth of hydrogen was confronted by the chicken and egg problem: no hydrogen cars without filling stations. No possibility to amortize the stations without the cars. Producing hydrogen from biomass or waste makes it quite easily possible to circumvent this problem: syngas, a precursor of hydrogen is produced, which can replace technically and economically fossil natural gas (methane).
6. The energy efficiency of the well to wheel from a biomass-based hydrogen production process is better than for a fossil fuel vehicle, or far better thant a battery electric vehicle when the source of electricity generation is thermal (fossil or nuclear).

As ENGIE declares, hydrogen is the missing link in the energy transition: H2 is the only energy carrier capable of satisfying the largest part of the 82% of final energy not served by electricity. Biomass and organic waste are resources so abundant that massive hydrogen production will only have a marginal impact. HAFFNER ENERGY is specialized in biomass plants since more than 25 years, and we have a good knowledge of biomass “deposits”, and we can confirm that biomass and waste deposits will never be a limiting factor.

Our approach is in no way intended to discredit electrolysis, which has a major role to play in absorbing massive amounts of renewable electricity that are not satisfied by a corresponding demand, thanks to promising "power to gas" applications. (injection of H2 or green methane into the natural gas network). It's excellent proven way to store electricity in excess over long periods, with a very good energy efficiency.

However, electrolysis is not relevant for mobility.

When it comes to battery electric mobility, it will continue to grow, and even strengthen with the help of hydrogen, both technologies being based on common electric traction and technology.

Our view, supported by many mobility experts is that, for:

• Local use and small tours: 100% batteries
• Heavy vehicles (trains, boats, trucks): hydrogen
• Lightweight vehicle: Hybridization battery / hydrogen, for vehicles with great flexibility and range. The photo I published is not a TESLA model S, but a HESLA, which is a transformed TESLA S with a hydrogen extender with a range of 1000 km, without loss of performance.

It is now important for many of us to share the view that several roads exist to produce renewable and competitive hydrogen. If you do share my conviction, then I would highly appreciate that you "like" or transfer this article, or even better, to add your own point of view with a comment that I commit myself to answer!