The electric vehicle (EV) revolution is undeniably in full swing. Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) are the hottest commodity on the market, with a plethora of models available and a growing network of charging stations, though still not enough to meet the burgeoning demand. However, amidst the BEV hype, a persistent debate simmers – will BEVs remain the dominant force, or will hydrogen vehicles, often known as fuel-cell electric vehicles (FCEVs), eventually claim the throne? This question ignites passionate discussions online, with FCEV enthusiasts championing its inherent convenience and potential to address environmental concerns associated with BEV production. On the other side of the coin, many are hesitant to embrace another technological shift, advocating for continued refinement and improvement of the already popular battery technology.
For the uninitiated, hydrogen vehicles, as the name suggests, utilize hydrogen to generate electricity. From the driver’s perspective, the experience is strikingly similar to refilling a gasoline tank. You drive up to a pump, connect a hose, and pump fluid into the vehicle – but instead of gasoline, it’s compressed hydrogen in a liquid state. This highly flammable liquid is then combined with oxygen from the air in the fuel cell, resulting in the production of electricity. The sole byproducts? Heat and water – a clean and efficient process, theoretically.
One of the main selling points of hydrogen vehicles is convenience. Critics of BEVs point to the often tedious and time-consuming process of charging, even with fast-charging stations. While charging infrastructure is improving, a typical fast-charge session still takes at least 20 minutes, and often involves waiting for a charger to become available. Compare that to refilling a gasoline tank in just a couple of minutes, and the allure of hydrogen’s speed becomes clear.
However, the reality of refueling hydrogen vehicles isn’t quite as smooth. The number of refueling stations is extremely limited – as of 2023, there are only 50 stations nationwide according to the Department of Energy, and many of them are unreliable. While EV charging stations are also scarce, their number far outpaces hydrogen refueling stations. Kat Garside, an editor at Integrity Energy, emphasizes the disparity in infrastructure, stating, “Beyond consumer interest, BEVs have a much stronger charging infrastructure throughout the U.S., with over 61,000 public Level 2 or DC fast EV charging stations. Additionally, the federal government has committed $50 million to expand access to public charging stations.”
If we were to hypothetically imagine a scenario with the same number of FCEV refueling stations as EV charging stations, and comparable reliability, refueling a hydrogen vehicle would be incredibly convenient. The quick refueling process would minimize congestion at stations, and even with all stations in use, waiting times would be significantly reduced. However, this scenario is far from reality. The limited number of stations, combined with their unreliability, presents a major hurdle for FCEV adoption.
Despite this, hydrogen vehicles still boast a key advantage over BEVs – the ability to refuel at home. While convenient, this option isn’t entirely practical for most FCEV owners due to the lack of readily available home refueling infrastructure.
Currently, FCEVs generally boast a slightly longer range than BEVs, reaching up to around 400 miles compared to BEVs’ typical range of 300 miles. Andrea Landi, founder of Landi Technologies, highlights the benefits of hydrogen, stating, “FCEVs offer longer range, fast refueling comparable to gasoline, improved performance and durability with fuel cells lasting up to 20 years or more. They also don’t carry the weight of batteries, a crucial advantage for heavy-duty vehicles.”
Hydrogen’s higher energy density compared to modern battery technology contributes to its extended range. However, this advantage is somewhat negated by the weight of the high-pressure tanks used to store compressed hydrogen. While hydrogen itself is energy-dense, the bulky storage infrastructure limits the range gains for FCEVs.
One significant advantage of FCEVs is their ability to perform well in cold weather. Unlike BEVs, which experience range and charging speed reductions in cold temperatures, FCEVs maintain efficiency even in extreme cold.
Beyond convenience, the efficiency of both technologies is a crucial consideration. While BEVs are generally more efficient than internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles over their lifespan, the data on FCEVs is still limited. Both technologies have their environmental impact, but the comparison becomes more complex when considering both vehicle production and fuel production.
Generally, FCEV production is considered more environmentally friendly than EV production due to the absence of a large, energy-intensive battery. EV batteries are complex to manufacture and often involve the use of rare earth metals, requiring extensive mining and transportation. While some FCEVs do have batteries, they are significantly smaller, reducing their production footprint.
However, EV fuel, electricity, is currently more efficient than hydrogen fuel. While EVs can be powered by clean or dirty electricity, the electric grid in the US is becoming increasingly clean, with many drivers charging their vehicles using solar power. In the US, 95% of hydrogen fuel is produced using natural gas, which generates significant CO2 emissions, making it less environmentally friendly.
Hydrogen production is expected to become cleaner as FCEVs become more mainstream. Electrolysis, a method that uses an electrical current to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, is a promising alternative with no direct emissions. However, the electricity used for electrolysis can still be generated using fossil fuels, making the process less than ideal. Additionally, using electricity to create hydrogen, only to then use that hydrogen to generate electricity to power a car, seems unnecessarily complex and inefficient compared to directly using the electricity to charge an EV.
There are also efforts to produce hydrogen from renewable sources like plant materials and waste. Pilot projects using landfill and wastewater to generate hydrogen are underway, but still in their early stages.
The cost of ownership is another significant factor to consider. Hydrogen fuel is currently very expensive, largely due to the limited production and demand driven by the small number of FCEVs on the road. Refueling a hydrogen vehicle can cost hundreds of dollars, far exceeding the cost of charging an EV. However, this price is expected to decline as FCEVs become more common.
EVs are notoriously inexpensive to maintain. Lacking an engine, their only moving parts are the axles and wheels powered by electric motors. They require no oil changes, engine maintenance, or tune-ups, only occasional tire rotations. The most significant maintenance cost is replacing the battery, typically after a decade or more of use. This cost is offset by the low cost of electricity for charging.
FCEVs require less maintenance than ICE vehicles but more than BEVs. They have fewer moving parts than ICE vehicles but more than BEVs, leading to potentially higher maintenance costs.
Overall, FCEVs are more expensive to own than BEVs. The cost of hydrogen fuel is significantly higher than electricity, and this disparity is unlikely to change soon. Additionally, FCEVs require more maintenance than BEVs, although BEVs have the cost of eventually replacing the battery. However, BEVs make up for these costs with significantly lower refueling expenses. Troy Fox, co-founder of Evergreen Electrical, succinctly summarizes the current state of affairs, stating, “Hydrogen is expensive to produce, hard to store, and the infrastructure is barely there. While FCEVs might find a niche in areas like trucking, where long range and quick refueling are critical, for most of us, BEVs simply make more sense.”
While Toyota has invested heavily in hydrogen vehicles, nearly every other major automaker has placed their bets on BEVs. This difference in strategy speaks volumes. Even if FCEVs were objectively superior, they would face an uphill battle against the established BEV dominance. Toyota’s experience exemplifies this. After heavily investing in hydrogen, Toyota was slow to embrace EVs, leaving them behind the curve in EV development. The billions invested in EV production, development, charging infrastructure, and marketing make a shift to FCEVs incredibly complex and disruptive. The existing EV infrastructure would need to be dismantled or repurposed, a highly unlikely scenario.
The future of FCEVs is uncertain, and a chicken-and-egg scenario exists. Should automakers invest in new hydrogen vehicles before a robust refueling infrastructure is in place, or should the infrastructure be built first? This was a challenge for EVs as well, but with the momentum of infrastructure development and new models, the situation is improving.
While FCEVs may not become mainstream for personal use in the near future, they hold potential for other markets. The energy density of hydrogen makes it an attractive option for semi-trucks, where battery weight and space can be limiting factors. Airbus has also set a goal of developing a hydrogen-powered aircraft by 2035, highlighting the potential for hydrogen in aviation. The government is stepping in to support hydrogen development. In 2023, the federal government allocated $7 billion in grants to encourage hydrogen production and research. This initiative aims to establish seven Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs across the country.
Recent developments may offer a glimmer of hope for FCEVs. BMW and Toyota have formed an alliance to collaborate on hydrogen vehicle development, with BMW announcing plans to release its first FCEV in 2028. It remains to be seen if this vehicle will gain traction. It’s possible that BMW’s collaboration with Toyota is more about hedging their bets and exploring heavy-duty fuel-cell vehicles.
The future of transportation technology is constantly evolving. While BEVs currently hold the reigns, FCEVs offer potential advantages in specific applications, particularly in long-haul trucking and aviation. However, the established BEV infrastructure and widespread adoption make a large-scale shift to FCEVs highly improbable in the near future. As both technologies continue to develop and evolve, the competition for dominance in the future of transportation will likely continue to unfold.
