There’s no debate — battery electric vehicles (or BEVs) are currently king, at least when it comes to sales. There are dozens of battery EV models out there and plenty of charging stations — though nowhere near enough just yet.
But while BEVs are the obvious choice at this point in time, there’s still plenty of debate about whether that will remain true — or if one day, eventually, hydrogen vehicles (commonly known as fuel-cell electric vehicles, or FCEVs) will take over.
This debate can get somewhat heated online too. FCEV fans see the technology as an obvious way forward, both for the sake of convenience, and to help fix some issues around the climate issues that arise from BEV production. Others, however, aren’t too keen on the idea of once again switching technologies, and would rather iterate and refine the battery model that has clearly become more popular.
For the unfamiliar, hydrogen vehicles, as the name suggests, use hydrogen to create electricity. From the perspective of a driver, the experience is pretty similar to refilling a tank of gasoline. You’ll roll up to a pump with a hose, and pump fluid into the vehicle — but instead of gasoline, it’s a compressed hydrogen in a liquid state. This highly flammable liquid is then combined with oxygen from the air in the fuel cell, which results in the production of electricity. The only byproducts? Heat, and water — so yeah, your car will need to … ahem … relieve itself along the way. Of course, this all assumes that everything is actually working properly, but we’ll get into that soon enough.
Convenience is king
Proponents of hydrogen vehicles cite convenience as a big reason to push the technology, and it makes sense. After all, charging electric vehicles is simply not the best experience. EV charging tech is getting better, but charging at a fast-charging station will still usually take you at least 20 minutes, and that’s if you don’t have to wait for a charger to free up. That’s pretty different than filling a tank of gas in two or three minutes on the way home from work.
As mentioned, the experience of refueling a hydrogen vehicle is often very similar to that of an internal combustion engine vehicle. But, as plenty of journalists have highlighted in recent times, refueling a FCEV often doesn’t go right. Pumps are very scarce (there are only 50 stations in total as of 2023, according to the Department of Energy), and they often don’t work. That’s true of EV charging stations too, but while there aren’t enough EV charging stations yet, there are many times more than hydrogen refueling stations.
“Beyond consumer interest, BEVs have a much stronger charging infrastructure throughout the U.S.,” says Kat Garside, an editor at Integrity Energy, which helps businesses and homeowners reduce energy expenses. “There are more than 61,000 public Level 2 or DC fast EV charging stations available throughout the country. Furthermore, the federal government announced a $50 million budget to expand access to public charging stations.”
Let’s pretend for a minute that there were as many FCEV refueling stations as EV charging stations, and that a similar percentage of them actually work. In that case, refueling a FCEV would be much more convenient at a public station. Because it would only take a few minutes, there would be much less congestion at stations, and even if all stations were being used, you likely wouldn’t have to wait long to access one. Of course, that’s far from reality. There are only a handful of stations right now, and again, there are plenty of issues around their reliability.
But, I mentioned that refueling a FCEV is more convenient at a “public station” because there’s a key component of BEV recharging that makes them far more convenient for a large portion of drivers — the ability to charge at home. That’s even more convenient than fueling a FCEV for day-to-day use. All you have to do is plug it in when you get home, and you don’t have to go anywhere to refuel.
Right now, on average, most FCEVs have a slightly longer range than most BEVs — up to around 400 miles or so. That’s not much more than BEVs, which generally have a range of around 300 miles, but it is still more.
“The advantages of FCEVs are longer range, fast refueling (comparable to gasoline), improved performance and durability (fuel cells can last up to 20 years or more); in addition (and this is key for heavy duty), they don’t carry the weight of the batteries,” said Andrea Landi, founder of Landi Technologies, a clean energy tech company.
Hydrogen is much more energy-dense than modern battery tech, which helps contribute to the higher range. But so far that hasn’t translated to a much longer ranger for consumers. That’s largely due to the fact that the equipment involved in storing compressed hydrogen, like the high-pressure tanks, weighs a lot. So, while hydrogen is technically much more energy dense alone, FCEVs can’t really leverage that right now for a drastically different range.
There is one more key area where FCEVs are more convenient — in cold weather. BEVs suffer in range and charging speeds in colder weather, while FCEVs can work perfectly fine in extremely cold temperatures, without any loss in efficiency.
A bit unrelated, but in writing this article, it made me want a plug-in hybrid — one that has a battery for short trips and a hydrogen tank for longer ones. I digress.
Which is actually more efficient?
Convenience aside, which is actually more efficient? This is a complicated question to answer — there’s a lot that goes into efficiency. When comparing EVs and internal combustion (ICE) vehicles, the science is pretty clear. While battery production makes production of EVs less efficient than ICE cars, EVs catch up and surpass ICE vehicles in a matter of only a few years.
But there’s less data around EVs and FCEVs, and considering the fact that neither of them actually emit greenhouse gases on their own, we’re left to compare more complicated data points. These break down into two main buckets — vehicle production and fuel production (and transportation).
Generally, there are less emissions involved with FCEV production than EV production. That’s due to one EV component — the battery. EV batteries aren’t just complicated to manufacturer, they also usually involve the use of rare metals, which have to be mined and transported. Some FCEVs have a battery too, but it’s nowhere near as big, and its production won’t involve as many emissions.
Fueling EVs, however, is more efficient right now. Electric vehicles can be completely clean, or relatively dirty, but the electric grid in the U.S. is getting cleaner over time, and plenty of drivers charge through solar power. In the U.S., 95% of hydrogen fuel is created using natural gas, which makes its production worse for the environment, as this method of producing hydrogen results in CO2 emissions.
Hydrogen production would likely get cleaner too were FCEVs to become more mainstream. For example, another method of producing hydrogen is called electrolysis, and it involves running an electrical current through water — and doesn’t produce emissions itself. That’s not perfect, though — the production of electricity for electrolysis could involve greenhouse gas emissions, and it doesn’t necessarily seem all that efficient to use electricity to create hydrogen, only to then use hydrogen to create electricity to power a car, instead of just using the electricity to charge a car.
Lastly, some plant materials can produce hydrogen, as can some trash — and pilot projects to use landfill and wastewater to produce hydrogen have been started, but are in their very early stages.
What about ownership costs?
This is another one that’s a little complicated to solve. Hydrogen fuel is exceedingly expensive right now — but that largely has to do with the fact that there are so few FCEVs out there and, as a result, very limited production of hydrogen fuel for consumers. Filling a tank could cost a few hundred dollars — much more than charging a car. But, if FCEVs were to become more mainstream, that would change.
EVs are very inexpensive to maintain. EVs don’t have an engine, and the only moving parts are the axles and wheels powered by the electric motors. They don’t need oil changes or engine maintenance — just a tire rotation every now and then. Deep into their life cycle, after at least 10 years or so, you might find that you have to replace the battery, which is expensive. But that’s really the only major form of maintenance that most EV owners will have to perform — and even then, that’s only after many years of owning the vehicle.
FCEVs work differently than ICE vehicles and BEVs. They store hydrogen fuel in a special tank, then combine the hydrogen with oxygen to create a reaction that powers the car’s electric motor. This still involves fewer moving parts and more simplicity than ICE vehicles, and as a result, they require much less maintenance than gas-powered cars, but they do have more moving parts than BEVs, and as such, likely carry a higher cost of maintenance.
Generally, FCEVs are more expensive to own. Hydrogen is much more expensive than electricity, and that’s unlikely to change any time soon. FCEVs have more moving parts that require attention, though BEVs have a big battery that might eventually need to be replaced. But, BEVs more than make up for it with lower refueling costs.
“Hydrogen is expensive to produce, hard to store, and the infrastructure is barely there,” said Troy Fox, co-founder and directing manager of Evergreen Electrical, a provider of home charging stations in Australia. “Sure, FCEVs might carve out a niche in areas like trucking where you need long-range and quick refueling, but for most of us, BEVs just make more sense.”
Predictions
Toyota may have invested heavily in hydrogen vehicles, but every other major automaker made a different bet — on BEVs. The end result? Even if FCEVs were objectively better, they would still have a serious uphill battle ahead of them. In fact, Toyota is a perfect example of why. After betting big on hydrogen, the company was very reluctant to spend on EV development, and the result is that arguably the most innovative carmaker over the mid-2000s is still heavily lagging behind in EV development to this day.
The others don’t want to have to make those decisions. With billions already spent on the production and development of EVs, the creation of still-quickly-growing EV charging stations, and marketing of the whole package, a switch to FCEVs would be extremely complicated. All those charging stations? They’d be torn down or converted into something else. Yeah, Electrify America isn’t going to want to do that.
As such, I don’t see FCEVs becoming mainstream any time soon. It’s a chicken and egg situation too — do carmakers build new hydrogen vehicles, or do we prop up the infrastructure required to fuel them? That was an issue for EVs too — but with the ball rolling on infrastructure and new models, it’s on its way to being solved completely. And even without fast charging stations, customers could at least charge at home. Then there’s the fact that EV charging is getting faster and faster, and EV range is getting longer and longer.
But while I don’t think we’ll see widespread adoption of personal FCEVs any time soon, there is perhaps more room for hydrogen power in other markets. The density of hydrogen fuel makes it a compelling option for semi-trucks, for example.
“For commercial vehicles, especially medium and heavy-duty, the weight (and the space) of the batteries can be an issue,” continued Landi.
Even more exciting? The prospect of using hydrogen fuel for things like aviation, where the likes of Airbus have announced a goal of creating a hydrogen-powered aircraft by 2035, and are even preparing the ecosystem for the creation, transportation, and delivery of hydrogen fuel.
An, the government is stepping in too — which could help get the ball rolling on FCEVs. “Hydrogen vehicles have just had a slower start in the sustainability race,” continued Garside. “In 2023, the federal government allocated $7 billion in grants to encourage hydrogen production and research. The goal of this Investing in America initiative is to create seven Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs across the nation.”
All this could change. Interestingly, BMW and Toyota recently made an alliance aimed toward the development of hydrogen vehicles, and BMW says that its first FCEV will be released in 2028. It remains to be seen if that vehicle will actually go anywhere, though. My prediction is that new personal hydrogen vehicles won’t really sell — and that BMW is really working with Toyota out of an abundance of caution, and perhaps in an effort to work toward developing heavy-duty fuel-cell vehicles.
If it sounds like I’m anti-FCEV, I’m really not. But, I do consider myself to be realistic, and after all the billions of dollars of investments into EVs, I don’t think we’ll get another major shift any time soon.
