Skip to content

Are Hydrogen Fuel Cells Vehicles Dead On Arrival?

March 24, 2014

Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle SchematicThe national vision by politicians, economists, industrialists and environmentalists to transition to hydrogen economy by 2030 seems deadlocked, with hydrogen fuel cells projected to represent a $3 billion market of about 5.9 GW by 2030, according to Lux Research, Figure 1.(1)

The dream of fuel cell vehicles powered by hydrogen from zero-carbon sources such as renewable power or nuclear energy comes from estimates that the cost of avoided carbon dioxide would be more than $600 a metric ton – ten times higher than most other technologies under investigation.

Yet today, there are only two fuel-cell vehicles (FCEV) available in the U.S. market – Honda’s FCX Clarity, which is available to lease, and the Mercedes-Benz F-Cell.

Figure 1
Fuel Cell Market: 2012 – 2030



Fuel cells combine the best of electric and gasoline cars without the downsides, the automakers say. They drive like electric cars—quietly, with tons of off-the-line power—but can be refueled just like gasoline-powered cars, writes Jerry Hirsch for the Los Angeles Times.(2)

In another article for the Los Angeles Times, Jerry Hirsh points out:(3)

“….. As they (fuel cells) move into production, fuel cell cars should gain a price advantage over vehicles that run on battery power.”

“…..lesser weight and higher energy density of fuel cells also enable them to be used in a wider range of vehicles, from a family sedan to full-size trucks to city buses.“

BEVs have a number of significant issues. Unless you are willing to shell-out for Tesla’s Model S, range is still a significant issue. And even if you do opt for the Model S, the battery can take 20 minutes just to reach 50% charge, compared to a few minutes’ refueling for ICE cars, states Katie Spence for The Motley Fool.(4)

Robert Duffer for the Chicago Tribune states, Fuel cell cars use a stack of cells that combine hydrogen with oxygen in the air to generate electricity, which powers the motor that propels the car. The only emission is water vapor and, with a 300-mile range can run 3 or 4 times longer than the most capable electrics, aside from Tesla’s all-electric Model S, which has a range of 265 miles. The Nissan Leaf has a 75-mile range.(5)

Unfortunately, the push to develop a hydrogen economy in the U.S.; sparked by the Matsunaga Hydrogen Research, Development, and Development Act of 1990; never gained sufficient traction and political support to overcome major barriers to market entry such as high capital costs and lack of an infrastructure. Capitol Hill’s indifference to FCEVs is underscored by The Department of Energy (DoE) hydrogen and fuel cells budget history from 1990 to 2011, Figure 2.(6)

Figure 2
DoE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Budget History: 1990 – 2011

DoE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Budget HistorySource: U.S. Department of Energy


Including years 2012 – 2014, the total 25-year DoE budget for hydrogen and fuels research, development, demonstrations and deployment (RDD&D) was about $2.8 billion, an average annual allocation of $112 million. To put this into perspective, the 2014 budget for hydrogen RDD&D of $100 million, i.e., 0.35 percent of the total DoE budget request of $28.4 billion. This falls short of other renewable technologies such as solar, bioenergy and wind technologies, which received allocations of $365 million (1.25 percent), $282 million (0.99 percent) and $144 million (0.51 percent) for FY 2014, respectively.

The DoE budget for FY 2014 includes an allocation of $575 million for Vehicle Technology Programs. However, fuel cell R&D is not directly included the funding profile for these programs. The main emphasis of Vehicle Technologies is battery/energy storage R&D and vehicle technologies deployment.

The large increase in expenditures between 2002 and 2011 reflect President Bush’s announcement of a major hydrogen initiative in his 2003 State of the Union address:

“Tonight I am proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles. A simple chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen generates energy, which can be used to power a car producing only water, not exhaust fumes. With a new national commitment, our scientists and engineers will overcome obstacles to taking these cars from laboratory to showroom so that the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free.”

Though marginalized throughout its decades’ long history, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles may not be entirely dead on arrival. Today, the media brings a steady stream of discussions, publications and announcements about activity in FCEVs. There are just two fuel-cell vehicles available in the U.S. market: Honda’s FCX Clarity, which is available to lease, and the Mercedes-Benz F-Cell, Figure 3. The most recent reverberations come from automakers, such as Toyota, Hyundai, and Honda, testing and planned production of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles for 2015, Figure 4.

Figure 3
2013 Mercedes-Benz F-Cell



Figure 4
Fuel Cell Vehicles: A Look Inside

Fuel Cell Vehicle Exploded View


The Tucson Fuel Cell offers, Figure 5 (7):
• Customers in the Los Angeles/Orange County region a rental price $499 per month for a 36-month term, with $2,999 down. This includes unlimited free hydrogen refueling.
• Driving range up to an estimated 300 miles;
• Capable of full refueling in less than 10 minutes, similar to gasoline;
• Minimal reduction in daily utility compared with its gasoline counterpart;
• Instantaneous electric motor torque (221 lb-ft);
• Minimal cold-weather effects compared with battery electric vehicles;
• Reliability and long-term durability;
• No moving parts within the power-generating fuel cell stack;
• More than two million durability test miles on Hyundai’s fuel cell fleet since 2000; and
• Extensive crash, fire and leak testing successfully completed.

Figure 5
Hyundai aims to produce 1,000 Tuscon fuel-cell electric vehicles by 2015



Additionally, Daimler AG, Ford Motor Company and Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. recently announced a cooperative agreement to accelerate the commercialization of fuel cell electric vehicle technology, Figure 6.

Figure 6
Nissan’s Next Generation Fuel Cell Stack released in 2011

nissan 2011 Fuel cell stack


Even with insufficient support from the federal government, lack of a hydrogen infrastructure, and cost uncertainties, FCEVs are poking their head above the radar. In general, automakers see FCEVs as the most judicious path to satisfy stringent zero-emission vehicle mandates set by California and nine other states. California’s zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate requires 15 percent of all new cars sold be emission free by 2025. The ten-state alliance wants about 3.3 million ZEVs on the road by 2025.

Without question, the most important barrier to larger‐scale implementation of low carbon technologies comes down to one factor: the cost of the technology. Fuel cell costs continue to decline significantly for light duty vehicles, with projected volume costs lower by more than 80 percent since 2002 and more than 35 percent since 2008, according to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Figure 7.(8) The cost per kilowatt (kW) for high volume production of transportation fuel cells moved closer to DOE’s target of $30 per kW where they will be cost‐competitive in light‐duty vehicles.

Figure 7
Projected Fuel Cell Transportation System Costs per kW, Assuming High Volume Production (500,000 units per year)

Cost of an 80-kW fuel cell system

Source: U.S. Department of Energy


In terms of fuel cost, “REB Research, makes hydrogen generators that produce 75 slpm of ultra-pure hydrogen by steam reforming methanol-water in a membrane reactor. A generator of this type produces 9.5 kg of hydrogen per day, consuming 69 gal of methanol-water. At 80¢/gal for methanol-water, and 10¢/kWh for electricity, the hydrogen costs $2.50/kg., or $5,000 over a 120,000 mile life. This is somewhat cheaper than gasoline, but about twice the dollar per mile cost of a Tesla S if only electric cost is considered. The hydrogen car is much cheaper on a per-mile basis, though when you include the fact that the battery has only a 120,000-mile life. A 120,000 mile life is short for a luxury car, and very short for a truck or bus.”(9)

The DoE Fuel Cell Technology Office released a 74-page report titled “2012 Fuel Cell Technologies Market Report.”(10) The report concludes: “the trends for the fuel cell industry were encouraging in 2012. Total fuel cell shipments increased in 2012, in terms of total units and megawatts (MW). Other notable events highlighted include:

“Total fuel cell shipments in 2012 increased 34 percent over 2011 and 321 percent over 2008.”

“Roughly 30,000 fuel cell systems were shipped in 2012, up from around 5,000 shipments in 2008, largely due to Japan’s residential fuel cell program,” Figure 8.

“The number of megawatts shipped on an annual basis more than doubled between 2008 and 2012, rising from about 60 MW to more than 120 MW.”

“The projected cost of a transportation fuel cell system was at $47 per kW in 2012 and continues to approach DOE’s target of $30 per kW.”

“Fuel cell costs continue to decline significantly for light duty vehicles, with projected volume costs lower by more than 80 percent since 2002 and more than 35 percent since 2008.”

“The Obama Administration implemented new incentives for fuel cell and other advanced technology vehicles when it raised the fuel economy standard in the U.S. to 54.5 mpg for cars and light-duty trucks.”

“Cumulative global investment in fuel cell companies totaled $853.6 million between 2010 and 2012. This is a significant increase over the $671.4 million invested in fuel cell companies between 2009 and 2011.”

Figure 8
Fuel Cell Systems Shipped
by Application, World Markets: 2008-2012

Fuel Cell Systems Shipped (cropped)

Source: Navigant Research

 Another major challenge for FCEVs is a nascent infrastructure to produce, distribute, store, deliver and maintain hydrogen fuel. Today there are only ten public hydrogen-fueling stations in the United States, according to the DoE. California is spending as much as $20 million a year to help bring the number of fueling stations up to 100 within the next five years or so. There should be 28 hydrogen stations spread across California’s metropolitan areas by 2015, when all three of these hydrogen models will be for sale.

One remaining question is the reliability, power quality, endurance and longevity of mobile fuel cells. Although fuel cells provide electricity at high efficiencies with exceptional environmental sensitivity, their long-term performance and reliability under real-world conditions remains largely unanswered.

However, according to Fuel Cells 2000, “The material handling sector has provided the fuel cell industry with an early market and technology indicator in the U.S., with deployments and orders for forklifts and lift trucks inching closer to 5,000. This includes many big name companies with multiple repeat orders, such as BMW, Coca-Cola, Procter & Gamble, Kroger and Lowe’s,” Figure 9. The report further states that fuel cells were found to last longer than batteries, and operated in freezing temperatures as low as -20° F (-29° C).”(11)

Figure 9
Fuel Cell-Powered Material Handling Vehicle

Fuel Cell Powered Fork Lift

Source: Fuel Cells 2000


Fuel Cells 2000 reports, fuel cells last longer than batteries, and also operate in freezing temperatures, which led Walmart, a company that had already tested and deployed several hundred fuel cell forklifts at facilities in Ohio and Ontario, Canada, to choose fuel cell lift trucks for its sustainable refrigerated distribution center in Alberta, Canada. The fuel cell-powered vehicles operate in conditions as low as -20° F (-29° C).

In closing, substantial reduction of fossil fuels from all sectors of the economy by renewable energy and zero-emission vehicles is the Holy Grail of modern society. Zero-emissions vehicles come in two flavors BEV and FCEV. BEVs longer sales history and wider public-private support give them an apparent competitive advantage over FCEVs. After many decades of false hopes, FCEVs market introduction may be a Hail Mary play by automakers to achieve stringent emission standards. To succeed, FCEVs must address BEVs performance and endurance limitations. High production costs and a relatively nonexistent hydrogen-fueling infrastructure may prolong the agony of success or failure. Until automakers sell FCEV in volume, they are expected to cost more than comparable gasoline-powered and electric vehicles, not including the premium priced Tesla BEV, which is reported by Forbes to have outsold the nearest competitor by more than 30%.(12). Public-private investments in building a hydrogen-refueling infrastructure are essential for FCEVs long-term success. In the final analysis, BEVs are an inadequate technology push indifferent to consumer needs and driving patterns. As a technology solution, FCEVs are arising from the dead because the industry believes further Lithium-ion battery advances will not substantially improve the range and performance impediments of electric cars. Will FCEVs and BEVs prosecute a war of attrition? My money is on FCEVs.

1. ”The Great Compression: The Future of the Hydrogen Economy,” Lux Research, State of the Market Report, December 11, 2012;
2. “CES 2014: Toyota shows off fuel cell car that can also power a home,” Jerry Hirsch, Los Angeles Times, January 6, 2014;,0,884109.story#ixzz2wi7vjAQx
3. “Fuel cell cars from Toyota, Honda, Hyundai set to debut at auto shows,” Jerry Hirsch, Los Angeles Times, November 17, 2013;
4. “Toyota’s Hydrogen vs. Tesla’s Batteries: Which Car Will Win?” Katie Spence, The Motley Fool, November 16, 2013;
5. “Hydrogen or electric? Showdown over the fuel of the future set for 2014,” Robert Duffer, Chicago Tribune, Jan. 7, 2014;
6. “Fuel Cell Technologies Program Record: Historical Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Budgets,” U.S. Department of Energy, Record #: 13004, May 31 2013;
7. “Hyundai to offer Tucson Fuel Cell vehicle to LA-area retail customers in spring 2014; Honda, Toyota show latest FCV concepts targeting 2015 launch,” Green Car Congress, November 21, 2013;
8. “2012 Fuel Cell Technologies Market Report,” U.S. Department of Energy, Fuel Cell Technologies Office, October 2013;
9. REB Research Blog, Random thoughts about hydrogen, engineering, business and life by Dr. Robert E. Buxbaum, February 12, 2014;
10. U.S. Department of Energy, Fuel Cell Technologies Office, Pathways to Commercial Success: Technologies and Products Supported by the Fuel Cell Technologies Office;
11. “The Business Case for Fuel Cells 2013 Reliability, Resiliency & Savings,” Fuel Cells 2000;
12. “Tesla Sales Blow Past Competitors, But With Success Comes Scrutiny,” Mark Rogowsky, Forbes, January 16, 2014;

9 Comments leave one →
  1. Anonymous permalink
    March 25, 2014 12:02 AM

    Although fuel cells can be more efficient than internal combustion, the cost of hydrogen per unit of energy will remain structurally higher than other forms of transport fuel.

  2. March 25, 2014 9:57 PM

    Great article, Mr. Stevens. You have changed my mind about FCEV’s. Unless there is a breakthrough in battery technology, FCEV are the way to go. All they need is a continuous decrease in cost/energy. Although you are probably right about the long wait for them to succeed (or fail). They definitely need a supply infrastructure.

  3. March 26, 2014 10:21 AM

    Why expensive hydrogen, that is so difficult to store, while methanol is much versatile and more economic. See – contact

  4. Bill Kendrick permalink
    March 26, 2014 1:08 PM

    What if, applying the liquid to the heat, in a fine mist, say between 212 to 230 degrees Fahrenheit, I have detected a flammable gas from distilled water, using a combustible gas leak detector. Meaning I separated the atoms in distilled water, turning the hydrogen atom to a gas, when the oxygen atom remained a liquid. see it my You Tune Channel, Bill Kendrick. Watch all three videos, and read everything.

  5. March 27, 2014 7:19 AM

    Thank you all for your comments and interest in the article.

  6. Jonathan Allen permalink
    March 31, 2014 2:52 PM

    I remain skeptical till I see a quantitative calculation of the total energy input for the entire process to produce the hydrogen, compress it or convert it to a metal hydride, and then convert it to electricity to run the motor.
    Let’s remember the corn alcohol fiasco. It turned out that the total fossil fuel energy to produce the alcohol exceeded the energy you got by burning the alcohol. (It was a net thermodynamic and environmental loser.) We later found out that the REAL reason for the program was to give a boost to big corn growers.

  7. April 11, 2014 6:31 PM

    There’s much more than engineering and economic debates to why H2FCVs as well as BEVs, biofuels and other alternative fuels fail to make real market headway in spite of the ups and downs of their respective hype cycles (to say nothing of the billions of tax dollars thrown at them over the years). For a good critical and historical perspective, see Matthew Eisler’s book:

    Eisler, M.N. 2012. Overpotential: Fuel Cells, Futurism, and the Making of a Power Panacea. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
    (e.g., via

    I wouldn’t put my money on any of the above. It’s important to realize that automakers research a variety of options in order to hedge their bets about future technological needs, and so one should not read too much into announcements of progress or limited production plans. Never say never, but from a current vantage point an expansive business case for any non-hydrocarbon-fueled alternative is simply not in sight.

  8. June 16, 2014 2:23 PM

    Thanks for the marvelous posting! I certainly enjoyed
    reading it, you may be a great author. I will make certain to bookmark your blog and will come back at some point.
    I want to encourage you to definitely continue your great job,
    have a nice holiday weekend!

  9. Bill Kendrick permalink
    June 18, 2014 2:45 PM

    What if it was possible to separate the atoms in all liquids by applying the right temperature, in a different way? One could separate the atoms in all liquids, and make hydrogen at the intake manifold, no fuel cell required.
    My Synopsis
    I have created a white vapor, with twice the power of gasoline, and a non flammable liquid from gasoline, by spraying a fine mist of gasoline onto a 600 degree Fahrenheit heater, neither the white vapor, or non flammable liquid mix with the gasoline they were created from.. I created a flammable gas from distilled water, by spraying a fine mist of distilled water onto a 221 degree Fahrenheit heater. The only thing flammable in water is the hydrogen atom.
    We all know when heated, a liquid produces a gas. This gas will separate from the liquid, it was created from. We all know all liquids have their own boiling temperature. What if it were possible to take any liquid to any temperature, then it would be possible to take liquids to the boiling temperature of atoms inside that liquid, and like going to the boiling temperature of the liquid. The atoms that boiled would separate from the atoms that didn’t. One atom, or group of atoms will become a gas and the other atom or group of atoms will remain a liquid. Thus you would have separated the atoms in that liquid, and at the right applied temperatures, it would be possible to separate the atoms in all liquids.
    I have a synopsis, all I ask is to read it and decide, if I am right. If you know nothing about Sublimation please look it up on the internet. Sublimation happens to snow when ample amounts of heat is applied to it, of course in explaining Sublimation, the scientist, used an unknown temperature, from a flame, or torch. When a large amount of ample heat is applied to the snow, the snow goes from a solid matter to a gas, without becoming a liquid matter. It is the size of the snowflake’s frozen matter that makes this possible. The snowflakes are extremely small, and they assume the applied temperature faster than the snow can melt, so by going to the applied temperature the solid matter bypasses the temperature needed to change to a liquid matter, which is above 32 degrees Fahrenheit, the freezing temperature of water. The snowflakes assume the applied unknown temperature, using the Sublimation effect and snowflakes become a gas, which happens above the 212 degree Fahrenheit temperature, the boiling temperature of water. We all know how long it takes snow to melt, but snowflakes are small and will go to the applied temperature very fast, faster than the snowflakes can become a liquid. Agreed? Sublimation is what science calls it.
    Using the Sublimation principle and specific temperatures, I replaced the snowflakes with small droplets of liquid, I used specific temperatures, and instead of applying the heat to the liquid, I applied the liquid to the heating element, or heat source, in spray form. I used the same principle, as Sublimation, just a different way of applying the heat. I did this to gasoline and water; it can be done to any liquid.
    On gasoline I used 600 degrees Fahrenheit, for the heater temperature. Spraying a fine mist of a liquid onto the heat source, at specific temperatures is totally different from Sublimation, and I start with a liquid. I call it my Flashing Liquid Process. I have found a way to take any liquid to any temperature, before it changes state from a liquid matter to a gas. Using my Flashing Liquid process on gasoline at 600 degrees Fahrenheit, I got a white vapor that has twice the power of gasoline. I saw it on two different vehicles and 2 different Dynamometers. The white vapor I produced, had a zero parts per million hydrocarbons reading, this I have seen on a smog analyzer. To further prove what I discovered I put clean dry rags over the vehicle exhaust pipe, running the vehicle on the white vapor, and on all 7 vehicles, I have run the white vapor on, all the rags smelled like they had just been ironed. Some of the vehicles ran for half an hour on, the white vapor, very clean. At the same time the white vapor was created, I also accumulated a non flammable liquid, neither the white vapor, nor the non flammable would mix with the gasoline they were created from, after I Flashed the liquid gasoline.
    I did my Flashing Liquid Process to distilled water. On water I used between 212 and 230 degrees Fahrenheit. I could not find a temperature control to get the exact temperature, but I know it is in the, above mentioned, 18 degree Fahrenheit temperature range. I found that public water has unspecified amounts of chlorine added. Chlorine influences the boiling temperature of water, so I used distilled water. Distilled water and gasoline are non conductors. You see, I used electric heaters, and thought about shorting out the electrical, when and if, it is used on a conventional or hydrogen powered vehicle. When I sprayed the distilled water onto the heat source at the above mentioned temperatures, I detected, with a combustible gas leak detector, a flammable gas from the vapor I produce. Think about it, the only thing flammable in water, is the hydrogen atom. Hydrogen in water cannot be detected, with a combustible gas leak detector. To get hydrogen from water with temperature, you would have to find the boiling temperature of the hydrogen atom, turning it to a gas, while the oxygen atom, still in liquid matter form, having not been flashed and reached its boiling temperature, remains a liquid. The liquid oxygen atom remains a liquid long enough for the hydrogen atom to become a gas, and separate from the liquid oxygen matter. Of course liquid oxygen boils at, according to one internet source, -368.77 degrees Fahrenheit, so it will boil as soon as the hydrogen atom separates from the oxygen atom, inside the water. This is Hydrogen from water using the right temperature applied a different way.
    Science says when atoms separate, a void is created in the original atomic structure, and the void will be filled. Air being present, when my Flashing Liquid Process takes place, the surrounding air fills the void, and oxygen, being in that air, is what turns the vapor I created from gasoline, white. I have seen the bubbles form, and the gas inside the bubbles is clear, until they break, then like magic, when the clear gas is exposed to the air, the clear gas turns white. The oxygen in the surrounding air creates a hotter burning vapor, this is where I get twice the boost in power over gasoline. The liquid that forms the bubbles, that has clear gas inside, is the non flammable liquid that I created when I Flashed the gasoline, at 600 degree Fahrenheit temperature. A Gas Spectrum Analyzer, would add documentation to my synopsis. Prove me wrong, you have the temperature, use an electric fry pan, turned to its highest temperature, which should be around 600 degrees Fahrenheit. Spray a fine mist of gasoline onto the heated surface. Don’t worry, science is wrong about gasoline igniting at 536 degrees Fahrenheit. I have seen a heating element turn a dull red (about 1000 degrees Fahrenheit) before the gasoline auto ignited. The electric fry pan cannot reach that temperature. Analyze the white vapor, and non flammable liquid on a Gas Spectrum Analyzer. I know what I discovered. I will call the white vapor I created from gasoline, Billy Gas. I know its saturation temperature is around 65 degrees. It remains a gas at higher ambient temperature, than 65 degrees Fahrenheit. Find that saturation temperature on the combustible liquids chart.
    I have 3 videos on You Tube my channel Bill Kendrick, watch them and read the comments, make your own decision. A large mass of heat will be needed to sustain the desired temperature, when the liquid is sprayed onto the heat source, and the droplets need to be as fine as possible, to react to the applied heat faster. Yes I think I found the way to separate the atoms in any liquid with the right temperatures. I say every liquid atom has its own boiling temperature, when my Flashing Liquid Process is applied. Try it and see for yourself. Heat transfer happens first and I say faster than matter can perform a change of state, when the matter applied, is very small. One can take any liquid above its boiling temperature, by doing this. Bill Kendrick

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: