Lots of trucks chug diesel fumes from LA to Ontario, CA.
Cleaner air would be a great benefit.

10 won't make a difference...
So why don't we just forget it?

China is planning to build the first 1,000,000 FCEVs for local national use. It should prove the effectiveness of the technology? Will massive export follow?

@Lad

Toyota are going the hydrogen route because it has higher energy density than any battery we can do at the system level, does not need to plug in or fast charge which rapidly degrades the battery which is enormously environmentally costly, provides fuelling at comparable rates to petrol, and has better potential for cost reduction,

In short, because they know what they are doing.

They also continue to work vigorously on developing batteries which actually would do the job they are advertised for at the moment, but don't do.

Recent up-to-date electrolysers can produce H2 for less than $3.50/Kg with lower cost e-energy from REs instead of from higher cost NG.

Excess energy from intermittent (Solar/Wind) REs and Hydro plants are very good match for H2 Electrolizers to produce much lower cost $3.50/Kg H2.

Toyota are going the hydrogen route because it has higher energy density than any battery we can do at the system level
Not really. At the "system level" Gravimetric Energy Level of FCEV is less than 500 Whr/kg, Volumetric Energy Level less than 700 Whr/kg, and the Power Level maybe 400 W/kg (the last two factors are why it is not useful for aviation). The low power level is also the reason for batteries in FCEV.
The real reasons Toyota likes H2 FCEV is that they have invested $billions since 1997 and really love NiMH batteries (they hate Lithium Ion, ever notice they spend much more on other battery tech, e.g. Magnesium Ion.

Unsourced claims without showing the workings don't help either side.

Harvey's claim of $3.50kg for hydrogen from renewables can be found at Nikola, where they estimate their costs for it using solar arrays and their electrolysers currently being installed.

Posters may disagree with that claim, but it is not lying, at any rate by Harvey, and some degree of civility might help their own ideas to be listened to with more respect.

Gryf, you are chopping and changing from density per kg to volumetric, all without enough detail to follow your calculations.

The MIrai and Nexo are pretty heavy, but the weight ratio of fuel cell systems gets better with larger vehicles.
See for instance the Nikola site again, where they are specifying batteries for short range and fuel cells for longer range.

That is also why they are specified in trains, and in ferries and the cruise ship design.

It is unclear where the optimum trade off point is, but AFAIK there is no question but that at least for larger vehicles fuel cell systems are more favourable for weight than battery only systems.

Volumetrically may be a different matter.

gryf:

I can't work out what you are seeking to argue.
You say:
' At the "system level" Gravimetric Energy Level of FCEV is less than 500 Whr/kg, Volumetric Energy Level less than 700 Whr/kg, and the Power Level maybe 400 W/kg (the last two factors are why it is not useful for aviation).'

Wh/kg is not a volumetric measurement, but specific energy density.
You then talk about power densities, which is another subject.

The measure where I was arguing, so far as I know wholly uncontroversially, is that the specific energy of fuel cell vehicles for larger vehicles is higher than for batteries, even including the ancillaries and importantly the carbon fibre tank holding the hydrogen and the associated battery needed to provide extra power and the power as opposed to energy density of the fuel cell part of the system is not high and more importantly does not like ramping up and down.

The Mirai and the Nexo are both pretty heavy, but if you want incremental range then most of the system stays the same, with only the hydrogen and its CF tank increasing.

So the question of how the relative density compared to batteries is indeterminate as it depends how far you need to go and how big the vehicle is.

In practical terms this can be seen on the Nikola website, where the same vehicle can be had either with a pure battery for short range or fuel cells.

The fuel cell version has greater range and a weight advantage.

gryf

If you can't write clearly then it is hardly my fault'

Originally I said and you replied:

"'Toyota are going the hydrogen route because it has higher energy density than any battery we can do at the system level'
Not really."

You now say:
' YES IN 2019 FCEV have a higher energy density than current Lithium Ion battery technology. 170Wh/kg is less than 550 Wh/kg.'

So what is 'not really' about that?

You then go on to say:
' It just not TEN times higher'

Who the heck said it was?
You are creating straw man arguments.

Finally you waffle on about the inevitable march of progress in battery energy density, which will be lovely if and when it happens and sensible people will re-evaluate then, not now when it is pie in the sky, and finally make unsupported suppositions about the cost of hydrogen in the future.

Neither your reasoning nor your exposition of it is very clear.
In fact it is muddled and coloured by what you hope will come to pass.

For heavy transport hydrogen has significant advantages and very low emissions, which is why the Chinese for instance are re-balancing to make considerable use of it in that field.

EP

Redefining lies as someone having a different opinion to your and a different evaluation of sources is absurd

Hydrogen is being used right now in bus stations at around $4.50 kg or so:

'He said the new hydrogen buses will allow SARTA to take out of service at least five buses that are over 500,000 miles and are in need of replacement.

As for the approximately $1.9 million hydrogen pumping station at SARTA’s Gateway headquarters in southeast Canton headquarters, it’s operational, said Conrad. A 9,000-gallon tank holds liquid hydrogen at extremely cold temperatures. A vaporizer converts the liquid hydrogen into gas where it’s stored in underground tanks and then it’s pumped into the hydrogen buses with fuel dispensers. The pumping station can support up to 20 vehicles. A bus can hold 50 kilograms of gas. The hydrogen is shipped from Air Products’ hydrogen plant in Ontario.

A kilogram of hydrogen gas, which now costs about $4.50, is roughly equal to a gallon, said Conrad. A hydrogen gas bus gets about eight to nine miles out of about a kilogram of hydrogen gas while a regular diesel bus gets about four miles to the gallon.'

http://omniproservices.com/omniweb/sarta-hydrogen-station/

So does that mean that you were lying about the cost of hydrogen?
Or are there differences due to different sources etc?

Of course not, but you fail to understand the reasons for the high costs you quote.
They are largely determined by the low volume of the initial roll out for cars.

The bus station uses higher volumes, and so can be set up more economically, transporting it about costs less and so on.

That high volume is akin to its use for trucks, not for cars which you quote.

So Harvey is more nearly right than you, and if anyone is lying, that would be you.

Redefining lies as someone having a different opinion to your and a different evaluation of sources is absurd

Refusing to cite sources while pushing propagandist positions IS lying.

Hydrogen is being used right now in bus stations at around $4.50 kg or so:

'He said the new hydrogen buses will allow SARTA to take out of service at least five buses that are over 500,000 miles and are in need of replacement.

I went looking for that.  The Air Products plant in Ontario, OH is so un-newsworthy that nothing I can find bothers to mention it, let alone list where it gets its hydrogen.  Almost certainly, it is made from Pennsylvania (Marcellus) shale NG by steam methane reforming.  Wellhead NG prices in the Marcellus shale barely broke $5/mmBTU during the 2017-18 winter cold snap.  1 kg of H2 is 119.9 MJ or 113.7 kBTU.  1 mmBTU is thus 8.78 GGE; turning less than 50¢ worth of NG into $4.50 of H2 looks like a pretty good scheme, or should I say scam?

So does that mean that you were lying about the cost of hydrogen?

I cite my sources, unlike AlzHarvey the propagandist.

Or are there differences due to different sources etc?

He claims RENEWABLE hydrogen, without citing sources for his costs.  He is a LIAR.

you fail to understand the reasons for the high costs you quote.

Wrong.  I dig up the costs that AlzHarvey tries to hide.  He is a liar.

The bus station uses higher volumes, and so can be set up more economically

Why would LDVs be unable to use the same supply as the bus station and share the cost savings?

This is a question you are not supposed to ask.  It's part of the LIE.  Stop accepting the lie, start asking questions.

I'll just add that aside from the triviality of installing a light vehicle fuel pump where there is already a hydrogen supply for heavy duty vehicles, the lower costs of the supply for the heavy duty is clearly associated with relatively high volumes.

So the point which should be obvious to the meanest intellect is that a great deal of the high price of hydrogen at the pumps for light vehicles is due to their not being many on the road.

As volume increases, prices will tend to drop.

Who could possibly have predicted that?