2012 Nissan Versa Recalled For Transmission...
News
Reviews
Guides
Gas Mileage
Car Types

Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles Dirtier Than Gasoline Counterparts, EVs Are Cleaner Solution

 
14 2,872 views January 3, 2010

Smog in New York City

Smog in New York City

Enlarge Photo

In an effort to bring all sides of the story here on our site, we are presenting another research study about plug-in vehicles and hydrogen vehicles.  If you have followed the previous articles regarding the National Research Council study titled "PHEVs and EVs To Cost Tens of Thousands More Than Gasoline Counterparts for Next 20 to 30 Years", and the follow up article titled, "National Research Council Report on PHEVs and EVs May Be Biased", then you are aware that there is some controversy surrounding the research.

As many have pointed out, and our follow up articles points out, the research may be biased.  Click the links above for the previous stories.  There is always more than one side to a story and now new research finds EVs to be better than hydrogen in at least one way.

Now there's new research from a different group and this research suggests that EVs could be cleaner than gasoline powered cars, while some types of hydrogen powered vehicles are likely to be more harmful to the environment that gasoline vehicles.  The study was published in Science Direct.  The study looks at emissions of each vehicle type from start to finish.  For example, how is the electricity created, how is the hydrogen created and what is the overall impact of each source of motivation.

The research concludes with a statement that won't make fans of hydrogen vehicles happy.  As Green Car Congress reports directly from the study, ""All of the pathways except for [fuel cell vehicles] using hydrogen from electrolysis reduce [greenhouse gas] emissions compared to ICEs and [hybrid electric vehicles]."

The author of the study also states that energy to charge EVs may come from inefficient and dirty sources but,  the impact on the environment is still lessened overall as compared to gasoline vehicles.

There are several ways to conduct research into advanced vehicles and different studies seem to show different results.  Some suggest that hydrogen is the cleaner solution while others suggest that EV are.  This report provides evidence that EVs can be more environmentally friendly than  some hydrogen vehicles, but all of the studies should be viewed with caution.

Source:   Science Direct via Green Car Congress





Posted in:
 
Contribute
Send us a tip Comment Contact the editor
Follow Us

 

Have an opinion?Join the conversation!

  • Posting indicates you have read this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use
Comments (14)

  1. By Roy Posted: 1/3/2010 7:01am PST

    Although I am a BEV proponent and anti-Fuelcell, I must admit that this study's conclusions are not supported by their own chart. http://bioage.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef0128768cb592970c-popup
    In that chart it clearly shows the Fuel Cell hydrogen obtained by Steam Methane Reforming is clearly the lowest pollution. The other two Fuel cell pollution levels show hydrogen produced by electrolysis, this is not practical, will not be done, and is an unrealistic metric.
    Another point about the chart. I shows that they base the PEV40 Volt as 35% gas usage. I think this is a highly unrealistic assumption. Volt users are going to plug in as much as possible.
    Third point is that this study is all about Marginal Electricity. I have not read the full article (requires $), but suggests that all vehicle charging will be done at peak demand times.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  2. By Roy Posted: 1/3/2010 7:21am PST

    Correction to my previous post.
    The chart shows that 35% of pollution produced by PEV40 vehicles such as the Volt will by by gas and is realistic.
    I think the most important point is that even if PHEVs are charged at high peak demand times, their pollution contribution is slightly better than a 46mpg car.
    Naturally the whole study would become irrelevant if all electricity was produced in non-polluting formats such as solar, wind, geothermal, and LFTRs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHdRJqi__Z8 which could burn our stockpile of radioactive waste. LFTRs cannot be used to make bomb grade plutonium and therefore was rejected as desirable nuclear reactor.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  3. omnimoeish avatar omnimoeish Posted: 1/3/2010 8:31am PST

    Wow, so they're saying that producing hydrogen from natural gas is going to create less GHG than from electricity, and by a lot too. Interesting. I always wondered why CARB was claiming FCVs were more efficient than EVs.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  4. By Jason M. Hendler Posted: 1/3/2010 10:13am PST

    Of course, it's not reasonable to compare ICE's, BEV's and FCV's using fossil fuel sources, as we are moving away from fossil fuels. NO coal plant construction was approved this year, so there is an obvious obsolescence coming to that infrastructure.
    If you want to make claims about future performance, then you have to base it on future conditions.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  5. By  jrup Posted: 1/3/2010 10:14am PST

    I intend to charge my PHEV with PVs and don't see any reason why everybody in the temperate zones cannot do the same ... any studies on this source you'd care to trash?
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  6. By roy Posted: 1/3/2010 10:18am PST

    omminoeish, They are saying that hydrogen from natural gas creates less GHC than from electricity produced by the most polluting sources.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  7. By Luke Posted: 1/3/2010 4:53pm PST

    One of the big issues is that I can make my own electricity. Making my own electricity costs more than buying it from my local utility company, but I can do it if I have to, and there's no need to wait for infrastructure. With hydrogen, I have to wait for some central planner somewhere to build me a H2 gas station.
    That alone makes BEVs a more likely candidate for success, at least for the next few years.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  8. By  Chris O Posted: 1/4/2010 1:47am PST

    Even if it is true that steamreforming natural gas is not more polluting than electricity from the PRESENT mix of powerplants it's still not an argument for hydrogen fuelcell technology. Natural gas is a fossil fuel that will run out eventually, it's most abundant in countries that are problematic politically (Russia and Iran) and steam reforming a hydrocarbon like this will always mean you end up with the carbon (CO2) as well as the hydro(gen). Electric cars on the other hand are entirely flexfuel. The car itself is zero emission, the way the electricity is generated is ultimately a choice from a wide range of options. Introducing hydrogen as an intermediate energy carrier will always mean efficiency loss and loss of flexibility of energy sources. If you want natural gas to be your ultimate power source for cars it's more efficient to either use it directly as a fuel for ICE's or in a powerplant to generate electricity for BEV's.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  9. By Don J Posted: 1/4/2010 10:04am PST

    What is the point of a hydrogen car if you are making hydrogen by steam reforming natural gas? Just burn the natural gas directly and skip some steps of losing energy.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  10. By  Bret Posted: 1/4/2010 10:08am PST

    I agree with Luke. The attractiveness of a BEV lies in their potential to be energy independent. And, I think every BEV should have a solar panel on the roof. The only reason they don't is because they are being funded by utility companies.
    Hydrogen, on the other hand, has to be purchased the same way as gasoline. And, it will be taxed, controlled and manipulated the same way gasoline is now. I would rather avoid that fiasco and go with electric. It will also make for much simpler vehicles.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  11. Chris at CaFCP avatar Chris at CaFCP Posted: 1/4/2010 10:29am PST

    It's important that future fuels come from a variety of sources, as electricty and H2 do. Some sources are greener than others, some are more efficient--the flexibility for every region of the world to make its own fuel is vital for energy independence and sustainability. The future will most likely hold a combination of fuel cell and battery electric vehicles with the fuels coming from a variety of renewable feedstocks.
    Chris White
    California Fuel Cell Partnership
    www.cafcp.org
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  12. By  Chris O Posted: 1/5/2010 11:59am PST

    @ Chris at CaFCP
    Your right that every region should be able to source it's energy from whatever source is convenient for it's specific circumstances and provides a comfortable degree of independence and sustainability. Driving on electricity is helpful to that end because it can be generated in many ways using many different energy sources. Building in H2 as an intermediate energy carrier however is not very helpful. It's wasteful to build in an extra energy conversion process in the well to wheel cycle and with present technology it would appear that the least wasteful way of creating H2 is to break up hydrocarbons like natural gas which causes CO2 emissions and makes the whole hydrogen thing just an expensive and impractical way of driving on natural gas. The efficient thing to do is cut out the H2 middleman and drive directly on electricity from the grid.
    Oh, and if the hydrogen lobby had really believed that hydrogen and battery electric could have a future side by side it wouldn't resort to fraudulent battery bashing reports like the recent National Research Council study. No way a dead end technology like hydrogen would survive in an equal opportunity world and it's very clear that the hydrogen lobby does whatever it takes to ensure no such equal opportunity environment exists.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  13. By DC Posted: 1/6/2010 2:35am PST

    Why is it that the hydrogen hoaxters always insist that there is not "one" fuel solution in the future? Why exactly is that? The Fossil-fuel industry has only allowed "one" fuel option for well over a century(theirs), and has(and continues to)use its considerable political and economic power to see it remained that way. Califoria had a solution that worked within its grasp, and proved even a technological dinosaur like GM could produce clean, advanced vehicles. Then, they rolled over, and now seem to have thrown their support behind a non-solution like H2 FCVs, amazeing.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  14. By  Daniel Posted: 6/21/2010 12:39pm PDT

    Hey,
    I am a big fan of clean energy and Hydrogen really "feels good". But it is beyond me how the after distribution to local filling stations Hydrogen can still be better environmentally than electricity - not to mention the risks of transportation and the burden on the taxpayer for implementing the new infrastructure...
    Daniel
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

 

Have an opinion?Join the conversation!

Find Green Cars

Go!


More from High Gear Media

 
 
Green Car Reports
  • Follow Us
  • Twiiter
  • Facebook
 
 
© 2011 Green Car Reports. All Rights Reserved. Green Car Reports is published by High Gear Media. Send us feedback.
 

Use the form below to send us a tip, give us feedback, or just say hello.

(max 750 characters)