NRC study says 25 million H2 cars could be on the road by 2030
A new study by the National Research Council estimates that up to 2 million hydrogen-fueled vehicles could be on American roads by 2020, with that number potentially rising to 25 million a decade later. However, getting there requires getting past a number of hurdles first. The cost of fuel cells must drop and fueling infrastructure must be put in place. That will take substantial subsidies on the part of both government and manufacturers. The study authors estimate that about $200 billion would be required over the next 15 years to make this happen with $55 billion of that coming from governments and the rest from private industry. That total includes costs for vehicle development and deployment, research and development and infrastructure deployment. In contrast, US ethanol subsidies will reach about $15 billion annually by 2020. Beyond 2023, the costs are expected to drop to the point where the lifetime cost of fuel cell vehicles the fuel to propel them would be competitive with conventional vehicles, making subsidies unnecessary.
Gallery: Chevy Sequel 300 Mile Drive
[Source: National Research Council, via Green Fuels Forecast]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
jake 12:46PM (7/18/2008)
It sucks you have to buy the report and they never mentioned in the press release how much an average H2 vehicle would cost today. That's something a lot of people have been wondering and with no confirmation all we can do is guess it is high.
Reply
Amtoro 1:26PM (7/18/2008)
Last time I checked it, about $1'000,000 for a fuel cell car (not hydrogen ICE like the BMW Hydrogen7). but Honda will lease the FCX for about $600/mo to a few "selected" customers. To me, it sounds like buying your own nuclear reactor...
Neil 1:03PM (7/18/2008)
According to the greencarcongress coverage of this report, PHEVs weren't even considered an option (the authors thought that battery technology would require a "more than evolutionary" advance). If true, then the credibility and motives of this entire report are highly questionable.
Reply
tankd0g 3:51PM (7/18/2008)
The longevity and practicality of PHEVs is what's questionable.
Chris M 2:44PM (7/20/2008)
tankd0g, If you consider PHEVs to be questionable due to longevity and practicality, then you must really question H2 FC cars. The lifespan of PEM fuel cells (up to 80,000 miles) is actually shorter than the lifespan of either LiIon (over 110,000 miles) or NiMH (over 250,000 miles) EV batteries. The much higher cost of fuel cells and H2 fuel and the much greater difficulty in finding refueling facilities make H2 FC cars much less practical than PHEVs.
meme 1:05PM (7/18/2008)
Let's do the math, shall we? 200 billion to get 2 million cars on the road (since the "25 million" comes from a timeframe not included in the subsidy, they clearly must be assuming that the tech will somehow become affordable on it's own -- a very doubtful proposition, IMHO). $200,000,000,000 / 2,000,000 cars = $100,000/car, the price of a Tesla Roadster. This much money could outright *buy* almost 8 million Apteras.
When will this ridiculous H2 boondoggle get culled and stop drawing money from actual research projects for *actual* cleantech?
Reply
tankd0g 3:52PM (7/18/2008)
When will you realize most people don't give a damn about being green, they care about driving a car that they can fill up in a couple minutes, not one they have to plug in over night. They also care about keeping their 500 million existing ICE cars on the road, which Hydrogen can also promise.
Mike!!ekiM 10:37PM (7/18/2008)
When are "You" people going to realize that by 2030 there will be 4 more GENERATIONS of Electric Batteries on the market. You'll have more range, and cheaper power, that you power off your ROOF.
Hydrogen is DEAD today and FOREVER.
Chris M 3:03PM (7/20/2008)
tankd0g, what most people really care about is convenience and low price. It is far more convenient to just plug-in at home rather than have to go out of your way searching for a refill station. While on a road trip we can just plug-in to any convenient parking lot charger and go take a break, no need to monitor the refill process or worry about fuel leaks, unlike petrol or H2 fueling.
The fuel costs of driving electric is less than 1/5 the cost of driving a gasser, but the fuel costs of H2 FC cars is about the same as a gasser, and H2 ICE fuel costs are double the cost of petrol.
As for "H2 ICE conversions", uh, no. Very few people are willing to spend over $50,000 for the H2 storage and conversion, just so they can enjoy a greatly reduced driving range (under 100 miles), and a doubled fuel cost of $8 to $10 per Kg (gallon of gasoline equivalent).
Amtoro 1:18PM (7/18/2008)
Ok, let's say the US puts $200,000'000,000 to create the infrastructure and subsidize the vehicles over the next 22 years. Considering the inefficiency of producing Hydrogen from natural gas or water, we will need a much grater electricity generation capacity than if we just put the electricity directly into the vehicles (PHEV or BEV). I also wonder how much would it cost to develop a Project Better Place in this country to make electric transportation truly viable for everyone and skip the whole electricity-to-hidrogen-to-electricity dumb circle. Not to mention the effects of using natural gas as raw material for hydrogen fuel... oh, that's right, that's why our president likes hydrogen!
Reply
Serge 1:43PM (7/18/2008)
Project Better Place will likely see success only in smaller and/or socialist countries, where the government will subsidize a massive initial cost of the project and maintain the administrative infrastructure. With incumbent energy interests pushing hydrogen as new energy storage of choice, the U.S., I think, will go the "quick-charge" route. Infrastructure will be installed locally in areas with sufficient concentration of EVs deployed as commuter, short-distance freight delivery vehicles or specialized vehicles.
Serge 1:30PM (7/18/2008)
hydrogen subsidies are a cheap way to ensure that the status quo of energy production and distribution is maintained the future. It will take a change in leadership (looking at Bill Richardson) to enact any change in the public sector. Other than that the challenge will be left to leaders in the industry (the new, emerging kind of leaders that we are starting to see).
Reply
paulwesterberg 1:32PM (7/18/2008)
The bush administration with its friendly links to big oil and big coal has influenced government agencies to produce reports full of lies.... another day another another lie to keep people from pursing real, attainable, efficient alternatives and electric vehicles.
$200+ billion in corporate welfare for a hydrogen boondoggle.
Reply
Mike!!ekiM 10:45PM (7/18/2008)
Mr. Bush has just started talking about Electric cars and Nuclear power. Has GE finally hired some good lobbyists? Of course Wind is far cheaper then OIL Today! But we are on the verge of another "Micro" revolution. Not micro-computers but micro-power from our roofs. There are also new heat+electric furnaces coming on the market now that are much more efficient then the standard furnaces.
If you account for the "hidden" costs the US tax payer picks up on behalf of the Oil industry.
RAN 2:24PM (7/18/2008)
What if Big Government and Big Oil threw a hydrogen party and nobody came????
Reply
ddub 2:32PM (7/18/2008)
I'd much rather see this 200 billion put into developing a high speed rail infrastructure.
Reply
Ignatius 3:04PM (7/18/2008)
I'd rather see it focused towards clean, renewable energy and electric cars.
tankd0g 3:54PM (7/18/2008)
Sorry, it's all going to Iraq, you get neither.
Stan Wellaway 4:06PM (7/18/2008)
H is for Hydrogen. H is for Hype. Coincidence?
Reply
Bob 1:23AM (7/19/2008)
NH3 is the fuel of the future, to power the fuel cell car.
Reply