Electric-hydrogen debate heats up
War of words between Toyota, Tesla gets testy
There was a hint of scandal, a juicy soupçon of controversy if you will, at this year’s North American International Auto Show.
It was, at least to those who attend the media days of such shows, a welcome return to the schoolyard bullying that has always been a part of the testosterone-fuelled auto show circuit. Indeed, such shenanigans used to be a regular part of Detroit auto show rhetoric with Ford or General Motors regularly calling out the other on the performance of its muscle cars or the butchness of its pickup trucks. But then along came the Great Recession and, with it, the conservatism that comes with all economic turmoil: Everyone started playing nice-nice — my respected competitor this, my esteemed colleague that. It was boring.
But the good times are back — witness the 50+ new model and concept introductions at this year’s show — and with them comes the chutzpah that is part and parcel of the automotive industry. It’s “this is my ball” played on a grand scale on the world’s most viewed stage, billions of dollars at stake in the high stakes poker game that is the future of the automobile.
Only the protagonists aren’t the usual suspects and the subject of their ire not the usual horsepower, top speed, cubic inches blather. Oh, Tesla CEO Elon Musk is no stranger to controversy, but when the call-out-ee is Toyota, whose corporate mien is usually that of the schoolmarm whose mouth couldn’t melt butter, you know you have a story.
The subject of this brouhaha — at least from a purely technical standpoint — would seem the finest splitting of hairs. Essentially, Musk — as well as former head of Volkswagen North America, Jonathan Browning, and Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn — has publicly poohpoohed the fuel cell technology that Toyota sees as part of the automotive industry’s alternative power plant future.
After unveiling the company’s FCV fuel cell vehicle, Toyota’s sen ior vicepresident, Bob Carter, told the Automotive News Conference, “Personally, I don’t care what Elon, Carlos or Jonathan say about fuel cells. If they want to ‘plug in and tune out’ (a reference to those companies’ focus on batterypowered electric vehicles (BEVs), that’s fine.”
What’s most ironic about this internecine battle is that, save for the source of the electricity, fuel cell cars and BEVs are kissing cousins. Both types of car dispense with the internal combustion engine in favour of the same kind of electric motors as those powering a Nissan Leaf or the Model S.
The main difference is their fuel source. BEVs power their electric motors from onboard batteries, which are recharged from the electrical grid. Fuel cells, on the other hand, convert hydrogen into electricity, fuelling the electric motors — like a conventional automobile — from an on-board tank. Since the byproduct of the fuel cell is water, the two are, save for the extra step of creating the FCV’s hydrogen fuel, equally emissions-free.
(It’s worth recognizing here that while EV fanatics note that some hydrogen may be sourced from the controversial practice of fracking, it is also true that some of the electricity powering Teslas comes from coal-fired plants).
Where the controversy arises is that both will require an extensive rejigging of North America’s transportation infrastructure. A comprehensive network of fast charging stations will be required if BEVs are ever to venture farther afield than the suburbs. The same can be said of gas-station-like hydrogen refuelling pumps — a wide network of them will be needed before fuel-cell cars ever become popular.
Each side claims — and if this isn’t the automobile industry’s greatest case of the pot calling the kettle black, I don’t know what is — that the other’s infrastructure cost is untenable.
Both have their arguments. Individual electric recharging stations will be cheaper to build than a high-pressure hydrogen refueler, but more of them will be needed because it’s very doubtful that battery-powered vehicles will ever match the range of a comparable FCV.
EV fans note that fuel cell cars need a very high-pressure tank on board to store the gas in sufficient quantities. Of course, they’re ignoring the fact that to get decent range out of a BEV, its onboard battery can weigh as much as 400 kilograms.
The thing that may — and I emphasize “may” — tilt in the fuel cell vehicle’s favour is its combination of range and quick refuelling. Toyota claims its FCV has a 500-kilometre range and that it can be refuelled in under three minutes. While it may — someday — be possible to get 500 km out of a single BEV charge, it won’t be recharging in three minutes.
That said, the ultimate irony is that the best technology for an emissions-free alternative to the internal combustion engine is probably a combination of BEV and FCV technology. A mid-sized battery could provide the requisite daily range while taking advantage of cheap, fromthe-grid electricity. A supplementary hydrogen fuel cell would then provide easily-refuelled extended range when required.
Can’t we all just get along?