Do hydrogen fuel cell cars have a bright future?

Dr. Pero Mićić

Hydrogen is the future of the automotive industry. You hear that everywhere. But will it be the future? There are already many articles and videos on this topic. Actually, I thought the subject was finished and closed. So why this one? Well, there’s still a lot of controversy, often on a weak knowledge base. Even very well-known professors make demonstrably false arguments. What I want to give you in this video is a concise summary of all arguments. Plus-arguments that hydrogen fuel cell cars will prevail and minus-arguments against it. So, will most of us be buying hydrogen cars in 2030?

There is this widespread hopeful thought. In ten years we will all be able to drive with hydrogen without any problems, refuel 800 km of range in a few minutes, without any local emissions. And all is good. Battery electric cars are therefore only a temporary transitional technology, so you might as well buy a combustion engine car once again.

In Germany there is now a national hydrogen strategy. Market leadership in hydrogen technologies is the vision. A clear vision and even a strategy for it, that is quite remarkable. That’s what is usually missing. But let’s take a closer look.

We are looking at passenger cars and light commercial vehicles. The vehicles that you and I use most. And I’m looking at this from a car buyer’s perspective. Because they are the ones who are predominantly deciding whether the hydrogen fuel cell car or the battery electric car will prevail.

And by the way: This is not a forecast for 2030, but my assumption for the future. There is a significant difference. Forecasts are supposed to predict the future in 2030. The forecaster wants to be exactly right ten years from now. But assumption means: After all that can be known today, we assume the following future so that we can make decisions now. And in a month or a year’s time, we check and correct our assumption of the future. And let me also say this: our clients in the automotive environment are all suppliers to the combustion engine industry. Nobody is paying for this video. It is simply my and our assumptions at the FutureManagementGroup.

Why are the combustion engines missing as an option? We have covered this in this article:  https://www.futuremanagementgroup.com/en/electric-cars-really-the-future/ 

Lists of Arguments

Let’s draw up a list of arguments. All these arguments have been put forward by experts and can be verified in the sources.

Plus-arguments speak for the future in which car buyers predominantly choose HFCEV (Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle, short hydrogen car), minus-arguments speak against it, so that most of them choose BEV (Battery Electric Vehicle). And there are zero arguments that apply equally to both types of drive.

If I use BEV for comparison, then of course those offered by the leading supplier today, Tesla. They show today what the other manufacturers will also be capable of in five or ten years, presumably.

Arguments for convenience

10 minutes refueling for 500 km (plus)

With 5 minutes for one tank filling, refuelling is significantly faster than charging a BEV.

It takes an additional 5 to 10 minutes for a hydrogen pump to be ready for refuelling after one or a few refuelling operations, i.e. until the fuelling pressure is built up again. This means that only four to six cars per hour can be charged at one pump.

But for the foreseeable future that is still faster than charging a BEV for 500 km. A future disadvantage must not be overlooked. Even in ten years, FCEVs will hardly be able to be charged faster than today. Even then it will still take 10 minutes. BEV will be chargeable much faster in ten years. So the lead is melting away. Solid-state batteries that can be charged with 500 km in five minutes are still somewhat speculative, so we leave them out of the equation.

So a plus for the HFCEV.

Range like a battery electric car (zero)

The range of HFCEV is about the same as that of a BEV. Hyundai Nexo has 540 km, Toyota Mirai 500 km, the next generation even 650 km, the Mercedes GLC F-Cell 500 km. Unfortunately you can only lease the Mercedes, not buy it, and only if you have a company. For whatever reason. A real move towards the future would look different. But the current electric cars actually match these ranges. Tesla model 3: 560 km, Tesla model S: 640 km.

Greater ranges can be expected equally through larger tanks or batteries and through advances in efficiency in both types of drive. There are FCEV announced with 800 km and 1000 km range, but these announcements are matched by BEV, the Tesla Cybertruck with 800 km and the Roadster of Tesla with 1000 km. So altogether range is a null argument.

Only refuel at fuel stations

You can never refuel a hydrogen car at home, not with friends and only with the very few employers and customers, not even in 2030. You always have to drive to a hydrogen gas station to refuel. A BEV is usually charged at home while you sleep or enjoy your leisure time, or at work and only needs to be plugged in and unplugged twice a week. This is perfectly sufficient for almost all drivers, except for the long-distance drivers. Only they have to plug in for 30 minutes every three hours and drink coffee, eat something and go to the toilet. While the charging speeds keep increasing. And the charging times are getting shorter and shorter.

Really problematic and challenging is a BEV still today for tenants without their own parking lot. For this purpose, charging facilities need to be built in public car parks, at shopping centres or at workplaces. The energy suppliers are very confident about the possibility of expanding the electricity grid. I therefore justifiably assume that there will be great progress in this area in the next few years in 2030.

In principle, you can charge a BEV at any power outlet, albeit very slowly at around 13 km per hour. With 16A and 11 kW, which can be installed in practically every house and parking lot with little set-up effort, you can charge 50 km per hour, while sleeping, working or during leisure activities.

The variety of charging options is a negative argument, even in the long run.

Fuel stations are rare

There are 134 hydrogen gas stations in all of Europe in August 2020. In Germany 84, that is 60% of all European gas stations. This means that you virtually cannot go on holiday by car, because the remaining 50 hydrogen filling stations are spread all over Europe. France 5, Austria 5, Switzerland 3, Belgium 2, Netherlands 3.

But it will certainly get better in the future, right? Could be. You just have to know that a hydrogen filling station, a single one, costs more than 1 million Euros to build and is also expensive to run, while a charging station with 6 to 8 charging points costs a tenth, a little over 100K Euro, and requires hardly any maintenance. More on this later.

The current and very likely the future number of refueling possibilities is a minus.

Arguments for use

Smaller luggage space (minus)

The current hydrogen vehicles all have a much smaller luggage space than BEVs, because a fuel cell vehicle simply has to accommodate more components.

Well suited for reasonable driving (zero)

For reasonable and comfortable driving the performance of an HFCEV is absolutely sufficient. Just like the BEV.

Less suitable for dynamic driving (minus)

If you want to enjoy great acceleration and do so more often, you will have less fun with a FCEV than with a BEV. If you want to have acceleration of 4 or less seconds from 0 to 100 km, which quite many people still like, you can’t do that with today’s HFCEVs, because the small buffer battery doesn’t allow permanent dynamic driving. And if the battery were bigger, you could do without the fuel cell and the tank and have a BEV.

Less safety (minus)

Hydrogen tanks are now just as safe as gasoline and diesel tanks. But all three types of tanks are more flammable than batteries. BEV burn at least five times less often than petrol and diesel cars, in percent of course, not only in absolute numbers. Some studies even say 20 times less often, based on the distance driven. But let’s stick to five times less frequent.

A hydrogen gas station has already exploded in Norway. A charging station hasn’t exploded yet.

Electricity is transported via power lines. Hydrogen has to be transported to the gas stations with tank trucks, by the way with many more trucks than for gasoline and diesel, as we will see later. But let’s stick to five times less frequent. Safety is therefore rather a minus-argument.

Arguments for costs

Triple energy requirement (minus)

Fuel cells are energy converters. First electricity must be used to produce hydrogen and then the hydrogen must be used again to generate electricity. In each case with high energy losses and reduced efficiency. For purely physical reasons, fuel cells can therefore never be as efficient as a battery that directly stores and directly emits electricity.

Even if FCEV technology makes great progress, new rules of physics would have to be discovered in order to make up for this disadvantage in efficiency.

Footnote: It would actually be more efficient, i.e. more environmentally friendly and cheaper, to use hydrogen at the fuelling station to generate electricity and then charge electric cars. If it was not for the charging time.

Yes, there is still the direct combustion of hydrogen in internal combustion engines, which would work with some modifications. But that has means an even worse efficiency, even worse than gasoline and diesel. BMW, for example, already set this idea aside in 2009.

Second footnote: EFuels reach a maximum efficiency of 15%, so they are not an alternative for mass mobility.

There are various overviews and each of them is controversial in detail. But if we take a look at the basic ratio, we can state that out of 100% energy used for an FCEV at source, about 20% to a maximum of 30% arrive at the wheels. There is data on efficiencies of FCEV of 50% for the vehicle, but they are reduced by the production and transport of the hydrogen. Intensive research has been conducted on lithium-ion batteries for passenger cars for a mere 20 years. Fuel cells for cars have been researched for at least twice as long.

Of 100% energy used for a BEV, about 70%-90% ends up on the wheels. From my own experience I would doubt the 90%, let’s take the 80%. And then the average values are 25% and 75%. So we come to the simplifying conclusion that HFCEV need three times more energy than BEV. There are also calculations that arrive at five times the amount of energy. But let’s leave that aside.

So those who ask where all the electricity for BEV is supposed to come from and then claim that hydrogen must be the solution, they obviously haven’t done their physics homework.

Even if all cars, for example in Germany, were fully electric, we would only need a maximum of 20% more electricity in Germany. By the way, 1/3 of this 20% is already sold or given away to other countries. But if all cars in Germany were HFCEV, we would need at least 60% more electricity. And that is then a completely different and enormous challenge.

How is the car buyer affected by this? Quite simply, the energy costs of an FCEV must inevitably be three times higher for the same distance than with a BEV. So you don’t even have to care about efficiency and the regenerative nature of the electricity. For the most part, for the driver will count what goes out of his or her wallet.

Some say that efficiency doesn’t matter when you have an abundance of energy. Firstly, we are far from having an abundance of renewable energy, and secondly, energy will still not be totally free. Who will pay three times more when they can pay a third for the same distance?

The production of hydrogen will only become cheaper if the energy becomes cheaper. But this means that electricity will also become cheaper for BEV to the same extent. If the electricity becomes more expensive, both types of drive become equally expensive or cheaper.

It goes without saying that the weight of the vehicles with both types of drive is already included in these calculations. The weight hardly differs anyway. A Toyota Mirai weighs about as much as a Tesla Model 3 with the same range. By the way, a 3-series BMW also weighs almost as much as those cars.

This is a central minus-argument against the HFCEV.

The life cycle is shorter (minus)

The best fuel cells are good for up to 450,000 km. Today’s batteries are similar, but Tesla and later others will soon introduce a battery for 1 million miles, or 1.6 million km, which will still have 70-80% of its capacity after that. It is rather unlikely that fuel cells will now make such a leap after decades of research.

Electric cars have also been around for a long time, but not lithium-ion batteries. Development of lithium-ion batteries for cars virtually only started 12 years ago.

Batteries are very stable in practical use. It hardly ever happens that a battery simply breaks completely. Fuel cells are rather sensitive.

A battery is considered to be ready for a second life at 70-80%. This is followed by another 10 or more years as stationary storage in households or businesses. This second life is in principle also possible for fuel cells, but it starts earlier and is shorter than with batteries.

As a result, this means that the roughly equal purchase price of HFCEV and BEV is spread over fewer years of service of the drive in the case of HFCEV, and thus the depreciation in value per year is higher.

The loss in value is higher (minus)

The depreciation in value depends on the purchase price and the duration of service. We have already mentioned the disadvantage of durability. The purchase price depends strongly on the components used and the number of units sold.

BEV are much simpler and can be built smaller than FCEV. Most suppliers have not even started with the small BEV. The price reduction potential is therefore better with BEVs.

In Germany there are only about 600 hydrogen cars in August 2020, but about 180,000 battery cars. The number of BEVs is growing exponentially. BEVs are strongly driven by Tesla, many Chinese manufacturers, Renault, VW and others. FCVs are still developing very hesitantly, despite decades of research and development.

Yes, China has reduced the subsidies for BEV and will soon abolish them completely. That is absolutely right, because the better product will prevail anyway. Subsidies are almost always unnecessary and harmful. But for the time being, China has only cut the subsidies for small BEVs with small ranges, so that the cars have more range and become more suitable for everyday use. In China the combustion engines are to be completely replaced by BEVs. HFCEVs are only subsidized to a relatively small extent.

As a result, buyers of an HFCEV will have a higher loss of value per year.

Maintance is more expensive (minus)

FCV are much more complicated in structure. They have everything that an electric car has, but in addition they have a sensitive fuel cell, a high-tech tank and other specific components. Fuel cells are very sensitive. They have to be drained against sub-zero temperatures, preheated for operation, cooled during operation. The intake air must be very clean and strongly filtered to protect the cell membranes.

Fuel cells provide constant energy. In order to be able to accelerate more and also to preheat the fuel cell, a battery is needed, albeit a very small one. The small battery in an HFCEV must tolerate many more charging cycles than a large battery in a pure electric car and therefore degrades more quickly.

The tank is now a masterpiece of engineering. After all it has to withstand 700 atmospheres of pressure. 200 to 300 times more pressure than in your tyres. Meanwhile, hardly any hydrogen escapes through the tank walls, but the tank is expensive to produce and has to be tested and maintained. It takes up as much space as a diesel tank, although only a few litres can be stored. So it is clear that an FCEV cannot be and will not become cheaper to maintain than a BEV in the long term.

Some say that hydrogen cars are being promoted so that customers will continue to have to spend a lot of money for maintenance in garages. But these higher maintenance costs cannot be hidden from the customers. They will understand which kind of drive is more expensive and what is cheaper.

Infrastructure costs are much higher (minus)

The costs for the infrastructure, i.e. the necessary amortization of the investments, will ultimately have to be covered by the car buyers and drivers. And this infrastructure will have to be built up almost completely and quickly, whereas the electricity infrastructure already exists for the most part and only needs to be expanded step by step.

The storage of hydrogen is dangerous and therefore highly regulated. The production, transport and fuelling stations must be intensively secured and tested. The prescribed tests and maintenance for a hydrogen filling station alone are said to amount to over half a million euros per year. Such costs are far greater than those for charging stations.

If hydrogen is not produced at the gas station, which would increase the cost per gas station from one to several million, the hydrogen has to be transported to the gas station by trucks. Even on a truck you need 700 atmospheres of pressure or cooling to -253 degrees. Over the entire distance. These are very expensive tanks and very expensive trucks.

A normal tank truck can only transport much less kWh in the form of hydrogen than in the form of diesel or gasoline. It is estimated that hydrogen mobility would require ten times more tank trucks compared to today’s fuel supply at gas stations. All loaded with quite dangerous hydrogen.

Pipelines and the gas network are out of the question from a purely technical-physical point of view because they would have to be built from scratch for hydrogen, every inch of them using the expensive technology of tanks. The existing gas infrastructure is completely unsuitable.

Instead of liquefying hydrogen with 700 bar pressure or cooling it to minus 253 degrees Celsius, it could also be bound in organic substances. These are so-called Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carriers, LOHC. This would save the costs for compression or cooling, but then the efficiency would be even lower because the hydrogen would have to be bound once more and then released again. In addition, you would have to have a huge tank in the car, so the efficiency would drop even further. And the number of trucks would increases even more.

Conclusion: Because hydrogen requires an extensive and expensive infrastructure for production, transport and thousands of fuelling stations, the costs can never be nearly as low as the costs for BEV’s power supply.

The customer doesn’t care about that, you say? Well, he or she has to pay for it all. And then customers become very critical and cautious.

Arguments for environment

100% renewable energy is possible for both (zero)

HFCEVs, like BEVs, can potentially be operated with 100% renewable energy. So this is a null argument that applies to both types of drive.

In addition, both types of vehicle can in principle be produced with regenerative energy. However, this is still a long way off, even though Tesla has announced that in a few years’ time it will also be able to produce its batteries with regenerative energy, i.e. without any CO2 emission at all.

The carbon dioxide load is equal (zero)

Today, batteries are only partly produced with regenerative energy and hydrogen is mainly produced from natural gas. So for the time being there are problems on both sides.

A study by Fraunhofer in Germany on behalf of H2 Mobility states that HFCEVs are more climate-friendly than BEVs from a range of 250 km and more. But the study is paid for y a hydrogen consortium. And they recommend to build both technologies side by side. The customers will have to make a decision. HFCEV or BEV. CO2 emissions will unfortunately not be the central criterion for them.

And should a complete hydrogen infrastructure really be built despite the existing electricity infrastructure? To supply only a part of the cars while the other ones charge electricity directly? This is quite nonsensical in economic terms. From the customers’ point of view, comfort, benefits and costs will be decisive.

Since both cause similar CO2 pollution and can potentially become CO2-neutral, I consider this argument to be a zero argument.

Less critical raw materials (plus)

The HFCEV can be seen as less critical as to raw materials. Essentially only platinum is being discussed, but it has already been greatly reduced.

In the BEV, there is an extensive and predominantly emotional debate about raw materials. The most apt argument is the relatively small amount of cobalt obtained through illegal child labor. Child labor is unacceptable from our point of view, period! However, cobalt is a by-product of copper production, so practically the entire electronics industry should be blamed. But it was not until the BEV came that this became an issue. It is important to know that the proportion of cobalt in modern rechargeable batteries has already been reduced to a sixth and rechargeable batteries are expected to be completely without cobalt.

The consumption of drinking water through lithium extraction is demonstrably a misrepresented problem. Eleven avocados or two beef steaks need just as much water as a large battery for an electric car. In addition, there is enough lithium on earth to electrify all cars, with a 95% recycling rate, all the more so. And finally, lithium is not a necessary element for batteries for all eternity. By the way, there are no rare earth materials in batteries at all.

Anyway, let’s stick to the somewhat emotional plus argument for the HFCEV.

95% recycling rate is possible for both (zero)

Batteries can be 95% recycled. Let us assume that this is also the case for fuel cells and hydrogen tanks, although there is little information on this. The only problem is that there are many more BEVs than FCEVs and will probably continue to be for the time being, so that investments in recycling capacities are more likely to pay off for batteries.

A carefully fair null argument.

Arguments about the future of the automotive industry

Market success has not yet been achieved (minus)

What is the current reality on the market? Most car manufacturers are clearly focusing on BEV as the successor to the internal combustion engine. Yes, there are still a few exceptions like Toyota and Hyndai. But they are few and their sales figures are already drastically behind those of BEV. Even of the brand new and quite attractive Mirai, Toyota, as the largest car manufacturer in the world, plans to sell only 30,000 units.

In Germany, although it has over 60% of the European hydrogen fuelling stations, a mere 600 FCEVs are on the road. But already about 180,000 BEVs.

The growth rate from 2018 to 2019 in Germany was 64%, the year before 54%. Worldwide 42% and 55%. The exponential growth is clearly visible. The market share is also growing exponentially. The HFCEVs are heavily outperformed.

Almost everyone who once had a modern BEV, whose manufacturer has well organized the charging infrastructure, at the moment this is only Tesla and hopefully others soon, stays with according to surveys and does not switch to the combustion engine and not to the HFCEV.

If a comprehensive hydrogen infrastructure does not emerge now all of a sudden, internationally, which is as unlikely as it can be, the race is already over. 20 years ago, this opportunity existed when nobody knew how to build batteries with such high energy density and reliability. But now? Most probably not.

Political energy independence is delayed (minus)

If we really want to become independent of the not very pleasant suppliers of crude oil one day, of the far from environmentally friendly crude oil industry, then we should not rely on a system for which we need three times as much renewable energy. With FCEV, our chance of strategic energy independence would be very far off.

Low prospects of success in the global automotive market (minus)

There is a suggestion that traditional manufacturers of ICE cars should not get involved with BEV because so many jobs would be lost. They should concentrate on FCEV in order to save the jobs of car manufacturers, suppliers and the engineering industry. I cannot believe that an alleged automotive market expert really believes this. But he wrote it publicly.

So the suggestion is, let us do the complicated, the inefficient and the expensive, so that we can save our industry. We will somehow be able to sell the customers that they will have to pay a lot more, will continue to have to go to and pay the garage more often and will only be able to fill up at a few filling stations. Business as usual.

I can understand this argument. A great many of our clients are suppliers to the fossil fuel car industry and mechanical engineering companies. But that would be a very short-sighted and ultimately suicidal and deadly strategy. Why? After all the arguments, hydrogen mobility is the more expensive and less convenient solution for car drivers. So the car industry would have to force the majority of its customers to adopt a solution that is much more disadvantageous for them.

This could work if there were no competitors. Not only Tesla and many other western manufacturers rely on BEV. China wants to replace combustion engines completely with BEV. HFCEV play almost no role in this. For exactly the reasons we are looking at here. To whom and how do we want to sell our hydrogen cars in the world, when outside of some countries like Germany hardly anyone is thinking about building a sufficient hydrogen infrastructure?

The customer acceptance is missing (minus)

Since car buyers are usually not stupid and look closely, the tradition automotive industry would commit suicide by focusing on hydrogen fuel cell cars. The customers would continue to drive their ICE cars and then gradually switch to BEV, which the traditional manufacturers then offers too little.

What was previously unimaginable could then easily happen: We would start buying significantly more cars from China. They are excellent at electric cars. Take a look at the new Polestar from Volvo. This is a Chinese car!

If the German car industry would now really try to sell customers a system that is more expensive and less comfortable in several respects, we would not save a single job, but we would achieve exactly the opposite because of the global competition from BEV: Lose most jobs.

Fortunately, however, the car industry is more informed and more reasonable than the proponents of hydrogen fuel cell cars. They have largely set them aside already.

Conclusion

Some will say now that it is better not to buy a car at all. Yes, hardly anyone needs a ton or two of vehicle to get from A to B. But people want to have and buy cars, at least until the autonomous vehicles come along.

Mind you. This is about hydrogen cars and light trucks. But even Nikola, the yet-to-be manufacturer of hydrogen trucks, who has never built more than a prototype, has included purely battery-powered trucks in his imaginary line-up. But why?

Hydrogen is much too expensive, and therefore too valuable for the operation of cars, and probably also of trucks. In stationary operation the efficiency is much higher. Hydrogen has great benefits and therefore great potential in many areas of stationary use in manufacturing. As a reduction agent in the steel industry, for example, hydrogen would greatly reduce CO2 emissions because carbon monoxide from burned coal is currently used.

In addition to stationary use in manufacturing, ships and aircraft can be very suitable applications for traffic and transport.

Even if, after decades of research, even with high public funding, it is possible to make the production of hydrogen more efficient and cheaper and find investors for thousands of hydrogen fuelling stations within a very short time, new rules of physics would have to be found to make a hydrogen car better and cheaper from the customers’ point of view than a purely battery electric car.

The idea of seeing a mix of FCEV and BEV as the future is nonsensical. Because even for only half of cars being FCEV, the full infrastructure is needed. The cost disadvantages will then be even greater.

So if you read advertisements like “Tesla is defeated, here are the insider tips on hydrogen stocks”,… well, I’ll definitely refrain from those stocks.

So my future assumption, not forecast, is that in 2030 customers will not buy combustion engine cars, not HFCEV, but by far BEV. And that the suppliers will follow this trend.

What do you think? Do you have further or better arguments? I look forward to your comments.

If you find my assessments convincing, please share this piece with your friends and in social networks. So that we all can look more realistically into the future.

By the way, if you want your company to profit from the trends and technologies of the future and develop and implement a robust future strategy, I invite you to join my Leader’s Strategy Program. In this program I will advise and guide you in rethinking and build the future of your company. Write to me to have me explain the program to you.

Have a bright future!

Dr. Pero Mićić

BOOK A STRATEGY MEETING WITH DR. PERO MIĆIĆ hier klicken

Sources

Overall view

1. Prof. Doppelbauer über Elektromobilitaet-komprimiert: Doppelbauer_-_Elektromobilitaet-komprimiert__2_.pdf
2. PKW 2.0 – Das Auto wird neu erfunden – YouTube: watch
3. Strategiepapier Elektroautos:  Strategiepapier%20Elektroautos%20Stand%202019-10%20V1.5.pdf
4. Warten auf das Wasserstoff-Auto – dabei hat die Technik keine Chance gegen Akkus: https://www.focus.de/auto/elektroauto/news/efahrer-chef-erklaert-warten-auf-das-wasserstoff-auto-darum-hat-die-technik-keine-chance-gegen-akkus_id_11365397.html
5. Wasserstoffauto- Technik, Angebot, Tests – ADAC: wasserstoffauto-so-funktioniert-es
6. VDE Studie Brennstoffzelle: studie-brennstoffzelle-data.pdf
7. Haben Wasserstoffautos eine Zukunft- – Spektrum der Wissenschaft: 1523803
8. Mythen zum Wasserstoffauto – Die Wahrheit über die Brennstoffzelle – auto motor und sport: wasserstoffauto-brennstoffzelle-co2-neutral-batterie-lithium
9. Status Elektromobilität 2020- Das Endspiel nach der Corona-Krise: 341670568_Status_Elektromobilitat_2020_Das_Endspiel_nach_der_Corona-Krise
10. Die Rohstoffknappheit wird überwunden – Energiewende- Schafft endlich das Brennstoffzellenauto ab! energiewende-schafft-endlich-das-brennstoffzellenauto-ab-2006-149263-2.html
11. Brennstoffzelle- Ein Milliardengrab für Autohersteller – Auto & Mobil – SZ.de: alternative-antriebe-die-brennstoffzelle-ist-ein-milliardengrab-fuer-autohersteller-1.3922234
12. Wasserstoff-Autos, Brennstoffzelle – das nächste große Ding nach der verpatzten Energiewende: wasserstoff-autos-brennstoffzelle-das-naechste-grosse-ding-nach-der-verpatzten-energiewende
13. Wasserstoff – Energetische Zukunft oder teure Sackgasse – Hilft LOHC- – YouTube: Wasserstoff – Energetische Zukunft oder teure Sackgasse – Hilft LOHC? – YouTube
14. Brennstoffzelle im Auto- Besser als Lithiumakkus- – Harald Lesch – YouTube: watch
15. Prof. Lesch und die Öffentlich Rechtlichen Medien – Wissenschaft oder rot-grünes Sprachrohr- – YouTube: watch
16. Harald Lesch zu Elektroautos – alte Zahlen, alte Mythen – YouTube: watch
17. Harald Lesch irrt sich- Warum die Brennstoffzelle nicht die Zukunft ist – EFAHRER.com: Harald-Lesch-irrt-sich-Warum-die-Brennstoffzelle-nicht-die-Zukunft-ist_10815
18. Dibenzyltoluol als Wasserstoff-Speicher der Zukunft › HZwei-Blog: dibenzyltoluol-als-wasserstoff-speicher-der-zukunft
19. Flüssige organische Wasserstoffträger – Wikipedia: Fl%C3%BCssige_organische_Wasserstofftr%C3%A4ger

Energy requirements and energy costs

1. Nikola Plans to Enter the Market at an Uncompetitive Price Point, & More – ARK Invest: issue-226
2. Was ist effizienter- E-Batterie oder Wasserstoff: battery-or-fuel-cell–that-is-the-question.html
3. VW- Elektroautos sind viel effizienter als Wasserstoff-Fahrzeuge: vw-elektroauto-brennstoffzelle-wasserstoff
4. Elektrisch im Straßenverkehr- Batterie vs. Brennstoffzelle vs. Power-to-X » Zukunft Mobilität: elektroauto-brennstoffzelle-synthetische-kraftstoffe-ptx-ptl-kosten-infrastruktur-rohstoffe-energiebedarf-wirkungsgrad

Safety

1. Wie sicher sind Wasserstofffahrzeuge – EMCEL: sicherheit-von-wasserstofffahrzeugen
2. Norwegen- Explosion an Wasserstoff-Tankstelle – electrive.net: norwegen-explosion-an-wasserstoff-tankstelle
3. Status and Q&A regarding the Kjørbo incident – Nel Hydrogen: status-and-qa-regarding-the-kjorbo-incident
4. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. Tube Trailer Module Hydrogen Release and Subsequent Fire: HZM1902.pdf

Environment

1. Faktencheck- Welches Auto hat die beste Klima- und Umweltbilanz: index.php
2. Klimabilanz von -strombasierten Antrieben und -Kraftstoffen: klimabilanz-von-strombasierten-antrieben-und-kraftstoffen-1
3. Studie- THG-Emissionen von Batterie- & Wasserstoff-Pkw: treibhausgas-emissionen-batterie-wasserstoff-studie-fraunhofer-ise
4. Elektroauto, Diesel oder Wasserstoff – Womit stoppen wir die Klimakrise- – YouTube. Elektroauto, Diesel oder Wasserstoff – Womit stoppen wir die Klimakrise? – YouTube
5. Lebensdauer einer Brennstoffzelle- Infos zur Haltbarkeit: lebensdauer-einer-brennstoffzelle-infos-zur-haltbarkeit_97643

Market

1. ZSW- Bestand an E-Fahrzeugen wächst auf 7,9 Millionen Exemplare: zsw-bestand-an-e-fahrzeugen-waechst-auf-79-millionen-exemplare
2. Elektromobilität- Bestand wächst auf 240.000 E-Fahrzeuge: elektromobilitaet-bestand-waechst-auf-240-000-e-fahrzeuge
3. eMobility-Dashboard Juli- 16.798 reine Elektro-Pkw: emobility-dashboard-juli-16-798-reine-elektro-pkw
4. 2021 Toyota Mirai fuel-cell sedan reveals striking new look: 2021-toyota-mirai-revealed

Future of the automotive industry

1. Forscher- Brennstoffzelle -ökologisch sehr sinnvoll: forscher-brennstoffzelle-oekologisch-sehr-sinnvoll
2. Nur Wasserstoff kann die deutsche Autoindustrie retten: nur-wasserstoff-kann-die-deutsche-autoindustrie-retten
3. Maschinenbauverband glaubt an Wasserstoff-Antrieb: maschinenbauverband-betont-potential-von-wasserstoff-antrieben
4. Wasserstoff als Kraftstoff der Zukunft: 25192302.html