How WWII Put Germany & Japan on a Failure Path for EVs

Some of the biggest car brands in the world are from Germany and Japan; Volkswagen, Toyota, BMW, Mercedes, Porsche, Honda, and Audi to name a few. The auto industries in these countries share a reluctance to embrace electric vehicles. Today, we'll explore why that may be and what the implications could be for these countries and the world.

The auto industry is experiencing more change now than it has since its origin. Electric vehicles, self-driving cars, ride-sharing services, micro-mobility...

China has embraced electric vehicles and is a rising star in the global auto industry. As EVs gain market share, China will gain market share. This means someone has to lose market share, and that someone is likely to be German and Japanese automakers.

Germany and Japan didn't anticipate the transition to EVs; they even fought against it. Their plan was hybrids, diesel, and (eventually) hydrogen fuel cells. Even today, Toyota proclaims that EVs will be "at most 30 percent of the vehicles on the road." 

Why are these two countries aligned in their entrenched automotive thinking? What factors pushed them to maintain the status quo even when the rest of the auto industry sees the disruption that EVs are causing? Why are they unflappably convinced that hydrogen will be the next fuel of choice? 

When a German and Japanese alliance is mentioned, World War II quickly comes to mind. Surprisingly, the origin of this government and cultural direction toward hydrogen (H2) may actually trace back to WWII.  

World War II - Germany

Fuel was a strategic resource during WWII. Historian Anand Toprani describes WWII as "The First War for Oil." Oil was in desperately short supply for the Axis powers.

Fuel shortages directly played a critical role in Germany's defeat in World War II. The scarcity of fuel undermined many of their military operations, disrupted their economies, and led to a decline in civilian morale.

The fuel shortages also had a devastating impact on the Luftwaffe pilot training program. The Allies' bombing of the German oil industry reduced the production of petroleum, oil, and lubricants by more than 90 percent. This resulted in widespread shortages of fuel for German mechanized and motorized divisions.

In 1945, the Wehrmacht was grounded for lack of fuel and their new Tiger & Panther tanks were running on fumes. In the later stages of the war, the Germans were never more than 30 days away from running completely out of fuel.

To address this, Germany created synthetic oil from their abundant coal supply via a process called liquefaction. However, the German synthetic oil infrastructure suffered devastating attacks from Allied bombers. German High Command launched the Ardennes Offensive in mid-December 1944 to capture Allied fuel supplies at Antwerp. The offensive failed to achieve its objectives and burned most of Germany's fuel reserves.

Even after the war, fuel shortages continued and contributed to:

• Industrial output down by a third
• The country's housing stock was reduced by 20%
• Food production was half the level it was before the start of the war
• The Germans' diet became more monotonous, primarily bread, potatoes, and preserves
  
  

World War II - Japan 

Oil shortages were also a key factor in Japan's military operations during WWII. Japan's combined output of natural and synthetic oil was only 3,459,000 barrels annually. Japan's war needs had to be drawn mainly from reserves.

Japan's oil shortage severely impacted their naval operations. Due to the lack of fuel, some ships were converted into stationary anti-aircraft platforms in port.

The oil shortage precipitated the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. The United States government had prohibited all oil exports to Japan in reaction to the advance of the Japanese military into Southern Indochina.

Fuel Shortage Mentality Lives On

When fuel was such a strategic commodity and shortages were devastating, this will not be soon forgotten. The people who lived through the shortages after the war will bear the mental scars. This means the post-WWII politicians of Germany and Japan wanted energy independence. Without domestic oil supplies in either country, something else was needed. Hydrogen looked promising as the solution.

Hydrogen is a resilient resource that can be generated in many ways, making it harder to cut off supplies. It can also be stored in strategic reserves. In the latter half of the 20th century, hydrogen appeared to be a promising pathway to energy independence. Governments implemented industry research and development policies and incentives to move down this promising path. 

 

Only now, decades later is it apparent that H2 was not the energy independence panacea that it once promised to become. Just as the return on energy models began to make it clear that Hydrogen would not be viable for energy independence, H2 found a new lease on life: carbon-free.

Germany's Hydrogen Plans

Germany began actively supporting hydrogen product development in the 1980s. BMW pioneered hydrogen-powered vehicle prototypes based on the BMW 7 Series. 

The German government formally announced a comprehensive "National Hydrogen Strategy" in June 2020, significantly increasing public funding for hydrogen research and development. 

Germany is investing in hydrogen as a future energy source to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and dependency on imported fossil fuels. Germany's National Hydrogen Strategy aims to speed up the development of a hydrogen market.

Hydrogen can be used in steel production and other industrial sectors that are hard to electrify.

Germany's government is targeting at least ten gigawatts of electrolysis capacity by 2030.

Water Electrolysis

Japan's Hydrogen Plans 

Japan began its research on hydrogen energy in the 1970s, with the "Sunshine Project." This project included investigations into solar and wind power as well. 

This government-led initiative is considered the starting point for Japan's substantial hydrogen research. In the 1980s, Japan began developing hydrogen fuel cell technology alongside H2 production.

Japan formally established a national hydrogen strategy in 2017. This strategy solidified their commitment to hydrogen as a key energy component. Japan is investing in hydrogen because the leadership believes it can help the country achieve energy independence and net zero greenhouse gas emissions goals by 2050. Japan's government considers hydrogen an industrial sector that can achieve decarbonization, a stable energy supply, and economic growth.

Japan's Green Growth Strategy aims to increase hydrogen consumption to 3 million tonnes annually by 2030, 12 million tonnes by 2040, and 20 million tonnes annually by 2050. Japan plans to import about 300,000 tons of hydrogen from Australia and Brunei by 2030.

Japan planned to use the 2020 Tokyo Olympics to demonstrate a “hydrogen society”.  They wanted the 2020 games to be remembered as the hydrogen Olympics – a showcase for hydrogen as the clean fuel of the future and to signal to the world that Japan was the vanguard of this movement. The Tokyo Games “will leave a hydrogen society as its legacy,” the Tokyo regional governor promised in 2016.

This is not what came out of the 2020 games. The fleet of hydrogen-powered buses expected to ferry athletes and others was replaced by diesel buses. Despite the lofty goal, the hydrogen vision failed to materialize for predictable reasons including the cost of the fueling stations and vehicles.

Wrapping Up

Decades ago, Japan and Germany started on what seemed to be a reasonable path, hydrogen. The initial impetus was energy independence. As CO2 concerns began to arise, hydrogen promised to also help in this area, sending the two countries further down the hydrogen rabbit hole. 

Electric vehicles will be the vast majority of personal transportation, crossing 50% of new sales in the 2030s decade. EVs will win because; one, the infrastructure is much more scalable; two, the 'fuel' is much more affordable, and; three, the vehicles are much more affordable than fuel cell vehicles. Yet, Japan and Germany are ossified in their hydrogen strategy because they have invested decades of time and billions of dollars. They are stuck in the sunk-cost fallacy of their hydrogen investments.

China has no hydrogen albatross holding them back. As the world transitions to EVs, China will gain auto market share and it will come at the expense of the slow-to-transition automakers.

Waymo is the Hydrogen Solution of Ride Hail

Image by OpenAI

Both hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and Waymo’s autonomous ride-hailing service are technical marvels, yet both stumble on the steep slope of scalability, especially when costs come into play.

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, such as Toyota’s Mirai and Hyundai’s Nexo, power electric motors through a clever process: hydrogen stored in high-pressure tanks reacts with oxygen in a fuel cell, generating electricity to power the motor and drive the vehicle, with water vapor as the only byproduct. A full H2 tank is about 5 kilograms, and this delivers a 300 to 400-mile range. Refueling takes just five minutes. Technically, it works beautifully. The Mirai cruises highways and city streets, matching gasoline cars for refueling convenience and outshining them for emissions.

So why aren't we all driving zero-emission H2 vehicles today? Price and scalability are the roadblocks. Building a hydrogen refueling station costs $1 to $2 million, and the US has only about 50, mostly clustered in California. Compare that to 120,000 gas stations or 50,000 EV chargers across the country. Then there’s the fuel. The cost to fill up a fuel cell car in California is around $16.50 per kilogram. A Toyota Mirai with a 5.6kg tank would cost around $92 to fill up. However, Toyota (and others) offer free fuel for the first three years to help bridge the price gap between hydrogen and gasoline. Assuming owners had to pay for the H2, let's compare the cost per mile. For a Toyota Mirai, it's around $0.31 per mile. Compare that to $0.12 per mile of a gas car and H2 as fuel is like paying $9 per gallon for gas. No one wants to do that. This explains why they have to give away years of free fuel just to sell (lease) the things.

Scaling FCVs to millions of users would require thousands of stations and cheaper hydrogen, demanding billions in investment. High costs keep FCVs a niche player, not a mass-market contender.

Now, let’s shift gears to Waymo, Google's Alphabet’s self-driving transportation service. Waymo’s fleet of modified Chrysler Pacificas and Jaguar I-Paces uses LiDAR, radar, and cameras to navigate without a driver. AI processes a 360-degree view, dodging pedestrians and traffic with precision. It works. Waymo’s vehicles log thousands of miles in cities like Phoenix and San Francisco, safely delivering passengers. But, like hydrogen FCVs, scalability is a struggle. A Waymo vehicle with its sensor suite and compute costs around $100,000, though bulk production might trim that. Operating costs pile up fast: maintenance, software updates, and remote human oversight push per-mile costs to $2 to $3, dwarfing the ~$1 of a human-driven Uber ride. Waymo has raised $5.6 billion, yet profitability lags. Each ride is subsidized, and scaling to millions of vehicles means building charging stations, service hubs, and data centers, costing billions more. The tech is solid, but the price tag for widespread adoption rivals the challenge of hydrogen’s infrastructure.

Both Waymo and hydrogen FCVs prove the possibility of the technology. FCVs glide along, emitting only water, while Waymo’s cars steer through chaos without a human hand. Yet both hit the same scalability wall: cost. Hydrogen’s refueling stations and fuel production demand massive upfront investment, just as Waymo’s sensors, operations, and infrastructure do. Neither technology is cheap enough to flood the market. FCVs need a vast network and affordable hydrogen; Waymo needs leaner tech and lower operating costs. At CarsWithCords.net, we admire the ingenuity, but the path to scalability looks daunting. For now, both remain bold experiments, waiting for a cost breakthrough to drive them mainstream.

Who Killed the Fuel Cell Vehicle?

There's a chalk outline on the ground. As you walk past the Police tape you hear "Nothing to see here; move along."

As we discussed here, Toyota is following consumer demand and has turned its attention away from fuel cell vehicles to battery electric vehicles. Similarly, the oil companies walked away from Hydrogen filling stations in 2014. And in 2016, several parts suppliers have shut down their hydrogen fuel cell programs. Given this, you might say that FCVs are dead, and if you do, then that begs the question, Who Killed the FCV?

Just as the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? listed the suspects and the evidence against them. Let's run down the suspects for the "killing of the FCV."

Our list of suspects are:

• Consumers
• The US Government
• The California Air Resources Board
• Hydrogen Fuel Cell Technology
• Hydrogen Generation Energy Efficiency
• Hydrogen Infrastructure Cost
• Battery Technology
• Tesla Motors
• Automakers 
• Hydrogen Safety 

There's our suspect list. Is there anyone else that should be there? Let me know below along with the case against them. 

Suspect Consumers [Updated]

The two FCVs that are available today are the Toyota Mirai and the Hyundai Tucson FCV. Fewer than 2000 Mirai have been delivered and Hyundai has about half that number of Tucson FCVs on the road. It is not clear if these small sales numbers are due to low demand or low production volumes. Many of the customers that are interested in alternative fuel vehicles have moved to battery electric vehicles. The marketing of BEVs and FCVs have often pitted these two technologies as rivals. Even if the supply is limited, I have not seen consumers lining up demanding more fuel cell vehicles. 

Guilt: guilty

Suspect The US Government

The US Government kickstarted fuel cell development during the space race of the 1960s and supported FCVs with more than $1B during the G.W. Bush administration. This support was yanked away under Secretary Chu's tenure in the DOE.

Guilt: undetermined

Suspect California Air Resources Board (CARB)

The ZEV mandate gave credits to both battery electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles. Many of the rules were written to favor fast refueling times and favored FCVs over BEVs. Meaning that a FCV sold in California could receive twice as many credits as a comparable BEV. This may have been unfair to battery electric vehicles, but it did not contribute to the death of FCVs.

Guilt: not guilty

Suspect Hydrogen Fuel Cell Technology

Fuel cell stacks made great technological strides from the 1960 to the 1990 and again from the 1990 to the introduction of the Mirai in 2015. When coupled with a small battery pack (as they usually are) these stacks have the power output to deliver a satisfying driving experience.

Guilt: not guilty 

Suspect Hydrogen Energy Efficiency

If you read more than one FCV detractor article, you'll hear the efficiency argument. One version of it is shown in the image below.

Battery electric cars can be charged directly by renewable energy. If that same energy were put into Hydrogen production you would get far fewer resulting miles. The Hydrogen has to be split from water, compressed, stored, transported, pumped into the vehicle and finally processed by the vehicles fuel stack.

This argument is true. Electric cars are more efficient, but the inefficiencies of H2 don't matter if the Hydrogen could be delivered profitably. The well-to-tank process for crude oil is complex, but it can be done profitably with an affordable resulting product. The simplest system is not always the one that wins, its the one that best meets the customers needs. 

Guilt: Contributing factor (cost additions)

Suspect Hydrogen Infrastructure

Hydrogen filling stations take about 3 years to build and have a cost of about $1 million. When Shell or Exxon had the option to open a new gas station that would profitably sell gasoline to thousands of cars or to spend significantly more to build an H2 filling station that might have 3 cars in a week. Building a H2 filling station did not make financial sense unless the station were highly subsidized. 

Guilt: guilty 

Suspect Batteries

Battery technology has advanced far faster than fuel cells. Batteries were a primary technology to making smaller longer lived smartphones and nearly every high-tech hardware company is committing part of their R&D budget to improving battery energy density, lifespan, thermal profile, packaging, and/or management. These improvements along with the ubiquity of electrical outlets for recharging gives batteries a big advantage in performance improvement rate and refueling infrastructure. 

Guilt: guilty 

Suspect Tesla Motors

Tesla made EVs cool. Guilty, case closed. Actually, it is a more nuanced than that. Tesla rode the wave of advancing battery technology. This was being driven by Panasonic, BYD, LG Chem, and others. The EV revolution was coming with or without Tesla. Tesla just (greatly) accelerated it.

Guilt: Contributor 

Suspect Legacy Automakers

Honda, Hyundai, and Toyota were three of the biggest FCV supporters, but nearly all of big automakers had POC vehicles. Brad Pitt showed up to the premiere of “Ocean’s Thirteen” in a BMW Hydrogen 7. The car companies have spent billions trying to bring FCVs to market. They have chased the unicorn long and hard. 

Guilt: Not guilty 

Suspect Hydrogen Safety

Like Godwin's Law, if you talk about FCVs long enough, some one will mention the Hindenburg. There have been no FCV fires that I am aware of. Vehicles need a lot of energy to move. This is inherently dangerous regardless of fuel choice. There are more than 100,000 gasoline car fires each year. I have not seen any data that shows FCVs would be more dangerous than the current status quo. 

 Guilt: Not guilty

There's a chalk outline on the ground. As you walk past the Police tape you hear "Nothing to see here; move along."

Let's recap our suspects:

Suspect	Level of Guilt
Consumers	Guilty
The US Government	Partial Guilt
California Air Resources Board	Not Guilty
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Technology	Not Guilty
Hydrogen Generation Efficiency	Contributing Factor
Hydrogen Infrastructure Cost	Guilty
Battery Technology	Guilty
Tesla Motors	Contributor
Automakers	Not Guilty
Hydrogen Safety	Not Guilty

As you can see there are multiple guilty parties and multiple contributing factors. There is no single magic bullet that ended fuel cells. Whatever the obstacles or excuses, after decades of research and development FCVs have been unable to produce vehicles that consumers demand in droves or the infrastructure needed to fuel them.

Consumers have grown weary of walking toward the hydrogen Mirai mirage. In the battle to determine the successor to gasoline, H2 is the Betamax to battery's VHS or it is the HD-DVD to battery's Blu-ray.

FCVs may have a chalk outline around them or they may just be in critical condition on life-support. Just as EVs were killed in the 1990s and revived in the twenty-teens, FCVs could have their day again if the right breakthroughs occur. We'll be watching.

The Trillion Dollar Battery Boom

The Battery Bonanza

Modern civilization is currently attempting a massive energy makeover. We are trading old fossil fuels for sunshine and wind. This shift is noble, necessary, and requires new thinking. Solar panels and wind turbines are wonderful when the weather cooperates. However, the sun sets every evening. The wind occasionally takes a nap. And there are seasonal considerations; many regions receive far more solar in the summer than in the winter. We need a way to bottle energy for a rainy day. This is the realm of energy storage. Many people assumed we would need a dozen different technologies to save the day. There are many ways to store energy, such as gravity blocks, compressed air, and giant liquid tanks. Yet, one technology is currently eating the lunch of every competitor. Lithium-ion batteries are no longer just for your smartphone or your laptop. They are taking over the power grid. This growth is fast, fierce, and fascinating. It is changing how engineers think about the future of energy. The transition is not just about the environment. It is about the cold, hard logic of mass production.

The Lithium Juggernaut Jumps

Lithium batteries are the current champions of the energy world. Their growth has been nothing short of spectacular. A decade ago, these batteries were expensive toys for early adopters. Today, they are the backbone of the energy transition. In 2024, the price of lithium-ion battery packs fell to an average of $115 per kilowatt-hour. This represented a 20% drop in just one year. Some regions, like China, saw prices dip as low as $94 per kilowatt-hour. Analysts expect the $100 threshold to become the global norm by 2026. This price collapse makes lithium batteries incredibly attractive for utility companies. They are modular, manageable, and mass-produced. You can stack them like toy bricks to build a giant power plant.

The scale of this industry is difficult to grasp. Global battery capacity is projected to increase 14-fold by the year 2030. This is not just a small trend. It is a total transformation of the industrial base. In the US, companies are building massive factories to keep up with demand. Panasonic recently opened a giant facility in Kansas. This plant alone aims to produce 32 gigawatt hours of batteries every year. This massive supply chain makes lithium the default choice for almost every new project. It is reliable. It is bankable. Investors love a technology they already understand. While other startups are still testing prototypes, lithium is already in the field doing the heavy lifting. The learning curve for this technology is steep. As we build more, we get better at it. Every factory built makes the next one cheaper. It is a virtuous cycle of industrial improvement.

Hydrogen Hype and Heavy Hardships

While lithium is soaring, another contender is struggling to find its footing. Hydrogen is often called the fuel of the future. Some enthusiasts believe it will solve all our storage problems. They imagine a world where we turn extra solar power into gas. We would store this gas and burn it later for electricity. Unfortunately, physics is not always a fan of this plan. Hydrogen has several significant technical flaws. The most annoying issue is its tendency to cause embrittlement. Hydrogen molecules are tiny. They are much smaller than the molecules in natural gas. These tiny particles can actually seep into the crystalline structure of solid metals. Once inside the metal, hydrogen makes it weak and brittle. It turns strong steel pipes into something more like glass. This leads to cracks, leaks, and catastrophic failures.

Engineering for hydrogen requires special, expensive materials. You cannot just use the existing natural gas infrastructure. If you try, the pipes might literally shatter under pressure. This adds a massive layer of cost to any hydrogen project. It is a material science nightmare that lithium batteries simply do not face. Lithium stays inside its casing. It does not try to escape by melting your hardware from the inside out. Furthermore, hydrogen is difficult to contain. It leaks through seals that would stop any other gas. This makes transport and long-term storage a constant battle against physics. The cost of preventing these leaks often outweighs the benefit of the fuel itself.

The Efficiency Gap

Efficiency is the second major hurdle for hydrogen. When you store energy, you want to get as much back as possible. This is called round-trip efficiency. All energy storage systems are "leaky buckets," but some leak more than others. Lithium batteries are remarkably efficient. They usually return between 85% and 95% of the energy you put into them. They are like a very honest bank. You deposit 100 units of energy, and, after some fees, you get 90 back. Hydrogen is more like a loan shark that charges a 60% fee for every transaction. To make green hydrogen, you must use electricity to split water. This process loses energy. Then you must compress the gas, which loses more energy. Finally, you turn it back into electricity using a fuel cell or by burning it.

The final result is disappointing. Most hydrogen storage systems have a round-trip efficiency of only 30% to 45%. You lose more than half of your energy just by moving it around. This makes the cost of the final electricity very high. You have to build twice as many solar panels just to compensate for the losses. In a world where every dollar counts, this is a tough sell. Lithium batteries are simply better at being thrifty. They keep the lights on without wasting the harvest. Efficiency is not just a technical metric. It is a fundamental economic constraint. Every percent lost is money thrown away.

A Comparison of Storage Solutions

Feature	Lithium Ion Batteries	Hydrogen Storage Systems
Round Trip Efficiency	85% to 95%	30% to 45%
Average Pack Cost (2024)	$115 per kWh	High infrastructure costs
Scalability	High and modular	Low and site-specific
Infrastructure Risk	Well-tested technology	High metal embrittlement
Optimal Duration	1 to 12 hours	Days to months

The Last Stretch

This is needed for the final steps of grid decarbonization. We can reach about 98% of our goals using just wind, solar, and lithium batteries. This is because lithium is now competing in the 12-hour storage range. It can handle the daily cycle of the sun with ease. The remaining 2% is the hard part. This is where we might need something that lasts for weeks. However, building massive hydrogen plants for that tiny sliver of time is expensive. Instead, we can focus our resources on cleaning up the easiest parts first. Let's first work on the low-hanging fruit; once this is solved, then we can look at the state of technology and see what new goals are within reach. 

The dark doldrums of winter are a specific challenge for grid planners. These are periods when the wind stops blowing, and clouds cover the solar farms for days. In the past, people thought we needed massive hydrogen reservoirs for these rare events. However, new studies suggest we can overbuild our renewable capacity instead. If we have more solar than we need, we can still generate enough power on a cloudy day. Lithium batteries can then smooth out the remaining bumps. This approach is called SuperPower. It is significantly cheaper than building a completely new hydrogen economy. We are learning that the simplest solution is often the most effective. We do not need a complex Rube Goldberg machine of gas pipes and compressors. We just need more batteries and more panels.

Lithium is the tool that gets us through the first 90% of the marathon. It is fast, flexible, and functional. We should celebrate its growth. We should also be realistic about the alternatives. Hydrogen has a role to play in the deep future, but it is not a silver bullet. It is more like a lead slug. It is heavy, slow, and prone to breaking things. For now, the battery is king. We are watching a global shift that will redefine how we live. The speed of this shift is dictated by the factory floor and the laboratory. Both are currently working very hard on the lithium battery.

A Sunny Sequence

The transition to a cleaner grid is a long journey. It requires smart engineering and even smarter economics. Lithium-ion batteries have proven to be the most viable bridge to this new era. They have survived the skeptics and the price wars. They continue to drop in cost while improving in performance. While we must address the challenges of mining and recycling, the progress is undeniable. We are moving away from dirty fuels and toward a smarter, more efficient system. Every gigawatt hour of battery storage we add makes our grid more resilient and more reliable. We are no longer limited by the weather. We are limited only by how fast we can build.

Hydrogen will likely remain a niche player for a long time. Its problems with embrittlement and efficiency are too large to ignore. We should not wait for a perfect technology that might never arrive. We have working solutions right now; let's deploy them. By doubling down on batteries, we can accelerate the change our world needs. It is an exciting time in energy. It is an even better time to be a person who enjoys breathing clean air. We are building a foundation for a future free from fossil fuels. Success is within our reach if we stick to the technologies that work. The battery has won the first round. It is ready for the next 94 rounds of the fight.

Chasing Unicorns: The Last Exhale of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles

tl;dr: The ebb and flow of hydrogen fuel cells support by the US government, the auto industry, oil companies, consumers, and energy start-ups.  A narrative of fuel cells from their modern birth in the 1960s til today and how battery electric car technology is accelerating and closing the market window for fuel cell passenger vehicle deployment. 

After writing a story about Centaur Driving, it seems appropriate to follow up with one about Chasing Unicorns.

The case that fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) are a non-starter for passenger cars, goes something like this: the fuel is expensive, the infrastructure is very expensive, the vehicles are expensive, and there is no significant market interest. This list of seemingly insurmountable obstacles has led many to refer to FCVs as "Unicorns"; you can spend a lifetime pursuing them and have just as many as you started with, zero.

FCVs are, of course, not mythical unicorns; they do exist. To overcome these challenges it takes time, money, and engineering breakthroughs. This is the chase. The question is: is it worth it?

Unicorn Golf Chase by RobtheDoodler
Unicorn tries to outrun the fossil

Toyota has recently announced that they were appointing their president to lead their newly formed electric car division. They were one of the final holdouts for fuel cell vehicles. Government and industry support for FCVs has ebbed and flowed. Toyota is a major force in the alt-fuel vehicle market, this announcement could be the final harbinger signaling the sunset for the promise of a hydrogen future.

           

Toyota turning away from fuel cell vehicles could be the swan song of the technology.

There was a time when it was unclear if batteries or FCVs would be the right path forward for fuel-dot-next.

Fuel Cell Vehicles Seemed Like A Good Idea Once Upon A Time

In his book, Car Wars: The Rise, the Fall, and the Resurgence of the Electric Car author, John J. Fialka, makes a good case for fuel cell vehicles to be seriously considered in the 1960s. The performance of batteries at that time was far worse than it is today. Batteries were heavy and expensive. This meant that battery-powered vehicles in the 1960s were expensive and had a short range. This left automakers looking for another zero emission solution.

The Space Race of the '60s was driving the development of fuel cell technology. Project Gemini and the Apollo Program both used fuel cells. In part, based on these advancements, in 1966, General Motors developed the first fuel cell road vehicle, the Chevrolet Electrovan.

The path seemed clear, batteries were bulky, expensive, and slow to recharge; whereas, fuel cells allowed for fast refuel and the technology (although currently very expensive) was advancing quickly based on the space program's investments. Following GM's lead, other major automakers started fuel cell vehicle development programs.

           

When fuel cell vehicle programs were started in the 1960s, they seemed like a good idea.

The Birth Of The Zero Emission Mandate

Fast forward 30 years. In 1990, concerns about air quality and greenhouse gasses spurred California to initiate the Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate. The mandate required 2% of all vehicles that would be sold in 1998 in California to be zero emission vehicles. The program was scheduled to expand to 5% of vehicles sales ZEV in 2001 and a required 10% ZEV in 2003.

While emissions regulations and concerns had increased significantly during these 30 years, fuel cell technologies, on the other hand, had advanced at a glacial pace. The mandate forced the automakers to produce zero emission vehicles. Since fuel cells were not yet viable, this left no option for the automakers other than battery electric vehicles.

General Motors again led the pack. They introduced the EV1. At its launch in 1996, it was the most advanced electric car in the world. The EV1 was a sleek two-seat coupe with very low drag and (according to its devoted drivers) had great power and acceleration. The original EV1 had 18.7 kWh of Lead-acid batteries with a 70 miles range. The later version of the car upgraded to (then cutting edge) Nickel-metal-hydride batteries with 26.7 kWh pack and 100 miles of range.

This could have been the start of the electric car revolution, but that is not how things turned out. Instead, the electric car was killed.

Who Killed The Electric Car?

Who Killed The Electric Car? is a whodunit style murder-mystery documentary. It lists all the suspects and their means, motive, and opportunity in the death of the GM EV1 and its generation of 4-wheeled electric brethren. I won't give away the surprise, but that generation of EVs met their end.

EVs were certainly technically possible at that time and the few people that were able to get behind the wheel of one overwhelmingly fell in love with them. They were, however, not profitable for automakers. The dealerships didn't like them because they didn't have much of a maintenance requirement and the auto manufacturers didn't like them because they had to share too much of the revenue with the battery manufacturers. Automakers wanted batteries to be a commodity item like door handles; they wanted to be able to outsource the production, package them in a car, and sell them with a large markup. That was not the case. From this perspective, batteries were not ready.

           

When California started the ZEV program, fuel cells were not ready, but neither were batteries.

The major auto companies sued California over the mandate and won. Post-lawsuit, ZEV became a toothless shadow of original bold self. This opened the door for hydrogen to step back into the limelight after the turn of the millennium.

The Rebirth Of Hydrogen

In 2003, President Bush committed $1.7 billion over 5 years to FCV development and infrastructure. The automakers responded to the incentives with a parade of proof-of-concept FCVs trotted out at auto shows for the next few years.

Remember those fuel cells from the 1960s space race? In the 1990s, these designs become public domain. Ballard Power Systems took these designs as a starting point and began improving upon them and made multiple breakthroughs.

The fuel cells of the 1960s required both pure Hydrogen and pure Oxygen. Ballard had figured out how to extract Oxygen from the air. This greatly reduced the fueling cost. This was not the only advancement Ballard made. They were a small company and didn't suffer from the not-invented-here institutional culture. They found new membranes that were developed for nuclear reactors and others developed for submarines. These, combined with their own innovations and dogged trial and error process, resulted in fuel cells that had significantly more power, lower cost, and they needed less Platinum.

In the early 2000s, with government support, industry support, and technological advancement, it again looked like FCVs would again be the path forward.

In the early 2000s, it looked like the Hydrogen road was clear

Bumps In The Road For The Hydrogen Highway

Fuel cells were only one piece of the puzzle needed for a Hydrogen future. Over the next few years, other challenges slowed the rollout of Hydrogen vehicles. The automakers had their proof of concept cars and they had deployment plans, but you cannot sell a car unless there's someplace to fill it up.

           

You cannot sell a car unless there is someplace to fill it up.

The big oil companies had dipped into the available government hydrogen funds too and built a few hydrogen filling stations. These turned out to be very expensive. Hydrogen is a very difficult to store. This relegated FCVs to auto shows and small pilot projects near these few filling stations (primarily in California).

In 2009, Steven Chu, then the U.S. secretary of energy, told an interviewer that “four miracles” were needed for hydrogen fuel cell transportation to work:

1. An efficient and low-cost way to produce hydrogen.
2. A safe, high-density method of storing hydrogen.
3. A vast infrastructure for distributing hydrogen so that fuel-cell vehicles would have ample refueling options.
4. Improved capacity of the fuel-cell systems themselves, which were not as durable, powerful, and low-cost as the internal combustion engine.

Chu concluded that achieving all four big breakthroughs would be highly unlikely. “Saints only need three miracles,” he noted.

After this scathing review of the state of hydrogen transportation by the chief of the U.S. Department of Energy, the department dramatically cut Hydrogen fuel cell projects. Funding was cut to nearly one-third of previous levels. For the rest of Chu’s tenure in the DOE, the department awarded very few new grants to develop the technology at universities, national labs, or private companies.

In 2014, Chevron, Exxon, Shell, and BP all backed out of the Fuel Cell Partnership, a joint government-industry group that promotes hydrogen cars.

In 2016, potential parts suppliers Samsung, Delphi, and Johnson Matthey exited FCV technology or severely downgrading their activity citing the tendency of car manufacturers and infrastructure installers to fund only token numbers of hydrogen refueling stations. Spending millions on research and development to then only sell a handful of parts is not good business.  

Sunk Cost Fallacy 

By 2014 the automakers had been working on FCVs since the 1960s in some cases and they had actually made progress. The vehicles had good range and performance, the fuel cells had longer life spans and lower costs (although still not cheap). But the cars were only one piece of the puzzle. Normally, car makers don't have to worry about fuel supplies or refueling infrastructure. No one working at the automakers today ever had to wonder if there were enough gas stations. That problem had been solved by a previous generation.

Many Automakers Kept Chasing the Unicorn Even
When It Became Apparent To Industry Watchers That
Chu's "Miracles" Were Far From Happening

When the obstacle of infrastructure seemed insurmountable (or at least not profitable), the infrastructure providers walked away. Many automakers, however, were unwilling to give up on their FCV programs. 

20 Years After The EV1

The EV1 was introduced in December of 1996. Twenty years later brings us to December of 2016.

During these 20 years, driven by laptop computers, smartphones, and tablets, battery technology had continued to get better and cheaper every year. New chemistries were discovered, nanotechnologies were used, and several causes of battery degradation had been found and eliminated.

The improvement rate of batteries was slow, only 5 to 8 percent each year. But these improvements compounded year over year. Even a small improvement rate, if sustained for decades, results in big improvements. No miracles required.

           

In the 20 years since the EV1, batteries have gotten significantly better.

The Tesla Effect

I'd be remiss if I told this story without mentioning Tesla. In the mid-1990s, Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning saw that battery technology was evolving quickly and created one of the first e-book readers to utilize this energy storage advancement. They sold this company for $187 million. Springboarding from this success, they starting looking for other things that could utilize these new high-tech batteries. This is what inspired them, with others, to start the electric car company that we know today as Tesla. Under Elon Musk's leadership, the company has been wildly successful at making award-winning high-end all-electric cars.

The major automakers were free (at their peril) to dismiss Tesla as a niche player. That is until the Model 3 unveiling event forced the major automakers to reevaluate Tesla and EVs in general. The Model 3 is Tesla's $35,000 car with 215+ miles of range and it is expected to start delivery in MY 2018. Model 3 launched like it was a new iPhone with frenzied fans. In March of 2016, people were lined up hours before the stores opened put down $1000 to reserve one. In that week of the reveal nearly 400,000 people had written a check to Tesla.

This was the kind of product devotion that companies dream of having. It was a wake-up call to the auto industry.

Toyota's About-face

We started this story by talking about Toyota's about-face on electric vehicles. In 2015 and early 2016 they are trying to launch and sell a FCV, the Toyota Mirai. However, without the support of the oil companies to provide refueling infrastructure, the automaker could not create the market on their own (regardless of how great of a car they created). The Nikkei newspaper reported that "the lack of hydrogen fuelling stations poses a major hurdle for mass [FCV] consumption."

After years of working on fuel cells and claiming that EVs will only be useful for urban runabouts, the evidence had piled up and they changed direction. The saving-face move is that Toyota has claimed to have made a battery breakthrough that will allow for better battery lifespan. I hope they have. To understand how big of a direction change this is for Toyota, see our recent story.

Leaders in one generation of technology are often laggards in the next. Toyota is coming later to the battery electric vehicle game than others, but EVs are still only about 1% of the market. So Toyota will be in the game before the hockey stick makes its sharp rise. Many of the legions of Toyota fans that are driving Priuses (Prii) today will be happy to drive a Toyota EV in 2020.

Fuel Cells Are Not Dead (Yet)

Above, we discussed Who Killed The Electric Car?, this might cause you to ask, "Who killed the FCV?" but they are not dead. The tide has turned and support has ebbed here in the US, but Germany or Japan or another country will continue to support H2 transportation. This will keep the programs funded, if only on life support. Perhaps the incoming US administration will throw another billion or two towards unicorn chasing. While I don't expect to see new FCVs at the 2017 auto shows, they could be back on display in 2020. We shall see.

Always A Day Away

The dream of a Hydrogen Society is still a mirage on the horizon. The "miracles" that Chu mentioned are no closer to reality. Meanwhile, batteries have redoubled their performance several times over and show no signs of slowing this progress. BWM recently predicted that after one more doubling (about 7 years), battery electric cars will be price competitive with gas cars. If BMW is correct, this will put the tipping-point in about 2024. This will be when electric cars are just as profitable (if not more so) as gas cars for the automakers to produce. When this happens, automakers will put the pedal to the metal, or (if I may) automakers will get charged up and finally see the positive end of the battery. This will relegate FCVs to niche markets such as long-haul trucks or buses and even those may not be safe for long.

Fuel Cell Future Unlikely or Inevitable? Part 3 - H2 from Water

Water as a Hydrogen source 

Rather than extracting H2 from a hydrocarbon, it can be produced by splitting water by a process called Electrolysis.

With electrolysis, electric current can be used to split water into Oxygen and Hydrogen gas:  

2 H₂O (+DC current) → O₂ + 2 H₂

Electrolysis uses two electrodes, an anode and a cathode. During electrolysis these electrodes undergo a chemical reaction. The anode is oxidized and the cathode has electrons stolen from it by a process called reduction. These electrodes need to periodically be replaced.

This process does not create CO2. It does, however, have a high energy cost. The electricity generation method will directly impact the CO2 related to H2 generation. Some reports quote an efficiency of 50 to 70% for alkaline electrolysers. There is research into higher efficiency with the use of proton exchange membranes (PEM) and catalytic technologies that could lead to 95% efficiency, but today electrolysis remains an energy intensive operation. 

The cost of electrode replacement combined with the great energy needed results in only 4% of worldwide H2 being produced by electrolysis today. Because of these costs for electrolysis, steam-Methane reforming remains the industrial method of choice for H2 production.

Electrolysis, however, is only one method of splitting water. Other methods are being researched, here are a couple:

Thermolysis 

At 2500° C water will spontaneously dissociate. This process is called Thermolysis. With the use of catalysts the dissociation temperature can be reduced. Thermolysis occurs at temperatures that are too high for normal piping and equipment and maintaining such an incredibly high temperature is very energy intensive.

Thermochemical Cycle

The Sulfur-iodine cycle is a thermochemical cycle processes for hydrogen production from water. It has an efficiency of approximately 50%. The sulfur and iodine are recovered and can be reused. The cycle requires 950° C temperatures.

There are hybrid methods that use both thermochemical and electricity, such as the Copper–chlorine cycle. It operates at 530° C and has an efficiency of 43 percent.

Ferrosilicon method

Ferrosilicon is used by the military to quickly produce hydrogen for balloons. The chemical reaction uses sodium hydroxide, ferrosilicon, and water. The generator is small enough to fit a truck and requires only a small amount of electric power, the materials are stable and not combustible. The method has been in use since World War I. A heavy steel pressure vessel is filled with sodium hydroxide and ferrosilicon, closed, and a controlled amount of water is added; the dissolving of the hydroxide heats the mixture to about 90° C and starts the reaction; sodium silicate, hydrogen and steam are produced.

Photobiological water splitting
Hydrogen can be produced by algae in a bioreactor. In the late 1990s it was discovered that if the algae is deprived of sulfur, it will switch from the production of oxygen, i.e. normal photosynthesis, to the production of hydrogen. This production is 7–10 percent energy efficiency.

Fermentation

Bacteria and enzymes can be fermented to generate H2. Photofermentation uses light, while dark fermentation, as the name suggests, doesn't need light. The process involves bacteria feeding on hydrocarbons and exhaling hydrogen and CO2. A prototype hydrogen bioreactor using plant waste feedstock is in operation at Welch's grape juice factory in North East, Pennsylvania.

Large Scale Production 

The amount of H2 that would be needed by the world's transportation sector would require a significant increase in H2 production. For H2 to be seen as a clean, renewable fuel, it has to be sourced from water rather than fossil fuels. All of the methods mentioned above are being researched in hopes of finding a better method for large scale H2 production. Unfortunately, today, water sourced H2 remains expensive and energy intensive. This means that natural gas will be the foreseeable fuel stock for H2 production.

Next: Fuel Cell Future Unlikely or Inevitable? Part 4 - Hydrogen Infrastructure

Fuel Cells: More than you ever wanted to know in 11 parts:
Part 1 - Intro
Part 2 - H2 From Natural Gas
Part 3 - H2 from Water
Part 4 - Hydrogen Infrastructure
Part 5 - Storage
Part 6 - Fuel Cells
Part 7 - How Soon?
Part 8 - A Foot in the Door for H2
Part 9 - So Why the Hate?
Part 10 - Tin Foil Hats
Part 11 - Conclusion

From Fossil Fuels to Green Energy: The Path to a Renewable World by 2070

Transitioning to a 100% Renewable Energy Society with Rooftops and Parking Lots

A 100% renewable energy society, where all energy needs are met by renewable sources, is technically feasible with existing technologies, particularly by leveraging rooftops and covered parking areas to address land use concerns. This approach, combined with a strategic phase-out of fossil fuels, can power the United States and the world sustainably. This post will show the feasibility, technologies involved, challenges, outline a plan to eliminate fossil fuels, the easiest and hardest sectors to transition, and a timeline for achieving a fully renewable, electrically powered world by 2070.

Is a 100% Renewable Energy Society Possible?

Yes, a 100% renewable energy society is achievable, especially for electricity, using current technologies. Studies from the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the researcher Mark Jacobson suggest global electricity demand (approximately 18 terawatts in 2023) can be met by scaling up renewables like solar, wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal, paired with energy storage and grid enhancements. Extending this to transportation, heating, and industry is more complex but feasible by 2070 with aggressive investment and policy. Using rooftops and parking lots for solar panels significantly reduces land use concerns, making the transition more practical.

Technologies Utilized

The transition relies on these technologies:

• Solar Power: Photovoltaic panels on rooftops and parking lot canopies, plus concentrated solar power for heat.
• Wind Power: Onshore and offshore turbines for large-scale electricity.
• Hydroelectric Power: Dams and run-of-river systems for baseload power.
• Geothermal Energy: Harnessing Earth’s heat for electricity and heating.
• Energy Storage: Lithium-ion batteries, flow batteries, pumped hydro, and thermal storage to balance intermittent renewables.
• Grid Infrastructure: Smart grids, high-voltage direct current (HVDC) lines, and demand-response systems for efficient distribution.
• Electrification Technologies: Heat pumps for heating, electric vehicles (EVs) for transport, and electric furnaces for industry.
• Emerging Solutions: Green hydrogen for select hard-to-electrify sectors.

Addressing Land Use with Rooftops and Parking Lots

A major concern for solar is land use, as powering the US with solar farms requires approximately 3,600 square miles for electricity (approximately 4,000 TWh) or approximately 4,500-10,000 square miles for total electrified energy (approximately 5,000-6,000 TWh). The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) estimates approximately 8,000-10,000 square miles of suitable rooftop space (residential, commercial, industrial) and approximately 2,500-4,000 square miles of parking lots for solar canopies. Combined, these provide approximately 10,500-14,000 square miles, exceeding the needed area. Rooftops alone could meet electricity demand, while parking lots cover additional needs, eliminating the need for dedicated solar farms and minimizing ecosystem or farmland disruption.

Challenges

Despite this solution, challenges remain:

• Cost of Deployment: Retrofitting rooftops and building parking lot canopies is costly, with canopies approximately 20-30% more expensive than ground-mounted systems.
• Grid Reliability: Intermittent rooftop and parking lot solar requires storage and grid upgrades for stability.
• Adoption Barriers: Not all owners will install solar due to upfront costs or leasing issues; NREL estimates 50-60% rooftop adoption by 2050 without incentives.
• High-Cost Sectors: Heavy industry (e.g., steel, cement) and long-haul transport (e.g., aviation, shipping) lack mature renewable alternatives.
• Policy and Social Resistance: Fossil fuel subsidies, and regulatory inertia in traditional energy sectors slow progress.

Plan to Phase Out Fossil Fuels

A phased approach to eliminate fossil fuels, leveraging rooftops and parking lots, could work as follows:

1. 2025-2035: Scale Electricity and Light Transport
   Expand solar on rooftops and parking lots by 10-15% annually, targeting 50% renewable electricity globally by 2035. Subsidize EV adoption and ban internal combustion vehicle sales by 2035 in major markets. Retire coal plants, replacing their generation with solar, wind, and storage.
2. 2035-2050: Decarbonize Heating and Medium Industry
   Deploy heat pumps for residential/commercial heating, replacing gas systems. Scale green hydrogen for industries like ammonia and refining. Use carbon pricing to incentivize renewables.
3. 2050-2070: Address Hard-to-Abate Sectors
   Develop green hydrogen and synthetic fuels for aviation and shipping. Retrofit heavy industries with electric or hydrogen processes. Achieve 100% renewable electricity, phasing out natural gas.

Easiest Sectors to Transition

• Electricity Generation: Renewables, especially rooftop and parking lot solar, are cost-competitive. Solar and wind can replace coal/gas with existing technology. Timeline: 100% renewable electricity by 2050 in most regions.
• Light Transport: EVs are mature, with expanding charging infrastructure. Timeline: Full transition by 2040 for passenger vehicles in developed nations.
• Residential Heating: Heat pumps are efficient and widely available and work even in sub-freezing regions. Timeline: 80% electrified by 2045.

Hardest Sectors to Transition

• Heavy Industry: Steel, cement, and chemicals need high-temperature heat, where electric furnaces and hydrogen are not yet scaled. Timeline: Significant decarbonization by 2055, full transition by 2070.
• Aviation and Shipping: Currently, battery-powered planes are limited to short flights; green hydrogen/synthetic fuels are early stage. Timeline: Partial transition by 2055, full by 2070.
• Remote Regions: Areas with low solar/wind potential require costly transmission infrastructure. Timeline: 2060-2070.

Proposed Timeline

• 2035: 50% global electricity from renewables (rooftops, parking lots, wind); 80% new vehicle sales are EVs; coal phased out in developed nations.
• 2050: 100% renewable electricity in advanced economies, 80% globally; heavy industry adopts hydrogen; aviation begins synthetic fuel use.
• 2070: Full renewable energy across all sectors, with fossil fuels limited to niche applications.

Conclusion

A 100% renewable energy society is achievable by 2070 using rooftops and parking lots for solar to eliminate land use concerns. With approximately 10,500-14,000 square miles of available space, these areas can meet US electricity and total energy needs. Electricity and light transport can transition quickly, while heavy industry and aviation require longer timelines. Aggressive policy, investment, and public support are essential to overcome cost, adoption, and grid challenges, ensuring a renewable-powered future by 2070.

CARB's Optimistic Hydrogen Future

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has released the following projection:

They predict that plug-in vehicles will remain a niche product and that there will be more Hydrogen-powered cars on the road than battery electric cars by 2035.

As I have said before, predicting the future is hard and the only thing you can be sure of with detailed long term predictions is that you will be wrong.

Looking at the above chart, I started to wonder what would make me drive a H2 vehicle. I have no plans to ever buy an H2 car; I am an EV fan. After some contemplation, the answer to what would it take to make me consider a FCV was "if I could plug it in". A FCV that you can plug-in. They don't have a section on the above chart for Plug-in Hybrid Fuel Cell (PHFC?) vehicles or Plug-in Hydrogen Vehicle (PH2V?). Why not? What would a PHFC look like?

I would only buy a hydrogen-powered vehicle if I could plug it in.

How would you make a Plug-in Hydrogen Vehicle? The initial idea for the Chevy Volt was a design where the range extender could be any mobile electricity source. The architecture, now called Voltec, was initially called E-Flex for this very reason. Although the Voltec instantiation of E-Flex takes advantage of the internal combustion engine to optimize some cases, this is not a requirement of the E-Flex architecture. This means, with a few changes, the gas genset could be replaced with a fuel cell. So a Plug-in Hydrogen Vehicle is technically possible.

Assuming that North American had a complete Hydrogen refueling infrastructure (which is a big assumption); I could, one day in 2045, see myself considering a car that had 100 miles of electric range with a 200 to 300 mile H2 range extender.

I don't ever want to give up the advantage of being able to "refuel" in my garage.

There are several reasons that a (currently fictional) plug-in Hydrogen vehicle is far more appealing to me than a pure H2 vehicle.

With an adequate electric range, the PHFC car would be able to meet all the normal driving needs that I use my Leaf for today AND with the fast refueling range extender, I would be able to drive across the country if I so wanted.

Being able to "fill up" at home, is important to me. It is far more convenient than going to a filling station. Just plug in the car when you get home and it starts out every morning with a full charge. When charging at home, I know the source of the energy. I know how much energy my solar panels are producing, I know what green energy option I am paying for from the local utility. Whereas H2 will likely be natural gas sourced for many years.

The final reason that I would want all but the occasional road-trip to be electrically powered, is that it is far cheaper to drive on solar energy that I generate on my roof than anything I'll ever be able to buy at a filling station. Hydrogen is projected to be the per mile equivalent cost of about $4 per gallon gasoline. Depending on your local rates, driving a plug-in car is the equivalent of $1-$2 dollars per gallon. Off-peak charging can cut that in half. Installing solar panel that you own, can make it zero.

What Would Make Me Buy An H2 Vehicle
I have previously written that FCVs will never be viable. But, what would it take to get me to buy one?

1. Continent-wide H2 refueling infrastructure
2. A plug-in hybrid fuel cell vehicle with at least 80 miles of electric range

These seem simple, just two things: a car and someplace to fill it, but I am asking for an infrastructure system that would cost billions and a car that no one currently plans to build, as far as I know. Hey, I'll give them 30 years to complete these two nearly impossible tasks. In the meantime, I'll keep driving electric with only the occasional gas car use.