Hydrogen Has Failed In Cars And It Won’t Be Powering Trucks Either

Forbes - Feb 8th, 2025

The story explores why hydrogen fuel is unlikely to be a viable option for heavy-duty trucks, as explained by Mike Nakrani, CEO of VEV. Despite the initial interest in hydrogen for larger vehicles, Nakrani argues that battery electric vehicles (BEVs) are far more efficient and practical. Efforts by companies like Ford, Daimler, and BP to develop hydrogen fuel cell trucks have not been successful due to significant efficiency losses during the hydrogen fuel cell process, as well as complex and costly storage and transportation requirements. Nakrani highlights that BEVs, originally seen as suitable only for small vehicles, are now being adopted for larger vehicles, including mining trucks and heavy-duty vehicles, signaling a shift in industry trends.

The context of this development stems from the broader transition towards sustainable transportation solutions. While hydrogen was initially seen as a potential 'green' replacement for fossil fuels, the practical challenges and inefficiencies have hindered its adoption, especially compared to the rapid advancements in battery technology. The implications are significant for the automotive and energy sectors, as companies and governments grapple with the realities of transitioning to clean energy. The persistence in hydrogen research by some major companies is attributed to their sunk costs and the business model it supports, but the growing dominance of BEVs suggests a narrowing future for hydrogen, relegating it to niche applications in the transportation industry.

Ford Hydrogen Fuel Transportation Battery Electric Vehicles Mike Nakrani Vitol Daimler Ballard Power Systems Bp Sustainable Energy

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a well-structured and clear examination of the challenges facing hydrogen as a fuel source for heavy-duty trucks, largely drawing on the experiences of Mike Nakrani. It effectively communicates the current market trends and technological inefficiencies associated with hydrogen, making a strong case for the dominance of battery electric vehicles. However, the article would benefit from a more balanced exploration of the topic by including diverse perspectives and discussing potential advancements in hydrogen technology. The reliance on a single source limits the depth of analysis, and the lack of explicit citations or references affects the overall source quality. Despite these limitations, the article addresses a timely and relevant issue with implications for public interest and policy, contributing to ongoing discussions about sustainable transportation solutions.

Accuracy

The story presents various factual claims that are largely consistent with industry trends and expert opinions regarding hydrogen and electric vehicles. For example, the claim that the global market for hydrogen fuel cell cars was 5,621 units while battery electric vehicles sold 4.5 million units reflects the current market dominance of electric vehicles. However, this claim should be verified against official sales data to ensure precision.

The story accurately reflects the challenges facing hydrogen as a fuel source, such as its inefficiencies compared to battery electric vehicles and the difficulties in storage and transportation. These points are supported by expert opinions and technical studies, adding credibility to the article. However, some claims, like the specific efficiency comparison between hydrogen fuel cells and batteries, need verification through technical studies to confirm the exact figures presented.

Overall, the article provides a truthful representation of the current state of hydrogen fuel in the automotive industry, but some claims require further verification to ensure complete accuracy.

Balance

The article primarily presents a viewpoint that is skeptical of hydrogen's viability in heavy-duty trucks, largely focusing on the perspectives and experiences of Mike Nakrani, CEO of VEV. While this perspective is well-supported by his experiences and industry trends, the article lacks a comprehensive exploration of opposing viewpoints or potential benefits of hydrogen technology.

There is an implied bias towards battery electric vehicles, as evidenced by the extensive discussion on their efficiency and market success. The article does not provide sufficient space for arguments that might support hydrogen as a viable alternative in certain contexts or acknowledge ongoing advancements in hydrogen technology.

While the article does mention that hydrogen may have niche applications, it does not delve deeply into what these might be or provide balanced input from other industry experts who might have a more positive outlook on hydrogen's future.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow that guides the reader through the arguments against hydrogen's viability in heavy-duty trucks. The use of direct quotes from Mike Nakrani adds clarity and authenticity to the narrative.

The language is straightforward and accessible, making the complex topic of hydrogen vs. electric vehicles understandable to a general audience. The article effectively breaks down technical concepts, such as efficiency and storage issues, into digestible information.

However, some sections could benefit from additional context or explanations, particularly regarding the technical comparisons between hydrogen and electric vehicles. Providing more background information on the broader market trends and technological advancements would enhance the reader's understanding.

Source quality

The article relies heavily on the insights of Mike Nakrani, whose background and experience lend credibility to the discussion on hydrogen and electric vehicles. Nakrani's involvement in previous hydrogen fuel projects provides authority to his claims.

However, the article would benefit from a broader range of sources to enhance its reliability. Including perspectives from other industry experts, researchers, or companies actively working on hydrogen technology would provide a more comprehensive view of the topic.

The lack of direct citations or references to specific studies or data points limits the article's ability to fully substantiate some of its claims. Providing links or references to external reports or data would improve the overall source quality.

Transparency

The article provides a clear narrative based on the experiences and viewpoints of Mike Nakrani, but it lacks transparency regarding the methodology behind certain claims, such as the efficiency comparison between hydrogen fuel cells and batteries.

The article does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest or biases that might affect the impartiality of the information presented. For instance, the relationship between VEV and Vitol, a major energy company, could be explored to understand any potential influence on Nakrani's views.

Overall, while the article offers a coherent argument, it would benefit from more explicit disclosure of the sources and methods used to arrive at its conclusions, as well as any potential biases or conflicts of interest.