Michael Liebreich (though he looked to this technology earlier) says, hydrogen “doesn’t solve a problem we don’t have” in this short youtube video of a conversation with Zach Shahan of Clean Technica. https://youtu.be/rCM3xd8YhSo
EVs are quieter, accelerate better, can charge at home or office, have fewer and sealed moving parts, much lower maintenance cost, regenerative braking – less particulate pollution and better AQ, plus the saved cost of being without my car for two days when (ICE or hydrogen) vehicle does need maintenance. With hydrogen you have a noisy vehicle, poorer performance, a gear box, and you have to go to a gas station. You are dependent on an looking for a number of miracles still.
Hydrogen supposedly offers more range and flexibility, but actually we have electricity nearly everywhere and don’t for hydrogen. We still have to get that hydrogen from somewhere. Hydrolysis at the beginning requires energy and then at each stage you have losses, costs, and requirements for capital investment. Electricity to battery to motor, how can you beat that? It will continue to improve and I don’t see hydrogen crossing or superseding that trajectory. Now a forklift truck in a warehouse, doing a job you can’t do with diesel in closed space and you want to keep that forklift running 24/7, you have the infrastructure there and it never has to find it anywhere else, that might make sense.
#1 – convenience of EVs, charge from home, don’t have to go to gas stations (not inconvenience of finding fueling elsewhere)
The future is a mobility – bundle, different solutions for each.