Among many of the things Aj Caldwell gets wrong in the link is the claim that the cost/competition problem with fuel-cell passenger vehicles is an issue of scale. Fuel-cell passenger vehicles even at extrapolated mass scale remain uncompetitive.
I don't see what this has to do with Tesla's disastrous reliability ratings, but: Hydrogen stored as gas plus a fuel cell has four times the energy density of the best batteries. Hydrogen can be fueled around 20 times faster than batteries can be charged. Hydrogen can be easily made from renewable sources, while hydrocarbon fuels are much harder to make. Hydrogen is easy to use cleanly at point of use. Hydrogen can be stored in enormous quantities while electricity cannot. Hydrogen is far safer than gasoline because it disperses quickly and goes up, not under the vehicle, in a leak. My preference is now and has always been for a hydrogen PHEV. 40 miles or so of electric range, possibly with a consumer choice based on their driving situation, plus a rarely-used average-power-only hydrogen system for longer trips results in a car that weighs around a ton less than a Model S, has the same lifetime energy efficiency, uses less rare material to build (less Lithium and the other elements in the batteries), is more recyclable, fuels faster, has more range and costs less (1/10th as many batteries as a Model S, 1/10th as big a fuel cell as a Mirai). The renewable hydrogen production also can be used to help balance the power grid with higher penetration renewables scenarios, and hydrogen production can be done at point of sale, even at the end of a long, weak power grid because the hydrogen can be stored locally.
Audi already has done this. Well, not gasoline. They built two pilot plants that use water, CO2, and electricity to make methane at one, and a fuel oil they called blue crude at the other. The oil could be burned as is in power plants and for other industrial uses, but it didn't take much to refine it for the diesel portion. Methanol is another fuel we can this way now, and I recall hearing about some projects for it being started. Ammonia is another possibility, and getting nitrogen is probably easier than the carbon. Research is going on for more efficient ways to make it than our current high heat process, that would make it cheaper to do in conjunction with green hydrogen production. These(I've seen the term efuels) will cost more than the fossil fuel equivalents, and add to the cost over green hydrogen in exchange for cheaper infrastructure. Making gasoline will add more cost, as it would require more extensive refining to work in a modern engine. The naturally occurring gasoline in petroleum isn't even good enough for that. I believe these efuels can be accepted by the public when an ICE is needed more as a range extender than the main drive on a car. In beginning, they had a review process to ensure that prospective buyers weren't too far away from a hydrogen station. You reported that is no longer the case. The former makes sense if making sure the infrastructure build out is proceding. The latter does not. And Toyota called FCEVs hybrids for years. A vehicle with an electric drive train can get electricity from a battery, fuel cell, or generator. The first is charged by plugging into another source of electricity. the latter two are refueled with a chemical, which they burn. Yes, burn. In both, oxygen is reacting with the chemical. the fuel cell is controlling that reaction to more efficiently make electricity directly than making explosions to spin the generator. Shell is getting a $40.8 million grant from the California Energy Commission. they'll spend some of their money, but most of the announced expansion and upgrades will be covered by that grant. Shell, Toyota and Honda Plan Expansion of Hydrogen Refueling Network in California | Shell United States You've only had your Mirai for what, a month now, and don't seem to have traveled beyond your local station. The article was written in August, and the average hydrogen price in 2019 was $16.51kg. What he reported was very likely true when he had the car. Most Americans' driving is closer to his. Green hydrogen has a future. that doesn't mean it is in the transportation sector. No, it didn't.
Why wouldn't we simply accept it as a gasoline substitute, assuming that the efuel not-gas actually was an honest substitute? Why would it be limited to a range extending powerplant instead of something simpler?
In a word, price. These will cost more than the fossil fuel they are replacing. Gasoline will likely be more so since we are starting with methane. Existing gas-to-liquid plants make diesel because gasoline would require extra steps that add cost. So I don't see the public at large accepting the price increase for them while the majority of new cars sold are ICEs. Blends might be acceptable, with increasing percentages as fleet economy improves. 100% might work when nearly everything is a hybrid, but I see the public more accepting when engine fuel is an occasional purchase instead of weekly. That assumes things as is, but something like a carbon tax could speed up acceptance.
Two and 1/2 months and use it to commute. Fill up once a week, 1/2 tank of fuel needed for a full fill and average 300 miles per tank. No issues with Hydrogen stations.
My wife wanted CR (we used to get it years ago) so she got it. I have looked at the magazine and the annual buying guide and I dismiss both as appropriate for someone of her generation but (and I'm older so I can say that) not for someone with online savvy who can get reviews and ratings from real owners/users.
Even so, controlled lab testing is a different kind of thing, and still useful for its own reasons. The real owners/users you can find reviews from by being online savvy are telling you things they liked and disliked for varying reasons of their own, or readings from their butt dynos, or problem issues they had that were not experienced by the unknown number of other real owners/users who didn't post reviews you found. So there'll always be a place for methodical testing.
Much of CR's car reviews don't involve lab testing. The safety type tests(brake distance, emergency avoidance, etc.) are the only thing that I'd call a lab test. Everything else, including fuel economy, aren't any different than those online reviews. It's just from a group instead of an individual. The reliability rating they give is from surveys of individuals.
Ah but they are, because they're from "a group" that works out a consistent methodology and applies it to each vehicle, and pays people who can math enough to sort out significant differences from artifacts. Which is exactly what makes it qualitatively different from online reviews posted by people who are posting because they are either cheesed off about something or are fanboys/girls. The CR surveys also go to people who just own the thing and drive it and never felt compelled to post reviews, which is the only way you get a sense of proportion. Remember how it went with Prius traction batteries. If you find PriusChat and start skimming it, you get a grossly exaggerated feeling for battery issues, because pretty much everybody who has an issue is going to find this forum and post about it. At the same time, it took CR collecting twelve years of data before the people they pay to math said they had enough data to report reliably, and that was when we learned that the failure rate was around 4% by year eleven, 5% by year twelve, and that was useful information to learn. That would not be derivable from any amount of scrolling through online reviews.
Which is why I granted them the safety testing they do as scientific. The fuel economy appears to be but isn't, as they do little to control variables. It is done outside, spring through fall, in New England. Using fuel from a local station means there will be differences from just the seasonal blends and ethanol content. Just two drivers with no mention of them following any acceleration profile. They at least don't do testing when it is wet out. which all means their results aren't usable for comparing between car models. The rest; seat comfort, space, ride, steering feel, etc., are just the opinions of their reviewers, and are no different than ones from Car and Driver or Motor Trend, or even Wayne or Tony. Their surveys also counted issues in user interface as problems in the reliability. An infotainment center that is hard to use is something to consider when selecting a car, but it is a far different issue than a part that regularly breaks. Having to learn how to use that control center is different than having to pay money to fix something.
