BMW rolls out impressive fuel cell iX5, but the time has already passed for hydrogen cars

For those who have not kept up with the differences between electric vehicles – there are four generally accepted ‘types’, as shown below: (for more information on each, see TheDriven’s explainers here).

Generally speaking, TheDriven focusses on full battery electric vehicles (BEVs) as this is by far the largest EV segment and the one that is showing the greatest likelihood of becoming the predominant electric form

That, however, has not stopped manufacturers from developing (and promoting) various versions of the other three. 

To that end, BMW have brought two prototype iX5 large SUVs to Australia. These were shown to a gathering of motoring writers recently at the Lang Lang vehicle proving ground (about 95 km south-east of Melbourne). Following a presentation from the hydrogen program manager Dr Jurgen Guldner, they were then made available for short test drives around the facility.

The exercise was interesting from two angles:

1. The vehicles were completely unsurprising to drive as they use exactly the same electric drive technology as found in the BEV version of the iX5. This meant they performed and drove just like the BEV version. The only difference was that the electrical energy came from a different fuel source.
2. The lengths that BMW went to on the day promote hydrogen as a viable fuel for coaches, light commercial vehicles, heavy trucks … as well as suggest that hydrogen provided a potential solution for apartment dwellers, long distance cars and people who tow.

So what arguments did BMW put forward to promote the viability of hydrogen? 

First-up, Dr Guldner suggested that hydrogen provided a faster path to decarbonisation as two technologies would be rolling out instead of one. But this ignores the fact that hydrogen requires two to five times as much electrical energy to provide the same travelling distance as does simply recharging a BEV.

The world is not be building carbon free electrical generation and systems fast enough to meet the Paris targets, so it seems counter intuitive to expect that a requirement to build even more in time to support its use in transport would solve the problem.

Dr Guldner did however go on to add that this extra electricity need could be met through excess solar and wind energy being diverted to hydrogen generation as a form of storage. Mind-you, hydrogen production is also needed for other uses such as green steel and, potentially, back-up hydrogen combustion electricity generation.

Given the need to build up hydrogen production facilities from their current very low base, it may be some time before there is much extra hydrogen to utilise in transport. This is especially so given BEVs plugged in at the right times would also offer the opportunity to soak up this extra electricity generation in a far more efficient fashion.

Dr Jurgen then went on to say that based on producing electrical energy via a solar panel in Germany meant that a BEV passenger cars require 6,100 kWh of electrical energy per year, versus 5,900 for a FCEV.

This was based on comparing producing the electivity in sunny regions (his example: the Middle East) which is then used to electrolyse water to produce green hydrogen, ship that hydrogen to German and then distribute it. Surely a few more panels (and wind farms) in Germany would bring the load factor back to a point that the BEV was requiring 3,000 kWh or less instead … and return the comparison to half or less than the (optimistic) FCEV figures he provided?

A second point made by Dr Guldner was that hydrogen reputedly provides faster refuelling. This not only seems seemed a somewhat out of date suggestion, it doesn’t taking into account the different natures of BEV and FCEV refuelling.

To the first point: BEV recharging speeds are trending down quite quickly now with some achieving under 10 minutes from 0 to 80% already. To the second: FCEVs need to stop during EVERY journey to refuel rather that the average less than 5% of the time for a BEV. (BEVs being predominantly recharged during their downtime and/or their destination). 

Putting a few figures to that: if you stop to refuel a FCEV once a week (52 times a year), at 5 refilling min each time that equals 260 minutes during commutes and other short-trips as well as longer journeys … whereas for the BEV you would be stopping for more than 10 minutes every two to three hours anyway. 

So even if we include the long-distance travel stops of a BEV at 5% of all ‘refuels’, for a 10 min zero to 80% recharge that equals 5% of stops are 5 minutes longer, or 13 minutes of in-journey time per year. (Mind-you, the BEV can be left to do its thing as you do yours, whilst you have to stand and monitor hydrogen refuelling like you do a petrol car – meaning that 4hrs 20 minutes is spent standing beside you FCEV instead of a spare 13 minutes a year getting a coffee). 

On top of that, even if you couldn’t charge at home – many of those 5 min longer charging events could be done at destination stops (workplaces, shops, etc) where you leave your BEV at a cheaper AC charger while you ‘do your thing’, meaning there was no extra ‘refuelling’ time involved.

Which brings us to cost. Dr Guldner suggested the hydrogen would almost be free if currently curtailed electricity (produced in sunny/windy times when demand is low) was diverted to hydrogen production.

Again though, it would seem logical that hydrogen from the existing limited production facilities would be needed to displace carbon intensive manufacturing processes first before any ‘excess’ could be made available for hydrogen transport use. (Or, again, to directly charge BEVs on demand through smart chargers – which are already rolling out in some markets).

It would also not seem logical that hydrogen so produced could be regarded as effectively free-at-source as he suggested. Hydrogen production facilities are not cheap to run and require significant maintenance and costs at the production facility gate would still need to reflect this.

A further point made by Dr Guldner was that FCEV and BEV life cycle analyses were similar. Unfortunately, of the three references cited in this slide, two could not be found … and the third was produced by the hydrogen council. As a result, I could not verify the numbers with ones other than those provided by an industry body devoted to promoting hydrogen use!

From there, well frankly the marketing spin was getting to me. Dr Guldner then posited that whilst batteries needed critical raw materials, FCEVs were somehow exempt. He did accept that fuel cells also need a rare earth mineral (platinum), however it was referred to as being both readily available and a good source of it was through existing systems from ICE exhaust systems where it has a high recycling rate.

This by the way was also promoted as encouraging the recycling of ICE vehicles, but how this does so I did find hard to understand: ICE vehicles already have their catalytic converters recycled as they are worth a considerable amount in scrap value … and it doesn’t seem to speed the scrapping of these vehicles. (Unless he is referring to ICE cars getting scrapped due to catalytic converter theft through their high replacement cost – which by the way is already a problem in some areas). 

Altogether, the day came across as being an effort to justify the considerable effort being put into promoting a vehicle whose time had potentially already passed.

Hydrogen vehicle companies have been falling over in increasing number of late. FCEV car sales have always been tiny and in 2024 are falling off its small cliff. Toyota in America this year discounted the Mirai hydrogen car by around 60% – but still nobody wants them, even with between three to six years of free hydrogen fuel thrown in!

BEV short to medium-haul heavy trucks are starting to come to market and are proving their viability already. Electric mining machinery with their inherent reduced need for anything other than a simple electricity source are already being favoured over hydrogen and the need to provide complex on-site refuelling systems and cryogenic hydrogen storage capacity.

Long-haul trucks too are starting to roll out. (The most obvious example being the Tesla Semi – although Tesla don’t have it all their way with ones such as the production-ready prototypes Mercedes eActros 600 recently being shown). Plus legacy truck manufacturers such as Scania and MAN are giving up on hydrogen fuel-cell development in favour of full BEV. 

A further issue is the lifespan of the fuel cell and more particularly, the hydrogen tank itself. Fuel cells are a new technology and yet to prove their longevity. The tanks on the other hand do have a mandated lifespan. Like LPG tanks, they are mandated to be checked and certified after 10 years.

On questioning, Dr Guldner admitted that there was currently no testing system available for certifying hydrogen tanks at 10 years. His answer was that they should last considerably longer and they were working to have the EU requirement for 10 year certification amended. (There was by the way a 10 year date on the fuel flap of the trial cars for removal of the hydrogen tanks – which in this case was December 2033).

Altogether, it really came across on the day that however good the system on show was (and to be frank, it was impressive) the technology is in a very early stage of development and has a long way until it can prove its longevity as well as its servicing needs/costs.

 Taking the wider view for a moment: it is interesting to reflect on the early history of the automobile and consider if there are any parallels to the modern-day battle between the main competitor propulsion technologies. Back at the turn of the 20^th century there were three competing ‘horseless carriage’ systems on offer. These were: 

1. external combustion (steam),
2. internal combustion (petrol/diesel) and 
3. electric.

Interestingly, all three were sold in roughly equal numbers – albeit in small, hand built quantities. (This being before the time of mass production). 

Even 130 years ago, mobile steam engine technology had already been around for well over 150 years and was proven technology. It was however slow to get going (you had to wait up to 45 min to warm up before moving) plus there were important ongoing maintenance requirements to ensure you didn’t go up in a boiler explosion.

On top of that, you had to stop from time to time to stoke the fire and top up the water. As a technology, it wasn’t well suited to personal transport plus it was only half as energy efficient as an internal combustion engine. (The steam car has never entirely died out though, with a serious effort made in the 1970s to produce, test and demonstrate a steam powered Ford Falcon).

The next contender was the electric car, but the technology back then wasn’t up to the demands of travellers. Electric cars then utilised lead acid batteries so EVs were heavy, had short ranges and limited recharging options. (Remembering that electricity supply back then was not the ubiquitous system we now have. It was very limited and basically only found in the central business districts of the World’s largest cities). 

Electric technology was then overtaken (both literally as well as metaphorically) by ICE technology. Henry Ford also effectively also put the final nail in the coffin by electing to mass produce ICE rather than electric vehicles.

The ICE car became ever better refined, cheaper and easier to go anywhere in – although refuelling systems did only follow sometime later. (Before that, you bought petrol from hardware stores and chemists in two gallon drums).

As a result, the BEV didn’t die entirely … but it was relegated to a slow development path. However, with over 100 years of development in both EV tech and the electricity grid: the BEV has now come to the point that it has become the leading new vehicle propulsion technology. 

In summary, at the start of the 20^th century the ICE vehicle won out and the other technologies disappeared entirely from car showrooms. Unfortunately for the environment, the choices ended up being fossil fuel based. (These being petrol, diesel and, for a time, LPG).

Coming back to the present, we have four types competing for the vehicle buyer’s attention. Three are electric (BEV, PHEV and FCEV) and the fourth is ICE/hybrid (I combine these last two as hybrids are a fuel-saving device only and the vehicle stop when the fuel tank runs out – plus they are included in the coming legislated ICE car sales end dates).

This means the choice is down to three, and they are all electric systems. PHEVs still incorporate an internal combustion engine and in the long-run are going to fade out as BEVs get ever cheaper, offer similar driving ranges and the public charging system matures. Plus they still use fossil fuel and have much higher ongoing maintenance needs than a BEV.  

So it’s now down to two. BMW are saying the FCEV is a contender for some applications – but will the economies of scale create the possibility of a FCEV iX5 ever being the same price as a full BEV one? Like the T Model Ford and how it brought cheap, mass produced car to the masses, the BEV has the running when it comes to ‘economies of scale’.

Despite BMW saying the fuel cells and tanks will be common to a wide variety of future FCEVs, it is hard to see how the economies of scale could ever kick in for FCEV BMWs. Plus, many people will still settle for the full BEV iX5, therefore diluting early BMW FCEV sales figures further.

Plus, will the hydrogen refuelling infrastructure be able to roll out in time to meet the everyday needs for a hydrogen vehicle to refuel at one? BMW did also tout fast refuelling when towing as an advantage of FCEV over BEV. However, there are already over 1000 DC charging sites in Australia – with multiple plugs at each – but only eight hydrogen refuelling stations.

That makes it a tough ask for a hydrogen refuelling system to grow fast enough to enable a towing FCEV to get from refuelling station to refuelling station any time in the foreseeable future when towing reduces the range to perhaps half – yet electric DC charging stations in Tasmania for instance have already reached around 80 km maximum apart.

In addition, you can keep a BEV running fine for most uses just from a power point. In comparison, FCEVs are tied to a refuelling system that may/may not ever roll out. (Shell for instance recently closed its light duty refuelling stations in the USA and Canada as well as in several European countries.

Last year also saw Danish company Everfuel close its hydrogen refuelling stations). It is also becoming increasingly difficult to see heavy trucks going hydrogen – meaning there will be even less impetus to develop remote (or any) hydrogen refuelling networks.

All up – my prediction is the hydrogen car will go the way of the steam car and effectively disappear from view in the next few years. Although I may be wrong: perhaps it could follow the electric car path and continue to develop on the sidelines for decades until FCEV technology is mature enough and the electricity grid green enough to compete effectively with the BEV. 

Who knows, as I predicted here back in 2018 – there may be a day when the film “Who Killed the Hydrogen Car?” comes out – although we may have to wait until 2070 or 2080 to see it…

BMW iX5 FCEV basic specifications:

Range: 500 km

Drive: 2WD currently

Fuel cell output: 125 kW

Total power output: 295 kW

Acceleration: less than 6 sec 0 – 100 km/h

Weight: likely to be similar to PHEV and less than BEV