By the time 2015 was heralded in, most had an opinion of electric vehicles (or

EVs). Tesla has contributed the most to both placing the technology in the limelight
and pulling common opinions away from joke, tree-hugger cars and closer to Id
drive that (though not quite there). What has been missing from this discussion has
been a more nuanced understanding of EVs. For most of the populous, an EV is a
vehicle that takes electricity instead of gasoline. While this is often true, the
defining characteristic of EVs is the usage of electric or traction motors for
propulsion [1]. What is lost in this inconsequential seeming difference is the true
diversity of EVs and a major choice confronting us: how do we want the consumer
car of the future to store its energy? Major companies are pursuing two
technologies: hydrogen fuel cells and batteries.
Most individuals know a fair amount about Battery Electric Vehicles (or BEVs).
They are what we traditionally think of when EVs come up. You plug them into a wall
(or a supercharger). Charging takes from 30 minutes to several hours. Ranges tend
to vary from 70 miles to 100 miles (unless you have the spare change for a Model S)
[2].The battery directly powers the motors. This is the technology most car
companies are pursuing.
Fewer individuals know about Hydrogen Fuel Cells. Fuel Cell vehicles store a
fuel onboard which generates electricity via a fuel cell stack (and a catalyst). This
electricity then powers the motors and the peripherals of the vehicle. Within
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (or FCEVs), hydrogen is the fuel that is stored
and the chief catalyst is platinum [3]. The difference that consumers may care about
however is this: the range of current vehicles (both about to be released like the
Toyota Mirai or available for lease-only like the Hyundai Tuscon) is 230-400 miles [4]
[5], with the refueling time of a few minutes [5].

There is a competition occurring right now between these two forms of

energy storage to be in vehicles of the future. The crux of the competition can be
summed up to a race: a race to bring down fuel cell prices and make economically
feasible the complex infrastructure required for a hydrogen economy and a race to
eliminate the range anxiety and price premium of BEVs (whether by substantially
increasing range, substantially decreasing charge time, or bringing down price, or a
combination of all three). I will be analyzing the technologies addressing these
shortcomings in their sufficiency.
Range anxiety is specifically the fear that a vehicle wont be able to reach its
destination and the occupants will become stranded [6]. This problem is being
tackled a multitude of ways: creating a network of electric chargers both in cities
and along major highways [7] [8], with range extenders, with battery swapping, a
free loaner programs [9], and general battery development.
Free loaner programs are a temporary solution at best and still rely on the
gasoline infrastructure we have today. The biggest problem with this solution
however is that its insufficient: it solves the problem of how someone would make a
road trip several hours away without extending the travel time, but this doesnt
adequately address range anxiety. An impromptu trip to go and check on grandma
living 20 miles out in the country could still leave one stranded miles from a public
charger (let alone one that would require waiting less than an hour, like Teslas
superchargers). This may be why only BMW has offered this perk for everyone
buying their EVs [10].
Battery swapping sounds like an easy solution. The Model Ss batteries can
be swapped in 90 seconds. If other EVs could achieve even triple that speed, range
anxiety would be eliminated and everyone would go home happy (except Toyota

and its FCEV research scientists). Theres a major problem with this picture: it costs
$60-$90 per swap [11]. Relying upon this mechanism makes BEVs more expensive
per mile driven and ensures it remains an option only for the wealthy and
desperate. Additionally if your grandma doesnt live near public EV chargers, there
probably arent battery-swapping stations near her house either. Even if there were,
you choose between a nontrivial amount of money and a nontrivial amount of time
instead of just going home and recharging overnight. We havent arrived at our
silver bullet quite yet.
In a discussion of range extenders, it is necessary to make clear the
difference types and how they compare to traditional hybrids. Traditional hybrids
increase ICE (internal combustion engine) efficiency by incorporating regenerative
braking (capturing the wheels kinetic energy while braking to then use it again
when accelerating). Plug-in Hybrids (or PHEVs) are hybrids with significantly larger
batteries (charged by not just braking but the grid as well). Once the battery is
empty, PHEVs switch to their ICE [12], although some PHEVs always operate in a
blended mode of the two [13]. Range extended battery-electric vehicle (BEVx) store
some form of electricity-generating motor and a fuel on-board (usually gasoline and
a small gasoline-powered generator) to charge the battery if it falls below a certain
percentage [14]. Lets see if either one of these technologies is the cure.
PHEVs arent EV-enough to drive the consumer market into mass adoption.
They dont train customers to go fully BEV and they continue the ritual or regularly
visiting gas stations (albeit less often). They could potentially be a source of
revenue for battery R&D, but (deducing from the Chevy Volt), they arent yet
profitable (though should be in a year or two) [15].

BEVxs arent significantly more helpful. While they could train consumers
away from irrational instances of range anxiety, the fact that they require an
additional premium in addition to the BEV premium consumers are already paying
means theyre only going to remain a toy of the relatively wealthy early adopter.
They tip the lifetime cost scale even more in the favor of ICE vehicles.
Compared to the true complexity of battery development technology, the
look of this paper will be extremely brief and purely on the big-picture economics. In
2007, battery storage cost about $1500/kWh [16]. In 2012, battery storage cost
about $500/kWh [17]. Today a replacement battery for the Nissan Leafs battery
costs $230/kWh [18] (Teslas price is rumored to be similar) [16]. The Department of
Energy (DOE) is aiming for a cost of $125/kWh by 2022 [17]. With exponentially
decaying prices, both the price premium for EVs and their lack of range will
disappear very soon. If Hydrogen wants to win, this is the ticking clock it must beat.
While a battery-based transportation system demands significant battery
technology improvements, a hydrogen-based transportation system demands
remarkable breakthroughs in hydrogen production, storage, and transportation in
addition to significant investment in hydrogen-related infrastructure (refueling
stations, potentially pipelines). The significant positive of hydrogen technology (and
the reason for their long range) is the low fuel cell price: $55/kWh at economies of
scale (500K vehicles/year) [19]. This though must stand against the difficulty with
the production and refueling infrastructure.
95% of our hydrogen today is produced with natural gas in an inefficient
(50% of energy is lost) process that releases CO 2 emissions [20] . Natural gas prices
are also likely to rise, making this a more and more expensive proposition [21].
Hydrogen generation through electricity is an option, but efficiency is a major

obstacle. A BEV could go nearly 4 times the distance of a hydrogen FCEV if instead
of using electricity to create hydrogen you put the electricity in the BEV [20].
The scenario is even bleaker when looking at the infrastructure required.
While electricity networks already grid almost the entire country, the cost of
building the hydrogen equivalent would have to be paid for by hydrogen consumers
(giving BEV a clear refueling price advantage). A demonstration hydrogen refueling
station in Burbank, CA, costs $2 million (excluding land) [22]. Costs decline with
economies of scale, but reproducing that station will never match up to the $100K$175K a Tesla supercharger station cost in 2013 [23]. A 2004 estimate by Joseph
Romm (acting assistant secretary of the Department of Energy in the Clinton
administration) pegged the cost of replacing the existing gas infrastructure with
hydrogen at $500 billion [24].
It is possible eventually the infrastructure costs for BEVs cost just as much or
greater than those required for a hydrogen-based transportation system. This would
be due to grid upgrades required to handle the higher loads and higher voltages,
and the sum total of all public, private, and in-home charging stations installation
costs. A crucial difference is made though by the fact that innovators can purchase
BEVs before the vast majority of this infrastructure is paid for (by just installing an
in-home charger, or just using a 120V outlet), thereby giving confidence in the
abilities of BEVs to their non-enthusiast neighbors, colleagues, and friends. This
would incentivize private investors to make more public charging stations (since
some demand exists) and give confidence in the abilities of BEVs to those in the
early innovators network. Once the early adopters and early majority begin
purchasing BEVs, utilities will make the necessary grid upgrades to ensure the
demand on the horizon is met. Hydrogen has no comparable infrastructure off which

to piggy-back and can only circumvent the chicken-or-egg dilemma with significant
government support [22].
While some are not convinced, a view at simply what seems likely indicates a
clear winner in this race. Betting on consumer habits changing is usually a losing
tactic, but the most likely scenario for an electric vehicle becoming mainstream
involves consumer adoption of high-range BEVs (~200 miles). The remaining
significant barrier in the way of BEVs is steadily being eroded while hydrogens
hurdles remain stubborn, numerous, and expensive. I would invite Toyota to join the
vision of a battery-based transportation system.