BMW sees hydrogen car boom in 10 years

Hydrogen vs. battery cars: BMW's bet

A participant recounts that, stopping at night at a service station on the A2, he found the only charging point for electric cars out of order. That scene fuels skepticism toward battery vehicles and is the ground where the hydrogen car's latest gamble lands. BMW maintains that hydrogen is "the next trend" and that its boom will arrive in a decade. It is said by the same manufacturer that was one of the first to sell electric cars. Now it wants to repeat the move with fuel cells.

What BMW defends: five powertrains and a hydrogen iX5

The German brand's argument is more industrial than ecological. Oliver Zipse, its chairman, wants to offer five different propulsion systems so as not to depend on a single technology: "Saying that by 2030 or 2035 there will only be a single powertrain system is a dangerous path for customers, for industry, for jobs and for the climate," he states. The company already produces the first units of its iX5 with its own fuel cell.

The bet extends to Rolls-Royce, owned by the BMW group since 1998. Its CEO, Torsten Müller-Ötvös, does not rule out the luxury brand moving with hydrogen: it would combine the fuel cell with the eDrive electric system, with zero emissions, 125 kW (170 hp) of electric power and almost 375 hp of total system power. BMW thus joins Toyota and Renault in a current that departs from the majority script.

Why the battery car is in the crosshairs

Current lithium batteries carry problems that prevent them from being seen as the sole solution. They are flammable, have limited range and take time to charge. They use scarce and expensive materials and create dependence on countries like China. That is the flank through which hydrogen enters.

Technical backing comes from the Rocky Mountain Institute, an organization that forecasts a large increase in green hydrogen production capacity by the end of this decade, supported—it says—by "commercially mature technologies." The forecast fits BMW's timeline and the thesis that the battery electric is only a transition.

In the pocket, the gap also weighs, according to the calculations handled in the thread among those who defend hydrogen. For about 50,000 euros one would buy a Nissan Ariya, which with the MOVES public aid would be around 44,000, while an equivalent gasoline Qashqai would be at 37,000. Below 40,000 are MG and Kia; for 50,000, a Hyundai Ioniq 5.

The price of green hydrogen, its Achilles' heel

To be a solid alternative, hydrogen must be obtained with electricity from renewable sources, something that traditional electrolysis does not achieve. The obstacle is not in the engine, but in the bill. Some summarize it like this: hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe—75% of baryonic matter—but on Earth almost all of it is in the water molecule, which is very stable and requires a lot of energy to break. Viable, yes. Cheap, no.

Toyota and Renault move in that terrain. Toyota is credited with a hydrogen combustion engine and even a gasoline-hydrogen bifuel hybrid for the coming years. The logic defended is that of CNG: a few hydrogen stations spread across the geography would allow movement without depending on a complete network, with gasoline as a safety net.

700 bars, five kilos and fifteen years of shelf life

This is where the story runs into physics. A participant details that the Toyota Mirai's tanks store hydrogen at 700 bars, the pressure at 7,000 meters deep in the ocean; they weigh 90 kilos empty, occupy 170 liters and serve to carry barely 5 kilos of hydrogen, with a range of about 600 kilometers. They are carbon fiber, expensive, and expire after 15 years due to compression fatigue.

The comparison does not favor hydrogen. Covering those same 600 kilometers would require, according to the same calculation, about 60 liters of gasoline: 48 kilos—50 with the tank—in a container that does not expire or cost a fortune to manufacture. By weight, hydrogen wins; by volume and cost, it loses. And refueling remains tied to an almost nonexistent infrastructure.

Norway already closed its hydrogen stations

Viability is not decided only in the laboratory. As stated in the thread, Norway came to have a network in place and closed it, leaving numerous drivers with an unusable car. It is a reminder that infrastructure weighs as much as technology.

Behind the pulse there is also geopolitics and public money. Germany has a national plan to hydrogenate its economy and its automotive industry is moving in that direction, with an eye on an EU that could end up forcing it. The underlying suspicion: that hydrogen moves forward not because of its energy balance, but by decree. "It makes sense for politicians, so it will go ahead," summarizes one of the most cynical currents.

The fact that unsettles

In 1966 the first conference on hydrogen was held. The imminent advent of the hydrogen era was announced, encouraged by the success of the Gemini spacecraft, capable of staying weeks in orbit thanks to fuel cells. At that meeting the same advantages that have been repeated since then were listed. Almost six decades later, that era has still not arrived and BMW sets a date: ten more years.