Given all the incredible technology developed or improved during the Apollo program, it’s impossible to pick out just one piece of hardware that made humanity’s first crewed landing on another celestial body possible. But if you had to make a list of the top ten most important pieces of gear stacked on top of the Saturn V back in 1969, the fuel cell would have to place pretty high up there.
Smaller and lighter than batteries of the era, each of the three alkaline fuel cells (AFCs) used in the Apollo Service Module could produce up to 2,300 watts of power when fed liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, the latter of which the spacecraft needed to bring along anyway for its life support system. The best part was, as a byproduct of the reaction, the fuel cells produced drinkable water.
The AFC was about as perfectly suited to human spaceflight as you could get, so when NASA was designing the Space Shuttle a few years later, it’s no surprise that they decided to make them the vehicle’s primary electrical power source. While each Orbiter did have backup batteries for emergency purposes, the fuel cells were responsible for powering the vehicle from a few minutes before launch all the way to landing. There was no Plan B. If an issue came up with the fuel cells, the mission would be cut short and the crew would head back home — an event that actually did happen a few times during the Shuttle’s 30 year career.
This might seem like an incredible amount of faith for NASA to put into such a new technology, but in reality, fuel cells weren’t really all that new even then. The space agency first tested their suitability for crewed spacecraft during the later Gemini missions in 1965, and Francis Thomas Bacon developed the core technology all the way back in 1932.
So one has to ask…if fuel cell technology is nearly 100 years old, and was reliable and capable enough to send astronauts to the Moon back in 1960s, why don’t we see them used more today?
Fuel Cell 101
Before continuing to bemoan their absence from our everyday lives, perhaps it would be helpful to take a moment and explain what a fuel cell is.
In the most basic configuration, the layout of a fuel cell is not entirely unlike a traditional battery. You’ve got an anode that serves as the negative terminal, a cathode for the positive, and an electrolyte in between them. There’s actually a number of different electrolytes that can be used, which in turn dictate both the pressure the cell operates at and the fuel it consumes. But we don’t really need to get into the specifics — it’s enough to understand that the electrolyte allows positively charged ions to move through it, while negatively charged electrons are blocked.
The electrons are eager to get to the party on the other side of the electrolyte, so once the fuel cell is connected to a circuit, they’ll rush through to get over to the cathode. Each cell usually doesn’t produce much electricity, but gang a bunch of them up in serial and you can get your total output into a useful range.
One other element to consider is the catalyst. Again, the specifics can change depending on the type of fuel cell and what it’s consuming, but in general, the catalyst is there to break the fuel down. For example, plating the anode with a thin layer of platinum will cause hydrogen molecules to split as they pass through.
Earthly Vehicle Applications
So we know they were used extensively by NASA up until the retirement of the Shuttle back in 2011, but spacecraft aren’t the only vehicles that have used fuel cells for power.
There’s been quite a number of cars that used fuel cells, ranging from prototypes to production models. In fact, Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai actually have fuel cell cars available for sale currently. They’re not terribly widespread however, with availability largely limited to Japan and California as those are nearly the only places you’ll find hydrogen filling stations.
Of course, not all vehicles need to be filled up at a public pump. There have been busses and trains powered by fuel cells, but again, none have ever enjoyed much widespread success. In the early 2000s there were some experimental fuel cell aircraft, but those efforts were hampered by the fact that electric aircraft in general are still in their infancy.
Interestingly, outside of their space applications, fuel cells seem to have enjoyed the most success on the water. While still a minority in the grand scheme of things, there have been a number of fuel cell passenger ferries over the years, with a few still in operation to this day. There’s also been a bit of interest by the world’s navies, with both the German and Italian government collaborating on the development of the Type 212A submarine. Each of the nine fuel cells on the sub can produce up to 50 kW, and together they allow the submarine to remain submerged for weeks — a trick that’s generally only possible with a nuclear-fueled vessels.
Personal Power Plants
While fuel cell vehicles have only seen limited success, there’s plenty of other applications for the technology, some of which are arguably more interesting than a hydrogen-breathing train anyway.
At least for a time, it seemed fuel cells would have a future powering our personal devices like phones and laptops. Modern designs don’t require the liquid oxygen of the Apollo-era hardware, and can instead suck in atmospheric air. You still need the hydrogen, but that can be provided in small replaceable cylinders like many other commercially-available gases.
The peak example of this concept has to be the Horizon MiniPak. This handheld fuel cell was designed to power all of your USB gadgets with its blistering 2 watt output, and used hydrogen cylinders which could either be tossed when they were empty or refilled with a home electrolysis system. Each cylinder reportedly contained enough hydrogen to generate 12 watt-hours, which would put each one about on par with a modern 18650 cell.
The device made its debut at that the 2010 Consumer Electronics Show (CES), but despite contemporary media coverage talking about an imminent commercial release, it’s not clear that it was ever actually sold in significant numbers.
Looking at what’s on the market currently, a company called EFOY offers a few small fuel cells that seem to be designed for RVs and boats. They certainly aren’t handheld, with the most diminutive model roughly the size of a small microwave, but at least it puts out 40 watts. Unfortunately, the real problem is the fuel — rather than breathing hydrogen and spitting out pure water, the EFOY units consume methanol and output as a byproduct the creeping existential nightmare of being burned alive by invisible fire.
DIY To the Rescue?
If the free market isn’t offering up affordable portable fuel cells, then perhaps the solution can be found in the hacker and maker communities. After all, this is Hackaday — we cover home-spun alternatives for consumer devices on a daily basis.
Except, not in this case. While there are indeed very promising projects like the Open Fuel Cell, we actually haven’t seen much activity in this space. A search through the back catalog while writing this article shows the term “fuel cell” has appeared fewer than 80 times on these pages, and of those occurrences, almost all of them were discussing some new commercial development. There were two different fuel cell projects entered into the 2015 Hackaday Prize, but unfortunately both of those appear to have been dead ends.
So Dear Reader, the question is simple: what’s the hold up with mainstream fuel cells? The tech is not terribly complex, and a search online shows plenty of companies selling the parts and even turn-key systems. There’s literally a site called Fuel Cell Store, so why don’t we see more of them in the wild? Got a fuel cell project in the back of your mind? Let us know in the comments.
“why don’t we see them used more today?”
Without reading below the fold, I’m gonna say: producing, storing, transporting, and dispensing the H2 and O2.
well here on earth you dont really need to worry about the O2, theres plenty of it floating around.
The issue with atmospheric air seems to be that it is far from pure O2. This necessitates complex air filters.
Source: Omega tau does have an episode on that, where the talk with people that retrofit hydrogen systems into existing platforms: https://omegataupodcast.net/395-wasserstoffantriebe/
Pure O2 is not necessary. The Toyota Mirai does not concentrate oxygen before the fuel cell. Instead, it uses a high-performance air compressor to pressurize and feed ambient air directly into the fuel cell stack, along with hydrogen from the vehicle’s tanks.
They meant pure, as in free of contaminants.
It’s one of the reasons why they have had troubles pushing the lifespan of a fuel cell high enough to be useful for a car. (~5,000 hours).
This was my reaction too – going way back to the early 2000s when the Federal government was trying to push Hydrogen as a fuel alternative to Gasoline. It was a bad fit. Hydrogen is abundant, but relatively expensive to generate and store – and in failure cases the results are catastrophic. Arguably worse than gasoline.
Gasoline containment failure is far worse than hydrogen. Gasoline contaminates soil and groundwater. Hydrogen mostly dissipates when tanks fail. Hydrogen is really only dangerous when in a stoichiometric ratio with oxygen.
So a highly pressurized tank failure will contaminate the ground far less than gasoline which is true. The problem come in when there are any bags of mostly water anywhere near the tank failure. The liquids and small amounts of solids will get splattered and spilled everywhere.
So many lil chickens in this thread….
Here is a mirai’s hydrogen tank taking a bullet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVeagFmmwA0
There are regular accidents in the industries where a hydrogen containment failure has lead to explosions. The issue is that hydrogen is explosive over a wide range of mixtures and it loses buoyancy when mixed with air, so it tends to stick around as clouds under roofs and inside/between buildings or other obstructions. A continuous slow leak can maintain an explosive environment for a long time, and such leaks are hard to detect because hydrogen doesn’t smell of anything, you don’t sense it, and it doesn’t mix well with indicator gases (which would foul fuel cells anyways).
But sure, in a catastrophic tank failure, the hydrogen will vanish relatively quickly.
Exactly. Makes a lot of sense in a space application where you’re sitting on a skyscraper of the stuff (which you badly need for other reasons). On Earth? It sure is nice to have a power source which is liquid and dense at room temperature and also doesn’t require a pressure vessel. Far too low a branch to resist. Leaping that hurdle will always involve incredible expense and failure points which consumers will avoid if they have the option.
Which is why most legislation and regulation is aimed at artificially exploding the price of those options, or else making them completely unavailable. However for fuel cells even this starts to look way too silly.
No. Pure water is not drinkable. the correct wording would have be: The best part was, as a byproduct of the reaction, the fuel cells produced water which, after addition of mineral, could be made into drinkable water.
what? i understand that over a span of time, you can deplete minerals in the body that would normally be provided by drinking water….but i did not have the impression that there was any real downside to drinking pure water? “distilled water is generally considered potable” ??
yep this is one of those nutter interpretations of half facts that would require you to consume NOTHING other than distilled water as we get minerals from everything we eat and drink. You arent going to leech out essential minerals and die because you drink distilled water. Im 50 and I have drunk a gallon of distilled water almost every day for the last 25 years and continue to pass my biannual physicals with flying colors.
While it won´t poison or kill you in the short term, it´s not considered “drinkable” .
And it´s so easy to make it drinkable by adding a bit of minerals
Confidently Incorrect.
“It is not dangerous to drink distilled water as part of a balanced diet. A balanced diet should include foods that replace any minerals lost through sweat.”
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/317698#summary
“Aside from its flat taste, distilled water doesn’t provide you with minerals like calcium and magnesium that you get from tap water. Because you already get most of the minerals you need from your diet, drinking distilled water shouldn’t make you deficient. Still, if you’re going to drink distilled water, it’s a good idea to make sure you get your recommended daily servings of fruits and vegetables.”
https://www.healthline.com/health/can-you-drink-distilled-water
“Distilled water is safe to drink.”
https://www.webmd.com/diet/distilled-water-overview
“Distilled water is one of the purest forms of bottled water suitable for drinking.”
https://www.verywellhealth.com/purified-vs-distilled-water-8576551
If distilled water was not “considered drinkable” it would be required to be labeled as nonpotable when sold. It certainly wouldnt be marketed for consumption by babies
Parent’s Choice Distilled Water, 1 Gallon
0 calories per bottle (BECAUSE ITS MEANT FOR CONSUMPTION)
Distilled water for babies features an easy-to-pour gallon jug Filtration process removes all impurities through means of steam distillation
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Parent-s-Choice-Distilled-Water-1-gal/124788703
Youve misunderstood something along the way. You are incorrect. Distilled water is entirely safe to drink unless you are fasting for months and are ONLY consuming distilled water or have the worlds worst dietary imbalance possible.
Confidently Incorrect.
Distilled water is very much drinkable without the addition of any minerals. Youve misread or misunderstood something along the way.
A simple google search will yield dozens of reputable sources that explain that with a balanced diet the intake of minerals and trace elements far exceeds the carrying capacity for distilled water to leech them from your system.
Unless you are doing a prolonged water only fast or have the worst deficient diet on earth, distilled water is perfectly safe and IS considered drinkable. If it were not every jug sold would be marked “NON POTABLE, UNFIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION”. They do not. In fact there are brands like Parents Choice that specifically promote themselves as being BABY FRIENDLY.
I tried posting links and quotes but the moderation filter didnt like the post. So do some surfing and educate yourself.
It preserves my ‘Purity of Essence!’
That and the pure grain alcohol.
It’s about as drinkable as nail polish remover.
It won’t kill you, but wow it’s really unpleasant.
That’s easy to fix though.
The “pure water is poison” thing isn’t true. As long as you are eating a proper diet you get minerals from food. As someone who has lived off of reverse osmosis water at 0-2 ppm TDS for months at a time. There is literally no additional planning required to compensate for long term use of “pure” water.
Go to the store and buy a gallon of distilled water and drink some. You’ll be perfectly fine. You just fell for the mineral water meme.
Are you thinking of deionised water? That is not drinkable, but pure dihydrogen monoxide is perfectly potable. Sure it tastes better with a bit of minerals and salts but it’s absolutely not necessary and minerals are only added after purification for taste.
If pure H2O is drinkable, what makes deionized water undrinkable? If we’re removing ions from water without adding something different in, then aren’t we just getting closer to pure H2O?
“On its own, deionization does not remove organic compounds, most pathogens, dissolved gases, or other uncharged contaminants.”
For me it is the same fuel problem as other esoteric generators… It is not difficult to obtain, but it is niche enough that it needs the right application to make sense, and so many other technologies also overlap this niche.
Like, it only makes sense at home if you can handle your own fuel, which likely means electrolysis, which requires a great deal of electricity. But if I have a lot of electricity like solar, I don’t need to use a fuel cell for power. I can just go directly from solar to battery and take batteries with me.
The use for clean water does make much more sense, and I could see solar running a fuel cell with the only goal of putting out water in areas where it is scarce, like the desert?
Perhaps that is a usecase that deserves more experimentation as the need for water is likely greater than the need for power? And the simplicity of the fuel cells would mean this is a fairly reliable system that might be possible to leave unattended or something that could be fixed by a passers’ by if needed?
For vehicles the issue is entirely infrastructure related. Without a robust network of fueling stations you cant get market traction. We wont likely see many fuel cell vehicles until two events tip the scale, Federal mandates to eliminate petrochemical fueling, and the maturation of the Direct Ethanol Fuel Cell. Pretty much the whole world has a solid network of liquid fuel dispensaries which will easily switch over when DEFC equipped vehicles start hitting the streets.
An interesting area of note is Natural Gas reformer supplied fuel cells for home power. As of early 2025, the number of fuel cell-powered homes in Japan is over 400,000. A far cry from their original goal of 1.4Million by 2020 but its still a respectable number. The systems only run 1.5-2 million yen (about $13,000-$18,000) per unit before government subsidies.
While a single home system like this is interesting, There are many properties on the MLS with their own natural gas wells that could potentially supply a Neighborhood Scale Power Plant. A single Mirai Fuel cell (114kw) could power upwards to 90 homes if outfitted with a properly scaled reformer system if the property had sufficient natural gas reserves.
Yes, but how is it better than just burning the natural gas in a turbine connected to a generator and directly making electricity?
Turbine = 20-40% efficiency
Reformer fed fuel cells = 65-75% efficiency that bumps up to 90-95% when its heat is captured and used for hot water/home heating purposes.
They also have lower pollution output, lower noise, fewer moving parts/less maintenance requirements.
If you count the waste heat, every generator is near 100% efficiency.
It’s the law.
wow! i have been dreaming of the possibility of powering my house off of natural gas instead of electricity (which is coal, here). off the top of my head, i think electricity is about twice the per-watt cost of gas here (i.e., resistive heat is much more expensive than natural gas heat, but a heat pump can at least break even).
i knew it was vaguely possible, but i had no idea it had been deployed en masse anywhere!
This is interesting. I will have to look it up. I need to know how much fuel is needed to power a home for a day. Then If it’s a low number are they using small refillable tanks or refilled onsite tanks. Or just direct fed via piping.
In japan, they are direct fed “City Gas” from piping. The systems consume 0.161 cubic meters (m³) of gas per 1 kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity produced. BUT That is just pure electrical output. You must also factor in the heat captured and recycled for home warming, and hot water use for the systems full value to be realized. It would be far less viable in Phoenix AZ where that heat would largely be wasted.
“…rather than breathing hydrogen and spitting out pure water, the EFOY units consume methanol and output as a byproduct the creeping existential nightmare of being burned alive by invisible fire.”
I simply must commend the author on this wonderful turn of phrase. A great start to my hopefully-methanol-free day.
I’ve had the interested in grabbing a forklift fuel cell for general powering medium to large contraptions purposes. The issue is I run into although it is better in some areas vs a gas generator. I would need the infrastructure to refill it.
Where if I get a gas generator I can have something more general purpose.
However little fuel cells (around a liter in size) I can see a use for me. I live in a cold wintery area where solar can be iffy and cold can screw with the batteries. Something cheap that can provide both heat and electricity would be nice.
Of course I can’t find little fuel cells off the shelf. So Ive been looking at what it would take to make one.
Then I run into ok so if I want to make my own hydrogen I can go electrolysis or throw in chemicals to generate hydrogen. Well if you don’t do electrolysis right and pure you get an impure hydrogen + oxygen mix that is explosive. Okay what about chemicals. Alright those are pretty safe when done right. But wait thats a recurring expense to refill this thing?
Okay what about materials to build this fuel cell. Carbon paper, platinum, wait a minute this stuff is expensive. 30 bucks I can get a bigger solar panel to combat the winter clouds via overkill design and a resistive heater.
That all being said I still want to make a little fuel cell for fun.
I’ll probably end up scavenging for parts, already I just got an idea of stealing platinum from catalytic converters. I have access to some old cars, so old they might not have fancy catalytic converters but its an idea.
Are you in a windy area? Make a windmill attached to a Joule calorimeter (tank of water with a paddle in it) and heat your home/water with wind.
The devil is in the details. The paddle in the water system doesn’t match the power curve of a wind turbine, so it tends to bog it down or over-speed the turbine, which wastes energy.
It’s easier to do the power curve fitting with an electric heater and a micro-controller than some mechanical governor that would keep optimum load on the turbine.
hmm … aren’t both P ~ n^3? An electric generator is P~ n^2, so you have to match the generator on wind turbines to a typical operating point.
Even if they have the same load curve shape, the function itself scales up and down with the operating condition of the water pot (temperature, turbulence, sloshing, cavitation, air bubbles, etc.).
When you move off the Betz’s optimum wind speed ratio, or whatever curve you have for your actual turbine, you lose power both ways up or down. Then, if the water cools down, it becomes denser and the load increases, and if it heats up and becomes less dense, the load decreases. There’s no stable operating point around the optimum – it’s always going to fall on one side or the other without active regulation.
The electric generator however can be trivially regulated to simulate any load curve and hunt for the maximum power point as it goes.
It’s tempting to use a mechanical system to bypass the inefficiency of the generator, but the challenge becomes transmitting the torque down to the water pot without mechanical losses, since each gear contact loses 1-5% of the power and each bearing also has viscous friction due to lubrication. If you have one gear pair up at the tower, one simple reduction gear below, and something like 6-7 greased bearings along the shafts, that’s easily 10-15% mechanical power loss anyways, and likely more as things wear down and run out of alignment. Combine that with the non-optimal turbine loading, and you’re looking at a similar loss of efficiency to a small electric generator, at much greater mechanical complexity and cost.
The basic problem is that they have no niche that’s not filled adequately by current battery technology. You can plug a lithium battery of some sort into the grid and charge it with enough power to do what you want, at a fairly reasonable capital cost and pretty good efficiency.
Compare that to a fuel cell. These generally come in two types. Either they consume hydrogen which, despite the hand-waving of the article, is still a pain. Typical electrolysis processes run at about 70%, transporting the stuff is difficult and it’s very explosive if you get it wrong. Or they consume methanol. This is easier to obtain and the storage and explosive problems are much less. But direct methanol fuel cells are not very efficient, while reforming methanol fuel cells operate at high temperatures.
The fuel cell dream is to have a simple device that you pour fuel into at one end and which efficiently produces electricity at the scale needed locally. This dream will always run into some basic limits which mean that small-scale electricity generation is always inefficient.
There is such a thing and it’s called the SOFC, or solid oxide fuel cell, but it gets no love from the car industry because the governments have effectively regulated it out of the game: it’s possible to burn any hydrocarbon that you can vaporize into a gas, so it would not force users to operate on pure hydrogen or inefficiently reformed fuels like the PEM cells do.
Being able to use any combustible fuel directly would bridge the operation from fossil to renewable fuels and aid market adoption, because it allows the vehicles to run on both sources without conversion and reduce fuel demands and emissions by being more efficient, but it also means it would produce CO2 emissions, which is being regulated out by strict rules that don’t account for the source of the carbon (i.e. ICE bans also affect SOFCs).
In other words, the good solution is being suppressed by the “best” solution of running on hydrogen or batteries. Part of this is well meaning politicians and pundits operating under a nirvana fallacy, and the other part is anti-capitalist attempts to reduce private transportation and “re-model” societies by forcing non-solutions to steer the remaining options towards their political ideals.
I’ve seen a test done in a warehouse for forklifts. Fuel cells had a very high internal resistance, generate a LOT of heat, and low output power. And they failed. The cooling fan screams. There’s a reason why you don’t see this amazing technology in everyday life…
When I think about fuel cells I think about something entirely else, namely fuel cells. I was rather confused when I clicked on the article and started to read.
Weird that two products have the same name and used in a very similar application. The fuel cell’s I know have been in use for decades and required for tons of different automotive racing applications as a safety measure. A fuel cell is a cell that holds fuel. It consists of a (usually) aluminium box, with a bag lining (bladder) on the inside that’s actually holding the fuel. That is filled with special foam to both serve as baffling and as a fire prevention system. If the vehicle goes upside down, it won’t leak and the fuel cell should be relatively self healing if punctured. Holley has been making fuel cells for decades and they sell like hot cakes. Fuel cells are required in open wheel racing, rally, drag racing (at high levels), etc.
Hydrogen fuel cells might make a comeback if ammonia cars are going to hit the western market. There are already thousands of ammonia cars driving around in China. But standard hydrogen cars is old discarded technology and a disaster. Ammonia fixes the giant problem of storing hydrogen by eliminating that entire step. If you don’t need to store it, you don’t have the issues, you don’t need to transport it anymore in very expensive trailers, store it in underground high pressure containers, use extremely expensive pumps to pump it into a car that can’t store it properly, to use it there. It doesn’t work. An average gasoline pump is 30k new, 5-10k a year maintenance. A hydrogen pump is over a million new, 10k a month in maintenance. Making it is expensive, the trucks are extremely expensive if they want to store hydrogen for transporation. Every step of the way is extremely expensive and can only work if the government wastes a lot of money on subsidies. It’s not realistic. That’s why Toyota said they are going to stop producing the cars. They are the last manufacturer (other car manufacturers use Toyota drivelines). It’s done, it’s over. Without the government wasting money on it, it will cost maybe 50 or 100 bucks a kilometer to drive a direct hydrogen car. Now if Ammonia is coming, that will all change. I think that might be the future of green cars, especially since we need to replace electric cars with something better. And you can get ammonia everywhere. From every farm, sewer, from the air. It’s easy to produce in large quantities, relatively easy to store, you can just fill up an ammonia car like a normal car, takes less than 2 minutes and you can drive off, and you drive the greenest vehicle there is. You can either let the nitrogen go up in the air and make the grass greener, or collect it and sell it off to farmers. Plants crave ammonia cars.
” That’s why Toyota said they are going to stop producing the cars.”
Theres a 2026 Mirai in production. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=towYyR4wQ5w
Ive not seen anything that says they are ditching fuel cell vehicles. Maybe you got confused when they cut the Mirai LTD from their 2025 lineup, only shipping the lower cost Mirai XLE.
I am not waiting for ammonia powered cars. I want urea power. I know where I can get lots of it – for cheap.
About 800ml per day, unless you suffer from Pinworm’s Disease in which case it might be as much as 4L per day.
800 ml would not even cover my daily commute.
motor vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cells were pushed by the Bush administration to counteract the efforts of the auto industry in the previous 10 years developing highly efficient hybrid power systems. So it was used to delay by decades the implementation of the technology which would greatly reduce fossil fuel use. The funny thing is, we see a very similar tactic being used now with the termination and attack on solar energy and lots of money being spent on hydro, geo-thermal and nuclear power. The difference is the target technology is viable but will be decades away from implementation while solar photo voltaic power and battery storage are available today.
In your comment, are you regarding city scale storage and generation? Or just transportation and other methods like in the article?
If the former, you’ll find that battery storage is impossibly expensive, and can’t be practically used for any significant portion of storage that a city will need. Especially if the city largely relies on solar where it gets enormous amounts of production during the day and nothing after sunset. (This problem would be better with the more relatively consistent supply of energy provided by wind turbines; obviously location dependent).
Battery storage doesn’t scale up, it only ever scales out, which is why it is ridiculously expensive for city scale stuff, but not our phones and gadgets. (I recommend looking those terms up if they’re not familiar).
I live in Western Australia, we get buttloads of sun during summer but our grid isn’t connected to any other state, so there’s no sharing of the excess electricity from solar we produce and there’s no buying other states energy when our solar dies out at night. At night other energy generators (like open cycle gas – very inefficient!) have to massively ramp up to meet the demand.
If you want to learn more, research the “duck curve.” It’s the biggest problem that faces solar.
Hydro, geo-thermal and nuclear all produce energy at practically unchanging levels, meaning they’re consistent. With consistent power generation you can have affordable amounts of storage to meet fluctuations in demand. They’re just like coal or closed cycle gas turbines in that they can’t be ramped up or down quickly, but instead they’re not actively emitting carbon dioxide.
With a big HVDC link to the rest of the country, the duck curve is your friend. Sell the solar from WA to the East coast in the evenings after the sun has already set in Sydney. There would also be the benefit of all the pumped hydro and batteries that are coming online in the east.
Sure, it would be an expensive infrastructure project, but if Australia can find 368 billion dollars for AUKUS then building some power lines at home should be easy.
If they could make cheap, and efficient propane based fuel cells then I think they’d hit harder.
Propane is worlds easier to transport and store than Hydrogen or Methane. So it’d also be fantastic for backup power with less worry about maintenance than a classic generator.
I prefer to ride a bike and power myself with ethanol.
Until someone figures out how to store the smallest molecule in the (more-or-less) known Universe in containers made with/from materials made up of all kinds of larger molecules, I am afraid we won’t see any large-scale hydrogen fuel cells usage, average Sam’s cars included.
Addressing the other parallel thread – “ammonia-powered machinery” thoughts/R&D had been around ever since Haber-Bosch Process was invented; I would wager by now all the technological limitations are well-known and addressed, and there is no longer a need to reinvent the same wheel from scratch; the only way ammonia can be profitable as fuel is if the economies of scale lower the costs; I won’t name the country where this was the case in the early 20 century, but ammonia was never sold at the every corner drugstore in the amounts needed.
IMHO – I find this more impressive than both hydrogen fuel cells and ammonia-powered engines – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-diesel. Not sure if it will go anywhere in particular, but let’s wait and see.
A lot of the technology surrounding fuel cells is directly compatible with flow batteries, in some cases they’re basically the same the difference being operational chemistry. Both a vanadium flow battery and a hydrogen fuel cell work off of oxidation chemical reactions, however the vanadium flow batteries can be recharged. I doubt the same is necessarily true of hydrogen fuel cells.
All that to say if we could make a proper flow battery for an EV I think that would make for a better battery architecture. At the very least I want to build one just to mess with regular EV enthusiasts.
One can also try using methanol.
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3042818/chinese-scientists-create-game-changer-methanol-battery-keeps
Recent developments
https://techxplore.com/news/2025-08-3d-gyroidal-solid-oxide-cells.html
Other tech
https://techxplore.com/news/2025-08-ai-life-safety-electric-vehicle.html
https://phys.org/news/2025-08-renewing-fe-catalyst-durability-oxygen.html