Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[GetOffYourGas]

The L2 case is both with the assumption that L1 is available everywhere (which really is not the case) and only with very limited and predictable driving requirements. An L2 charger means I can be ready to go on an expected trip in less than 3 hours, but if i relied solely on L1 and my car is not charged I am stuck. Is that a good enough example or should I try others?

You are thinking about today's technology. I am thinking about 2018 technology. Think 200 EPA miles (~2.5x whatever range people get today with a Leaf/eGolf/etc). If the average of your trips is 40 miles/day or less (i.e. most people), then your car will easily recoup via L1. Any unexpected trip simply dips into your reserve. You will run a deficit for a few days until you "catch up". Or if the trip is truly a long one, you spend a small amount of time at a QC. Even 10 minutes will be enough to catch up in most cases. This is the pattern one learns to expect from an EV, but only after owning and driving one for a while. Getting over that hump (yes, I know it's a behavioral change) won't be easy, but it will be doable. Two things that help are consumer education and EREV/PHEVs (sort of a hands-on education if you will).

Bottom line - the 200-mile BEV market almost definitely has a higher cap than you propose. But getting there won't be easy or even a given.

 

[GRA]

I think my point has been lost in the ongoing discussion of L1. Do we really think that installing a large number of outlets is cost prohibitive, yet replacing tens of thousands of gas stations with hydrogen stations is not? Remember that the electricity is already there. All major cities are literally glowing with electricity. Hydrogen is not present yet, and each hydrogen station built is the equivolent of a chemical processing plant. How many outlets are needed to serve a major city? How many gas stations?

I've mentioned above three advantages for the consumer of an H2 FCEV, plus flexibility of where you can choose to work or live, owing to rapid fueling stations not needing to be co-located at work or home. that is a problem that time and money could cure, but at current rates of charging infrastructure addition, I don't think we can afford to wait that long. After all, given the number of publicly-accessible charging station installed in San Francisco over the past 4.5 years, it would take just short of 2 millenia to install charging stations at every public parking spot in the city. And then there's the cost of doing so, when most cities are struggling to pay for the infrastructure they already have. So, while the work/live limitations imposed by PEVs will ease over time given new construction regulations and an increase in demand, it's going to take at least 20 years and probably closer to 50 to provide enough charging stations for BEVs to not limit people's flexibility to unacceptable levels.

Could you elaborate on why you think H2 will solve this problem quicker? We seem to all agree that today's technology is not quite ready yet. Plus today's H2 stations are prohibitively expensive. The only stations being installed are heavily subsidized experimental projects. Noone yet knows how to make money with H2. On the BEV side, you have Tesla who just hit their 500th supercharger. They are rolling out a network on their own dime, and have a clear plan to become profitable by it.

OKay, here goes (for the umpteenth time). IMO, any charging/fueling method that is dependent for its spread on a single manufacturer will take just short of forever to install in the necessary numbers. It has to be profitable so that lots of companies want to do it. I believe that H2, provided costs can be lowered to equal or below fossil-fuels, can be a profitable business for companies other than the auto manufacturers directly concerned. We are still in the initial stages, where subsidies are necessary to get FCEVs out to the public and provide the fuel (as we are with PEVs and public charging currently - no one yet knows how to make money on public charging stations - if they did, they'd be springing up like weeds).

Public charging still hasn't identified a business model that will allow it to be profitable, while charging lower prices than fossil fuel; free for life can't work in urban areas without home charging. By contrast, H2 (or any fast refueling/recharging system with pay-at-the-pump billing), can use a business model that we know works, that of retail gas stations. In addition, many of those stations, even under the more restrictive clearance regulations designed for H2 industrial scale production that they currently have to meet, can have H2 fueling added to them, helping to reduce the cost of adding the capability, and in many if not most cases, allowing the station to continue operating while the H2 capability is being added (as is the case at the H2 fueling being added to a gas station in my city).

As renewable H2 increases in demand, gas stations can just rededicate pump space to H2 dispensers, or where space allows (more likely in rural areas with low-cost land), add them additionally. The conversion is obviously more elaborate and expensive than say adding a separate tank for diesel, but it involves much the same amount of disruption. To the customer used to liquid fossil fuels, there is no change whatever in their routine - they went to the gas station once a week, and now they'll go to the H2 station (either in the same location, or close by) likewise, and for about the same amount of time. For the station operator, only the equipment changes. Fuel will still (in most areas, at least initially) be delivered by tanker truck, put into storage tanks, and dispensed with pay-at-the-pump billing.

The biggest advantage in an urban area is that with central point, rapid fueling, you need far fewer refueling points to serve a given number of cars (which lack a dedicated parking/charging space, as most urban dwellers around the world do). And this will be the reality for several decades, given the time it will take to install charging in adequate numbers at on-street parking spaces as well as in public and private parking garages. Just having them in parking garages won't work, as urban land is very expensive, and you can't put parking garages spaced close enough to where most people live to be convenient - just ask the Manhattan P85D owner described in an earlier link, who had been unable to find anywhere to park and charge his car (and then only L1) any closer than 15 blocks away from where he lived. There's no shortage of electricity in Manhattan, but there is a shortage of electricity accessible to him, in the right form, with the appropriate connector, and in the required location. Until cities can afford to install charging at most on-street parking spaces, central-point fast refueling/recharging will be the most viable and reliable option for urban dwellers who lack a dedicated parking space with a charging station. Which is a majority of them even in the U.S., and overwhelmingly so in the rest of the world, including those countries that will see the majority of auto sales growth for the next 50 years.

Now, really fast (ca. 5 min.) charging at central locations could also work, but we lack the charging infrastructure as well as the batteries that can handle that at the moment. If that gets developed and can be made profitable so that installations are done by other than auto manufacturers (and thus, infrastructure grows much faster than has been the case to date), then I'd happily abandon FCEVs for BEVs. But rapid fueling tends to take place during peak periods, especially around the evening commute, and that sort of spike in electricity usage at exactly the wrong time would be problematic. Off-peak production and storage eliminates that issue, whether what's stored is gas, H2 or electricity in batteries, but that's all dependent on reducing costs of that storage. Neither batteries or on-site H2 production is low enough cost at this time; both are getting closer.

Right, the typical family apartment dweller is going to allocate 30-40 minutes of weekend family time to locate a QC and possibly wait in line for availability to charge his/her BEV? Again, your
logic is lacking.

Even Quick Chargers are much cheaper than H2 stations. So if there is a line there (caused by high utilization), how much more likely is there to be a line at an H2 station? Remember that most of the time, EVs are charged at home whereas FCVs are always refueled at an H2 station.

Yes, and that's both a strength and a weakness of any fast refueling central point station. However, it's a weakness that most people around the world find acceptable, most of whom can't charge at home and won't be able to for decades (if ever).

 

[GRA]

L1 apartment charging is even more suited to BEVs with bigger batteries since they can store up more on the weekends/at quick chargers to meet the owners needs.

Right, the typical family apartment dweller is going to allocate 30-40 minutes of weekend family time to locate a QC and possibly wait in line for availability to charge his/her BEV? Again, your logic is lacking.

Your comprehension is lacking. In the phrase "on the weekends/at quick chargers" the "/" means "or". The point is that the car can charge over the weekend OR at quick chargers (whenever convenient).

Simply put, many BEV owners choose L1 charging today because it meets their needs. For those that it doesn't, they can get a Prius and avoid the expense and inconvenience of an H2 FCV.

They can get a Prius and avoid the expense and inconvenience (if they can't charge at home, or want to take trips anywhere they please without flight planning) of a Model S as well. And no need to get a Prius; any Civic or Corolla will provide basic, flexible, convenient transportation anywhere you want to go (on a paved road) in the U.S., for much less than a Prius up front. Anyone spending more than $25k on a car isn't buying it for basic transportation at the lowest cost. Certainly anyone spending upwards of $120k on a P90D with Ludicrous mode just so they can lower their 0-60 time to 2.8 instead of 3.1 seconds isn't motivated by value for money concerns.

 

[GRA]

Why do you think they have lower performance and drive quality than plug-ins? ...

This first hand review from someone familiar with electric drive performance and drive quality.
https://transportevolved.com/2015/08/25/first-drive-report-2016-toyota-mirai-hydrogen-fuel-cell-sedan/

Having spent plenty of time with the Rav4 EV we looked forward to that grin-inducing, constant torque electric motor acceleration that makes children and adults giggle. We selected ‘Power’ mode, but found that acceleration from a dead stop, or from 30 or 40 MPH lacked the instant torque and acceleration familiar to drivers of electric cars.

In fact, acceleration in the Mirai is average and perhaps even a little on the slow side. While the Mirai does have enough power to drive safely on the freeway, its 0-60 time of 9.0 seconds is slower than that of a 2015 Corolla. Unlike most electric cars, which have a low center of gravity thanks to weighty battery packs low in the chassis, the center of gravity of the 4,080 pound Mirai is higher, exhibiting noticeable lean on cornering. While we’re making comparisons to the RAV4 EV and other zero emission cars, we found the Mirai’s regenerative ‘B-mode’ mild in comparison to many electric cars on the market today.

The passenger cabin is insulated to decrease noise, yet our test drive model was louder than expected. The drivetrain made a distinct noise under acceleration – the Mirai is louder than electric cars on the market today

I have no doubt the drive quality is better than an ICE, but am very skeptical that it matches an electric.
I look forward to seeing ore first hand reviews as the cars get on the roads.

As I said, those are design choices, not technical limitations. Toyota could have made the Mirai accelerate faster by installing a more powerful battery to provide more boost to a more powerful motor, or by providing a more powerful fuel cell (which would make the fuel cell oversized for normal cruising,and thus lower the m/kg.). The relatively slow rate of power ramp is a technical limitation of current fuel cells, which is why they're all FCHEVs now, using a battery for boost and regen. They chose not to go that route, figuring that anything less than 10 seconds was adequate for normal driving needs (I agree, and would say that anything under about 15 sec. would be adequately safe, if not acceptable to many people), but that doesn't mean some other company might make different choices - BMW certainly is. And the Mirai is an electric car, just as both versions of the B-class are (the B-class uses the same 100 kW motor for BEV and FCEV).

The numbers you provided for garage owners are good information.
However, what are the percentage of car owners that have a garage. I know of people that own no cars, and all of them reside in urban zones.
How about percentage of early adopters?

Early adopters have well above average incomes, and are much more likely to be detached single-family home owners than the mainstream consumer, at least in the U.S. If we were content to restrict AFV sales to that demographic, we'd be fine, but I presume that we both want to see them cross the chasm to mainstream car buyers.

I don't see the lack of a place to plug in on a daily basis to be a problem at this stage.
Once EVs get to 50% market share, then that may be an issue. By that time, I expect the charging infrastructure to have grown to cover most businesses, condos and apartment complexes that have off street parking.

As I've pointed out before, San Francisco, the U.S. urban area with the greatest take rate and most support for PEVs in the country, has something like 260k on-street parking spaces out of 441k total publicly accessible spaces on-street and in public/private garages/lots. In the past 4.5 years, they've installed somewhere around 700 charging stations total, but let's round that up and call it 1,000. That's around 220/year - at the current rate it would take them until just a bit short of the 24th century to fit them all.

And yes, there will be a smattering of people that find an FCV meets their needs better than EVs. But it is a very small number, IMO.

And there's were our opinions differ, and we'll just have to see what happens. But the fact is that most car owners the world around find that ICEs meet their needs better than BEVs currently, and FCEVs can directly replace ICEs while providing the same capabilities (given the infrastructure , obviously). If FCEVs cost the same to buy and fuel as ICEs do now we wouldn't even be having this discussion, but until they (or BEVs with ICE capabilities) do, we won't know which will take over. Or maybe affordable, sustainable liquid bio-fuels will overtake both of them, with virtually zero need to alter people's habits or provide new infrastructure. That would be the ideal option in many ways, but at the moment that's not a reasonable option for at least another decade, if ever. So, since I believe none of the current approaches are ready for prime time, we should continue to press ahead with all three for another 5-10 years until the picture becomes clearer.

 

[GRA]

There's another advantage, in that fuel cells currently have longer lifetimes than batteries and, even with significant degradation, still provide enough range to be useful as a used car to a large segment of the population. Currently, no BEV other than a more expensive Tesla can match that.

IMO large-scale battery swapping will only be commercially viable (outside of fleets) when automakers agree on standardized, leased battery packs. Seeing as how they can't even agree on using standardized charging connectors and protocols yet, I don't expect that to happen anytime soon.

Battery swapping is a dead end. I only throw it out there as a a possibility, and there may be small, isolated circumstances where swapping makes sense (probably a taxi fleet with cheap, smallish batteries... small batteries tend to be more difficult to charge fast in the only metric that matters... range added per unit of time charging).

I'm not sure that we "know" that fuel cells have longer life than the best batteries. Hydrogen cars, in the 20 plus years of modern development, have never really been in public hands... for a whole lot of very good reasons.

Sounds like an excellent reason to get them out to the public in more than token numbers, so we can see if in the real world they're Volts or LEAFs.

"Cost" is thrown around here without the obvious caveats... hydrogen is GROSSLY subsidized. Toyota originally advertised that their car was $98,000, but are selling it for $57,000.

Tesla and Nissan (the two leaders in EVs) both reportedly make money on their cars.

Toyota makes money on their cars too, and uses that to subsidize the Mirai, just as they subsidized the 1st gen Prius. They've sold 8 million Prii (plus another 10 million other model hybrids) since 1997, and made $18 billion in profit last year, so I'd say it paid off for them. Nissan is making money on the LEAF now, but not the program as a whole yet, so hopefully having paid their dues the 2nd gen will finally be a profitable program (same for GM and the Volt 2.0). Tesla has yet to turn a profit as a company.

 

[GRA]

What I am puzzled by is that Mirai has a 1.6 KW hour battery that is probably either an assist or storage for power, so I am not sure why it would be so weak.

The Mirai is a FCHEV, and like all HEVs it uses a 'power' battery rather than an 'energy' battery. The power battery is used for providing short bursts of power for acceleration and also a place to dump regen quickly. It needs high cycle-life and high current capacity in or out, but doesn't need to have as large a capacity as an energy battery. It may well be the same battery to be used in the new (non-PHEV) Prius, but that's just speculation; it's apparently similar to the one used in the Camry HEV, and is NiMH rather the Li-ion, for durability as well as (presumably) cost reasons.

 

[ydnas7]

I stand corrected.
As FCVs are more efficient that ICE vehicles, I have little issue with their efficiency.
As they are less efficient, less convenient for many, have lower performance and drive quality than plugins, they are a poor choice for most, but they are better than ICE.

A frugal diesel matches (actually slightly exceeds) the efficiency of a H2 fuel cell vehicle due to the losses involved in Hydrogen production. (Using the same vehicle)

 

[GRA]

I stand corrected.
As FCVs are more efficient that ICE vehicles, I have little issue with their efficiency.
As they are less efficient, less convenient for many, have lower performance and drive quality than plugins, they are a poor choice for most, but they are better than ICE.

A frugal diesel matches (actually slightly exceeds) the efficiency of a H2 fuel cell vehicle due to the losses involved in Hydrogen production. (Using the same vehicle)

Just as soon as sustainably-produced bio-diesel that doesn't take up land suitable for growing food crops is available in the requisite volume, this will be a reasonable option. But for a long time, and possibly forever, drop-in liquid biofuels that meet those requirements will need to be restricted to the one transport application that absolutely can't do without them, aviation.

 

[TonyWilliams]

... We are still in the initial stages [of hydrogen stuff] where subsidies are necessary to get FCEVs out to the public and provide the fuel (as we are with PEVs and public charging currently - no one yet knows how to make money on public charging stations - if they did, they'd be springing up like weeds).

Here's your neighborhood, which had almost nothing in 2010 for EV charging. Some folks would consider that EV charging did "spring up like weeds" since then.

FUN FACT: No map is required for hydrogen. It's virtually non-existent.

Forward Looking Statement 4: There won't be growth like this for hydrogen IN MY LIFETIME!!!

 

[TonyWilliams]

Sounds like an excellent reasons to get them out to the public in more than token numbers, so we can see if in the real world they're Volts or LEAFs.

I'm not sure what this is referring to. I'm not suggesting that any CURRENT car would be a good candidate for battery swapping, but that a FUTURE cheap smallish battery EV with built in battery swapping (neither the LEAF, nor Volt hybrid, were designed for battery swapping) might make a good candidate for a taxi fleet.

Cheap acquisition, very cheap to operate, and a central location(s) for midday swapping and a central overnight location for overnight charging. Inner city van / delivery operations might like this, too.

"Cost" is thrown around here without the obvious caveats... hydrogen is GROSSLY subsidized. Toyota originally advertised that their car was $98,000, but are selling it for $57,000.

Tesla and Nissan (the two leaders in EVs) both reportedly make money on their cars.

Toyota makes money on their cars too, and uses that to subsidize the Mirai, just as they subsidized the 1st gen Prius.

You're confusing company profits with the car. Yes, Toyota makes a boat load of money on PETROLEUM cars, worldwide. Tesla loses money to facilitate growth, but the car has a 20-25% margin.

I don't know when Toyota will actually turn a profit on any hydrogen car, but let's just say it will be a LOOOoooooooong time.

 

[TonyWilliams]

But for a long time, and possibly forever, drop-in liquid biofuels that meet those requirements will need to be restricted to the one transport application that absolutely can't do without them, aviation.

Now there is something we absolutely agree on. Because biofuels have such a large footprint and cost, it is unclear how we jump from "cheap" oil to biofuels.

Governments aren't going to finance this, so maybe carbon credit schemes can help. It's the singular most difficult CO2 free transport issue.

 

[GRA]

... We are still in the initial stages [of hydrogen stuff] where subsidies are necessary to get FCEVs out to the public and provide the fuel (as we are with PEVs and public charging currently - no one yet knows how to make money on public charging stations - if they did, they'd be springing up like weeds).

Here's your neighborhood, which had almost nothing in 2010 for EV charging. Some folks would consider that EV charging did "spring up like weeds" since then.

FUN FACT: No map is required for hydrogen. It's virtually non-existent.

Forward Looking Statement 4: There won't be growth like this for hydrogen IN MY LIFETIME!!!

Uh huh, and I still can't charge anywhere within walking distance for less than it would cost me to buy gas, so why on earth would anyone not motivated by ideology who had to use them opt for a PEV? Most of the public chargers in my city are Blinks, many of them L2s at fast food joints, all more expensive than gas. The local Nissan dealer has two free L2s, but they use them for their own cars, chain the lot off at night, and I don't know what their policy is towards other makes or cars not bought there. L2s located at local colleges are 'free' (Why? Parking isn't) but at least two miles away, etc.

The shopping mall did just add a couple of 'free', apparently low-power L2s (which is to say that, just like 'free' parking, the cost is being passed on to all customers through higher prices, subsidized by advertising, or both), but it's 2.5 miles away so well within bike range, and the only reason I ever go there is to eat at the all-you-can-eat buffet, so I always ride my bike to burn some calories before and after in any case; driving a car there would be a step backwards on both counts. Besides, that's really for mall customers, and hardly convenient to home. Is someone supposed to leave a car there overnight to charge?

Closer to me (1.6 miles) are some Chargepoints (sponsored by BAAQMD) on a government lot, $1.00 service charge plus 0.20/kWh (plus parking, which wipes out most of the price advantage), which is more reasonable than Blink, but which is only officially open during the day, and is right next to the police station should anyone chose to try their luck and risk a ticket at night, and so on.

In short, most of the public chargers that have 'sprung up' in the Bay Area over the past 4.5 years have been subsidized by one government entity or another, to build them and/or for O&M, and most still provide lousy accessibility at higher cost than gas. It's no surprise at all that the closest L2s to me (Blinks) sit empty all night long and see rare use the rest of the time, because no one who doesn't have to use them will. Which is a pity, because they're about 0.4 miles from me and even closer to some other apartments and townhouses, located right downtown on a main walking/retail corridor with City Hall very close by. But until the prices are less than gas, no one who can't charge at home, who isn't an ideologue, and who has the option of an ICE will opt for a PEV.

Meanwhile, hydrogen fueling is being added to a gas station 1.7 miles from me (although in a different direction, that's about the same distance I drive to get gas now) as well as many other locations around the Bay, and if I were to opt for an FCEV I wouldn't be paying for fuel for three years. Not that anyone opting for an FCEV now is doing so because it's the smartest move financially, just as no one who's getting a Tesla now is doing so for that reason. Anyway, an FCEV owner will, by the end of this year, have far more ability to drive anywhere in the Bay Area with the certainty of having fuel reasonably close by, than BEVs had for more than three years after they were introduced here. Just as important, FCEVs' longer range than any BEV other than a Tesla means that most regional round trips (and more than a few inter-regional round trips, like Monterey/Carmel) can be made un-refueled with plenty of reserve. Hopefully people have learned with the LEAF why it makes no sense to buy a rapidly obsolescing technology if they can lease, especially when infrastructure development, reliability and price of fuel remain uncertain, and Toyota expects 95% of Mirais will be leased.

As for how fast fuel stations will appear, in order to provide incentive for early completion, one of the terms of the current contract the government-subsidized stations are being built under is that stations completed prior to Oct. 31st, 2015 are eligible for the maximum O&M subsidy, $300k/year IIRR, while those that complete after that date can get a lot less. I think it's fair to say that any station that has a hope in hell of completing before Oct. 31st will do so. And, since these all provide rapid refueling, there's no need for massive numbers to cover the potential customer population; the customers will come to them, just as they do with gas stations. If (always a major if) H2 can be fully commercialized, which is to say priced competitively with gas and profitable without subsidies, then I expect they will start 'springing up' at much the same rate that gas stations did in the first 7 years of their construction (1913-1920), when 15,000 appeared in the U.S., followed by over 100,000 more over the next decade. At the moment they aren't profitable, but then neither is public charging, which is why the rate of increase has been so slow and dependent on public subsidies.

 

[GRA]

Sounds like an excellent reasons to get them out to the public in more than token numbers, so we can see if in the real world they're Volts or LEAFs.

I'm not sure what this is referring to. I'm not suggesting that any CURRENT car would be a good candidate for battery swapping, but that a FUTURE cheap smallish battery EV with built in battery swapping (neither the LEAF, nor Volt hybrid, were designed for battery swapping) might make a good candidate for a taxi fleet.

Cheap acquisition, very cheap to operate, and a central location(s) for midday swapping and a central overnight location for overnight charging. Inner city van / delivery operations might like this, too.

Okay, we got our wires crossed. My reply above was not about battery swapping, but to this part of your statement: "I'm not sure that we "know" that fuel cells have longer life than the best batteries. Hydrogen cars, in the 20 plus years of modern development, have never really been in public hands... for a whole lot of very good reasons." Does that clear up the confusion?

"Cost" is thrown around here without the obvious caveats... hydrogen is GROSSLY subsidized. Toyota originally advertised that their car was $98,000, but are selling it for $57,000.

Tesla and Nissan (the two leaders in EVs) both reportedly make money on their cars.

Toyota makes money on their cars too, and uses that to subsidize the Mirai, just as they subsidized the 1st gen Prius.

You're confusing company profits with the car. Yes, Toyota makes a boat load of money on PETROLEUM cars, worldwide. Tesla loses money to facilitate growth, but the car has a 20-25% margin.

I don't know when Toyota will actually turn a profit on any hydrogen car, but let's just say it will be a LOOOoooooooong time.

No, I'm not confusing company profits with the car, I specifically wrote that "Toyota makes money on their [i.e. petroleum] cars too, and uses that to subsidize the Mirai, just as they subsidized the 1st gen Prius." I have no doubt at all that Toyota doesn't expect to make any money on the 1st Gen of Mirai, and they may not make any on the 2nd gen should they proceed with one (as I expect they will, barring a huge price/performance breakthrough for batteries in that time frame), but the losses will be a lot closer to break-even.

I think Toyota's biggest problem selling/leasing with the Mirai won't come from the tech, the lack of infrastructure or the cost, it's the looks. They could have made it look a lot better; just imagine how much less Model S sales would be if it looked like the Mirai. I suspect most Mirai customers, or at least most European or North American Mirai customers who get one will do so in spite of its looks, rather than because of them. They'll be doing so because they want to support the tech, not because they like looking at/being seen in one. A fair number of LEAF owners felt this way too, and some potential owners opted for some other car at least partly for that reason, but the Mirai carries the 'weird and ugly' look to an extreme.

Or, to quote Bob Lutz from his monthly "Go Lutz Yourself" column in the September R&T, this one titled "Driven by Design":

There aren't any bad cars anymore. They just don't exist. The days of seeing a comparison test of four cars where one is the obvious loser are gone, replaced by a new age of automotive equality. Reliability, braking, steering, handling, ride, and refinement are all largely on par across automakers and segments. That leaves just one chief differentiator: design.

It's the emotional punch that can sway a buyer from one brand to another, and in a landscape of increasingly interchangeable models, it's more important now than ever. . . .

Great design, great sales and profit. Good design, and you settle for a bit less. Average design, or "me too," and you'll be struggling with sales incentives, no matter how "good" the vehicle is.

Take the Tesla Model S. If that had been an ugly car, it could have an extra 50 miles of range and nobody would buy it. But designer Franz von Holzhausen did a wonderful job. It's well executed and fantastically beautiful with great presence. It's wide, low, and strikes all the emotional chords. It resonates.

It's impossible to know how long it will take for the world's large producers to prioritize design in a meaningful way, but I hope it's soon. The new marketplace demands it.

Unfortunately, to a European or at least culturally Euro-centric audience's eyes, the Mirai is ugly, and that's going to hurt unless Toyota can capitalize on the sort of people who willingly own Jukes and similar cars that make a counterculture design statement; the '60s are well behind us. I believe that's a very different income and cultural demographic from the likely Mirai buyer here or in Europe; a Mirai costs a lot more than a Bug did. I can't say for Japan, although they often seem to get off on stuff I find tacky, homely, ugly or nauseating. As Lutz says, an ugly car severely limits the potential sales potential regardless of how good the car may be otherwise.

 

[GRA]

But for a long time, and possibly forever, drop-in liquid biofuels that meet those requirements will need to be restricted to the one transport application that absolutely can't do without them, aviation.

Now there is something we absolutely agree on. Because biofuels have such a large footprint and cost, it is unclear how we jump from "cheap" oil to biofuels.

Governments aren't going to finance this, so maybe carbon credit schemes can help. It's the singular most difficult CO2 free transport issue.

Drop-in biofuels are starting to be commercialized, and the U.S. military as well as several airlines have contracts running into the millions of gallons/year, essentially the entire production. But since some of the airlines use that much in a day or two, production is a long way away from replacing more than a token amount of jet fuel.

 

[GRA]

Via GCC:

DLR-led NEMESIS 2+ project develops compact direct steam reformer for diesel/biodiesel to H2

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/09/20150902-nemesis.html

The European NEMESIS 2+ consortium has and successfully tested a pre-commercial on-site system for the production of hydrogen from diesel and biodiesel. The prototype system—the size of a shipping container—can be integrated into existing infrastructure with relative ease.

The prototype, built by the Dutch project partner HyGear, produces 4.4 kilograms of hydrogen from 20 liters of biodiesel per hour—this roughly corresponds to the fuel tank of a B-Class F-cell vehicle. The efficiency of the process, from start to finish, is approximately 70%. (Original project goals were 50 Nm3/h, or 4.5 kg/h with an efficiency >80%.) The EU NEMESIS 2+ project, which ran until June 2015, was coordinated by the German Aerospace Center (DLR).

A techno-economic evaluation, which was also carried out during the EU project, determined maximal production costs of €5.80 per kilogram of hydrogen (US$6.53). This figure is already close to the economic efficiency of the prototype.

One promising application [for the system] is the production of hydrogen from diesel and biodiesel directly on site at conventional filling stations, which would make it much more convenient to fill up fuel cell vehicles, as well as further support the breakthrough of this technology. The technology developed during the NEMESIS 2+ project could act as a bridge for creating the necessary hydrogen infrastructure, which would enable fuel cell vehicles to be filled up across the country.

—Stefan Martin, from the DLR Institute of Engineering Thermodynamics in Stuttgart

Rather than delivering hydrogen within compressed gas cylinders on trucks to filling stations, the NEMESIS 2+ system would use the existing infrastructure for storing and transporting diesel and biodiesel. Compared to pressurized hydrogen, liquid fuels are characterized by their higher volumetric energy density, which makes them easier to transport and store.

Using steam reforming to produce hydrogen from diesel and biodiesel is more laborious due to the deactivation of the employed catalysts by the deposition of carbon and sulfur impurities on their surface, causing a reduction in the amount of hydrogen produced, Martin explains. With the help of laboratory experiments and simulations, DLR researchers re-examined the entire process systematically, and were able to identify the optimal operating conditions.

This knowledge now allows us to produce high-quality hydrogen with a purity of 99.999 percent, and for the first time, we are able to produce hydrogen from diesel and biodiesel through a process that is stable over a long period.

—Stefan Martin

This one sounds like it's a lot closer to real-world testing. Non-fossil-fuel feedstock supply for bio-diesel will still be an issue as far as transitioning away from fossil fuels goes, but this might help early on by when using fossil fuels by lowering delivery and possibly storage costs, compared to using LNG or CNG tankers.

 

[RegGuheert]

This article in CleanTechnica mentions many of the glowing, but failed, predictions made by car manufacturers and government labs regarding the future of FCVs (excepting the recent ones from Hyundai, Toyota and Honda). Like the incorrect Totota prediction I found on the History Channel in January 2005 in which a Toyota executive rattled off a list of alternative-fueled vehicles which excluded BEVs and then went on to predict that FCVs would today be as popular as BEVs actually are, these predictions really appear to serve the purpose of "kicking the can down the road" and little else. As a result, they have been able to hold off the actual delivery of alternative-fueled vehicles of all types.

Below is their chart showing an extensive list of predictions and who made them. Unfortunately, the chart does not give details of what was predicted. They did give a few ideas of what was predicted, such as this one from DaimlerChrysler:

Daimler was even bolder, predicting it would sell fuel cell vehicles within the first decade of the 21st century, and not just a smattering of vehicles. Back when Daimler was DaimlerChrysler, one executive predicted as many as 40,000 Mercedes-branded fuel cell vehicles on roads by 2004.

 

[GRA]

This article in CleanTechnica mentions many of the glowing, but failed, predictions made by car manufacturers and government labs regarding the future of FCVs (excepting the recent ones from Hyundai, Toyota and Honda). Like the incorrect Totota prediction I found on the History Channel in January 2005 in which a Toyota executive rattled off a list of alternative-fueled vehicles which excluded BEVs and then went on to predict that FCVs would today be as popular as BEVs actually are, these predictions really appear to serve the purpose of "kicking the can down the road" and little else. As a result, they have been able to hold off the actual delivery of alternative-fueled vehicles of all types.

Below is their chart showing an extensive list of predictions and who made them. Unfortunately, the chart does not give details of what was predicted. They did give a few ideas of what was predicted, such as this one from DaimlerChrysler:

Daimler was even bolder, predicting it would sell fuel cell vehicles within the first decade of the 21st century, and not just a smattering of vehicles. Back when Daimler was DaimlerChrysler, one executive predicted as many as 40,000 Mercedes-branded fuel cell vehicles on roads by 2004.

Now they need to do an article on the many glowing but failed predictions of the inevitable and soon to arrive dominance of BEVs by manufacturers and promoters, going back to about 1897 (some of which I posted way upthread), and appearing again in the 1960s, 1970s, 1990s and now. Personally, I take all claims about the inevitability of impending dominance by any technology or energy source with a huge mound of salt, and prefer to see the results first. Holds true for BEVs, FCEVs, HEVs, PHEVs, bio-fuels, compressed air and on and on. I could point to similar claims extending over decades for all of them.

 

[GRA]

Since we've talked a fair bit about buses here, I'm posting this from GCC about Proterra's latest BEV bus, as it seems to provide roughly comparable to FCEV bus range. No cost data, though:

Proterra extended range electric bus delivers 258 miles on one charge of 257 kWh pack

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/09/20150903-proterra.html

A Proterra 40-foot Catalyst XR (extended range) electric bus drove 258 miles (415 miles) on a single charge under test conditions at Michelin’s Laurens Proving Grounds (LPG). The Catalyst XR configuration for the max mileage test used 8 NMC Li-ion battery packs, with a total energy capacity of 257 kWh. Average speed was 30 mph (48 km/h); average energy consumption was 0.8 kWh/mile.

Proterra offers both extended-range (XR) and fast-charge (FC) versions of its electric bus, using different battery technologies. (Earlier post.)

Proterra’s TerraVolt FC fast charge battery options (lithium titanate, LTO chemistry) allows for maximum run time with minimum dwell time. This system can be recharged on-route in less than ten minutes with a 500kW charge rate. Fast charge configured buses can also be charged in-depot to take advantage of off-peak charging times. Proterra has demonstrated that this option can travel more than 700 miles in 24-hour period. Proterra’s fast charge vehicle uses a 100 kWh pack.

The new Catalyst XR Extended Range product uses an NMC higher energy density pack, said Horton, allowing flexibility in the deployment of electric buses on routes of all types. The XR is compatible with the fast charging equipment (although the charge will not be as quick as with the FC); full charge recovery can be accomplished in less than 90 minutes.

Based on the new test results, Proterra predicts its ten pack XR configuration (321 kWh) will achieve 300 miles (483 km) on a single charge. According to available General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) data, typical urban and rural bus routes in the United States run less than 200 miles a day, bringing most routes within reach of Proterra’s current technology. . . .

Some agency needs to get some of these out on routes soonest, preferably while running FCEV buses on the same routes so they can compare.

 

[RegGuheert]

Since we've talked a fair bit about buses here, I'm posting this from GCC about Proterra's latest BEV bus, as it seems to provide roughly comparable to FCEV bus range. No cost data, though:

Proterra extended range electric bus delivers 258 miles on one charge of 257 kWh pack

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/09/20150903-proterra.html

A Proterra 40-foot Catalyst XR (extended range) electric bus drove 258 miles (415 miles) on a single charge under test conditions at Michelin’s Laurens Proving Grounds (LPG). The Catalyst XR configuration for the max mileage test used 8 NMC Li-ion battery packs, with a total energy capacity of 257 kWh. Average speed was 30 mph (48 km/h); average energy consumption was 0.8 kWh/mile.

Proterra offers both extended-range (XR) and fast-charge (FC) versions of its electric bus, using different battery technologies. (Earlier post.)

At 1.25 mi/kWh, this bus uses three-to-four times as much electricity as a Nissan LEAF, but can carry eight times as many people. I wonder what the average passenger load is on a typical city bus.

Some agency needs to get some of these out on routes soonest, preferably while running FCEV buses on the same routes so they can compare.

Why? Do you like to see money and resources wasted, both up-front and on a continuing basis?

Seriously, once BEVs can provide a full set of capabilities in a fleet application, FCVs need no longer apply. Even if this first generation of BEV buses prove to have battery wear out issues (and I'm sure they will), batteries are getting cheaper, more durable and higher-capacity on a continual basis. That means that the economics of these buses will steadily improve with time, while the energy consumption will always be unbeatable.. As discussed previously, a simple rotation of buses from the longest routes when new to the shortest as the battery degrades will work well for the larger municipalities. That's something a fleet can do that individual owners typically cannot.

So the list of fleet targets for FCVs just got shorter by one. The following fleets are also extremely likely to be dominated by BEVs:

- Indoor Forklifts
- Taxicabs
- Delivery Vans
- Short-haul Trucking

Then there are fleet applications which likely will need liquid fuels:

- Commercial Aviation
- Shipping

It seems that more-and-more rail applications will be electrified (I'm guessing this has not happened in the U.S. due to limitations of the electrical grid? If that is the case, this may take time to transform.)

- Rail shipping

So what fleet applications are left for FCVs to compete in?

- Long-haul trucking

Is that it? Any other fleet applications where FCVs might compete long-term?

 

[RegGuheert]

Here's a review from back in December, 2014, of the hydrogen bus project in BC: Vaughn Palmer: On hydrogen bus boondoggle, Horgan’s criticisms were prophetic

Some quotes:

“Why,” asked John Horgan, was B.C. “embarking on what could only be described as a bottomless pit of public subsidy for a technology that’s not yet proven?”

Right he was. The province, in partnership with the federal government and Whistler municipality, had to subsidize the project to the tune of almost $90 million. The outlays covered the purchase of some 20 buses and building the necessary fuelling and maintenance facility, plus covering the annual operating losses of the service.

By the time B.C. Transit listed the buses for sale this month, they and the hydrogen highway were less a wave of the future than a laughingstock.

A month later, the Liberal premier presided at a star-power launch of the hydrogen highway with California’s celebrity governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, the two of them promising an “uninterrupted corridor” of fuelling stations that would stretch all the way from Whistler to the Mexican border.

When the corridor never materialized, a columnist for the Los Angeles Times would liken it to a string of “Potemkin villages,” after the bogus settlements the 18th-century Russians supposedly built along a river to impress visiting Empress Catherine the Great.

It seems the electric highway was not the only highway CA promised but failed to deliver.

The buses cost four times as much as diesel buses to buy and three times as much to maintain. They were hard to start in cold weather. And they are now being offered for sale, with no expectations of recovering more than a fraction of the cost. How does that count as a success?

If they are so dang feasible, why are they being sold off? “B.C. Transit’s determination was that those additional costs were not sustainable for B.C.’s purposes.”