Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[TonyWilliams]

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?

Another great summary. The hydrogen advocate squeal should be here shortly.

Andy would almost wet himself to tell us that the forklift business was quickly being transformed from EV to H2, because folks couldn't be bothered to plug in the forklift from the previous shift. So, there's that. I'm confident that when batteries are cheap enough, they will just have swappable batteries like a powered hand tool (ok, maybe not like a hand tool, but with simple human strength required).

Then there's the heater issue that Andy always trumpeted. I guess we could have "hybrid" cars, with battery powered everything and a hydrogen hybrid (with electricity) powered heater. Thankfully, H2's lack of energy efficiency compared to batteries work great in the heater role, where they will be "100%" efficient! Little tanks the size of Coleman stove tanks can easily be swapped, while always retaining the full ability to run on electricity alone. Not completely unsafe with the leaking issue (H2 is a colorless, ordorless, highly flammable product), but in small quantities and low pressure, it should be fine. You would only use it when absolute range was an issue in cold weather.

The BYD busses use an alternate fuel heater.

Long haul trucking will be natural gas for a LOOOOooooong time.

Aviation really only has one logical choice, biofuels.

Over the water shipping has a lot of choices, from nuclear to liquid hydrogen.

Rails are definitely electric... heck, they're already electric; we're just removing the diesel generator.

 

[RegGuheert]

Andy would almost wet himself to tell us that the forklift business was quickly being transformed from EV to H2, because folks couldn't be bothered to plug in the forklift from the previous shift. So, there's that. I'm confident that when batteries are cheap enough, they will just have swappable batteries like a powered hand tool (ok, maybe not like a hand tool, but with simple human strength required).

Here's a paper from 2012 which compares the economics of battery-powered forklifts versus fuel-cell forklifts: Economic comparison of fuel cell powered forklifts to battery powered forklifts:

5. Conclusions
The project NPC was calculated using models of the capital and operational costs for four technologies of interest, conventionally charged batteries, fast charging of conventional batteries with 15 kW and 30 kW chargers and PEM fuel cells. Analysis of the project NPC and project NPC per unit of workload shows that fuel cell forklifts cannot compete with battery technologies on an economic basis for the workloads and facility types considered. For low workloads, conventional battery swapping forklifts allow for the lowest project NPC. At higher workloads, fast-charge forklifts have the lowest project NPC because they require less battery changing infrastructure and space.

These quantitative results agreed with the qualitative understanding of the fuel cell forklift industry based on interviews conducted for this research. In general, fuel cell forklifts were considered most commercially viable at materials handling facilities that had extraordinary costs of facility space, labor, and electricity. These outlier facilities might be physically unable to expand a battery room with increasing workload, located in geographic areas with high prevailing wages, and are subject to high electricity peak demand prices. These types of facilities should perform the type of economic analysis described in this report using their particular valuations of these key costs.

Of course, I also found a comparison done by Ballard which comes to the opposite conclusion.

 

[GRA]

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?

I like to see lifecycle costs and operational suitability compared over the long term in the real world, not just what a manufacturer claims when a product is brand new and driven by a manufacturer's driver in a scenario to optimize that product's performance.

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.

Depends on the size of the fleet, and the need to have enough of each type to cover all the needed routes. That's why, in the early days of BEV and ICE delivery trucks along with horse drawn wagons, while some stores with large enough fleets split routes into short (horse), medium (BEV) and long radius (ICE), most of them had fleets too small to make maintaining that sort of specialization economic, even though each type was less expensive in its assigned radius. They all soon switched over to all-ICE fleets that could be assigned to any route on a given day, so no need to worry about whether they had the proper mix of types available, and no need to keep three different types of spares on hand or train three different types of drivers/mechanics/blacksmiths/farriers. Operating the different types is a lot simpler now, to be sure.

On your larger point, I agree that anywhere that a BEV has the capability to do the job at an adequate price, it will win out (with the caveat above).

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

Probably not anywhere that 2 or 3 shift operation is the norm. In an earlier life as a Teamster I used forklifts and pallet jacks powered by liquid (gas, diesel) and gaseous (propane) fuels as well as batteries, and batteries are a pain in intensive operations - they always run out of charge in an inconvenient place at the worst possible time, or people neglect to plug them in, or . . . Faster charging would help.

- Taxicabs

When restricted to urban areas with lots of quick charging and regular taxi stands, once battery life improves.

- Delivery Vans

Absolutely. They were quite successful in this role, until replaced by ICE trucks for the reason stated above. Batteries need to get better for the longer routes, or else use PHFCEVs like the French postal vans. That will come down to weight and price.

- Short-haul Trucking

Depending on the definition of short, and the intensity of use. Single shift may be okay, but not two or more.

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.)

Not the grid, infrastructure costs out in the middle of nowhere when railroads were losing their best business to trucks, plus low fuel costs of the alternatives. The situation is changing now, and I expect we'll see more lines electrified. Who knows, maybe the old CMSTP&P electrified line across the Rockies will be re-established.

- 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?

Long haul/tourist buses. Maybe switching engines in rail yards, and rail routes without the traffic to make wiring them profitable. Shipping in some cases (I linked upthread to the cruise ships that will be LNG powered, so you could presumably use liquid H2), maybe harbor tugs. Car rental, until charging infrastructure is everywhere (and they'd still need to be able to do short turn-arounds).

 

[RegGuheert]

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

Probably not anywhere that 2 or 3 shift operation is the norm. In an earlier life as a Teamster I used forklifts and pallet jacks powered by liquid (gas, diesel) and gaseous (propane) fuels as well as batteries, and batteries are a pain in intensive operations - they always run out of charge in an inconvenient place at the worst possible time, or people neglect to plug them in, or . . . Faster charging would help.

Your experience from your earlier life is outdated. 30kW quick chargers mean that battery forklifts can now provide three full shifts of service without battery swapping by charging at lunch and during breaks. Because of the low efficiency and high fuel costs of H2 FCV forklifts, the more shifts you run, the worse the economics are compared with batteries. You can read the details in the paper I linked previously

Also, here is a success story from a customer who was doing things the old way (with batteries) who has now switched to quick charging to achieve significant savings: Three-shift facility squeezes more out of each 24 hours - Opportunity charging allowed the company to cut its on-site battery storage by two-thirds, improving uptime, safety and profits.:

Through a partnership begun in 1990, McCain’s forklift provider recommended opportunity charge systems and ran time studies to identify how long operators were running their lift trucks on a per-shift basis. The data helped the company consolidate and eliminate extra equipment, including 10 battery chargers and 40 batteries.

“We were able to change the way we charged our conventional batteries,” says Alfredo Villarreal, regional warehouse manager for McCain Foods. “By moving to the cutting-edge technology, our batteries could be charged more often, in the truck, and without damage. The difference between an 8-hour charge time and 15 minutes during an operator’s break affects our bottom line.”

 

[RegGuheert]

O.K. It does look like the jury is still out for forklifts: sales of both quick-chargers AND fuel-cell forklifts are growing rapidly. According to this paper from NREL, fuel-cell forklift deliveries are ramping up nicely, with about 1700 units shipped in the U.S. in 2014. PlugPower's GenDrive drop-in replacement for a lead-acid battery appears to be the market leader there.

On the other side of the battle, Power Designers appears to be the leader in quick chargers for forklifts. They claim to have shipped 13,000 units, but some of these were not quick chargers.

I do wonder if demand charges are a big deal for forklift operators attempting to use quick chargers. Perhaps using fossil-fuel-derived H2 fuel-cells is the answer.

But wait, there's more! Here is a link to a fairly detailed article on 2014 worldwide forklift sales. Some quotes:

• According to figures from the ITA, 184,979 units of Class 1 through 5 lift trucks were U.S. factory shipments, as compared to 172,073 units in 2013, an increase of 7.5%.

If 1700 of those were powered by hydrogen, that is about 1% penetration.

Globally, the more mature markets have embraced electric vehicles faster than the emerging markets, Wood suggests. For example, the Asian market is made up of only 35% electric lift trucks, while the North American market is 60% electric and European market is 80% electric. The overall worldwide market is 45% electric.

So, electric forklifts comprise 60% of the market in the U.S. right now, or 60X of FCV sales, but are only growing at double-digit rates versus much higher grown in fuel-cell forklift deliveries.

This will be interesting to watch going forward. Clearly the fuel-cell forklifts are scratching somebody's itch!

 

[GRA]

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

Probably not anywhere that 2 or 3 shift operation is the norm. In an earlier life as a Teamster I used forklifts and pallet jacks powered by liquid (gas, diesel) and gaseous (propane) fuels as well as batteries, and batteries are a pain in intensive operations - they always run out of charge in an inconvenient place at the worst possible time, or people neglect to plug them in, or . . . Faster charging would help.

Your experience from your earlier life is outdated.

Entirely likely, but I remain skeptical that people have improved significantly, whatever the technical improvements.

30kW quick chargers mean that battery forklifts can now provide three full shifts of service without battery swapping by charging at lunch and during breaks. Because of the low efficiency and high fuel costs of H2 FCV forklifts, the more shifts you run, the worse the economics are compared with batteries. You can read the details in the paper I linked previously

Thanks for the study, but I note that it dates from 2012, and costs have improved considerably since then (for batteries and chargers too, natch). Charging at lunch or during breaks helps, but still requires that someone remembers to plug them in, and that's by no means assured. And when you run three overlapping shifts, you typically only get lunches plus at most one break where they can be charged, because another shift is using them while you're on break. Multiple shifts with multiple start times per shift, which was just coming in when I stopped being a Teamster, give you even less assured windows to charge; the forks only stop to be fueled as needed, and fast charging is too slow.

Then there's the space benefit, which is mentioned but the operational ramifications not really clarified in the analysis. Liquid and gaseous fuels are stored outside in the yard somewhere, and you drive (or if you've been an idiot and run out) get pushed by another fork to the fuel station, or remove the tank (propane) and take it to the fuel station. For battery chargers, that space not only has to be indoors, but it has to be kept clear at all times. If you park some freight there 'just for a minute', chances are it will still be there at break, and other people will do the same so that you have to move a bunch of stuff before you can charge. Besides, not every warehouse has the space. Also, I note that they assumed a very large fleet of 50 forklifts. You'd only see that in an enormous warehouse distribution center, or maybe something like an automaker's parts plant. I worked for both Yellow and Roadway (among many other trucking companies), #1 and #2 in size as far as LTL carriers at the time (who've since merged into YRC and now rank #3, behind FedEx and Con-Way, the latter non-union; I also worked for Con-Way's union parent, Consolidated Freightways, before they shifted everything to Con-Way and closed), and none of them had that many forks at end of line terminals (hub and spoke systems); only the larger break bulk terminals might have that many.

Also, here is a success story from a customer who was doing things the old way (with batteries) who has now switched to quick charging to achieve significant savings: Three-shift facility squeezes more out of each 24 hours - Opportunity charging allowed the company to cut its on-site battery storage by two-thirds, improving uptime, safety and profits.:

Through a partnership begun in 1990, McCain’s forklift provider recommended opportunity charge systems and ran time studies to identify how long operators were running their lift trucks on a per-shift basis. The data helped the company consolidate and eliminate extra equipment, including 10 battery chargers and 40 batteries.

“We were able to change the way we charged our conventional batteries,” says Alfredo Villarreal, regional warehouse manager for McCain Foods. “By moving to the cutting-edge technology, our batteries could be charged more often, in the truck, and without damage. The difference between an 8-hour charge time and 15 minutes during an operator’s break affects our bottom line.”

Yup, as I said, faster charging helps a lot (as do better batteries), but it all depends on the duty cycle, whether it's strip and load or a warehouse operation, the type of freight being handled etc. I also note that McCain is only working 24/5, not 24/7 which is not uncommon at break bulk terminals. I've worked at places where virtually all the freight is handled by forklift, others where the majority is by hand, and everything in between. Some places use dedicated forklift operators, others where each person has the use of their own as needed, and others where everyone shares. So the answer really is 'it depends'. IME, for the most intensive usage it really helps to be able to fuel quickly in any odd free moment. Less intensive usage, BEVs may well do the job. As your next post shows, both types of EV forklifts are selling well, so horses for courses. Just as long as they're electric and people don't have to breathe exhaust in trailers (diesels are the worst), it's good.

 

[RegGuheert]

As your next post shows, both types of EV forklifts are selling well, so horses for courses.

Have a look at the edits: There is currently a 60:1 (but likely dropping) ratio between BEV forklift sales and fuel-cell forklifts in the U.S. The question is where hydrogen will run out of steam.

Just as long as they're electric and people don't have to breathe exhaust in trailers (diesels are the worst), it's good.

That's one consideration. However, as the grid gets cleaner, so will BEV forklifts. At 300 kg/customer/day of H2 consumption, I'll go out on a limb and say that is nearly all reformed from natural gas.

 

[GRA]

As your next post shows, both types of EV forklifts are selling well, so horses for courses.

Have a look at the edits: There is currently a 60:1 (but likely dropping) ratio between BEV forklift sales and fuel-cell forklifts in the U.S. The question is where hydrogen will run out of steam.

Just as long as they're electric and people don't have to breathe exhaust in trailers (diesels are the worst), it's good.

That's one consideration.

Believe me, from the user perspective, if you've ever had to work and breathe in a trailer with a diesel forklift running, it's the consideration. I give the Teamster's Union a lot of credit for demanding in contracts the phaseout of diesel forklifts in enclosed spaces. Gas was a bit better, propane a lot better, nothing (except water) would be best of all.

However, as the grid gets cleaner, so will BEV forklifts. At 300 kg/customer/day of H2 consumption, I'll go out on a limb and say that is nearly all reformed from natural gas.

Most likely true at the moment. And as the cost of electrolysis comes down, or maybe photochemical/thermochemical producton of H2 arrives, it too will be getting cleaner.

German Wind-to-Hydrogen Plant Takes Car-Fuel Battle to Tesla

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-02/german-wind-to-hydrogen-plant-takes-car-fueling-battle-to-tesla

 

[RegGuheert]

Happy Birthday, GRA!

 

[GRA]

Happy Birthday, GRA!

Thanks! I'm on the Jack Benny plan: I've been repeatedly turning 39 for years now, and plan to continue doing so for the rest of my life :lol:

 

[RegGuheert]

Happy Birthday, GRA!

Thanks! I'm on the Jack Benny plan: I've been repeatedly turning 39 for years now, and plan to continue doing so for the rest of my life :lol:

In that case, Happy 39th Birthday!

Who's Jack Benny?

 

[GRA]

Happy Birthday, GRA!

Thanks! I'm on the Jack Benny plan: I've been repeatedly turning 39 for years now, and plan to continue doing so for the rest of my life :lol:

In that case, Happy 39th Birthday!

Who's Jack Benny?

On the off chance that anyone here doesn't know : https://www.otrcat.com/p/jack-benny-annual-39th-birthday

Planning to celebrate a bit late this year - getting ready to head up to the Tioga Pass area late Sunday or early Monday, to avoid the holiday weekend crowds and do some hiking, maybe a little easy climbing. I'm usually on top of some peak on my birthday. I'm off to REI now to pick up some stuff during the sale.

 

[epirali]

Assuming a healthy infrastructure for hydrogen (let's say as common as gasoline) do you assume the number of people without easy access to daily charging is very small? Or is the percent of people who may need to drive more than is feasible on a single charge on BEVs to be small? Because in my wild guesstimate the number of people who will never adopt a pure BEV with todays charging rates (even assuming an equivalently healthy charging infrastructure as gasoline stations) is way over 50% of the population (and even that is being generous). I am using 50% as the percentage of people who do not have private garages.

Why would this future include DC chargers at today's charging rate? Does that even seem likely?

I will presume, as virtually anybody would, that future DC charging rates will be "faster". I do not presume that hydrogen is as widespread as gasoline.

I don't assume, I think I was saying IF. I think I have mentioned a couple of times that if battery charging rates change due to breakthroughs then a fast charge BEV would not have any adoption barriers or ceilings. Then it would become a matter of the economics of fast charging stations to make them feasible. I am all for public funding for that and/or increasing the cost of charging to support a commercially attractive infrastructure.

 

[epirali]

Wow you really don't get it, but ok. Actually I think you don't get it on purpose... I have politely told you I don't agree with you. I have tried to stay civil... So I guess its time to return the favor:

You are confusing your personal beliefs with truth. Stop preaching to others, and try to learn by listening to others. That is what I try to do. I take in information, even if I don't agree with it. I can change my mind and be flexible. Try that. I don't think you are capable of it...

What a joke.

You don't seem to be "taking information" very well.

No I take information very well. What he is doing is not information, but selective out of context quote in place of having a strong argument. I have tried to be more than civil and fair and not be in the mindset he has that is a pointless argument. But if he wants to continue that way I will take the exact same approach to him. Turnabout is fair play.

 

[epirali]

The economics of BEVs, as I recall, was in the context of charging stations and what people are used to paying. They are wrong and I can not personally come up with a business model that would allow private industry to install tons of chargers (DC/quick) and charge as little as people seem to want.

It's not surprising that you can't figure out that business model, from a person who generally has a negative views of EVs. Yet, they keep popping up. There must be a lot of REALLY DUMB PEOPLE out there who didn't check in with you to determine that it's a dead end business. Both Tesla (now with 500 charging stations and thousands of DC quick charge stalls, plus thousands more destination charging locations) and NRG / eVgo are exploding with growth. They seem to have "a model", and both models are completely different. The same is not true of hydrogen.

From 2011, when the first DC charging station was put in the ground in the North America until today, the growth of public DC charging has been absolutely incredible. That first one in Vacaville, California, was 50kW, and by the next year, Tesla bumped that up to 90kW, then 120kW, and now 135kW. So, your entire concept that somehow DC charging stays the same in the future is beyond laughable. The same is not true of hydrogen.

There have been "public" hydrogen stations for over ten years. They just haven't grown, and any hydrogen station growth is a publicly paid venture. All the hydrogen planned is in niche areas, generally corresponding with regulatory requirements for zero emission vehicles.

Forward looking statement 1: There will not be a SINGLE hydrogen station installed in the next 20 years that is outside of a regulatory area (CARB-ZEV), -or- that is paid for solely with private money.

Not one. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

Factual statement 1: Today, there is not a SINGLE hydrogen station PLANNED to be installed outside of a regulatory area.

Not one. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

Forward looking statement 2 : There will be continued growth throughout the first and developing world of EVs and public DC charging, including continued increases in vehicle range and charge rate.

I can happily provide a lot of quotes you have made out of context and try to play gotcha, but I won't. I urge you to spend more time trying to understand the position of others and less time with this kind of garbage. Trust me I have all the "ability" you and other(s) use to be what I will happily call unproductive and generally obnoxious, I just choose not to use them. Because it adds nothing to the discussion and it significantly diminishes involvement of others.

Maybe it's time for a "Time Out"? You seem to be going off the tracks again; aren't your little tantrums getting old?

By the way, your position is clear:

EVs are capped out on sales / charge rate bad now and will be in the future / infrastructure bad and will be in the future / nobody will sit to charge if they could just have a "good" gasoline hybrid or hydrogen car.

WE GOT IT.

Please refrain from commenting about people and their "moods" or use insulting language if you want to engage in actual discussions about facts. I have had no tantrums, you mistaker refusing to let misstatement and personal attacks stand as tantrums.

It is true there are public stations around, but in my area it is mostly from public funding, not from real business ventures. Tesla is the exception, yes. They are baking the cost of their superchargers into the cars. But you MUST realize that will not be feasible for lower cost cars right? And you yourself have commented and seen Teslas letter stating they are NOT meant for primary charing right? Because somehow you failed to mention that little fact.

I am happy to engage in a business discussion of the actual costs of running charging stations. Do you really think that this model works when most people do not want to pay more than say 20c/KWHr? Because a full fast DC charge of 30 minutes would only bring in $4.00 max. There is no way that lease, maintenance, and cost overheads will be covered by this. I ran some quick numbers for fun for myself and depending on the area I was seeing $15-20 per quick charge. I don't see people paying that, if i am wrong hey I have a new business I can start. Assuming 40% occupancy/use rate only brings in $96 per day per charger, $34K/year. I think 40% occupancy is pretty optimistic, and assuming people will pay $20 is pretty optimistic.

We also get your position, yet you continue to repeat the same things. What exactly is your point?

 

[epirali]

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.

That is a good point. Additionally what was interesting is the universe decided that my L2 charger would fail out of the blue when I got back home this week. So I've now had a chance to have to live with L1 charging only for the i3. My round trip is 50 miles to work. but I do have an L2 charger at work. But I have to say it is almost manageable if I had to just live with the L1. And if I did have 200 mile range for emergencies then it would become even easier.

But I would caveat that with the fact that I have other cars. I think it may still be tough for someone who only has 1 car and no backup.

 

[RegGuheert]

...my L2 charger would fail out of the blue when I got back home this week. So I've now had a chance to have to live with L1 charging only for the i3.

Sorry to hear that. We've had some powerful thunderstorms over the past two weeks.

 

[epirali]

...my L2 charger would fail out of the blue when I got back home this week. So I've now had a chance to have to live with L1 charging only for the i3.

Sorry to hear that. We've had some powerful thunderstorms over the past two weeks.

What is strange is that it was unplugged the entire time I was gone. So it would have to be a helluva thunderstorm. It's a first gen Siemens, they are pretty unreliable, but their support is great FWIW. They replace them with the newer generations.

 

[ydnas7]

...I am happy to engage in a business discussion of the actual costs of running charging stations. Do you really think that this model works when most people do not want to pay more than say 20c/KWHr? Because a full fast DC charge of 30 minutes would only bring in $4.00 max. There is no way that lease, maintenance, and cost overheads will be covered by this. I ran some quick numbers for fun for myself and depending on the area I was seeing $15-20 per quick charge. I don't see people paying that, if i am wrong hey I have a new business I can start. Assuming 40% occupancy/use rate only brings in $96 per day per charger, $34K/year. I think 40% occupancy is pretty optimistic, and assuming people will pay $20 is pretty optimistic.

We also get your position, yet you continue to repeat the same things. What exactly is your point?

1kg H2 stores about 33kWh with a hypothetical 100% fuel cell in a perfectly regen car.
1 kg H2 stores about 16kWh in a real world Hydrogen fuel cell vehicle.
$13.99 / 16kWh is about 88c per kWh equiv.
and even $13.99/kg H2 stations require heavy subsidy


H2 model just doesn't work, not with 700bar H2

 

[TonyWilliams]

I am happy to engage in a business discussion of the actual costs of running charging stations. Do you really think that this model works when most people do not want to pay more than say 20c/KWHr? Because a full fast DC charge of 30 minutes would only bring in $4.00 max.

Why would you think that I'd need or want to engage you in a debate about DC charger financials? I don't.

Most people (that excludes the "Just-Drive-The-Prius(TM)" crowd) only have a vague idea how much they currently pay per kWh. The same goes for the metric frequently used in the past with early adopters who kept a Prius around so they could drive any trip where public charging the LEAF might cost one penny more per mile than the cost of a Prius (not counting depreciation, oil changes, maintenance, etc).

So, $0.20 per kWh is just another made up metric by you. As you'll see below, electricity per kWh would have to equal $0.60 to $0.84 per kWh to match a hydrogen car.

Comparing costs that car owners do care about, cost per mile / km to operate equivalent cars, then we find:

Gasoline Car Equivilent

2015 Toyota Camry V6 combined EPA - 25mpg @ $3.45 per gallon in California = $0.138 per mile in energy cost

Hydrogen Car Equivilent

2014 Honda FCX Clarity EPA 59 mpge @ $13.99 per kg = $0.236 per mile in energy cost
2016 Hyundai Tucson Fuel Cell EPA 50 mpge @ $13.99 per kg = $0.238 per mile in energy cost
2016 Toyota Mirai EPA 66 mpge @ $13.99 per kg = $0.212 per mile in energy cost
Notes: One kg of hydrogen is roughly equivalent to one U.S. gallon of gasoline.

Electric Car Equivilent

2015 Nissan LEAF EPA 4 miles per kWh @ $0.12 per kWh = $0.03 per mile in energy cost
2015 Tesla Model S-70D EPA 3.3 miles per kWh @ $0.12 per kWh = $0.04 per mile in energy cost

The cost per kWh for an Electric Car to match the average cost per mile of a Hydrogen Car ($0.22) would have to be 500% to 700% higher to match.