Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[GRA]

Li-ion is here for the long-haul. The improvement rate between Gen 1 and Gen 2 is about 10%/year for specific energy and about 15%/year for range. The rate of improvement may slow somewhat, but it will NOT drop to zero. That's not how things work. There are a lot of good ideas out there which have yet to make it to market.

Unfortunately, Li-ion's max. theoretical gravimetric energy density aka specific energy is around 400 Wh/kg varying slightly by chemistry, with practically achievable specific energies naturally less, and there's a similar limit on theoretical volumetric energy density (Wh/L; forget the number, but in the same range), so there's a hard cap on future Li-ion development.

You act like these are bad numbers. These are GREAT numbers. [

They're roughly twice current pack values, and that's not enough. Better, yes.

And Li-ion does all that at nearly perfect efficiency. There are solutions that will provide incredible cycle life at extremely low cost in the works today.

There are lots of solutions 'in the works' for both techs, Reg,, but none of them are here yet.

It will take Li-Si, Li-S, Li-air or some other breakthrough battery tech to get where batteries need to be, and at the moment they all have issues.

None of these chemistries really have the potential to replace Li-ion in transportation applications.

We can hope they get solved, but as with fuel cells/H2 there's no guarantees.

You're all about kicking the can down the road when the best (by far) solution is well in hand.

We need to stop proposing the inferior technologies of tomorrow and adopt the superior technology we have in hand today.

See my sig, Reg, I've indicated my philosophy many times, but decided to put it there. However, we've once again strayed into our usual repetitive argument cycle, so I'll leave it there as there's obviously no possible meeting of minds between us on this issue.

 

[ydnas7]

due to CARB provisions, a H2 fuel cell car could be worth up to 26 credits.
http://www.autoblog.com/2016/06/14/hyundai-zev-credits-rules-work/

'Let's just say we sold 10,000 total cars in California and then we sold 5,000 cars in New York. That means for any battery, electric, or fuel cell that we sell in California let's say it is one credit, it would get 0.5 credits in New York because of that ratio. When you add up the number of credits that we would get. Let's say California is 1, 0.5 in New York. 0.2 Vermont and so forth then that is how I think you get that multiplier and that is where, in the end, that is where they may have gotten the 26 number.'

 

[RegGuheert]

See my sig, Reg, I've indicated my philosophy many times, but decided to put it there.

It says "The best is the enemy of the good enough." Yet, this is what you just wrote:

Unfortunately, Li-ion's max. theoretical gravimetric energy density aka specific energy is around 400 Wh/kg varying slightly by chemistry, with practically achievable specific energies naturally less,...

and

It will take Li-Si, Li-S, Li-air or some other breakthrough battery tech to get where batteries need to be, and at the moment they all have issues.

Sorry, but that's utter nonsense (those who read the link I provided understand why), and the thrust of that statement DIRECTLY contradicts what you wrote in your signature.

If you really believe that, why do you come here day after day to bad-mouth BEVs and propose inferior technology to replace it?

 

[rcm4453]

See my sig, Reg, I've indicated my philosophy many times, but decided to put it there.

It says "The best is the enemy of the good enough." Yet, this is what you just wrote:

Unfortunately, Li-ion's max. theoretical gravimetric energy density aka specific energy is around 400 Wh/kg varying slightly by chemistry, with practically achievable specific energies naturally less,...

and

It will take Li-Si, Li-S, Li-air or some other breakthrough battery tech to get where batteries need to be, and at the moment they all have issues.

Sorry, but that's utter nonsense (those who read the link I provided understand why), and the thrust of that statement DIRECTLY contradicts what you wrote in your signature.

If you really believe that, why do you come here day after day to bad-mouth BEVs and propose inferior technology to replace it?

So GRA thinks not even a 400 Wh/kg pack is enough?!? If that's roughly double what packs are now then that should give us 400+ miles of range! How would this not be enough for just about every driver?!? Even if you don't have access to home charging it would be totally doable using public chargers. How would using a public charger for a BEV be any different then going to a H2 station to fill up a FCEV? I guess what I'm trying to say is GRA is going to keep promoting this inferior FCEV tech on this thread no matter what anybody has to say. You can prove how impractical FCEVs are until you're blue in the face and GRA will still promote them anyway! What I don't like is if FCEVs do take off in this country that will be billions of dollars wasted building out an H2 network that could have been better used on BEV development/charging infrastructure.

 

[WetEV]

a winter backcountry ranger/hutmaster in Yosemite,

It is always easy to find an extreme case. The vast majority of people don't have 185 mile commutes.

BEVs need to match, to wit, constant range throughout the car's life, with free use of climate control without needing to flight plan, price, longevity, refueling time.

BEVs as a second car in a cool climate match all of those.

For my commute, the Leaf will have more than enough range for a decade or more. Including climate control. Without a flight plan for the commute, I could do 5 round trips in summer if I wished. A total cost of ownership that is very competitive. Will likely last as long as a gasoline car, if not longer. Refueling time is overnight at home, without trips to fueling stations.

Longer trips? I have a choice, take the Prius, or flight plan the BEV. My choice, and don't expect me to always pick the same one.

Lots more people have 20 mile RT commutes. If I lived in a hotter place, or with higher electric rates, the total cost of ownership would be much higher.

There are real, solid reasons to own a BEV, even if gasoline stays cheap. Sure, for a minority of people.

Is there ANYONE that would have a good solid reasons to own an FCEV?

FCEVs are far more expensive to buy/lease. Fuel is more expensive and harder to find than gasoline. While range might stay constant, power will not.

 

[GRA]

See my sig, Reg, I've indicated my philosophy many times, but decided to put it there.

It says "The best is the enemy of the good enough." Yet, this is what you just wrote:

Unfortunately, Li-ion's max. theoretical gravimetric energy density aka specific energy is around 400 Wh/kg varying slightly by chemistry, with practically achievable specific energies naturally less,...

and

It will take Li-Si, Li-S, Li-air or some other breakthrough battery tech to get where batteries need to be, and at the moment they all have issues.

Sorry, but that's utter nonsense (those who read the link I provided understand why), and the thrust of that statement DIRECTLY contradicts what you wrote in your signature.

If you really believe that, why do you come here day after day to bad-mouth BEVs and propose inferior technology to replace it?

Reg, I don't badmouth BEVs, any more than I bad mouth FCEVs, PHEVs or HEVs. I state their advantages and disadvantages, which each has. You persist in trying to make this either/or, while I'm for whichever is best-suited for the job and is acceptable to the largest number of people, which may change as time passes. No AFV tech is best-suited for all purposes any more than any RE tech is, and more importantly, our priorities are different. I believe that we must reduce and then eliminate fossil fuels as soon as possible, using whatever technology we can which will be acceptable to the largest number of people, even if that tech is considered 'inferior' by the most zealous advocates of a transition. You apparently believe that time isn't the issue that I do (unless you've changed your attitude towards AGCC), and thus are willing to hold out for the tech you consider the best. So, for the 70 million U.S. households that have some kind of electrical service at a dedicated parking, and who find that an BEV or PHEV meets their needs, great. But, for the 55 million U.S. households that don't have that option, HEVs and (hopefully at some future date) FCEVs and/or sustainably bio-fueled ICEs need to be available, along with urban design that eliminates much of the need to drive a car, because we can't possibly provide all the electricity-served dedicated parking for them in the limited time I believe we have. and that goes even more for the parts of the world where the numbers are far more skewed towards those who don't have any place to plug in, but will see the greatest growth in auto use over the next few decades.

 

[GRA]

a winter backcountry ranger/hutmaster in Yosemite,

It is always easy to find an extreme case. The vast majority of people don't have 185 mile commutes.

Sure, he's an extreme case, I just thought I'd mention that there's other people besides me who have such requirements. But here's the thing, among those who are most likely to be motivated by ideology to adopt AFVs, the 'active outdoors' demographic, which both he and I are part of, is pretty high on the list. But the places we go, and the distances we drive in all conditions, just aren't matched by the current capabilities of BEVs, or the likely infrastructure development; our recreation areas aren't going to get destination charging anytime soon, and enroute QCs will also lag. Also, much of this demographic has opted for jobs which are relatively low pay, but which give them the maximum amount of time to do the active recreation which they love. In other words, Model S/X range is well out of reach, price-wise, and even Model 3 pricing will be a stretch for many, and the range will be marginal for many of us. This is also a crowd who generally isn't into turning cars over every few years: they don't own a fleet of cars, they tend to buy stuff for the long haul and are very value-conscious.

Another and much larger but somewhat ideologically-motivated group are the millennials, and they are generally at the lower stages of their earning power at the moment, and aren't going to be able to afford a car for every use, or a home FTM; they live in rental accommodations. Yet they're the largest generational cohort of the U.S. population, so leaving them out of AFV compatibility by insisting that it's BEVs or nothing strikes me as extremely unwise. Of course, they can opt for HEVs, or more likely something like a Honda Fit, and they're also the generation least likely to want to _own_ a car at all, which is a positive trend. Autonomous car-sharing (an ideal use for BEVs given wireless charging) may well be the answer for many of them, but for those who do want a fossil-fuel free ZEV, having something like an FCEV available (at a price they can afford, which obviously isn't the case now) provides an option.

BEVs need to match, to wit, constant range throughout the car's life, with free use of climate control without needing to flight plan, price, longevity, refueling time.

BEVs as a second car in a cool climate match all of those.

See above, but sure, excepting refueling time, for those people who have the capability to charge and the income to afford multiple cars and who have modest range needs, BEVs with big enough batteries can work, although the only way you get constant range is by oversizing the battery and then restricting the usable SoC, which means extra cost and weight. And most of the U.S. population doesn't live in the PNW, and most of the rest of the world doesn't live in NW Europe, so you need an AFV tech that works in their climates too.

BTW, the paper assumed a 15 year life, and I don't know anyone who'd claim that for today's batteries - Kia's got the best warranty out there at 10 years to 70%, which is hardly constant range throughout the car's life. I've never owned an ICE that lasted for less than 15 years except one that was stolen at 14.5 years of age, and my current car turns 13.5 next month, with every prospect of it reaching 20-25 years of age with its capabilities essentially the same as new. No BEV can do that now without one or more pack replacements, which ups its life cycle energy/emissions.

For my commute, the Leaf will have more than enough range for a decade or more. Including climate control. Without a flight plan for the commute, I could do 5 round trips in summer if I wished. A total cost of ownership that is very competitive. Will likely last as long as a gasoline car, if not longer. Refueling time is overnight at home, without trips to fueling stations.

Longer trips? I have a choice, take the Prius, or flight plan the BEV. My choice, and don't expect me to always pick the same one.

Lots more people have 20 mile RT commutes. If I lived in a hotter place, or with higher electric rates, the total cost of ownership would be much higher.

There are real, solid reasons to own a BEV, even if gasoline stays cheap. Sure, for a minority of people.

I've never denied that BEVs are a good choice for some (I wouldn't have been proselytizing for them to people whose needs they serve for the past 5 years otherwise), and once the Gen 2s arrive they will be a good choice for a lot more. For you, and all those for whom they are a good choice now, have at them. But until we can convince the general public that they have some compelling reason to change from what they know to something different, we won't see mass adoption. The general public remains ill-informed about AFVs in general despite 5 years of educational efforts, but they do know what they expect/want from a car, and currently BEVs don't provide it. I'd like to think that such education will succeed much better in the next five years with the far more capable 'affordable' BEVs that are soon to arrive, but while hopeful I'm anything but certain that will be the case. The inertia of the familiar is very powerful, and that's why I see FCEVs as potentially more acceptable to the general public than BEVs are, assuming that price/infrastructure issues can be solved.

Is there ANYONE that would have a good solid reasons to own an FCEV?

FCEVs are far more expensive to buy/lease. Fuel is more expensive and harder to find than gasoline. While range might stay constant, power will not.

Good, solid reasons now? Of course not. Anyone opting for an FCEV now is doing so because they're interested in the tech, or want to support its future development (*see Musk and Nichols quotes below), or just want to have something that almost no one else does, not because it makes economic sense (although for the consumer the fuel is free for three years). The same is true of people who've bought Model S/X, or in most cases any of the 1st gen affordable BEVs/PHEVs.

NO ONE is claiming that there's an economic justification for leasing/owning an FCEV at this time (any more than there's justification for a Model S/X ditto), compared to ICEs/HEVs and in some cases affordable PHEVs/BEVs. The same was true for home computers, or cell phones, or HD flat screen TVs or any other advanced tech when first introduced. It took a couple of generations (at least) for them to come down in price enough that the general public could afford them (and see the benefit). Depending on future development, FCEVs may or may not get to that point, and the same goes for BEVs, which are currently about 5 years ahead of them. If BEVs get there first and can be used by anyone, fantastic! We'll have the most energy-efficient tech while providing all of the ICE's capabilities plus the extra ones that BEVs bring to the table. But if they don't/can't, then I want us to have other EV options available, which will still allow us to get off fossil-fueled ICEs.



*Elon Musk:

In order for us to produce the Model 3, we’re critically dependent on the revenue we receive from the people that buy the Model S and Model X. So, it’s important to bear in mind…the thing that is enabling the Model 3 to exist, is fundamentally the people that are buying the Model S and Model X today and historically.

People wonder, should I buy the Model S or the Model 3? The Model S and the X are always going to be our technology leader. We’re not intentionally trying to withhold technology from the 3 but rather because it’s fundamentally more expensive when you have new technology until you can do multiple design iterations and achieve economies of scale. So, those that buy the Model S and X should know that they actually will be buying the most advanced car and they will effectively be paying for that technology to make its way to the Model 3.

http://insideevs.com/buy-tesla-model-3-model-3-model-x-elon-musk-provides-suggestions/

Mary Nichols (CARB Chair):

Someone told me I should put my money where my mouth is. This isn’t my first clean vehicle, as I also own a Honda FIT electric vehicle that I love. But it is certainly the most luxurious car I’ve ever owned. I really appreciate the sense of comfort I feel when I drive the car, the impressive safety features and I really love the color — maritime blue. That makes me happy. . . .

As you can imagine, I’m a fan of all zero emission vehicles. While many electric vehicles are great for most driving needs — and they’re getting more affordable and better range all the time — sometimes you need a vehicle that has more range. Occasionally I have to travel to El Monte or Riverside and it’s perfect for that. . . .

http://insideevs.com/carb-chair-and-her-love-of-the-toyota-mirai-and-fuel-cell-tech/

 

[RegGuheert]

You apparently believe that time isn't the issue that I do (unless you've changed your attitude towards AGCC), and thus are willing to hold out for the tech you consider the best.

"Holding out"? You couldn't have chose more inappropriate words. No, I am not "holding out." Here is what I wrote yesterday:

We need to stop proposing the inferior technologies of tomorrow and adopt the superior technology we have in hand today.

Simply put, you, and others who support the "hydrogen economy" are slowing the deployment of renewable technologies by diverting resources that could go toward deploying technology which is ready for widespread adoption and instead are trying to DEPLOY technology which should still be in the laboratory. As a result of this hydrogen push, we are doing massively more damage to the environment than if we simply continued to drive ICEVs and HEVs.

Regardless of your motives to move off of fossil fuels, BEVs are the fastest path to eliminate large amounts of fossil fuel consumption. Any H2 FCVs fielded today INCREASE the consumption of fossil fuels, as well as other valuable resources.

So, for the 70 million U.S. households that have some kind of electrical service at a dedicated parking, and who find that an BEV or PHEV meets their needs, great.

That's a GIANT portion of the population.

But, for the 55 million U.S. households that don't have that option,...

Many of them DO have the option today.

...HEVs and (hopefully at some future date) FCEVs and/or sustainably bio-fueled ICEs need to be available, along with urban design that eliminates much of the need to drive a car, because we can't possibly provide all the electricity-served dedicated parking for them in the limited time I believe we have.

None of those options are in any way faster than providing BEV infrastructure. In fact, BEVs can be rolled out today since all the technology exists. Virtually everyone parks their car BOTH at home AND at work, so the provision of L1 facilities at either or both places enables BEV commuting (the optimum solution) for the vast majority of them. All of the other solutions will result in the need to invent technology that does not yet exist and will require either MORE electricity or MORE fossil fuels or BOTH to put them into service.

If you think we need to protect the environment, then fight to stop the deployment of this damaging H2 technology! Keep it in the lab until it is ready to provide some environmental benefit to society. As I have pointed out previously, your desire to "downsize" first does not, in any way, support the notion of fielding H2 FCVs. That is simply a non sequitur argument.

 

[GRA]

You apparently believe that time isn't the issue that I do (unless you've changed your attitude towards AGCC), and thus are willing to hold out for the tech you consider the best.

"Holding out"? You couldn't have chose more inappropriate words. No, I am not "holding out." Here is what I wrote yesterday:

We need to stop proposing the inferior technologies of tomorrow and adopt the superior technology we have in hand today.

Simply put, you, and others who support the "hydrogen economy" are slowing the deployment of renewable technologies by diverting resources that could go toward deploying technology which is ready for widespread adoption and instead are trying to DEPLOY technology which should still be in the laboratory. As a result of this hydrogen push, we are doing massively more damage to the environment than if we simply continued to drive ICEVs and HEVs.

Reg, 'ready for widespread adoption' isn't the same as 'the public is willing to adopt it." To date, they aren't. We disagree about the rest of your assertions, but you know that.

Regardless of your motives to move off of fossil fuels, BEVs are the fastest path to eliminate large amounts of fossil fuel consumption. Any H2 FCVs fielded today INCREASE the consumption of fossil fuels, as well as other valuable resources.

So, for the 70 million U.S. households that have some kind of electrical service at a dedicated parking, and who find that an BEV or PHEV meets their needs, great.

That's a GIANT portion of the population.

But, for the 55 million U.S. households that don't have that option,...

Many of them DO have the option today.

So Plug-in America's 56/44% and the other survey's 54/46% I've cited as to the % of households which are equipped for charging are wrong? What's your source for this? I've given mine (# of U.S. households is from census data, just under 125m).

...HEVs and (hopefully at some future date) FCEVs and/or sustainably bio-fueled ICEs need to be available, along with urban design that eliminates much of the need to drive a car, because we can't possibly provide all the electricity-served dedicated parking for them in the limited time I believe we have.

None of those options are in any way faster than providing BEV infrastructure.

As we know, we disagree about that.

In fact, BEVs can be rolled out today since all the technology exists. Virtually everyone parks their car BOTH at home AND at work, so the provision of L1 facilities at either or both places enables BEV commuting (the optimum solution) for the vast majority of them. All of the other solutions will result in the need to invent technology that does not yet exist and will require either MORE electricity or MORE fossil fuels or BOTH to put them into service.

I'm all for installing L1 charging at work and other lots/garages, as it's much easier to do and far less expensive (assuming long-term billing, not pay as you go) than trying to provide charging at every curbside parking spot. One source I recently read, "Advances in Battery Technology for Electric Vehicles," 2015, cited costs of 1,700 euros per curbside parking spot (with pay as you go) installed, plus IIRR about 750 euros/year in O&M, which effectively doubled the price of electricity, already much higher in the EU than here.

Metered public charging doesn't appear to be profitable anywhere yet, and probably can't be made so unless utilities are allowed to do it directly, and maybe not then. But again, Reg, you assume that the majority of the world's urban driving population has that as an option now, and they don't. I've previously cited actual rates of public charging installations in the U.S., and pointed out that if they were to continue it would take about 2 millenia to complete given current numbers of cars. Obviously, the pace can be speeded up considerably, but the question is who's going to pay for it if it's not profitable? And again, this all assumes that the public is willing to take BEVs to their collective bosoms, and there's no sign of that yet (although we hope Gen 2 may move things that way, I suspect it probably won't happen before Gen 3 and maybe 4, depending on how things go with oil prices etc.).

If you think we need to protect the environment, then fight to stop the deployment of this damaging H2 technology! Keep it in the lab until it is ready to provide some environmental benefit to society. As I have pointed out previously, your desire to "downsize" first does not, in any way, support the notion of fielding H2 FCVs. That is simply a non sequitur argument.

And once again we'll have to agree to disagree, to no one's surprise. But shouldn't you be directing some of your views to Nissan, now that they've said they plan to put an FCEV on the market in 2020?

 

[WetEV]

BEVs need to match, to wit, constant range throughout the car's life, with free use of climate control without needing to flight plan, price, longevity, refueling time.

BEVs as a second car in a cool climate match all of those.

See above, but sure, excepting refueling time, for those people who have the capability to charge and the income to afford multiple cars and who have modest range needs, BEVs with big enough batteries can work, although the only way you get constant range is by oversizing the battery and then restricting the usable SoC, which means extra cost and weight. And most of the U.S. population doesn't live in the PNW, and most of the rest of the world doesn't live in NW Europe, so you need an AFV tech that works in their climates too.

Including refueling time, as charging time doesn't matter in the slightest degree for a commuter car. It is charged in the morning. What difference to the driver is there if it takes 8 hours, 8 minutes or 8 seconds? The only thing that actually matters is how long it takes to plug in at night and unplug in the morning. Unless you have inductive charging, of course. You know all this, why do I have to point this out again?

The next generation of BEVs will have longer battery life, so a wider range of climates will be price competitive. But you know that, so why imply otherwise? And while very few can live with an affordable BEV only now, the number that can will increase with increasing battery size.

10 years to 70%, which is hardly constant range throughout the car's life.

Plan on 70% capacity. Note that warranties needs to cover everywhere, even the hot places. Most people in most climates will do better.

20-25 years of age .... No BEV can do that now without one or more pack replacements, which ups its life cycle energy/emissions.

Average life of a car is closer to 15 years. 15 years of battery life for most climates isn't much of a technological stretch.

There are real, solid reasons to own a BEV

I've never denied that BEVs are a good choice for some (I wouldn't have been proselytizing for them to people whose needs they serve for the past 5 years otherwise), and once the Gen 2s arrive they will be a good choice for a lot more.

So far so good.

But until we can convince the general public that they have some compelling reason to change from what they know to something different, we won't see mass adoption.

I don't think we need to try to convince the "general public" of anything. BEVs are just nicer to drive. Price competitive, more convenient, less maintenance, and so on. BEVs are catching on. Remember that a technological shift takes a human generation for reasons. You don't convince many people of many things, you let kids figure it out and wait for the old geezers to die off.

 

[RegGuheert]

I'm all for installing L1 charging at work and other lots/garages, as it's much easier to do and far less expensive (assuming long-term billing, not pay as you go) than trying to provide charging at every curbside parking spot. One source I recently read, "Advances in Battery Technology for Electric Vehicles," 2015, cited costs of 1,700 euros per curbside parking spot (with pay as you go) installed, plus IIRR about 750 euros/year in O&M, which effectively doubled the price of electricity, already much higher in the EU than here.

Thus making my point that it is MUCH cheaper than H2 which comes in at US$10,000 per vehicle plus O&M. Even doubling the price of electricity will make the fuel MUCH cheaper than H2 per mile (which is currently 24x what I pay for electricity). If you want renewable H2, you will need AT LEAST 3X as much electricity, which means you will pay MORE THAN 3X as much. Fuel prices are a LONG WAY from being a criticism of BEVs when compared with H2 FCVs.

BTW, curbside is likely where inductive charging will make the most sense, since it has the potential to be extremely durable, assuming the primary winding can be embedded flat into the pavement while the secondary winding is included on the vehicle.

Metered public charging doesn't appear to be profitable anywhere yet, and probably can't be made so unless utilities are allowed to do it directly, and maybe not then.

Agreed. There are obvious business model issues involved. This is why I have proposed the idea of BEV net metering. This plan has the dual benefits of allowing both BEV transportation AND PV penetration levels to grow simultaneously without overtaxing either the consumers OR the electricity system. By billing BEV electricity (both directions) to the ratepayer who OWNS the car rather than to the owner and/or operator of the charging location, you create a situation where there is incentive for the BEV consumer to plug in during the day.

But again, Reg, you assume that the majority of the world's urban driving population has that as an option now, and they don't.

Don't put words in my mouth. If you want to claim that I said that, please quote my *exact* words. If you can't do that, then it is a fabrication.

But shouldn't you be directing some of your views to Nissan, now that they've said they plan to put an FCEV on the market in 2020?

Thanks, but I'll decide where to direct my views. But FWIW, I have given these views directly to Nissan management. What they decide to do is entirely their choice.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Another nail in the coffin of H2 for transport...

"AVTA (Antelope, Califonia) which serves 450,000 residents in the metro Los Angeles region, aims to become the first 100% electric public transit fleet in the country. It plans to take delivery of 85 BYD electric buses over the next five years.

The AVTA board has unanimously approved the purchase of a wireless charging system from Utah-based WAVE (profiled in the March/April 2016 issue of Charged). The WAVE system provides en-route charging using a pad embedded directly into the roadway, extending the fleet’s range to cover the agency’s longest rural routes."


Obviously, they are just waiting for those extra special hydrogen busses.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Probably the worst bad news for the hydrogen transport cheerleaders:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bertelschmitt/2016/06/15/toyotas-prius-chief-engineer-signals-shift-towards-battery-electric-vehicles/#6cc3c90435b0

 

[GRA]

BEVs as a second car in a cool climate match all of those.

See above, but sure, excepting refueling time, for those people who have the capability to charge and the income to afford multiple cars and who have modest range needs, BEVs with big enough batteries can work, although the only way you get constant range is by oversizing the battery and then restricting the usable SoC, which means extra cost and weight. And most of the U.S. population doesn't live in the PNW, and most of the rest of the world doesn't live in NW Europe, so you need an AFV tech that works in their climates too.

Including refueling time, as charging time doesn't matter in the slightest degree for a commuter car. It is charged in the morning. What difference to the driver is there if it takes 8 hours, 8 minutes or 8 seconds? The only thing that actually matters is how long it takes to plug in at night and unplug in the morning. Unless you have inductive charging, of course. You know all this, why do I have to point this out again?

And my point is that cars get used for things other than commuting, when we all agree that refueling time away from home (for a BEV with home charging) is essentially irrelevant. Most of the world's drivers, especially those in the largest emerging markets, are not multi-car households, and need a single car that can handle all their needs. Mary Nichols has a Fit EV and a Mirai, If she had to give one of them up, which could handle all of her driving needs?

The next generation of BEVs will have longer battery life, so a wider range of climates will be price competitive. But you know that, so why imply otherwise? And while very few can live with an affordable BEV only now, the number that can will increase with increasing battery size.

No, they won't be price competitive without subsidies, the biggest of which in the U.S. will be running out for some of them in the next couple of years. We probably won't reach that point until Gen 3, as I said. We hope that battery life will be extended considerably, beyond that due to the larger battery packs and thus narrower SoC range routinely used, but we don't know for a fact that will happen, and no one I know of is predicting that any battery can last the life of the car (15-25 years). As to the number of people who will find the 2nd gen. acceptable being larger than the first, we have no disagreement. The question is just how big that increment will be. We all hope that it will be enough to bring BEVs enough into the mainstream that the general public will start to consider them, but there are no guarantees.

10 years to 70%, which is hardly constant range throughout the car's life.

Plan on 70% capacity. Note that warranties needs to cover everywhere, even the hot places. Most people in most climates will do better.[/quote]
Sure, plan on 70%, but what if 70% just isn't enough? Most people in most climates will do better? That hasn't been the case with the LEAF - people in quite moderate climates are struggling to reach 5 years. Admittedly, the LEAF's battery chemistry and lack of any battery cooling are the worst possible combination for longevity, and I expect other choices to do better. But none of them yet come close to lasting the life of the car.

20-25 years of age .... No BEV can do that now without one or more pack replacements, which ups its life cycle energy/emissions.

Average life of a car is closer to 15 years. 15 years of battery life for most climates isn't much of a technological stretch.[/quote]
I admit that California cars tend to last longer owing to no use of salt on roads, but even at 15 years, no current battery will last that long. It doesn't matter how much of a stretch it may be, if you can't make the stretch.

There are real, solid reasons to own a BEV

I've never denied that BEVs are a good choice for some (I wouldn't have been proselytizing for them to people whose needs they serve for the past 5 years otherwise), and once the Gen 2s arrive they will be a good choice for a lot more.

So far so good.

But until we can convince the general public that they have some compelling reason to change from what they know to something different, we won't see mass adoption.

I don't think we need to try to convince the "general public" of anything. BEVs are just nicer to drive. Price competitive, more convenient, less maintenance, and so on. BEVs are catching on. Remember that a technological shift takes a human generation for reasons. You don't convince many people of many things, you let kids figure it out and wait for the old geezers to die off.[/quote]
And there's where we differ, BEVs aren't catching on (yet), they're still essentially dependent on bribery (other than Tesla, and I consider the Model S/X essentially fashion statements for the well off). We do agree that generational changes take place, but I think that we need to catch the millennial wave as they start to enter their higher-earning years. I don't believe we can afford to wait for Gen Z to get there. Of course, if the majority of them decide they can do without car-ownership, then our problems are much smaller. But since most auto sales growth is going to be in parts of the developing world with very low car ownership now, we've got to convince them too.

 

[GRA]

I'm all for installing L1 charging at work and other lots/garages, as it's much easier to do and far less expensive (assuming long-term billing, not pay as you go) than trying to provide charging at every curbside parking spot. One source I recently read, "Advances in Battery Technology for Electric Vehicles," 2015, cited costs of 1,700 euros per curbside parking spot (with pay as you go) installed, plus IIRR about 750 euros/year in O&M, which effectively doubled the price of electricity, already much higher in the EU than here.

Thus making my point that it is MUCH cheaper than H2 which comes in at US$10,000 per vehicle plus O&M. Even doubling the price of electricity will make the fuel MUCH cheaper than H2 per mile (which is currently 24x what I pay for electricity). If you want renewable H2, you will need AT LEAST 3X as much electricity, which means you will pay MORE THAN 3X as much. Fuel prices are a LONG WAY from being a criticism of BEVs when compared with H2 FCVs.

BTW, curbside is likely where inductive charging will make the most sense, since it has the potential to be extremely durable, assuming the primary winding can be embedded flat into the pavement while the secondary winding is included on the vehicle.

I agree that curbside wireless charging will probably be the way to go, and indeed wirelss for all public parking for vandalism/maintenance reasons. But, given the rate at which streets get repaved, we're looking at a century or more to do them all (assuming the extra costs can be absorbed - we're not talking about a couple of low current coils at the itnersections to trip the signals). OTOH, you're the one who's all worried about efficiency, and we all know that inductive is less efficient. I have no doubt that inductive will win out with the public though, despite it's lower efficiency, and I expect H2 may as well.

Metered public charging doesn't appear to be profitable anywhere yet, and probably can't be made so unless utilities are allowed to do it directly, and maybe not then.

Agreed. There are obvious business model issues involved. This is why I have proposed the idea of BEV net metering. This plan has the dual benefits of allowing both BEV transportation AND PV penetration levels to grow simultaneously without overtaxing either the consumers OR the electricity system. By billing BEV electricity (both directions) to the ratepayer who OWNS the car rather than to the owner and/or operator of the charging location, you create a situation where there is incentive for the BEV consumer to plug in during the day.

I was thinking of something even simpler and cheaper, especially for L1. In a parking lot/garage, there's a gated paid section you enter where the price of parking and electricity is combined, for a flat fee between X and y hours. It's your choice whether you choose to park in the parking only or the parking + charging section. For gated lots with pay booths it's even easier, as you pay as you exit - your ticket determines which section you were parked in, and you pay rate x time.

The question is whether even these methods will reduce the cost of electricity in public charging to equal/below that of gasoline. I hope so, but haven't seen any numbers.

But again, Reg, you assume that the majority of the world's urban driving population has that as an option now, and they don't.

Don't put words in my mouth. If you want to claim that I said that, please quote my *exact* words. If you can't do that, then it is a fabrication.[/quote]
It's certainly implied by all you have said, which seems to assume that the rest of the world has access to the same facilities, has the same demographics and the same societal structures the U.S. does. That isn't the case, and we are no longer the tail wagging the auto dog.

But shouldn't you be directing some of your views to Nissan, now that they've said they plan to put an FCEV on the market in 2020?

Thanks, but I'll decide where to direct my views. But FWIW, I have given these views directly to Nissan management. What they decide to do is entirely their choice.[/quote]
Glad to hear that you've directed your opinions to those people who actually have decision power, instead of just expressing them in an internet forum. I do likewise. I wish I could get Tesla and other providers to put SCs/QCs in gateway towns to major national parks and other heavily used outdoor recreation areas at a much faster rate, so that outdoors people who would prefer to use a ZEV to get to them can do so, but at least they're hearing people's requests for those locations. We chip away and make slow progress.

As for H2/FCEVs, I've got lots of company in not being willing to choose winners at this time or put all our eggs in one basket: At least five countries (Japan, South Korea, Germany, UK, Denmark) plus California and maybe a couple of NE states (can't remember if they're kicking in for seed H2 fueling infrastructure, or if it's just the manufacturers), and maybe as many as eight countries (I think most or all of the other three continental Scandinavian countries are on board). As all these countries/states (including Germany now) are also subsidizing PEVs and charging infrastructure and most are also working on biofuels, I'm reasonably satisfied with the support they're providing to AFVs, even though I might allocate it differently here or there, and am willing to see how things play out for over the next two or three years before re-evaluating. The rest is largely up to the scientists/engineers doing the R&D, the manufacturers and ultimately, the public.

 

[WetEV]

excepting refueling time,

Including refueling time, as charging time doesn't matter in the slightest degree for a commuter car. It is charged in the morning. What difference to the driver is there if it takes 8 hours, 8 minutes or 8 seconds? The only thing that actually matters is how long it takes to plug in at night and unplug in the morning. Unless you have inductive charging, of course. You know all this, why do I have to point this out again?

And my point is that cars get used for things other than commuting, when we all agree that refueling time away from home (for a BEV with home charging) is essentially irrelevant. Most of the world's drivers, especially those in the largest emerging markets, are not multi-car households, and need a single car that can handle all their needs. Mary Nichols has a Fit EV and a Mirai, If she had to give one of them up, which could handle all of her driving needs?

Almost all of my trips fit easily into the range of a 24kWh BEV recharged at night at home. Shopping, dining out, etc. Yes, trips some don't. Several per year. If I gave up the Prius, some trips would be less convenient than they would be in the Prius.

Most trips are more convenient in the BEV than the Prius.

Not as easy of decision as you seem to think.

When I lived in Marlboro, MA, my neighbors had been as far west as Springfield, MA. They had never been farther west than that. That's 70 miles one way. With a 200 mile range BEV, they might have been able to live their life without ever once using public charging. Sure, an extreme case. Most people have taken longer drives than that.

 

[RegGuheert]

OTOH, you're the one who's all worried about efficiency, and we all know that inductive is less efficient.

That's right: efficiency is king in a world where we are having difficulties coming up with enough energy to go around. Inductive charging is less efficient than conductive charging. It can approach conductive charging if done optimally, but this is not the optimal case.

But you seem to be ignoring the key point: It is still WAY more efficient and WAY cheaper than H2 FCVs.

As for H2/FCEVs, I've got lots of company in not being willing to choose winners at this time or put all our eggs in one basket:...

When you cannot find the technical merits to support the idea of deploying H2 FCVs at this time, then I suppose it is time to trot out the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

 

[GRA]

excepting refueling time,

Including refueling time, as charging time doesn't matter in the slightest degree for a commuter car. It is charged in the morning. What difference to the driver is there if it takes 8 hours, 8 minutes or 8 seconds? The only thing that actually matters is how long it takes to plug in at night and unplug in the morning. Unless you have inductive charging, of course. You know all this, why do I have to point this out again?

And my point is that cars get used for things other than commuting, when we all agree that refueling time away from home (for a BEV with home charging) is essentially irrelevant. Most of the world's drivers, especially those in the largest emerging markets, are not multi-car households, and need a single car that can handle all their needs. Mary Nichols has a Fit EV and a Mirai, If she had to give one of them up, which could handle all of her driving needs?

Almost all of my trips fit easily into the range of a 24kWh BEV recharged at night at home. Shopping, dining out, etc. Yes, trips some don't. Several per year. If I gave up the Prius, some trips would be less convenient than they would be in the Prius.

Yes, almost all. You have spent a combined what, $48k including subsidies, so that you have cars that can do all your trips. In your part of the country with your electricity costs, it may even be cost-effective to do so at current gas prices, although I'd have my doubts.

Most trips are more convenient in the BEV than the Prius.

Not as easy of decision as you seem to think.

And most (virtually all) of my trips, the opposite would be the case. I've never argued that having multiple cars for different jobs means that each one can't be more optimum for a particular job; after all, I commuted and took many trips in a two-place Datsun roadster instead of a hulking Impala for many years, but used the Impala when I needed to haul lots of people and gear. Still, one car that could have done both jobs would have been cheaper and more convenient than two, even though it wouldn't have either of the other two in their particular specialties. Once I was able to buy a car that could do both jobs well, bye-bye to the others.

Of course, if you only need a car regularly for short trips, and can rent or borrow for rare long ones, then a BEV may well be the best option. I'm almost at the 'rent a car only when I need it' stage, but unfortunately, the only times I need a car is for exactly those trips for which current BEVs are least suited, given the alternatives. It all depends what your needs are.

When I lived in Marlboro, MA, my neighbors had been as far west as Springfield, MA. They had never been farther west than that. That's 70 miles one way. With a 200 mile range BEV, they might have been able to live their life without ever once using public charging. Sure, an extreme case. Most people have taken longer drives than that.

And for anyone who values having the convenience (and usually lower cost) of using one car for anything. anyone who needs to take trips fairly regularly is going to want one car that can handle all of them, except for the relatively small % (first world issue) that can afford two or more. As for the general suitability of BEVs on long trips, check out http://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-x/2016/long-term-road-test/2016-tesla-model-x-range-and-charging-while-towing-a-trailer.html

Can we at least agree that in their current state of development, even the most expensive BEVs are ill-suited for long towing distances, and that short refueling times (given a limited range) would be critical for anyone with time constraints, which anyone who isn't retired usually has for their recreational activities?

In any case, I think we've gone around this circle enough on this one, so you get the last word.

 

[GRA]

OTOH, you're the one who's all worried about efficiency, and we all know that inductive is less efficient.

That's right: efficiency is king in a world where we are having difficulties coming up with enough energy to go around. Inductive charging is less efficient than conductive charging. It can approach conductive charging if done optimally, but this is not the optimal case.

But you seem to be ignoring the key point: It is still WAY more efficient and WAY cheaper than H2 FCVs.

Not ignoring it at all, just pointing out that when it comes to choice, most people will accept lower efficiency (and higher price) if it provides greater convenience or some other advantage. I'm curious: given the choice, are you going to insist on sticking with conductive charging, or would you opt for inductive? If the former, do you believe that this will be most people's choice?

I'm about as certain as I can be that the general public will opt for convenience over efficiency in that particular case, and it's also why I think FCEVs/H2 have a shot at success. As to willingness to accept higher prices for other advantages, Teslas cost a lot more than LEAFs. . .

As for H2/FCEVs, I've got lots of company in not being willing to choose winners at this time or put all our eggs in one basket:...

When you cannot find the technical merits to support the idea of deploying H2 FCVs at this time, then I suppose it is time to trot out the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

I just happen to think that governments are extremely bad at picking commercial winners, and prefer that they offer options and let the public do the job of picking the winner. On average, the public's far better at it. Beta was the technically superior option in most ways, but VHS won because it provided the public with a capability that they valued more than higher fidelity. At least in democracies, where' the government's power to coerce its citizenry is more limited than in authoritarian or totalitarian states, only offering a choice between the old, dominant tech and a new one that the public doesn't care for guarantees that the old tech remains dominant.

 

[RegGuheert]

Not ignoring it at all, just pointing out that when it comes to choice, most people will accept lower efficiency if it provides greater convenience or some other advantage. I'm curious: given the choice, are you going to insist on sticking with conductive charging, or would you opt for inductive? If the former, do you believe that this will be most people's choice?

There are several types of efficiency: 1) energy efficiency, 2) resource efficiency, 3) cost efficiency and 4) time efficiency, among others. It's easy to place time efficiency above the others when energy and resources are cheap. At the end of the day, solutions will exists which address the markets for different types of efficiency. Round-the-clock logistics definitely optimizes for 4) time efficiency due to the high cost of warehouse operations. That is why H2 FCVs are making inroads there.

I think inductive charging will win out where 2) resource efficiency is significantly negatively impacted by wearout and/or vandalism. Certainly this is likely to be true curbside. As far as what will win out in private garages, I agree it will be based on personal preference. The difference between 90% and 95% charging efficiency will not have a huge impact on cost, so users can consider convenience.

I'm about as certain as I can be that the general public will opt for convenience over efficiency in that particular case, and it's also why I think FCEVs/H2 have a shot at success.

The difference is that for H2 to win, it takes a SIGNIFICANT sensitivity to 4) time efficiency to make it worthwhile, since it is at a significant disadvantage in terms of 1) energy efficiency, 2) resource efficiency and 3) cost efficiency. This is precisely why nearly everyone on this thread has identified long-range trucking as a possible candidate. But remember that long-term trucking is very sensitive to 3) cost efficiency, so that is not a given, by any stretch. H2 may also have the advantage in terms of 2) resource efficiency in the case where energy needs to be stored for a long time (>week).

I just happen to think that governments are extremely bad at picking commercial winners, and prefer that they offer options and let the public do the job of picking the winner. On average, the public's far better at it. Beta was the technically superior option in most ways, but VHS won because it provided the public with a capability that they valued more than higher fidelity.

We agree that governments are bad at picking winners. But IMO CARB has chosen H2 as the "winner" in CA.