Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[RegGuheert]

Not that I think FCEVs are as close to mainstream as HEVs were at the time, nor will they be for a decade or two owing to infrastructure issues.

Assuming the issues of vehicle costs can be solved, the REAL question is how you can *ever* resolve these "infrastructure issues". If we rule out fossil fuels as a long-term source of hydrogen, then perhaps electrolyzing water as a source is the best solution. Using a recent link that AndyH provided of the most current technology, it seems that a filling station that perhaps costs $2M can produce only 65 kg of H2 per 24-hour period. At 60 miles per kg for a small car, that means total commuter mileage per day of 3900 miles. Assuming 39 miles/day average, that means this station can service a fleet of not more than 100 cars. So the infrastructure cost for EACH FCEV is $20,000. Since the amount of electricity required to produce each kg of H2 is 54 kWh, with PV providing perhaps 1/6 of that, the cost to produce each kg of fuel would be about $4.50 (at $0.10/kWh, which is likely low). That's not the price at the pump, but simply the per-unit cost of the energy to produce the H2. So it costs the same 7.5c/mi (or more) to make the H2 from water as it costs the consumer to fuel a Prius today.

So the question becomes, who pays the extra $20,000 per vehicle to build this refueling station? Can you possibly lower this cost enough, increase the daily production enough AND increase the price of the fuel enough to ever pay for the capital expenditures? Not if you are competing with today's gasoline prices or the price of electricity anytime in the future to fuel a BEV since the BEV has a significant efficiency advantage.

It all comes back to efficiency. As stated before, FCEVs will likely never outpace BEVs for commuting. Perhaps there are other applications where FCEVs will have a benefit strong enough to overcome their efficiency deficit. Something like city buses could be it, but even there some interesting solutions using ultracapacitors are already being considered that may also trump FCEVs in terms of efficiency. Aircraft, perhaps?

 

[GRA]

This is exactly the same game with the Toyota Rav4 EV, except Toyota only has to build 1/3 as many hydrogen cars for the same CARB-ZEV credit value.

Toyota, like other manufacturers who must comply with CARB mandates, will lose a lot of money for every ZEV car they build, whether pure battery or hydrogen.

Sure will, just as they did with the Prius, and were laughed at then, too. Not that I think FCEVs are as close to mainstream as HEVs were at the time, nor will they be for a decade or two owing to infrastructure issues. BTW, Tony, a $50k FCEV like Toyota's would seem to fit your needs pretty well other than BC2BC and maybe towing, always depending on the price of H2 and whether or not you're willing to have to visit filling stations on a regular basis again. But given your travails with your RAV4, are you planning on going for a Tesla?

Toyota was never required to build the hybrid Prius. ZEV are required. As somebody who actually owns a $50k Toyota ZEV car built for ZEV compliance, I can tell you that the quality and dependability are not good. No thanks.

I don't think the situation is quite the same. Toyota knew that the RAV4 was strictly a hurriedly cobbled together, short-term expedient, and any problems that cropped up they could just blame on Tesla. The FCEV, OTOH, is _their_ engineering, and they've invested a lot of time and money from way before the current ZEV mandate getting to this point. Any problems with this car will injure their rep, not Tesla's, so I expect it will have been wrung out far more thoroughly, and if problems do crop up they'll devote a lot more backup to fix them. I don't think they can afford to tarnish the green halo that the Prius gave them.

I've planned to get a Tesla Model S for the past year. We have a lease oil burner vehicle that we will turn in this spring, when we will be 100% solar powered house and transport.

That's what I thought, but I was wondering if your RAV4 experience had altered your plans. Seems like you reason similar to what I do above, but in reference to Tesla rather than Toyota.

I don't imagine that I'd want to drive some possible huge distance to fuel up the car every 200-300 miles, and pay the equivalent of $6 gallon gasoline for that inconvenience.

Nor would I. However - and this is a significant 'however' - $6 per for H2 is NOT 'equivalent' to $6/gal gasoline when the vehicle is 2.2 times more efficient than an ICE - that is equivalent to $3/gallon gasoline.

Two things. First, the San Diego area is due to get two H2 stations early on per the CAFCP roadmap, so depending on where they are Tony might or might not have a long drive.

Second, regarding the price of H2, remember that the Roadmap estimates H2 selling for $6.00/kg wholesale, $8-$11.00 retail. If that's the case, with the energy content of a kg. of H2 roughly equal to a gallon of gas, and with HEVs/PHEVs getting 40-50 mpg highway on the ICE while the comparable FCEV might get 70-80 m/kg. (68 m/kg. avg. for the Highlander FCEHV-ADV in a real world test, and the Toyota car will be lighter, smaller and lower drag), there isn't any fuel price advantage compared to those less expensive vehicles at current gas prices. We'll have to see if H2 can be produced and sold for a lot less, because no one is going to pay more up front and also pay more in fuel costs.

 

[GRA]

Not that I think FCEVs are as close to mainstream as HEVs were at the time, nor will they be for a decade or two owing to infrastructure issues.

Assuming the issues of vehicle costs can be solved, the REAL question is how you can *ever* resolve these "infrastructure issues". If we rule out fossil fuels as a long-term source of hydrogen, then perhaps electrolyzing water as a source is the best solution. Using a recent link that AndyH provided of the most current technology, it seems that a filling station that perhaps costs $2M can produce only 65 kg of H2 per 24-hour period. At 60 miles per kg for a small car, that means total commuter mileage per day of 3900 miles. Assuming 39 miles/day average, that means this station can service a fleet of not more than 100 cars. So the infrastructure cost for EACH FCEV is $20,000. Since the amount of electricity required to produce each kg of H2 is 54 kWh, with PV providing perhaps 1/6 of that, the cost to produce each kg of fuel would be about $4.50 (at $0.10/kWh, which is likely low). That's not the price at the pump, but simply the per-unit cost of the energy to produce the H2. So it costs the same 7.5c/mi (or more) to make the H2 from water as it costs the consumer to fuel a Prius today.

So the question becomes, who pays the extra $20,000 per vehicle to build this refueling station? Can you possibly lower this cost enough, increase the daily production enough AND increase the price of the fuel enough to ever pay for the capital expenditures? Not if you are competing with today's gasoline prices or the price of electricity anytime in the future to fuel a BEV since the BEV has a significant efficiency advantage.

It all comes back to efficiency. As stated before, FCEVs will likely never outpace BEVs for commuting. Perhaps there are other applications where FCEVs will have a benefit strong enough to overcome their efficiency deficit. Something like city buses could be it, but even there some interesting solutions using ultracapacitors are already being considered that may also trump FCEVs in terms of efficiency. Aircraft, perhaps?

Yes, the infrastructure issues will dominate before H2 can go mainstream, and much improvement in the efficiency of electrolysis remains to be attained. But ca. 50 kWh/kg., if correct, shows the inefficiencies of forecourt (on-site) production. IIRR, Romm quoted 5 kWh/kg. for electrolysis in central plants, and that was in 2003 using off-the-shelf commercial technology.

As to who will pay for all this, if we run out of fossil-fuels and/or palm trees start to thrive in Seattle, I have no doubt that there will be companies willing to provide the infrastructure, assuming that batteries or some other option like biofuels haven't overtaken fuel cells for the long-range requirement. It took decades and a whole lot of capital to build a gasoline infrastructure, and if H2 proves to be the best way forward I don't doubt that we'll build that infrastructure too.

More interesting to me is that they're shooting for $2.00-$4.00 gge, which seems to be considerably better than the CAFCP estimate.

 

[RegGuheert]

But ca. 50 kWh/kg., if correct, shows the inefficiencies of forecourt (on-site) production.

It's on page 9 of the slideshow linked. 50 kWh/kg for generation and 4 more for compression and drying.

IIRR, Romm quoted 5 kWh/kg. for electrolysis in central plants, and that was in 2003 using off-the-shelf commercial technology.

Do you have a source for that number? That's about how much Andy's source claims for compression and drying.

As to who will pay for all this, if we run out of fossil-fuels and/or palm trees start to thrive in Seattle, I have no doubt that there will be companies willing to provide the infrastructure, assuming that batteries or some other option like biofuels haven't overtaken fuel cells for the long-range requirement. It took decades and a whole lot of capital to build a gasoline infrastructure, and if H2 proves to be the best way forward I don't doubt that we'll build that infrastructure too.

BEVs already provide an outstanding solution for commuting. Unless there is some future benefit for H2 FCEVs over BEVs, no on will fund the infrastructure (except perhaps the CA government!).

 

[GRA]

But ca. 50 kWh/kg., if correct, shows the inefficiencies of forecourt (on-site) production.

It's on page 9 of the slideshow linked. 50 kWh/kg for generation and 4 more for compression and drying.

Yes, that's where I saw it.

IIRR, Romm quoted 5 kWh/kg. for electrolysis in central plants, and that was in 2003 using off-the-shelf commercial technology.

Do you have a source for that number? That's about how much Andy's source claims for compression and drying.

I'll have to find it in the book and get back to you, probably tomorrow.

As to who will pay for all this, if we run out of fossil-fuels and/or palm trees start to thrive in Seattle, I have no doubt that there will be companies willing to provide the infrastructure, assuming that batteries or some other option like biofuels haven't overtaken fuel cells for the long-range requirement. It took decades and a whole lot of capital to build a gasoline infrastructure, and if H2 proves to be the best way forward I don't doubt that we'll build that infrastructure too.

BEVs already provide an outstanding solution for commuting. Unless there is some future benefit for H2 FCEVs over BEVs, no on will fund the infrastructure (except perhaps the CA government!).

I believe that's what I said, although I'd say that BEVs _potentially_ provide an outstanding solution for commuting. The costs have to come down enough that they can put enough battery on board to provide no anxiety commuting at freeway speeds plus errands, while making free use of HVAC and allowing for degradation for a larger % of consumers. We're not there yet, but hopefully by Gen. 2 or more likely Gen. 3, where we can get all of that for no more than $15k for a commute car, unsubsidized.

 

[GRA]

But ca. 50 kWh/kg., if correct, shows the inefficiencies of forecourt (on-site) production.

It's on page 9 of the slideshow linked. 50 kWh/kg for generation and 4 more for compression and drying.

Yes, that's where I saw it.

IIRR, Romm quoted 5 kWh/kg. for electrolysis in central plants, and that was in 2003 using off-the-shelf commercial technology.

Do you have a source for that number? That's about how much Andy's source claims for compression and drying.

I'll have to find it in the book and get back to you, probably tomorrow.

To quote the patron saint of screw-ups, St. Homer de Simpson, Doh! Romm says 50 kWh/kg. H2 electrolysed (i.e. efficiency of about 70%, 1.4 units in to 1 unit out), 5 kWh or more to compress 1 kg. to 10,000 PSI. No mention of drying, so maybe he's including that in the compression energy. He writes that the faster you need to make it, the more energy you use. He does say that central plants benefit from economies of scale and also can probably get cheaper electricity, as well as being better able to schedule production for off-peak periods than forecourt plants. He then quotes from an NREL analysis which says "To circumvent peak power rates, forecourt plants have to be built with oversized units operated at low utilization rates with large amounts of storage. This option would require considerable additional capital investment."

 

[AndyH]

Second, regarding the price of H2, remember that the Roadmap estimates H2 selling for $6.00/kg wholesale, $8-$11.00 retail. If that's the case, with the energy content of a kg. of H2 roughly equal to a gallon of gas, and with HEVs/PHEVs getting 40-50 mpg highway on the ICE while the comparable FCEV might get 70-80 m/kg. (68 m/kg. avg. for the Highlander FCEHV-ADV in a real world test, and the Toyota car will be lighter, smaller and lower drag), there isn't any fuel price advantage compared to those less expensive vehicles at current gas prices. We'll have to see if H2 can be produced and sold for a lot less, because no one is going to pay more up front and also pay more in fuel costs.

Thanks for the reminder on the roadmap estimates. We'll see how accurate they are once the stations are dispensing fuel.

A Hyundai Tucson shopper doesn't have the option of a hybrid model, and it certainly wouldn't get 40-50 MPG if it was available. The 2014 Tucson (4 cyl 2WD) is rated for at best 29 MPG. Recall the earlier quoted H2 efficiency for a real-world apples-to-apples comparison.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Hyundai2014.shtml


I telephoned a number of California commercial H2 stations this evening. The Harbor City Chevron (just NW of Long Beach) has hydrogen available at both 350 and 700 bar for $3.99/kg.
http://cafcp.org/stations/harbor_city_-_mebtahi_station_services

I guess we didn't learn the hard way about uneducated guesses from the early days of this forum.

I finished Romm's Hydrogen book. Good snapshot back in time, but not a useful yardstick as many (most?!) of the gaps have been filled and many of the prices have come down (some, like PV and PEMembranes, substantially). I expect the same from Rifkin's book once I finish that. Need a look at the state of the industry today? Google is your friend - as are presentations from folks actually doing the work today.

 

[TomT]

Sorry, but I simply don't see much point in a hydrogen vehicle when the fuel cost is equal to - or in this case more - than the equivalent price of gasoline... Environmental considerations alone are not going to cut it....

I telephoned a number of California commercial H2 stations this evening. The Harbor City Chevron (just NW of Long Beach) has hydrogen available at both 350 and 700 bar for $3.99/kg.

 

[RegGuheert]

Sorry, but I simply don't see much point in a hydrogen vehicle when the fuel cost is equal to - or in this case more - than the equivalent price of gasoline... Environmental considerations alone are not going to cut it....

I telephoned a number of California commercial H2 stations this evening. The Harbor City Chevron (just NW of Long Beach) has hydrogen available at both 350 and 700 bar for $3.99/kg.

Those prices are likely for H2 derived from fossil fuels. So a move to FCEVs may allow the U.S. to move some vehicles from burning gasoline to burning natural gas instead. This may have some benefit in terms of national security and some small environmental benefits (although I am not a fan of fracking). But the idea that FCEVs can operate as zero emission vehicles for $3.99/kg is not at all realistic, as has been detailed above.

Clean H2 fuel will need to be heavily subsidized in order to be an attractive solution to consumers. The question, again, is by what path those subsidies can ever be removed. My belief is that such a path does not exist because there is not a workable business model for electrolysis-based H2 refueling stations.

 

[AndyH]

Sorry, but I simply don't see much point in a hydrogen vehicle when the fuel cost is equal to - or in this case more - than the equivalent price of gasoline... Environmental considerations alone are not going to cut it....

I telephoned a number of California commercial H2 stations this evening. The Harbor City Chevron (just NW of Long Beach) has hydrogen available at both 350 and 700 bar for $3.99/kg.

Those prices are likely for H2 derived from fossil fuels.

I telephoned stations - maybe you can do the same before you type words that might or might not match reality. Recall that there are PV-H2 refueling stations in operation on both coasts...

So a move to FCEVs may allow the U.S. to move some vehicles from burning gasoline to burning natural gas instead. This may have some benefit in terms of national security and some small environmental benefits (although I am not a fan of fracking). But the idea that FCEVs can operate as zero emission vehicles for $3.99/kg is not at all realistic, as has been detailed above.

Natural gas is not 'burned' to liberate H2. When natural gas is steam reformed to produce H2 for use in fuel cell vehicles, it is used twice as efficiently as burning that gas in a CNG ICE vehicle - half the carbon for the same miles traveled. No, not perfect but a step in the right direction.

If you don't think $3.99 is a 'realistic' price point then you've either missed or ignored the pink elephant in the room. Yes, today we generate most of our H2 from fossil fuels, but the vast majority of that is used in industrial processes. The H2 remaining for transportation is the 'rounding error' excess from that industry. But - and here's that elephant getting ready to sit on our heads - once H2 is used to store energy from wind and solar, the transportation rounding error will be carbon free - with zero infrastructure retrofit.

Spend a few quality minutes with this map:
https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=215394972384509175867.0004da7b8ad896f04c443
If you do, you'll notice that we have wind-to-H2 and PV-H2 refueling stations in operation today (check the green tags). Also note the tri-generation systems that produce H2, heat, and electricity are in service as well.

 

[GRA]

I telephoned a number of California commercial H2 stations this evening. The Harbor City Chevron (just NW of Long Beach) has hydrogen available at both 350 and 700 bar for $3.99/kg.

Sorry, but I simply don't see much point in a hydrogen vehicle when the fuel cost is equal to - or in this case more - than the equivalent price of gasoline... Environmental considerations alone are not going to cut it....

Indeed. My corner gas station is selling regular for $3.56/gal. (up from $3.50 a week or two ago), while I can buy it for $3.40 within 1.5 miles. Summer prices will presumably be back up around $4.00/gal. or more, but that's not enough to cause people to switch - H2 has to be significantly cheaper than gas. And like RegGuheert, I expect that $3.99/gal. price is from SMR, not electrolysis. Has anyone (Andy?) found a current retail price per kg. for H2 made from electrolysis, central plant or forecourt?

BTW, checked the Harbor City station website, and while they have 194.3 kg. of H35, they show 0 kg. of H70 available as of 3:00 p.m. PST:

http://cafcp.org/stations/harbor_city_-_mebtahi_station_services" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I note from the map Andy linked that the Orange County Sanitation District's H2 station in Fountain Valley is a tri-gen fuel cell set up, and the Santa Monica Boulevard Shell (in Westwood/West L.A./Brentwood/Santa Monica?) is using onsite electrolysis from green electricity purchased from LADWP - see the press release:

http://www.shell.com/global/aboutshell/media/news-and-media-releases/2008/la-hydrogen-station-26062008.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Since that's probably the most expensive method, could someone give them a call and ask what they're charging, and if that includes any subsidy? I would do it, but my hearing's so dodgy on a phone now that I would probably get the details wrong. I've found two different phone numbers, (310) 477-5949 and (310) 445-0906. The former is listed at Shell.com's website, the latter comes from Googling "Santa Monica Boulevard Shell" - not sure which is correct.


The following excerpt is from a September 2008 interview by Robert Bryce with Duncan MacLeod, head of Shell Hydrogen at the time:

"ET [Energy Tribune, i.e. Bryce]: Shell recently opened a hydrogen station in Los Angeles that produces hydrogen on-site, using an electrolyzer. Is that hydrogen produced from natural gas?

"DM: No. Shell Hydrogen recently opened its second combined gasoline and hydrogen station on Santa Monica Boulevard in West Los Angeles in June 2008. Hydrogen at the Shell station is produced on-site by the electrolysis of water using electricity purchased from the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. This process uses electricity and a catalyst to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen in water. It is then compressed and stored to provide daily fueling.

"ET: How much is Shell charging motorists for the hydrogen on a gallon of gasoline equivalent basis?

"DM: Our aim is to provide hydrogen at a price comparable to existing fuels within the next 10 to 20 years, when mass production of F.C.V.s is likely to begin. Hydrogen is dispensed by the kilogram (kg) and not by the gallon. A kg of hydrogen in a fuel-cell vehicle is about twice as efficient as a gallon of gas in an internal combustion engine, and it is estimated the market price for each kg would be about twice the cost of a gallon of gas. Some of our pilot stations have dispensed hydrogen at a notional cost of $5 per kg – equivalent to $2.50 per gallon of gasoline – but future prices are likely to follow market economics in the same way conventional fuels do.

"The cost of hydrogen still needs to decrease in order to become competitive with conventional fuels, even using currently available excess hydrogen and existing infrastructure. The retail end of the supply chain has the biggest cost reduction potential, and there are options available that help lower the costs: integration into existing retail sites, avoiding overcapacity through coordinated roll-out, and government incentives that account for an increase in supply costs when new assets have to be built. This is not something that one company can accomplish on its own and it will require a cooperation of energy companies and policymakers as well as O.E.M.s, all working together to achieve this.

"ET: On average, about how much does a new car powered by a hydrogen fuel cell cost to produce?

"DM: My understanding is that the first generation of F.C.V.s, most of which were individually hand-built, cost between $500,000 and $1 million each to produce; however, this figure is not relevant for the future, since once the O.E.M.s have completed two, or perhaps three, more generations of demonstration programs and move into mass production, I am confident they will produce at costs similar to existing I.C.E. vehicles. I would suggest you check with auto O.E.M.s on these numbers.

"Fuel-cell vehicles have the potential to be produced for less than current conventional combustion engines, owing to fewer moving internal components. However, the biggest obstacle to widespread fuel-cell deployment today is cost and durability. Hydrogen fuel cells – both stationary and automotive – are nowhere near cost-competitive yet with existing technologies, despite rapid improvements in recent years. However, car companies, governments, and others are actively working on fuel-cell solutions today to further drive down costs."

The full interview can be found here:

http://www.robertbryce.com/articles/287-bryce-interviews-duncan-macleod-of-shell-hydrogen-about-the-hydrogen-economy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[GRA]

Second, regarding the price of H2, remember that the Roadmap estimates H2 selling for $6.00/kg wholesale, $8-$11.00 retail. If that's the case, with the energy content of a kg. of H2 roughly equal to a gallon of gas, and with HEVs/PHEVs getting 40-50 mpg highway on the ICE while the comparable FCEV might get 70-80 m/kg. (68 m/kg. avg. for the Highlander FCEHV-ADV in a real world test, and the Toyota car will be lighter, smaller and lower drag), there isn't any fuel price advantage compared to those less expensive vehicles at current gas prices. We'll have to see if H2 can be produced and sold for a lot less, because no one is going to pay more up front and also pay more in fuel costs.

Thanks for the reminder on the roadmap estimates. We'll see how accurate they are once the stations are dispensing fuel.

A Hyundai Tucson shopper doesn't have the option of a hybrid model, and it certainly wouldn't get 40-50 MPG if it was available. The 2014 Tucson (4 cyl 2WD) is rated for at best 29 MPG. Recall the earlier quoted H2 efficiency for a real-world apples-to-apples comparison.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/34375.shtml

Certainly, but that's not using the best 'conventional' tech for a Tucson, i.e. a hybrid or PHEV like the upcoming Outlander PHEV which is what it should be compared to. As a side note, it always amuses me to see some new MNL member babbling about how much their LEAF or other BEV is saving them in monthly fuel costs, when it turns out that the vehicle they replaced was usually what cwerdna refers to as a 'battering ram of death' class SUV. So sure, a last gen ICE powered Tucson gets 'only' 29 mpg highway, but it starts with a base price under $22k, and a next gen. hybrid or PHEV would probably get 35 or more highway, with a base price under $35k. The larger Outlander PHEV is credited with 44 mpg on JC08, so we can probably knock 10 mpg off that for EPA tests.

I telephoned a number of California commercial H2 stations this evening. The Harbor City Chevron (just NW of Long Beach) has hydrogen available at both 350 and 700 bar for $3.99/kg.
http://cafcp.org/stations/harbor_city_-_mebtahi_station_services

I guess we didn't learn the hard way about uneducated guesses from the early days of this forum.

I finished Romm's Hydrogen book. Good snapshot back in time, but not a useful yardstick as many (most?!) of the gaps have been filled and many of the prices have come down (some, like PV and PEMembranes, substantially). I expect the same from Rifkin's book once I finish that. Need a look at the state of the industry today? Google is your friend - as are presentations from folks actually doing the work today.

I agree that _some_ of the bigger gaps have been filled, enough to warrant a large scale test here, but won't go so far as to say many or most - we've still got a long way to go to make FCEVs commercial. I do think it provides a very useful timeline to compare with.

 

[GRA]

Not that I think FCEVs are as close to mainstream as HEVs were at the time, nor will they be for a decade or two owing to infrastructure issues.

Assuming the issues of vehicle costs can be solved, the REAL question is how you can *ever* resolve these "infrastructure issues". If we rule out fossil fuels as a long-term source of hydrogen, then perhaps electrolyzing water as a source is the best solution. Using a recent link that AndyH provided of the most current technology, it seems that a filling station that perhaps costs $2M can produce only 65 kg of H2 per 24-hour period. At 60 miles per kg for a small car, that means total commuter mileage per day of 3900 miles. Assuming 39 miles/day average, that means this station can service a fleet of not more than 100 cars. So the infrastructure cost for EACH FCEV is $20,000. Since the amount of electricity required to produce each kg of H2 is 54 kWh, with PV providing perhaps 1/6 of that, the cost to produce each kg of fuel would be about $4.50 (at $0.10/kWh, which is likely low). That's not the price at the pump, but simply the per-unit cost of the energy to produce the H2. So it costs the same 7.5c/mi (or more) to make the H2 from water as it costs the consumer to fuel a Prius today.

So the question becomes, who pays the extra $20,000 per vehicle to build this refueling station? Can you possibly lower this cost enough, increase the daily production enough AND increase the price of the fuel enough to ever pay for the capital expenditures? Not if you are competing with today's gasoline prices or the price of electricity anytime in the future to fuel a BEV since the BEV has a significant efficiency advantage.

It all comes back to efficiency. As stated before, FCEVs will likely never outpace BEVs for commuting. Perhaps there are other applications where FCEVs will have a benefit strong enough to overcome their efficiency deficit. Something like city buses could be it, but even there some interesting solutions using ultracapacitors are already being considered that may also trump FCEVs in terms of efficiency. Aircraft, perhaps?

As a historical footnote re infrastructure, I thought I should mention this:

http://green.autoblog.com/2013/12/03/100th-anniversary-of-first-gas-station-in-us-gives-rfa-a-chance/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As the article states, the gas sold for the modern equivalent of $6.37/gal.

 

[AndyH]

Second, regarding the price of H2, remember that the Roadmap estimates H2 selling for $6.00/kg wholesale, $8-$11.00 retail. If that's the case, with the energy content of a kg. of H2 roughly equal to a gallon of gas, and with HEVs/PHEVs getting 40-50 mpg highway on the ICE while the comparable FCEV might get 70-80 m/kg. (68 m/kg. avg. for the Highlander FCEHV-ADV in a real world test, and the Toyota car will be lighter, smaller and lower drag), there isn't any fuel price advantage compared to those less expensive vehicles at current gas prices. We'll have to see if H2 can be produced and sold for a lot less, because no one is going to pay more up front and also pay more in fuel costs.

Thanks for the reminder on the roadmap estimates. We'll see how accurate they are once the stations are dispensing fuel.

A Hyundai Tucson shopper doesn't have the option of a hybrid model, and it certainly wouldn't get 40-50 MPG if it was available. The 2014 Tucson (4 cyl 2WD) is rated for at best 29 MPG. Recall the earlier quoted H2 efficiency for a real-world apples-to-apples comparison.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/34375.shtml

Certainly, but that's not using the best 'conventional' tech for a Tucson, i.e. a hybrid or PHEV like the upcoming Outlander PHEV which is what it should be compared to. As a side note, it always amuses me to see some new MNL member babbling about how much their LEAF or other BEV is saving them in monthly fuel costs, when it turns out that the vehicle they replaced was usually what cwerdna refers to as a 'battering ram of death' class SUV. So sure, a last gen ICE powered Tucson gets 'only' 29 mpg highway, but it starts with a base price under $22k, and a next gen. hybrid or PHEV would probably get 35 or more highway, with a base price under $35k. The larger Outlander PHEV is credited with 44 mpg on JC08, so we can probably knock 10 mpg off that for EPA tests.

Your comment about trying to compare an SUV with a LEAF is exactly why I'm pushing for the best apples to apples comparison we can. If we want to look at price per mile for gas and hydrogen, we need to keep at least one constant - otherwise we get more of the "a loaded train is more efficient than a FCEV, therefore diesel will always be better than a fuel cell" BS. Or the misinformed suggestion that $6/gal gasoline in a Tucson ICE will return the same cost per mile as $6/kg H2 in a Tucson FCEV.

These first-gen FCEV are likely to be as wallet friendly as a Model S - but there are drivers waiting for them. Prices for FCEV/FCHV will likely fall faster than BEVs - and that should put price pressure on the entire ZEV 'industry'.

 

[GRA]

Certainly, but that's not using the best 'conventional' tech for a Tucson, i.e. a hybrid or PHEV like the upcoming Outlander PHEV which is what it should be compared to. As a side note, it always amuses me to see some new MNL member babbling about how much their LEAF or other BEV is saving them in monthly fuel costs, when it turns out that the vehicle they replaced was usually what cwerdna refers to as a 'battering ram of death' class SUV. So sure, a last gen ICE powered Tucson gets 'only' 29 mpg highway, but it starts with a base price under $22k, and a next gen. hybrid or PHEV would probably get 35 or more highway, with a base price under $35k. The larger Outlander PHEV is credited with 44 mpg on JC08, so we can probably knock 10 mpg off that for EPA tests.

Your comment about trying to compare an SUV with a LEAF is exactly why I'm pushing for the best apples to apples comparison we can. If we want to look at price per mile for gas and hydrogen, we need to keep at least one constant - otherwise we get more of the "a loaded train is more efficient than a FCEV, therefore diesel will always be better than a fuel cell" BS. Or the misinformed suggestion that $6/gal gasoline in a Tucson ICE will return the same cost per mile as $6/kg H2 in a Tucson FCEV.

I doubt anyone reading this thread harbors that misapprehension, at least when considering DoC only. But I do think it's valid, when we don't have a large variety of powertrains available in a single model (which we apparently will have next year when Audi starts introducing all their A3 variants), to compare competitor vehicles in the same class. If I were shopping for an AFV CUV of about that size, I'd certainly be comparing the ICE Tucson and other brands to the PHEV Outlander to the FCEV (or FCHV) Tucson, to see what I get for my much larger upfront payment. Not that any current AFV is likely to come out ahead on TCO vs. an ICE at current U.S. gas prices, but the early adopters need something to hang their hats on, and that's got to be greenness, lower operating costs and/or national security. As previously discussed, FCEVs can't make a strong green argument currently, so it's got to be one of the others.

These first-gen FCEV are likely to be as wallet friendly as a Model S - but there are drivers waiting for them. Prices for FCEV/FCHV will likely fall faster than BEVs - and that should put price pressure on the entire ZEV 'industry'.

Let's hope so - the competition will be good for both manufacturers and consumers.

 

[GRA]

These first-gen FCEV are likely to be as wallet friendly as a Model S - but there are drivers waiting for them. Prices for FCEV/FCHV will likely fall faster than BEVs - and that should put price pressure on the entire ZEV 'industry'.

Let's hope so - the competition will be good for both manufacturers and consumers.

And here we go, with GCR's first drive of the Tucson FCEV:

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1088865_2014-hyundai-tucson-fuel-cell-hydrogen-crossover-first-drive" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Three year lease for $3k down, $499/month, so $21k plus tax, license etc. for three years. While high, that seems acceptable for early adopters of new tech. I forget, what were the early 2nd Gen RAV4EV lease deals like? I think it looks good from the front, highway accel is weak, AWD isn't offered and the battery's too small to be useful as a FCHV, so no plug.

BTW, does anyone know if a fuel cell's power is limited at altitude by lower density, or is there so much excess O2 relative to what's needed by the cell that it isn't an issue?

 

[GRA]

Been awhile since I posted some links from GCC, so without further ado:

"Study suggests fuel cell hybrid with supercapacitors for energy storage the most fuel efficient"

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/12/20131202-fchev.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


"UK government awards £598K for hydrogen fuel cell range extender with micro-bead H2 storage for BEVs"

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/11/20131128-cella.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


"ARPA-E to award up to $30M for intermediate-temperature fuel cell systems for distributed generation; exploring storage and power-to-fuels"

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/11/20131125-rebels.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


"Mercedes-Benz reports on 3.3M km of B-Class Fuel Cell testing, looks ahead to next generation"

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/11/20131125-daimler-fcv.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


This article,

"California Energy Commission to award up to $29.9M to hydrogen refueling infrastructure projects"

provides a good one page summary of the station technical requirements:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/11/20131124-cech2.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[AndyH]

According to the DoE, there's only a 4% efficiency gain hybridizing a fuel cell vehicle - not sure a parallel hybrid's worth it. A true serial hybrid, however, with the fuel cell charging the battery, seems to like a good plan.

Seems Hyundai's taking a page out of Tesla's playbook for it's FCEV Tucson: Free fuel.

http://autos.jdpower.com/content/bl...-tucson-fuel-cell-expands-hydrogen-market.htm

Interested buyers will be able to lease one for 36 months at a monthly payment of $499. A down payment of $2,995 is required, but the lease includes an unlimited amount of free hydrogen fuel and an At Your Service Valet Maintenance program.

 

[AndyH]

I doubt anyone reading this thread harbors that misapprehension, at least when considering DoC only.

It's already been expressed in this thread.

If I were shopping for a AFV CUV of about that size, I'd certainly be comparing the ICE Tucson and other brands to the PHEV Outlander to the FCEV (or FCHV) Tucson, to see what I get for my much larger upfront payment.

Not if you were shopping for a ZEV.

When I signed up for the Leaf, I didn't look at specs from gas cars, or hybrids, or the Versa or anything else. Many others on this forum and in other EV forums have expressed the same view. When one wants to cut the fossil fuel pipe they understand that the requirements are 'no plug=no sale' and 'EVs don't have tailpipes'. Something you'll understand better when you join us in EV land.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

According to the DoE, there's only a 4% efficiency gain hybridizing a fuel cell vehicle - not sure a parallel hybrid's worth it. A true serial hybrid, however, with the fuel cell charging the battery, seems to like a good plan

If putting a plug on the thing means I only have to chase down obscure h2 stations on rare occasion it might be a more acceptable consumer product. You aren't going to save any carbon emissions with a car nobody buys.