Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[AndyH]

I don't get it Andy, you should be happy we have both. Any technology to reduce greenhouse gases and pollution should be a good thing. You seem to think of BEVs as a threat. A threat to what, Andy?

Jeremy - sorry you have that understanding but it's completely incorrect. I own a BEV and have been waiting for hydrogen since sometime in the early 1990s. We need all the electrics we can get - whether battery, fuel cell, or Mr Fusion.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

it took me 31 years of driving to get to a place where I did not have to go anywhere but my garage to refuel my vehicle. The last 7 years have been heaven. so am I willing to go back to fuel station lines, adding another stop to my day?...

hmmm, let me think on that a bit...
.
.
.
ah...nope, guess not

 

[GRA]

it took me 31 years of driving to get to a place where I did not have to go anywhere but my garage to refuel my vehicle. The last 7 years have been heaven. so am I willing to go back to fuel station lines, adding another stop to my day?...

hmmm, let me think on that a bit...
.
.
.
ah...nope, guess not

Uh, Dave, ISTR you've had to go somewhere else to 'refuel' your vehicle during the day more than most EV owners. And then there's people like Steve . . .

 

[Train]

it took me 31 years of driving to get to a place where I did not have to go anywhere but my garage to refuel my vehicle. The last 7 years have been heaven. so am I willing to go back to fuel station lines, adding another stop to my day?...

hmmm, let me think on that a bit...
.
.
.
ah...nope, guess not

Lines? Always a free spot where I fill. Takes 3-4 minutes and I'm good for two weeks.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

it took me 31 years of driving to get to a place where I did not have to go anywhere but my garage to refuel my vehicle. The last 7 years have been heaven. so am I willing to go back to fuel station lines, adding another stop to my day?...

hmmm, let me think on that a bit...
.
.
.
ah...nope, guess not

Uh, Dave, ISTR you've had to go somewhere else to 'refuel' your vehicle during the day more than most EV owners. And then there's people like Steve . . .

since getting my new LEAF, i have gotten to the point where I have only charged in public due to need only twice and that was a 120 mile trip to BD party. the other trips have been to track fast charger efficiency and not really for need at all. In fact, all the charging events except one was done within 10 miles of my home

the other thing to bring up is that most people do not work on the road so your comment maybe appropriate when directed to me but it really does not fit in this forum.

finally, I try to incorporate stops to charge as part of my working day. I do have duties that require me to not be moving like uploading work to corporate, conference calls, etc. many of which cannot be done in the comfort of my home. therefore I do not see charging while doing this kind of stuff to be on the same level of inconvenience as stopping for gas and its DEFINITELY not on the same financial level since I would otherwise be parked somewhere anyway.

now if only every charging station had wi fi, I would be set!

 

[GRA]

it took me 31 years of driving to get to a place where I did not have to go anywhere but my garage to refuel my vehicle. The last 7 years have been heaven. so am I willing to go back to fuel station lines, adding another stop to my day?...

hmmm, let me think on that a bit...
.
.
.
ah...nope, guess not

Lines? Always a free spot where I fill. Takes 3-4 minutes and I'm good for two weeks.

Much the same for me, but then I need to fill up so rarely that waiting wouldn't be that big a deal. Perhaps Dave has forgotten that it's possible to buy gas at stations other than Costco

Costco might be cheaper per gallon (not today: 3.41 versus 3.39 at the Arco station I typically use), but as it's not on my usual routes out of town, by the time I've driven there and back it more than wipes out any cost savings compared to a closer, slightly more expensive station. And there's little or no waiting at the latter.

 

[evnow]

Wrong. If Toyota, Honda and Hyundai are all cashing in a 9 credits per car, why would they want to build a 150 mile EV, or even a 199 mile EV that still only gets 3 credits each.

That definitely won't kill hydrogen. What will is when 2018 rolls around and ALL the cars are reduced to 3 credits each maximum. Expect some heavy duty lobbying to keep a high value for hydrogen.

The higher ZEV % that will come in a few years will mean Toyota etc have to sell larger number of ZEVs - and that is when they will have problem with FC. At some point subsidizing the fuel cell becomes costlier than buying credits or selling EV.

I'm sure already Toyota's Prius sales are affected by all the plugins.

 

[GRA]

Wrong. If Toyota, Honda and Hyundai are all cashing in a 9 credits per car, why would they want to build a 150 mile EV, or even a 199 mile EV that still only gets 3 credits each.

That definitely won't kill hydrogen. What will is when 2018 rolls around and ALL the cars are reduced to 3 credits each maximum. Expect some heavy duty lobbying to keep a high value for hydrogen.

The higher ZEV % that will come in a few years will mean Toyota etc have to sell larger number of ZEVs - and that is when they will have problem with FC. At some point subsidizing the fuel cell becomes costlier than buying credits or selling EV.

I'm sure already Toyota's Prius sales are affected by all the plugins.

Prius sales are certainly affected by the other hybrids out there now that get slightly less mpg, but offer all the capabilities that the Prius lacks.

As to Toyota taking a bath on fuel cells, they've always been in for the long haul. They've been steadily working on them for 22 years now, and the costs have just come down to the point where it makes sense to do some low-rate production. Fuel cell powertrains have dropped about 95% in cost over the past decade, but to be mass market they need to come down by a factor of at least 2 or 3 yet, and Toyota knows that. They're willing to absorb the losses now, just as they did with the Prius

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

it took me 31 years of driving to get to a place where I did not have to go anywhere but my garage to refuel my vehicle. The last 7 years have been heaven. so am I willing to go back to fuel station lines, adding another stop to my day?...

hmmm, let me think on that a bit...
.
.
.
ah...nope, guess not

Lines? Always a free spot where I fill. Takes 3-4 minutes and I'm good for two weeks.

Much the same for me, but then I need to fill up so rarely that waiting wouldn't be that big a deal. Perhaps Dave has forgotten that it's possible to buy gas at stations other than Costco

Costco might be cheaper per gallon (not today: 3.41 versus 3.39 at the Arco station I typically use), but as it's not on my usual routes out of town, by the time I've driven there and back it more than wipes out any cost savings compared to a closer, slightly more expensive station. And there's little or no waiting at the latter.

ah but if I use my Amex I get an additional 3% off the price of the gas! being 60 miles from Costco World HQ means that I have several options for gas including TWO in my area. technically different cities of Lacey and Tumwater but they are located about 8 miles apart...

and ya, there are some people who simply dont have the driving need. my in laws have a 4 by 4 Ford and Kia Soul. their gas bill is about the same as my electric bill. the LONGEST commute between the two of them is 7 miles round trip. so hard to justify an EV simply because they don't drive enough and would need 2 of them.

but for anyone whose commute is at least 30 miles a day, you are looking at a tipping point where EVs really makes sense. that is why they are selling so well in WA (highest percentage of total sales in nation) now add to the mix very low electricity rates and now the payoff mileage is even shorter

 

[ydnas7]

As to Toyota taking a bath on fuel cells, hey've always been in for the long haul. They've been steadily working on them for 22 years now, and the costs have just come down to the point where it makes sense to do some low-rate production. Fuel cell powertrains have dropped about 95% in cost over the past decade, but to be mass market they need to come down by a factor of at least 2 or 3 yet, and Toyota knows that. They're willing to absorb the losses now, just as they did with the Prius

Low Rate production has been in action for the last six years, Hyrdogen Fuel Cells will continue to be a failure for road vehicles, just compare Honda Clarity sales rates to Honda FIT EV sales rates to Nissan LEAF sales rates.

Toyota's refusal to action plugin vehicles has cost them.
Opportunity to beat Nissan to market with an 80 mile EV, to own that market.
Opportunity to beat GM to market with a PHEV 40, to own that market.
Opportunity to put the PHEV 6 in the market 6 years earlier, to almost double the US market for midsize Prius
Opportunity to embed Chademo as the sole, open, global DC charging standard

Even from here, Toyota Fuel Cell has the smell of failure, its forced to be available for under the price of a Tesla S-60, yet the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle probably cost more than the price of a P85.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Wrong. If Toyota, Honda and Hyundai are all cashing in a 9 credits per car, why would they want to build a 150 mile EV, or even a 199 mile EV that still only gets 3 credits each.

That definitely won't kill hydrogen. What will is when 2018 rolls around and ALL the cars are reduced to 3 credits each maximum. Expect some heavy duty lobbying to keep a high value for hydrogen.

The higher ZEV % that will come in a few years will mean Toyota etc have to sell larger number of ZEVs - and that is when they will have problem with FC. At some point subsidizing the fuel cell becomes costlier than buying credits or selling EV.

I'm sure already Toyota's Prius sales are affected by all the plugins.

Not quite. Here's the percentage of ZEV's required (not to be confused with hybrids):

2012 ------------ 0.79%
2018 ------------ 2.00%
2019 ------------ 4.00%
2020 ------------ 6.00%
2021 ------------ 8.00%
2022 ----------- 10.00%
2023 ----------- 12.00%
2024 ----------- 14.00%
2025 ----------- 16.00%

That means that if Toyota met the 2012-2014 ZEV requirement with 2600 cars at 3 credits each = 7800 credits for 0.79%

For 2015-2017, with 2%, or 254% more than 0.79%

254% multiplied by 7800 credits equals 19,812 credits for 2015-2017 divided by a glorious NINE (9) credits for each hydrogen car equals...

drum roll....

2200 cars, or 400 less than the Rav4 EV.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

^^^

on that subject; its Toyota's money. they can waste it anyway they want to. glad I don't live in CA cause those refueling stations are a completely different story

 

[GRA]

As to Toyota taking a bath on fuel cells, hey've always been in for the long haul. They've been steadily working on them for 22 years now, and the costs have just come down to the point where it makes sense to do some low-rate production. Fuel cell powertrains have dropped about 95% in cost over the past decade, but to be mass market they need to come down by a factor of at least 2 or 3 yet, and Toyota knows that. They're willing to absorb the losses now, just as they did with the Prius

Low Rate production has been in action for the last six years, Hyrdogen Fuel Cells will continue to be a failure for road vehicles, just compare Honda Clarity sales rates to Honda FIT EV sales rates to Nissan LEAF sales rates.

I wouldn't call Clarity or Highlander FCHV-ADV low-rate production, as they're semi-hand-built. More like pre-production.

Toyota's refusal to action plugin vehicles has cost them.
Opportunity to beat Nissan to market with an 80 mile EV, to own that market.
Opportunity to beat GM to market with a PHEV 40, to own that market.
Opportunity to put the PHEV 6 in the market 6 years earlier, to almost double the US market for midsize Prius
Opportunity to embed Chademo as the sole, open, global DC charging standard

I suspect Toyota is laughing all the way to the bank. Why would they want to pour money into BEVs when they think FCEVs are more viable? They may be wrong depending on the development rate of each technology, but they've been willing in the past to look beyond the short term when everyone was laughing at them, persevere and reap the benefits. I agree that the PiP is a feeble effort (although I suspect they don't care, if they think FCEVs will soon take over from transitional tech like PHEVs), and now that Toyota has some real HEV competition for the Prius they need to up their game considerably, but that's all to the good. They created and sustained that market while everyone else played catchup.

Even from here, Toyota Fuel Cell has the smell of failure, its forced to be available for under the price of a Tesla S-60, yet the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle probably cost more than the price of a P85.

Even from where? It's far too early to make predictions, because we have no idea how quickly the prices of FCEVs and BEVs will decline, and that will largely determine which succeeds (or whether they both do, as is one possibility - maybe we'll see BEVs for urban/suburban use by homeowners and others who have a place to charge, FCEVs for those who live in apartments and for trips. The state of both technologies is too immature to discern the eventual winner or winners.

As to the price of the fuel cell etc., Toyota has said it's currently around $50k (vs. ca. $1M ten years ago), and they expect the car to sell for between $50kand $100k. Far too expensive to be mass market, as is the Tesla, but then at this stage of the tech I think leasing is the way to go in any case.

But even if the Toyota FCEV is seen as too expensive, the Tucson will be leased for less than the initial lease offered on the RAV4 EV, while providing about double the range and no significant range falloff in cold temps, so it's not as if there isn't anyone who will be interested. I calculated you could cover every major freeway and highway in the state at 150 mile intervals (i.e. 1/2 of the max. range) with about 20 H2 stations, so it's not as if this is unaffordable. Hell, just a single station in Sacramento could cover all the Bay Area/Tahoe traffic, cause with the range the fuel cell cars have they can easily do Sac-Sac round trip in winter while making free use of heat and defrost, something that's almost certainly impossible for a Tesla 60 and unlikely in an 85. Longer, largely weather-independent range is a huge operational advantage.

 

[ydnas7]

No automaker is laughing all the way to the bank, as they look at Tesla. Mercedes hedged their Tesla investment because its value got too large.


back to Hydrogen
70 stations x $1,000,000 per station / 7,000 vehicles = $10,000 per vehicle
half the cost per station and its a cheap $5,000 per vehicle

but really its $2,000,000 per station / 2,000 vehicles = $70,000 per vehicle
simple

Buy a HFCV and the infrastructure station cost is equvalent to a free Tesla Model S-60
think about it - slowly

perhaps it will only be $20,000 per FCV

The gap between EVs and FCVs keeps increasing.
shared Supercharger option is $2,000 for Tesla, free refills for life
shared Chademo infrastructure is about $400 for Nissan, pay for fuel
shared public L1 for PHEVs....EVs, gotta be cheap

Toyota drew a line in sand, unfortunatey they are standing on the wrong side. perhaps Elon is correct in his calcs that succes is not a possible outcome for Hydrogen Vehicles

 

[GRA]

No automaker is laughing all the way to the bank, as they look at Tesla. Mercedes hedged their Tesla investment because its value got too large.

Seeing as how Tesla has yet to announce a GAAP profit (maybe they will, maybe they won't when they announce 4th quarter results in a week or so), I doubt any of them consider Tesla as a large-scale threat at the moment, although they certainly could become one. Right now Tesla stock remains a bubble, no matter how good their cars are.

back to Hydrogen
70 stations x $1,000,000 per station / 7,000 vehicles = $10,000 per vehicle
half the cost per station and its a cheap $5,000 per vehicle

but really its $2,000,000 per station / 2,000 vehicles = $70,000 per vehicle
simple

Buy a HFCV and the infrastructure station cost is equvalent to a free Tesla Model S-60
think about it - slowly

perhaps it will only be $20,000 per FCV

The gap between EVs and FCVs keeps increasing.
shared Supercharger option is $2,000 for Tesla, free refills for life
shared Chademo infrastructure is about $400 for Nissan, pay for fuel
shared public L1 for PHEVs....EVs, gotta be cheap

Toyota drew a line in sand, unfortunatey they are standing on the wrong side. perhaps Elon is correct in his calcs that succes is not a possible outcome for Hydrogen Vehicles

The price gap between FCEVs and BEVs has been decreasing. And Elon has skin in the game, so he's hardly an unbiased observer - FCEVs are his only EV competition for the next couple of years, cause no one else is building a BEV with Tesla range, and the FCEVs can provide better range now, and do so year-round.

H2 fueling stations are expensive now, when the volume of cars that can use them is low. So are DCQCs, albeit those are considerably less (the comparison is better when looking at the # of cars that can be serviced per day). But costs will come down, just as they already have for EVSEs. Besides, the typical gas station with mini-mart costs $1.5-$3 million, so it's not as if H2 stations are an order of magnitude more expensive.

 

[smkettner]

I calculated you could cover every major freeway and highway in the state at 150 mile intervals (i.e. 1/2 of the max. range) with about 20 H2 stations, so it's not as if this is unaffordable. Hell, just a single station in Sacramento could cover all the Bay Area/Tahoe traffic, cause with the range the fuel cell cars have they can easily do Sac-Sac round trip in winter while making free use of heat and defrost, something that's almost certainly impossible for a Tesla 60 and unlikely in an 85. Longer, largely weather-independent range is a huge operational advantage.

What if you live in Tahoe? Do you drive down to get fuel weekly? Tesla can refuel at home.
It is not just cross country driving but day to day commuting.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

wouldn't be a problem for an H2 PHEV

 

[ydnas7]

Seeing as how Tesla has yet to announce a GAAP profit (maybe they will, maybe they won't when they announce 4th quarter results in a week or so), I doubt any of them consider Tesla as a large-scale threat at the moment, although they certainly could become one. Right now Tesla stock remains a bubble, no matter how good their cars are.

Tesla's cash grew in the last reported quarter by about the same about as their GAAP loss was per vehicle.
ie cash in bank grew about $9,000 per vehicle, GAAP loss was $7,000 per vehicle
all while Tesla was filling a new export pipeline, deploying superchargers, developing model X
I think Tesla shareholders would be content to never have GAAP profits, as long as the cash keeps increasing

sometimes GAAP is very inaccurate way to measure profits.

When a new automaker has gross margins in BMW/Porsche territory, some other car manufacturer will be coping the pain.

but back to point, the hyrdogen infrastucture cost per vehicle is equivalent to a free Tesla model S.

 

[smkettner]

wouldn't be a problem for an H2 PHEV

How many electric miles does this Toyota get?

 

[evnow]

...
2012 ------------ 0.79%
2018 ------------ 2.00%
2019 ------------ 4.00%
2020 ------------ 6.00%
2021 ------------ 8.00%
2022 ----------- 10.00%
2023 ----------- 12.00%
2024 ----------- 14.00%
2025 ----------- 16.00%

That means that if Toyota meat the 2012-2014 ZEV requirement with 2600 cars at 3 credits each = 7800 credits for 0.79%

For 2015-2017, with 2%, or 254% more than 0.79%

254% multiplied by 7800 credits equals 19,812 credits for 2015-2017 divided by a glorious NINE (9) credits for each hydrogen car equals...

drum roll....

2200 cars, or 400 less than the Rav4 EV.

But just look 2019,2020 etc. Every year they would have to sell thousands more compared to earlier year.