Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[evnow]

The infrastructure we have today, the one that does not require trillions of dollars in investment for infrastructure and/or to subsidize vehicles so that a majority of folks in the US can afford to purchase them, is gasoline/ICE.

But it does requite trillion $$$$$$$ wars !

You can cover US with 1 CHAdeMO QC every 15 miles (one in 125 sq ft) with just $6B. How much do you need to cover US with H2 stations ?

 

[evnow]

Agreed. Any household that has 2 cars--and that is a lot of households--is a good candidate for a BEV today. They just don't know it yet. I go months without driving the other (ICE) vehicle... it's kind of a niche product, and the situations where it is needed will become rarer as battery capacities increase.

That is not far away - in just 2 or 3 years 200 mile EVs will be as common as Leaf today and FCEV will still be selling in dozens per year.

 

[AndyH]

The infrastructure we have today, the one that does not require trillions of dollars in investment for infrastructure and/or to subsidize vehicles so that a majority of folks in the US can afford to purchase them, is gasoline/ICE.

But it does requite trillion $$$$$$$ wars !

You can cover US with 1 CHAdeMO QC every 15 miles (one in 125 sq ft) with just $6B. How much do you need to cover US with H2 stations ?

I see. So the goal isn't necessarily to affect global warming, it's just to cover the US with CHAdeMO stations? Sorry, I must have misunderstood your initial comment:

We need to attack Climate Change with the infrastructure we have today - not with something that requires trillion $$$$ investment by tax payers.

Could you please link to a study that shows how the installation of a continental grid of QC stations will positively affect global temperatures?

We won't make a dent in climate change by installing QC stations, nor will we make a dent if St. Musk installs supercharger stations in front of every church in the nation. Those are completely useless if we don't have a very, very significant number of vehicles deployed - that have replaced ICE - that can use CHAdeMO - and that even the working poor can afford to access. Not only do we not have that today, we'll very unlikely to have that for more than 20 years, and maybe not in 50 even if we could make enough batteries. Even so, while we're absolutely subsidizing gasoline with real green American dollars (tm) to the tune of about $21.6 billion each year, we're also subsidizing BEVs and PHEVs, and other hybrids, as well as fuel cell vehicles. I've yet to see any type of transportation or infrastructure system that we're not subsidizing in some way. Therefore, I don't think that subsidies are a meaningful tool to use when one wants to tar and feather a tech they've chosen not to like.

I'll ask for about the third time in this thread: If you or anyone else has a plan to replace at least 80% of ICE vehicles with zero emission vehicles by 2050 please share it - especially if you can show how we can do this with only BEV. Thanks in advance.

 

[abasile]

We won't make a dent in climate change by installing QC stations, nor will we make a dent if St. Musk installs supercharger stations in front of every church in the nation. Those are completely useless if we don't have a very, very significant number of vehicles deployed - that have replaced ICE - that can use CHAdeMO - and that even the working poor can afford to access. Not only do we not have that today, we'll very unlikely to have that for more than 20 years, and maybe not in 50 even if we could make enough batteries. Even so, while we're absolutely subsidizing gasoline with real green American dollars (tm) to the tune of about $21.6 billion each year, we're also subsidizing BEVs and PHEVs, and other hybrids, as well as fuel cell vehicles. I've yet to see any type of transportation or infrastructure system that we're not subsidizing in some way. Therefore, I don't think that subsidies are a meaningful tool to use when one wants to tar and feather a tech they've chosen not to like.

St. Musk? :lol: Admittedly, he does inspire almost religious levels of devotion among many. Personally, I have great admiration for his talents and efforts. Working for one of his companies could be all-consuming, though.

Today, used LEAFs are cheap enough for "working class" citizens, and can provide a very economical way of commuting to work, school, and other necessities. Used LEAFs can be far more cost effective than the large, gas guzzling pickups that many stretch to make the payments on.

I don't think the low end of the EV market is constrained by battery production. Rather, EVs and even hybrids just aren't on the radar screen of most car buyers. The same is true of natural gas vehicles, and I expect FCEVs will face an even bigger uphill battle due to infrastructure limitations/costs. The quickest way to grow the EV market, IMHO, is to make some vehicles that are super attractive like Teslas, and others that are dirt cheap. And the quickest way to lower costs is with subsidies that reduce consumer prices and thereby spur mass production.

As for FCEV subsidies, the amount of money is significant, but not beyond reason for what I consider to be a worthwhile experiment.

 

[GRA]

I'm all for getting the quickest bang for the buck. Of course, that would involve subsidizing HEVs rather than BEVs, PHEVs or FCEVs. None of these last technologies is yet ready for the mass market, although PHEVs are getting close. We will (and have) undoubtedly wasted money by supporting all of these techs, as they spurted ahead or fell behind on the road to commercial viability (which none of them yet have, possibly excepting Tesla). I'm as skeptical of claims for fuel cell viability being just around the corner as I am for claims of the breakthrough battery ditto. Each technology has strengths and weaknesses, and while batteries are currently ahead in the development cycle, fuel cells are closing fast. IMO, Cailfornia potentially wasting $200M to give fuel cells a fair tryout is cheap insurance, if (as has repeatedly been the case over the last 110 years) batteries don't develop as fast as their promoters claims they will. And vice versa as far as fuel cells. Let's keep more than one arrow in the quiver until we KNOW we can do the job with only one.

As has been pointed out countless times, no battery breakthrough is needed. BEVs are fully viable today, in spite of the fact they only beat ICEVs in a few applications. But those few applications are huge and allow it to be used by tens of millions of drivers today while saving them total life-cycle costs and simultaneously reducing the damage to the environment. As BEV products evolve and consumers learn about their benefits, they will be accepted by more and more for commuting and other applications will also become viable.

As long as any of these technologies require government subsidies to bribe people to buy them, as was shown to be the case for upwards of 70% of current California PEV owners, IMO they aren't commercially viable. OTOH, battery-powered golf carts and forklifts have been commercially viable for decades, so if that's your definition of "fully viable today . . . in a few applications", then we agree.

FCEVs, OTOH cost multiple times more than their competitors to purchase and also much more to fuel. (No, refueling a FCEV is not free.) In short, they are the kind of "solution" that only a government bureaucracy can afford.

Which competitors? BEVs with equivalent range? There aren't any (well, maybe a Tesla Roadster with a new generation battery pack, whenever they do that). A Tesla S compared with a far less aerodynamic Tucson? Only in ideal conditions. If Toyota can sell their (fugly) ca. 300 mile range FCEV for $69k (presumably at a loss), where is the BEV that can compete with it on range at the same price? There aren't any. Of course, they're far more expensive than a comparable-range and equipment ICE, but then so's every BEV on the market.

Claiming that BEVs are not viable at just the time when they are only slows the adoption.

No, inadequate range at too high a price along with inadequate infrastructure is what's slowing the adoption. >=150 miles EPA @ <=$30k MSRP is when I expect things to change. In the meantime, for early adopters with a house they own, multiple cars, short enough daily driving range, and the income to afford paying more up front for a BEV or else benefit from the government incentives, current BEVs can be marginally cost effective in some circumstances compared to an equivalent ICE/HEV. Most have little utility as used cars more than couple of years old, which is why their resale prices are so bad. Once BEVs have batteries that can last the life of the car and still provide close to original range, or batteries get so cheap that one or more pack replacements is no big deal, their commercial viability will be a lot better. Until such time, FCEVs provide another possible path forward.

 

[GRA]

Just checked. My closest H2 station is in .... California !

FCEV : We make RAV4EV look like a widely distributed vehicle !!

We need to attack Climate Change with the infrastructure we have today - not with something that requires trillion $$$$ investment by tax payers.

And my closest H2 station will be 1.7 miles and 7 minutes away, by Halloween of next year. There will be another 50 scattered around the state by that time, with the major clusters in the major metropolitan areas, plus more on connector routes and at destinations. I can count the number of roadtrips I've driven outside California or southern Oregon on my fingers; there's no way I could do that on the number of roadtrips I've taken inside California, most of which would be possible using an FCEV by the end of October one year from now, i.e. about 15 months after the first production FCEV was available for sale or lease.

Meanwhile, two years after Tesla introduced the Model S, I still can't get to many of my roadtrip destinations in California in a reasonable amount of time using a Model S, because the infrastructure isn't yet available. Trying to use any other BEV is even more hopeless, even though we're now 3.5 years into deployment- even if the QC infrastructure was available, the cars aren't practical for road trips due to limited range.

 

[GRA]

The infrastructure we have today, the one that does not require trillions of dollars in investment for infrastructure and/or to subsidize vehicles so that a majority of folks in the US can afford to purchase them, is gasoline/ICE.

But it does requite trillion $$$$$$$ wars !

You can cover US with 1 CHAdeMO QC every 15 miles (one in 125 sq ft) with just $6B. How much do you need to cover US with H2 stations ?

And what use would that be, when we know that any QC needs to be installed in multiples at each site to be viable? And how are you going to do so in a commercially viable way, seeing that no one has yet managed to make point of usage billing profitable even when the government paid for the installation and equipment? Or do you think you'll be able to add $2k to the price of a $30k car to cover the cost of a QC network, with as little effect on sales as adding $2k to the price of a $70k car does? How about a $25k car? $20k? $15k?

OTOH, we know that point of sale billing works for gas stations, and will work just as well for H2. H2 will need to be less expensive than gas, but they're already well on the way to that, and gas will only get more expensive. We've closed something like 60k gas stations in this country in this century, so it's not as if sites aren't available, assuming we can't just add them on to existing stations (apparently that can be done in around 20% of the existing stations). Once California has built up to 100 stations, that's it; by that time we should know whether there's a viable market for FCEVs and H2 or not, or BEVs will have finally achieved the claims of their promoters and eliminated the advantages of FCEVs.

 

[Stoaty]

In the meantime, for early adopters with a house they own, multiple cars, short enough daily driving range, and the income to afford paying more up front for a BEV or else benefit from the government incentives, current BEVs can be marginally cost effective in some circumstances compared to an equivalent ICE/HEV.

You describe this population as if it is rare. However:

--64.7% of housing units are occupied by their owner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeownership_in_the_United_States" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false

--Over half of the households have two or more cars

--the government has subsidized many things (tobacco, fossil fuels, nuclear power, etc.) that could stand on their own (although some couldn't). BEV have a limited subsidy (only until enough vehicles are sold). Getting a subsidy is not the determining factor of whether a technology or product is "commercially viable". Tobacco is still being subsidized: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/301645-senate-rejects-amendment-to-end-tobacco-farm-subsidies" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Nuclear has a huge subsidy by the government limiting liability. Fossil fuels have subsidies that should have been ended years ago.

--since leases are available, prospective owners don't necessarily need to pay a large sum up front

As I said earlier, there is a huge group of people for whom a BEV makes a lot of sense today.

 

[GRA]

In the meantime, for early adopters with a house they own, multiple cars, short enough daily driving range, and the income to afford paying more up front for a BEV or else benefit from the government incentives, current BEVs can be marginally cost effective in some circumstances compared to an equivalent ICE/HEV.

You describe this population as if it is rare. However:

--64.7% of housing units are occupied by their owner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeownership_in_the_United_States" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false

--Over half of the households have two or more cars

Nope, not claiming it's rare, but just because such households aren't rare doesn't mean most of them see any compelling financial reason to get a BEV. At the moment, the most compelling non-ideological reason to get a BEV is because of government incentives, especially single-occupant HOV stickers. Since most BEV owners have incomes above $100k/yr., their time is worth at least $50/hour. If a sticker saves them 15 minutes each way on their commute, then over the course of a 48 week work year that's 120 hours or $6k.

--the government has subsidized many things (tobacco, fossil fuels, nuclear power, etc.) that could stand on their own (although some couldn't). BEV have a limited subsidy (only until enough vehicles are sold). Getting a subsidy is not the determining factor of whether a technology or product is "commercially viable". Tobacco is still being subsidized: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/301645-senate-rejects-amendment-to-end-tobacco-farm-subsidies" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Nuclear has a huge subsidy by the government limiting liability. Fossil fuels have subsidies that should have been ended years ago.

Sure, we subsidize lots of things we shouldn't, but tobacco is a poor example to use, unless you're claiming that BEVs are addictive and bad for your health

--since leases are available, prospective owners don't necessarily need to pay a large sum up front
As to being able to lease, sure, but you still need to be able to qualify for that. If you don't have the income it doesn't matter, and until BEVs are widely viable on the used market that won't change.

As I said earlier, there is a huge group of people for whom a BEV makes a lot of sense today.

What you or I think makes sense for other people doesn't matter, it's what they think. and right now, most of them don't think that a BEV is viable for them. Whether they're objectively right or wrong is irrelevant.

 

[Stoaty]

What you or I think makes sense for other people doesn't matter, it's what they think. and right now, most of them don't think that a BEV is viable for them.

No, most people haven't even thought about it, but that is because this is a new technology and people haven't become accustomed to it yet. Same thing happened with the Prius, which is now selling like hot cakes. The Leaf is ahead of the Prius on the adoption curve.

 

[evnow]

And my closest H2 station will be 1.7 miles and 7 minutes away, by Halloween of next year.

How much is that going to cost the tax payers ? How much are the foreign auto makers spending on the infrastructure.

 

[AndyH]

And my closest H2 station will be 1.7 miles and 7 minutes away, by Halloween of next year.

How much is that going to cost the tax payers ? How much are the foreign auto makers spending on the infrastructure.

More importantly, since we're talking about investment, what do we gain from the money spent?

The 'cost to taxpayers' is a red herring as long as we refuse to include all of the big-picture costs and prices.

 

[ydnas7]

Yes fuel cells can degrade due to impurities. Which is why the state, working with auto and dispenser manufacturers, has been establishing standards for H2 purity, filtering needed, etc. See the CARB paper I referenced a few posts back, which goes into that among other things. And of course, fuel cell manufacturers are all working on ways to make fuel cells more tolerant of impurities, and/or avoid the problem entirely. They do degrade, but I see no specific data in what you wrote above that would confirm your claim that " HFCV's [Which fuel cells? All? Some particular manufacturer's?] range degradation is significantly worse than Tesla's NCA", just more generic statements. Again, do you have specific data that would show this?

todate hydrogen fuel cell vehicles efficiency (and therefore range) degrade about 10% over the first 200 hours, then they proceed to about 18% degradation over 1,300 hours. http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/docs/cdp/cdp_90.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; So very roughly, irrespective of weather, hydrogen fuel cell degrade roughly similar to a first gen LEAF based in Texas - irrespective of where HFCV was located.

So the window sticker will have a zero hour EPA range, but even after 6 months the range will be 10% down.

and yes, Tesla model S range reduction is anecdotal, but 1/2 % over 30,000miles is recorded http://insideevs.com/tesla-model-s-p85-battery-degradation-33000-miles-video/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


why are fossil fuel companies so interested in promoting hydrogen fuel cell vehicles?
http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/39980.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
perhaps because USA hydrogen is more of a fossil fuel than gasoline with it's ethanol blending.

hydrogen - for a fossil fuel future.

 

[AndyH]

why are fossil fuel companies so interested in promoting hydrogen fuel cell vehicles?
http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/39980.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
perhaps because USA hydrogen is more of a fossil fuel than gasoline with it's ethanol blending.

hydrogen - for a fossil fuel future.

You might want to look at the suppliers of H2 in CA today and how that H2 is generated. Then look at the requirements for the CA FCEV refueling infrastructure (1/3 renewable). Then look at the sources of H2 in Europe, the part of the world in the 'drivers seat' for this tech. Then remember that we're at peak natural gas and that there's already consolidation in the drilling/fracking industry as companies divest of their drilling/fracking divisions. Then, finally, look at messaging from the actual fossil fuel industry - you'll notice that they're pushing CNG/LNG for transportation, not H2.

 

[RegGuheert]

And what use would that be, when we know that any QC needs to be installed in multiples at each site to be viable? And how are you going to do so in a commercially viable way, seeing that no one has yet managed to make point of usage billing profitable even when the government paid for the installation and equipment? Or do you think you'll be able to add $2k to the price of a $30k car to cover the cost of a QC network, with as little effect on sales as adding $2k to the price of a $70k car does? How about a $25k car? $20k? $15k?

OTOH, we know that point of sale billing works for gas stations, and will work just as well for H2. H2 will need to be less expensive than gas, but they're already well on the way to that, and gas will only get more expensive. We've closed something like 60k gas stations in this country in this century, so it's not as if sites aren't available, assuming we can't just add them on to existing stations (apparently that can be done in around 20% of the existing stations). Once California has built up to 100 stations, that's it; by that time we should know whether or not there's a viable market for FCEVs and H2 or not, or BEVs will have finally achieved the claims of their promoters and eliminated the advantages of FCEVs.

I find these two paragraphs together to be quite unfathomable.

What you are saying is that a $2M H2 refueling stations that can service, at most, a small fleet of vehicles is a commercially viable enterprise because the fuel costs much more per mile than the fuel for a BEV dispensed from a $500K QC refueling station that can service a larger small fleet of vehicles.

But as you have pointed out, QCs ARE already commercially viable in the Tesla model. The reason no one else can make money is that BEVs can be recharged at home or elsewhere VERY CHEAPLY.

So that leaves the apartment dwellers which you seem very concerned about. Which do you think they would prefer?

A) Buy an extremely expensive vehicle and remain slaves to an expensive refueling network controlled by huge multinational corporations which can charge whatever they want for the convenience of a 5-minute refueling.

OR

B) Buy an affordable vehicle and negotiate with their landlord to provide L1 or L2 EVSEs at an affordable rate so that they can drive for less than they previously did with their gasoline ICEVs? (Or go find a different landlord if they don't get satisfaction. Trust me, landlords will "get the memo" when the floodgates of BEVs are unleashed.)

No, those with lower incomes that you believe will prefer H2 FCVs will not choose the higher-upfront-cost and higher-operating-cost and higher-risk alternative to BEVs because they simply cannot afford to.

It's not about the subsidies, but about the total lifetime costs versus the utility of the vehicle. (Not just what the owner sees, but the actual, total costs.) FCVs have a LONG way to go to cross below either ICEVs or BEVs. Personally, I think they will NEVER cross below the costs of BEVs for commuting. Long-haul trucking or trains? Probably.

 

[AndyH]

Reg - the point that you missed, and that others here continually miss, is that FCEV provide capabilities that NO current or near-future BEV can provide - including the ability to travel more than 200 miles with a load (think pick-up truck, service van, etc.) and the ability to heat the cabin without a range penalty.

Stop stop stop making this BEV VS. FCEV as that's absolutely NOT the situation.

As to vehicle price - I don't recall anyone saying that either a Tesla S or a FCEV are middle-class friendly today. But what is expected is that the price of a fuel cell stack will drop in price farther and faster than a battery pack. This makes sense as the technologies are at different points in their development curve.

 

[GRA]

What you or I think makes sense for other people doesn't matter, it's what they think. and right now, most of them don't think that a BEV is viable for them.

No, most people haven't even thought about it, but that is because this is a new technology and people haven't become accustomed to it yet.

That's certainly a factor, but the reason most haven't thought about it is that there's no compelling reason for most of them to do so; the info is out there. Put it this way, if you were suddenly diagnosed with a currently incurable form of cancer, you'd be pretty likely to start informing yourself of new developments in cancer treatment, wouldn't you?

Same thing happened with the Prius, which is now selling like hot cakes. The Leaf is ahead of the Prius on the adoption curve.

The situations are completely different. The first generation of the Prius was introduced at a time when gas sold for $1.50/gallon or less, and when dealers couldn't keep what cwerdna refers to as BROD-class SUVs in stock. The car was mediocre in every way except for mpg, resembling the eminently forgettable Echo. Toyota didn't make a dime off it (and didn't expect to). So what happened? From 2004 to the end of 2006, gas prices doubled and then in 2008 spiked to around $4.50/gallon (I saw $4.67 locally). Meanwhile, in 2004 the 2nd generation Prius was introduced, which was considerably less mediocre, more fuel efficient, and provided greater utility. And sales took off.

Current PEVs, OTOH, were introduced in 2010, when gas had pretty much settled at $3.50-$4.00 gallon, so of course people saw more value in them initially (at least, with government incentives). But that advantage may well be leveling off, as people have adjusted to the idea of current gas prices over the long term, judging by some of the recent news stories:

"SUVs And Crossover Utility Vehicles Now Outsell Sedans In U.S."

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1093349_suvs-and-crossover-utility-vehicles-now-outsell-sedans-in-u-s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and

"Average Fuel Economy for New Cars Dips to 25.5 MPG in June"

http://www.edmunds.com/car-news/average-fuel-economy-for-new-cars-dips-to-255-mpg-in-june.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We'll have to see whether the last is just a momentary blip, but taken together with the first story it's not encouraging, although it's partially compensated by the shift from SUVs to more fuel-efficient CUVs.

 

[GRA]

And my closest H2 station will be 1.7 miles and 7 minutes away, by Halloween of next year.

How much is that going to cost the tax payers ? How much are the foreign auto makers spending on the infrastructure.

I forget the breakdown, but I think it's one of the 18 stations Toyota is subsidizing. I've been by; it's a gas station/mini mart with room for the H2 equipment, right off an interstate. AB 8 dedicated $20 million/year for up to ten years, but CARB got so many applications to build stations when they put them out for bid that they decided to pull forward the 2014-2015 allocation, to get the initial infrastructure in northern California and other areas outside of SoCal in place sooner. Details are in the CARB annual report I've previously referenced:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/ab8/ab8_report_final_june2014.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

see "Part IV: Location and Number of Hydrogen Fuel Stations," starting on page 22. All in all, I'd say they've done an excellent job of planning the introduction (getting all the stakeholders involved from early on definitely helped), while leaving themselves enough flexibility to make changes as the need becomes apparent.

 

[RegGuheert]

Reg - the point that you missed, and that others here continually miss, is that FCEV provide capabilities that NO current or near-future BEV can provide - including the ability to travel more than 200 miles with a load (think pick-up truck, service van, etc.) and the ability to heat the cabin without a range penalty.

Many (most?) here have agreed from the beginning that H2 might make sense for fleet owners. So why should we develop the infrastructure for passenger cars? Let the fleet owners bear the much lower costs for infrastructure that will be needed to fuel their fleets.

Stop stop stop making this BEV VS. FCEV as that's absolutely NOT the situation.

It sure is. People will choose the best tradeoff for their application between cost and utility. The technology is secondary.

There is also a huge opportunity cost involved in the development and deployment of H2 vehicles and infrastructure that will retard adoption of BEVs. Why hold up the optimum solution (for commuting, at least) by funding the development of a sub-optimal solution? It makes no sense to me.

As to vehicle price - I don't recall anyone saying that either a Tesla S or a FCEV are middle-class friendly today.

I don't think anyone claimed the Tesla S is. But the LEAF certainly is middle-class friendly. I think many owners here fit that description.

But what is expected is that the price of a fuel cell stack will drop in price farther and faster than a battery pack. This makes sense as the technologies are at different points in their development curve.

Agreed the price of fuel cell stacks will come down faster than the price of batteries. But, as I said, that does not mean it will ever cross over. For some applications it may, but for the daily commuter, I seriously doubt it. And batteries are already where they need to be for some applications (without subsidies) and any improvements will simply expand the market space.

But the cost per mile to fuel a BEV will almost certainly ALWAYS remain below that of a FCV.

 

[GRA]

Yes fuel cells can degrade due to impurities. Which is why the state, working with auto and dispenser manufacturers, has been establishing standards for H2 purity, filtering needed, etc. See the CARB paper I referenced a few posts back, which goes into that among other things. And of course, fuel cell manufacturers are all working on ways to make fuel cells more tolerant of impurities, and/or avoid the problem entirely. They do degrade, but I see no specific data in what you wrote above that would confirm your claim that " HFCV's [Which fuel cells? All? Some particular manufacturer's?] range degradation is significantly worse than Tesla's NCA", just more generic statements. Again, do you have specific data that would show this?

todate hydrogen fuel cell vehicles efficiency (and therefore range) degrade about 10% over the first 200 hours, then they proceed to about 18% degradation over 1,300 hours. http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/docs/cdp/cdp_90.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; So very roughly, irrespective of weather, hydrogen fuel cell degrade roughly similar to a first gen LEAF based in Texas - irrespective of where HFCV was located.

I note that chart dates from 1/2012, and references stacks that date from 4Q 2009 up to whenever the report data was closed. I can't find any papers at the site regarding degradation of stacks that are more recent. IIRR, we'd found some more recent reports which showed improvements in power degradation rates, and posted them earlier in the thread.

CDP#89, http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/docs/cdp/cdp_89.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

seems to show average degradation to 10% at about the 1750 hour mark, with a range (10th and 90th percentiles) from about 150 hours up to 2,800 hours, so I'm not sure where you're getting the 200 hours you quoted above, as the stacks start out averaging well above their rated power- median value seems to decline from 110% to 100% at 200 hours. At 1,300 hours that would be 3.56 years, assuming the typical 1 hour of use/day (most cars spend 23 hours/day parked). CDP#89 indicates about 1,750 hours to 10%, or about 4.8 years. Of course, with a range that wide you wouldn't count on it.

So the window sticker will have a zero hour EPA range, but even after 6 months the range will be 10% down.

See above.

and yes, Tesla model S range reduction is anecdotal, but 1/2 % over 30,000miles is recorded http://insideevs.com/tesla-model-s-p85-battery-degradation-33000-miles-video/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, so far they're looking pretty good.

why are fossil fuel companies so interested in promoting hydrogen fuel cell vehicles?
http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/39980.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
perhaps because USA hydrogen is more of a fossil fuel than gasoline with it's ethanol blending.

hydrogen - for a fossil fuel future.

Or perhaps, they can see that cheap gas won't be with us much longer, they already own/lease a huge real estate infrastructure for dispensing fuel, and can relatively easily repurpose it for H2 in addition/as a replacement instead of having to write even more of it off. And here in California, H2 production has to involve a large and ever increasing amount of renewables. If the oil and gas companies don't switch to renewables, others will.