Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[GRA]

nor will local fire codes likely allow this practice. Many local fire codes also prohibit storing gasoline and tires for the (hopefully) obvious fire dangers. Again, you confuse what could happen with what is probable with mass markets.

I do agree there might be confusion here. Will you provide links to a fire code that restricts either keeping 15 gallons of gasoline, or a an oxy-acetylene welding rig, or a propane tank inside or within 50 feet of a home please? Thanks in advance.

Andy, doing a quick Google search I found this in the City of Pasadena's website:

"Do not store gasoline in the house. It should be kept in a detached garage or in an outside storage area. Be absolutely sure it is clear from any ignition source such as a water heater, washer or dryer. Do not put gasoline in a cup, glass jug or old bleach bottle. It should be stored in an approved container, which is of heavy duty construction, has a spring-loaded, self-closing handle and is equipped with a safety-relief plug.

"The city of Pasadena, Ca. Fire Code allows a maximum of 10 gallons of flammable liquid to be stored on residential property and the liquid must be stored outside. Storage of flammable liquids above these amounts on any property, commercial or residential, requires a permit from the Pasadena Fire Department Bureau of Fire Prevention."

Garden Grove, Ca has a similar 10 gallon prohibition, but allows it in a garage:

"Fire codes mandate that no more than 10 gallons of gasoline be stored in approved safety containers in your garage for maintenance purposes only. (Gasoline should never be brought inside your residence for ANY reason!)"

Just as a matter of interest, a friend of mine's house burned down earlier this year, because his neighbor had stored some gas improperly in HIS garage, which caught fire and then quickly spread to my friend's house.

I also found the 2013 California Fire Code which is based on the International Fire Code, but my eyes glazed over after about 15 seconds, and a profound feeling of drowsiness over came me at the one minute mark so I bailed before passing out. Chapter's 50-57 cover various types of hazardous materials storage including liquids and gasses, assuming you don't have a life and can prop your eyes open with something. California's Title 24 (Building Code), Part 9, also apparently deals with storage of flammable liquids and gasses, so feel free, with the same warning.

Of course, in real life most of us violate these rules in one way or another, even assuming we're aware of them. I've got four full scuba tanks (compressed air at the moment, but they often have Nitrox of higher than 21% O2 in them) plus about a quart of white gas and some butane canisters for my backpacking stoves in my closet less than 5 feet from my bed, because that's about the only out of the weather storage I have.

 

[GRA]

As to the costs, the goal is to get H2 down to between $2-$4/kg, with one kg of H2 containing ~ the same energy as 1 kg [Edit 1 gal.] of gas (I recently found a source that IIRR gave H2 as 143 MJ/kg, gas as something like 42.9 MJ/kg). But the kg of H2 will take the car a lot further, seeing as the car has electric drive (assuming it's not an HEV).

A kg of H is about 33 kWh of energy. With the retail cost of electricity in California being around $0.18 / kWh, even assuming 100% efficient electrolysis, how do you get cheaper than $6/kg?

$2 / kg = $0.06 / kWh
$4 / kg = $0.12 / kWh

If you can get the energy to profitably sell H at $2 / kg, then you can also get the energy to profitably sell electricity at $0.06 / kWh. So at best, H may approach the cost of electricity in terms of fueling costs, but EVs will always win as the drivetrain will always be more efficient. Tony above has already provided other data for Hydrogen costs.

Yes, I've previously stated that electricity will be cheaper than H2 barring major advances*, although it's unlikely that it will be generated using retail prices of electricity; off-peak will be the norm, whether forecourt or central point production. But off-peak electricity production for QCs will also need storage, so it's a question of whether H2 or batteries is cheaper for that. And then the question is, does the fact that electricity is cheaper than H2 production matter given H2's other advantages, or does it just have to be cheaper than gas? We'll see.

*There's research on direct photochemical and thermochemical production of H2 among others, but that's way out in the future, if ever.

As far as real-life QC costs go, I had the pleasure of using all 3 Evoasis QC stations last weekend across 4 different sessions (PS - Tony - the handle on QC1 in Irvine was a bit sticky and took a bit of fiddling to get it to engage - QC2 was good - the new style gun handle at SJC is so much easier to use!):

1. 10.1 kWh 26 min, $3.90, $0.39 / kWh
2. 0.9 kWh 9 min, $1.35, $1.50 / kWh
3. 9.1 kWh 26.4 min, $3.96, $0.44 / kWh
4. 2.6 kWh 8.2 min, $1.23, $0.47 / kWh

So a total of 22.7 kWh for $10.44 (avg $0.46 / kWh) which let me drive about 100 miles farther than I would have otherwise - about 10c / mile. This is basically the same price as driving the Prius for those wondering! (45 mpg, $4.10/gal = 9c / mile). Only drawback in comparison is of course charging time. A newer LEAF or a car with a bigger battery would have charged faster at at less cost - mine only has around 11 kWh usable between LBW and 80%.

In hindsight, I could have skipped the two short charging sessions by driving even more conservatively which would have gotten the price under the cost of driving the Prius - total trip time would have been about the same. Session 2 was immediately after session 1 as I wanted a bit of buffer as I still had 50-55 miles to go and wanted to avoid stopping if possible. ~6 kW charging is 2x faster than L2 and more convenient than stopping a 2nd time - no to mention, no more Evoasis QCs charging by the minute! Session 4 was 15 miles down the road from session 3, but wanted to top off as I had 55-60 miles to go.

Yes, you make my point that no one has yet managed to make point of sale billing QC'ing cheaper than gas for a Prius and make a profit, and that ignores the time saved in gas refueling.

 

[RegGuheert]

Yes, you make my point that no one has yet managed to make point of sale billing QC'ing cheaper than gas for a Prius and make a profit, and that ignores the time saved in gas refueling.

Why in the world would QCing BEVs EVER need to be cheaper than fueling a Prius?

But for a FCV, which will cost even more to fuel than QCing a BEV, it MUST be cheaper than fueling a Prius (unless they put a plug on those things).

 

[GRA]

Yes, you make my point that no one has yet managed to make point of sale billing QC'ing cheaper than gas for a Prius and make a profit, and that ignores the time saved in gas refueling.

Why in the world would QCing BEVs EVER need to be cheaper than fueling a Prius?

Because mainstream users who aren't motivated by ideology (and more than a few early adopters who are, including many here) aren't willing to put up with the inconvenience of frequent long refuels of a short-range BEV for any other reason, when they can instead use an ICE that involves far less hassle and wasted time. You've got to give them SOME reason to use the BEV for those trips; otherwise there's no justification for using QCs for that purpose at all.

But for a FCV, which will cost even more to fuel than QCing a BEV, it MUST be cheaper than fueling a Prius (unless they put a plug on those things).

As I've said repeatedly, for those who can afford it a PHFCEV is the ideal if you can afford and benefit from it, until BEV prices, ranges and charge times improve to the point that fuel cells provide little operational advantage.

 

[TonyWilliams]

As to the costs, the goal is to get H2 down to between $2-$4/kg, with one kg of H2 containing ~ the same energy as 1 kg of gas (I recently found a source that IIRR gave H2 as 143 MJ/kg, gas as something like 42.9 MJ/kg). But the kg of H2 will take the car a lot further, seeing as the car has electric drive (assuming it's not an HEV).

A kg of H is about 33 kWh of energy. With the retail cost of electricity in California being around $0.18 / kWh, even assuming 100% efficient electrolysis, how do you get cheaper than $6/kg?

We've already referenced the retail price of a kilo of H2 from one of the existing CA public refueling stations and it's in the $4 range. Remembering that a FCEV is about 2.2 times more efficient than a comparable ICE, that's like filling the gasoline tank with $2/gallon fuel.

The war we're in is not with the price of fuel, it's with emissions.

Toyota disagrees with you:

Toyota thinks the running costs for the first H2 cars will be $50 to go 300 miles, and this will drop to "about $30" in the future. That equals a future cost of $5-to-$7 per kilogram after starting at around $9-to-$11 per kg.

 

[DaveEV]

As to EVOasis, $9.00/hour for a maximum of what, 60-70 miles of range before it tapers is cheaper than a Prius, which can gain 100 miles for $8.00 (2 gallons at $4.00/gallon), and do so in a fraction of a minute even assuming a slow (5 gal/minute) dispenser?

Apples and oranges, but your numbers are off. See my previous post.

100 miles of range in 70 minutes over 4 different charges (22.7 kWh, or an average rate of ~20 kW), but this is on my ~80% capacity LEAF.

Charge a Tesla and it will charge at close to the maximum 44 kW the whole time - good for 130+ miles an hour - cheaper than the Prius. A new LEAF that can charge faster will do significantly better. And future EVs will also be better as their packs will be better able to absorb higher charge rates.

But again - apples and oranges - the vast majority of charging will occur when you're not waiting. I actually only waited less than half the time - the other half I was grabbing a bite to eat or using the restroom. And it completely ignores that using QCs is a rare event compared to charging at home where filling up takes all of 30 seconds (15 seconds to plug in and 15 seconds to unplug).

Yes, you make my point that no one has yet managed to make point of sale billing QC'ing cheaper than gas for a Prius and make a profit, and that ignores the time saved in gas refueling.

See above. And again - apples and oranges - the occasional higher cost of public QC barely budges the significantly lower cost of charging at home. I'll let Tony speak about Evoasis' business model.

Still - that's a funny point to make if you are trying to promote H2 stations - where it costs $2M+ to build a station but are guaranteed to lose money by the truck-full for at least a decade (assuming that the rest of us are wrong and H2 vehicles actually start selling).

I did a bit of research and found the following interesting tidbits regarding Hydrogen Refuelling Stations:

ITM Power - Second US Hydrogen Refuelling Station
ITM Power - Commercial Product Platform Optimisation and Cost Reduction
Facts from those PR bits:
1. Up to 100 kg / day fueling station for $2.125M (assuming 50 miles / kg, that's good for 5000 miles / day - not sure how much H2 can be buffered or if it's only produced on demand)
2. 55 kWh to produce 1 kg of H2

So if you fuel up there you're only getting about 1 mile per kWh. Ouch.

To get up to 5000 miles / day, at a minimum, you'd need 3 QC stations assuming around the clock operation assuming each QC takes 30 minutes and gives you 50 miles range. Of course, that's not realistic since you're never going to get such an even distribution of customers, so let's say you need 10 QC stations. I highly doubt that 10 QC stations would come anywhere close to $2M. It might get to half that if you build each one at a different location.

 

[TonyWilliams]

I've got four full scuba tanks (compressed air at the moment, but they often have Nitrox of higher than 21% O2 in them) plus about a quart of white gas and some butane canisters for my backpacking stoves in my closet less than 5 feet from my bed, because that's about the only out of the weather storage I have.

I now have exactly ZERO gasoline in garage for the first time ever. But, 2000psi of oxygen and acetylene (more than one), lots of tires, volatile cleaning agents, and I'm sure there's more (paint thinners, etc).

 

[RegGuheert]

As I've repeatedly, for those who can afford it a PHFCEV is the ideal if you can afford and benefit from it, until BEV prices, ranges and charge times improve to the point that fuel cells provide little operational advantage.

I think we are of a similar mind here. That is why I have been harping on the lack of a plug on the Hyundai offering. Once you add that to the extremely high manufacturing cost, you have some high entry barriers in place. As I've mentioned, I do know of exactly one PHFCEV out there. Do you know of any that are smaller than a Mack truck?

 

[TonyWilliams]

The war we're in is not with the price of fuel, it's with emissions.

If that the case, BEV wins handily.

I guess we can close down this thread.

 

[GRA]

As to EVOasis, $9.00/hour for a maximum of what, 60-70 miles of range before it tapers is cheaper than a Prius, which can gain 100 miles for $8.00 (2 gallons at $4.00/gallon), and do so in a fraction of a minute even assuming a slow (5 gal/minute) dispenser?

Apples and oranges, but your numbers are off. See my previous post.

100 miles of range in 70 minutes over 4 different charges (22.7 kWh, or an average rate of ~20 kW), but this is on my ~80% capacity LEAF.

Charge a Tesla and it will charge at close to the maximum 44 kW the whole time - good for 130+ miles an hour - cheaper than the Prius.

Well no, because there's the little matter of first buying a $70k car instead of a $24k one. Once we can buy 200 mile range BEVs for say $30k, then it will be cheaper. Of course, Prius' or similar will also be cheaper and get better mileage by then, but gas prices will presumably be higher as well.

A new LEAF that can charge faster will do significantly better. And future EVs will also be better as their packs will be better able to absorb higher charge rates.

Yes, assuming demand charges don't kick in and boost the cost, but it still doesn't outweigh the time savings until you can gain 300 miles of charge in say 10 minutes or less.

But again - apples and oranges - the vast majority of charging will occur when you're not waiting. I actually only waited less than half the time - the other half I was grabbing a bite to eat or using the restroom. And it completely ignores that using QCs is a rare event compared to charging at home where filling up takes all of 30 seconds (15 seconds to plug in and 15 seconds to unplug).

It's a rare event because most people know that their current BEVs are poorly suited to long trips in any case, and/or there aren't any QCs for them to use. Tesla is seeing 5-8% of their miles being SC, and are apparently seeing 14% over this summer travel season. We agree that if you can afford a car just for commuting and can charge at home or work, short range BEVs are the best option, albeit still too expensive if unsubsidized.

Yes, you make my point that no one has yet managed to make point of sale billing QC'ing cheaper than gas for a Prius and make a profit, and that ignores the time saved in gas refueling.

See above. And again - apples and oranges - the occasional higher cost of public QC barely budges the significantly lower cost of charging at home. I'll let Tony speak about Evoasis' business model.

Still - that's a funny point to make if you are trying to promote H2 stations - where it costs $2M+ to build a station but are guaranteed to lose money by the truck-full for at least a decade (assuming that the rest of us are wrong and H2 vehicles actually start selling).

Somewhat less than $2 million at the moment judging by the grants, and undoubtedly will come down as experience is gained and production increases. As to how long they'll be losing money, that depends on so many uncontrolled variables that I'll leave it up to the companies to make their own forecasts.

I did a bit of research and found the following interesting tidbits regarding Hydrogen Refuelling Stations:

ITM Power - Second US Hydrogen Refuelling Station
ITM Power - Commercial Product Platform Optimisation and Cost Reduction
Facts from those PR bits:
1. Up to 100 kg / day fueling station for $2.125M (assuming 50 miles / kg, that's good for 5000 miles / day - not sure how much H2 can be buffered or if it's only produced on demand)
2. 55 kWh to produce 1 kg of H2

So if you fuel up there you're only getting about 1 mile per kWh. Ouch.

To get up to 5000 miles / day, at a minimum, you'd need 3 QC stations assuming around the clock operation assuming each QC takes 30 minutes and gives you 50 miles range. Of course, that's not realistic since you're never going to get such an even distribution of customers, so let's say you need 10 QC stations. I highly doubt that 10 QC stations would come anywhere close to $2M. It might get to half that if you build each one at a different location.

Detailed analysis of both coverage and capacity requirements against projected needs can be found in the CARB Annual Report I've already referenced upthread, but here it is again:

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

 

[GRA]

As I've said repeatedly, for those who can afford and benefit from it a PHFCEV is the ideal, until BEV prices, ranges and charge times improve to the point that fuel cells provide little operational advantage.

I think we are of a similar mind here. That is why I have been harping on the lack of a plug on the Hyundai offering. Once you add that to the extremely high manufacturing cost, you have some high entry barriers in place. As I've mentioned, I do know of exactly one PHFCEV out there. Do you know of any that are smaller than a Mack truck?

Yes, PHFCEV postal vans that are being trialled in France. I provided a link upthread, but can't find it at the moment. [Edit] Don't remember if it's the same link, but here's a GCR article:

"Hydrogen As Electric-Car Range Extender? French Tests Start Soon"

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1089195_hydrogen-as-electric-car-range-extender-french-tests-start-soon" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and here's another:

"FedEx Follows French Lead, Tests Hydrogen Fuel-Cell Range Extenders"

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1089920_fedex-follows-french-lead-tests-hydrogen-fuel-cell-range-extenders" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I also previously provided a link to this article at GCC,

"DOE seeking input on commercialization of fuel cells as range extenders for battery-electric vehicles"

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/07/20140704-doe.html#more" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[AndyH]

As I've repeatedly, for those who can afford it a PHFCEV is the ideal if you can afford and benefit from it, until BEV prices, ranges and charge times improve to the point that fuel cells provide little operational advantage.

I think we are of a similar mind here. That is why I have been harping on the lack of a plug on the Hyundai offering. Once you add that to the extremely high manufacturing cost, you have some high entry barriers in place. As I've mentioned, I do know of exactly one PHFCEV out there. Do you know of any that are smaller than a Mack truck?

One of the reasons why FCEVs are hitting the streets is because the auto industry expects fuel cell stack/tank prices to come down much faster than a battery that can provide similar capability. We'll see.

As for adding a plug to the Hyundai, it's not worth it. The battery in the Tucson is reported to only hold 1kWh. Adding a larger battery raises the price and adds more weight. I don't expect to see any plug-in FCEV cars or small SUVs because of that - it makes the economics of the project worse.

The USAF has been running fuel cell pickup trucks in Hawaii for a number of years - they generate the H2 in conjunction with another renewable project making the fuel essentially free. There's no benefit to having a plug for a 10-20 mile range when one can refuel in 3 minutes and get 300 miles.

In addition to Guy's links, I linked a plug-in FCEV that's in service in San Diego - it's a class-8 tractor (hmmm...looks like the one you also linked as well).

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibLa654H9-E[/youtube]

 

[AndyH]

We've already referenced the retail price of a kilo of H2 from one of the existing CA public refueling stations and it's in the $4 range.

But that's not the true cost of hydrogen as it's highly subsidized.

$4.50 a gallon for gasoline isn't the true cost either, as it is also highly subsidized (much more than either H2 or BEVs). How do the numbers work with today's >$15.14/gallon** gasoline?

Seems to me that the 'aginits' that enjoy crunching numbers might want to start with a level playing field...I'm not a mathematician, though, so might be wrong...

I've asked this before but received zero responses. I'll try again: If FCEV+BEV isn't the way to go, please tell us your plan to replace ALL ice vehicles on US roads by 2050. Thanks in advance.


** According to this, $15.14 in 2002 dollars.
http://www.progress.org/tpr/true-cost-of-gasoline-artificial-subsidies/
http://www.academia.edu/2130359/The_roads_arent_free

 

[TonyWilliams]

I've asked this before but received zero responses. I'll try again: If FCEV+BEV isn't the way to go, please tell us your plan to replace ALL ice vehicles on US roads by 2050. Thanks in advance.

Well, I seriously doubt that goal will happen with any technology. As to the best course of action, that would be the most cost effective solutions that get us to zero emissions. So far, according to Toyota, fuel cells dont have the possibility to compete with BEV's "until 2030", and that's their rosey prediction.

I suspect real life is something altogether different.

Plus, hydrogen from fossil fuels is a non-starter in the zero emission game. Hydrogen from water is even LESS cost effective. Water itself is going to be a difficult commodity in the coming years.

Should batteries reach $100/kWh in the near term, i think its already lights out for hydrogen for mass private transport. Should charge rates only double or triple from today's 1C - 2C, i think the majority of the population will gladly take up EV's.

The quick charging infrastructure will take care of itself with millions of cars without the daunting cost of a hydrogen one.

The electricty production will also take care of itself like it did with air conditioning and other increased demands. Whatever increase in electricity is required, that increase is larger to compensate for an equivalent hydrogen world.

My money is on BEV's for 2050.

NOTE: none of my musings have anything to do with what many huge auto manufacturers will actually do. I'm confident that Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Daimler/Mercedes, GM, BMW, Ford and probably others will be at the hydrogen trough, leasing compliance level quantities of hydrogen cars that get crushed at the end.

 

[AndyH]

I've asked this before but received zero responses. I'll try again: If FCEV+BEV isn't the way to go, please tell us your plan to replace ALL ice vehicles on US roads by 2050. Thanks in advance.

Well, I seriously doubt that goal will happen with any technology. As to the best course of action, that would be the most cost effective solutions that get us to zero emissions. So far, according to Toyota, fuel cells dont have the possibility to compete with BEV's "until 2030", and that's their rosey prediction.

I suspect real life is something altogether different.

Plus, hydrogen from fossil fuels is a non-starter in the zero emission game. Hydrogen from water is even LESS cost effective. Water itself is going to be a difficult commodity in the coming years.

Should batteries reach $100/kWh in the near term, i think its already lights out for hydrogen for mass private transport. Should charge rates only double or triple from today's 1C - 2C, i think the majority of the population will gladly take up EV's.

The quick charging infrastructure will take care of itself with millions of cars without the daunting cost of a hydrogen one.

The electricty production will also take care of itself like it did with air conditioning and other increased demands. Whatever increase in electricity is required, that increase is larger to compensate for an equivalent hydrogen world.

My money is on BEV's for 2050.

NOTE: none of my musings have anything to do with what many huge auto manufacturers will actually do. I'm confident that Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Daimler/Mercedes, GM, BMW, Ford and probably others will be at the hydrogen trough, leasing compliance level quantities of hydrogen cars that get crushed at the end.

Thanks for the words. Unfortunately, your plan's a non-starter because BEVs cannot replace all vehicles at any price even if we could make enough batteries. Yes, if battery prices come down to $100/kWh in the 'near term' then maybe more Americans will be able to buy a BEV commuter car. But that still doesn't cover the class 4/5/6 vehicles (work trucks, delivery vans, school buses), or most that lives in cold climates (most of the north and central US) and the very hot areas. Additionally, if we want to work with projections, fuel cell stack prices are expected to drop much faster than battery prices, so if batteries get to $100/kWh, fuel cells will be less expensive for the same capability.

I do agree with you with regards to fossil fuel conversion - but we don't need to convert natural gas even if that was a sustainable option. I don't see water as a limiting factor. Thanks again.

 

[DaveEV]

Well no, because there's the little matter of first buying a $70k car instead of a $24k one. Once we can buy 200 mile range BEVs for say $30k, then it will be cheaper. Of course, Prius' or similar will also be cheaper and get better mileage by then, but gas prices will presumably be higher as well.

And how does a FCEV made of unobtainium help us here?

Yes, if battery prices come down to $100/kWh in the 'near term' then maybe more Americans will be able to buy a BEV commuter car. But that still doesn't cover the class 4/5/6 vehicles (work trucks, delivery vans, school buses), or most that lives in cold climates (most of the north and central US) and the very hot areas.

BEVs work just fine for heavier vehicles - for example, BYD has a very good electric bus with well over 200 miles of range

BYD electric bus logs 746 miles in 24h period

As far as heavy duty trucks (class 7-8) - I don't see that anyone really objects to fuel cells for that particular application, especially considering that routes are typically well defined and refueling infrastructure would be significantly easier to satisfy.

I'm not sure why you think that cold/heat is an issue for BEVs - heated seats, steering wheels and windshields with a heat-pump solves any issues with the cold and heat is a non issue (provided you have a heat resistant chemistry and TMS if necessary!).

 

[TonyWilliams]

Well no, because there's the little matter of first buying a $70k car instead of a $24k one. Once we can buy 200 mile range BEVs for say $30k, then it will be cheaper. Of course, Prius' or similar will also be cheaper and get better mileage by then, but gas prices will presumably be higher as well.

And how does a FCEV made of unobtainium help us here?

Yes, if battery prices come down to $100/kWh in the 'near term' then maybe more Americans will be able to buy a BEV commuter car. But that still doesn't cover the class 4/5/6 vehicles (work trucks, delivery vans, school buses), or most that lives in cold climates (most of the north and central US) and the very hot areas.

BEVs work just fine for heavier vehicles - for example, BYD has a very good electric bus with well over 200 miles of range

BYD electric bus logs 746 miles in 24h period

As far as heavy duty trucks (class 7-8) - I don't see that anyone really objects to fuel cells for that particular application, especially considering that routes are typically well defined and refueling infrastructure would be significantly easier to satisfy.

I'm not sure why you think that cold/heat is an issue for BEVs - heated seats, steering wheels and windshields with a heat-pump solves any issues with the cold and heat is a non issue (provided you have a heat resistant chemistry and TMS if necessary!).

I rode around in the BYD bus in London. AWESOME... a seamless replacement for diesel, and I doubt anybody on the bus even realized it wasn't diesel.

BYD Bus photos

 

[AndyH]

I rode around in the BYD bus in London. AWESOME... a seamless replacement for diesel, and I doubt anybody on the bus even realized it wasn't diesel.

BYD Bus photos

<snips>

Cool report - thanks! We've talked about these buses on the board before and they're a great option if they meet mission requirements. But they're majorly expensive and heavily subsidized as well.

Since we seem to have a lot of trouble understanding the scope of transportation, let's limit the view to buses for a minute. We have major metropolitan area bus routes, we have feeder routes to the 'burbs, we have school buses in both conditions, and we have Greyhound/Trailways types of long-haul buses. They operate from Miami and S Texas to Maine, N Dakota (even in the winter...) and Seattle.

Which services can and cannot be served by BEV tech at any price, and which can be served by FCEV?

 

[GRA]

Well no, because there's the little matter of first buying a $70k car instead of a $24k one. Once we can buy 200 mile range BEVs for say $30k, then it will be cheaper. Of course, Prius' or similar will also be cheaper and get better mileage by then, but gas prices will presumably be higher as well.

And how does a FCEV made of unobtainium help us here?

What unobtainium? One's here now, two more next year, and others will undoubtedly follow. They're still too expensive, but dropping. At the moment, if you want a long range BEV or FCEV, you'd better have an income that can afford a $70k or more car.

<snip>

I'm not sure why you think that cold/heat is an issue for BEVs - heated seats, steering wheels and windshields with a heat-pump solves any issues with the cold and heat is a non issue (provided you have a heat resistant chemistry and TMS if necessary!).

Heat pumps aren't going to help for single-digit F and below temps. Agreed on the need for TMS at the moment, plus parking receptacles for heating in the northern tier states.

 

[GRA]

From ABG:

"Affordable hydrogen will require fracking, cheap natural gas"

http://green.autoblog.com/2014/08/14/affordable-hydrogen-will-require-fracking-cheap-natural-gas/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Study the article is based on is here:

http://steps.ucdavis.edu/files/08-13-2014-08-13-2014-NextSTEPS-White-Paper-Hydrogen-Transition-7.29.2014.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just starting to read it, but here's the abstract:

Abstract

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) experienced a surge of interest in the early
2000s due to their potential to provide significant reductions in greenhouse gas
and criteria air pollution, quick acceleration, fast refill, long range and ability to
use a fuel (hydrogen) derived from domestic energy resources. However, public
interest waned by the late 2000s as FCVs did not materialize in the showrooms
and plug-in battery vehicles began entering the commercial market. The
perception was that hydrogen was too difficult, and would not appear for several
decades, if at all. However, in the past few years, important factors have emerged
that are re-accelerating the commercialization of hydrogen and fuel cell
technologies.

These include sustained automaker development of FCVs resulting
in lower component and vehicle costs and better performance and durability,
sophisticated new infrastructure strategies, the rise of public private partnerships
for FCV rollout, increase in public support, low-cost natural gas, Zero Emission
Vehicle (ZEV) and carbon policies and interest in hydrogen for storing renewable
electricity.

The next two to three years will see concerted efforts to introduce hundreds of
hydrogen stations capable of supporting tens of thousands of FCVs
in selected regions worldwide, backed by several hundred million dollars in public
investment and billions of dollars in private investment. If these regional rollouts
succeed, hydrogen FCVs might be just a few years behind plug-in vehicles in the
commercialization process, and might ultimately capture a larger share of the light
duty vehicle market.

This paper presents an analysis of the issues surrounding a transition to large-
scale use of hydrogen. We examine the current status of hydrogen vehicle and
infrastructure technologies, and ongoing early commercialization efforts. Drawing
on developments in California, the US, Europe and Asia, both near term and long
term transition issues are discussed. These include managing the early
introduction of hydrogen vehicles and associated infrastructure, and
accomplishing a longer term transition to low carbon sources for hydrogen such
as renewables and hydrocarbons with carbon capture and sequestration. We
discuss what kinds of policies are now in place, the roles of different stakeholders
in various regions, and what future policies might be needed to catalyze
introduction of hydrogen and FCVs.