Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[GRA]

But you're right, they are expensive and suck up government funds As, of course, are/do BEVs and their still all-too often balky and incomplete public infrastructure.

According this article, CA allocated $46.6M to build 28 H2 stations and $5M for 175 EV charging stations. That is $1.66M per H2 station versus $28K per BEV station, a ratio of 58:1. In other words, the fueling infrastructure costs are hardly comparable.

Didn't say they were. OTOH, subsidies to consumers to buy BEVs to date have been far higher. As for R&D support, BEVs specifically and batteries generally as well as fuel cells have been sucking at the government teat for decades. I don't know which is higher, but it's certainly in the hundreds of millions and more likely billions for both of them.

I couldn't help noticing the following current threads, 3 years and 9 months after the introduction of the LEAF and Volt:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=18046" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=17929" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yep, QCs continue to have reliability problems. And I don't expect that to change anytime soon. When I charge my LEAF at a QC station, relays click away while the session is negotiated. It doesn't give me an impression the stations are designed for long life. But Tesla has apparently developed a working approach.

Note, however the important difference: QCs for BEVs enhance their capabilities but for many applications they are not essential since the vehicles can be charged at home. This becomes more true as range is increased. For FCVs, the extremely-expensive H2 fueling infrastructure is essential for any application.

Yes, and like gas stations they must achieve an adequate level of reliability or the technology will fail for that reason. While I have no doubt that there will be some teething issues, do you believe there are any technical showstoppers that are likely to make the fueling systems too unreliable? ISTM most of the major components are well established as far as compression, storage and fueling go; the biggest technical issue on the fueling side I'm aware of was developing an accurate enough meter for billing. I suspect it's at the production end of things that cost and technical issues are likely to be more problematic.

 

[ydnas7]

do you believe there are any technical showstoppers that are likely to make the fueling systems too unreliable?

in as far as cost and reliability are inversely co-related.

Transitioning from ambient 350bar to -40C 700bar H2 probably has an effect of both doubling the cost per car refill and decreasing reliability.

Why doesn't Gov Brown just lease out free Teslas S-60, its cheaper than H2 infrastructure?

 

[Stoaty]

Didn't say they were. OTOH, subsidies to consumers to buy BEVs to date have been far higher. As for R&D support, BEVs specifically and batteries generally as well as fuel cells have been sucking at the government teat for decades. I don't know which is higher, but it's certainly in the hundreds of millions and more likely billions for both of them.

That would still pale when compared to fossil fuel subsidies (tax breaks, wars).

 

[RegGuheert]

In other words, the fueling infrastructure costs are hardly comparable.

Didn't say they were.

No, but you implied it by making a qualitative argument when a quantitative one is necessary.

OTOH, subsidies to consumers to buy BEVs to date have been far higher.

Again, you are trying to imply something which is false by leaving out the significant details. I'll keep filling them in. Subsidies for BEVs are much lower on a per-vehicle basis because they are much more viable solutions. As pointed out many times before, BEVs are already fully viable without ANY subsidies for some significant applications like commuting. FCVs will likely NEVER attain that status because they will always be in the shadows of BEVs, at least outside of fleet operations.

As for R&D support, BEVs specifically and batteries generally as well as fuel cells have been sucking at the government teat for decades. I don't know which is higher, but it's certainly in the hundreds of millions and more likely billions for both of them.

And the investments into BEV technology are bearing much fruit. Whether or not FCVs can find their niche before it is filled by other technologies is a fully open question. They are not close to being able to stand on their own right now. Maybe they will get there in the future, maybe not. But for the CA government and a couple of manufacturers to say they are at the deployment stage is laughable when you look at total costs compared with other technologies. And the environmental benefits are dubious, at best, particularly when fossil fuels are used to produce the fuel.

Yes, and like gas stations they must achieve an adequate level of reliability or the technology will fail for that reason.

Gas stations are trivial by comparison. QC stations for BEVs are also trivial by comparison. Unfortunately, outside of Tesla, the proper level of engineering and quality control has not yet been applied to QC stations. They will get there, just as the 100kW inverter in the LEAF has been made extremely durable and reliable.

While I have no doubt that there will be some teething issues, do you believe there are any technical showstoppers that are likely to make the fueling systems too unreliable?

You can keep trying to inject qualitative arguments where quantitative ones are required for proper judgement, but I will continue to call you on it. The issue is not whether or not there are any "show stoppers" with H2 refueling. The issue is that the PER VEHICLE COST of refueling infrastructure is an order of magnitude higher for FCVs than for BEVs. This additional cost comes from three main areas:
1) Installation cost (We've already covered that.)
2) Maintenance cost (As ydnas7 said, extremely complex equipment operated at extreme environmental conditions will be less reliable than simpler equipment operated in less stressful conditions. And the repairs will cost more and take longer to accomplish than for quick chargers.)
3) Many more H2 refueling stations are required per FCV on the road than per BEV. (This fact is non-obvious, but it is a major issue facing FCVs. And it is multiplicative on top of the first two issues. Simply put, the vast majority of the fuel delivered to BEVs will come from L2 charging infrastructure, not L3. On the extreme end, some BEVs today and in the future NEVER require a quick charge. In fact, some do not even have the option. But very few BEVs will rely exclusively on QCs for fuel. This will be true even for apartment dwellers. How do we know? Because L2 charging is both cheaper and more convenient than L3. This multiplicative factor could have been greatly reduced by putting large batteries and plugs on FCVs. But the manufacturers have failed to do that. This poor design decision will doom the current crop of FCVs to last place in the sphere of vehicle choices. It is also more evidence that these vehicles are designed to game the clean-credits system rather than produce a viable vehicle choice. In other words, a FCV without a plug is simply a compliance car designed to collect govenment subsidies and avoid government penalties.)

The bottom line is that FCVs cannot compete with BEVs in ANY of the significant cost areas:
- Manufacturing cost
- Fueling infrastructure costs
- Fuel costs

The convenience, low cost and availability of L2 charging will ensure that BEVs are nearly always preferable to FCVs outside of fleet operations. In fleet applications where high duty cycle and extremely fast turnarounds are required, FCVs may have a long, successful future. But only time will tell.

So, let's not try to put the square peg in the round hole. When the government tries to do that, the costs go though the roof and money that should have stayed in the pockets of consumers is wasted on boondoggle efforts.

FCVs for trucking, anyone?

 

[hill]

do you believe there are any technical showstoppers that are likely to make the fueling systems too unreliable?

in as far as cost and reliability are inversely co-related.

Transitioning from ambient 350bar to -40C 700bar H2 probably has an effect of both doubling the cost per car refill and decreasing reliability.

Why doesn't Gov Brown just lease out free Teslas S-60, its cheaper than H2 infrastructure?

Um - because the FC lobby throws a ton of money at both parties' election / re-election campaigns? As for show stoppers - was the original question discounting huge costs & low number of cars that can be refilled per day? (IIRC, the UCI station has a max of around 7 cars it could do per day).
.

 

[GRA]

In other words, the fueling infrastructure costs are hardly comparable.

Didn't say they were.

No, but you implied it by making a qualitative argument when a quantitative one is necessary.

OTOH, subsidies to consumers to buy BEVs to date have been far higher.

Again, you are trying to imply something which is false by leaving out the significant details. I'll keep filling them in. Subsidies for BEVs are much lower on a per-vehicle basis because they are much more viable solutions. As pointed out many times before, BEVs are already fully viable without ANY subsidies for some significant applications like commuting. FCVs will likely NEVER attain that status because they will always be in the shadows of BEVs, at least outside of fleet operations.

I really don't want to go around this particular tree yet again with you Reg, but here goes. Viable for who? Not the people who expect or need ICE comparable capability from their EVs. As long as you've got to bribe people to buy a product, it's not commercially viable no matter how well if may fit their real needs as _others_ perceive them. As I've said before, if BEVs are fully viable for commuting now, then the justification for subsidies is completely gone, and you should be decrying all the money being spent by the federal and state governments to continue doing so. As it is, we know from a survey that those same subsidies were very/extremely important for over 70% of BEV purchasers in California, and these were people who had far higher incomes than the median family. No one outside of the true believers is going to pay $27k sans subsidies for a car that only goes 80 miles, if with current gas prices they can buy the same car with an ICE for $12-16k and be able to go four times further, and not break even on cost for more years than most people keep a new car.

As for R&D support, BEVs specifically and batteries generally as well as fuel cells have been sucking at the government teat for decades. I don't know which is higher, but it's certainly in the hundreds of millions and more likely billions for both of them.

And the investments into BEV technology are bearing much fruit. Whether or not FCVs can find their niche before it is filled by other technologies is a fully open question. They are not close to being able to stand on their own right now. Maybe they will get there in the future, maybe not. But for the CA government and a couple of manufacturers to say they are at the deployment stage is laughable when you look at total costs compared with other technologies. And the environmental benefits are dubious, at best, particularly when fossil fuels are used to produce the fuel.

Neither BEVs or FCEVs are currently viable now on a mass market basis (Tesla having a small niche at the luxury end) without subsidy. We agree that fossil-fuel based H2 production is currently of dubious benefit, but then the requirement is to move from 33% to 100% renewables. FCEVs are judged to be about 5 years behind BEVs in development timescale, which means they're right about where the Tesla Roadster was when it was launched, but have far bigger engineering departments behind them.

Yes, and like gas stations they must achieve an adequate level of reliability or the technology will fail for that reason.

Gas stations are trivial by comparison. QC stations for BEVs are also trivial by comparison. Unfortunately, outside of Tesla, the proper level of engineering and quality control has not yet been applied to QC stations. They will get there, just as the 100kW inverter in the LEAF has been made extremely durable and reliable.

While I have no doubt that there will be some teething issues, do you believe there are any technical showstoppers that are likely to make the fueling systems too unreliable?

You can keep trying to inject qualitative arguments where quantitative ones are required for proper judgement, but I will continue to call you on it.

Feel free, but please answer my question. To repeat, do you believe there are any overwhelming technical issues that will prevent retail H2 refueling from being adequately reliable?

The issue is not whether or not there are any "show stoppers" with H2 refueling.

On the contrary, Reg, if it can't be done technically that makes all other questions moot. If it can be done, then the cost of same moves to the fore.

The issue is that the PER VEHICLE COST of refueling infrastructure is an order of magnitude higher for FCVs than for BEVs. This additional cost comes from three main areas:
1) Installation cost (We've already covered that.)
2) Maintenance cost (As ydnas7 said, extremely complex equipment operated at extreme environmental conditions will be less reliable than simpler equipment operated in less stressful conditions. And the repairs will cost more and take longer to accomplish than for quick chargers.)

Which is one of the reasons that the state is also paying for a mobile refueling station, to cover outages while they move up the learning curve.

3) Many more H2 refueling stations are required per FCV on the road than per BEV. (This fact is non-obvious, but it is a major issue facing FCVs. And it is multiplicative on top of the first two issues. Simply put, the vast majority of the fuel delivered to BEVs will come from L2 charging infrastructure, not L3. On the extreme end, some BEVs today and in the future NEVER require a quick charge. In fact, some do not even have the option. But very few BEVs will rely exclusively on QCs for fuel. This will be true even for apartment dwellers. How do we know? Because L2 charging is both cheaper and more convenient than L3. This multiplicative factor could have been greatly reduced by putting large batteries and plugs on FCVs. But the manufacturers have failed to do that. This poor design decision will doom the current crop of FCVs to last place in the sphere of vehicle choices. It is also more evidence that these vehicles are designed to game the clean-credits system rather than produce a viable vehicle choice. In other words, a FCV without a plug is simply a compliance car designed to collect government subsidies and avoid government penalties.)

On the contrary, I think the decision not to put plugs and bigger batteries on the current generation of FCHVs (which they all are) is the correct one. I think it will take another generation of reducing the size, weight and cost of fuel cells and batteries before turning them into PHFCEVs will make sense. Note that I'm speaking of Volt type passenger EREVs with the ICE replaced by a fuel cell here, not commercial delivery PHFCEVs such as the French mail vans, which appear to be more of an i3 analog, and where more space is available in any case.

As for the number of fueling stations required, if we could build the gas station infrastructure in this country I have no doubt that we can build an H2 station infrastructure likewise, especially since many of them will undoubtedly be at currently operating or closed gas stations. Costs will have to come down, naturally.

The bottom line is that FCVs cannot compete with BEVs in ANY of the significant cost areas:
- Manufacturing cost

Still dropping far more rapidly than for BEVs.

- Fueling infrastructure costs

See above.

- Fuel costs
Definitely an issue, especially with current low gas prices, which also make all AFVs including BEVs a hard sell.

The convenience, low cost and availability of L2 charging will ensure that BEVs are nearly always preferable to FCVs outside of fleet operations. In fleet applications where high duty cycle and extremely fast turnarounds are required, FCVs may have a long, successful future. But only time will tell.

Again, convenience advantages for who? Not apartment dwellers or renters.

So, let's not try to put the square peg in the round hole. When the government tries to do that, the costs go though the roof and money that should have stayed in the pockets of consumers is wasted on boondoggle efforts.

FCVs for trucking, anyone?

I agree, Reg. For starters, I want all the money that the government is spending on AFVs and their infrastructure to be returned to cities, so that it can be spent on densification via mixed-use infill, improving pedestrian and bicycling access and transit. The most important changes we can make that would benefit the environment are to reduce VMT, make our living spaces smaller and more easily heated, and make sure all the services we need are within easy walking, biking and transit distance. Hoping that AFVs will make sprawl sustainable is _so_ twentieth century.

Edit: Happy to see this article at GCR,

Car Ownership Rates Plunge In European Cities; Smartphones More Important

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1094590_car-ownership-rates-plunge-in-european-cities-smartphones-more-important" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Reg, we've been around this particular argument and have repeated the same points, by my estimate, at least 5 or 6 times, and I'm done. If you can't be convinced by the info that Andy and I have provided that FCEVs are worth backing for a while longer, even if only as a Plan B if BEVs don't make it, then that's fine. I believe it is worth doing at the level California, Japan and Germany are doing, until I'm convinced that BEVs, FCEVs, both or neither can fully replace the capabilities of ICEs at a price people can afford. Until then, I remain agnostic between the two techs.

 

[GRA]

Via GCC:

ORNL study finds best current use of natural gas for cars is efficient production of electricity for EVs

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/09/20140924-onrl.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nothing we didn't already know, but they did compare a wide range of techs.

 

[RegGuheert]

The issue is not whether or not there are any "show stoppers" with H2 refueling.

On the contrary, Reg, if it can't be done technically that makes all other questions moot. If it can be done, then the cost of same moves to the fore.

There is no question that fuel cells provide a technical solution and that they can be refueled. You need to move on and argue the real point, which is cost, both economic an environmental.

Keep asserting that ICEs are cheaper for all applications and I will keep pointing out that BEVs are already cheaper for some applications and that set of applications is growing as time goes on. Subsidies only impact the number of the applications where they are cheaper. Like it or not, the transition to BEVs has begun and subsidies only affect the rate of adoption. The argument that says "subsidies exist therefore it is not a viable technology" is a non sequitur argument. Subsidies still exist for PV on my house, yet I can install a system today for $0.07/kWh BEFORE SUBSIDIES versus paying $0.12/kWh for grid electricity with simple net metering. I also pay a monthly connection fee of $10.00, just like all subscribers, so it is not as if I am not paying for my portion of the grid and administration costs.

I will repeat:

FCVs cannot compete with BEVs in ANY of the significant cost areas:
- Manufacturing cost
- Fueling infrastructure costs
- Fuel costs

There is NO crossover point for fueling infrastructure costs or fuel costs, so BEVs will always win there. While there is a possibility of a crossover point in manufacturing costs, the differences today are so great that it is extremely unlikely. And even if that happens in a couple of decades, the issue of fuel efficiency will always result in BEVs being the best overall solution for the environment and the economy.

The simple conclusion is that FCVs are NOT the end-game for transportation, BEVs are, since they are the solution with the lowest overall costs and also the lowest impact to the environment. FCVs need not apply for any task that a BEV can handle, which includes most personal transportation tasks. Because FCVs are so much more expensive than BEVs, the opportunity cost of funding their deployment today is huge: many more BEVs could be fielded with the same government expenditure. As a simple result, each time the government spends so much money to put an FCV on the road, they do significant damage to the environment through the massive expenditure of resources, but they also cause many more ICEs to be put on the roads that would have otherwise been replaced by efficient BEVs.

FCVs are NOT the same as BEVs, no matter how many times you and AndyH say it. Right now, an FCV is perhaps the most environmentally- and economically-costly personal-transportation vehicle you can put on the road. Deploying such a costly solution is ludicrous.

But really, GRA, you appear to be here to argue against all cars, as you have in this and many threads. Please make your own thread for that. By painting BEVs and FCVs with the same brush as you like to do, you really are promoting status quo and ultimately more damage to the environment.

 

[Stoaty]

The simple conclusion is that FCVs are NOT the end-game for transportation, BEVs are, since they are the solution with the lowest overall costs and also the lowest impact to the environment. FCVs need not apply for any task that a BEV can handle, which includes most personal transportation tasks. Because FCVs are so much more expensive than BEVs, the opportunity cost of funding their deployment today is huge: many more BEVs could be fielded with the same government expenditure. As a simple result, each time the government spends so much money to put an FCV on the road, they do significant damage to the environment through the massive expenditure of resources, but they also cause many more ICEs to be put on the roads that would have otherwise been replaced by efficient BEVs.

[Rest of post snipped for brevity]

FCVs are NOT the same as BEVs, no matter how many times you and AndyH say it. Right now, an FCV is perhaps the most environmentally- and economically-costly personal-transportation vehicle you can put on the road. Deploying such a costly solution is ludicrous.

Masterfully stated, best post on the subject.

 

[AndyH]

The issue is not whether or not there are any "show stoppers" with H2 refueling.

On the contrary, Reg, if it can't be done technically that makes all other questions moot. If it can be done, then the cost of same moves to the fore.

There is no question that fuel cells provide a technical solution and that they can be refueled. You need to move on and argue the real point, which is cost, both economic an environmental.

Keep asserting that ICEs are cheaper for all applications and I will keep pointing out that BEVs are already cheaper for some applications and that set of applications is growing as time goes on. Subsidies only impact the number of the applications where they are cheaper. Like it or not, the transition to BEVs has begun and subsidies only affect the rate of adoption. The argument that says "subsidies exist therefore it is not a viable technology" is a non sequitur argument. Subsidies still exist for PV on my house, yet I can install a system today for $0.07/kWh BEFORE SUBSIDIES versus paying $0.12/kWh for grid electricity with simple net metering. I also pay a monthly connection fee of $10.00, just like all subscribers, so it is not as if I am not paying for my portion of the grid and administration costs.

I will repeat:

FCVs cannot compete with BEVs in ANY of the significant cost areas:
- Manufacturing cost
- Fueling infrastructure costs
- Fuel costs

There is NO crossover point for fueling infrastructure costs or fuel costs, so BEVs will always win there. While there is a possibility of a crossover point in manufacturing costs, the differences today are so great that it is extremely unlikely. And even if that happens in a couple of decades, the issue of fuel efficiency will always result in BEVs being the best overall solution for the environment and the economy.

The simple conclusion is that FCVs are NOT the end-game for transportation, BEVs are, since they are the solution with the lowest overall costs and also the lowest impact to the environment. FCVs need not apply for any task that a BEV can handle, which includes most personal transportation tasks. Because FCVs are so much more expensive than BEVs, the opportunity cost of funding their deployment today is huge: many more BEVs could be fielded with the same government expenditure. As a simple result, each time the government spends so much money to put an FCV on the road, they do significant damage to the environment through the massive expenditure of resources, but they also cause many more ICEs to be put on the roads that would have otherwise been replaced by efficient BEVs.

FCVs are NOT the same as BEVs, no matter how many times you and AndyH say it. Right now, an FCV is perhaps the most environmentally- and economically-costly personal-transportation vehicle you can put on the road. Deploying such a costly solution is ludicrous.

But really, GRA, you appear to be here to argue against all cars, as you have in this and many threads. Please make your own thread for that. By painting BEVs and FCVs with the same brush as you like to do, you really are promoting status quo and ultimately more damage to the environment.

Show me the numbers, Reg. I want to see side-by-side embodied energy for at least similar BEV and FCEV. I want to see support for your statement that FCEV have a higher environmental impact through "expenditure of resources" as well.

I can keep repeating that camel flatulence is 427x more efficient than any BEV, but it's still BS.

As for the rest of your belief system, nobody is suggesting this is a battle 'between' BEV and FCEV - I know I've told you many times that is incorrect. And I cited sources. The fact remains that the synergies between renewable generation, H2 storage, and replacing ALL ground transportation with electric modes - which includes both BEV and FCEV - make this system the most efficient on the planet. BEV charging requires electricity. In our getting closer faster fossil-fuel-free future, BEVs are not usable when the grid goes down - even for you and others with PV on the roof - when the grid drops you cannot charge a BEV. System efficiency is more important than the efficiency of any single component because we live in an interconnected system of interdependent systems! That's f'n important!

 

[finman100]

really? and H2 production will magically continue when the 'grid goes down'? please.

It's just these type of remarks that don't help an H2 case. a case where somehow an energy carrier (hydrogen) is better than the all the energy required to make it do what we want to do with it.

NONE of the hydrogen hype makes ANY sense. I really wish those with the money to throw at this could focus on a REAL solution: taking the damn electricity and power our cars. done. no compressing this or separating that molecule or transporting tanks and sifting it thru a membrane. Jesus, what are we thinking? Simple will always win out...unless the public can be fooled. Okay, so that is one way to get H2 jammed down our throats as better. Keep repeating the BS, ignoring the important details that make H2 a non-winner compared to an EV. Ohhh, I see where this is going...

My rant that will continue due to the fact that it needs to be.

 

[AndyH]

really? and H2 production will magically continue when the 'grid goes down'? please.

It's just these type of remarks that don't help an H2 case. a case where somehow an energy carrier (hydrogen) is better than the all the energy required to make it do what we want to do with it.

NONE of the hydrogen hype makes ANY sense. I really wish those with the money to throw at this could focus on a REAL solution: taking the damn electricity and power our cars. done. no compressing this or separating that molecule or transporting tanks and sifting it thru a membrane. Jesus, what are we thinking? Simple will always win out...unless the public can be fooled. Okay, so that is one way to get H2 jammed down our throats as better. Keep repeating the BS, ignoring the important details that make H2 a non-winner compared to an EV. Ohhh, I see where this is going...

My rant that will continue due to the fact that it needs to be.

Finman - there are examples in this thread - supported by sources that are actually doing just this today. Extra credit if you skim the thread and find them. Hint: They include videos - that'll help them stand out.

 

[AndyH]

An open letter to the anti-FCEV folks and/or those that believe that item efficiency is more important to systems efficiency.

Reducing wholes to parts, i.e. "reductionism," lies at the core of the scientific worldview we inherited from Galileo, Bacon, Descartes, and their modern acolytes in the sciences of economics, efficiency, and management. For a time, reductionism worked scientific, technological, and economic miracles. But, as we gained in power, wealth, speed, convenience, apparent control over nature, and self-confidence, we paid a considerable price that Faust (Marlowe's - not Goethe's) would have recognized. Like Faust, we were short-termers, discounting long-term costs and risks that could have been seen only from a systems perspective. The results are dumbfounding. In record time, we have shredded whole ecosystems, acidified the oceans, killed off entire species, squandered topsoil, leveled forests, and changed the chemistry of the atmosphere. "We are," in Edward Hoagland's words, "still part-chimpanzee with double degrees in trial and error," In the real world, things bite back, there are tipping points, surprises, emergent properties, step-level changes, time delays, and unpredictable and catastrophic "black swan" events with long-lasting global effects. To anticipate and avoid such things requires a mind-set capable of seeing connections, patterns, and systems structure, as well as a sightline far beyond the quarterly balance sheet or the next election. Wisdom begins with the awareness that we live amidst complexities that we can never fully comprehend let alone control.

The upshot is that, despite a great deal of talk about systems, we continue to administer, organize, analyze, manage, and govern complex ecological systems as it they were a collection of isolated parts and not an indissoluble union of energy, water, soils, land, forest, biota, and air. The idea of sustainability would seem to imply that the remedy is a systems approach to environmental management, but the reality is otherwise. Efforts toward sustainability are also fragmented into particular issues of energy, agriculture, air pollution, water pollution, forestry, green building, and so forth so that the parts support no larger whole. Yet, the biosphere and its constituent ecosystems are indifferent to mere human convenience and illusions, unforgiving of hubris, and remorseless in exacting their due. As someone once said, "God may forgive our sins, but nature won't."

David Orr, "Systems Thinking and the Future of Cities", Solutions magazine Mar/Apr 14

The Third Industrial Revolution and the other systems that underpin this CA H2 project are supported by systems awareness and are examples of systems efficiency and system-level resource efficiency. In the same way that Einstein reminds us that we cannot solve a problem from the same mindset that created it, I'm not surprised that a group composed primarily of reductionists is having trouble wrapping their world-view around something better. We can do better than the chimpanzee - and I hope we start sooner rather than later, 'cause this planet's not getting any cooler...

 

[finman100]

wow. that is some kind of BS. We are in trouble.

I'll go look for "creating hydrogen with no electricity" and laugh. Grid is down, but here we are creating wasteful hydrogen when the "magic" could be powering our cars.

I guess put me in the non-believer camp on this one, sorry. Laws of physics and such be damned.

again, just my opinion.

 

[AndyH]

wow. that is some kind of BS. We are in trouble.

I'll go look for "creating hydrogen with no electricity" and laugh. Grid is down, but here we are creating wasteful hydrogen when the "magic" could be powering our cars.

I guess put me in the non-believer camp on this one, sorry. Laws of physics and such be damned.

again, just my opinion.

So what you're saying is that you'd prefer to hide behind your beliefs rather than find fact? You'd rather assume you understand rather than actually look at the source material? You'd rather create a myth, falsely attribute it to me, then suggest that there's a law of physics that 'proves' your belief that one cannot refuel a FCEV when the power grid's down? And somehow that's my fault?

Then I'll agree - we are in trouble.

 

[Stoaty]

In a 3 part series, Joe Romm at Climate Progress analyzes FCEV prospects. He is very well qualified (look him up on Wikipedia):

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/05/3467115/tesla-toyota-hydrogen-cars-batteries/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/13/3467289/tesla-toyota-hydrogen-car/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/25/3470965/toyota-tesla-electric-vehicles-hydrogen-cars/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hint: FCEV prospects are dim compared to BEV

 

[smkettner]

Either format has to sell to be successful. I just do not see the fan base for FCVs vs EVs.
Even if the price was equal I don't see the demand. People will just keep driving ICE over FCV. JMHO
I hope it works but I have doubts. I don't need experts and research to see the popularity of a lead balloon.
It will be a race to see who can lose the most money.... California vs Toyota.

 

[AndyH]

In a 3 part series, Joe Romm at Climate Progress analyzes FCEV prospects. He is very well qualified (look him up on Wikipedia):

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/05/3467115/tesla-toyota-hydrogen-cars-batteries/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/13/3467289/tesla-toyota-hydrogen-car/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/25/3470965/toyota-tesla-electric-vehicles-hydrogen-cars/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hint: FCEV prospects are dim compared to BEV

Yeah, we've read his book - reviews and comments earlier in the thread. TLR About 95% of what he wrote in 2004 no longer applies.

These articles are little more than his personal opinions and a rehash of his 2004 book. A lot has happened in the world since 2004 - including the wholesale adoption of H2 for renewable energy storage and fueling FCEV across the EU.

It's 2014, guys - the first FCEVs are shipping now and more will be flowing on schedule in 2015 and 2016. More BEVs will be as well. Together, they can get us off gasoline and diesel AND store renewable energy AND stabilize the power grid AND help us reset the atmosphere so we can live long enough to save money to possibly buy a used Model S. BEVs alone cannot perform all of those functions, nor can FCEV alone. BEVs alone cannot replace all of our transportation requirements - BEV+FCEV can. There is not battery manufacturing on the planet - even after the third GigaFactory goes on-line - to make enough battery packs for 200 mile BEVs - but there IS enough battery manufacturing capability for FCEV.

The list of synergies is long. Unfortunately so is blindness.

 

[Stoaty]

Yeah, we've read his book - reviews and comments earlier in the thread. TLR About 95% of what he wrote in 2004 no longer applies.

These articles are little more than his personal opinions and a rehash of his 2004 book. A lot has happened in the world since 2004 - including the wholesale adoption of H2 for renewable energy storage and fueling FCEV across the EU.

No the article is based on the latest research, which shows that while lifecycle GHG emissions are equal for BEV and FCEV powered by hydrogen from renewable energy, the FCEV is grossly inefficient, requiring twice as much electricity as BEV. See here:

http://www.apep.uci.edu/3/Research/pdf/SustainableTransportation/WTW_vehicle_greenhouse_gases_Public.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We aren't going to have enough renewable energy to be able to afford to waste half of it.

 

[AndyH]

Yeah, we've read his book - reviews and comments earlier in the thread. TLR About 95% of what he wrote in 2004 no longer applies.

These articles are little more than his personal opinions and a rehash of his 2004 book. A lot has happened in the world since 2004 - including the wholesale adoption of H2 for renewable energy storage and fueling FCEV across the EU.

No the article is based on the latest research, which shows that while lifecycle GHG emissions are equal for BEV and FCEV powered by hydrogen from renewable energy, the FCEV is grossly inefficient, requiring twice as much electricity as BEV. See here:

http://www.apep.uci.edu/3/Research/pdf/SustainableTransportation/WTW_vehicle_greenhouse_gases_Public.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We aren't going to have enough renewable energy to be able to afford to waste half of it.

Yup - that paper's been referenced numerous times here as well. It's only one piece of a complex puzzle. Synergy means the whole is more than the sum of the parts. System > piece. (Did you happen to notice that the well to wheels emissions for the BEV charged from 100% RE is EXACTLY THE SAME as the FCEV fueled from both on-site PV electrolysis and central wind/solar and pipeline delivery of H2?)

If you think H2=waste then you really need to educate yourself about the Third Industrial Revolution being implemented in Europe Right Now TODAY (yes, it's covered in gory detail above...). Those articles are nothing more than a rehash of 2004. Look at just one item: 'no way to distribute renewable H2' WTF?! You don't need to 'distribute' H2 that's generated on-site. It's an absurd comment just at this level. When we look to Germany - they're pushing H2 into their natural gas grid - a grid that can store enough fuel to run the entire country for six months of 'no sun, no wind, no hydro, no biomass' conditions! The entire point is utterly and completely bogus.

Also, if you're still stuck on the BS 'efficiency' meme, than either you didn't read or didn't understand what I've been reporting - either on the TIR or on the 'systems' post up a few.

Because of that, there's no point in our continuing. Enjoy your weekend.