Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[Zythryn]

Yeah, what's up with the CHAdeMO port?

I wonder about the price and space comparison between the hydrogen tanks and their structure along with the fuel cell and other associated equipment VS a larger battery pack and charger?

The range of this car is virtually the same as the Tesla. The (real) cost of this car is probably higher than the Tesla. Why didn't Toyota just design a competitor to the Model S?

Tesla wouldn't supply them with any more battery packs

 

[GRA]

This GCC article,

Honda FCV Concept makes world debut in Japan; Power Exporter concept

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/11/honda-fcv-concept-makes-world-debut-in-japan-power-exporter-concept.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

mostly just quotes the same press release as the one in the autoblog article, but does provide some info on the 'Power Exporter' option, a V2H converter. Obviously just a concept, but quite trick, although I wish we had something better to scale it with, or even some dimensions. And I think the Honda concept, while still no great beauty, beats Toyota's car hands-down in the looks department.

Here's another GCC article, which goes into a bit more detail on part of the (very large) DoE report I linked to last week:

DOE reports progress on development of hydrogen storage technologies

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/11/20141117-doeh2storage.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And one more:

European bus manufacturers underline commitment to commercializing fuel cell electric buses

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/11/20141117-fchju.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[GRA]

Via GCR:

2016 Toyota Mirai Priced At $57,500, With $499 Monthly Lease

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1095511_2016-toyota-mirai-priced-at-57500-with-499-monthly-lease" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[GRA]

Via GCR:

Can Fuel-Cell Cars Boost Hyundai's Technology Leadership Image?

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1095482_can-fuel-cell-cars-boost-hyundais-technology-leadership-image" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Like drees I'd also seen the '60 leases up to the end of the year' figure, but can't remember where. It's mentioned again here, so probably it was in an earlier GCR article.


Also, I can't remember if I mentioned upthread that a prize was being offered for the team that develops a home H2 refueling system, but here's some details:

DoE Offers $1 Million Prize For Advances In Small-Scale Hydrogen Fueling For Homes

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1095483_doe-offers-1-million-prize-for-advances-in-small-scale-hydrogen-fueling-for-homes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


And here's one more, which says that Toyota is going to help finance H2 refueling infrastructure in the northeast as well as California:

2016 Toyota Mirai Name For Fuel-Cell Sedan; Hydrogen Station Funds Coming For Northeast (Video)

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1095492_2016-toyota-mirai-name-for-fuel-cell-sedan-hydrogen-station-funds-coming-for-northeast" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[AndyH]

It's exciting to see the CHAdeMO connector and V2H - that appears to be confirmation that these are being fielded as a piece of Reinventing Fire/TIR rather than 'simply' to convert electrons to miles driven. Good progress...not fast enough yet but good progress.

 

[ydnas7]

Yes, in the past 5 years, the platinum requirement has dropped significantly. Nanomaterials work has already dropped it by at least another order of magnitude, possibly two. The power concern would be a factor if the FCEV didn't have a small battery pack, but it does. It uses it for acceleration and to capture regen energy like today's ICE/electric hybrids. So no, there's no power problem with FCEV.

Additionally, that's "about $1200" for 300 miles of range with the heat on and no drop to 80% in 5 years, about $4/mile of range. The EMD, also using your numbers, is about $1.50/mile. That's not a 10x difference in cost. Neither the Leaf nor the Tesla uses a 'carbon' battery, however - how's the price of lithium, manganese, and electrolyte chemistry? The fuel cell stack has no need for these expenses...

Disconnect, aisle 5...

Do you even know what EMD is and how it compares to Pt?

think slowly, the carbon for the source of the electron carrier costs about the same per mile whether it is in a li-ion battery or in a type 4 Hydrogen tank.

the intermediate refined material for a fuel cell is Platinum, the upcoming Toyota Mirai uses about 30grams for a slugish car. refiners sale price is $1,200, market platinum is the precursor to the specialty platinum used in Hydrogen Fuel Cells

an intermediate refined material for a li-ion battery cathode is EMD, a Nissan LEAF uses about 60kg of EMD, refiners sale price is $120. EMD is the precursor to LiMn2O4

taking comparable multiplers, there is an order of magnitude cost difference for power between hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and energy li ion vehicles. there there is also a fixed equivalence for range. The only way for a hydrogen vehicle to be price competitive with a li ion vehicle is for the hydrogen vehicle to have significantly reduce power.

Hyundai Hydrogen Tucson is an example, its Korean price is comparable to the global price of a Tesla P85D
'The hydrogen FCEV market is in a far more dire position. Hyundai Motor Company began the mass production of the Tucson FCEV in February last year, but has sold only 26 units to public organizations since then. The model is priced at approximately 150 million won (US$136,731), and is still expensive even after the 60 million won (US$54,708) government subsidy is accounted for. See more at: http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/article/7274/misdirected-business-hyundai-motor-group-haphazardly-expands-green-car-lineup#sthash.PZbDHX8s.dpuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; '

Nissan LEAF $29k msrp http://www.nissanusa.com/electric-cars/leaf/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Tesla P85D $105k cash price http://www.teslamotors.com/models/design" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[AndyH]

Yes, in the past 5 years, the platinum requirement has dropped significantly. Nanomaterials work has already dropped it by at least another order of magnitude, possibly two. The power concern would be a factor if the FCEV didn't have a small battery pack, but it does. It uses it for acceleration and to capture regen energy like today's ICE/electric hybrids. So no, there's no power problem with FCEV.

Additionally, that's "about $1200" for 300 miles of range with the heat on and no drop to 80% in 5 years, about $4/mile of range. The EMD, also using your numbers, is about $1.50/mile. That's not a 10x difference in cost. Neither the Leaf nor the Tesla uses a 'carbon' battery, however - how's the price of lithium, manganese, and electrolyte chemistry? The fuel cell stack has no need for these expenses...

Disconnect, aisle 5...

Do you even know what EMD is and how it compares to Pt?

think slowly, the carbon for the source of the electron carrier costs about the same per mile whether it is in a li-ion battery or in a type 4 Hydrogen tank.

Next time you feel the need to type "think slowly" feel free to choke it back. Do you really think the cost per mile for a Leaf battery pack is 'about the same' for a ~80 mile Leaf battery and for a ~300 mile FCEV? I suggested that if you want to dig into components that you select vehicles with similar performance and then price all the major pieces. Since that didn't work so well the first time, let's try again: Fuel cell stacks often use carbon plates. They use much more carbon per pound or volume than a battery. They use less aluminum. Most BEV batteries don't use lithium metal, they use lithium salts and in very low volume. There are plenty of other materials used - I look forward to the results of your analysis - especially if you choose to compare/contrast power systems with similar capability.

the intermediate refined material for a fuel cell is Platinum, the upcoming Toyota Mirai uses about 30grams for a slugish car. refiners sale price is $1,200, market platinum is the precursor to the specialty platinum used in Hydrogen Fuel Cells

an intermediate refined material for a li-ion battery cathode is EMD, a Nissan LEAF uses about 60kg of EMD, refiners sale price is $120. EMD is the precursor to LiMn2O4

taking comparable multiplers, there is an order of magnitude cost difference for power between hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and energy li ion vehicles. there there is also a fixed equivalence for range. The only way for a hydrogen vehicle to be price competitive with a li ion vehicle is for the hydrogen vehicle to have significantly reduce power.

Hyundai Hydrogen Tucson is an example, its Korean price is comparable to the global price of a Tesla P85D
'The hydrogen FCEV market is in a far more dire position. Hyundai Motor Company began the mass production of the Tucson FCEV in February last year, but has sold only 26 units to public organizations since then. The model is priced at approximately 150 million won (US$136,731), and is still expensive even after the 60 million won (US$54,708) government subsidy is accounted for. See more at: http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/article/7274/misdirected-business-hyundai-motor-group-haphazardly-expands-green-car-lineup#sthash.PZbDHX8s.dpuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; '

Nissan LEAF $29k msrp http://www.nissanusa.com/electric-cars/leaf/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Tesla P85D $105k cash price http://www.teslamotors.com/models/design" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course the price of the Hyundai is high today - do you think anyone's surprised by that? What was the price of Tesla's first long-range EV again? As we've said many times in this thread - production FCEV are about 5 years behind BEV in terms of the price/performance curve. As we've also said (and backed up with data), the price for fuel cell stacks and tanks is expected to fall much faster than battery pack prices as both technologies are in very different phases of development. Lithium cells are fairly 'old tech' at this point - LiFePO4, for example, has been around since about 1996.

(When you quote sales and/or lease numbers for the Hyundai, please remember that this thread already contains numbers for world-wide delivery - they're not just in service in Korea and California - they're in the UK, Europe and Scandanavia as well. there are well more than 69 fielded.)

I build custom battery packs. I use cells. I have no carbon, no aluminum or copper foil, and no vials of lithium hexafluorophosphate electrolyte. I personally don't care about raw materials or the price of cell rolling machinery. Clearly Tesla does get into that realm, as do the other cell manufacturers. But for our purposes, there's not much benefit trying to calculate the price per mole of battery of fuel cell components when we have ball-park pricing for the entire systems. We drive complete systems, not carbon plates or thin squares of plastic with a dusting of metallic platinum.

I did notice, however, that in spite of the availability of numbers for similarly-performing vehicles, you chose to compare the price of a FCEV with greater than Model S range with the battery price of a Leaf. Do you think that's a reasonable comparison?

Bottom line for you, ydnas7, I think it's very dishonest to censor or disregard vehicle delivery numbers to intentionally (or not) trivialize one tech by comparison, make out of class/out of performance comparisons, or try to obfuscate overall capability by 'baffling with bullshit' about LiMn precursors.

I'd love to see a side-by-side life-cycle embodied energy comparison for a BEV and FCEV with similar range/lifespan numbers. Anyone have that available?

edit...typos marked in blue.

 

[AndyH]

FYI: Here's another example of how the natural gas industry's pushing their product for transportation.

http://www.aacog.com/civicalerts.aspx?AID=588

Posted on: November 18, 2014
ANGP to Demo New Low Pressure Transportation Natural Gas System in San Marcos

Representatives of the Texas Railroad Commission, media and transportation industry will attend a promising presentation demonstrating low-pressure commercial use of natural gas in transportation applications by Adsorbed Natural Gas Products, Inc. (ANGP).

“One of the most challenging hurdles for expanding the use of natural gas in transportation is the ability to safely increase its distribution and on-board storage,” said Texas Railroad Commissioner David Porter. “The low-pressure fuel storage and delivery technology that will be displayed by ANGP is a giant leap forward. The advantages of this new technology are numerous and on the leading edge of improving the use of abundant, domestic, more-affordable natural gas in Texas, the United States and internationally.”

Significantly lower capital needed for fueling infrastructure yielding a minimum 40 percent reduction for most applications.
Superior fueling operational and maintenance economics realizing a savings in the U.S. of an estimated $0.20-0.30 per gallon equivalent.
Superior conformity with the vehicle allowing better use of space displaced on the vehicle for fuel storage.
Among the advantages offered by the low-pressure ANGP system vs. traditional high-pressure CNG:“ANGP has been committed to bringing low-pressure on-board natural gas storage to the motor vehicle world since 2012,” said the firm’s CEO Robert Bonelli. “Building on almost three decades of science and working with the University of Missouri, MeadWestvaco and Midwest Energy Solutions, we are working toward the first commercially viable low-pressure adsorbed natural gas (ANG) technology-based system for all classes of motor vehicles.”

Adsorbed natural gas technology is the use of a highly porous adsorbent material to densely store natural gas molecules at low pressures of 900 psi and below compared to typical 3,600 psi systems now in use. Under controlled depressurization, the gas molecules release and exit the storage system in response to the demand of the vehicle's engine. The patent-pending ANGP system employs advanced activated carbon monoliths developed specifically for the company by MeadWestvaco, a global leader in adsorbent technology for more than 100 years.

“The benefits to all Texans—from energy producers and marketers to end-product users—could be tremendous,” said Bonelli. “ANGP is on the leading edge of American firms dedicated to helping ensure our economic independence and national security. We are confident that this new method of energy storage and transportation use will help achieve those goals. We look forward to hosting the demonstration in San Marcos.”

Event Details
Friday, November 21, 2014
9:00 AM - 11 AM
Dick’s Classic Car Museum
120 Stagecoach Trail
San Marcos, TX 78666

Did anyone see anything there about 'battery', 'hydrogen', or 'fuel cell'? Me neither.

 

[91040]

Another article on the use of CHAdeMO by Honda and Toyota fuel cell vehicles.
https://transportevolved.com/2014/11/18/explained-2016-toyota-mirai-honda-fcv-concept-chademo-sockets/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[NeilBlanchard]

So, what happens when someone tries to plug a CHAdeMO quick charger into this plug? :shock:

 

[NeilBlanchard]

The Hyundai Tuscon FCEV EPA numbers: 5.64kg of hydrogen yields range of 265 miles.

1kg of hydrogen is roughly equivalent to 1 gallon of gasoline, and is about equivalent to 33.33kWh. (A gallon of gasoline is ~33.7kWh)

So, the 5.64kg of hydrogen = ~188kWh = ~5.64 gallons of gasoline.

265 miles / 5.64 = ~47MPGe

265 miles / 188 = 1.4 miles/kWh

Extremely mediocre ...

It takes the equivalent of ~103kWh MORE energy to drive about the SAME distance as the Tesla Model S.

FAIL.

The Toyota Mirai has 5kg of hydrogen and goes 300 miles: 60MPGe. 1.8 miles / kWh

TERRIBLE.

So, it takes 3X the electricity to get hydrogen, and then you get ~1/2 the range per kWh equivalent. That is about 6X worse than an EV.

WHY?

 

[AndyH]

WHY?

Because it gives us another carbon free/fossil fuel free transportation method.

Because it is 'recharged' much faster than even a Tesla on an a SC tether.

Because it will maintain its range even after its 7th birthday.

Because people in cold climates can get full range even with the heat on 'high'.

Because it is expected to come down in price much faster than BEVs.

Because it can provide power to a house and to the power grid via V2H/V2G.

Because it allows an expansion of options when we start storing more renewable power.

Because we cannot make enough batteries quickly enough to replace ICE by 2050.

Because we don't have enough raw materials on the planet to replace all modes of transportation with batteries.

Because batteries do not scale well with heavier equipment - which is more than 45% of road transportation today and likely to be a greater percentage tomorrow based on driver preference changes already taking place.

There are more, but that's a start...

Neil - I really appreciate your enthusiasm, your writing on other forums, and your pro-BEV position. I'm also very 'for' BEV. But it's pretty clear that we cannot get where we need to go with only batteries - and that's why I think the "give me batteries or give me death" crowd is almost as harmful to real progress as is the fossil fuel industry.

We cannot solve this problem by thinking the same way we did in 1960 or 1996. The efficiency focus should be on electric VS ICE - not by ignoring the huge efficiency gaps and nit-picking anything that's not a BEV. The much smaller percentage of today's efficiency gap between today's FCEV and today's BEV is NOT what's killing us - it's the HORRIBLE efficiency and the emissions from ICE.

I truly do not understand why this group - especially this group! - is having so much trouble keeping their eyes on the ball. Why is the world is it so much easier for this group to get distracted with the grains of sand next to their left shoe while the ball is seconds away from their forehead?!

 

[AndyH]

So, what happens when someone tries to plug a CHAdeMO quick charger into this plug? :shock:

Seriously?

If it's not a Plug-in FCEV, then absolutely nothing (other than making them look as stupid as when one tries to fill their Leaf with 87 octane)...

 

[TonyWilliams]

... The much smaller percentage of today's efficiency gap between today's FCEV and today's BEV is NOT what's killing us - it's the HORRIBLE efficiency and the emissions from ICE.

I truly do not understand why this group - especially this group! - is having so much trouble keeping their eyes on the ball. Why is the world is it so much easier for this group to get distracted with the grains of sand next to their left shoe while the ball is seconds away from their forehead?!

Ya, it's the group here, and not you or the product. We don't have our eye on "your" ball (and those limited folks who share your views), but it's a bit short sighted to claim folks here aren't interested in getting off oil and eliminating CO2 discharges to the atmosphere.

It's odd that you would bring up "efficiency" while either knowing that H2 cars cannot... will not... come close to the efficiency of EV's, or being so completely ignorant to simple facts that you can't understand them. That's right... never... ever.... will H2 propel a car with less total energy consumed than an EV. Yes, I know you'll have some poorly thought out dismissive for that statement, which brings me to the next issue:


You do recognize that you are not only in the minority opinion, but your petty, low grade attacks of anybody's view except your own hasn't won you many (any) converts? Don't worry, it's not us... it's you. I always sorta hope there is something that I missed, but this discussion has only taught me that H2 for vehicles is a LOOOOOOOooooooong way away, if ever.

Yes, we will get those 60 Hyundai Tucson H2 cars, and 200 Toyota H2 cars, and after another year delay, a few dozen more Honda H2 cars, all in California. Woo Hoo!!! Heck, you probably can quote some acronym encoded program somewhere in the world that calls that success over EV's. Next year, we will add about 100,000 EV's to the USA. Thousands more charge stations added. Lots of zero emission drivers "living the dream" today, cost effectively and now.

To make H2 perform those two points I made above, no oil and no CO2, is not for the faint of heart, but we all agree that it could be done. So, why then does virtually nobody here jump on the Andy H2 bandwagon?

 

[TonyWilliams]

Because it gives us another carbon free/fossil fuel free transportation method.

As stated above, you're well aware of that hydrogen predominantly is not fossil fuel free. Of course, neither is electricity fossil fuel free, however hydrogen requires that very electricity and further, it requires a far greater quantity of electricity per mile driven. That will always be true today and at any point in the future, ever.

Because it is 'recharged' much faster than even a Tesla on an a SC tether.

Wow, talking about Tesla Superchargers as "tethers" when we're talking about hydrogen with about a dozen total hydrogen stations in the entire United States of America. You have got to be kidding me.

To even attempt to win your debate, which are quite poor at by the way, you don't need to dismiss the battery electric car. You really need to prove that the hydrogen carr is better ,which you failed to do routinely.

Because it will maintain its range even after its 7th birthday.

I'm not aware of any rule for theory of batteries that means every seven years is the end of the battery. Of course, the Nissan LEAF doesn't do so well in hot areas but I'm confident that the Tesla will do very well... extremely well. The Tesla Roadster has already proven that, and batteries keep getting better and better, much to your chagrin.

Because people in cold climates can get full range even with the heat on 'high'.

With the 50% efficiency of an hydrogen fuel cell, yes of course there is waste heat energy. That's not a bonus; that's something you pay for daily, whether or not you need the heat or not.

Just like an inefficient gasoline car. Not a very smart move to "provide" hydrogen is better. Gross inefficiency is not better; not today, not tomorrow, not ever.

Electricity is fully capable of making heat and only making heat when you need it. In addition if he were the only issue that was paramount there are plenty of hybrid solutions for heating only, like alcohol or pressurized propane... heck, even hydrogen !!!

Because it is expected to come down in price much faster than BEVs.

The only reason that hydrogen can fall in price so spectacularly is because it is grossly expensive today. Batteries will continue to fall in price, but they cannot fall as far as hydrogen... that is also is not a plus in favor of H2; it's a detraction.

Hydrogen is so grossly expensive that the only thing that you can say positive about the price is that it can fail a lot!!! For that, I agree completely!!! However, even at a 50% additional drop in price tomorrow, H2 still doesn't beat batteries today.

Unfortunately, when you start comparing cost, folks like you tend to compare only today's battery cost and tomorrow's pie-in-the-sky hydrogen cost.

Because it can provide power to a house and to the power grid via V2H/V2G.

This has to be the silliest argument you have of all the silliness that you mention promoting H2. I suspect you mean to say that somehow battery electric cars cannot provide vehicle to grid or vehicle to home. That patently is wrong.

Today's Nissan LEAF with CHAdeMO version 1.0 is fully capable of providing vehicle to home today. So can any other battery electric car with the proper equipment.

Because it allows an expansion of options when we start storing more renewable power.

This is the one area where I suspect everybody agrees with you. Hydrogen is a fantastic medium to back up the electric grid with large-scale professional handling of hydrogen. I think we all agree.

Because we cannot make enough batteries quickly enough to replace ICE by 2050.

I don't know if we can provide enough H2 Fuel Cells or batteries and neither do you.

Because we don't have enough raw materials on the planet to replace all modes of transportation with batteries.

We may not have enough of those raw materials to do hydrogen either. But, Isuspect you are wrong on both counts.

Because batteries do not scale well with heavier equipment - which is more than 45% of road transportation today and likely to be a greater percentage tomorrow based on driver preference changes already taking place.

Again, I believe this is an area where virtually all of us agree for today. Professional handling, professional commercial use.

 

[AndyH]

... The much smaller percentage of today's efficiency gap between today's FCEV and today's BEV is NOT what's killing us - it's the HORRIBLE efficiency and the emissions from ICE.

I truly do not understand why this group - especially this group! - is having so much trouble keeping their eyes on the ball. Why is the world is it so much easier for this group to get distracted with the grains of sand next to their left shoe while the ball is seconds away from their forehead?!

Ya, it's the group here, and not you or the product. We don't have our eye on "your" ball (and those limited folks who share your views), but it's a bit short sighted to claim folks here aren't interested in getting off oil and eliminating CO2 discharges to the atmosphere.

Tony, nice ad hominem. You do realize that this is the place with the 'problem'? Energy planners understand synergy, futurists understand synergy, the transportation industry understands, and the list goes on - but you and a small few others would rather throw rocks (actually, the same rock over and over and over) rather than taking the time to stand back and look at the entire picture. It's not my fault that you've got a problem with your blinders - no matter how many times you try to deflect, or how many times you answer facts with personal attack.

It's odd that you would bring up "efficiency" while either knowing that H2 cars cannot... will not... come close to the efficiency of EV's, or being so completely ignorant to simple facts that you can't understand them. That's right... never... ever.... will H2 propel a car with less total energy consumed than an EV. Yes, I know you'll have some poorly thought out dismissive for that statement, which brings me to the next issue:

Again - you are still fixated ON THE WRONG PROBLEM. You blame me with yet another personal attack, yet you still cannot or will not take time to understand anything outside a circle drawn around your Model S. Dude - that's neither my fault nor my problem! The problem we have on the planet I live on is NOT with BEV, it's burning fossil fuels. I don't give a damn WHAT tech allows people to get back and forth to work, or get their 6-pack of lava lamps from Amazon as long as it's not dumping fossil carbon into the air. Read that last sentence again, please, because I will quote this should you try another personal attack or try to twist my position.

You do recognize that you are not only in the minority opinion, but your petty, low grade attacks of anybody's view except your own hasn't won you many (any) converts? Don't worry, it's not us... it's you. I always sorta hope there is something that I missed, but this discussion has only taught me that H2 for vehicles is a LOOOOOOOooooooong way away, if ever.

Tony - how old are you? If this thread 'taught' you that H2 is a long way away, then you have not absorbed even 10% of the material found here. News flash - H2 is ALREADY being deployed and is already working - today, right now. It's only the beginning - but where deployed it IS replacing ICE while also providing V2G and other services that today's ICE and even today's BEV are NOT performing. Keep repeating disinformation if you want - but it doesn't matter how many times junk is printed - it doesn't convert to gold-plated fact.

Yes, we will get those 60 Hyundai Tucson H2 cars, and 200 Toyota H2 cars, and after another year delay, a few dozen more Honda H2 cars, all in California. Woo Hoo!!! Heck, you probably can quote some acronym encoded program somewhere in the world that calls that success over EV's. Next year, we will add about 100,000 EV's to the USA. Thousands more charge stations added. Lots of zero emission drivers "living the dream" today, cost effectively and now.

Again - you cannot quote ACCURATE numbers because that conflicts with your religious view. In the real world, there are many more FCEV on the road in this world, and in the real world there is NO contest between BEV and FCEV. That's YOUR war - it's not a problem in the real world. Smart people that orchestrate national- and continental-scale transitions state and fully justify the absolute NECESSITY of BOTH BEV and FCEV. I think it's absolutely fantastic that you are happy with your personal choice! I'm glad it works for you, and hope you can drive ACROSS CA as easily as you can drive from Canada to Mexico today. But YOUR choice and YOUR needs are NOT a good match for the REST OF THE WORLD. I didn't make that up - and I sure as hell didn't tell Germany, Korea, Toyota, Mercedes, Honda, Rifkin, or folks at the RMI what to write, study, or build.

To make H2 perform those two points I made above, no oil and no CO2, is not for the faint of heart, but we all agree that it could be done. So, why then does virtually nobody here jump on the Andy H2 bandwagon?

LOL Again - THIRD INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION - Google it. It's clearly for not only the 'faint of heart' but it's for folks with intestinal fortitude as well - and it's profitable, and beneficial, and is alive and well and working in CA, MA, TX, IA, around the world. BY the way - that climate announcement this week between the US and China? China's pushing forward with the TIR as well. You can say it won't work, but Germany, Korea, Switzerland, Norway, the UK, San Antonio, and the most populous nation on that planet stand in and giggle in your general direction.

I'm really sorry this is such a problem for you, Tony, but it's not my problem - I quit. buh-bye.

 

[TonyWilliams]

LOL Again - THIRD INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION - Google it. It's clearly for not only the 'faint of heart' but it's for folks with intestinal fortitude as well - and it's profitable, and beneficial, and is alive and well and working in CA, MA, TX, IA, around the world. BY the way - that climate announcement this week between the US and China? China's pushing forward with the TIR as well. You can say it won't work, but Germany, Korea, Switzerland, Norway, the UK, San Antonio, and the most populous nation on that planet stand in and giggle in your general direction.

I'm really sorry this is such a problem for you, Tony, but it's not my problem - I quit. buh-bye.

Oh, you'll be back. I remember when you "quit" the whole forum a few years ago!!! I'm confident that many parts of the world are going to use H2 on a larger and larger scale. Few here even dispute that.

We are referring to mostly H2 cars in the context of this thread. For that, you are the singular "at-your-throat" H2 evangelist. Quoting your "bible" title over and over does little to impress me.

H2 is competition for EV; contrary to your missives, it's a fact, and both Toyota and government regulators reinforce that now daily. Those of us supporting EV for today's answer to zero emission have not been sufficiently persuaded to your (same) argument.

I don't know how what happens in 2050, and neither do you. I do know that companies will pump out hundreds of thousands of EV's through 2020, and probably millions after that.

Your H2 "bullshit" will be selling in hundreds or a few thousand at best in 2020, and lapping up government kudos and cash like a Hoover at a peanut restaurant.

By 2030, H2 personal transport will either be dead, or hanging on with folks like you spewing, "but it's.... better.... read 8th Universe Revolution !!!

 

[ydnas7]

I did notice, however, that in spite of the availability of numbers for similarly-performing vehicles, you chose to compare the price of a FCEV with greater than Model S range with the battery price of a Leaf. Do you think that's a reasonable comparison

the Hyundai has same EPA range as single motored S-85, what EPA ranges the dual motor Tesla have is still to be shown.
The Hyundai FCV has similar cost (actually its significantly more expensive) than a 3.2 sec 0-60mph Tesla
The Hyundai FCV has similar scope as a Nissan LEAF

its simple, hydrogen vehicles has similar scope to a Nissan LEAF but with a price greater than performance variants of Teslas and a range comparable to Tesla.

think about it slowly.

PGM hydrogen fuel cells have been existence since the dawn of hydrogen fuel cells when in 1839, William Grove made the first demistrated that electric current could be produced from an electrochemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen over a platinum catalyst.

Li ion rechargeable battery, that was in 1983 when Sony's Yoshino fabricated a prototype rechargeable battery using lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2)

which is the fresher tech?

 

[AndyH]

I did notice, however, that in spite of the availability of numbers for similarly-performing vehicles, you chose to compare the price of a FCEV with greater than Model S range with the battery price of a Leaf. Do you think that's a reasonable comparison

the Hyundai has same EPA range as single motored S-85, what EPA ranges the dual motor Tesla have is still to be shown.

Yet the Hyundai drove more than 400 miles in real traffic in California. Hmmm...

The Hyundai FCV has similar cost (actually its significantly more expensive) than a 3.2 sec 0-60mph Tesla

Nobody refutes the cost - that's expected for a first-year high-tech vehicle. The Roadster wasn't a budget vehicle either, was it? You might be thrilled by a 0-60 time, but there's nothing efficient about that...

The Hyundai FCV has similar scope as a Nissan LEAF

Similar scope? Really? More than 4x the range, no range degradation with age, and 4 minute recharges? Yeah, I can see that... :roll: :lol:

PGM hydrogen fuel cells have been existence since the dawn of hydrogen fuel cells when in 1839, William Grove made the first demistrated that electric current could be produced from an electrochemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen over a platinum catalyst.

Grove didn't make a PEM fuel cell - the type we use in vehicles. So while of interest to at least you (the rest of us surveyed the history of fuel cells in the first couple months of this thread), Grove's work is no more applicable to modern fuel cells than lead-acid cells are to rechargeable lithium cells.

Li ion rechargeable battery, that was in 1983 when Sony's Yoshino fabricated a prototype rechargeable battery using lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2)

which is the fresher tech?

Fuel cells, of course. Remember the Baghdad battery? We've been using storage batteries since before Christ was born.

I'm not interested in any more reproductive appendage waving or yet another urinary Olympiad. I don't care if you don't, or anyone else doesn't like fuel cells and I don't care what those reasons are or aren't. Pick your non-fossil fuel tech and go your merry way with my blessing, because at the end of the day I have absolutely ONE goal: Eliminating Fossil Fuel Use for Transportation and Electricity Generation so that we can maintain a planet worth inheriting.

We need to do everything that we know how to do, all at the same time, to assure that we do not allow our climate to change dangerously.

Lord Stern

Think about that, ydnas7. Not too slowly, however - tempus fugit, Nature bats last, and Mother Nature's got a hell of a right hook...

 

[Zythryn]

...
Pick your non-fossil fuel tech and go your merry way with my blessing, because at the end of the day I have absolutely ONE goal: Eliminating Fossil Fuel Use for Transportation and Electricity Generation so that we can maintain a planet worth inheriting.

We need to do everything that we know how to do, all at the same time, to assure that we do not allow our climate to change dangerously.

Lord Stern

Think about that, ydnas7. Not too slowly, however - tempus fugit, Nature bats last, and Mother Nature's got a hell of a right hook...

Ok, forget all the hydrogen vs battery arguments.
If this is truly your motivation, why in the world are you a proponent of slowing down the adoption of plugin vehicles across the U.S.?