Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[TonyWilliams]

Nobody refutes the cost - that's expected for a first-year high-tech vehicle. The Roadster wasn't a budget vehicle either, was it?

Even Toyota claims that H2 won't be on par cost wise with batteries before 2030. So, in 15 years from today (the same amount of time from the 1929 stock market crash, through the entire Great Depression, and entirely through World War 2 with 50 million dead), Toyota thinks they "might" beat batteries.

That's one heck of a guess. The graphs that CARB puts out for mostly H2 by 2050 is nothing more than a guess... pure and simple. As the above indicates, SO MANY things can happen in 15 years, let alone 35 years.

I could guess that we would be mostly EV by 2030 or 2050, but then I don't have high paid oil and auto industry lobbyists to promote my vision. Control of the message is more than half the battle, and like a Faux Nooze disciple, I'm confident that there will be folks spewing exactly what they are told to believe.

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

Yawn... certainly a waste of my time to enlighten you, but for anybody mostly sleeping through the Tesla revolution, no Andy, an H2 car doesn't go "4x the range" of an CURRENTLY available electric one. Nor does that H2 car have more than a handful of places to refuel, virtually all of which are in California. A current production Tesla Model S can go from coast to coast today... now. Something the H2 lobby hasn't even proposed.

As to degradation, H2 Fuel Cells degrade. Maybe not in Andy's world, but in the real world.

That singular advantage that H2 has, refueling time, is offset by ALL the disadvantages:

1) No large scale roll out of H2 cars any time soon, so you don't even have to worry about getting one

2) Cars that are available in the coming years will only be offered if an H2 Fuel Cell "gas station" is near you

3) While the H2 is subsidized to zero today, the COST is double or triple the equivalent in gasoline

4) H2 is not even planned to be zero carbon... the California plan is 1/3 of public money plants be "renewable", which means actual COST to gasoline of triple to quadruple

5) Cost of vehicle equipment, according to Toyota (the largest H2 vehicle proponents on this planet) will not match batteries until 2030

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.

And yet batteries and solar / wind / hydro / geothermal (even nuke) does that today... your "ONE goal" doesn't seem very genuine. It just sounds like you are a puppet for big oil and their fossil fuel products which will be turned into H2. Not a very logical solution to me, or virtually anybody following along.

It would be one thing if H2 was a handful of percent better or worse at CO2 output and electrical consumption. IT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE.

H2 still has exactly one benefit over EV for personal transport; it can "refuel" faster... except for cars with battery swapping. Darn... even the only advantage doesn't look like a universal advantage.

 

[NeilBlanchard]

Last I heard, the best fuel cells only last ~75,000 miles. So, quite the opposite of what was claimed - in all likelihood, it will be the FCEV that will fail to make it to "old age". I wonder how much a replacement would cost?

The Hyundai Tucson FCEV gets ~47MPGe.
The Toyota Marai FCEV gets ~60MPGe.

The Tesla Model S makes these compliance cars moot.

You can drive it across the continent. The FCEV's ... not.
You can charge your EV at home, and never visit a fueling station. The FCEV's ... not.
You can generate electricity on the roof of your home. The FCEV's ... not.
You can buy EV's in all states (though not all models everywhere). The FCEV's ... not.

Until there are 100,000+ hydrogen fueling stations - maybe as many as 800,000 will be needed (!!) - the speed of refilling a FCEV is moot.

 

[TonyWilliams]

You can drive it across the continent. The FCEV's ... not.
You can charge your EV at home, and never visit a fueling station. The FCEV's ... not.
You can generate electricity on the roof of your home. The FCEV's ... not.
You can buy EV's in all states (though not all models everywhere). The FCEV's ... not.

Places like Germany, and perhaps California, will push for hydrogen. If you throw enough money as something, you can even send a guy to the moon with 1960's computers and electronics!!! That doesn't make it smart or the best way to spend money, but it sure was awesome beating the USSR to the moon.

And when the competition was over, we haven't gone back in 40 years. I see a lot of parallels with H2 for personal transport.

This isn't a small scale attack by the H2 crowd, which is why they can't just "claim" H2 to be better; they have to attempt to discredit EV's altogether.

Toyota is leading the charge!!!

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

Too bad there's no interest in FCEV PHEVs. Seems like it could be an attractive solution, ala Volt but with H2 instead of gasoline. Mostly plug power around town, H2 on long trips (which would be feasible with H2 stations numbering in the hundreds, not hundreds of thousands).

 

[GregH]

Too bad there's no interest in FCEV PHEVs. Seems like it could be an attractive solution, ala Volt but with H2 instead of gasoline. Mostly plug power around town, H2 on long trips (which would be feasible with H2 stations numbering in the hundreds, not hundreds of thousands).

Agree 100% I wrote a paper on this back at EVS-21 in Monaco 2005.. I think as both battery and fuel cell technologies mature (as well as H2 storage), A Volt-like vehicle with maybe 60-90 miles of BEV range and a small Fuel cell makes a lot of sense. Maybe something more along the lines of the i3 REX than a Volt.. Take advantage of the home charging convenience and efficiency of batteries as well as the quick refueling for long trips. Although if I could afford all those extra batteries I'd probably rather just take a Tesla..

 

[TonyWilliams]

Although if I could afford all those extra batteries I'd probably rather just take a Tesla..

The singular most expensive part of each is the unique part; the battery and the fuel cell.

There is no way the two would be combined. It would be slower than a current Model S, far more expensive to build, and way more expensive to operate (buying the H2 at market value), plus not very "sexy".

It pretty interesting that Toyota and Honda both put an expensive CHAdeMO port on the car, but almost go out of their way to make sure it can't charge the (teeny tiny) battery.

 

[GregH]

It would be slower than a current Model S, far more expensive to build, and way more expensive to operate (buying the H2 at market value), plus not very "sexy"

Slower likely yes as the combined smaller battery and fuel cell couldn't produce as much power (although the vehicle would be much lighter).

More expensive, I doubt it. With current fuel cell prices perhaps, but I have no doubt a 10-20kW fuel cell will cost dramatically less than an extra 50kWh of batteries in the near future (even with a Gigafactory).

No more expensive to operate.. Even if a kg of H2 cost as much or more than a gallon of gas I doubt you'd cover the $2000 cost of supercharger access. Keep in mind 90-95% of your driving energy would still come from charging the battery directly, not via the fuel cell.

Sexy.. well, that's up to the auto designer.. For those who think the Karma is sexy, it would look just the same with the PHEV drivetrain as that of a Corvette...

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

If I understand correctly it wouldn't be much different from a FCEV in that FCEVs already have a battery, it would just be bigger in the FC PHEV version.

So three options for vehicles that can be driven long(er) distances:
1) BEV: 85kwh battery
2) FCEV: fuel cell, hydrogen tank, 2kwh (?) battery
3) FC PHEV: fuel cell, hydrogen tank, 10 - 15kwh (usable) battery

From a cost and weight standpoint, how does the FC and H2 tank compare to that extra 70kwh of batteries?

From a convenience standpoint, the FC PHEV would be preferable to the BEV for long distance travel, and it would be preferable to the FCEV for local driving.

 

[smkettner]

From a convenience standpoint, the FC PHEV would be preferable to the BEV for long distance travel, and it would be preferable to the FCEV for local driving.

Not with todays infrastructure and cost.
JMHO

 

[GregH]

If I understand correctly it wouldn't be much different from a FCEV in that FCEVs already have a battery, it would just be bigger in the FC PHEV version.

So three options for vehicles that can be driven long(er) distances:
1) BEV: 85kwh battery
2) FCEV: fuel cell, hydrogen tank, 2kwh (?) battery
3) FC PHEV: fuel cell, hydrogen tank, 10 - 15kwh (usable) battery

From a cost and weight standpoint, how does the FC and H2 tank compare to that extra 70kwh of batteries?

From a convenience standpoint, the FC PHEV would be preferable to the BEV for long distance travel, and it would be preferable to the FCEV for local driving.

A small fuel cell (10-20kW) and a tank will certainly be lighter and cheaper than an extra 50-70kWh of batteries.
I might go for something a bit more than 10-15kWh on the battery though if I wanted to take it on road trips.. I wouldn't want to have to stop for H2 every 30-40 miles (assuming such stations were even that plentiful).
[edit] ok, you're probably thinking a larger H2 tank than I was envisioning.. I could see that.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

I might go for something a bit more than 10-15kWh on the battery though if I wanted to take it on road trips.. I wouldn't want to have to stop for H2 every 30-40 miles (assuming such stations were even that plentiful).

I assumed the H2 tank would give you a range of 300+ miles. Isn't that what the Hyundai does?

 

[GregH]

I might go for something a bit more than 10-15kWh on the battery though if I wanted to take it on road trips.. I wouldn't want to have to stop for H2 every 30-40 miles (assuming such stations were even that plentiful).

I assumed the H2 tank would give you a range of 300+ miles. Isn't that what the Hyundai does?

yup.. sorry, updated my post.
It would be an interesting trade off.. bigger H2 tanks obviously take up a lot more space although not much more weight or cost.
Personally I'd prefer 20-30kWh of battery so I could go 90-95% without touching the H2, but I could see going for a vehicle that covered 70-80% with less battery.
It would be a similar dilemma faced but current designers of PHEVs (how much battery). Given the extreme sparsity of H2 stations I suppose you'd have to have a big tank.

 

[AndyH]

In the Nov 14 edition of Nikki Gordon Bloomfield's "T.E.N.", she highlights the advertising 'feud' between Lexus and BMW. The point she chooses to focus on is the fact that that the car used in the ad was a plug-in hybrid, not an EV. Here's the on-topic point, however, that is not further explored:

"...despite the reality that anyone with a plug-in car would never dream of making this trip, and BMW specifically offers a loaner gasoline car to I3 owners that need to make a long-distance trip for free..."


My question for this group is this: If today's plug-in drivers truly "would never dream of making" a 280 mile trip (even if they had a need to?!), will they continue to rely on ICE? And what will they choose if an ICE vehicle isn't available?

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

Looks like they heard me

http://news.yahoo.com/audi-announces-mastered-hydrogen-unveils-first-fuel-cell-202346713.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The German auto giant’s new entry into the plug-in hybrid market features a hydrogen fuel cell and twin electric motor drivetrain in the front and rear of the vehicle, which can carry the car some 341 miles between three-minute refuelings. The electric battery alone can carry the car about 31 miles on a single two to four-hour charge, depending on the connection.

Sounds like a have your cake and eat it too solution.

Is this a Tesla threat?

 

[AndyH]

...
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.?

Zythryn, have you read ANY of my posts in this thread, or any of my posts on this forum since April of 2010? If you have, I truly don't know how in the WORLD you could type a suggestion that I am against the adoption of plug-ins. If you have not, then simply fall back to the text you quoted and realize that absolutely NOTHING about my position is in any way "anti-plug". I OWN and OPERATE a plug-in vehicle. I do NOT own or operate an ICE vehicle. I have a plug-in BEV and a bicycle and the two feet I was born with with military-induced accelerated wear and tear.

edit... Why do you think that you have to ask the question? Do you believe that FCEV are being deployed to attack BEV? If so, then please DO read through the early posts in this thread as that's precisely why I entered the conversation - to provide the background on what's driving hydrogen in the world. I joined the thread so that fellow BEVers would NOT see another electric vehicle as a threat, but rather as a co-solution.

edit...added actual date.

 

[mwalsh]

My question for this group is this: If today's plug-in drivers truly "would never dream of making" a 280 mile trip (even if they had a need to?!), will they continue to rely on ICE? And what will they choose if an ICE vehicle isn't available?

High speed rail! Oh, wait...there isn't any of that round here (yet). :?

This is what I used to get from London to Manchester (270 miles) in 2 hours, 10 minutes:

 

[AndyH]

Too bad there's no interest in FCEV PHEVs. Seems like it could be an attractive solution, ala Volt but with H2 instead of gasoline. Mostly plug power around town, H2 on long trips (which would be feasible with H2 stations numbering in the hundreds, not hundreds of thousands).

There are already plug-in fuel cell vehicles referenced in this thread, LTLFT.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

There are already plug-in fuel cell vehicles referenced in this thread, LTLFT.

Anything you can find at a dealer, or just science experiments? (before I go back looking through all 142 pages)

 

[AndyH]

There are already plug-in fuel cell vehicles referenced in this thread, LTLFT.

Anything you can find at a dealer, or just science experiments? (before I go back looking through all 142 pages)

They're in operation hauling freight in the port of San Diego, for just one. It's a plug-in fuel cell 'hybrid' class-8 tractor.

Folks - if we're going to participate in this thread we probably SHOULD look through all 142 pages. I've gone through this thread more than a dozen times just pulling articles and references forward to answer repeated questions that we solved 8 months ago. When I pull an article forward and try to catch some of the new folks up, it creates an environment where they can shoot the messenger - and that's just a waste of bandwidth and time. I'm no longer going to play that game.

 

[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.

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.?

Zythryn, have you read ANY of my posts in this thread, or any of my posts on this forum since 2010 (I think that's when I joined - that's not to signal a change in position as that's not the case)? ...

Yep, I've read a lot of them, which is why I am confused by your position.

The CA CARB board is slowing the adoption of alternative fuel vehicles.
By spending $46 Million on the H2 infrastructure instead of on additional BEV infrastructure it basically slows the number of people buying BEVs.
My position is the slowdown in BEVs will be greater than the gain in FCEVs.

In addition, I also hold that the only reason Toyota has compleatly pulled out of the BEV market in the US is that the CA CARB credits so overwhelmingly favor FCEVs.

If you want potentially zero emission vehicles on the road, you don't pull the rug out from the ones getting established to favor the new guy which will have less than 1% of the impact in the light vehicle fleet.