RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
If they're driving a Tucson, the consumers aren't going to pay anything for the fuel, Reg.
Actually, the fuel is included in the $499 lease costs. Make no mistake, Toyota is funding this venture to make money. If they can get the government to pay for their capital equipment, then they can make money selling you fuel (which they cannot make for free, since they need to reform it from some source). (No, a single PV-powered station cannot fuel 147 cars. More like 15.)
Er, Reg, Toyota doesn't make the Tucson, Hyundai does
As to your main point, sure, the cost of the fuel is being rolled into the lease, and that's fine. But no one is going to make money selling people H2 at the moment. As to PV, I'm well aware of the power and space requirements. It's obvious that forecourt power generation from wind/PV won't be able to provide all the necessary energy, so the difference will have to be made up off-site.
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
I consider the operational and convenience advantages will triumph over energy efficiency, just as they usually do. If not, there wouldn't be millions of garages in this country equipped with automatic door openers, we wouldn't be using remote controls to save us walking a few steps to our TVs and entertainment systems, and people wouldn't be charging their cell phones on inductive chargers just so they don't have to plug them in.
That's a very weak comparison. Tell me, how much money do you pay for the electricity to run your garage-door opener each month? How about to power your electronics so that they can be controlled remotely? The point is that the cost of fuel for a vehicle is an appreciable portion of your budget, unlike the examples you gave. Yes, people will consider efficiency, and hence fuel costs, in their decision. To my point, we are posting on a message board where most of the posters have chosen BEVs over (or at least in addition to) vehicles which currently offer much more convenience than the FCEVs you are promoting. Don't forget, BEVs have the convenience advantage of being able to be fueled at home.
As it happens, I don't have a garage door opener. Or a garage. Or any place to charge at home, because I live in a rental apartment near the city center (which could as easily be a condo for this discussion). So, you know, you should add the costs of all those to the cost of operating that garage door, etc. As to the difference in the cost scale between charging a PEV versus the others, sure, it's large, but the difference in cost scale between using conductive versus inductive charging isn't that large. I fully expect that all PEVs will offer inductive L2 charging within 5 years, and that inductive charging will become the standard despite its lower efficiency. The next generation of PEVS all look they'll offer it either standard or as an option.
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
Then there's the societal issue of people moving back to city cores. Charging in your garage is great, if you've got one. If not, I suspect the cost of putting curbside charging in every spot in every residential apartment neighborhood will be far higher than the cost of putting H2 fueling stations at every gas station, once H2 shifts into mass use.
$11,500 should more than cover the cost for chargers for EVs, especially since the fuel will likely be cheaper, perhaps significantly.
Which assumes that H2 fueling station costs will never come down below their current ones based on low volumes. How realistic is that?
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
One approach, which you mention above, is to go with a hybrid system, BEVs for local and FCEVs for trips. Such an approach (typically called 'separate spheres'; see David Kirsch: "The Electric Vehicle and the Burden of History") failed a century ago; maybe it would work this time around, but only if people buy into it. I expect that most people will prefer (or will only be able to afford) to have one car that can do both short and long trips, which is unquestionably cleaner (assuming renewables produce the H2) than fossil fuels, and just accept the lower efficiency vs. BEVs. It's going to be an interesting few years, watching the pace at which each technology advances.
There is an inherent assumption in all of your thinking that BEVs will not provide the range and recharge convenience of a FCEV. At similar costs today, they are only marginally better. Will FCEVs be able to maintain this advantage? Likely not forever. At such a point I see no benefit at all for FCEVs. There will always be a trade-off to be made between cost and convenience. If FCEVs cannot get their costs down quickly, their convenience will only matter to those who care little about costs.
I make no such assumption as you claim I do in the bolded sentence. I've gone out of my way in this entire thread to indicate that I'm technology agnostic, i.e. I have no stake in whether one or the other or both technologies ultimately succeed, nor am I making any prediction as to which one will be superior _in the long run_. My statements are based on each technology's capabilities and costs _now_, with a reasonable extrapolation a few years ahead. I've written repeatedly, including in the paragraph above which you reply to, that the relative pace at which each develops will determine which leads and (perhaps) ultimately triumphs.
I partially disagree with your contention that "at similar costs today, they are only marginally better". While this generation FCEV is still too high-priced to compete with a Tesla on luxury at the same price, their year-round utility for longer trips (assuming necessary infrastructure for both) is far better. As people have been discovering, especially this winter, 'waste' heat is rather useful. Year-round range without significant change matters. So does refueling time for longer trips. No or limited range degradation over the long-term matters. None of this implies that batteries can't or won't improve too, eliminating some or all of their disadvantages vis-a-vis fuel cells while maintaining their strengths. I expect they will; what matters is the pace of each.
Can you get a nicer car from Tesla right now compared to the same money on a FCEV, despite fuel cell costs having decreased from $1M to $50k over the past decade? Yes. But if year-round range is an issue for you, you can't get a Tesla at any price right now that provides the same utility as the current generation of FCEVs. Chances are the next likely battery upgrade, to say 100-110 kWh in the same weight/volume, won't do it either. It would take approximately double the Model S' current battery capacity, in the same package, to give the same long-term year-round range as the current FCEVs have now.
If fuel cell prices can be halved in the next generation, to $25k from $50k, FCEVs will be able to go head-to-head with a car like the Model S on luxury/performance, always assuming that the Tesla doesn't get a battery that can provide four hours of driving range in all weather conditions with minimal degradation etc., for the same price or less. At $10k/fuel cell, the middle class can start to consider them. If they can be reduced to the number Toyota feels is ultimately practical, ca. $1k, then everyone can.
OTOH, if by the time that happens you can buy a 100kWh battery for $1,000 that lasts 20 years with zero degradation, is unaffected by temperature, can easily be carried in your hand and can be fully recharged in five minutes, then no one will care about fuel cells. I look forward to seeing how the future develops.