Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[WetEV]

Don't get the point?

No, because you seem to have confused me with someone else. Why don't you reply to them, not me?

 

[mbender]

Belated reply, but...

I'm going out on a limb here, but wonder if H2 will be best for fleet and heavy vehicles, much like natural gas.

As someone else said, many others have argued this for a long time. So you're either not at all out on a limb, or it is that much closer to breaking. More likely the former.

Hmmm, where will all those SpaceX rockets get their H2?

I don't beieve that SpaceX uses Hydrogen in their rocket(engine)s. See this Q/A on QuorA.

 

[GRA]

Yes, you have said that before. But doesn't make it true. If green electric power is ever cheap enough to make green hydrogen cheaper than gasoline, then BEVs will be much cheaper than both, and will have been so for decades. <snip>

See the Mirai thread or the original article: http://europe.autonews.com/article/20151016/ANE/151019907/toyota-targets-mirai-fuel-cell-car-at-germany-uk

where H2 is apparently selling in Germany for the equivalent of $10.50/U.S.G. versus an average gas price of $5.57, which, if accurate, makes H2 at or beyond breakeven _now_, given it's 2-2.5 times efficiency advantage over gas ICEs. I don't know how much of it's green at that price, although Germany puts wind as must-dispatch ahead of every other electricity source, so theoretically it could be pretty green if electrolysis is done off-peak. I imagine it's mainly SMR, but don't have any info.

Theoretically, excess renewable power selling for zero could be used to make green hydrogen, which might be cheaper than the common hydrogen made from natural gas, which is the price you are quoting.

As I said, I don't know what kind of H2 that price represents, because I haven't been able to find any info. It's certainly most likely that it's mostly SMR.

And then use the hydrogen in a unsubsidized car that costs 4 times as much as a gasoline car. And each kg of hydrogen releases 9 to 12 kg of CO2, unless it's green, which it mostly isn't, at least any time soon.

Equally theoretically, you could charge your BEV on the same zero cost electric power. The fuel cost per mile would be ... well, zero.

Looks to me like the BEV is a whole lot cheaper than gasoline.

Where, except in Germany, are BEVs un-subsidized? And where are the un-subsidized BEVs that provide comparable to ICE performance and range at any price? See below.

Of course, that's just in theory.

In practice, a BEV is cheaper than gasoline at $5.57 per gallon and electric at $0.10 per kWh counting all costs, but only marginally. Need to add in the capacity loss of the battery, especially in hot places, and the extra initial cost of the car. Need also to subtract the higher maintenance costs gasoline car. The unsubsidized green hydrogen car is a lot more expensive than gasoline. The fuel cells have limited life, and are more expensive than batteries. And need to add in the much larger initial cost of the car.

All of that is true, but unless people are willing to buy BEVs, irrelevant.
[Added] Via Transport Evolved:

With Electric Car Incentives Gone, Electric Car Registrations in State of Georgia Plummet

https://transportevolved.com/2015/11/03/with-electric-car-incentives-gone-electric-car-registrations-in-state-of-georgia-plummet/

. . .since the tax credit expired on July 1, the state of Georgia experienced a massive 88.9 percent drop in plug-in car sales between June and August alone, with just 148 plug-in cars registered in August compared to 1,338 in June.

Before we go any further however, we feel it’s important to note a few things about the dataset. Firstly, it lists both all-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles. While attempts were made to change the tax credit so that it applied to both plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles, it’s worth noting that the tax credit which ended on July 1 pertained only to 100% electric vehicles. Plug-in hybrids weren’t eligible for the tax credit, which is one reason why sales of models like the Chevrolet Volt, Ford C-Max Energi, Ford Fusion Energi and Toyota Prius Plug-in hybrid remain reasonably constant throughout the sample period.

It’s also worth noting — beyond the headline figure of 88.9 percent drop in plug-in car sales — that June’s figure are obviously inflated as buyers scramble to take advantage of electric car incentives before the July deadline. . . .

With those caveats in mind however, there’s still a massive drop in sales for Georgia which far exceeds any seasonal variation.

U.S. auto sales are on pace to set an all-time record this year, while PEV, especially BEV sales are stagnant or dropping - only Tesla is holding up BEVs.

BTW, electricity in Germany is the second most expensive in Europe, averaging $0.297/kWh (2014), behind only Denmark ($0.304/kWh, both household), not $0.10. In both cases that's due to feed-in tariffs on renewables (mainly wind in Denmark, wind and PV in Germany), as well as the high proportion of renewables in the mix.

 

[GRA]

Via GCR:

Nissan And Fuel Cells: 'Not In A Hurry' Because 'Too Early,' CEO Ghosn Says

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1100739_nissan-and-fuel-cells-not-in-a-hurry-because-too-early-ceo-ghosn-says

. . . But while Japanese rivals Honda and Toyota bet heavily on hydrogen fuel cells, Nissan still appears reticent about the technology.
Now, the company's boss says Nissan is developing a fuel-cell car, but on a relaxed timetable. Nissan will not launch a fuel-cell car until around 2020, as the company is "not in a hurry," CEO Carlos Ghosn told Automotive News. . . .

"We're facing already a problem with the charging infrastructure in electric cars," he said, "You can imagine the problem we're going to have with fuel cells."

Nissan is currently partnering with Honda and Toyota to underwrite some of the costs of fueling-station construction in Japan. The carmakers will cover up to one third of operational costs of stations that apply for the program, until the point at which infrastructure and fuel-cell vehicles in general have become well established. . . .

 

[WetEV]

And where are the un-subsidized BEVs that provide comparable to ICE performance and range at any price?

And where are the ICEs that are as quiet, smooth and responsive as BEVs?

Or match the convenience of charging at home?

When are we going to stop subsidizing ICEs by allowing them to dump toxic gases into the air we breath?

Or dumping CO2 which is changing the climate?

All of that is true, but unless people are willing to buy BEVs, irrelevant.

People are willing to buy BEVs, even unsubdized. Not at the same rate, of course.

 

[GRA]

And where are the un-subsidized BEVs that provide comparable to ICE performance and range at any price?

And where are the ICEs that are as quiet, smooth and responsive as BEVs?

Or match the convenience of charging at home?

When are we going to stop subsidizing ICEs by allowing them to dump toxic gases into the air we breath?

Or dumping CO2 which is changing the climate?

Where are the 99.3% of mainstream consumers who care enough about any of this to make them switch?

All of that is true, but unless people are willing to buy BEVs, irrelevant.

People are willing to buy BEVs, even unsubdized. Not at the same rate, of course.

So far this year, subsidized PEVs (i.e. all of them) are on track to make up perhaps 0.67% of the total U.S. auto sales, down from 0.71% last year. BEVs make up about half of the total this year, but see my reply over at ievs, where I broke out the numbers for October, and showed that PHEV sales are ahead of BEVs when looking only at 'affordable' (sub-$40k MSRP) PEVs:

October 2015 EV Sales In US Salvaged By New Chevrolet Volt

http://insideevs.com/october-ev-sales-us-salvaged-new-2016-chevrolet-volt/

As I said there, Tesla is carrying BEVs.

 

[RegGuheert]

Where are the 99.3% of mainstream consumers who care enough about any of this to make them switch?

Here is the key point:

I don't and have never had expectations that all cars would be EVs in less than multiple decades.

What's funny is that you have argued the exact same thing yourself.

Feel free to ignore the fact that worldwide sales of the Nissan LEAF are ramping up faster than equivalent-year sales of the Toyota Prius, only delayed by exactly 13 years. Interestingly, both vehicles saw a drop in sales during their fifth full sales year while buyers awaited a significant refresh and also due to the low cost of gasoline. Neither of those factors are permanent, so neither factor will derail the growth in BEV sales. While neither car had a significant competitor in those first five years, as you note, there is another BEV selling at significant market share in the luxury space. The Prius had no similar market support. Finally, the LEAF is likely to be joined by real competition soon, so I would not be surprised to see it struggle to keep pace with the rapid growth of the Prius in the market. But that will mean BEV sales will be outpacing their gasoline-electric hybrid ancestors even more rapidly. We shall see.

It seems abundantly clear that NMC Li-ion batteries are THE break-out technology for BEVs. They provide the capacity, cost, durability, efficiency and access to fuel that BEVs need to make the next big step up in market penetration. (Note to self: we need a spider diagram to show this more clearly...)

Fuel cells offer capacity and perhaps durability. In fleets they can offer suitable access to fuel.

Because of the limitations of fuel cells, fleets are where they currently have an opportunity to find a market. They are starting to succeed in indoor forklift applications because they offer a better mix of clean operation, capacity and fast refueling than any other option, including BEVs. (The question I still have is whether they will win in this space long-term. Fuel cells are currently replacing LEAD-ACID batteries in these indoor forklift applications. Li-ion batteries could probably (not definitely) compete, but battery manufacturers are currently focused on the much-larger automotive market where they can more quickly recover their significant development expenses. But for now, fuel cells are winning.)

Bottom lines:

BEVs are on a health growth curve in the passenger car market right now. And the addressable portion of that market is HUGE! Perhaps 50% or more of the market using second-generation LEAF-equivalent technology.

FCVs are on a healthy growth curve in the indoor forklift market. It is a much smaller market, but it is not insignificant. It demonstrates that there are real applications for fuel cells beyond Apollo!

 

[GRA]

Where are the 99.3% of mainstream consumers who care enough about any of this to make them switch?

Here is the key point:

I don't and have never had expectations that all cars would be EVs in less than multiple decades.

What's funny is that you have argued the exact same thing yourself.

Of course I have, and it's obviously going to be the case. Most people won't switch until they have a compelling reasons to do so, and all the arguments we can advance for one variety or another of EV are so much background noise to the average consumer, at least while gas prices are so low.

Feel free to ignore the fact that worldwide sales of the Nissan LEAF are ramping up faster than equivalent-year sales of the Toyota Prius, only delayed by exactly 13 years. Interestingly, both vehicles saw a drop in sales during their fifth full sales year while buyers awaited a significant refresh and also due to the low cost of gasoline.

Actually, Prius sales only took off with the introduction of the 2nd gen, providentially combined with a major spike in gas prices about the time it started to arrive. And let's not forget that worldwide sales of PEVs remain driven almost entirely by massive government subsidies and perks - the Prius got a relatively small subsidy, but a huge perk (HOV stickers) in California.

As they drop off, I expect we'll see Georgia's experience repeated numerous times. CARB had issued just under 76k of the 85k Green HOV stickers as of 10/5, so unless the state legislature votes for another expansion we can expect to see California PHEV sales drop precipitously
again once they run out, as the stickers are worth more to the average buyer/lessee (given their incomes/time savings) than the federal and California subsidies combined.

Neither of those factors are permanent, so neither factor will derail the growth in BEV sales. While neither car had a significant competitor in those first five years, as you note, there is another BEV selling at significant market share in the luxury space. The Prius had no similar market support. Finally, the LEAF is likely to be joined by real competition soon, so I would not be surprised to see it struggle to keep pace with the rapid growth of the Prius in the market. But that will mean BEV sales will be outpacing their gasoline-electric hybrid ancestors even more rapidly. We shall see.

It seems abundantly clear that NMC Li-ion batteries are THE break-out technology for BEVs. They provide the capacity, cost, durability, efficiency and access to fuel that BEVs need to make the next big step up in market penetration. (Note to self: we need a spider diagram to show this more clearly...)

We hope that NMC proves to be the tipping point, but it remains to be seen, especially their long-term durability. Certainly, I don't think the 30kWh available in the 2016 LEAF is enough of an advance to convince many who've been sitting on the fence that it's time to change, but those who were satisfied with the range of their 2011-2012 LEAFs can now buy another LEAF that is guaranteed to provide them with at least the same range for 8 yrs/100k miles. But that's a pretty small market. 200 miles EPA plus a QC infrastructure will certainly make it possible for a larger % of customers to consider a BEV as their sole car, but you've first got to convince them that they don't need ICE range and capability, a pretty tough sell for most.

Fuel cells offer capacity and perhaps durability. In fleets they can offer suitable access to fuel.

Plus all-weather range and rapid re-fueling. Most importantly in my view, is that they offer a nearly effortless transition from ICEs by the consumer and the fuel retailer, given an adequate fueling infrastructure. Roughly equivalent to when my dad got his '76 Peugeot diesel: everything was essentially the same as his gas car, only finding fuel on trips required a bit more effort (no smart phones then, Peugeot gave you a small book listing service stations and truck stops by state where you could get diesel). He normally bought diesel at a station about 5 miles away from home, but since it was right next to where he bought groceries it wasn't out of his way (and although he didn't normally fill the 25 gal. aux. tank, if he did he had a 1,200 mile range, otherwise 450). Other than the different smell and the fact that diesel was oily if you spilled it on your hands so you needed a rag, fueling it was same old/same old. Changing to H2 requires a similarly minimal transition - make the fuel connection once and you know how to do it forevermore.

I've made no secret of my opinion (in the Supercharger thread) that Tesla was making a mistake in emphasizing the early completion of long-distance interstate routes instead of regional destinations, and it appears that the H2 people are leaning my way, at least initially. It helps that they've got better year-round range than a BEV, so don't need as many stations to make a viable network, and also want to be put in locations with the maximum demand, instead of the opposite for SCs.

Because of the limitations of fuel cells, fleets are where they currently have an opportunity to find a market. They are starting to succeed in indoor forklift applications because they offer a better mix of clean operation, capacity and fast refueling than any other option, including BEVs. (The question I still have is whether they will win in this space long-term. Fuel cells are currently replacing LEAD-ACID batteries in these indoor forklift applications. Li-ion batteries could probably (not definitely) compete, but battery manufacturers are currently focused on the much-larger automotive market where they can more quickly recover their significant development expenses. But for now, fuel cells are winning.)

Bottom lines:

BEVs are on a health growth curve in the passenger car market right now. And the addressable portion of that market is HUGE! Perhaps 50% or more of the market using second-generation LEAF-equivalent technology.

FCVs are on a healthy growth curve in the indoor forklift market. It is a much smaller market, but it is not insignificant. It demonstrates that there are real applications for fuel cells beyond Apollo!

As we know that we see things differently in some areas, I won't repeat all my arguments, as anyone who wishes to read them can just go upthread 10, 20 or 30 pages to one of the previous times we went through this cycle.

BTW, here's a GCC article on the status of DoE's 5-5-5 battery program:

Update on JCESR’s progress toward 5-5-5 battery for EV and grid applications; convergent and divergent research strategies

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/11/20151105-jcesr.html

Not that it's a surprise, as the goals were extremely aggressive, but it's clear that they aren't going to reach them. That's okay as long as they're learning fundamental things, even at $120m from the Federal Gov't. over 5 years (versus a max. of $200m over 10 years that California is spending to deploy H2 stations).

. . . Crabtree [GRA: Director of JCESR] started by noting that the energy density of Li-ion batteries has increased linearly by a factor of three since their introduction in the 1970s. The density can increase another 50-100%, he said. The question, he added, is whether or not that increased density—which will hit a limit—is sufficient to “conquer” the transportation and electricity generation markets.

"That’s a question we ought to think about. When you think about silicon in the semiconductor industry, gallium arsenide is way better, but we still have a silicon semiconductor industry because it keeps getting better and better and better. I think the difference [with Li-ion] is that there is a limit. It’s a question of whether you think that limit is enough for the two industries to blossom.

"Almost everything you’ve tried in Li-ion has failed, and it failed not because it was a bad idea, it failed because there are a lot of side reactions in a battery that take place, and those side reactions sometimes consume the active ingredient or the electrolyte and limit the lifetime. So for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of the original idea, most things fail. And that means you have to have backup plans.

"Lots of strategic pivots are needed and we learned this lesson for JCESR for the next generation. [We need] a balance of what we call convergent—this means what I’d like to have—and divergent—which means what are my backup plans for when that convergent idea fails—[research]. I want to be able to bring something else to the table."

—George Crabtree . . . .

And that's why I want us to continue developing FCEVs (and biofuels ftm), until we get to where we need to be.

 

[RegGuheert]

Feel free to ignore the fact that worldwide sales of the Nissan LEAF are ramping up faster than equivalent-year sales of the Toyota Prius, only delayed by exactly 13 years. Interestingly, both vehicles saw a drop in sales during their fifth full sales year while buyers awaited a significant refresh and also due to the low cost of gasoline.

Actually, Prius sales only took off with the introduction of the 2nd gen, providentially combined with a major spike in gas prices about the time it started to arrive.

Is that different than what I said? Discount the technology refresh if you must, but it, along with gas prices, held back sales for the Prius and it's doing it again for the LEAF. If you believe that the price of fuel is the ONLY factor, then you should also believe that BEVs are the ONLY solution. It's a significant factor, but there are others.

And let's not forget that worldwide sales of PEVs remain driven almost entirely by massive government subsidies and perks - the Prius got a relatively small subsidy, but a huge perk (HOV stickers) in California.

Agreed that both technologies have been subsidized by the government. Hybrids didn't need as big a subsidy since the uplift in price was not nearly as large.

As they drop off, I expect we'll see Georgia's experience repeated numerous times. CARB had issued just under 76k of the 85k Green HOV stickers as of 10/5, so unless the state legislature votes for another expansion we can expect to see California PHEV sales drop precipitously again once they run out, as the stickers are worth more to the average buyer/lessee (given their incomes/time savings) than the federal and California subsidies combined.

Of course sales drop once subsidies disappear. That's basic economics. But BEVs can recover the extra purchase price through reduced fuel and maintenance costs. FCVs have no such way to recover the exhorbitant manufacturing costs. You pay more now and pay more to drive them. They CANNOT exist without the government subsidies, except as noted for specialty fleets.

Certainly, I don't think the 30kWh available in the 2016 LEAF is enough of an advance to convince many who've been sitting on the fence that it's time to change,...

No one said it would be, so why go there?

Fuel cells offer capacity and perhaps durability. In fleets they can offer suitable access to fuel.

Plus all-weather range and rapid re-fueling.

All-weather range is pseudo-code for "inefficient." As any vehicle becomes more-and-more efficient, there will be an increasing gap between cold-weather and warm-weather range. FCVs have NO refueling in most places in the world. For this reason, they will suffer the same fate that CNG vehicles suffered. Would-be buyers like me could not purchase them because there was no place to refuel. A PP wanted to promote H2 SO BADLY that they feigned that they would lease one for their sister. :roll:

Most importantly in my view, is that they offer a nearly effortless transition from ICEs by the consumer and the fuel retailer, given an adequate fueling infrastructure.

Bolding mine.

Adequate fueling infrastructure is not GIVEN. So far, it is TAKEN from taxpayers and built at GREAT EXPENSE. This great expense is in terms of dollars and the environment. Simply put, your "given" is the biggest barrier that H2 faces and it will stop widespread deployment outside of fleets.

BEVs have no such barrier to deployment. The fueling infrastructure IS given for a large population. And it is SUPERIOR infrastructure to that which it is replacing since it is provided at home.

And that's why I want us to continue developing FCEVs (and biofuels ftm), until we get to where we need to be.

Exactly where do we need to be? As noted, generation 2 BEVs open a massive market. Growth only continues for BEVs going forward. Throwing massive resources down a hole which offers no benefits for society when it could be spent on rolling out is foolish. The opportunity cost of building hydrogen refueling infrastructure are massive. This effort is holding back real progress toward cleaner transportation. Hydrogen has been proposed as the endgame by many and that is simply a falsehood. BEVs ARE the endgame and pursuing inefficient solutions instead just creates more pollution and waste that we cannot afford.

 

[GRA]

Feel free to ignore the fact that worldwide sales of the Nissan LEAF are ramping up faster than equivalent-year sales of the Toyota Prius, only delayed by exactly 13 years. Interestingly, both vehicles saw a drop in sales during their fifth full sales year while buyers awaited a significant refresh and also due to the low cost of gasoline.

Actually, Prius sales only took off with the introduction of the 2nd gen, providentially combined with a major spike in gas prices about the time it started to arrive.

Is that different than what I said? Discount the technology refresh if you must, but it, along with gas prices, held back sales for the Prius and it's doing it again for the LEAF. If you believe that the price of fuel is the ONLY factor, then you should also believe that BEVs are the ONLY solution. It's a significant factor, but there are others.

Of course there are other factors, but it's certainly the most significant one. And I was disagreeing with how much emphasis you placed on each of the relevant factors, not to their existence. The 2nd Gen. Prius was a considerable improvement on Gen 1, but still a car limited in desirability to the hair shirt brigade until gas prices spiked. Without the fuel price spike its sales would have been only slightly less anemic than Gen. 1.

<snip area of agreement>

As they drop off, I expect we'll see Georgia's experience repeated numerous times. CARB had issued just under 76k of the 85k Green HOV stickers as of 10/5, so unless the state legislature votes for another expansion we can expect to see California PHEV sales drop precipitously again once they run out, as the stickers are worth more to the average buyer/lessee (given their incomes/time savings) than the federal and California subsidies combined.

Of course sales drop once subsidies disappear. That's basic economics. But BEVs can recover the extra purchase price through reduced fuel and maintenance costs. FCVs have no such way to recover the exhorbitant manufacturing costs. You pay more now and pay more to drive them. They CANNOT exist without the government subsidies, except as noted for specialty fleets.

Sure, they are more expensive now (well, actually, they aren't compared to the closest comparably-ranged BEV). And currently in the U.S., fuel costs the consumer nothing, although that will obviously change. As to maintenance, we have little idea, but they seem to be about the same complexity level as a BEV, perhaps slightly more inherent to the tech, but less knowledge required of it by the operator to avoid damage (no worries about deep discharges/leaving them full for prolonged periods), so maybe a wash. And BEVs (other than the Model S and maybe Model X) can't exist without subsidies either at the moment, so how does that differ?

Certainly, I don't think the 30kWh available in the 2016 LEAF is enough of an advance to convince many who've been sitting on the fence that it's time to change,...

No one said it would be, so why go there?

Because it's of a piece with the whole "BEVs are superior to FCEVs from the customer's point of view," which is fallacious for the general public _now_. Gen 2 BEVs may or may not get us there - we'll see.

Fuel cells offer capacity and perhaps durability. In fleets they can offer suitable access to fuel.

Plus all-weather range and rapid re-fueling.

All-weather range is pseudo-code for "inefficient." As any vehicle becomes more-and-more efficient, there will be an increasing gap between cold-weather and warm-weather range.

Sure, it's less efficient. Also much more user friendly, and IMO that's the critical thing that will lead to adoption by the general public. ICEs are the least efficient of all, and they're on track to sell over 18 million of them in the U.S. this year. As we've argued many times before, efficiency without capability isn't going to make anyone beyond the early adopters switch.

FCVs have NO refueling in most places in the world. For this reason, they will suffer the same fate that CNG vehicles suffered. Would-be buyers like me could not purchase them because there was no place to refuel. A PP wanted to promote H2 SO BADLY that they feigned that they would lease one for their sister. :roll:

We've already had this agument (actually, we've had all these arguments) numerous times. All infrastructures start from nothing. Gas stations did, J1772 EVSEs did, QCs did, and SCs did. If H2/FCEVs take off, then the infrastructure will appear. And if not, not. As it is, we have five countries, 3 in Europe, Japan, and the U.S., where government and manufacturer-subsidized infrastructure will appear first, and show whether or not it can be fully commercialized.

Most importantly in my view, is that they offer a nearly effortless transition from ICEs by the consumer and the fuel retailer, given an adequate fueling infrastructure.

Bolding mine.
Adequate fueling infrastructure is not GIVEN. So far, it is TAKEN from taxpayers and built at GREAT EXPENSE. This great expense is in terms of dollars and the environment. Simply put, your "given" is the biggest barrier that H2 faces and it will stop widespread deployment outside of fleets.

See above.

BEVs have no such barrier to deployment. The fueling infrastructure IS given for a large population. And it is SUPERIOR infrastructure to that which it is replacing since it is provided at home.

I've pointed out the inability of most urban populations to recharge at home so many times that repeating it once again is , well, that poor horse is not just dead, it's been pounded into the pavement. In the U.S. alone, there are about 55 million households that can't charge at home (assuming ~ 320m population / average household size of 2.54 = ~ 125m households x 44% that can't charge at home per Plug-in America survey). Other countries have much higher %s of the population for whom home charging isn't available.

And that's why I want us to continue developing FCEVs (and biofuels ftm), until we get to where we need to be.

Exactly where do we need to be? As noted, generation 2 BEVs open a massive market. Growth only continues for BEVs going forward. Throwing massive resources down a hole which offers no benefits for society when it could be spent on rolling out is foolish. The opportunity cost of building hydrogen refueling infrastructure are massive. This effort is holding back real progress toward cleaner transportation. Hydrogen has been proposed as the endgame by many and that is simply a falsehood. BEVs ARE the endgame and pursuing inefficient solutions instead just creates more pollution and waste that we cannot afford.

Where we need to be is off fossil fuels, with most transportation electrified. How we get off fossil fuels will be determined not by enthusiasts for this or that tech, but by what the public is willing to buy. We all hope that Gen 2 BEVs will be acceptable to a much larger % of the public than Gen 1 was, but the infrastructure constraints will still exist for decades, and they will not be suitable for everyone. Although its capabilities would be far less than I'd want, I could just about make one work given adequate charging infrastructure, which still doesn't exist here in the Bay Area let alone many of the destinations that I'd want to take such a car, almost five years after the first deployment of mass production BEVs. And this is in a first world metropolitan area with some of the most robust government and public support for PEVs, in a state ditto. And now, having finished this particular cycle of the endless loop argument, it's back to H2/fuel cell related news items.

 

[GRA]

Via GCC:

AC Transit files LCFS pathway application for H2 produced by electrolysis (solar): 0.00 gCO2e/MJ

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/11/20151106-act.html

. . . According to AC Transit’s analysis—which is supported by ARB Staff—the carbon intensity (CI) of the gaseous hydrogen produced by the pathway is 0.00 gCO2e/MJ—i.e., a zero-carbon fuel on a “well-to-tank” lifecycle basis.

AC Transit . . . operates its own hydrogen fueling facility in Emeryville, CA. The total hydrogen dispensed includes on-site production as well as hydrogen supplied by the Linde Group. The on-site hydrogen is produced using a proton electrolyzer and two compression units.

The electrolyzer unit has a capacity of 64 kg H2/ day and the facility currently produces approximately 750 kg of compressed H2 per month. The hydrogen produced by electrolysis is mixed with hydrogen delivered by Linde and compressed at the two compression units. . . .

Electricity for the on-site generated hydrogen is sourced from two solar installations with rated outputs of 425 kW and 510 kW. . . .

According to four months of data provided by AC Transit to back up its application, the electricity requirements for H2 generation and compression (only the portion generated using electrolysis) are between 39% to 71% of total solar electricity generated during the four summer months represented by the data. In other words, under current operating conditions, the facility generates adequate solar electricity to offset all of the energy required for on-site H2 production and compression.

 

[WetEV]

Because it's of a piece with the whole "BEVs are superior to FCEVs from the customer's point of view," which is fallacious for the general public _now_. Gen 2 BEVs may or may not get us there - we'll see.

"Fallacious" in your often stated opinion.

An unsubdized Leaf is slightly more expensive than a gasoline car, that is with gasoline priced at $2, and electric priced at $0.10, which it is many places. The Leaf is roughly $7000 more than a similar gasoline car, and over 100k miles you will only save about $3000 on gasoline, and a few thousand more on repairs and maintenance. Total cost of ownership is a little more, before the tax credit. This is in the PNW, AZ and other hot places BEV is more expensive due to shorter battery life. Still, people buying them. Gains are slow, a little bit more range every battery generation, with a bit of cost reduction as well, while gasoline is likely to go up in price it might be a decade or more before the unsubdized BEV is clearly lower cost than an ICE.

An unsubdized hydrogen car would cost about $50,000 more than a gasoline car. We don't know how long fuel cells will last in real automotive use, so working out total cost of ownership is a guess work at best. But the fuel is more expensive than gasoline, and is fossil fuel based, so will have likely future carbon taxes added. Sure, can make green hydrogen, but that is even more expensive. It is very clear that the FCEV is a lot more expensive than a BEV, and will continue to be a lot more expensive.

We know that even unsubdized Leafs sell, yes at a slower rate, but there is still a market. See BC Canada recent history for an example.

I don't see how an unsubdized FCEV _now_ would sell more than ten. So _now_ the BEV has a sizable niche market, the FCEV has no market beyond wealthy toy buyers.

The future might be different, so I'm not completely against spending money to reduce the cost per car. I think you are vastly overselling the acceptability of the FCEV. Over promising, under delivering isn't a good plan.

A decade is a long time, but I'd guess that BEV market share will more than double in the next decade, and FCEVs sales are unlikely to get out of the prototype range of a few subsidized leases.

 

[GRA]

Because it's of a piece with the whole "BEVs are superior to FCEVs from the customer's point of view," which is fallacious for the general public _now_. Gen 2 BEVs may or may not get us there - we'll see.

"Fallacious" in your often stated opinion. <snip>

Wet (and Reg, and everyone else), we've been repeating the same arguments, pro and con, for at least the past 18 months. No one has any new ones, so I'm going to sit this round out, and hopefully all future rounds if I've got the discipline. Feel free to cut and paste my replies to the same points from any previous rounds.

 

[DNAinaGoodWay]

Over 3160 posts, some repetition is only natural, but don't blame you, endless argument gets dull. When H2 cars are under $30k, all H2 is cheap and from renewables, and every current gas station offers it, it'll be part of the landscape along with under $30k, 300 mile BEVs that recharge in 15 minutes or in the wireless charge lane on the highway.

 

[GRA]

Over 3160 posts, some repetition is only natural, but don't blame you, endless argument gets dull. When H2 cars are under $30k, all H2 is cheap and from renewables, and every current gas station offers it, it'll be part of the landscape along with under $30k, 300 mile BEVs that recharge in 15 minutes or in the wireless charge lane on the highway.

+1.

 

[GRA]

Via GCC:

Ballard in strategic cooperation with King Long for fuel cell buses in China

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/11/20151110-ballard.html

Ballard Power Systems signed a Strategic Collaboration Agreement with Xiamen King Long United Automotive Industry Co., Ltd. (King Long), a leading global developer, designer and manufacturer of buses, to design and deploy fuel cell-powered buses. . . .

• We are delighted to be working with the second largest bus OEM in the world on this important fuel cell bus design and market opportunity. Together, we are looking to optimize the design in order to improve performance, while lowering cost. This will help drive fuel cell buses to cost parity with incumbent bus technologies. King LongÆs strategic commitment to fuel cell bus deployment represents further validation of the substantial potential for zero-emission mass transit solutions in China and beyond.
  
  —Randy MacEwen, Ballard’s President and CEO. . . .

Also via GCC:

Hydrogen Education Foundation announces 6 contestants for $1M H2 Refuel H-Prize

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/11/20151110-h2.html

. . . In October 2014, the US Department of Energy’s (DOE) Fuel Cell Technologies Office (FCTO) and the Hydrogen Education Foundation (HEF) launched the $1-million H2 Refuel H-Prize. The two-year competition challenges America’s engineers and entrepreneurs to develop affordable systems for small-scale hydrogen fueling. . . .

The finalist selection is expected to be announced in December 2015 followed by system construction, installation, testing and evaluation, resulting in the announcement of the winner of the $1-million prize at the end of 2016.

And another:

California Governor’s office publishes guidebook for hydrogen station development

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/11/20151110-cah2.html

. . . Aimed at station developers, permitting officials and AHJs [GRA: Authorities Having Jurisdiction], the guidebook provides insights and lessons captured from the past two years of hydrogen station development in California.

Direct link to the guidebook here:

Hydrogen Station Permitting Guidebook
Best practices for planning, permitting and opening a hydrogen fueling station
Published November 2015 First Edition

https://gobiz.app.box.com/HydrogenPermittingGuidebook

 

[GRA]

Via autonews:

GM to provide fuel cell vehicle to Army for testing

http://www.autonews.com/article/20151111/OEM05/151119956/gm-to-provide-fuel-cell-vehicle-to-army-for-testing

. . . Mark Reuss, GM’s global product chief, told investors last month the company had signed “a multi-year contract to build and demonstrate a fuel cell reconnaissance vehicle” for the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center. . . .

Reuss said the vehicle “will be based on our current fuel cell development program, on our current stack. It will show the unique advantages our proven fuel cell technology can offer in an all-terrain tactical application. . . .”

The Army is interested in fuel cell vehicles for a number of reasons. First, they are quieter and smoother than vehicles with internal combustion engines. Second, they can be used to generate electricity in the field; and because gaseous fuel weighs less than gasoline or diesel, fuel cell vehicles would be easier to fuel.

Because fuel cell vehicles have electric drivetrains, they offer high torque at low speeds, ideal for many types of military vehicles. . . .

The fuel cell to be tested by the Army is a current GM design and does not feature any Honda technology. . . .

Flores said testing fuel cell technology in military vehicles would expose it to some of the toughest conditions possible and GM engineers could learn how the technology behaves under extreme duress. . . .

Update to H2 Refuel H-Prize competition mentioned in just previous post. Contest rules and guidelines are here: http://www.hydrogenprize.org/how-to-compete/rules-and-guidelines/

As this appears to be a public document, I'm quoting more extensively than usual from it. From the link:

. . .The H2 Refuel H-Prize anticipates award of a $1 million prize to the top refueler system entry that can produce hydrogen using electricity and/or natural gas, energy sources commonly available to residential locations, and dispense the hydrogen to a vehicle, providing at least 1 kg per refueling. Systems considered would be at the home scale and able to generate and dispense 1-5 kg H2/day for use at residences, or the medium scale, generating and dispensing 5-50 kg H2/day. Medium scale systems would serve a larger community with multiple users daily, such as a large apartment complex or retail centers to fuel small fleets of vehicles (e.g., light duty automobiles, forklifts or tractors). . . .

Each entry will be scored in six different technical and cost criteria:

• Dispensing pressure
  Dispensing time
  Number of standard fills per day
  Tested availability
  Total installed system cost
  Direct user cost per kg

. . . .

Prize criteria

The criteria were developed through discussion with experts in the field, including members of Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Advisory Committee, other DOE offices, and federal agencies, and from responses to a Request for Information (DE-FOA-0000907: RFI – Home Hydrogen Refueler H-Prize Topic, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/financing/solicitations_detail.html?sol_id=600) and public comments on the draft criteria (79 FR 15737).

Each of the criteria is assigned a 1-5 point scale connected to different ranges. To be eligible, entries must receive at least the minimum score for each category. For some criteria, the ranges for home and community systems may be different. A score multiplying factor will be used to weight the different criteria.

• Dispensing Pressure
  Score Home / Community
  1 350 bar or higher
  2 400 bar or higher
  3 500 bar or higher
  4 600 bar or higher
  5 700 bar or higher (ultimate goal)

Dispensing Pressure refers to the pressure of the hydrogen dispensed to the vehicle. Intermediate pressures are listed to incentivize advancements towards low-cost systems that can meet the ultimate target of 700 bar

• Dispensing time
  Score Home Community
  1 10 hours/kg or less 60 minutes/kg or less
  2 8 hours/kg or less 30 minutes/kg or less
  3 5 hours/kg or less 15 minutes/kg or less
  4 2 hours/kg or less 10 minutes/kg or less
  5 30 minutes/kg or less 3 minutes/kg or less

Dispensing time is the time required to dispense a standard fill of hydrogen to a vehicle, including time required to connect the system to the vehicle and begin the hydrogen flow. Home systems may have longer fueling times, up to overnight, while multi-user system are expected to have shorter fueling times.

• Number of standard fills per day
  Score Home Community
  1 1 or more 5 or more
  2 2 or more 10 or more
  3 3 or more 20 or more
  4 4 or more 40 or more
  5 5 or more 50 or more

The standard fills per day will be based on the highest number of actual or simulated fills completed in a 24 hour period.

• Tested Availability
  Score Home / Community
  1 80% or higher
  2 85% or higher
  3 90% or higher
  4 95% or higher
  5 98% or higher

Availability will be tested over a period of two to three months, during which time system usage will need to be at least 50% of the planned capacity per week. Any time spent on repairs or non-routine maintenance during the testing period will count as non-available, even if compensated for (e.g., repairs done during scheduled down-time, or using stored hydrogen).

• Total Installed System Cost (capital + installation)
  Score Home Community
  1 $25k/kg/day or less $15k/kg/day or less
  2 $20k/kg/day or less $12.5k/kg/day or less
  3 $15k/kg/day or less $10k/kg/day or less
  4 $10k/kg/day or less $7.5k/kg/day or less
  5 $5k/kg/day or less $5k/kg/day or less

Total Installed System Cost will be based on the actual cost for the system equipment (including balance of plant to the nozzle interface) as well as the installation costs. To eliminate installation cost variations based on geographic location or demonstration site type (e.g., actual home or community site vs. lab installation), DOE will have installation costs estimated by an independent entity based on the system feedstock (i.e., natural gas or electricity), capacity, fuel pressure, type (community vs. home), etc. The total cost for scoring will be based on the amount of hydrogen dispensed per day, up to the upper range for the system category (5 kg/day for the home system, 50 kg/day for the community system) – for example, a home system designed and demonstrated to dispense 1 kg/day with a total installed system cost of $24,000 would score 1 point, while a system designed to dispense 2 kg/day at the same cost would receive a score of 3. Teams will be expected to provide information such as the bill of materials for all components. Details of the specific information requested will be provided to the teams selected for testing. If the system proposed provides heat and/or power in addition to hydrogen for refueling, the total installed system cost of the entire system will be considered when scoring this criterion. Integrated systems that provide heat and/or power in addition to hydrogen for refueling will be awarded bonus points (see bonus points below).

• Direct user cost per kg
  Score Home / Community
  1 $20 or less
  2 $17 or less
  3 $14 or less
  4 $11 or less
  5 $8 or less

Direct user cost per kg will be based on feedstock inputs and actual operations and maintenance costs during the testing period, divided by the amount of hydrogen that is produced and used. The direct user cost per kg excludes the capital and installation costs, which are included in the total installed system cost category. Feedstock cost inputs will be based on actual usage, using a single price for all entries for each input to eliminate regional variation, based on the EIA 2014 projections for average price to all users: $0.098/kWh for electricity and $6.60/million BTU for natural gas. All generated and used hydrogen is counted in determining the $/kg – for example, a system that generates 10 kg/day, where 4 kg is used for fuel vehicles and 5 is used in a fuel cell to produce power would divide the daily user costs by 9..

 

[Stoaty]

When H2 cars are under $30k, all H2 is cheap and from renewables, and every current gas station offers it, it'll be part of the landscape...

H2 will be cheap and all from renewables right after pigs fly... and every current gas station will offer it???

 

[DNAinaGoodWay]

When H2 cars are under $30k, all H2 is cheap and from renewables, and every current gas station offers it, it'll be part of the landscape...

H2 will be cheap and all from renewables right after pigs fly... and every current gas station will offer it???

Imagination.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

Via autonews:

GM to provide fuel cell vehicle to Army for testing

http://www.autonews.com/article/20151111/OEM05/151119956/gm-to-provide-fuel-cell-vehicle-to-army-for-testing

. . . Mark Reuss, GM’s global product chief, told investors last month the company had signed “a multi-year contract to build and demonstrate a fuel cell reconnaissance vehicle” for the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center. . . .

Reuss said the vehicle “will be based on our current fuel cell development program, on our current stack. It will show the unique advantages our proven fuel cell technology can offer in an all-terrain tactical application. . . .”

The Army is interested in fuel cell vehicles for a number of reasons. First, they are quieter and smoother than vehicles with internal combustion engines. Second, they can be used to generate electricity in the field; and because gaseous fuel weighs less than gasoline or diesel, fuel cell vehicles would be easier to fuel.

Because fuel cell vehicles have electric drivetrains, they offer high torque at low speeds, ideal for many types of military vehicles. . . .

The fuel cell to be tested by the Army is a current GM design and does not feature any Honda technology. . . .

Flores said testing fuel cell technology in military vehicles would expose it to some of the toughest conditions possible and GM engineers could learn how the technology behaves under extreme duress. . . .

Yeah, I don't know that the conclusion follows from the fact here (bolded part above). Yes, gaseous fuel weighs less than liquid fuels. But it's also much more difficult to handle. You cannot just pour it into a container and carry it around. You need to pressurize it in reinforced tanks. The weight of those tanks could easily undo the weight advantage of the fuel itself...