Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[rcm4453]

It's not better, but the world has found it acceptable for the past century, given the other benefits. This assumes that home production of H2 via electrolysis/photochemical/thermochemical methods never becomes commercially viable, which would eliminate that objection (not that I'm expecting it).

You can charge a BEV at home for free? You must have found a philanthropic solar company to give you the panels and install them for nothing - I always charged my customers. But at least for three years in the U.S., an FCEV customer can get H2 for free, not that that's sustainable over the long term.

See above.

Let me fix that for you: "It can get close to 300 miles of range in very limited, unrealistic conditions for a limited period of time, at a price starting over $80k." As for the performance, while being able to go 0-60 in 2.9 seconds in Ludicrous mode is all sorts of fun, nobody needs to be able to do that. Nor is there any reason why an FCEV (actually an FCHEV, which all of them are now) couldn't be designed to do so, when and if anyone decides to.

FCEVs are certainly less efficient than BEVs, at least when the weather's warm (not sure if that holds true when the cars are providing CHP in cold temps, but I expect the overall efficiency is pretty close then - it's currently something like 75% for FCEVs for CHP. BEV efficiency is in the 90-95% range without providing heat, which is why I think they need auxiliary fuel-fired heaters for long trips in cold climates (to prevent the double range hit due to cold).

Big Oil is behind California's 33% RFS for transportation H2, a percentage that will surely be increased over time? Are they also behind Air Liquide's plan to have 50% of the H2 in the stations they're building in the Northeast be renewable by 2020? Or Denmark's plan to generate all their H2 from excess wind power, and one of the other Scandinavian countries (Sweden?) which plans to do the same? Or Toyota's partnering with a couple of Japanese cities to generate H2 likewise? Reports for all of these and many others have been linked upthread.

95% of current U.S. hydrogen is produced by steam-methane re-forming of non-renewable natural gas. Believe me, Big Oil will be in the loop and profiting from hydrogen fuel stations. Isn't Shell oil one of the biggest right now for hydrogen fuel stations? It is significantly cheaper to reform methane to get hydrogen than to extract it from water using electrolysis. The market does not price carbon, therefore there is no economic penalty for using methane as the H2 source. The market will not support a higher cost fuel over a less expensive fuel. People will not fuel their FCEVs with low carbon H2 (renewable) but with H2 from reformed methane. [/quote

Of course Big Oil will be in the loop; they're energy companies. They've also been in the loop re PV (at least Shell, Arco and BP have all had PV divisions at one time or another) and batteries. After all, it was a division of Exxon which first commercialized and marketed lithium batteries, and I see that Total is tendering to buy SAFT:

Total to acquire battery-maker Saft in US$1.1-billion deal

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/05/20160509-total.html

That 95% of H2 is currently being made from SMR has been stated here many times, by me among others. That's why so many jurisdictions are requiring RFS for transportation H2, in the same way that so many are requiring RFS for electricity (the majority of which is also still generated by burning fossil fuels). If H2 with an ever-increasing proportion produced renewably can't be sold at prices that are cheaper than fossil fuels, then it will fail, simple as that. That may come about through decreases on the cost of renewable H2, natural or artificial (carbon tax etc.) hikes in the price of fossil fuels or both. Or neither, in which case bio-fuel PHEVs, BEVs and/or bio-fueled ICEs will instead achieve mass adoption first. I'm fine with any of them, as long as they lead to the elimination of fossil fuels.

So what if people who lease FCEVs are getting free H2 right now, that's not going to last forever then what? Do you really think H2 will be cheaper then gasoline?

That's the intent of DoE and the auto and H2 companies, although it's highly unlikely that we'll reach that point within the next three years, which is why I said that the auto companies with FCEVs would likely need to continue H2 subsidies a a lower level for some time afterwards.

Definitely won't be cheaper then using electricity to power a BEV. It takes 2x to 3x as much electricity to drive a FCEV a mile as it does to drive a BEV a mile. You claim solar panels aren't free, that's very true but over time they will eventually pay for themselves. Can you say the same for a FCEV? Nope you sure can't because you're tied to the filling station paying at the pump week after week for the life of the vehicle. Plus you won't have the option to refuel your FCEV at home, which is one of the biggest perks of having a BEV.

Sure, FCEVs will be more expensive to fuel than BEVs, provided you can do so somewhere with cheap electricity. As I've pointed out at length in this and other threads, most people living in apartments, condos and townhouses, especially in urban areas can't do so, nor can they put PV on their roofs (because they don't own said roofs). Most of the world's urban car-owning population doesn't live like the (small: 56%) majority of the U.S. car-owning population who can charge at home. So, the fact that homeowners with access to low-cost electricity at home will have lower LCO and more convenience is great for them, but for the next several decades at least while the public charging infrastructure is being built up, irrelevant for most. If someone is in the fortunate position of being able to reap the major benefits of a BEV and it otherwise suits their needs, then by all means that's the way they should go.

I can't speak for Toyota and the other companies that have decided to go with fuel cells, but IMO they have reasoned much as I have; that most of the world's car-owning population doesn't fall into the BEV-suitable category now or mid-term future, and therefore another fossil-fuel free tech is necessary for them. That FCEVs (also biofueled ICEs/HEVs) also require essentially no change in personal habits is a bonus for consumer acceptance.

Another big problem with FCEVs is they are SLOW! You need a big battery to get decent performance and FCEVs have too small of a battery to deliver decent performance. I'm not saying they need to go 0-60 in 2.9 seconds but from the reviews I've read on the FCEVs that are out now, they are really slow in the acceleration department. The Chevy Bolt and Tesla model 3 will have better performance then the FCEVs and will be cheaper to buy and operate! Let's face it, a BEV beats a FCEV in almost every way, especially the ones coming out in the next few years. The only thing a FCEV wins at is faster refueling time, that's it! It loses to a BEV in EVERY other way so why would you choose a FCEV? Is there even a practical reason to go down the path of FCEVs? Why not just continue using ICE vehicles until BEVs improve even more? Why put resources into developing an inferior technology? Just make the transition from ICE vehicles to BEVs.

As I've pointed out, there is no technical reason why FCHEVs need to be slow, just cost and design point reasons. FCEVs beat BEVs currently in range for price, range in cold conditions, speed of refueling, lack of limitations on where one lives or works or the type of housing, ease of transition (for the consumer used to an ICE), and (probably) usable life. Even if fuel cells degrade at the same rate as batteries do, since they start off with more range and can be refueled so quickly they're prctical range remains much greater over the long term. I've said repeatedly that I don't believe in silver bullets, and that I think it more likely we'll adopt a variety of fossil-fuel free transportation techs for various needs rather than just one. However, if one of them out-competes all the others and can completely replace fossil fuels that's just fine by me, and I don't much care which one it might be, although AOTBE I'd of course opt for the most energy-efficient one.

It's obvious you favor FCEVs, do you even have a Leaf? After all this is a Nissan Leaf forum. Your point about it being easier for people to refuel FCEVs makes no sense as there are hardly any H2 station in the U.S. There are a lot more electrical outlets and public charging stations in this country so charging a BEV will be a lot easier for almost EVERYBODY for a VERY long time to come. Building out a whole network of super expensive H2 stations across the U.S. is going to take a very long time. Just imagine how many more public charging stations will be built by the time that happens. I lived in two apartment complexes before getting a house and was able to charge on 120V L1 just fine in the garage at both places. I guess I don't see the point in going in the FCEV direction, I view it as a lateral move from ICE vehicles. Actually it's going backwards considering we already have a network of gas stations in place for ICE vehicles. It makes much more sense to keep using ICE technology while we make improvements to BEVs. Why even bother with FCEVs at all? Just look at how fast BEVs are improving already, we are coming up on the 200 miles per charge BEVs next year! Tesla is already over 250 miles per charge. You don't think range will continue to increase over time?

I really think FCEVs are a way to squeeze out BEVs, more money to be made keeping Americans tied to the pump for the life of their cars! Who makes all the money if everyone is driving BEVs? You have to look at the big picture and when you do it's pretty obvious to me why there's such a push for FCEVs.

I still stand behind the fact that BEVs are superior to FCEVs in every way except refueling time. Like I said, to get decent performance FCEVs will need a rather big battery. They are not going to put a big battery in a FCEV so no, they will never even come close to the performance of a Tesla! Besides most people will buy a Tesla over an economy FCEV anyway. Look at how much FCEVs cost now, then look at how much the Tesla model 3 will cost, which would you choose? There's no competition there! Heck the Chevy Bolt EV will out perform the FCEVs on the market and will cost a lot less too. The whole point about faster refueling time is blown out of proportion. Most vehicles probably spend 95% of the day sitting parked so how is charging time even an issue? Takes a few seconds to plug in at night and a few seconds to unplug the next morning, no biggie! Now factor in having 200+ miles on that full charge and you are good to go for all your daily driving needs. There's always DCFC as a backup if you need that quick charge in a pinch. I have the 30kwh Leaf myself and hardly ever need a quick charge and I do a lot of daily driving. With 6.6kw L2 charging it's a non issue, do a few things at home for a couple hours and you already have half a battery to go back out and run more errands if need be. Again ones car sits so much of the day that charging times become a non issue.

The one hurdle to overcome yet is long distance travel. This will take time as we will need more charging stations and long range BEVs suitable for travel. This is also a hurdle for FCEVs as well though as there is no network of H2 stations and won't be for many, many years. This is why I say why not just keep using ICE technology for long distance travel until BEV tech matures? BEVs already excel as a city commuter so they are 99% of the way there. It would be cheaper to keep building out charging stations then to build out H2 stations. As EV range increases over the years and more DCFC stations get installed the long range travel problem becomes a non issue.

 

[finman100]

exactly. what rcm4453 said. sensibility. three cheers for saneness. bravo.

 

[GRA]

It's obvious you favor FCEVs, do you even have a Leaf? After all this is a Nissan Leaf forum.

Your claim that I favor FCEVs is incorrect. I favor whichever fossil-fuel free transportation technology will work and be acceptable to the public. Ideally, that would be the most efficient choice, which is currently (and likely to stay that way) BEVs, but at the moment they lack the full capability to replace BEVs, as well as the infrastructure to charge them. Even if all authorities having jurisdiction were to require, starting today, that all new construction housing and commercial properties had to provide charging, given the average life of the former (100 years) and the latter (50) it would be at least a quarter century before we had the capacity to charge a fair % of the world's urban BEVs. As to what car I own, see my sig.

Your point about it being easier for people to refuel FCEVs makes no sense as there are hardly any H2 station in the U.S. There are a lot more electrical outlets and public charging stations in this country so charging a BEV will be a lot easier for almost EVERYBODY for a VERY long time to come.

That's somewhat true IN THIS COUNTRY; we're better off than the rest of the world. I find I have to repeatedly emphasize that to the 'BEVs and nothing else' advocates, because while the U.S. has the highest per capita number of cars in the world and currently the largest fleet, we don't have the majority of the world's cars, we are no longer the world's largest car market, won't have the largest fleet within maybe 10 years, the regions of the world which are going to see the growth in car sales for the next half-century aren't in the U.S., and most of their people don't live in detached single family homes with electricity-served garages. Even in the U.S., as previously mentioned, only 56% of households can charge at home (Plug-in America survey), which leaves 125m x .44 = 55 million U.S. households that can't charge at home. It seems our definition of 'almost everybody' differs considerably. Also see: http://insideevs.com/58-percent-of-us-population-cant-join-ev-revolution-without-a-plug/ The numbers in that article will improve as longer range 'affordable' BEVs arrive, but as you can see, the time frame still stretches out decades. Autonomous cars can help, although their use will also decrease energy savings compared to home/work charging (as they drive themselves to and from charging stations).

Building out a whole network of super expensive H2 stations across the U.S. is going to take a very long time. Just imagine how many more public charging stations will be built by the time that happens.

As noted above, it's going to take a very long time to build out the charging infrastructure as well here, let alone in other countries, and will take even longer because no one has yet come up with a profitable business model (Tesla's won't work at mass market levels) - FCEVs just take over the gas station business model, if (a big if) they can get the cost of the fuel/equipment down to a competitive level. Until either PEVs or FCEVs can be recharged/refueled profitably, the infrastructure roll out will remain slow, and dependent on government handouts. I've never seen the path as all FCEVs or all BEVs; as I've said, I don't believe in technological silver bullets. It will almost certainly take both, with PHEVs being the interim choice for the majority (along with fossil-fueled HEVs) during the transition. If BEVs get to the point where they can completely replace liquid-fueled cars as far as capability, cost and infrastructure, then we can forego or (more likely) phase out the FCEVs if that's the best way to go. But, as I've repeatedly stressed, we shouldn't close out any non-fossil-fuel option that has a reasonable chance of commercial success, until such time as we've achieved the Holy Grail of full capability/cost replacement for fossil-fueled ICEs with at least one tech. None of them is close to that, now or in the near future.

I lived in two apartment complexes before getting a house and was able to charge on 120V L1 just fine in the garage at both places.

Lucky you. I've lived at various apartments over the years, as well as examined numerous apartment parking lots/garages in the places in and around the places I've lived, and virtually none (I'd guesstimate the total at under 5%) have ANY receptacles in the parking area. Some have one or two for all spaces (presumably to allow use of cleaning equipment), but in general aside from the extra cost of installation, most landlords don't want outside receptacles where anyone can steal power. It will take changes to building codes to require them in all new construction, which I'm all in favor of, but only a few jurisdictions have done so, in the U.S. and elsewhere. And they will need to have some way of restricting access and charging for the power, which ups the price.

I guess I don't see the point in going in the FCEV direction, I view it as a lateral move from ICE vehicles. Actually it's going backwards considering we already have a network of gas stations in place for ICE vehicles. It makes much more sense to keep using ICE technology while we make improvements to BEVs. Why even bother with FCEVs at all?

If we could produce sustainable biofuels in the required quantities, I'd completely agree. In fact, we could skip BEVs too, and just replace fossil-fuel gas with drop-in biofuel gas in our ICEs, and continue on our energy-inefficient but net-zero GHG producing merry way with almost no societal disruption. Since we can't, we have to go with other options.

Just look at how fast BEVs are improving already, we are coming up on the 200 miles per charge BEVs next year! Tesla is already over 250 miles per charge. You don't think range will continue to increase over time?

Sure, range will increase over time, the question is whether BEVs or FCEVs will increase enough first. Personally, I've been watching battery capability improve since around 1989, when I first got into AE, and they've continued to march along at an average of 6-8%/year pretty much that entire time, although it's not a smooth progression. As for the relative rate of improvement, automotive fuel cells are currently earlier (about 5 years) along the development curve than Li-ion batteries, i.e. on a steeper part of the curve, and have improved proportionally a lot more in the past decade, especially as regards price - Li-ion battery pack costs sure didn't come down 95% in a single decade, but fuel cell stacks did (from ca. $1m to ca. $50k from 2004 to 2014, per Toyota). They think they can get the price down to $10k within a decade, assuming some level of mass production as well as improvements already under development/test. Will they? Beats me; lots of companies in new industries (batteries certainly not the hindmost) have predicted future improvements that will be 'the answer', many of which never show up: http://www.its.caltech.edu/~matsci/btf/EdisonText.html But I'm not betting against Toyota's engineers; everyone told them that HEVs would never make any money either.

I really think FCEVs are a way to squeeze out BEVs, more money to be made keeping Americans tied to the pump for the life of their cars! <snip>

And you're entitled to your opinion! The rest I've snipped is just a further re-hash or points where we've already stated our opinions, and since we disagree nothing will be served by my restating mine again.

 

[GRA]

Via GCC:

Launch of first London HyFive hydrogen refueling station

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/05/20160511-hyfive.html

ITM Power officially launched its first public-access hydrogen refueling station in London at the National Physical Laboratory, Teddington. The station was opened to the public by Andrew Jones MP, Transport Minister at Department for Transport, and was supported by the automotive OEMs Hyundai, Toyota, Honda and Renault partner Symbio FCell.

The station is the first of three UK stations to be deployed as part of the pan-European HyFive project, which was funded by the European Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (FCHJU) and the UK Government Office of Low Emission Vehicles (OLEV). . . .

 

[epirali]

I still stand behind the fact that BEVs are superior to FCEVs in every way except refueling time. Like I said, to get decent performance FCEVs will need a rather big battery. They are not going to put a big battery in a FCEV so no, they will never even come close to the performance of a Tesla! Besides most people will buy a Tesla over an economy FCEV anyway. Look at how much FCEVs cost now, then look at how much the Tesla model 3 will cost, which would you choose? There's no competition there! Heck the Chevy Bolt EV will out perform the FCEVs on the market and will cost a lot less too. The whole point about faster refueling time is blown out of proportion. Most vehicles probably spend 95% of the day sitting parked so how is charging time even an issue? Takes a few seconds to plug in at night and a few seconds to unplug the next morning, no biggie! Now factor in having 200+ miles on that full charge and you are good to go for all your daily driving needs. There's always DCFC as a backup if you need that quick charge in a pinch. I have the 30kwh Leaf myself and hardly ever need a quick charge and I do a lot of daily driving. With 6.6kw L2 charging it's a non issue, do a few things at home for a couple hours and you already have half a battery to go back out and run more errands if need be. Again ones car sits so much of the day that charging times become a non issue.

The one hurdle to overcome yet is long distance travel. This will take time as we will need more charging stations and long range BEVs suitable for travel. This is also a hurdle for FCEVs as well though as there is no network of H2 stations and won't be for many, many years. This is why I say why not just keep using ICE technology for long distance travel until BEV tech matures? BEVs already excel as a city commuter so they are 99% of the way there. It would be cheaper to keep building out charging stations then to build out H2 stations. As EV range increases over the years and more DCFC stations get installed the long range travel problem becomes a non issue.

Oh boy I know I shouldn't but....

1) I am not sure FCEVs need a very large battery for performance. I think a 4-5 KWHr battery would be rather enough of a buffer and for sufficient performance.

2) I personally don't think Tesla performance is the make or break of electric vehicle adoption, refueling, range and "changing bahviour" is.

3) BEVs will suffer from capacity/infrastructure for a long time to come until battery technology changes so that charging rates can be down to few minutes. Because as they succeed regardless of the amount of new infrastructure charging time severely impacts capacity (3 minutes vs 30 minutes requires 10 times more capacity of infrastructure for same number of cars).

So no matter how many DFC stations are installed it is an issue, specially because currently the cost/mile of fast chargers that are not free is very high.

 

[rcm4453]

I still stand behind the fact that BEVs are superior to FCEVs in every way except refueling time. Like I said, to get decent performance FCEVs will need a rather big battery. They are not going to put a big battery in a FCEV so no, they will never even come close to the performance of a Tesla! Besides most people will buy a Tesla over an economy FCEV anyway. Look at how much FCEVs cost now, then look at how much the Tesla model 3 will cost, which would you choose? There's no competition there! Heck the Chevy Bolt EV will out perform the FCEVs on the market and will cost a lot less too. The whole point about faster refueling time is blown out of proportion. Most vehicles probably spend 95% of the day sitting parked so how is charging time even an issue? Takes a few seconds to plug in at night and a few seconds to unplug the next morning, no biggie! Now factor in having 200+ miles on that full charge and you are good to go for all your daily driving needs. There's always DCFC as a backup if you need that quick charge in a pinch. I have the 30kwh Leaf myself and hardly ever need a quick charge and I do a lot of daily driving. With 6.6kw L2 charging it's a non issue, do a few things at home for a couple hours and you already have half a battery to go back out and run more errands if need be. Again ones car sits so much of the day that charging times become a non issue.

The one hurdle to overcome yet is long distance travel. This will take time as we will need more charging stations and long range BEVs suitable for travel. This is also a hurdle for FCEVs as well though as there is no network of H2 stations and won't be for many, many years. This is why I say why not just keep using ICE technology for long distance travel until BEV tech matures? BEVs already excel as a city commuter so they are 99% of the way there. It would be cheaper to keep building out charging stations then to build out H2 stations. As EV range increases over the years and more DCFC stations get installed the long range travel problem becomes a non issue.

Oh boy I know I shouldn't but....

1) I am not sure FCEVs need a very large battery for performance. I think a 4-5 KWHr battery would be rather enough of a buffer and for sufficient performance.

2) I personally don't think Tesla performance is the make or break of electric vehicle adoption, refueling, range and "changing bahviour" is.

3) BEVs will suffer from capacity/infrastructure for a long time to come until battery technology changes so that charging rates can be down to few minutes. Because as they succeed regardless of the amount of new infrastructure charging time severely impacts capacity (3 minutes vs 30 minutes requires 10 times more capacity of infrastructure for same number of cars).

So no matter how many DFC stations are installed it is an issue, specially because currently the cost/mile of fast chargers that are not free is very high.

4-5 kwh? Are you kidding me? Look at the Ford C-Max Energi and the plug-in Prius. You see what happens when they use a small battery? The EV performance sucks on those cars! The gas engine has to kick in under heavy acceleration because those tiny batteries can't provide enough power. The reason the Volt can perform well in EV mode is because of it's 16kwh battery (Gen 1 Volt). So don't expect any of the FCEVs on the market to accelerate as nicely as the Tesla model 3 will (or even the Chevy Bolt EV). To take it a step further, no FCEV will ever touch the performance capabilities of a P90 Tesla model S with Ludacris mode!!

How is 200+ miles of range not enough capacity for the average driver? Why does a BEV have to have the same range as an ICE vehicle to be useful? In all fairness FCEVs don't even match the range of ICE vehicles so what's your point? How many days out of the week do you drive more then 200 miles? How many drivers out there do? 200+ miles is way more then enough for 99.999999% of the population.

Why do you need to refuel in minutes? Please explain I'd love to hear this. You do know people sleep right? It's called your car charges while you're not using it (which is like 90 - 95% of the day) Actually I refuel my Leaf faster then people refuel their ICE vehicles. Yep, takes a whole 5 seconds to plug it in and walk away! Next day I have a full tank! Try doing that with a FCEV! Going on a long trip you ask, that's easy....take the other car (ICE vehicle). Most families have more then one vehicle anyway. If you only have one vehicle then rent one for those long trips. My whole point is pretty simple, you don't have to have it all for it to be practical. BEVs will continue to improve over time. They work fine for 99% of the average driver's needs, how is that not good enough? No one can give me a good answer as to what's wrong with sticking with ICE vehicles and slowly transitioning to BEVs over the years as they evolve. There's no need for FCEVs in the mix at all, that's my whole point. We already have a good enough technology in place right now until BEVs reach parity with ICE vehicles.

And another thing, why would you be supporting FCEVs on a BEV forum anyway? Don't they have a "fool cell" forum out there for you folks?

 

[rcm4453]

It's obvious you favor FCEVs, do you even have a Leaf? After all this is a Nissan Leaf forum.

Your claim that I favor FCEVs is incorrect. I favor whichever fossil-fuel free transportation technology will work and be acceptable to the public. Ideally, that would be the most efficient choice, which is currently (and likely to stay that way) BEVs, but at the moment they lack the full capability to replace BEVs, as well as the infrastructure to charge them. Even if all authorities having jurisdiction were to require, starting today, that all new construction housing and commercial properties had to provide charging, given the average life of the former (100 years) and the latter (50) it would be at least a quarter century before we had the capacity to charge a fair % of the world's urban BEVs. As to what car I own, see my sig.

Your point about it being easier for people to refuel FCEVs makes no sense as there are hardly any H2 station in the U.S. There are a lot more electrical outlets and public charging stations in this country so charging a BEV will be a lot easier for almost EVERYBODY for a VERY long time to come.

That's somewhat true IN THIS COUNTRY; we're better off than the rest of the world. I find I have to repeatedly emphasize that to the 'BEVs and nothing else' advocates, because while the U.S. has the highest per capita number of cars in the world and currently the largest fleet, we don't have the majority of the world's cars, we are no longer the world's largest car market, won't have the largest fleet within maybe 10 years, the regions of the world which are going to see the growth in car sales for the next half-century aren't in the U.S., and most of their people don't live in detached single family homes with electricity-served garages. Even in the U.S., as previously mentioned, only 56% of households can charge at home (Plug-in America survey), which leaves 125m x .44 = 55 million U.S. households that can't charge at home. It seems our definition of 'almost everybody' differs considerably. Also see: http://insideevs.com/58-percent-of-us-population-cant-join-ev-revolution-without-a-plug/ The numbers in that article will improve as longer range 'affordable' BEVs arrive, but as you can see, the time frame still stretches out decades. Autonomous cars can help, although their use will also decrease energy savings compared to home/work charging (as they drive themselves to and from charging stations).

Building out a whole network of super expensive H2 stations across the U.S. is going to take a very long time. Just imagine how many more public charging stations will be built by the time that happens.

As noted above, it's going to take a very long time to build out the charging infrastructure as well here, let alone in other countries, and will take even longer because no one has yet come up with a profitable business model (Tesla's won't work at mass market levels) - FCEVs just take over the gas station business model, if (a big if) they can get the cost of the fuel/equipment down to a competitive level. Until either PEVs or FCEVs can be recharged/refueled profitably, the infrastructure roll out will remain slow, and dependent on government handouts. I've never seen the path as all FCEVs or all BEVs; as I've said, I don't believe in technological silver bullets. It will almost certainly take both, with PHEVs being the interim choice for the majority (along with fossil-fueled HEVs) during the transition. If BEVs get to the point where they can completely replace liquid-fueled cars as far as capability, cost and infrastructure, then we can forego or (more likely) phase out the FCEVs if that's the best way to go. But, as I've repeatedly stressed, we shouldn't close out any non-fossil-fuel option that has a reasonable chance of commercial success, until such time as we've achieved the Holy Grail of full capability/cost replacement for fossil-fueled ICEs with at least one tech. None of them is close to that, now or in the near future.

I lived in two apartment complexes before getting a house and was able to charge on 120V L1 just fine in the garage at both places.

Lucky you. I've lived at various apartments over the years, as well as examined numerous apartment parking lots/garages in the places in and around the places I've lived, and virtually none (I'd guesstimate the total at under 5%) have ANY receptacles in the parking area. Some have one or two for all spaces (presumably to allow use of cleaning equipment), but in general aside from the extra cost of installation, most landlords don't want outside receptacles where anyone can steal power. It will take changes to building codes to require them in all new construction, which I'm all in favor of, but only a few jurisdictions have done so, in the U.S. and elsewhere. And they will need to have some way of restricting access and charging for the power, which ups the price.

I guess I don't see the point in going in the FCEV direction, I view it as a lateral move from ICE vehicles. Actually it's going backwards considering we already have a network of gas stations in place for ICE vehicles. It makes much more sense to keep using ICE technology while we make improvements to BEVs. Why even bother with FCEVs at all?

If we could produce sustainable biofuels in the required quantities, I'd completely agree. In fact, we could skip BEVs too, and just replace fossil-fuel gas with drop-in biofuel gas in our ICEs, and continue on our energy-inefficient but net-zero GHG producing merry way with almost no societal disruption. Since we can't, we have to go with other options.

Just look at how fast BEVs are improving already, we are coming up on the 200 miles per charge BEVs next year! Tesla is already over 250 miles per charge. You don't think range will continue to increase over time?

Sure, range will increase over time, the question is whether BEVs or FCEVs will increase enough first. Personally, I've been watching battery capability improve since around 1989, when I first got into AE, and they've continued to march along at an average of 6-8%/year pretty much that entire time, although it's not a smooth progression. As for the relative rate of improvement, automotive fuel cells are currently earlier (about 5 years) along the development curve than Li-ion batteries, i.e. on a steeper part of the curve, and have improved proportionally a lot more in the past decade, especially as regards price - Li-ion battery pack costs sure didn't come down 95% in a single decade, but fuel cell stacks did (from ca. $1m to ca. $50k from 2004 to 2014, per Toyota). They think they can get the price down to $10k within a decade, assuming some level of mass production as well as improvements already under development/test. Will they? Beats me; lots of companies in new industries (batteries certainly not the hindmost) have predicted future improvements that will be 'the answer', many of which never show up: http://www.its.caltech.edu/~matsci/btf/EdisonText.html But I'm not betting against Toyota's engineers; everyone told them that HEVs would never make any money either.

I really think FCEVs are a way to squeeze out BEVs, more money to be made keeping Americans tied to the pump for the life of their cars! <snip>

And you're entitled to your opinion! The rest I've snipped is just a further re-hash or points where we've already stated our opinions, and since we disagree nothing will be served by my restating mine again.

Look, it's pretty simple really. Buy a FCEV if you want what we've had for the past 100 years, that's basically all they are. Instead of standing there like an idiot swiping that credit card at the pump giving big oil more of your money for gasoline, you will be doing the same thing for your H2. Yeah that sounds like a good plan doesn't it? More of the same...being under the thumb of big oil for all your energy needs. They can jack up the price of H2 whenever they want and guess what? You got it! Nothing you can do about it because you bought what you thought was the next best thing ( A fool cell car). Let me know how all that works out for you if you ever buy one. Meanwhile, myself and everyone else that realizes what a scam fool cell vehicles really are will be laughing all the way to the bank as we drive past those few fool cell stations that will be out there for pennies on the dollar being spent on fuel for our more efficient, far superior BEVs. Oh wait a minute...I almost forgot, enjoy that long drive to the nearest H2 station every week since it's going to take a zillion years to build them all! As for me....nah...it's only 12 steps to my garage to fill up my BEV

 

[lorenfb]

I really think FCEVs are a way to squeeze out BEVs, more money to be made keeping Americans tied to the pump for the life of their cars! Who makes all the money if everyone is driving BEVs? You have to look at the big picture and when you do it's pretty obvious to me why there's such a push for FCEVs.

Really?

 

[epirali]

4-5 kwh? Are you kidding me? Look at the Ford C-Max Energi and the plug-in Prius. You see what happens when they use a small battery? The EV performance sucks on those cars! The gas engine has to kick in under heavy acceleration because those tiny batteries can't provide enough power. The reason the Volt can perform well in EV mode is because of it's 16kwh battery (Gen 1 Volt). So don't expect any of the FCEVs on the market to accelerate as nicely as the Tesla model 3 will (or even the Chevy Bolt EV). To take it a step further, no FCEV will ever touch the performance capabilities of a P90 Tesla model S with Ludacris mode!!

How is 200+ miles of range not enough capacity for the average driver? Why does a BEV have to have the same range as an ICE vehicle to be useful? In all fairness FCEVs don't even match the range of ICE vehicles so what's your point? How many days out of the week do you drive more then 200 miles? How many drivers out there do? 200+ miles is way more then enough for 99.999999% of the population.

Why do you need to refuel in minutes? Please explain I'd love to hear this. You do know people sleep right? It's called your car charges while you're not using it (which is like 90 - 95% of the day) Actually I refuel my Leaf faster then people refuel their ICE vehicles. Yep, takes a whole 5 seconds to plug it in and walk away! Next day I have a full tank! Try doing that with a FCEV! Going on a long trip you ask, that's easy....take the other car (ICE vehicle). Most families have more then one vehicle anyway. If you only have one vehicle then rent one for those long trips. My whole point is pretty simple, you don't have to have it all for it to be practical. BEVs will continue to improve over time. They work fine for 99% of the average driver's needs, how is that not good enough? No one can give me a good answer as to what's wrong with sticking with ICE vehicles and slowly transitioning to BEVs over the years as they evolve. There's no need for FCEVs in the mix at all, that's my whole point. We already have a good enough technology in place right now until BEVs reach parity with ICE vehicles.

And another thing, why would you be supporting FCEVs on a BEV forum anyway? Don't they have a "fool cell" forum out there for you folks?

First, the TITLE of the thread and the fact that it is in the Non Leaf discussions explains the, you know, discussion! I don't think zinger buzz words like fool cell are actual discussion.

You do not charge in 5 seconds, you charge at home at best 3-4 hours. I own three electric cars and I have three 220/50 amp drops to my garage.

I'll try again: speed/acceleration is NOT the primary test of BEV adoption. I drive the slowest one of my electric cars the most. One reason is it has a REX engine and I have ended up using it on occasion when surprise trips have come up. So 200 miles is great, but it still won't work for the rare occasion someone has to go farther. And no, not everyone is willing to stop for 40-45 minutes to ragin 70-80% of 200 miles. While with theoretical fuel cell infrastructure it would take only 5 minutes to "refuel." I am sorry that this one advantage of fuel cells is so disturbing. BEVs have their own set of advantages.

Also not everyone has multiple vehicles. And BEVs will always be an issue for single car drivers, unless they live in a tiny island (sone places in Hawaii come to mind).

Believe it or not I am an advocate for electric vehicles, and I have been responsible directly for at least three coworkers buying electric cars (one if them was my Leaf). But I've also seen many people who have loved my electric car decide to not get one due to range and recharge time. My bother just settled on a Volt because his daily 120 mile drive is just not feasible for him, and if he has to make side trips he can't stop and recharge a pure BEV. A coworker decided against it because occasionally he has to make unexpected trips and he can't hope he will have enough charge. We even have an L2 I have installed at work, but with four cars needing to charge we are hamstrung. And with 30 employees I can imagine what would happen if they all had BEVs that needed charging at work.

Can you please address how charging infrastructure would scale if everyone had BEVs? Because it is easy to see how hydrogen fueling stations scale rapidly.

 

[Stoaty]

Your claim that I favor FCEVs is incorrect. I favor whichever fossil-fuel free transportation technology will work and be acceptable to the public.

Call me when FCEV are a fossil fuel free transportation technology. BEV can be fossil fuel free now if you have solar power or purchase only renewable power from your electric utility (mine is fossil fuel free in operation, though not in the manufacturing part yet). My guess is that FCEV could hit the mark in 20-30 years, which is time we don't have if we care about maintaining a livable climate for future generations. We need rapid deployment of carbon free technologies NOW:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/05/10/3776465/everything-you-know-climate-change-solutions-outdated/

 

[rcm4453]

I really think FCEVs are a way to squeeze out BEVs, more money to be made keeping Americans tied to the pump for the life of their cars! Who makes all the money if everyone is driving BEVs? You have to look at the big picture and when you do it's pretty obvious to me why there's such a push for FCEVs.

Really?

Yeah "Really"

Do you not agree? If not please explain.

 

[rcm4453]

4-5 kwh? Are you kidding me? Look at the Ford C-Max Energi and the plug-in Prius. You see what happens when they use a small battery? The EV performance sucks on those cars! The gas engine has to kick in under heavy acceleration because those tiny batteries can't provide enough power. The reason the Volt can perform well in EV mode is because of it's 16kwh battery (Gen 1 Volt). So don't expect any of the FCEVs on the market to accelerate as nicely as the Tesla model 3 will (or even the Chevy Bolt EV). To take it a step further, no FCEV will ever touch the performance capabilities of a P90 Tesla model S with Ludacris mode!!

How is 200+ miles of range not enough capacity for the average driver? Why does a BEV have to have the same range as an ICE vehicle to be useful? In all fairness FCEVs don't even match the range of ICE vehicles so what's your point? How many days out of the week do you drive more then 200 miles? How many drivers out there do? 200+ miles is way more then enough for 99.999999% of the population.

Why do you need to refuel in minutes? Please explain I'd love to hear this. You do know people sleep right? It's called your car charges while you're not using it (which is like 90 - 95% of the day) Actually I refuel my Leaf faster then people refuel their ICE vehicles. Yep, takes a whole 5 seconds to plug it in and walk away! Next day I have a full tank! Try doing that with a FCEV! Going on a long trip you ask, that's easy....take the other car (ICE vehicle). Most families have more then one vehicle anyway. If you only have one vehicle then rent one for those long trips. My whole point is pretty simple, you don't have to have it all for it to be practical. BEVs will continue to improve over time. They work fine for 99% of the average driver's needs, how is that not good enough? No one can give me a good answer as to what's wrong with sticking with ICE vehicles and slowly transitioning to BEVs over the years as they evolve. There's no need for FCEVs in the mix at all, that's my whole point. We already have a good enough technology in place right now until BEVs reach parity with ICE vehicles.

And another thing, why would you be supporting FCEVs on a BEV forum anyway? Don't they have a "fool cell" forum out there for you folks?

First, the TITLE of the thread and the fact that it is in the Non Leaf discussions explains the, you know, discussion! I don't think zinger buzz words like fool cell are actual discussion.

You do not charge in 5 seconds, you charge at home at best 3-4 hours. I own three electric cars and I have three 220/50 amp drops to my garage.

I'll try again: speed/acceleration is NOT the primary test of BEV adoption. I drive the slowest one of my electric cars the most. One reason is it has a REX engine and I have ended up using it on occasion when surprise trips have come up. So 200 miles is great, but it still won't work for the rare occasion someone has to go farther. And no, not everyone is willing to stop for 40-45 minutes to ragin 70-80% of 200 miles. While with theoretical fuel cell infrastructure it would take only 5 minutes to "refuel." I am sorry that this one advantage of fuel cells is so disturbing. BEVs have their own set of advantages.

Also not everyone has multiple vehicles. And BEVs will always be an issue for single car drivers, unless they live in a tiny island (sone places in Hawaii come to mind).

Believe it or not I am an advocate for electric vehicles, and I have been responsible directly for at least three coworkers buying electric cars (one if them was my Leaf). But I've also seen many people who have loved my electric car decide to not get one due to range and recharge time. My bother just settled on a Volt because his daily 120 mile drive is just not feasible for him, and if he has to make side trips he can't stop and recharge a pure BEV. A coworker decided against it because occasionally he has to make unexpected trips and he can't hope he will have enough charge. We even have an L2 I have installed at work, but with four cars needing to charge we are hamstrung. And with 30 employees I can imagine what would happen if they all had BEVs that needed charging at work.

Can you please address how charging infrastructure would scale if everyone had BEVs? Because it is easy to see how hydrogen fueling stations scale rapidly.

Why do you keep skirting my question? Tell me why we even need to go down the FCEV path at all? Why waste money building out H2 fueling stations when we already have gas stations everywhere? Makes more sense to keep using ICE vehicles, PHEVS and hybrids while BEV tech improves enough to be at the same level as ICE vehicles. Going from ICE tech to FCEVs is a lateral move when you consider how inefficient FCEVs are. We could build out a way better charging network in the country with all the money it would take to build out an H2 infrastructure. Why go the more expensive route? If all the manufacturers decide to go the FCEV route guess what happens to BEV development? It basically gets shelved and now we're all stuck with being tied to the H2 stations making "big oil" rich, just like we've been for decades and decades. Why do you support a technology that puts you at the mercy of the oil industry? You have BEVs now do you want to go back to paying at the pump all the time? Your whole question about scaling charging infrastructure is not a problem at all. What, do you think the whole country is going to buy BEVs overnight? Like I've been saying, it will be a slow transition, plenty of time to improve the infrastructure as time goes on. EV range will increase over time which will offset the need for public charging a little bit. You see it all builds upon itself over time, Roam wasn't built in a day!

I'm not disturbed at all about the fast refueling time of a FCEV. I just don't think it's the "be all....end all." I think it's grossly overrated. I think it's a slight problem that can be solved if we continue to focus on BEV development and not waste resources on trying to develop an inferior tech such as FCEVs. And here it goes yet again! Why not use ICE tech to bridge the gap until BEVs solve this problem? Let's see BEVs excel in every way except in one area (refueling time), FCEVS are inferior in all other ways and only excel in one area (refueling time). The better tech is BEV so why not focus on that and forget about wasting time and money on FCEVs? Oh and yes it does only take 5 seconds to charge my car, I only spend 5 seconds of my time doing it. It's not like you have to sit there and watch your car charge. Let me put it to you like this....charge time is irrelevant unless it interferes with your car being able to provide the service you need from it. If the car is sitting parked and you're not using it then what does it matter how long it takes to charge? Everyone sleeps, most people work, do other things they don't drive their cars around all day long so there's plenty of time for charging.

 

[epirali]

Why do you keep skirting my question? Tell me why we even need to go down the FCEV path at all? Why waste money building out H2 fueling stations when we already have gas stations everywhere? Makes more sense to keep using ICE vehicles, PHEVS and hybrids while BEV tech improves enough to be at the same level as ICE vehicles. Going from ICE tech to FCEVs is a lateral move when you consider how inefficient FCEVs are. We could build out a way better charging network in the country with all the money it would take to build out an H2 infrastructure. Why go the more expensive route? If all the manufacturers decide to go the FCEV route guess what happens to BEV development? It basically gets shelved and now we're all stuck with being tied to the H2 stations making "big oil" rich, just like we've been for decades and decades. Why do you support a technology that puts you at the mercy of the oil industry? You have BEVs now do you want to go back to paying at the pump all the time? Your whole question about scaling charging infrastructure is not a problem at all. What, do you think the whole country is going to buy BEVs overnight? Like I've been saying, it will be a slow transition, plenty of time to improve the infrastructure as time goes on. EV range will increase over time which will offset the need for public charging a little bit. You see it all builds upon itself over time, Roam wasn't built in a day!

I'm not disturbed at all about the fast refueling time of a FCEV. I just don't think it's the "be all....end all." I think it's grossly overrated. I think it's a slight problem that can be solved if we continue to focus on BEV development and not waste resources on trying to develop an inferior tech such as FCEVs. And here it goes yet again! Why not use ICE tech to bridge the gap until BEVs solve this problem? Let's see BEVs excel in every way except in one area (refueling time), FCEVS are inferior in all other ways and only excel in one area (refueling time). The better tech is BEV so why not focus on that and forget about wasting time and money on FCEVs? Oh and yes it does only take 5 seconds to charge my car, I only spend 5 seconds of my time doing it. It's not like you have to sit there and watch your car charge. Let me put it to you like this....charge time is irrelevant unless it interferes with your car being able to provide the service you need from it. If the car is sitting parked and you're not using it then what does it matter how long it takes to charge? Everyone sleeps, most people work, do other things they don't drive their cars around all day long so there's plenty of time for charging.

I am not skirting your question, you are ignoring my answer. We need to go down the path of FCEV because, as I wrote in my response, no matter how much charging infrastructure you want to put in for BEVs the charge time required means you will need at least 10x the infrastructure to service the same number of BEVs as you do FCEVs. And even if you invest in 10x more most people WILL NOT BE WILLING to wait that amount of time to "refuel" their BEVs. Just because early adopters/die hards are willing and just because nightly charging is an option it does not take away the issue in most peoples minds. Most people won't go from a 5 minute fueling stop to a 30-40 minute charging stop.

And as I responded before no matter what the range of BEVs are there is always a limit. Increase in limit increases the percentage of times that the car meets range needs. I will happily concede that 200 miles will probably meet 80% of the needs. I for one can manage with 70 miles range almost 80% of the time. But for single car owners a 1% failure may prevent the decision to buy/adopt. Additionally because the range of BEVs can vary so much it is very hard for typical drivers to "adjust" to make sure they will manage their trips. FCEVs with a theoretical fueling network don't have that issue.

You basic premise that charge time is only at night is where we disagree. I have stated all this before. So how do you think I am skirting your question?

So why are you skirting my answer?

 

[lorenfb]

I really think FCEVs are a way to squeeze out BEVs, more money to be made keeping Americans tied to the pump for the life of their cars! Who makes all the money if everyone is driving BEVs? You have to look at the big picture and when you do it's pretty obvious to me why there's such a push for FCEVs.

Really?

Yeah "Really"

Do you not agree? If not please explain.

Since you raised the issue, where are the data to support that hypothesis? Or maybe just your "conspiracy theory"
for the Leaf Forum. Hopefully this forum doesn't follow other forums down that path.

 

[rcm4453]

Really?

Yeah "Really"

Do you not agree? If not please explain.

Since you raised the issue, where are the data to support that hypothesis? Or maybe just your "conspiracy theory"
for the Leaf Forum. Hopefully this forum doesn't follow other forums down that path.

It's pretty obvious isn't it? Who will be selling the H2 to fuel everyone's FCEVs?

You don't think that's a lot of revenue for them considering millions and millions of people will be stuck buying H2 on a regular basis?

I don't know about you but that's one heck of an incentive for them to push FCEVs!

You guys must think H2 is going to be free?!? If it were going to be then you'd have a point.

95% of it comes from steam methane reforming, not from renewable sources, you will be paying at the pump....period.

 

[rcm4453]

Why do you keep skirting my question? Tell me why we even need to go down the FCEV path at all? Why waste money building out H2 fueling stations when we already have gas stations everywhere? Makes more sense to keep using ICE vehicles, PHEVS and hybrids while BEV tech improves enough to be at the same level as ICE vehicles. Going from ICE tech to FCEVs is a lateral move when you consider how inefficient FCEVs are. We could build out a way better charging network in the country with all the money it would take to build out an H2 infrastructure. Why go the more expensive route? If all the manufacturers decide to go the FCEV route guess what happens to BEV development? It basically gets shelved and now we're all stuck with being tied to the H2 stations making "big oil" rich, just like we've been for decades and decades. Why do you support a technology that puts you at the mercy of the oil industry? You have BEVs now do you want to go back to paying at the pump all the time? Your whole question about scaling charging infrastructure is not a problem at all. What, do you think the whole country is going to buy BEVs overnight? Like I've been saying, it will be a slow transition, plenty of time to improve the infrastructure as time goes on. EV range will increase over time which will offset the need for public charging a little bit. You see it all builds upon itself over time, Roam wasn't built in a day!

I'm not disturbed at all about the fast refueling time of a FCEV. I just don't think it's the "be all....end all." I think it's grossly overrated. I think it's a slight problem that can be solved if we continue to focus on BEV development and not waste resources on trying to develop an inferior tech such as FCEVs. And here it goes yet again! Why not use ICE tech to bridge the gap until BEVs solve this problem? Let's see BEVs excel in every way except in one area (refueling time), FCEVS are inferior in all other ways and only excel in one area (refueling time). The better tech is BEV so why not focus on that and forget about wasting time and money on FCEVs? Oh and yes it does only take 5 seconds to charge my car, I only spend 5 seconds of my time doing it. It's not like you have to sit there and watch your car charge. Let me put it to you like this....charge time is irrelevant unless it interferes with your car being able to provide the service you need from it. If the car is sitting parked and you're not using it then what does it matter how long it takes to charge? Everyone sleeps, most people work, do other things they don't drive their cars around all day long so there's plenty of time for charging.

I am not skirting your question, you are ignoring my answer. We need to go down the path of FCEV because, as I wrote in my response, no matter how much charging infrastructure you want to put in for BEVs the charge time required means you will need at least 10x the infrastructure to service the same number of BEVs as you do FCEVs. And even if you invest in 10x more most people WILL NOT BE WILLING to wait that amount of time to "refuel" their BEVs. Just because early adopters/die hards are willing and just because nightly charging is an option it does not take away the issue in most peoples minds. Most people won't go from a 5 minute fueling stop to a 30-40 minute charging stop.

And as I responded before no matter what the range of BEVs are there is always a limit. Increase in limit increases the percentage of times that the car meets range needs. I will happily concede that 200 miles will probably meet 80% of the needs. I for one can manage with 70 miles range almost 80% of the time. But for single car owners a 1% failure may prevent the decision to buy/adopt. Additionally because the range of BEVs can vary so much it is very hard for typical drivers to "adjust" to make sure they will manage their trips. FCEVs with a theoretical fueling network don't have that issue.

You basic premise that charge time is only at night is where we disagree. I have stated all this before. So how do you think I am skirting your question?

So why are you skirting my answer?

I disagree that BEVs won't evolve to solve these problems, so I don't agree with your answer.

If you think going backwards from an efficiency standpoint is the right move then I hope you enjoy your future fool cell vehicle

The fact that there's no refueling at home from renewable sources = EPIC FAIL! Why you fail to realize this is beyond me!

 

[epirali]

I disagree that BEVs won't evolve to solve these problems, so I don't agree with your answer.

If you think going backwards from an efficiency standpoint is the right move then I hope you enjoy your future fool cell vehicle

The fact that there's no refueling at home from renewable sources = EPIC FAIL! Why you fail to realize this is beyond me!

Let's use same standard for both FCEVs and BEVs. You assume FCEVs will ALWAYS be inefficient and they will NEVER have home fueling option (although that is not nearly as important). So if we do that then let's assume BEVs will NEVER improve and they will ALWAYS take a long time to charge.

See the flaw there? BEVs will probably improve and get faster to recharge. FCEVs will probably get much cheaper and much more efficient.

Also hydrogen CAN be produced from totally renewable sources, that is another EPIC assumption FAIL (sorry can't but just quote your words). H2O + electricity -> hydrogen and oxygen. Source of electricity is same as anywhere else. Right now most people do not have a choice of electricity that is always renewable. I do, I contract with a supplier that is 100% wind. But I am lucky.

BTW this is a totally false choice that keeps being presented here by some BEV diehards. I don't quite even understand why this false choice is constantly thrown out there. Maybe it is a result of our culture where everything has become zero sum, winner/loser, my side your side.

I believe most of the people here I have seen in the past few years who argue for FCEVs always include a mix of hydrogen and BEVs as a good balance depending on use. I know other have argued very well about use of hydrogen for commercial applications where refueling is a major issue.

Summary: there is no path in fossil fuels that does not lead to production of carbon in production/consumption cycle. There are clear paths for both BEVs and FCEVs where no carbon will be produced in production/consumption cycle. Please disprove this statement factually and in light of what is technically possible, not what is the easier solution RIGHT NOW.

Thanks.

 

[GRA]

Your claim that I favor FCEVs is incorrect. I favor whichever fossil-fuel free transportation technology will work and be acceptable to the public.

Call me when FCEV are a fossil fuel free transportation technology. BEV can be fossil fuel free now if you have solar power or purchase only renewable power from your electric utility (mine is fossil fuel free in operation, though not in the manufacturing part yet). My guess is that FCEV could hit the mark in 20-30 years, which is time we don't have if we care about maintaining a livable climate for future generations. We need rapid deployment of carbon free technologies NOW:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/05/10/3776465/everything-you-know-climate-change-solutions-outdated/

Oh, for heaven's sake. I have given examples just a page or two back of entire countries that are going to make their transportation H2 without using fossil fuels. As with fossil-fuel free electricity, it takes the will to do it, time, and reduction in costs. I too want to see us reduce our GHGs as speedily as possible, but the quickest cheapest way to do that right now is with HEVs followed by PHEVs, not BEVs. You can have the most ideal tech in the world, but if customers won't buy it (without massive bribes), you will fail to achieve the transition you seek. It remains to be seen whether 200 miles EPA (which I consider a real-world 135 when new) will cross the threshold to mainstream acceptance, given the lack of charging infrastructure in much of the world. But I have no doubt whatever that, given the necessary cost reductions and the fueling infrastructure, FCEVs will be acceptable to the general public. We know they will be, because they virtually duplicate the capabilities that most people have found perfectly acceptable for the past century.

 

[GRA]

Via GCR:

Hyundai's Genesis luxury brand will offer plug-in hybrids, then fuel cells

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1103897_hyundais-genesis-luxury-brand-will-offer-plug-in-hybrids-then-fuel-cells

Hyundai's ambitious green-car plans will apparently be extended to its new Genesis luxury brand. . . .

Along with Kia, the Genesis brand will play a role in meeting Hyundai's goal of selling more green cars than any carmaker except Toyota by 2020.

Genesis will get plug-in hybrids first, with fuel-cell cars following eventually, according to Automotive News (subscription required).

Plug-in hybrids will serve as an intermediate step before fuel-cell cars become more widely available, Hyundai Motor America CEO Dave Zuchowski said in an interview with the industry trade journal. . . .

 

[rcm4453]

I disagree that BEVs won't evolve to solve these problems, so I don't agree with your answer.

If you think going backwards from an efficiency standpoint is the right move then I hope you enjoy your future fool cell vehicle

The fact that there's no refueling at home from renewable sources = EPIC FAIL! Why you fail to realize this is beyond me!

Let's use same standard for both FCEVs and BEVs. You assume FCEVs will ALWAYS be inefficient and they will NEVER have home fueling option (although that is not nearly as important). So if we do that then let's assume BEVs will NEVER improve and they will ALWAYS take a long time to charge.

See the flaw there? BEVs will probably improve and get faster to recharge. FCEVs will probably get much cheaper and much more efficient.

Also hydrogen CAN be produced from totally renewable sources, that is another EPIC assumption FAIL (sorry can't but just quote your words). H2O + electricity -> hydrogen and oxygen. Source of electricity is same as anywhere else. Right now most people do not have a choice of electricity that is always renewable. I do, I contract with a supplier that is 100% wind. But I am lucky.

BTW this is a totally false choice that keeps being presented here by some BEV diehards. I don't quite even understand why this false choice is constantly thrown out there. Maybe it is a result of our culture where everything has become zero sum, winner/loser, my side your side.

I believe most of the people here I have seen in the past few years who argue for FCEVs always include a mix of hydrogen and BEVs as a good balance depending on use. I know other have argued very well about use of hydrogen for commercial applications where refueling is a major issue.

Summary: there is no path in fossil fuels that does not lead to production of carbon in production/consumption cycle. There are clear paths for both BEVs and FCEVs where no carbon will be produced in production/consumption cycle. Please disprove this statement factually and in light of what is technically possible, not what is the easier solution RIGHT NOW.

Thanks.

Your logic is flawed by saying if one can improve then so can the other. A FCEV will never be as efficient as a BEV. It's simple laws of physics, no way to change that. So by you admitting BEVs will improve over time then that would mean fast charging times will get faster. See where I'm going? Since you think it all boils down to "needing to refuel in 5 minutes" for it to compete with a FCEV. So lets say in 15 - 20 years you can recharge a BEV in 10 minutes instead of 30? So knowing this is the case then why not forget about FCEVs, keep using ICE tech until this happens? Seems the cheapest, most practical direction to go! We don't need FCEVs to sideline the progress of BEVs, especially since they have the capability in the future to be the superior choice on so many levels. You seem to think they will both be on the market together, both evolving but that's false. Whatever direction the general public goes is the one that will win. The loser will basically be shelved and forgotten about. Kind of like beta vs VHS or HD-DVD vs Blu-ray. The general public will eat what you feed them, they don't know any better. The powers that be know this. They know everyone is used to paying at the pump whatever price it may be to continue driving their cars. So easy to push the FCEV on them since they so closely mimic what they are used to which is ICE vehicles. It's all about profits, not about what's the best tech to go with, the fool cell vehicle fits this strategy to the T!!!