Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[GRA]

Make people pay for the hydrogen. real costs not "free" for 3 years. make them drive a 67 MPGe mirai. and for fun make them fuel up at home. (ha)

Then make them buy electricity. real costs. Make them drive a 114 MPGe Leaf. and for fun make them fuel up at home.

something tells me the math folks will choose properly.

and lots of people do the math. money DOES rule, all other factors are considered, but if it's cheaper...let's be honest, too few care about other factors.

If you aren't a math person, then don't complain about getting less for more money in a fool cell car. period. only really, really, really un-smart people do these types of things.

Now, make them pay for equal range capability, year around. That's $57,500 base MSRP for the 312 mile EPA range Mirai, versus $88.3k base MSRP for a 294 mile EPA base Model S 90D (Tesla has removed the S90 from their site), both before gov't incentives, not that they have equal range in winter when using heat, and as I've said before, anyone with any sense will lease rather than buy an FCEV now, given the uncertainty of future H2 fuel prices.

At my local H2 station (with no nearby competition), H2 is currently selling for $16.78/kg., and at other sites in state we know it was selling for $13.59 and $13.99, which is obviously non-competitive with gasoline, and which is why the DoE goal is an ultimate price (untaxed) of $4/kg. Anyway, let's assume a current average price of $15/kg, and absolutely no reduction in the next three years. The difference in base MSRP is $88.3 - $57.5 = $29.8k. At $15.00/kg divided by 67 miles/kg = ~$0.224/mile. $29,800/$0.224 = 133,035 miles you can drive the Mirai before you equal the amount you spent on the Model S, assuming you get all the electricity you charge the Tesla with for free (note that I've ignored the higher D&H, licensing and insurance costs for the Tesla, as well as the cost of money, depreciation and the cost of any electrical upgrades required to provide a 240V circuit to charge it with). Gee, isn't math fun?

In short, It just depends on your personal situation and what your priorities are. At the moment, no one primarily concerned with Life Cycle costs will buy _any_ AFV, because none of them pencil out without subsidies.

You are really going to compare that slow, under powered economy class Mirai against a P90D Tesla?!? You've got to be kidding me right?!? The Tesla runs circles around the Mirai in styling, performance, class basically in EVERY way possible! It's a Luxury car!!! Hello! Of course it's going to cost more. That's an apples to oranges comparison and you know it. Besides, most who could afford the Mirai would spend the extra money to get a FAR SUPERIOR car such as the Tesla P90! Why don't you compare it to the upcoming Chevy Bolt EV? Now run those numbers again and let me know what you get....too funny!

As I said, it's all a question of priorities. Of course the Tesla is a much nicer car - for that kind of money it had better be. But it's not a longer-ranged car, nor is it cheaper to own, which was the comparison asked for. Even though it's the most expensive, longest ranged BEV available, it still can't compete on range with a car costing many thousands of dollars less. The Mirai isn't aimed at the Tesla crowd, it's aimed at the Prius crowd. If you need a road trip car, then one with the Mirai's capabilites is far more efficient in terms of time and flexibility (assuming equal infrastructure) than any existing BEV at any price. And if you want to compare to a LEAF, you also have to include in the life cycle costs not only a battery replacement, but the cost of the ICE you need for all the trips that the LEAF simply isn't suitable for. The Mirai is suitable to be a family's sole vehicle, and for almost everyone short range BEVs like the LEAF aren't,

As for the Bolt, again it's a matter of priorities. While a 200 mile EPA BEV priced like the Bolt is suitable to be many people's sole car, if you need the Mirai's range and refueling time, then the Bolt simply won't meet your needs. No BEV at any price offers the Mirai's range. As for Life cycle costs, it all depends on how much degradation the Bolt can have and still meet your needs. If you have to buy a replacement pack, that will have to be factored into TCO. An FCEV will also lose range as it ages, but since the refueling times are short that's less critical of an issue (again, assuming adequate fueling infrastructure). I consider that two hours of freeway range would be acceptable to most people, if the refueling/charging times are short enough, and the Mirai when new can go twice that. Of course, for around town use days between refuelings is more important than range between refuelings, and the ability to charge at home (if able) is an advantage there. But as I've pointed out again and again, most of the world's car-owning population doesn't have that option, so the BEV's advantage is notional until that changes.

 

[GRA]

At the moment, no one primarily concerned with Life Cycle costs will buy _any_ AFV, because none of them pencil out without subsidies.

Now, hot places can't, and places with high electric prices can't. But locally to me, makes lots of sense.

Okay, now what do you do when you need to drive beyond the LEAF's capability? Rent, with the attendant hassle? Own an ICE for that? There's no question that if you have extremely low cost electricity, you can make a BEV work within its limitations. and I've never argued that an EV isn't a more pleasant car to drive, But more pleasant is in the 'nice to have' category, not the 'essential' category.

I notice you didn't disagree, just changed the subject.

Actually I did disagree, but probably because I'm coming at the issue from different underlying assumptions. I think you assume that every car owning family is like an average American car-owning family, with multiple cars that can be used for different purposes. That's only been true since about the 1960's, as before that most American car-owning families had a single car. My perspective is that of the typical world car-owning family, which only has a single car which has to be suitable for everything. As such, the price of an extra car for specialized purposes very definitely must be included in life cycle comparisons. With that clarified, continue.

For me, I'm probably close to break even, without subsidies, as I have much more expensive electric power, still less than the national average and a more expensive Leaf SL. I'm well ahead counting subsidies. At break even, you pick on the 'nice to have' categories, such as the more pleasant car. Or the nice feeling that nearly carbon free driving gives.

Beyond the Leaf's capability? A little beyond works fine with public charging. Often the BEV is a second car in the household, as it is in my household. Drive to Canada, might take the BEV. Might not as well. Drive to Portland, will take the Prius. Or Amtrak.

So a few people concerned about life cycle costs might well buy a BEV, as it pencils out without subsidies for them right now. Might not for you, might not for most people. But it does for me.

Good for you, and I will now amend my original statement to "an AFV may pencil out for some people in a very limited set of conditions." However, unless you need both cars at the same time, it's obvious that the Prius alone (and even the Mirai alone, if you had somewhere to fuel it) would pencil out for you, and the LEAF plus Prius can't compete, which is the point I was making.

In any case, I don't think anyone has introduced any new arguments pro or con re FCEVs/H2 in quite a while, and all the old ones have been repeated enough times that anyone who's interested can find enough information to make up their own mind (or just find support for their existing position) by looking upthread. While a few people may have found info here that helped them make up their own minds, ISTM it's mainly the same old group of people with already firmly held opinions endlessly repeating them, so I'm going to try really, really hard to just post news stories, and not respond to the usual snarky comments or simplistic answers that lack context. I can't think of any of us who came into this thread having already formed a strong opinion on the subject who've had their mind changed (that's not likely regardless of the subject), and I'm tired of wasting my time. My own opinion shifted from anti-H2/FCEV to neutral (i.e., worth experimenting with for several years) prior to entering this thread way back at its beginning, and nothing said here since has altered it. So, have at it!

 

[GRA]

From NREL:

Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Evaluation

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/64221.pdf

Also: http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_fc_vehicle_evaluation.html

 

[epirali]

In any case, I don't think anyone has introduced any new arguments pro or con re FCEVs/H2 in quite a while, and all the old ones have been repeated enough times that anyone who's interested can find enough information to make up their own mind (or just find support for their existing position) by looking upthread. While a few people may have found info here that helped them make up their own minds, ISTM it's mainly the same old group of people with already firmly held opinions endlessly repeating them, so I'm going to try really, really hard to just post news stories, and not respond to the usual snarky comments or simplistic answers that lack context. I can't think of any of us who came into this thread having already formed a strong opinion on the subject who've had their mind changed (that's not likely regardless of the subject), and I'm tired of wasting my time. My own opinion shifted from anti-H2/FCEV to neutral (i.e., worth experimenting with for several years) prior to entering this thread way back at its beginning, and nothing said here since has altered it. So, have at it!

I don't disagree with your assessment. But I just want to say I for one have learned a bit from your and a select few other posters on this thread over time. There seem to be only two kinds of posts: reasoned discussion with open mind, able to see multiple facets. And ones that are just repeating buzz phrases, one line arguments and what I call zero-sum sport/politic type posters. I know this is obvious but seems that ones who have the least to say tend to talk most.

We end up losing opportunities to learn that way. I for one see the potential for FCEVs but am afraid the US will never have the will, long term planning or ability to implement the infrastructure. I'm really waiting to see what happens in Europe.

 

[rcm4453]

Now, make them pay for equal range capability, year around. That's $57,500 base MSRP for the 312 mile EPA range Mirai, versus $88.3k base MSRP for a 294 mile EPA base Model S 90D (Tesla has removed the S90 from their site), both before gov't incentives, not that they have equal range in winter when using heat, and as I've said before, anyone with any sense will lease rather than buy an FCEV now, given the uncertainty of future H2 fuel prices.

At my local H2 station (with no nearby competition), H2 is currently selling for $16.78/kg., and at other sites in state we know it was selling for $13.59 and $13.99, which is obviously non-competitive with gasoline, and which is why the DoE goal is an ultimate price (untaxed) of $4/kg. Anyway, let's assume a current average price of $15/kg, and absolutely no reduction in the next three years. The difference in base MSRP is $88.3 - $57.5 = $29.8k. At $15.00/kg divided by 67 miles/kg = ~$0.224/mile. $29,800/$0.224 = 133,035 miles you can drive the Mirai before you equal the amount you spent on the Model S, assuming you get all the electricity you charge the Tesla with for free (note that I've ignored the higher D&H, licensing and insurance costs for the Tesla, as well as the cost of money, depreciation and the cost of any electrical upgrades required to provide a 240V circuit to charge it with). Gee, isn't math fun?

In short, It just depends on your personal situation and what your priorities are. At the moment, no one primarily concerned with Life Cycle costs will buy _any_ AFV, because none of them pencil out without subsidies.

You are really going to compare that slow, under powered economy class Mirai against a P90D Tesla?!? You've got to be kidding me right?!? The Tesla runs circles around the Mirai in styling, performance, class basically in EVERY way possible! It's a Luxury car!!! Hello! Of course it's going to cost more. That's an apples to oranges comparison and you know it. Besides, most who could afford the Mirai would spend the extra money to get a FAR SUPERIOR car such as the Tesla P90! Why don't you compare it to the upcoming Chevy Bolt EV? Now run those numbers again and let me know what you get....too funny!

As I said, it's all a question of priorities. Of course the Tesla is a much nicer car - for that kind of money it had better be. But it's not a longer-ranged car, nor is it cheaper to own, which was the comparison asked for. Even though it's the most expensive, longest ranged BEV available, it still can't compete on range with a car costing many thousands of dollars less. The Mirai isn't aimed at the Tesla crowd, it's aimed at the Prius crowd. If you need a road trip car, then one with the Mirai's capabilites is far more efficient in terms of time and flexibility (assuming equal infrastructure) than any existing BEV at any price. And if you want to compare to a LEAF, you also have to include in the life cycle costs not only a battery replacement, but the cost of the ICE you need for all the trips that the LEAF simply isn't suitable for. The Mirai is suitable to be a family's sole vehicle, and for almost everyone short range BEVs like the LEAF aren't,

As for the Bolt, again it's a matter of priorities. While a 200 mile EPA BEV priced like the Bolt is suitable to be many people's sole car, if you need the Mirai's range and refueling time, then the Bolt simply won't meet your needs. No BEV at any price offers the Mirai's range. As for Life cycle costs, it all depends on how much degradation the Bolt can have and still meet your needs. If you have to buy a replacement pack, that will have to be factored into TCO. An FCEV will also lose range as it ages, but since the refueling times are short that's less critical of an issue (again, assuming adequate fueling infrastructure). I consider that two hours of freeway range would be acceptable to most people, if the refueling/charging times are short enough, and the Mirai when new can go twice that. Of course, for around town use days between refuelings is more important than range between refuelings, and the ability to charge at home (if able) is an advantage there. But as I've pointed out again and again, most of the world's car-owning population doesn't have that option, so the BEV's advantage is notional until that changes.

Most people don't drive beyond the range of a Chevy Bolt EV (for example). I guess what I'm talking about is people's daily driver. If you are the type that takes many, many road trips then actually a Toyota Prius is cheaper in the long run then the Mirai. Actually the Mirai's fuel economy isn't that much better then the Prius. What I don't understand is why is everything about road trip capabilities with you? I would say maybe 95% or more of a car's use is not for road trips by the typical American driver. So why do you focus so much of a car's utility on that one aspect? Let's say you only have one car, you maybe go on two to three road trips per year where the Chevy bolt EV wouldn't work. Renting an ICE isn't going to cost all that much per year and isn't THAT big of a hassle factor. In this situation it would be cheaper to buy the Chevy Bolt EV over the Mirai given the difference in purchase price between the two. Another factor to consider is BEVs have a huge head start. If things continue this way BEVs will remain cheaper then FCEVs as range increases. Charging infrastructure also has a huge head start which helps solve that problem you keep bringing up about so many people having no where to charge. I think the problem of lack of H2 stations is far worse then having places to charge a BEV and it will be this way for quite some time. So where will BEV range be in another 5 - 10 years? What if cars like the Leaf and Bolt EV are up to 350 miles per charge in 10 years? How many more charging stations will there be in another 10 years? If a future generation Leaf has 350 miles per charge that's coming pretty close to ICE territory, should alleviate most range anxiety concerns with the average Joe. Range increases, infrastructure improves, cost decreases to that sweet spot or tipping point where the average Joe starts taking notice, BEVs go mainstream. Can FCEVs catch up or keep up with the BEV head start? What if future generations of BEVs have that 350 mile range and can fast charge in 10 minutes? Wouldn't this solve that long range, quick refueling issue? People who don't having charging at home could go fill up at a charging station in 10 minutes and have enough range for quite a few days of daily driving. Not having a network of H2 stations throughout the U.S. is really going to hurt the FCEV. It's so much cheaper and easier to add a charging station then it is to add an H2 station. You would think the mainstream population will just keep driving ICE vehicles until BEVs reach parity with them, then transition over. This is my hope (as you know) but I guess there's really no way to know, time will tell.

 

[WetEV]

At the moment, no one primarily concerned with Life Cycle costs will buy _any_ AFV, because none of them pencil out without subsidies.

For me, I'm probably close to break even, without subsidies,

Good for you, and I will now amend my original statement to "an AFV may pencil out for some people in a very limited set of conditions."

A BEV may pencil out for some cases.... Biofuels can as well, for some cases. A FCEV doesn't.

However, unless you need both cars at the same time, it's obvious that the Prius alone

I do need both cars at the same time, so any single car solution doesn't work.

and even the Mirai alone, if you had somewhere to fuel it

The unsubdized Mirai would be more expensive than both of my cars and unsubdized would cost more to fuel than a H-1 Hummer.

Those costs will come down, and perhaps in a decade things will look different. Tell me then, I'm more likely to be interested then.

 

[lorenfb]

What if cars like the Leaf and Bolt EV are up to 350 miles per charge in 10 years?

The above statement is typical of your arguments against FCEVs, i.e. What if statements.

If a future generation Leaf has 350 miles per charge that's coming pretty close to ICE territory, should alleviate most range anxiety concerns with the average Joe. Range increases, infrastructure improves, cost decreases to that sweet spot or tipping point where the average Joe starts taking notice, BEVs go mainstream.

Range is only one factor in the acceptance of BEVs, i.e. There's recharging times, battery cost, cost of
home charging installation, & etc. And where're the reliable future battery cost reduction data,
and not guesstimates?

Can FCEVs catch up or keep up with the BEV head start?

What "head start"? BEVs have a very insignificant share of the hybrid market, much less the overall
automotive market.

What if future generations of BEVs have that 350 mile range and can fast charge in 10 minutes?

Batteries that can charge at 6C are a long way off, notwithstanding an infrastructure widely available
and capable of that energy delivery.

Not having a network of H2 stations throughout the U.S. is really going to hurt the FCEV.

Again, your "if" the H2 stations aren't available. As what typically occurs when a market becomes viable,
the infrastructure will meet the demand.

You would think the mainstream population will just keep driving ICE vehicles until BEVs reach parity with them, then transition over.

Right, which is why the acceptance rate of BEVs is low. And how long do we need to wait to find an alternative
to an ICEV? Why not dispense with this myopic view of only one ICEV alternative?

 

[rcm4453]

What if cars like the Leaf and Bolt EV are up to 350 miles per charge in 10 years?

The above statement is typical of your arguments against FCEVs, i.e. What if statements.

If a future generation Leaf has 350 miles per charge that's coming pretty close to ICE territory, should alleviate most range anxiety concerns with the average Joe. Range increases, infrastructure improves, cost decreases to that sweet spot or tipping point where the average Joe starts taking notice, BEVs go mainstream.

Range is only one factor in the acceptance of BEVs, i.e. There's recharging times, battery cost, cost of
home charging installation, & etc. And where're the reliable future battery cost reduction data,
and not guesstimates?

Can FCEVs catch up or keep up with the BEV head start?

What "head start"? BEVs have a very insignificant share of the hybrid market, much less the overall
automotive market.

What if future generations of BEVs have that 350 mile range and can fast charge in 10 minutes?

Batteries that can charge at 6C are a long way off, notwithstanding an infrastructure widely available
and capable of that energy delivery.

Not having a network of H2 stations throughout the U.S. is really going to hurt the FCEV.

Again, your "if" the H2 stations aren't available. As what typically occurs when a market becomes viable,
the infrastructure will meet the demand.

You would think the mainstream population will just keep driving ICE vehicles until BEVs reach parity with them, then transition over.

Right, which is why the acceptance rate of BEVs is low. And how long do we need to wait to find an alternative
to an ICEV? Why not dispense with this myopic view of only one ICEV alternative?

All the same negative things you have to say about BEVs are even worse for the FCEV. Everyone knows battery costs are going down hence the new generation of 200 mile range BEVs coming in the next couple years that cost about as much as a 100 mile range BEV today. What more proof do you need other then this? Yes, BEVs have a huge head start, how many BEVs are on the road compared to FCEVs in this country? How many total charging stations in the U.S. compared to H2 stations?

What does a FCEV offer the average Joe that is even remotely any better then the ICEV he's driving today?

Their fuel efficiency is only slightly better then that of a Toyota Prius. Compared to a Chevy Volt it even looks worse! Why would anyone buy a FCEV?!?

At least a BEV has SOME good things going for it that will eventually attract the average Joe in the near future.

FCEVs are going backwards, give me one way they are even better then a car such as the Chevy Volt (which is here now)? Let's see....fuel economy is worse on the FCEV...........already have an infrastructure of gas stations for long trips with the Volt....oh, and here's my favorite......the Volt can be refueled at home cheaply for many people (even with renewable energy).

So knowing this wouldn't it be more logical to go from ICEV ------>PHEV/hybrid---------->BEVs?

You see the whole problem is FCEVs don't offer any advantages worth while, they are a lateral move from hybrids such as the Prius, not worth spending billions and billions of dollars building out a whole nationwide network of H2 stations for that slight bump in fuel economy.

The other problem is cost of the fuel with FCEVs. I highly doubt H2 is going to be cost competitive with gasoline for a very, very long time. By that time BEVs will have advanced to the point where it will make more economic sense for the average Joe to buy one instead of a FCEV.

Also, look at how many reservations there are for the upcoming Tesla Model 3! Pretty impressive considering the car won't be out yet for another 2 to 3 years! How many people ordered the Toyota Mirai?!?

 

[TonyWilliams]

“The Hyundai and Genesis brands are working on multiple plug-in hybrids that will be an intermediate step before hydrogen fuel cell vehicles take hold in the coming decades, Dave Zuchowski, CEO of Hyundai Motor America, said in an interview.”

 

[EVDrive]

Argonne thinks EV batteries wiil have the equivalent energy density as loser gas cars in 29 years. We're our way. Sorry FCEV fanatics.

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/05/12/argonne-ev-gas-energy-density-2045/

 

[GetOffYourGas]

As intrigued as I am by the idea of a FCEV, I have to say this. I've spoken with a lot of people about AFVs in general. Coworkers, Family, Friends, even the random strangers who ask me about my Leaf. For all of them, there are basically two concerns that prevent them from actually buying one today: cost and refueling.

Cost:
This one is hard to argue with for today's BEVs. Batteries are still more expensive than gas tanks. Add in the fact that the battery may or may not last the typical 15-20 year lifespan of a car, and people are understandably concerned. Today, FCEVs have similar issues with the fuel cell and storage tanks. They also add a higher fuel cost.

So neither BEVs and FCEVs can match ICEVs today, although both are showing improvement. Guessing where either technology will end up in another 5-10 years is just that: guessing. I'm personally more interested in the facts than in conjecture.

Refueling:
This issue is multi-faceted. It is a combination of speed and availability. Most people I have spoken with do have a garage in which to charge at night. I know that's uncommon worldwide, but in my small-city + suburbs community, it's the norm. So the issue is then charging on a road trip. Some people insist on 10 minute charging, but many many more are much more rational. When I point out that a 30-minute pitstop after 3-4 hours of driving could supercharge a Tesla while they eat / use the restroom, they realize that maybe this is acceptable. IF, that is, those superchargers are located everywhere they want to go. This means not only along the Thruway (which they are today), but in places like the Adirondack Park where there is nothing today. People want to drive to their camps in Lake Placid just as much as down the Thruway to NYC.

So today, Tesla pretty much has the charging speed that people could live with, but they have nowhere near the coverage that their website wants you to believe. Sure, you CAN travel from Syracuse to Lake Placid, but it will take you literally hundreds of miles out of your way to follow the superchargers.

When it comes to fueling FCEVs, they seem to have it made on paper. They can easily refuel for 300 miles of range in 10 minutes or less. Great. But then you run into the same problem of availability of that fuel. Today, stations are very expensive. The price will probably come down, but now we're back to conjecture. I won't say never, though. But clearly BEVs have a huge head start in this regard.

To date, I have never had someone say that they are more interested in efficiency or environmental cleanliness. While important to us, those things just don't sell cars.

I also don't think that EVs really need more than 200-300 miles of range, provided enough quick chargers.

And batteries don't need to be as energy dense as gasoline, they just need to be cost competitive.

 

[epirali]

Argonne thinks EV batteries wiil have the equivalent energy density as loser gas cars in 29 years. We're our way. Sorry FCEV fanatics.

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/05/12/argonne-ev-gas-energy-density-2045/

I haven't bought and read the original paper yet, but essentially the headline is a bit misleading. The summary focus is mostly on the fact that the efficiency of the power train of a BEV should be accounted into the equation of "efficiency" when comparing to ICE vehicles (which is perfectly valid point for any comparison). Then it projects into the future.

A lot of the same arguments can be made for FCEVs, so I am not sure why this has anything to do with FCEVs.

 

[lorenfb]

Argonne thinks EV batteries wiil have the equivalent energy density as loser gas cars in 29 years. We're our way. Sorry FCEV fanatics.

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/05/12/argonne-ev-gas-energy-density-2045/

Are you sure about that time frame, I read somewhere that it's 27.75 years?

 

[lorenfb]

Argonne thinks EV batteries wiil have the equivalent energy density as loser gas cars in 29 years. We're our way. Sorry FCEV fanatics.

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/05/12/argonne-ev-gas-energy-density-2045/

I read somewhere else that it's really just 27.75 years?

 

[NeilBlanchard]

The Riversimple Rasa is an interesting FCEV - but not because of hydrogen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utmkddBFUg0

 

[rcm4453]

“The Hyundai and Genesis brands are working on multiple plug-in hybrids that will be an intermediate step before hydrogen fuel cell vehicles take hold in the coming decades, Dave Zuchowski, CEO of Hyundai Motor America, said in an interview.”

So Dave Zuchowski can predict the future?!?

What he should have said is "if" FCEVs take hold in the coming decades.

Will be interesting to see how it all plays out!

 

[TonyWilliams]

The Riversimple Rasa is an interesting FCEV - but not because of hydrogen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utmkddBFUg0
]

That guy has been working on this car for 16 years!!! If they are going to roll out a matching hydrogen station model much like Tesla has with Superchargers, and they're going to make the hydrogen from renewable sources, might be an interesting model overall.

Naturally, there was no mention of what it all cost. It appears you're going to lease the car with free hydrogen fuel, presumably paying for the amount of miles that you drive.

In case somebody didn't catch the data, it has 11 hp coming out of the fuel-cell. Again, this model goes absolutely nowhere without ubiquitous hydrogen stations. Efforts to decarbonize our planet also go nowhere if that hydrogen is not derived from renewable green electricity and base stock material.

I'm going to guess that an equivalent size car with batteries my weigh more, but be far cheaper to operate and certainly more ubiquitous on where it can be recharged.

 

[TonyWilliams]

http://www.engadget.com/2016/02/20/daimler-ceo-sees-electric-cars-beating-hydrogen/

"Daimler may be hedging its bets with work on both electric and hydrogen fuel cell cars, but it sees a front runner emerging. In a chat with Euro am Sonntag, company chief Dieter Zetsche says he believes EVs are "more likely" to come out on top. Simply put, he believes the electric camp has more answers. EVs with long range and fast charging are "within reach," while it's still not clear how you'll make hydrogen both cheap and widely available. That doesn't mean that fuel cells are out -- however, their future isn't looking good."

 

[GRA]

Via GCC:

DOE awarding ~$4.75M to San Francisco and Strategic Analysis for hydrogen fuel cell vehicle and infrastructure projects

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/05/20160520-doe.html

. . .The nearly $4.75 million in funding for both efforts will go towards the development of education and outreach programs to increase the deployment of fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) and hydrogen infrastructure, as well as provide detailed cost analyses for hydrogen fuel cell systems, hydrogen storage, and hydrogen production and delivery technologies. . . .

In the DOE-supported project, San Francisco aims to enroll at least three local businesses into an FCEV group purchase program, exploring opportunities for discount pricing and offering information about local, state and federal incentives. By pooling the purchasing power of groups, the project will reduce cost and complexity for consumers.

With the new funding, the San Francisco Department of the Environment will also conduct comprehensive training and educational activities for hydrogen and fuel cell stakeholders throughout the Bay Area. . . .

For comparison:

SDG&E to invest $7.5M in EV education push; complement to $45M charging station initiative

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/05/20160517-sdge.html


BMW's current view, via ievs:

BMW Exec: BEVS And FCEVs Will Co-Exist In The Future – PHEVs Will Disappear

http://insideevs.com/bmw-exec-bevs-and-fcevs-will-co-exist-in-the-future-phevs-will-disappear/

. . . Vehicle size will become the deciding point between the necessity of a build being a BEV or a FCEV. The larger vehicles will be more suited to fuel cell technology, because a tank size increase makes more sense than a heavier, more costly battery pack.

BMW is currently teaming with Toyota on the hydrogen drivetrain venture. Merten explained that BMW would be investing regardless of the partnership, however, due to costs it makes much more sense to work together. . . .

Hydrogen station programs and government support is primarily in Europe at this point. Merten emphasized that government support is a great way to “get the ball rolling”. He continued: “Any time you roll out a new technology it takes a while for it to become profitable and affordable; in the end it has to be, though.”

The goal is that by 2020, BMW will have second-gen hydrogen powered components ready for a new round of pilot program prototypes. The first program impressed users as the cars drove well and mimicked EVs, but lighter and sportier options were requested.

Initial potential markets are the usual suspects: Japan, California, Germany, Scandinavia and U.K., with the Chinese market a possibility (FCEV buses now).

Full interview here: http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/bmw-is-preparing-for-a-hydrogen-future/

 

[GRA]

Honda and BMW (see immediately preceding post) appear to see things much alike. Via ievs ex Autocar:

Honda CEO Discusses Automaker’s Electric Car And Fuel Cell Dominated Future

http://insideevs.com/honda-ceo-discusses-automakers-electric-car-fuel-cell-dominated-future/

. . . According to Hachigo’s expectations, by 2030 FCVs/EVs should take some 15% of total Honda car sales, while by 2050 FCVs/EVs will take majority – “(alternative fuel vehicles) will be dominant in the mix of models we build“. . . .

“How suitable are today’s FCVs for big-scale manufacturing?

The main component in any hydrogen fuel cell car is the stack and as far as manufacturing technology goes, I think this needs to make one more big step. Without that, it’s difficult to visualise building FCVs at a rate of one car a minute, as we do with petrol cars. So as well as the problems with infrastructure, we have this to overcome.”

“How long do you believe that the plug-in hybrid electric vehicle period will last? Two or three model cycles?

This period will be highly dependent on technical progress with fuel cell vehicles, with the development of a [hydrogen] fuelling infrastructure and, of course, the cost of these things. We see the PHEV as a necessary step but not the goal.”. . .