On hydrogen cars, and making and using your own hydrogen.

[donald]

But what do those figures mean for vehicles on the highway?

The data you link to shows all trips. The data for vehicles on the highway would be biased towards the longer trips. it is also not covering cars doing multiple trips in the day. The figure of merit is total mileage in the day, not mileage on each trip. The data used in Europe shows 80% of daily mileage is less than 50 miles, 20% is more.

So, all in all, together with the %age of fuel/propulsion types, how many chargers do you think will be needed per mile of highway in the future?

 

[Zythryn]

But what do those figures mean for vehicles on the highway?

The data you link to shows all trips. The data for vehicles on the highway would be biased towards the longer trips. it is also not covering cars doing multiple trips in the day. The figure of merit is total mileage in the day, not mileage on each trip. The data used in Europe shows 80% of daily mileage is less than 50 miles, 20% is more.

So, all in all, together with the %age of fuel/propulsion types, how many chargers do you think will be needed per mile of highway in the future?

The second graph I mentioned shows daily mileage, not single trips. There is a lot of data in there you may find useful.

To answer your "all in all" question more needs to be considered.

In my opinion, EVs will not replace freight trucks, medium to large pickup trucks, busses, etc.
I do not have numbers on how much highway traffic is composed of such vehicles.

I also don't know what the typical range will be when EVs reach their full market share. Let's say it will reach 50% of the light vehicle fleet.
To get there would take ~5 years if no one bought any light vehicles other than electrics, so let's say 10 years (which is still wildly optimistic.
In 3 years, Tesla expects to have a half price EV with the same range as the base Model S.
If in 7 years after that EVs can double their range from 200 to 400 miles we then have...
140,000 vehicles per hour on a freeway.
60% (WAG) of those are light vehicle fleet, leaving 84,000/hr
Of those, 50% (above WAG) are EVs, which gives us 42,000/hr
Average range, 200 miles (WAG).
Number of cars with daily travel over 200 miles is 0.3% (if it is the same as today, from estimate of figure 14). This gives us 126 vehicles per hour that will need charging somewhere that day.

As no one runs an electric car down to zero, let's assume everyone stops every 150 miles for 15 minutes.

So that comes out to an average of .84 charging stations per mile.

Now, this is based on lots of assumptions. And any one of them could be argued. But I do believe they are all reasonable and based in reality.

Two things to note:

First, and this is a repeat. Electric infrastructure is easy to install and will grow as EV adoption grows. One of the reasons it is so easy is the bulk of infrastructure for local driving, which is most of driving, is done at home. The same can't be said for H2. Yes, there will be some people that produce an excess of energy that will invest in the home infrastructure necessary to fuel at home, but it will be a smaller number than those pioneers that converted cars/trucks to BEVs.

Two, many of the vehicles that I mentioned not switching to electric are wonderful targets for H2.
Iceland already has a fleet of hydrogen buses and I would hope to see that be a big area for hydrogen elsewhere. Fueling infrastructure for long haul trucks is much easier as it is focused around interstates and fleet depots.
It just doesn't make sense to me trying to push hydrogen and the cost of its infrastructure on the light vehicle fleet. The needed infrastructure is too wide spread and costly.

 

[donald]

There's no way I'll buy that only 1 car in 300 on a highway is only doing a short trip. You've not included the 'bias' that the long trips are done on the fastest, long-distance roads.

I think the fair and practical way to look at it is to consider the Model S experience at the moment, because their range is [hopefully] probably the range of an 'average' EV in a few years time. Then decide how many chargers are at locations already that are seeing queuing, and then simply scale up the number of Model S's and the number of chargers to the expected EV take up.

If 25,000 Teslas become 25 million 200-mile EVs, and if there are already queues where there are only 6 chargers, that scales up to 6,000 chargers needed.

OK, well, let's not argue over it. I think there is a serious issue there and I asked you and you have come up with your own figures. Fair enough. I think reality will find somewhere between our estimates, time will tell.

I agree with your other points. The matter of the long distance heavy truck is interesting too. These consume such huge quantities of energy it looks inconceivable to me that electric versions can be devised, unless en-route charging/power can be made possible. Even then the power demands for an electrified fleet all on the move would be staggering. In turn, this means we'll always have a need for a fuel delivery system, to service those trucks, and consequently there will always be a fleet of ICE passenger cars because they can then make use of the same fuel.

 

[Zythryn]

There's no way I'll buy that only 1 car in 300 on a highway is only doing a short trip. You've not included the 'bias' that the long trips are done on the fastest, long-distance roads.

I think the fair and practical way to look at it is to consider the Model S experience at the moment, because their range is [hopefully] probably the range of an 'average' EV in a few years time. Then decide how many chargers are at locations already that are seeing queuing, and then simply scale up the number of Model S's and the number of chargers to the expected EV take up.

If 25,000 Teslas become 25 million 200-mile EVs, and if there are already queues where there are only 6 chargers, that scales up to 6,000 chargers needed.
...

I think this is a wonderful discussion.
Your point about freeways carrying a larger percentage of 200 mile plus cars is a good one to consider.
While there is also lots of short distance vehicles also using highways and freeways near cities, most 200+ mile travelers would only e using them.
Your 140,000 vehicles/hour freeway, was that in a urban, suburban, or rural area. If rural, I would not see a bias of 75% as unreasonable. If urban or suburban, I would argue most of the traffic is local and of the light vehicles, the bias would actually be towards trips under 200 miles.

As for the 0.3% number, it is one of the stronger numbers I have to offer. If you have another study, I am all ears. It is an estimate, so it may be 0.4 or 0.2%.

I am not looking for data to support my position, I am basing my position on the information I have seen. This is why the discussion is very valuable. More information is a good thing as they help me form a more informed opinion.

 

[Zythryn]

Ok, I found some more data on interstate volumes in Georgia in 2012 at http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/trafficsurvey/download/NCDOT2012InterstateFreewayReport.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It seems the annual average daily vehicles fell in a range between 20,000 and 170,000 (with a few outliers).
This would be between about 850 & 7,000/hr.
Since this is an annual average, let's double the average for the busy season and triple it again for the busiest time of the day.
So 5100/hr rural and 42,000/hr urban.

Perhaps in the busiest cities you may approach 140000/hr. However, you also have the counter argument that most people will avoid charging up in the most congested areas.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

 

[davewill]

Labelling anyone who disagrees a Luddite counts as name calling in my book.

A 'luddite' is someone who resists change simply because it is change. That's not name calling, it is simply use of a word which means exactly that.

Besides, I have not labelled those who disagree, I have commented on luddites who disagree. "A's who do B" does not imply "All who do B are A's". You have reversed the logic.

...

However, if you are expressing an opinion that you think hydrogen powered cars will not ultimately find viability for a whole host of reasons, no-one can yet dispute and I would support your right to express that opinion. I'll presume in the first instance you are in the latter category (although you don't appear to have clarified any reasons you are thinking of), unless, of course, you wish to nominate yourself for the former?

Yes, I know what the word means, but if you weren't directing it at the people disagreeing with you, I have no idea who you meant it for. Anyway, I have only one reason to object to hydrogen as a fuel...it too inefficient to manufacture. I have no doubt that all of the rest of the claims are true enough, but I can't get behind a tech that inefficient. I believe that the corporate advocates know this, but consider reforming of natural gas an acceptable solution. I do not.

As far as making fuel at home, I have just enough roof to support my home use and one BEV at 15% efficiency, I can't see changing that over to a vehicle with only 55% efficiency.

 

[AndyH]

It's not nice to call the people you're having a discussion with names. I suggest you stop.

You might consider that the poster you're criticizing isn't from the US and isn't calling anyone names.

Personally, I don't see hydrogen's place in cars. It will always cost more in energy to produce the hydrogen than to use the electricity directly...unless you're reforming natural gas, which makes it a fossil fuel and a complete nonstarter as far as I'm concerned. This is physics, not tech.

I'm with you on fossil fuels but not on H2. There's no free lunch for any fuel 'source' or carrier - nobody's suggesting H2 violates the laws of physics. As a carrier, however, even at today's tech levels, one can drive a FCEV 400+ miles, refuel in 15-20 minutes, and do it again. Can you name a BEV that can do that?

I'm afraid I have to continue to classify HFC cars as nothing more than a shiny object to distract the politicians from EVs.

Fuel cell vehicles are electric vehicles, therefore they are not shiny objects distracting politicians from electric vehicles.

Labelling anyone who disagrees a Luddite counts as name calling in my book. It's not on the same level as "nutjob" but it is intended to be characterize the speaker rather than respond to the argument.

The Tesla comes close to the mark you set, and "current tech" can certainly achieve your range and refueling target. Current production BEVs can't but there aren't any production FCEVs that can either.

Since you insist on nitpicking, I'll rephrase:

I continue to classify FCEVs as shiny objects intended to distract politicians and the public from BEVs.

Donald's already talked about the label - 'nuff said on that.
The Model S has nice range, but 'comes close' still means pushing the BEV the last 100 miles. Sorry, still a fail.

The California H2 thread has info on production FCEV/FCHV that have real world 430 mile range, fast refills, and no range penalty when one turns on the heat. Those vehicles started shipping last year.

I am 100% for electrifying transportation - this isn't an argument or nit-pick session. But your belief that FCEVs are a shiny distraction is simply incorrect. Each is electric and they each do things the other cannot. More range for a BEV means a larger more massive battery bank. The weight, cost, and refueling time penalty a BEV must suffer for 400+ miles range (with no cabin heat) is not a problem a FCEV/FCHV must suffer. In addition, there ARE FCHV Class-8 trucks on the road today - try to build a long-haul BEV Class 8 tractor...

You're welcome to your opinions - absolutely! But when confronted with facts that suggest a course correction might be prudent, the disembodied GPS voice suggests "when able, make a legal U turn and return to course". But hey - it's only a suggestion...

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

As a carrier, however, even at today's tech levels, one can drive a FCEV 400+ miles, refuel in 15-20 minutes, and do it again. Can you name a BEV that can do that?

how about naming PEOPLE who "want" to do that? other than truck drivers, we are maybe looking at something someone would do once a year if EVER.

I drove my Dad's car from TX to WA and that 400+ mile stuff lasted about two days and I simply decided it was not worth the fatigue and risk... Back when I was younger, I did 600+ plus a day for two straight weeks. that was foolish back then and it still is.

 

[AndyH]

Anyway, I have only one reason to object to hydrogen as a fuel...it too inefficient to manufacture. I have no doubt that all of the rest of the claims are true enough, but I can't get behind a tech that inefficient. I believe that the corporate advocates know this, but consider reforming of natural gas an acceptable solution. I do not.

As far as making fuel at home, I have just enough roof to support my home use and one BEV at 15% efficiency, I can't see changing that over to a vehicle with only 55% efficiency.

Efficiency: No energy carrier is 100% efficient. Gasoline only looks efficient because the folks crunching the numbers completely disregard the solar power and geologic force it took to make the stuff. BEVs are in the same boat - we can discuss ~80% efficiency numbers when we look at a lithium cell and charger and inverter and motor, but that ignores mine to grave as well.

edit...sorry, forgot the other part of the FC efficiency number - the 55% is on the electric side, but the fuel cell stack makes heat and many people find cabin heat to be useful and can regularly use the energy from the 55% to the 80% number. Electric heat is about the least efficient way available to warm a cabin...

Reforming NG: I agree - not an option. Thankfully, it's not necessary - we do not need NG at all for any purpose today...except generating cash flow for the oil industry, I guess...

Home charging is not necessary, but doesn't need to mean you need a larger roof. Think micro-grids, community solar, etc.

I highly recommend you grab a copy of Jeremy Rifkin's "Third Industrial Revolution" for an overview of what Germany, the EU, and San Antonio are doing with hydrogen generation/storage. Renewable storage in H2 means low price hydrogen (nearly zero marginal cost) and a 100% renewable system for electricity, heat, and transportation.

 

[AndyH]

As a carrier, however, even at today's tech levels, one can drive a FCEV 400+ miles, refuel in 15-20 minutes, and do it again. Can you name a BEV that can do that?

how about naming PEOPLE who "want" to do that? other than truck drivers, we are maybe looking at something someone would do once a year if EVER.

I drove my Dad's car from TX to WA and that 400+ mile stuff lasted about two days and I simply decided it was not worth the fatigue and risk... Back when I was younger, I did 600+ plus a day for two straight weeks. that was foolish back then and it still is.

I'm continually amazed at the range of experience and opinions that can be found on this forum.

When I lived in Michigan, we made 500 mile drives (9 hours) at least 4 times per year (trips to see grandma), and later for college. Then there were the weekend drives all over to canoe or fish for salmon or lake trout in Lake Michigan, and the drives to Lake Huron for ice fishing... Driving, like anything else, is a skill that can be learned and practiced. My longest single day drive was about 1100 miles - that's where I draw the line at fatigue and risk. YMMV.

I was also on the road for a number of years after retiring from the AF selling, supporting customers, and working trade shows. Drove 30,000-35,000 miles per year and ranged from San Antonio to Maryland, South Dakota, Duluth, MN and N California.

Today we are forced to think about electric propulsion to mean commuting to work in or near our homes - but to replace ICE we will need vehicles with a wider range of capabilities than even the coveted Model S. If that wasn't the case, why is Tesla spending so much money planting charge stations across the country?

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

As a carrier, however, even at today's tech levels, one can drive a FCEV 400+ miles, refuel in 15-20 minutes, and do it again. Can you name a BEV that can do that?

how about naming PEOPLE who "want" to do that? other than truck drivers, we are maybe looking at something someone would do once a year if EVER.

I drove my Dad's car from TX to WA and that 400+ mile stuff lasted about two days and I simply decided it was not worth the fatigue and risk... Back when I was younger, I did 600+ plus a day for two straight weeks. that was foolish back then and it still is.

I'm continually amazed at the range of experience and opinions that can be found on this forum.

When I lived in Michigan, we made 500 mile drives (9 hours) at least 4 times per year (trips to see grandma), and later for college. Then there were the weekend drives all over to canoe or fish for salmon or lake trout in Lake Michigan, and the drives to Lake Huron for ice fishing... Driving, like anything else, is a skill that can be learned and practiced. My longest single day drive was about 1100 miles - that's where I draw the line at fatigue and risk. YMMV.

I was also on the road for a number of years after retiring from the AF selling, supporting customers, and working trade shows. Drove 30,000-35,000 miles per year and ranged from San Antonio to Maryland, South Dakota, Duluth, MN and N California.

Today we are forced to think about electric propulsion to mean commuting to work in or near our homes - but to replace ICE we will need vehicles with a wider range of capabilities than even the coveted Model S. If that wasn't the case, why is Tesla spending so much money planting charge stations across the country?

sorry, i did not make myself clear. we ALL used to do that. who does it now? Funny.... you drove from MI, we drove to MI from VA... 650 miles always started right after dinner, got there just in time for breakfast

 

[AndyH]

how about naming PEOPLE who "want" to do that? other than truck drivers, we are maybe looking at something someone would do once a year if EVER.

I drove my Dad's car from TX to WA and that 400+ mile stuff lasted about two days and I simply decided it was not worth the fatigue and risk... Back when I was younger, I did 600+ plus a day for two straight weeks. that was foolish back then and it still is.

I'm continually amazed at the range of experience and opinions that can be found on this forum.

When I lived in Michigan, we made 500 mile drives (9 hours) at least 4 times per year (trips to see grandma), and later for college. Then there were the weekend drives all over to canoe or fish for salmon or lake trout in Lake Michigan, and the drives to Lake Huron for ice fishing... Driving, like anything else, is a skill that can be learned and practiced. My longest single day drive was about 1100 miles - that's where I draw the line at fatigue and risk. YMMV.

I was also on the road for a number of years after retiring from the AF selling, supporting customers, and working trade shows. Drove 30,000-35,000 miles per year and ranged from San Antonio to Maryland, South Dakota, Duluth, MN and N California.

Today we are forced to think about electric propulsion to mean commuting to work in or near our homes - but to replace ICE we will need vehicles with a wider range of capabilities than even the coveted Model S. If that wasn't the case, why is Tesla spending so much money planting charge stations across the country?

sorry, i did not make myself clear. we ALL used to do that. who does it now? Funny.... you drove from MI, we drove to MI from VA... 650 miles always started right after dinner, got there just in time for breakfast

My in-laws are 90 miles away, my dad's 800, my sister's 1200... I stopped working trade shows 2 years ago, but others on my team still are. Yes - the 'average' driver might drive 20 or 30 miles per day but the daily commute number hides the many thousands that are still driving cross country regularly.

ps - my 500 mile drives and most others mentioned were within Michigan. It's almost exactly 500 miles from Flint, across the Mackinac Bridge, to Houghton in the Keewenaw peninsula.

 

[GRA]

For those who missed it, many of the points re the economics, safety, energy etc. of FCEVs vs. BEVs as well as many details of actual current FCEV performance, infrastructure rollout in California etc. have been discussed at length in the topic AndyH mentioned:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=14744" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As for me, at the moment FCEVs like the Tucson could meet my requirements for a car to drive 200 miles and seven thousand feet up in the mountains in winter while using heat to my heart's content, park at a primitive trailhead and leave it for a weekend or week, and then return, making the entire trip without refueling en route, with far less extensive infrastructure or wasted time and other inconvenience than would be required by a Tesla, which I can't afford in any case. In short, I want a car that can replace my Forester. The ability of a BEV to charge at home is convenient if you can do so, but I rent and can't, and cycle to work in any case.

To be sure, currently the FCEV is also far too expensive for me to buy now, but seeing as how they've decreased the cost of the fuel cell and its associated bits by 95% (from $1M to $50k) in the past decade, with further reductions to come (Toyota, who's been working on FCEVs for over two decades, thinks they can get them down to maybe $1,000 by sometime between 2020 or 2025, depending on the rate of adoption), I anticipate that we'll see high-end FCEVs comparably priced and equipped to the Model S in the next generation after this, with the costs coming down afterwards. The determinants of whether one or both technologies will succeed are whether fuel cells or batteries decrease faster in cost, and what changes may occur in societal arrangements that would favor one or the other, because each tech has advantages in certain areas. And now, having beaten this subject to death in the other thread, I'll return to lurking.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

like an FCEV would be within your budget?

 

[GRA]

like an FCEV would be within your budget?

From the post you replied to:

"To be sure, currently the FCEV is also far too expensive for me to buy now. . ."

Until BEV and/or FCEV/FCHV with the winter highway range and other features I need come down out of the stratosphere, I'll keep my ICE. I could probably stretch to afford a Tucson lease, if the terms Hyundai announced aren't loaded with asterisks. But it's not cost-effective for me to do so, and I have zero interest in getting a car just to make a statement. It has to be practical and affordable, and that last is obviously still a few years away.

 

[JeremyW]

What's wrong with having a PHEV with a fuel cell as a range extender? Why do I keep hearing from the "regulars" that fuel cells are going to replace batteries when every single one of them needs a traction pack for regen and dealing with output swings? Why does this need to be a fuel cell "or" battery when it could be fuel cell "and" battery. It's much cheaper and way more convenient to get my commute fuel as electricity directly at home.

 

[TickTock]

With the spotlight being provided by the fossil fuel providers who see it as a way to extend the "buy your fuel from us" model.

If you could clarify why you think this, then it would show you are not objecting to FCEVs just for the sake of objecting to them.

TT, did you actually read the first post of the thread? It is about making hydrogen @home. Where do you see the introduction of buying from fossil fuel suppliers in that discussion?

Sorry, I don't object to the idea of manufacturing hydrogen at home or FCEVs in general- I was just commenting on the motivation of our legislators. I have actually tinkered with my own hydrogen generators - but not for locomotion but to entertain the kids with exploding balloons. If someone can figure out how to safely and practically store it, it could have merit. For now, it is less practical than batteries (and that says a lot ;-)).

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

like an FCEV would be within your budget?

From the post you replied to:

"To be sure, currently the FCEV is also far too expensive for me to buy now. . ."

Until BEV and/or FCEV/FCHV with the winter highway range and other features I need come down out of the stratosphere, I'll keep my ICE. I could probably stretch to afford a Tucson lease, if the terms Hyundai announced aren't loaded with asterisks. But it's not cost-effective for me to do so, and I have zero interest in getting a car just to make a statement. It has to be practical and affordable, and that last is obviously still a few years away.

oh !! you're right, missed it completely. well not completely, i started to read how they would be so cheap "soon" and went to see your parallel analysis on BEVs expected affordability... that is where I got sidetracked

 

[AndyH]

If someone can figure out how to safely and practically store it, it could have merit. For now, it is less practical than batteries (and that says a lot ;-)).

:shock:

Safe and practical storage is old - industry has been using hydrogen since about the 1920s. Most of the vegetable oil you eat and motor oil you use has been 'hydrogenated' - treated with hydrogen in a high temperature/high temperature process.

This is just one example of a home hydrogen system made with off the shelf parts - it's been beaten to death in the linked hydrogen thread.
http://hydrogenhouseproject.org/

In hydrides, pressure tanks or as a liquid - storage is not a problem that is waiting to be solved.

 

[GRA]

What's wrong with having a PHEV with a fuel cell as a range extender? Why do I keep hearing from the "regulars" that fuel cells are going to replace batteries when every single one of them needs a traction pack for regen and dealing with output swings? Why does this need to be a fuel cell "or" battery when it could be fuel cell "and" battery. It's much cheaper and way more convenient to get my commute fuel as electricity directly at home.

Nothing whatsoever, and as I've stated in the other topic, for those who can afford it (and who can charge at home or work) a FCHV aka PHFCEV gives you the best of both worlds. Inevitably, it will be more expensive than a straight BEV or FCEV and heavier than a FCEV, and the space, weight and cost issues will limit pack size. I suspect anything over about 20 miles of battery range wouldn't be economical with current energy densities. As it happens, although none of the soon to be introduced FCEV cars are FCHVs, some will be used for mail delivery vehicles in France, and Fed-Ex is also getting some FCHV delivery vans:

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1089920_fedex-follows-french-lead-tests-hydrogen-fuel-cell-range-extenders" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;