Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
downeykp said:
Gra, your post makes it sound like BEVs and FCEVs are equals in the marketplace and that BEV is just getting started. I am not sure what parameters you are using but the former is becoming more mainstream every day. While the latter has seen better days. I, like the majority of the driving public see PHEV as non viable. Infrastructure is going to be way too costly for PHEV to ever make it in the heartland.
Nope, BEVs are about 5 years ahead in the development/deployment cycle, as I've said numerous times. I assume you meant 'FCEV' rather than 'PHEV' in the last two sentences, because PHEV makes no sense in that context. Presuming that's correct, H2 infrastructure is too expensive now anywhere, but as with most things, economies of scale and the learning curve bring costs down, and what really matters is the cost per vehicle served. Since the obvious place to install H2 fueling infrastructure is at existing gas stations (Shell is installing H2 at three stations in S.F., as well as several other existing stations), the facilities are already owned by people who are familiar with the business model. Going forward, I fully expect the energy companies and station dealer associations to be the major retail players, IF sustainable H2 and its infrastructure can be made cheap enough to be commercially viable. In a country with low gas and electricity prices like the U.S. that's questionable, but in other countries with higher prices and a high % of intermittent renewables that are often in excess (Denmark, Germany etc.) it's more likely.

In the meantime, while it's dependent on subsidies, I think we need limited deployment on a large enough scale, in a wide enough variety of climates and use cases to make sure the fuel cell tech itself meets customer requirements while continuing to reduce its cost and show that we can increase production, and there are enough countries (in Europe and Asia), regions (New England) and/or states (California) now involved in H2/FCEV deployment to provide this. I think FCEVs will likely see their major transport use for now in commercial long-haul trucks, and locomotives used on low traffic routes, and maybe marine use; high-usage MHE is already an area where they have a large presence. I think private FCEVs are more dependent on how fast and how far BEVs and their infrastructure develop, as BEVs have more of a lead there, but the best operating cases for the two techs are dissimilar enough for now that they appeal to private customers with very different situations and priorities.
 
smkettner said:
Only real question left is when will the charade end.... I give it one more year. RIP.

I see no advantage to hydrogen over BEV or ICE except that a few are desperate for EVs to fail.
I trust you don't include me in that last group. As to when or if FCEVs and H2 fail, we'll just have to wait and see. Let's check back in another year.
 
No. Just those giving tons of money through investment and government subsidy.
I realize BEV gets money too however even the days of the basic $7,500 credit are numbered with Tesla apparently going down first.

To my knowledge when the money drys up the hydrogen program ends. No person or fleet seems to continue into the second round on their own dime.

IIRC the big credits for ZEV hydrogen in CA were to start ending in 2019/2020 so I am thinking that will be the end. Even if it takes a bit to wind down.
 
GRA said:
but it's far easier to get people to change their conditioning if you aren't asking them to accept less than what they're used to, but instead giving them everything they're used to, and more.


That's only true if you're only focusing on the negative things about BEVs (ICEVs have negatives too)

Here are some examples of "getting more" from a BEV which you don't get with an ICEV.

1. Lower total cost of ownership in the long run for a lot of consumers.
2. Lower operating cost per mile on electric vs. gasoline for a lot of consumers.
3. No more going to the gas station.
4. Can be fueled at home for most consumers.
5. No more going in for oil changes.
6. Less maintenance, less to service (No belts, hoses, plugs/wires, timing belts, exhaust etc. to worry about)
7. More refined all electric drive experience, silky smooth instant torque, nice and quiet no vibrations or engine noise.
8. If you can do solar or wind and create your own electricity you are in control of your own fuel for your car. With an ICEV you have no control, you are at the mercy of fluctuating gas prices.


Funny how you forgot to mention all these wonderful "getting more" perks that you get with a BEV vs. an ICEV?!?

There's still a pretty big market in the U.S. of people who have at home charging access in which a BEV would make a fantastic second car or daily driver. The two reasons why it's taking so long is price and most people are uneducated about BEVs. There's so much FUD and many misconceptions about electric cars in general. Many think they are slow like golf carts, can't do freeway speeds, will randomly run out of juice and leave you stranded, require some crazy expensive elaborate charging station setup in the garage...etc. I get all kinds of silly stupid comments/questions from my coworkers at work all the time. The general public just doesn't know anything about them!

And for gods sake stop making them look like ridiculous ugly clown cars that nobody wants! The first Gen Leaf is the ugliest car Nissan makes. Bolt EV is one of the dorkiest looking vehicles GM makes. Make them look stylish, look like normal ICEVs. Tesla has it right, they make sexy stylish looking vehicles that people feel proud driving.
 
rcm4453 said:
GRA said:
but it's far easier to get people to change their conditioning if you aren't asking them to accept less than what they're used to, but instead giving them everything they're used to, and more.
That's only true if you're only focusing on the negative things about BEVs (ICEVs have negatives too)
Of course they do, just like any product.

rcm4453 said:
Here are some examples of "getting more" from a BEV which you don't get with an ICEV.

1. Lower total cost of ownership in the long run for a lot of consumers.
While true, it's also irrelevant to most private owners because they don't buy cars based on TCO, they buy based on what they can afford to pay down and monthly, with a general idea what operating costs will be. TCO is an argument that appeals primarily to commercial customers.

rcm4453 said:
2. Lower operating cost per mile on electric vs. gasoline for a lot of consumers.
As above.

rcm4453 said:
3. No more going to the gas station.
4. Can be fueled at home for most consumers..
3 & 4 are unquestionably a major advantage for those who can take advantage of it, i.e can charge at home or work.

rcm4453 said:
5. No more going in for oil changes.
A fairly minor issue for most people, as you still need to have your tires rotated, chassis lubed, etc. at similar intervals. It's unlikely to be a deciding factor.

rcm4453 said:
6. Less maintenance, less to service (No belts, hoses, plugs/wires, timing belts, exhaust etc. to worry about)
Assuming general build quality is equal, a major advantage for BEVs (and FCEVs).

rcm4453 said:
7. More refined all electric drive experience, silky smooth instant torque, nice and quiet no vibrations or engine noise.
Although some BEVs/FCEVs do have an annoying motor whine that's all the more noticeable owing to their general quietness, but that's model dependent, and wind noise also tends to be more noticeable for the same reason. Still, generally an advantage for all EVs.

rcm4453 said:
8. If you can do solar or wind and create your own electricity you are in control of your own fuel for your car. With an ICEV you have no control, you are at the mercy of fluctuating gas prices.
Now and for a long time to come, an advantage primarily for the wealthier segments of society rather than the mass market, and I was selling AE equipment (PV/Wind/Hydro) more than a quarter century ago.

rcm4453 said:
Funny how you forgot to mention all these wonderful "getting more" perks that you get with a BEV vs. an ICEV?!?
Nah, I'm aware of all of them, have discussed all of them at length, and know that most customers don't consider them a reason to switch, as is confirmed by sales. Most people are content to stick with what they are used to, unless the advantages to switching are obvious and overwhelming. For the general public EVs don't meet that condition, yet. I wish that weren't true, but I prefer realism to wishful thinking.

And now, this thread having once more made a large diversion from the specific topic of the Mirai to general discussions of AFV techs pro and con, let's try and get back on topic.
 
smkettner said:
No. Just those giving tons of money through investment and government subsidy.
I realize BEV gets money too however even the days of the basic $7,500 credit are numbered with Tesla apparently going down first.

To my knowledge when the money drys up the hydrogen program ends. No person or fleet seems to continue into the second round on their own dime.

IIRC the big credits for ZEV hydrogen in CA were to start ending in 2019/2020 so I am thinking that will be the end. Even if it takes a bit to wind down.
No, it's 2022 or 2024, I forget which. It was up to $20M/year for up to 10 years, starting in 2013? By contrast, California is getting $800M from VW over a similar timeframe, starting a few years later, and at least the first $200M of that (over 30 months) included no money for FCEVs or H2 at all - subsequent 30 month/$200M tranches may get some, but the lion's share will go to PEVs, charging and education. Of course, California is only a part of worldwide H2/FCEV deployment, and other areas with conditions more conducive to them have advanced far faster than we have, and will see commercial viability (if that's possible) before we will.
 
GRA said:
Nah, I'm aware of all of them, have discussed all of them at length, and know that most customers don't consider them a reason to switch, as is confirmed by sales. Most people are content to stick with what they are used to, unless the advantages to switching are obvious and overwhelming. For the general public EVs don't meet that condition, yet. I wish that weren't true, but I prefer realism to wishful thinking.


Sales are down for the reasons I mentioned above (uneducated public and high purchase price). Plus it doesn't help that there's not much of a selection to choose from yet (no good CUV/SUV choices). If prices were around the same for ICEVs and BEVs, all the popular vehicles were available in both drivetrains and the public were more educated about BEVs it would be a whole different story then what it is today.

Just curious have you even driven a BEV for an extended period of time? It's such a more refined driving experience then any ICEV out there! Too bad the public has no clue how nice they really are to drive.
 
GRA said:
I am looking at the whole package just as most people do, and so far most people don't find a BEV's whole package acceptable, unless they're bribed or forced.

Most of the horses hadn't been replaced in 1910 as well.

GRA said:
Nothing in this precludes BEVs taking a larger and larger share of the market as their capabilities increase and prices continue to drop, and that will happen.

Exactly. Even after the subsidies end.

GRA said:
But giving people as many AFV tech options as possible, as early as possible, is essential if we are to transition off fossil fuels as rapidly as we can, and that's my ultimate concern, not achieving the best option more gradually.

Ever notice how kids take more time to pick a candy when presented with twenty types of candy than when presented with two? If you wanted to slow the transition, increase the number of options. Especially non-viable options.

Hydrogen has a problem, it isn't a viable option for automotive. Might be for other uses, and of course things might change.
 
rcm4453 said:
GRA said:
Nah, I'm aware of all of them, have discussed all of them at length, and know that most customers don't consider them a reason to switch, as is confirmed by sales. Most people are content to stick with what they are used to, unless the advantages to switching are obvious and overwhelming. For the general public EVs don't meet that condition, yet. I wish that weren't true, but I prefer realism to wishful thinking.
Sales are down for the reasons I mentioned above (uneducated public and high purchase price). Plus it doesn't help that there's not much of a selection to choose from yet (no good CUV/SUV choices). If prices were around the same for ICEVs and BEVs, all the popular vehicles were available in both drivetrains and the public were more educated about BEVs it would be a whole different story then what it is today.
Agreed that all of the above are factors. I'm one of the people who are waiting for a small AWD CUV, with the necessary QC infrastructure.

rcm4453 said:
Just curious have you even driven a BEV for an extended period of time? It's such a more refined driving experience then any ICEV out there! Too bad the public has no clue how nice they really are to drive.
Depends on your definition of 'extended'. I drove a Think City for a week back in '97 or '98, but that was essentially a very unrefined precursor of cars like the Smart ED. It almost literally was a faster golf cart - it certainly rode and sounded like one. Aside from that, I've test driven at least the following BEVs: LEAF, Coda Sport, i-MiEV, Spark EV, Soul EV, e-Golf, Bolt, and I'm probably forgetting a couple. Any quietness advantage is moot for me now, as I can make the world completely silent by turning off my hearing aids and can't hear music when they're on, so I'm the last person to judge that. I've never noticed any major vibration advantage compared to a comparable ICE for any BEV I've driven - it may be there, but it's been too small to call itself to my attention. Off the line pickup of most BEVs is usually good to excellent, with the Spark and Bolt being the best I've driven, but I'm more interested in passing ability than 0-60, and with a few exceptions accel on many BEVs sags a bit at passing speeds owing to a single speed transmission.

Of all the ones I've driven, I'd rate driving experience and general experience as follows: LEAF, shrug, and not with that battery or Nissan's behavior; Coda, never mind; iMiEV, meek and inoffensive; Spark, a pocket rocket with some serious torque steer under full accel, generally unefined; Soul, generally liked with good controls, utility and vis, nice but not very exciting handling; e-Golf, German handling as expected and appreciated, somewhat slow off the line and no TMS, but good utility; Bolt, a hoot to drive and loved the regen options, but too short cargo space behind the seats, and can't lie down in. If I had to pick ones I'd consider buying it would be e-Golf, Soul and Bolt. What I really want is something like a Golf Sportwagen AllSport, with the Bolt's power and even more range along with faster QC and a liquid-cooled TMS, for no more than $35k out the door. We're obviously still a few years away from that. And I've been waiting for the Model Y, but if it has everything on the touchscreen like the 3 or Falcon Wing doors, forget it, and it will likely be too expensive in any case. I will also look at the Niro BEV (the Kona's too short, like the Bolt) when it arrives, but no AWD so. . . And only Tesla has QCs now where I need them for my most common road trips, still waiting on CCS and CHAdeMO.

If I had to buy a car now, it would be a PHEV. Improvements to the Outlander PHEV for 2019 have fixed some of my gripes, but it's bigger than I want and it remains to be seen if they've improved the handling and HEV MPG enough. I love the Voltec powertrain, mode and regen options, but want it in an AWD CUV a bit smaller than the Equinox, with 1/2 or 2/3rds of the Volt's battery pack and a near vertical back window instead of an almost horizontal one that bakes anyone/anything in the rear the way the Volt's does. I'll certainly take a look at the Subaru Crosstrek PHEV, having only owned and been very satisfied with my Subies for the past 30 years, but would really prefer an Impreza PHEV, as I don't need the Crosstrek's extra ground clearance.

I'd also be interested in the forthcoming Hyundai FCEV, but aside from it almost certainly being too expensive, although I've got a convenient H2 station locally the well-behind schedule build-out of the fueling infrastructure means I can't use it for my most common in-state road trips yet. Just one station in the right place would make a hell of a difference in viability for me.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
<snip>
But giving people as many AFV tech options as possible, as early as possible, is essential if we are to transition off fossil fuels as rapidly as we can, and that's my ultimate concern, not achieving the best option more gradually.
Ever notice how kids take more time to pick a candy when presented with twenty types of candy than when presented with two? If you wanted to slow the transition, increase the number of options. Especially non-viable options.
Kids don't buy cars, and at the moment we have too few AFV options, not too many.

WetEV said:
Hydrogen has a problem, it isn't a viable option for automotive. Might be for other uses, and of course things might change.
And it's because it might change that it needs to be pressed on with for now, because most people don't see BEVs as viable options for cars either. The fact that WE know that they could be for many people is irrelevant if we can't convince them of that, and they have to have some strong reason to be convinced.

Allow me to close with an excerpt from Woody Allen's "My Speech to the Graduates," as it sometimes reflects my view of the future (unlike Woody, with no comic intent) when I'm feeling gloomy about our chances:

More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly. I speak, by the way, not with any sense of futility, but with a panicky conviction of the absolute meaninglessness of existence which could easily be misinterpreted as pessimism.
https://www.nytimes.com/1979/08/10/archives/my-speech-to-the-graduates.html
 
In my opinion GRA is not entitled to an opinion. To have a valid opinion he should own the vehicle in question.

It is clear that he is fascinated with the concept of hydrogen cars but it is not likely that he will ever own one. The same goes for a BEV car.
 
GRA said:
Kids don't buy cars, and at the moment we have too few AFV options, not too many.

Ah yes, so funny you are, but people of all ages have the same problem. More options slow change. Especially when adding non-viable options like Hydrogen.

GRA said:
WetEV said:
Hydrogen has a problem, it isn't a viable option for automotive. Might be for other uses, and of course things might change.
And it's because it might change that it needs to be pressed on with for now, because most people don't see BEVs as viable options for cars either.

Hydrogen needs multiple breakthroughs. BEVs need only continuing gradual improvements.

Yes, if we define "most" as "50% or more", BEVs only not there yet. Not quite. Last survey by AAA showed 20 percent of buyers want an electric car. Up from 15% last year. Sure, not most.

https://newsroom.aaa.com/2018/05/1-in-5-us-drivers-want-electric-vehicle/

Doesn't look like a lack of interest is slowing sales of plug in cars.

GRA said:
The fact that WE know that they could be for many people is irrelevant if we can't convince them of that, and they have to have some strong reason to be convinced.

People are convinced slowly, then suddenly. Not always is a new strong reason is needed. BEVs are getting cheaper and better, a slow process. Oil is getting harder and harder to produce, another slow process. Don't expect more than 2% of vehicle sales to be plugins for a few more years. Don't expect more than 10% of sales for more than another decade. This is how change happens.
 
GlennD said:
In my opinion GRA is not entitled to an opinion. To have a valid opinion he should own the vehicle in question.

It is clear that he is fascinated with the concept of hydrogen cars but it is not likely that he will ever own one. The same goes for a BEV car.

Nah, I don't really agree. I'd hazard a guess that I'm probably the only person here who has experience with both hydrogen and battery-electric cars.

The only real thing that ownership does, is dull the sharp points often discussed. Yes, a hydrogen car will give you crippling range anxiety and leave you stranded all the time because there is, to a rounding error, no infrastructure in place. But in practice, people already took that into account when buying/leasing, so you only use it for the kind of travel when it makes sense. Otherwise, the experience of owning the car is much the same as owning a plug-in hybrid: a relatively luxurious, heavy and fairly sluggish car but not quite as sluggish as an ICE car. Whatever, dime a dozen.

For a BEV, i.e. my current Leaf, there is no range anxiety because there are plug outlets and quick chargers everywhere. Throw a stone in any direction and it'll hit an EV charger. So in practice there is never a true anxiety element to limited range, just annoyance. Moreover, in practice the range of any decently modern BEV will be well beyond bladder range anyway, so the charging times are pretty moot as well. Really, all that the limited range does is slow you down a little bit, but not much. It is a fringe concern for pretty much all daily driving. And much like FCEVs, the real barrier to entry is the limited choice of vehicle types. No trucks, no people carriers (except for the horrible Evalia), etc.

Ownership of either type of car won't inform you more about the technical aspects of the car much beyond some very basic facts, so IMO it adds very little to the discussion. What DOES matter, and this is a much more important issue as far as I'm concerned, is that people like GRA (not specifically talking about GRA, don't take this personally) hang their choice of favourite vehicle on their identity. They'll likely forego perfectly viable BEVs or PHEVs to 'wait' for the perfect FCEV to come around, never even giving themselves the opportunity to appreciate BEVs. I know multiple people like this, who are absolutely convinced that FCEVs are the ultimate future and will not even consider owning or leasing a BEV in the meantime. This is damaging in so many respects, especially as at this point in time, it's becoming painfully clear that FCEVs won't make it much beyond 2020.
 
mux said:
GlennD said:
In my opinion GRA is not entitled to an opinion. To have a valid opinion he should own the vehicle in question.

It is clear that he is fascinated with the concept of hydrogen cars but it is not likely that he will ever own one. The same goes for a BEV car.
Nah, I don't really agree.
Me, neither. Silencing others often sounds good to some people until they find they are the ones being silenced.
mux said:
Yes, a hydrogen car will give you crippling range anxiety and leave you stranded all the time because there is, to a rounding error, no infrastructure in place. But in practice, people already took that into account when buying/leasing, so you only use it for the kind of travel when it makes sense. Otherwise, the experience of owning the car is much the same as owning a plug-in hybrid: a relatively luxurious, heavy and fairly sluggish car but not quite as sluggish as an ICE car. Whatever, dime a dozen.
Except for the fact that with a hydrogen car, you are unable to forego ANY of the away-from-home refueling stops by plugging in at home and you are drastically limited in refueling station options when compared with the plug-in hybrid.

Once Toyota released the detailed specifications of this car, I immediately pointed out the lack of a plug. It's a ridiculous omission, IMO.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Kids don't buy cars, and at the moment we have too few AFV options, not too many.

Ah yes, so funny you are, but people of all ages have the same problem. More options slow change. Especially when adding non-viable options like Hydrogen.
We disagree over whether BEVs are viable option for the mass market. You believe that slow but steady growth is acceptable, and I don't. See below.

WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Hydrogen has a problem, it isn't a viable option for automotive. Might be for other uses, and of course things might change.
And it's because it might change that it needs to be pressed on with for now, because most people don't see BEVs as viable options for cars either.
Hydrogen needs multiple breakthroughs. BEVs need only continuing gradual improvements.
The difference being that H2/FCEV improvements are all in the area of reducing costs, while BEV improvements also need to improve capabilities. As there's no guarantee that either tech can do so, as I've often stated we need to continue with both along with biofuels until such time as the needed improvements are achieved in one or more of them.

WetEV said:
Yes, if we define "most" as "50% or more", BEVs only not there yet. Not quite. Last survey by AAA showed 20 percent of buyers want an electric car. Up from 15% last year. Sure, not most.

https://newsroom.aaa.com/2018/05/1-in-5-us-drivers-want-electric-vehicle/

Doesn't look like a lack of interest is slowing sales of plug in cars.
Sure, some people say they want an electric car, but what % of them actually get one when it comes time to buy? There are numerous surveys out there showing 50, 60 or even higher percentages of people saying they would 'consider' or are 'interested' in EVs, but that doesn't reflect actual sales. I may be 'interested' in a Model Y or a Taycan, but realistically I'm unlikely to buy a Model Y, and the Taycan is a fantasy.

WetEV said:
GRA said:
The fact that WE know that they could be for many people is irrelevant if we can't convince them of that, and they have to have some strong reason to be convinced.
People are convinced slowly, then suddenly. Not always is a new strong reason is needed. BEVs are getting cheaper and better, a slow process. Oil is getting harder and harder to produce, another slow process. Don't expect more than 2% of vehicle sales to be plugins for a few more years. Don't expect more than 10% of sales for more than another decade. This is how change happens.
That's always been our main difference, you believe we can afford to take that long, and I don't. If I thought time weren't pressing I'd agree with you. Twenty-five years ago I thought AE would be fine slow but steady, and I'm against subsidies in general, but it's unquestionable that subsidies have made both wind and PV commercial at least a decade earlier than would otherwise have happened, and I believe that's likely to be critical. Which is why I don't kick (much) about subsidies and perks for PEVs, FCEVs, batteries, biofuels or nukes - I dislike them on principle, but IMO the alternative of waiting until they get there in their own good time is worse.
 
GetOffYourGas said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Kids don't buy cars, and at the moment we have too few AFV options, not too many.

Ah yes, so funny you are, but people of all ages have the same problem. More options slow change. Especially when adding non-viable options like Hydrogen.

Yes, indeed. Here's some recommended reading for you, Guy:
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Tyranny_of_Choice.html?id=hbAnPQAACAAJ&hl=en
Yeah, yeah, most of us have seen "Moscow on the Hudson", when Robin William's Russian immigrant character is confronted with an American supermarket's fully stocked shelves containing a multitude of coffee brands for the first time, and has a mental meltdown in the aisle. As someone who takes the time to choose the best option that will last me for decades, my need to deal with a myriad of nearly identical choices has been minimal, and easily dealt with - not being a materialist helps a lot.

The issue is whether we have enough real choices that are suitable for our needs, not whether or not we have 10, 20 or a hundred choices of virtually identical products, any (or none) of which could work for us. As others have noted, we lack even one affordable BEV/FCEV in what is currently the single most popular car type, small AWD CUVs, and we also lack a pickup. What we do have is a bunch of BEVs with too short ranges and too high prices that most consumers reject, along with some very nice BEVs (FCEVs, as others have noted, are a rounding error currently) that are far outside the price range of the typical middle class consumer, along with limited infrastructure.
 
GlennD said:
In my opinion GRA is not entitled to an opinion. To have a valid opinion he should own the vehicle in question.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion and to express it, at least for now in this and most democratic countries. Do you favor official censors. I'm curious - do you have political opinions, even if you aren't a politician? I have a fairly widespread experience with cars, I know what my specific needs are, and I have no trouble judging how well AFVs meet those needs.

GlennD said:
It is clear that he is fascinated with the concept of hydrogen cars but it is not likely that he will ever own one. The same goes for a BEV car.
No fascination involved. It's a tech with some advantages and some disadvantages, just like all others, and I've listed both. I don't fall in love with individual techs or products - they're just tools, and I judge them on how well they do the job I want them to do against the competition. So, when I used to design off-grid AE systems, I might opt for PV, wind, hydro or a hybrid, depending on the requirements and conditions, not because I favored one over the other. For the tasks I need a car to do (primarily road trips, with no convenient home or other charging), an FCEV's operating capabilities and characteristics are more suitable than a BEV's (currently) are, yet both are still too expensive and lack the necessary infrastructure. I've never claimed that any one else is me, only that there are other people like me who have similar situations and requirements. For anyone whose needs can be met just as well (or better) by a BEV, I've been very clear from the start that it is the preferred option owing to it being the most energy-efficient.
 
RegGuheert said:
Once Toyota released the detailed specifications of this car, I immediately pointed out the lack of a plug. It's a ridiculous omission, IMO.

Early press material for the Hyundai Nexo implicated the possibility of a plug. You cannot imagine how beaten I was when they announced it wouldn't be plug-in. To me, that moment just by itself was the final nail in the coffin for light duty FCEVs. They had the idea and actively chose not to pursue a viable car. They clearly don't want hydrogen to succeed in the marketplace.
 
GRA said:
We disagree over whether BEVs are viable option for the mass market.

"Mass market" isn't all the same, and need to look forward rather than at today. Battery costs are falling, and will likely continue to fall for some time. Battery energy density is rising, and is likely to continue to rise for some time. As BEVs improve, they will attract more market share. This is happening at the high end of the market first. There is a reason why automakers are bringing out more luxury BEVs, they would like to eat lunch someday soon again, rather than watching Tesla eat their lunches.

You are on the tailing edge, based on what trips you describe, not in the center. Some people will find a BEV attractive now, and more will later. You are likely to be among the last. If you were looking for a large luxury/performance sedan for mostly in town usage, you might find a Tesla Model S rather attractive. I doubt if the tax credit would be a significant factor, unlike with a Leaf purchase.

GRA said:
You believe that slow but steady growth is acceptable, and I don't. See below.

Welcome to reality. Change can't happen quickly for a long list of reasons. Do I really need to list them all?

GRA said:
The difference being that H2/FCEV improvements are all in the area of reducing costs, while BEV improvements also need to improve capabilities. As there's no guarantee that either tech can do so, as I've often stated we need to continue with both along with biofuels until such time as the needed improvements are achieved in one or more of them.

Biofuels are a niche item only. They compete with food for people, and with habitat for wild places.

FCEVs don't compete at the luxury/performance end of the market, as they don't have the power to weight ratio. That is a capability problem, correct? They do have better energy to weight ratio, and might compete without subsidies for general/local aviation, due to lower maintenance needs. The cost problem is a real problem. Unlike the Tesla Model S and the Nissan LEAF, no FCEV could produced in the near future for a profit without subsidies. Decades or more. Sure, PEVs are a niche item now. FCEVs don't have a niche to call home.

Sergio Marchionne changed his mind on electric cars. What do you know that he doesn't?

https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/fiat-chrysler-to-go-after-tesla-with-new-electric-vehicle-program-071118.html

GRA said:
WetEV said:
Yes, if we define "most" as "50% or more", BEVs only not there yet. Not quite. Last survey by AAA showed 20 percent of buyers want an electric car. Up from 15% last year. Sure, not most.

https://newsroom.aaa.com/2018/05/1-in-5-us-drivers-want-electric-vehicle/

Doesn't look like a lack of interest is slowing sales of plug in cars.
Sure, some people say they want an electric car, but what % of them actually get one when it comes time to buy?

More people are buying plug in cars. Sure, you might not buy a Model Y or a Taycan, but some people will. And likely not the same people that might be interested in a Leaf or a Model S. You can still say that less than 2% of vehicles sold are PEVs. For a few more years.

GRA said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
The fact that WE know that they could be for many people is irrelevant if we can't convince them of that, and they have to have some strong reason to be convinced.
People are convinced slowly, then suddenly. Not always is a new strong reason is needed. BEVs are getting cheaper and better, a slow process. Oil is getting harder and harder to produce, another slow process. Don't expect more than 2% of vehicle sales to be plugins for a few more years. Don't expect more than 10% of sales for more than another decade. This is how change happens.
That's always been our main difference, you believe we can afford to take that long, and I don't. If I thought time weren't pressing I'd agree with you. Twenty-five years ago I thought AE would be fine slow but steady, and I'm against subsidies in general, but it's unquestionable that subsidies have made both wind and PV commercial at least a decade earlier than would otherwise have happened, and I believe that's likely to be critical. Which is why I don't kick (much) about subsidies and perks for PEVs, FCEVs, batteries, biofuels or nukes - I dislike them on principle, but IMO the alternative of waiting until they get there in their own good time is worse.

Change can't happen quickly. Doesn't matter what you or I think that we can afford, there are real limits to how fast we can change. If the change happens fast enough, our civilization might survive. If not, not.
 
Back
Top