Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

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.
RegGuheert said:
AndyH said:
Reg - the point that you missed, and that others here continually miss, is that FCEV provide capabilities that NO current or near-future BEV can provide - including the ability to travel more than 200 miles with a load (think pick-up truck, service van, etc.) and the ability to heat the cabin without a range penalty.
Click to expand...
Many (most?) here have agreed from the beginning that H2 might make sense for fleet owners. So why should we develop the infrastructure for passenger cars? Let the fleet owners bear the much lower costs for infrastructure that will be needed to fuel their fleets.
Click to expand...
Because it's not just about 'fleet owners' - it's farmers, small business owners, etc. as well as private owners. Billy Jo Bob's Central Valley organic farm won't be installing H2 equipment for their 10 acre lettuce patch. We absolutely need public infrastructure. Fleets will take care of themselves as they do now - but that's additional infrastructure.
RegGuheert said:
AndyH said:
Stop stop stop making this BEV VS. FCEV as that's absolutely NOT the situation.
Click to expand...
It sure is. People will choose the best tradeoff for their application between cost and utility. The technology is secondary.
Click to expand...
Yes, the tech is secondary...or tertiary... What's primary? Capability! Nobody - no auto maker, no infrastructure contractor, and no politician is out to take share away from the couple dozen BEVs on the road - the 'soft target' is the installed base of ICE.

RegGuheert said:
There is also a huge opportunity cost involved in the development and deployment of H2 vehicles and infrastructure that will retard adoption of BEVs. Why hold up the optimum solution (for commuting, at least) by funding the development of a sub-optimal solution? It makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...
I've highlighted the limiting factors here. FCEVs aren't limited to being a small city car for the folks that live close to work.

RegGuheert said:
AndyH said:
As to vehicle price - I don't recall anyone saying that either a Tesla S or a FCEV are middle-class friendly today.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone claimed the Tesla S is. But the LEAF certainly is middle-class friendly. I think many owners here fit that description.
Click to expand...
Not many here are middle class, according to the surveys we did when the board was younger. The LEAF is priced above the majority of buyers here***, and the limited range and battery degradation problem make it a non-starter. A FCEV, on the other hand, doesn't have either the range or degradation penalty.

RegGuheert said:
AndyH said:
But what is expected is that the price of a fuel cell stack will drop in price farther and faster than a battery pack. This makes sense as the technologies are at different points in their development curve.
Click to expand...
Agreed the price of fuel cell stacks will come down faster than the price of batteries. But, as I said, that does not mean it will ever cross over. For some applications it may, but for the daily commuter, I seriously doubt it. And batteries are already where they need to be for some applications (without subsidies) and any improvements will simply expand the market space.

But the cost per mile to fuel a BEV will almost certainly ALWAYS remain below that of a FCV.
Click to expand...
The price will cross over once we get some numbers on the road. The industry's got everything in place for economy of scale to work - that'll guarantee a cross-over. Again - most of the price of a BEV is the battery - and they're well down (95% down?) the price curve. There's just not much room for prices to fall - we're into the partial percentage evolution now for lithium. Fuel cell stacks, on the other hand, still have more than 50% to go - there's plenty of room for prices to fall. These initial FCEVs cost a bit more than a Model S but have more range and faster 'charges' - they're not yet got the years in the market that Tesla's got.

Price per mile is irrelevant as there is no ZEV competition for even these initial FCEVs.

edit... ***
Sorry, horribly unclear writing. The "here" I intended was Texas for sure, probably the central US at least. Earlier this week I helped a fellow disabled vet fix her van. She cannot afford a newer vehicle yet cannot afford to pay someone to repair the older vehicles she can buy. She must tightly control her driving because the van, needing work, gets horrible fuel economy. A used Leaf could meet 100% of her driving needs even with a 60% capacity battery - but even a used Leaf is well outside her price range. As I've said before, those that can drive a Model S or have a Leaf as a 2nd car should absolutely enjoy! But it's a mistake to assume that because ~100K drivers in the world can acquire an EV that our electrified transportation problem is solved.
 
AndyH said:
Price per mile is irrelevant as there is no ZEV competition for even these initial FCEVs.
Click to expand...

Andy, I think this comment from you sums up your failure to sway many here to the holy grail of hydrogen.

While I have no desire to sway you to battery cars, or not, I will post what Toyota thinks:

"Soichiro Okudaira, chief officer of Toyota’s research and development group, told Automotive News Europe said that fuel cell vehicles won't be priced to compete with battery electrics before 2030."
 
AndyH said:
Because it's not just about 'fleet owners' - it's farmers, small business owners, etc. as well as private owners. Billy Jo Bob's Central Valley organic farm won't be installing H2 equipment for their 10 acre lettuce patch. We absolutely need public infrastructure.
Click to expand...
I fail to see how public H2 refueling infrastructure will help farmers convert to H2.

Tractors need to be heavy, so a BEV tractor should be an attractive solution, at least for some applications. In fact, I've been looking for a BEV tractor for years. But they aren't out there. I suppose the battery capacity is not where it needs to be for more intensive applications. Still, most tractors are not used at night, so the L2 refueling paradigm works well in that application.
 
TonyWilliams said:
While I have no desire to sway you to battery cars, or not, I will post what Toyota thinks:

"Soichiro Okudaira, chief officer of Toyota’s research and development group, told Automotive News Europe said that fuel cell vehicles won't be priced to compete with battery electrics before 2030."
Click to expand...
Reference for quote above:

http://insideevs.com/toyota-admits-itll-take-until-2030-to-make-fuel-cell-vehicles-cost-competitive-with-evs/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
TonyWilliams said:
AndyH said:
Price per mile is irrelevant as there is no ZEV competition for even these initial FCEVs.
Click to expand...

Andy, I think this comment from you sums up your failure to sway many here to the holy grail of hydrogen.
Click to expand...
I would submit that the reason this is failing is because I'm not in any way suggesting that H2 is "the holy grail" - I'm simply saying it's another form of electrified transportation that compliments BEVs.

TonyWilliams said:
While I have no desire to sway you to battery cars, or not, I will post what Toyota thinks:

"Soichiro Okudaira, chief officer of Toyota’s research and development group, told Automotive News Europe said that fuel cell vehicles won't be priced to compete with battery electrics before 2030."
Click to expand...
Tony - I look forward to hearing why you think that price per mile is an appropriate metric when comparing dissimilar vehicles. I'm open to being educated - bring it on!

As for Toyota - they can say what they will, but they're preparing a FCEV for market but not offering a BEV. That should say something significant as well...

I'm 110% for ALL electrified transportation and own a BEV. As I've said in this thread already, I'm here only to provide a piece of the background as to why FCEV will be part of the fleet and how we can benefit from having them as much as the rest of the world will benefit. We don't have to, of course, but that's up to us...

edits in blue...
 
RegGuheert said:
AndyH said:
Because it's not just about 'fleet owners' - it's farmers, small business owners, etc. as well as private owners. Billy Jo Bob's Central Valley organic farm won't be installing H2 equipment for their 10 acre lettuce patch. We absolutely need public infrastructure.
Click to expand...
I fail to see how public H2 refueling infrastructure will help farmers convert to H2.

Tractors need to be heavy, so a BEV tractor should be an attractive solution, at least for some applications. In fact, I've been looking for a BEV tractor for years. But they aren't out there. I suppose the battery capacity is not where it needs to be for more intensive applications. Still, most tractors are not used at night, so the L2 refueling paradigm works well in that application.
Click to expand...
I think we're stumbling over words that convey different meanings depending on the reader. Maybe this'll help, but it has a high probability of being considered off topic as well. We'll see...

Today, Reg, gasoline is easily available, used ICE is inexpensive to buy, they can be easily serviced, etc. Moving to electrified transportation isn't for today (it has to start today, I think, but that's a separate issue). As folks have covered in other threads, even at the faster adoption rates for today's BEVs compared with early hybrid adoption, barring a significant change in the transportation environment, it'll take many, many years for electrified cars to be a significant portion of the US vehicle fleet. First point: Anyone suggesting that FCEV or BEV will or should fail because they don't make financial sense today is missing the main point - it's not about today.

Farmers... It appears that FCEV farm vehicles mean different things to each of us, Reg, and that's ok. If one's view of 'farming' includes only big ag, then 'farm equipment' is likely to look at lot like ginormous air-conditioned cabs with GPS autopilots and room for a family of 5. It probably also includes combines and other heavy iron. Once the corn or soy is harvested, it's transported to the elevator or ADM facility in a trailer pulled by a class-8 tractor (semi truck/trailer). None of that equipment is suitable for conversion to BEV. Even if batteries were free (and we had a dozen Giga-Factories on-line), a battery pack massive enough to keep a combine running for thousands of acres would make the vehicle useless in a field. All of those needs can be (and some are being met today) with an FCEV.

My example was directed towards the small farmers - the ones that supply the local farmer's markets every week. It was directed at the lawn service fleets, plumbers, electricians, and delivery fleets with fewer than 50 (and most with fewer than 25) trucks. Trucks are a requirement, and at least 200 miles of range with a load in the winter. All of these will use public infrastructure as they do today. For those fleets, there's no BEV truck available, but we've had FCEV pickup trucks in limited service since at least 2001 and class-8 trucks capable of pulling 80K lbs to 60+ mph since 2010.

This is the only electric farm tractor that I've found that's larger than a lawn 'tractor' (think GE Elec-Trak): http://www.flyingbeet.com/electricg/ Maybe you'll have better luck finding an old Allis Chalmers seeding tractor on the East coast. They're like hen's teeth around here... ;)
 
GCR article:

"Japan's Fuel-Cell Vehicle Pursuit: Is It Obama's 'All Of The Above' Approach?"

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1093413_japans-fuel-cell-vehicle-pursuit-is-it-obamas-all-of-the-above-approach" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And from ABG:

"Japan offering $20,000 incentives for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles"

From the article:

"Just so we're clear, Japan's incentives for battery-electric vehicles top out at about $8,500. That sound you hear is a bunch of Nissan executives tearing their hair out.

"Last month, Toyota said the price for the fuel-cell sedan would be about $69,000 in Japan, and while the company hasn't priced it for US consumption, the word's out that the car may be in the $50,000 range stateside. The fuel-cell sedan, which has a full-tank range of about 300 miles, goes on sale in Japan next April and will start sales in Europe and the US next summer."

http://green.autoblog.com/2014/07/22/japan-offering-20000-incentives-for-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicle/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If they can actually sell it for $50k here (at a loss, I'm sure), it might even be enough for people to overlook the fact that it's so fugly.

Another ABG article:

"Daimler: 2017 the right time to launch our hydrogen fuel cell vehicle"

http://green.autoblog.com/2014/07/22/daimler-2017-right-time-launch-our-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicle/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
GRA said:
If they can actually sell it for $50k here (at a loss, I'm sure), it might even be enough for people to overlook the fact that it's so fugly.
Click to expand...
I might get spanked for this, but I find the Leaf fugly, but I overlooked it as it's the (IMHO) best BEV to buy right now.

Of course, my initial take on the Toyoto FCV was its' not so bad, but then I saw the front view, and thought "dog jowls".
 
GRA said:
"Daimler: 2017 the right time to launch our hydrogen fuel cell vehicle"

http://green.autoblog.com/2014/07/22/daimler-2017-right-time-launch-our-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicle/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Click to expand...

Daimler is just doing exactly what Toyota did. The only difference is that Toyota was subjupect to CARB-ZEV starting 2012 model year, and Daimler in 2015.

So each company contracted Tesla to build a 3 year compliance car. Then, they jump over to hydrogen to lap up the huge regulatory and tax / rebate advantages !!!
 
evnow said:
Reddy said:
Perhaps the real reason for Toyota's push into hydrogen:
http://green.autoblog.com/2014/07/22/japan-offering-20000-incentives-for-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicle/
Click to expand...
I'd say it is the otherway round.

Japan is offering big incentives because Toyota, I'm sure, has a lot of lobbying power in Japan.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Not to mention that Toyota has spent something like $2 billion over the past twenty years developing FCEVs. I believe Honda has spent somewhat less, but still a substantial amount.
 
jlv said:
GRA said:
If they can actually sell it for $50k here (at a loss, I'm sure), it might even be enough for people to overlook the fact that it's so fugly.
Click to expand...
I might get spanked for this, but I find the Leaf fugly, but I overlooked it as it's the (IMHO) best BEV to buy right now.

Of course, my initial take on the Toyoto FCV was its' not so bad, but then I saw the front view, and thought "dog jowls".
Click to expand...
My initial impression of the front was more this: http://www.answers.com/topic/richard-nixon-large-image" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

or maybe more this: http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/3600000/Cartoon-Nixon-richard-nixon-3682400-374-386.gif" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You say potato . . . :lol:

I don't find the LEAF fugly, it falls more into the mildly polarizing camp through being just a bit odd, certainly less than e.g. the original Subaru B9 Tribeca, and not even in the same league as my current "will someone please cover it with a brown paper bag!" contest winner, the Juke.

OTOH, although I'm not generally a fan of long hoods and aft cockpits, almost anything that Jaguar has ever done (most definitely NOT including the 1975-1996 XJ-S) gets me drooling. And I still think the best looking big American sedans of the past 25 years were Chrysler's cab-forward LH series, especially the Dodge Intrepid.
 
Via GCC:

"SwRI receives $1.8M DOE award to develop linear motor reciprocating compressor for hydrogen"

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/07/20140723-swri.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Quote from article:

"The project’s objective is to meet DOE’s goals of increasing efficiency and reducing cost for hydrogen compression, paving the way toward more economical hydrogen storage. The targets are reducing the cost of compression, storage and dispensing (CSD) of hydrogen from central production plants at the forecourt to <$1.60/gge by 2015 and <$0.70/gge by 2020." The article has a chart showing that these relate to delivery cost in $/kg of $3.50 in 2012, about $2.90 for 2015, and $2.00/kg for 2020, i.e. already close to equal U.S. gas now, and reducing below U.S. gas by 2015.

Also,

"NIST develops prototype meter test for hydrogen refueling stations"

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/07/20140722-nist.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and

"DOE focusing on fuel cell and hydrogen topics in FY 2015 SBIR/STTR Phase I Release 1"

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/07/20140722-doe.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Quote: "DOE’s key hydrogen objectives are to reduce the cost of producing and delivering hydrogen to less than $4 per gallon of gasoline equivalent (gge) to enable fuel cell vehicles to be competitive with gasoline vehicles. Key fuel cell objectives are to reduce fuel cell system cost to $40/kW and improve durability to 5,000 hours (equivalent to 150,000 miles of driving) for automotive fuel cell systems by 2020."
 
Via GCC:

"California Energy Commission approves $46.6M for hydrogen refueling and $2.8M for EV charging projects"

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/07/20140724-cec.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
GRA said:
Via GCC:

"California Energy Commission approves $46.6M for hydrogen refueling and $2.8M for EV charging projects"

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/07/20140724-cec.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Click to expand...

And there are X hydrogen cars and Y EV cars....

Is X going to be even 1/10 of Y anytime in the next couple of decades???

Could someone explain the math to me?
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Via GCC:

"California Energy Commission approves $46.6M for hydrogen refueling and $2.8M for EV charging projects"

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/07/20140724-cec.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Click to expand...

And there are X hydrogen cars and Y EV cars....

Is X going to be even 1/10 of Y anytime in the next couple of decades???

Could someone explain the math to me?
Click to expand...


The math is simple... Toyota has done a masterful job of convincing our state that hydrogen is 46.6 / 2.8 times better than electric cars.
 

Similar threads

G
Water shortages ahead? Sierra Nevada snow pack on track to shrink 79 percent, new study finds Lawrence Berkeley National
Replies
6
Views
5K
dhyatt
D
TonyWilliams
Tony Williams' CARB-ZEV Compliance Rating Scale
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
11K
TonyWilliams
TonyWilliams
paulgipe
EV Trip Report: Bakersfield to Los Angeles & Return
Replies
12
Views
9K
paulgipe
paulgipe
E
L2 Charging Rates
Replies
3
Views
2K
KeiJidosha
K
Ready2plugin
Fracking's Hidden Costs
Replies
6
Views
2K
AndyH
A

Latest posts

Back
Top