GRA
Posts: 9405
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Tue Jun 19, 2018 6:00 pm

GetOffYourGas wrote:
GRA wrote:Ed wrote:
And this vision was so attractive, people just didn't want to notice that that obstacle was almost certainly impossible to overcome.

How does "didn't want to notice" mean anything other than deliberately ignoring? "Didn't want to" is a choice - example: When people just don't want to notice the homeless, they pretend not to see them and ignore their presence, but of course they do see them and know they're there, they just don't acknowledge their existence.

Guy, it's not that people are ignoring the obstacle. It's that they are ignoring the fact that said obstacle is almost certainly impossible to overcome

That is an opinion (held by some); government and industry have spent several billions trying to determine if that's correct. As I said, the division is between those who believe it's worth finding out if it's true or not (knowing there's a good chance we'll be throwing money away), and those who believe the above and don't think it's worth the time and money to be certain. Much cost reduction in the three critical areas has occurred thanks to that investment of time/money over the past three decades or so, but not enough yet to make H2/FCEVs commercially viable except in certain niche applications (such as 24/7-usage MHE in warehouses).
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6332
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Wed Jun 20, 2018 5:10 am

GetOffYourGas wrote:Guy, it's not that people are ignoring the obstacle. It's that they are ignoring the fact that said obstacle is almost certainly impossible to overcome
Precisely. GRA repeatedly misrepresented what Ed said even after it was spelled out for him. Even now there has been no apology, no correction, nothing. Just more rhetoric. IMO, that is an extremely disingenuous way to interact with others and I will continue to point it out.

I have developed this argument that H2 FCV vehicle efficiency CANNOT approach that of BEVs in quite some detail in this thread. And, no, it is not about reducing "costs".
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K mi. on 041413; 20K mi. (55.7Ah) on 080714; 30K mi. (52.0Ah) on 123015; 40K mi. (49.8Ah) on 020817; 50K mi. (47.2Ah) on 120717; 60K mi. (43.66Ah) on 091918.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6332
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Wed Jun 20, 2018 4:47 pm

Toyota is peddling a vehicle which does not offer a single benefit over traditional cars on the road today, but feels it is necessary to increase production to 30,000 vehicles per year. I guess with more politicians like Colorado's governor overstepping their authority offering up taxpayer's money for these worse-at-everything vehicles, it seems Toyota is fine to waste more resources and do more environmental damage in order to collect that gravy train.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K mi. on 041413; 20K mi. (55.7Ah) on 080714; 30K mi. (52.0Ah) on 123015; 40K mi. (49.8Ah) on 020817; 50K mi. (47.2Ah) on 120717; 60K mi. (43.66Ah) on 091918.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

GRA
Posts: 9405
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:25 pm

RegGuheert wrote:
GetOffYourGas wrote:Guy, it's not that people are ignoring the obstacle. It's that they are ignoring the fact that said obstacle is almost certainly impossible to overcome
Precisely. GRA repeatedly misrepresented what Ed said even after it was spelled out for him. Even now there has been no apology, no correction, nothing. Just more rhetoric. IMO, that is an extremely disingenuous way to interact with others and I will continue to point it out.

On the contrary, I've corrected your inacccurate statements, and have also pointed out Ed's inaccurate claim, so what exactly am I supposed to apologize for?

RegGuheert wrote:I have developed this argument that H2 FCV vehicle efficiency CANNOT approach that of BEVs in quite some detail in this thread. And, no, it is not about reducing "costs".

And as I've pointed out repeatedly, efficiency is rarely the sole or most important metric. If it were, fossil-fueled ICEs wouldn't have defeated BEVs a century ago, and you would be commuting on a 30 lb. bicycle instead of a several thousand pound car. Costs and operational capabilities have outweighed efficiency for powered vehicles for the past 100+ years, and it's entirely possible that they will continue to do so. We'll see. The day that the most energy-efficient transportation technology is also the best in many other important ways is a day we can all hope we'll live to see, but as long as there are important conflicting requirements, that day is likely a long way away.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 9405
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:28 pm

RegGuheert wrote:Toyota is peddling a vehicle which does not offer a single benefit over traditional cars on the road today, but feels it is necessary to increase production to 30,000 vehicles per year. I guess with more politicians like Colorado's governor overstepping their authority offering up taxpayer's money for these worse-at-everything vehicles, it seems Toyota is fine to waste more resources and do more environmental damage in order to collect that gravy train.

That is an incorrect statement. Being a ZEV is a definite benefit, just as it is for a BEV. As for the rest of its design, I agree the car is pedestrian.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6332
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:35 am

GRA wrote:That is an incorrect statement. Being a ZEV is a definite benefit, just as it is for a BEV. As for the rest of its design, I agree the car is pedestrian.
Nonsense. Focusing only on tailpipe emissions is a fools game: There is more damage done to the environment in the creation of an H2 FCV and its refueling infrastructure than is done by an ICE during its entire operational life. In other words, not only is MORE damage done, it is all done UP FRONT.

We need to stop making these beasts and thereby stop accelerating the damage to the environment.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K mi. on 041413; 20K mi. (55.7Ah) on 080714; 30K mi. (52.0Ah) on 123015; 40K mi. (49.8Ah) on 020817; 50K mi. (47.2Ah) on 120717; 60K mi. (43.66Ah) on 091918.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6332
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:53 am

GRA wrote:the contrary, I've corrected your inacccurate statements, and have also pointed out Ed's inaccurate claim, so what exactly am I supposed to apologize for?
You haven't *corrected* anything. You've supported the most damaging vehicle technology on the planet. Ed's claim is accurate, whether you believe it or not.
GRA wrote:And as I've pointed out repeatedly, efficiency is rarely the sole or most important metric. If it were, fossil-fueled ICEs wouldn't have defeated BEVs a century ago, and you would be commuting on a 30 lb. bicycle instead of a several thousand pound car. Costs and operational capabilities have outweighed efficiency for powered vehicles for the past 100+ years, and it's entirely possible that they will continue to do so. We'll see. The day that the most energy-efficient transportation technology is also the best in many other important ways is a day we can all hope we'll live to see, but as long as there are important conflicting requirements, that day is likely a long way away.
A bicycle does not have the same utility as a car, so you are again committing a non sequitur fallacy.

Low efficiency solutions can ONLY win if there is extra energy sloshing around in the system. But there is NOT extra electricity sloshing around to waste on making H2 gas. We need to conserve every single Wh of it in order to move toward the future. The promotion of H2 as a fuel just ensures that we will continue to be tied to fossil fuels, fossil fuel companies and their fuel pumps for the foreseeable future.

No, there is no virtue to be found in H2 FCVs. We need to stop this ill-conceived effort in its tracks. I have no desire to ever live in the dystopian world which you would choose.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K mi. on 041413; 20K mi. (55.7Ah) on 080714; 30K mi. (52.0Ah) on 123015; 40K mi. (49.8Ah) on 020817; 50K mi. (47.2Ah) on 120717; 60K mi. (43.66Ah) on 091918.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

GRA
Posts: 9405
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:47 pm

RegGuheert wrote:
GRA wrote:That is an incorrect statement. Being a ZEV is a definite benefit, just as it is for a BEV. As for the rest of its design, I agree the car is pedestrian.
Nonsense. Focusing only on tailpipe emissions is a fools game: There is more damage done to the environment in the creation of an H2 FCV and its refueling infrastructure than is done by an ICE during its entire operational life. In other words, not only is MORE damage done, it is all done UP FRONT.

We need to stop making these beasts and thereby stop accelerating the damage to the environment.

Who's focusing only on tailpipes? I was commenting on your claim that there is no benefit to an FCEV, which clearly isn't the case. The rest, as is always the case when we have this argument, represents our differing opinions as to whether or not sustainable H2/FCEVs are likely to be commercially viable, and whether or not we should spend the time and money to find out, and we know we disagree on that point.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 9405
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:58 pm

RegGuheert wrote:
GRA wrote:the contrary, I've corrected your inacccurate statements, and have also pointed out Ed's inaccurate claim, so what exactly am I supposed to apologize for?
You haven't *corrected* anything. You've supported the most damaging vehicle technology on the planet. Ed's claim is accurate, whether you believe it or not.

Ed stated an opinion, and your opinion that he is correct is just that. The expensive and time-consuming efforts taken by government and industry to determine whether or not sustainable H2/FCEVs can be made commercially viable will determine whether or not that is impossible, as opposed to expensive and difficult, just as they've done with BEVs.

RegGuheert wrote:
GRA wrote:And as I've pointed out repeatedly, efficiency is rarely the sole or most important metric. If it were, fossil-fueled ICEs wouldn't have defeated BEVs a century ago, and you would be commuting on a 30 lb. bicycle instead of a several thousand pound car. Costs and operational capabilities have outweighed efficiency for powered vehicles for the past 100+ years, and it's entirely possible that they will continue to do so. We'll see. The day that the most energy-efficient transportation technology is also the best in many other important ways is a day we can all hope we'll live to see, but as long as there are important conflicting requirements, that day is likely a long way away.
A bicycle does not have the same utility as a car, so you are again committing a non sequitur fallacy.

On the contrary, you prove my point. You agree that energy efficiency isn't the sole and usually not even the primary consideration when choosing a transportation mode, in fact it's often well down the list of priorities. Don't want a bicycle because it's slow? Ride an electric bike, scooter, or motorcycle. Oh, but you can only carry one other person, you're not weather protected or climate controlled, you're less stable than a 3 or four wheeled vehicle so more prone to accidents, you're not surrounded by a few thousand pounds of material that serves to protect you from those accidents, if you want to carry any substantial amount of cargo you need to haul a trailer etc. Where does energy efficiency fall in this list?

RegGuheert wrote:Low efficiency solutions can ONLY win if there is extra energy sloshing around in the system. But there is NOT extra electricity sloshing around to waste on making H2 gas. We need to conserve every single Wh of it in order to move toward the future. The promotion of H2 as a fuel just ensures that we will continue to be tied to fossil fuels, fossil fuel companies and their fuel pumps for the foreseeable future.

No, there is no virtue to be found in H2 FCVs. We need to stop this ill-conceived effort in its tracks. I have no desire to ever live in the dystopian world which you would choose.

Which is why we need to explore methods of making H2 that don't require electricity. This is being done. Of course, we do have extra electricity sloshing around now when renewables are in excess and have to be curtailed, but if we build enough expensive interties we can avoid most of the problems from that. Even so, we still need some cheap mass energy storage to replace fossil fuels, and unless/until batteries can supply that, we need to explore other options.

As to dystopian, the world we live in now is dystopian; probably they all are.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 9405
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:50 pm

Via GCC:
Audi and Hyundai to partner on fuel cell technology
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/06/20180620-audi.html

. . . The two companies plan to cross-license patents and grant access to non-competitive components.

The agreement is currently subject to approval from the applicable regulatory authorities. Through their collaboration, both partners aim to bring the fuel cell to volume production maturity more quickly and more efficiently. Audi and Hyundai are also exploring more far-reaching collaboration on the development of this sustainable technolog.y . . .

Audi plans to introduce its first fuel cell model as a small series production at the beginning of the next decade. As a sporty SUV, the model will combine the premium comfort of the full-size segment with long-range capability. The cross-license agreement with Hyundai is already focused on the next development stage intended for a broader market offer. . . .
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

Return to “Business / Economy and Politics”