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.
TonyWilliams said:
GRA said:
Semi-OT, but I think this ABG article by an Angeleno who isn't car-obsessed on why she likes her Prius, and why she can't/won't buy a Tesla is a pretty fair reflection of mainstream consumer 'need a car to drive from A to B with minimum hassle' attitudes, even if she does stray outside that in not caring what her car looks like (and she's in the film industry), and is an example of why I see a future for FCEVs as well as BEVs:
http://www.autoblog.com/2015/09/10/why-toyota-prius-la-best-car/
http://www.autoblog.com/2015/09/10/why-toyota-prius-la-best-car/
That person is a total cheap skate, and certainly a core demographic for the Prius. Hydrogen cars will NOT appeal to cheapskates, unless the government is funding it, in which case they'll lap them up only if it's cheaper than everything else, and that includes at least some convenience (yes, cheap skates will endure a remarkable amount of inconvenience to save a penny). Hydrogen won't offer that unless the hydrogen station is right around the corner and never breaks down / is crowded, and remains government subsidized stations with auto manufacturer subsidized fuel and vehicles.
Of course, FCEVs aren't price competitive with ICEs/HEVs now, the whole point of subsidies (as with BEVs and PHEVs) is to get them to that point. And if you doubt that there are lots of people just like her, please review the sales numbers for the Civic (which she'd previously owned) and Corolla as well as the Prius. The issue is which car will be most suitable for people like her if the necessary price reductions are achieved, and as she says she has to park on the street, so home charging a BEV isn't an option for her and the millions like her.

TonyWilliams said:
Toyota will likely do hydrogen car/fuel subsidizes for a VERY long time, since they have no announced plans for an EV to handle regulatory compliance, except in China (they are required to have ZEV's, and hydrogen is outlawed in a type 4 tank). Plus, as they keep telling us, they don't plan on building very many anyway, so the overall cost is not too bad and meets regulatory compliance around the world (except China).

Toyota gets the added benefit of constantly deriding EVs, and hopefully slowing the adoption of non-petroleum cars (the ones that they make BILLIONS of yen selling). The hydrogen fuel of the future has many benefits for Toyota, especially the "fuel of the future" part.
Toyota obviously has a different point of view as to the value of FCEVs than you do, and they're the ones who've spent a couple of billion dollars developing them, so as I've said numerous times before, I'm perfectly willing to let things play out and let consumers decide which they prefer. I expect a mix of types, but I could be wrong. But then so could you, and since both of us have been very wrong in past forecasts (me in thinking that there was only a limited market for what I believe to be the vastly overpriced i3, and a big market for the Soul EV; you in repeatedly pronouncing that CCS was D.O.A.), I think a certain amount of humility as to how clear our crystal balls are is indicated.
 
GRA said:
I believe that only by increasing the energy efficiency of the entire built environment, i.e. the infrastructure that supports us, can we get to where we need to be - tinkering around the edges won't do it.
No matter how you much you contort your narrative, transportation technologies which are extremely wasteful of energy as well as natural and human resources do not fit into your vision of the future. If you want efficiency, then everyone, including you, needs to stop making those long drives out into the wilderness. Efficient, long-distance travel should be handled by efficient people movers and does not include passenger cars.
 
TonyWilliams said:
GRA said:
As all agree they need subsidies now, just as public charging stations do. The issue is whether that can be changed. As to relative energy use, that's been discussed ad nauseum, so no need to repeat that. Some people think that's critical and others don't.
You spew this out a lot, but let's see the data. Blink is almost non-existent in the overall scheme of things (I think they have about 60 active DC chargers out of 2,000 in the USA, and 8,000 in the world. So, that ship sailed, after they bilked the tax payer and investors out of $200 million.

So, let's talk about today, in the real world. Please indicate what government subsidizes that I get for DC chargers (any and all).

How about NRG / eVgo ?
NRG eVgo is only in California as a result of a legal settlement with the state, so I consider their installations here government subsidized to the tune of $120 million. Or do you think they'd have built them otherwise? I can't say how much they may have received in subsidies from other states.

TonyWilliams said:
Greenlots?
Not familiar enough with them, as they only have a few sites in the Bay Area.

TonyWilliams said:
ChargePoint?
Chargepoint is more of an equipment provider and billing network, with the site owner deciding how much to charge, from free on up. As such, I think their business model is so different from all the others that it doesn't count as a charging network, and so far seems to be the only one that is profitable (at least from Chargepoint's perspective; many site owners seem a lot less happy with their ROI, except the ones who are basically providing charging as an advertising expense). And many of Chargepoint's L2s went in during the period of high tax breaks.

TonyWilliams said:
SemaConnect?
Semaconnect certainly benefited from tax breaks for chargers, and since those were reduced they seem to have stopped installing any new ones, at least around here. Have they installed any new ones since 2012 or maybe it was 2013? I'm unaware of any here.

TonyWilliams said:
Any others?
We know that CCGI, one of the few charging companies that are actually public, is still hemorrhaging money, and they bought a (semi-) functional system from Ecotality.

Now, please list the number of DC charging networks that sell electricity for less than the retail price of gasoline and do so at a profit, while having installed and operated their chargers without any government subsidies.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
I believe that only by increasing the energy efficiency of the entire built environment, i.e. the infrastructure that supports us, can we get to where we need to be - tinkering around the edges won't do it.
No matter how you much you contort your narrative, transportation technologies which are extremely wasteful of energy as well as natural and human resources do not fit into your vision of the future. If you want efficiency, then everyone, including you, needs to stop making those long drives out into the wilderness. Efficient, long-distance travel should be handled by efficient people movers and does not include passenger cars.
That may well be the case, Reg, and we'll just have to see how things shake out. I'm perfectly willing to accept that, and have generally voted for bond measures that would expand mass transit into the areas I want to go to. In the meantime, I'll continue to use my feet, bike and transit for all my local and much of my regional transportation needs, and limit my car use as much as possible, because it's so inefficient compared to any of the above, whatever the technology. For one person traveling a given distance, in the same units of energy the ratio of energy usage runs approximately like this:

Bike, 1; Walk, 3; Car (presumably typical ICE), 60.

Since FCEVs are 2-2.5 times as efficient as a comparable ICE, and BEVs are 3-4 times as efficient, if we include them it looks like this:

Bike, 1; Walk, 3; BEV, 15-20; FCEV 24-30; ICE, 60.

Carpooling can help, but still falls short of mass transit given the same technology.
 
GRA said:
Now, please list the number of DC charging networks that sell electricity for less than the retail price of gasoline and do so at a profit, while having installed and operated their chargers without any government subsidies.
As you know, that is not a requirement for BEVs, only for vehicles which MUST be recharged at public locations, like gasoline or hydrogen vehicles. BEVs which can be refueled at home or work or in an apartment will do that >95% of the time.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
Now, please list the number of DC charging networks that sell electricity for less than the retail price of gasoline and do so at a profit, while having installed and operated their chargers without any government subsidies.
As you know, that is not a requirement for BEVs, only for vehicles which MUST be recharged at public locations, like gasoline or hydrogen vehicles. BEVs which can be refueled at home or work or in an apartment will do that >95% of the time.
As I also know and have repeatedly pointed out, the majority of the world's urban population can't charge at home, work or anywhere near by, at any rate from L1 up. It will take decades and big bucks to change that, and so far, public, for-profit chargers, whether L1, L2 or L3 (in this country, at least) have (with very few exceptions) prices that are higher than gas. I'd love to see any that have prices lower than gas that are actually profitable - can anyone point to any?
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
Since FCEVs are 2-2.5 times as efficient as a comparable ICE,
No, they are not. ydnas7 has clearly shown that in a head-to-head comparison, that diesel is MORE efficient than an H2 FCV. On top of that, the FCV required many more resources to manufacture. As I said, they take more resources to build AND to operate.

You don't build an kind of future by choosing the most wasteful options available.
From what I recall he was comparing them assuming fossil-fuel energy, and that's off the table. And the whole point of development is to reduce costs, which includes reducing the resources to manufacture them, as they've already achieved. They've still got a ways to go.
 
GRA said:
As I also know and have repeatedly pointed out, the majority of the world's urban population can't charge at home, work or anywhere near by, at any rate from L1 up.
So those people should keep doing whatever they are doing until something better comes along rather than choosing an option which does more damage to the environment than the current solution.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
As I also know and have repeatedly pointed out, the majority of the world's urban population can't charge at home, work or anywhere near by, at any rate from L1 up.
So those people should keep doing whatever they are doing until something better comes along rather than choosing an option which does more damage to the environment than the current solution.
Reg, I had started to write my usual long answer to your point, but realized that I've once again allowed myself to be sucked into the same endless loop argument that you, I, Tony, Andy and others have repeated 10, 15 or 20 times already. Since none of us are going to be convinced by the other side's arguments, repeating the same points yet again serves no purpose whatsoever; anyone who wishes to read them can just scroll up the thread until they find an earlier loop.

In lieu of that, I'll leave you with the following extended excerpt from "Green Metropolis" [my emphasis]. I realize that you don't accept AGCC, but let's agree, at least for the sake of argument, that taking the steps necessary to reduce GHGs by 80% by 2050 is good for a whole variety of other reasons unrelated to AGCC:

My wife and I got married right out of college, in 1978. We were young and naive and unashamedly idealistic, and we decided to make our first home in a utopian environmentalist community in New York state. For seven years we lived quite contentedly in circumstances that would strike most Americans as austere in the extreme: our living space measured just seven hundred square feet, we didn't have a lawn, a clothes dryer, or a car. We did our grocery shopping on foot, and when we needed to travel longer distances we used public transportation. Because space at home was scarce, we seldom acquired new possessions of significant size. Our electric bill worked out to about a dollar a day.

The utopian community was Manhattan. Most Americans, including most New Yorkers, think of New York City as an ecological nightmare, a wasteland of concrete and garbage and diesel fumes and traffic jams, but in comparison with the rest of America it's a model of environmental responsibility. In fact, by most significant measures, New York is the greenest community in the United States. The most devastating damage that humans have done to the environment has arisen from the burning of fossil fuels, a category in which New Yorkers are practically prehistoric by comparison with other Americans, including people who live in rural areas or such putatively eco-friendly cities as Portland, Oregon, or Boulder, Colorado. The average Manhattannite consumes gasoline at a rate that the country as a whole hasn't matched since the mid-1920s, when the most widely owned car in the United States was the Model T. Thanks to New York City, the average resident of New York state uses less gasoline than the average resident of any other state, and uses less than half as much as the average resident of Wyoming. Eighty-two percent of employed Manhattanites travel to work by public transit, by bicycle, or on foot. That's ten times the rate for Americans in general, and eight times the rate for workers in Los Angeles County. New York City is more populous than all but eleven states; if it were granted statehood, it would rank fifty-first in per-capita energy use, not only because New Yorkers drive less, but because city dwellings are smaller than other American dwellings and are less likely to contain a superfluity of large appliances. The average New Yorker (if one takes into account all five boroughs of the city) annually generates 7.1 metric tons of greenhouse gases, a lower rate than that of residents of any other American city, and less than 30 percent of the national average, which is 24.5 metric tons; Manhattanites generate even less.

"Anyplace that has such tall buildings and heavy traffic is obviously an environmental disaster -- except that it isn't," John Holtzclaw, who recently retired as the chairman of the Sierra Club's transportation committee, told me in 2004. "If New Yorkers lived at the typical American sprawl density of three households per residential acre, they would require many times as much land. They'd be driving cars, and they'd have huge lawns and be using pesticides and fertilizers on them, and then they'd be overwatering their lawns, so that runoff would go into streams." The key to New York's relative environmental benignity is its extreme compactness. Charles Komanoff, a New York City economist, environmental activist, and bicycling enthusiast, told me, "New Yorkers trade the supposed convenience of the automobile for the true convenience of proximity. They are able to live without the ecological disaster of cars -- which is caused not just by having to use a car for practically every trip, but also by the distance you have to traverse. Bicycling, transit, and walking support each other, because they are all made possible by population density. . . ."

The crucial fact about sustainability is that it is not a micro phenomenon: there can be no such thing as a "sustainable" house, office building, or household appliance, for the same reason that there can be no such thing as a one-person democracy or a single-company economy. Every house, building and appliance, no matter where its power comes from or how many of its parts were made from soybeans, is just a single small element in a civilization-wide network of deeply-interdependent relationships, and it's the network, not the individual constituents, on which our future depends. Sustainability is a context, not a gadget or technology. There is a reason that dense cities set such a critical example: they prove that it's possible to arrange large human populations in ways that are inherently less wasteful and destructive. . . .

What would it take, short of utter economic collapse, for a prosperous First World population to reduce its carbon output and other environmental impacts permanently? The standard prescription is familiar; less reliance on fossil fuels, more reliance on renewable energy (and uranium), increased efficiency, reduced waste, more buses, fewer incandescent lightbulbs, more recycling. These and other elements, to be sure, will become increasingly important parts of our lives with every month that passes, but decades of experience have shown that the measurable results of our conscious efforts to use less are seldom as significant as forecast, and that reductions in waste are typically offset or exceeded by increases in consumption.

These discouraging realities make urban density even more significant as an environmental tool. Cutting back overall U.S. per capita greenhouse emissions to New York City's current level [GRA: published 2009, so probably 2008 or 2007] would require a national reduction of 71 percent - a feat that not even the wildest Kyoto optimist thinks is remotely achievable. Yet New York's record is not the result of a massive, expensive environmental campaign; it's the result of New Yorkers living the way New Yorkers have always lived. The city's efficiencies, like the efficiencies of all dense urban cores, are built into the fabric of the place, and they don't depend on an unprecedented commitment to sacrifice and compliance by environmentally concerned citizens. In fact, New Yorkers themselves, when informed that their per-capita energy consumption is the lowest in the United States, usually express great surprise. They don't generate less carbon because they go around snapping off lightbulbs.

Granted, directly comparing New York's greenhouse emissions with those of the rest of the country is unfair to much of the rest of the country, because the city couldn't exist without massive agricultural, industrial, and other inputs from far beyond its borders, and is therefore responsible for emissions occurring elsewhere. But all other American communities are subject to this same interdependence, and even if they weren't, New York's example would still be significant because the city proves that tremendous environmental gains can be achieved by arranging infrastructure in ways that make beneficial outcomes inescapable, and that don't depend on radically reforming human nature or implementing technologies that are currently beyond our capabilities or our willingness to pay. At an environmental presentation in 2008, I sat next to an investment banker who was initially skeptical when I explained that Manhattanites have a significantly lower environmental impact than other Americans. "But that's just because they're all crammed together," he said. Just so. He then disparaged New Yorkers' energy efficiency as "unconscious," as though intention trumped results. But unconscious efficiencies are the most desirable ones, because they require neither enforcement nor a personal commitment to cutting back. I spoke with an energy expert, who, when I asked him to explain why per-capita energy consumption was so much lower in Europe than in the United states, said, "It's not a secret, and it's not the result of some miraculous technological breakthrough. It's because Europeans are more likely to live in dense cities and less likely to own cars." In European cities, as in Manhattan, in other words, the most important efficiencies are built-in. And for the same reasons. . . .

The truth, though, is inescapable. In a world of nearly 7 billion people and counting, sustainability, if it can be achieved, will look a lot more like midtown Manhattan than like rural Vermont.

The environmental lessons that New York City offers are not necessarily easy to apply -- and, even to New Yorkers, they can often be difficult to discern -- but the most important of them can be summarized simply:

  • Live smaller: The average American single-family house doubled in size in the second half of the twentieth century, and the size of the average American household shrunk. Oversized, under-occupied dwellings permanently raise the world's demand for energy, and they encourage careless consumption of all kinds. In the long run, big, empty houses are no more sustainable than SUVs or private jets, no matter how many photovoltaic panels they have on their roofs. As the cost of energy inevitably rises in the years ahead, and as the long-term environmental and economic consequences of our accustomed levels of wastefulness become clearer and more dire, we are going to need to find ways to reduce the size of the spaces we inhabit, heat, cool, furnish, and maintain. (A notable counter-trend: while the typical American single-family house was doubling in size, rising real-estate values in New York City were reducing the size of the living space of the average Manhattan resident, thereby making it more efficient.)

    Live closer: The main key to lowering energy consumption and shrinking the carbon footprint of modern civilization is to contract the distances between the places we live, work, shop, and play. Unfortunately, the steady enlargement of the American house was accompanied by the explosive growth of low-density subdivisions and satellite communities linked by networks of new highways and inhabited by long-distance commuters. Living closer to one's daily destinations, Manhattan-style, reduces vehicle miles traveled, makes transit and walking feasible as forms of transportation, increases the efficiency of energy production and consumption, limits the need to build superfluous infrastructure, and cuts the demand for such environmentally doomed extravagances as riding lawnmowers and household irrigation systems. The world, not just the United States, needs to pursue land-use strategies that promote high-density, mixed-use urban development, rather than sprawl.

    Drive less: Making automobiles more fuel-efficient isn't necessarily a bad idea, but it won't solve the world's energy and environmental dilemmas. The real problem is not that they don't get enough miles to the gallon; it's that they make it too easy for people to spread out, encouraging forms of development that are inherently wasteful and damaging. Most so-called environmental initiatives are actually counter-productive, because their effect is to make driving less expensive (by reducing the need for fuel) and to make car travel more agreeable (by eliminating congestion). What we really need, from the point of view of both energy conservation and environmental protection, is to make driving costlier and less pleasant. And that's as true for cars that are powered by recycled cooking oil as it is for cars that are powered by gasoline. In terms of the automobile's true environmental impact, fuel gauges are less important than odometers. In the long run, miles matter more than miles per gallon. As we make cars more efficient, we must compensate by making driving less so -- a goal both harder to attain and less likely to be embraced by drivers themselves.
 
Via GCR:
Japan's Olympic Hydrogen Push Faces Challenges, Questions
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1100007_japans-olympic-hydrogen-push-faces-challenges-questions

Certain Japanese carmakers are among the most ardent proponents of hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles, and the Japanese government plans to use the 2020 Tokyo Olympics to promote hydrogen technology in a wide variety of applications. Officials hope fuel cells can not only power vehicles but replace other power sources in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. And Tokyo Governor Yoichi Masuzoe wants to use the Olympics as an opportunity to build and showcase new hydrogen infrastructure.

Just as the 1964 Tokyo games were used to promote Japan's now-famous "bullet trains," a "hydrogen society" will be the infrastructure legacy left by the 2020 games, Masuzoe told The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) in a recent interview. "Hydrogen society" is a term that has been used by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to describe a more expansive deployment of fuel cells, in which they are to power buildings as well as vehicles. Tokyo now reportedly plans to spend 40 billion yen ($330 million) through 2020 on hydrogen-infrastructure projects--a slight decrease from previous estimates.

But the cost and pace of the rollout have raised a number of questions, the Wall Street Journal suggests. Officials reportedly hope to have "thousands" of fuel-cell cars on Japanese roads by then, at least 100 fuel-cell buses that primarily serve the Tokyo Olympic Village, and a network of fueling stations. They are also considering building a pipeline to supply the Olympic Village with hydrogen. Fuel cells will reportedly be used to power certain buildings there, including the media center and athlete dormitories.

Masuzoe has pushed more broadly for "de-motorization," as a way to reduce air pollution, encouraging bicycle commuting, creating more pedestrian areas, and backing subsidies for fuel-cell cars. However, Japan has little of the infrastructure to produce hydrogen domestically, so it may rely largely on imports. Companies are reportedly working to produce hydrogen from low-grade (or "dirty") coal in Australia, for instance. But the carbon dioxide produced during that process boosts the wells-to-wheels carbon footprint of the hydrogen vehicle significantly compared to hydrogen produced from renewable energy--the ideal process often cited by proponents.
Japan is also reportedly investigating refineries in Saudi Arabia and Malaysia, and hydroelectric power sources in Canada and Russia, as potential sources of hydrogen.

Honda, Nissan, and Toyota will underwrite some of the operating costs of hydrogen fueling stations. This government-backed policy may be necessary, as the fueling stations currently selling hydrogen at prices competitive with gasoline are operating at a loss. Officials are counting on the economy of scale of more stations and more cars to lower costs related to hydrogen.

But carmakers may not be as committed as the government; Toyota still only plans to make 700 Mirai sedans this year, and 3,000 by 2017. It will be "at least 10 years" before Toyota's hydrogen vehicle production reaches the level of "tens of thousands," a spokesman said. Honda has also said it will offer a fuel-cell car to the general public, but production estimates will have to wait until the car itself debuts.
 
Quoting Toyota on hydrogen-fueled vehicles:

2005:

Jim Press - Then COO of Toyota North America at 1:03:18 said:
Ten years from now, you'll begin to see hydrogen-powered cars here and there.
Jim Press - Then COO of Toyota North America at 1:03:22 said:
But 15 to 20 years from now they'll be the norm.
2015:

GRA said:
Via GCR:
Japan's Olympic Hydrogen Push Faces Challenges, Questions
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1100007_japans-olympic-hydrogen-push-faces-challenges-questions

But carmakers may not be as committed as the government; Toyota still only plans to make 700 Mirai sedans this year, and 3,000 by 2017. It will be "at least 10 years" before Toyota's hydrogen vehicle production reaches the level of "tens of thousands," a spokesman said.
700 is not enough to see them "here and there." I've never seen a hydrogen-fueled vehicle outside of a car show. In fact, tens of thousands will likely not cause you to see them "here and there." To see them "here and there," you need to sell hundreds of thousands, like has already happened with BEVs today. That is why you now see BEVs "here and there."

What Jim Press inadvertently described in 2005 is the actual state of BEVs 10 years hence, not fuel cells. But he refused to even MENTION BEVs in the list of possible future transportation options. And Toyota is still following the same script which does not include BEVs.

But Jim Press' second prediction will also be prescient, again for BEVs rather than H2 FCVs: You can expect BEVs to be the norm five to ten years from now.

So what can we expect Toyota to predict in 2025 about advanced transportation options ten years hence?

I'll go first:

On BEVs: *crickets* (If they are true to their word.)

On H2 FCVs: "It will be at least 10 years before Toyota's hydrogen vehicle production reaches (insert some level equivalent to the ACTUAL BEV production in 2025)."

Next?
 
Without further comment:
Nissan Will Sell 500,000 Electric Cars a Year by 2013, Says Chief
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/nissan-will-sell-500000-electric-cars-a-year-by-2013-says-chief/?_r=0

http://jalopnik.com/so-much-for-obamas-call-for-1-million-electric-cars-by-1680767244

http://mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=20558
 
GRA said:
Without further comment:
Nissan Will Sell 500,000 Electric Cars a Year by 2013, Says Chief
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/nissan-will-sell-500000-electric-cars-a-year-by-2013-says-chief/?_r=0

http://jalopnik.com/so-much-for-obamas-call-for-1-million-electric-cars-by-1680767244

http://mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=20558

The number may be off by a little, however Nissan will sell more EVs over the next 50 years than Toyota will sell hydrogen cars over the next 100 years. My grandchildren will be dead before more hydrogen cards are sold than EVs.
 
GRA said:
Without further comment:
Nissan Will Sell 500,000 Electric Cars a Year by 2013, Says Chief
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/nissan-will-sell-500000-electric-cars-a-year-by-2013-says-chief/?_r=0

http://jalopnik.com/so-much-for-obamas-call-for-1-million-electric-cars-by-1680767244

http://mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=20558
Touche. Yeah, he was a bit optimistic.

Here is Toyota's prediction for BEVs back in 2005:
Jim Press - Then COO of Toyota North America at 49:40 said:
There's a lot of debate today about what powertrains will emerge tomorrow: internal combustion engines, hybrid-electric, diesel, fuel cells, solar. All of these are great new technologies that are emerging that are making internal combustion engines better.
The point is that their disinformation campaign is designed to point people away from BEVs and make people think that hydrogen is somehow the end game. This approach allows them to continue the status quo and to therefore build massive quantities of gasoline-powered cars.

But you've recently told us the real reason you are here: Your view is that efficient transportation works against your objectives, so you are trying to ensure that personal transportation is crippled by making it extremely inefficient and undesireable.
GRA said:
Most so-called environmental initiatives are actually counter-productive, because their effect is to make driving less expensive (by reducing the need for fuel) and to make car travel more agreeable (by eliminating congestion). What we really need, from the point of view of both energy conservation and environmental protection, is to make driving costlier and less pleasant.
So it is now fully clear why you are here. You are fighting AGAINST technologies which will "make driving less expensive" and/or "make car travel more agreeable" and FOR technologies which will "make driving costlier and less pleasant." So please drop any pretense that you somehow think H2 FCVs are better than BEVs (in the normal sense of the word better).
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
Without further comment:
Nissan Will Sell 500,000 Electric Cars a Year by 2013, Says Chief
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/nissan-will-sell-500000-electric-cars-a-year-by-2013-says-chief/?_r=0

http://jalopnik.com/so-much-for-obamas-call-for-1-million-electric-cars-by-1680767244

http://mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=20558
Touche. Yeah, he was a bit optimistic.

Here is Toyota's prediction for BEVs back in 2005:
Jim Press - Then COO of Toyota North America at 49:40 said:
There's a lot of debate today about what powertrains will emerge tomorrow: internal combustion engines, hybrid-electric, diesel, fuel cells, solar. All of these are great new technologies that are emerging that are making internal combustion engines better.
The point is that their disinformation campaign is designed to point people away from BEVs and make people think that hydrogen is somehow the end game. This approach allows them to continue the status quo and to therefore build massive quantities of gasoline-powered cars.
While I certainly agree that Toyota (and all the other ICE manufacturers) wish to continue to sell cars that allow them to make a profit, I continue to be amazed at all the conspiracy theories that attempt to prove that Toyota is in a cabal with oil companies to keep us dependent on petroleum. I mean, the 18 million hybrids that Toyota has sold have reduced gasoline use far more than all other AFVs have, so it seems an odd sort of cabal.

RegGuheert said:
But you've recently told us the real reason you are here: Your view is that efficient transportation works against your objectives, so you are trying to ensure that personal transportation is crippled by making it extremely inefficient and undesireable.
GRA said:
Most so-called environmental initiatives are actually counter-productive, because their effect is to make driving less expensive (by reducing the need for fuel) and to make car travel more agreeable (by eliminating congestion). What we really need, from the point of view of both energy conservation and environmental protection, is to make driving costlier and less pleasant.
So it is now fully clear why you are here. You are fighting AGAINST technologies which will "make driving less expensive" and/or "make car travel more agreeable" and FOR technologies which will "make driving costlier and less pleasant." So please drop any pretense that you somehow think H2 FCVs are better than BEVs (in the normal sense of the word better).
Actually, I'm working for urban planning that eliminates the need to drive for everyday tasks, including work, school, errands, etc., and which makes car ownership optional, so please don't misstate my positions. It's not exactly a secret that making driving more convenient leads to more driving. This is known as induced demand, and is why we haven't been able to build our way out of congestion (despite 80+ years of trying); even a few traffic engineers are starting to recognize this (very few. As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" Traffic engineers' jobs depend on building more roads, streets freeways etc.) I wasn't going to type the entire book (or all the other books I've read on the subject, or my own thoughts) into the computer, just give some indication of why I don't believe our current lifestyle is sustainable, and what we need to do to make it so.

Having eliminated the need for most car trips for routine purposes through the above urban planning/redesign measures, and having made those that remain more onerous and/or expensive to reflect the full societal cost of driving in urban areas (example: no more free parking), it is then only necessary to use cars for the remaining tasks for which they are best suited, i.e. quick, convenient, flexible transportation over longer distances in rural areas. FCEVs are currently more suitable for this than BEVs are. However, it will clearly take some decades to redesign our cities in such a fashion, and away from catering to cars as the sole means of transportation, although many of the most forward-looking U.S. cities (the ones the creative-class millennials are choosing to live/work in) are already moving in that direction. Nevertheless, for apartment/condo/townhome dwellers who can't charge at home (which is the vast majority of them throughout the world), the operational characteristics of FCEVs and the lack of any linkage between fueling location and living/work location, as with fossil-fueled ICEs/HEVs, suit them better than BEVs do now. If it were possible to provide recharging at every place that needs it in a shorter period of time than it's possible to provide H2 refueling, then of course more efficient BEVs would be the superior choice for all but a few. But IMO that's not likely to be the case for decades (assuming that either public recharging or H2 refueling can be equal or lower cost than fossil fuels, which isn't the case at the moment).
 
Via GCC:
ITM Power to deploy solar-powered hydrogen refueling station at CEME; wind-powered public H2 station opens in South Yorkshire
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/09/20150918-itm.html

UK-based ITM Power signed an agreement with The Centre for Engineering and Manufacturing Excellence (CEME) to deploy a Hydrogen Refueling Station (HRS) at the CEME site in Rainham, UK. ITM Power also just opened the first public access hydrogen refueling station, funded by InnovateUK, at the Advanced Manufacturing Park in South Yorkshire.

The CEME campus is located on the A13—one of the main East London arterial roads between London City Airport and the M25—providing publicly accessible refueling infrastructure to East London. The CEME site has one of the largest arrays of photo voltaics in the south of England, consisting of 717 panels designed to supply 115 kW, which will provide power to the station. The station will be deployed as part of the HyFIVE project and will open to the public in Q2 2016.

HyFive, funded by the EU FCH JU (Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking), is a £31-million (US$35-million) project involving leading automakers, hydrogen fuel suppliers, the Mayor of London’s Office and energy consultancies to make hydrogen vehicles a viable and environmentally friendly choice for motorists across Europe.

ITM Power was selected by the Hydrogen London to be the Hydrogen Refueling Station partner for London. This resulted in an award of contract to supply three ITM Power electrolyzer-based refueling stations.

These three stations will be part of three European regions deploying six 700bar hydrogen refueling stations and incorporate 12 existing stations in the project. The fuelling station networks will offer hydrogen as a genuine fuelling choice for end users. ITM Power’s first HyFive station will be delivered to the National Physical Laboratory in Teddington in October 2015.

The South Yorkshire refueling station consists of a 225kW wind turbine coupled directly to an electrolyzer, 220 kg of hydrogen storage, a hydrogen dispensing unit and a 30 kW fuel cell system capable of providing backup power generation for nearby buildings.

The facility has been upgraded as a showcase for ITM Power’s hydrogen generation equipment and is used to provide retail hydrogen fuel services. The M1 motorway was highlighted as a key route for the early deployment of hydrogen refueling in the UK in the published UK H2Mobility Phase 1 Report.

The station, which has been supported by Innovate UK, currently offers hydrogen gas at 350 bar. The station will be upgraded early 2016 to provide hydrogen at 700 bar as a result of funding from the Office for Low Emission Vehicles (OLEV). This will provide the fuel cell vehicles with a longer range of between 350 – 400 miles and extend the reach of clean emission transportation in South Yorkshire to hydrogen refueling stations elsewhere in the UK, including London.

Also, via ievs:
Edison Electron One Electric Supercar Expected To Debut In Q1 2016
http://insideevs.com/edison-electron-one-electric-supercar-expected-debut-q1-2016/

Sunvault Energy and Edison Power Company announced a joint project to create a revolutionary electric supercar – Edison Electron One to showcase the “Graphene Energy Storage System“. According to the press release, Edison Electron One will be equipped with new energy storage:

powered by a Graphene Energy Storage device created by the companies
integrated hydrogen fuel cell to provide an extra level of confidence to offset any potential range anxiety
water electrolyzer to produce hydrogenDr. Robert Murray-Smith, Director of Sunvault Energy said:

“The fuel cell will be powered by an on demand Hydrogen generation unit built into the car and will only require water.”

Gary Monaghan, CEO of Sunvault Energy adds:

“With our Energy Storage Device, reliability and peace of mind are wrapped in one design.”

In other words, there will be some new battery pack with cells using graphene and a hydrogen fuel cell range extender with electrolyzer. . . .

It'll be interesting to see if this ever gets beyond the hype/vaporware stage. Call me skeptical. Edit: Apparently with good reason. See
Sunvault Energy: Late Filings Aren't The Only Problems
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3245496-sunvault-energy-late-filings-arent-the-only-problems
 
I just got the following email from CARB, in case anyone wants to rain on their parade:

CARB ([email protected]) said:
The California Air Resources Board invites you to attend the 2015
California Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Summit, taking place September 30
– October 1, 2015 at the Cal/EPA headquarters building in
Sacramento. The Summit will feature high-level speakers and a
great opportunity to network. Regular registration for the event
closes Friday at http://www.californiahydrogensummit.com and government
employees can register for free with a .gov email address.

This year’s topics include:

  • California leadership in sustainable energy
  • National activity in hydrogen and fuel cells
  • Visions of hydrogen and fuel cell business chief executives
  • Regional environmental actions
  • Spotlight on clean transportation – stations, vehicles, and transit
  • Spotlight on renewable hydrogen
  • The business and transitions of the California Hydrogen Business Council

Review the detailed agenda:
http://www.californiahydrogensummit.com/program.asp

ARB Deputy Executive Officer Dr. Alberto Ayala will provide a
keynote presentation after California Energy Commissioner Janea
Scott’s opening keynote.

The Summit will also feature two displays:

  • See the Toyota Mirai hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicle up
    close (and learn how to buy or lease it)
  • View an AC Transit hydrogen-powered fuel cell bus

In addition, a special tour of the West Sacramento hydrogen
fueling station will take place with a Linde representative
https://californiahydrogen.org/civicrm/event/register?id=123&reset=1

The Summit is hosted by the California Hydrogen Business Council
(CHBC). You can receive updates under @CAhydrogen and #hydrogensummit.

For more information, please visit the web address identified
above or contact Mr. Gerhard Achtelik, Manager, ZEV
Infrastructure Section at [email protected] or 916.323.8973.
 
Back
Top