Are PHEVs a transitional technology? Or a long lasting use case?

[frontrangeleaf]

In my view, what we're really talking about is "agency".

What do people want in their car? They want the ability to get into their car on any given day, drive to wherever, change their plans in the moment, add a destination, etc, and still be able to arrive at wherever they end up wanting to go that day with a minimum of fuss or delay, in reasonable safety and comfort, at an affordable price. That's "agency".

All the talk about range, charging networks/points, time to charge, cold weather effects, etc, etc, is ultimately about proxies for agency. To the extent that PHEVs can address the agency concerns more effectively than BEVs for enough people's use case(s), we may see them hang on for quite a while. It's not a "range" or a "fill-in-the-blank" question. It's an agency question.

Agency is also context dependent. It depends on what you want to do.

Can you drive today's BEVs across the country? Yes, but you're going to work harder at it (and it will take longer) than you do (or would need) with an ICE vehicle. Even with a Tesla, the current gold standard. That's just cold hard facts. Most people will not look past that.

How about towing? Same answer for qualified BEVs.
How about go off-road? Same answer for qualified BEVs.

You see where I'm going here...

Agency is also the main reason why many people wouldn't be caught dead using public transportation. What you hear is "It's too inconvenient" (or some politically motivated proxy I suppose...) What they mean is "I can't just do what I want to do in the moment." It's also why raising gas taxes is political suicide.

I've spent a lot of time in the last 2 years trying to figure out how to talk to non-EV people about driving an EV. It's been frustrating. Even friends who work for NREL are not open to EVs (!). You end up not having a rational conversation.

It's dawning on me that I need to speak to agency and cost of operation. Those are the concerns that move the needle. Since I've started to cast the discussion in those terms, I'm getting somewhere. Much better conversations anyway, lol. Otherwise, you're just talking past the real issues.

The discussion of PHEVs is similar, or at least related. Until BEVs can resolve the agency concerns that normal (mostly first-world) mortals have re their transportation needs, there will be a perceived role for alternatives.

All that said, no, I'm not a fan of hydrogen. There are too many other alternatives that will be far easier to stand up, including PHEVs based on ICE engines burning typical fuels. I've heard hydrogen pitched by numerous engineering types, and again, I think they're missing the point. Few people care about the engineering perspective, outside of the engineering community.

Personally, I'm coming to experience the hydrogen pitch mostly as a thinly veiled attempt to somehow extend the business model of the currently entrenched oil and gas industries. Who will not go away without a fight. We need to give them something better to do besides hydrogen. (How about they invest in artificial photosynthesis, and begin extracting carbon from the air instead of extremely ancient, long-sequestered deposits?)

My 2 cents...

 

[jjeff]

Like most everyone here I came from ICEs, or in the case of our Prius a hybrid(non plug-in). I kind of wanted a PHEV for flexibility but the only real option to me at the time(2013) was a Chevy Volt(PHEV) which was way to cramped for my tastes, otherwise it was a nice concept. I ended up with a new 2013 Leaf S which was quite nice, albeit it's limited range of 70'ish miles in the summer and 60'ish or lower range in the winter. As we really wanted to cut down on the number of vehicles and have a more, one-size-fits-all vehicle but still wanted to have the vast majority of our driving be EV, we ordered and should be receiving by the end of the year, a RAV-4 Prime. Around 40 miles of EV driving(summer and with it's heatpump heater hopefully into early winter) and close to 40mpg hwg with it's ICE. It has a much nicer ride height than say a Prius or Prius Prime(plug-in), gives us a decent EV range and yet not too bad hwy mpg for our long trips, not to mention AWD for our snowy winters. We're probably going to hang onto our '13S for me and short trips but will probably sell our '12SL I picked up for pretty cheap(~$8k) due to it's degraded battery. We'll also sell our '07 Prius and an older '04 Scion Xb that I used to drive before I got a company van(NV-200).
I for one think PHEV is the best option for a large section of the population that want to limit the number of vehicles they own and maybe also those who might forget to plug-in, you've always got the ICE for a backup but if gas gets too high, hopefully that will remind them to plug in.
My daughter is doing quite well with her Ionic PHEV, she just filled up the other day, several months after getting it 900 miles from our home as MN isn't currently a CARB state and uable to purchase a PHEV from Hyundai.

 

[oxothuk]

Personally, I'm coming to experience the hydrogen pitch mostly as a thinly veiled attempt to somehow extend the business model of the currently entrenched oil and gas industries. Who will not go away without a fight.

It’s the customers of the “oil and gas interests” who will not go away or be pushed into inferior alternatives without a fight. That’s all of us.

I’m always amazed by the vilification that is heaped upon the oil industry as if they were the equivalent of heroin dealers. Oil is so useful that it sells itself without any persuasion.

Also I don’t see how hydrogen as a transport fuel would extend their business model. It will always be more efficient to use natural gas directly vs reforming it into H2 to drive fuel cells.

 

[WetEV]

Personally, I'm coming to experience the hydrogen pitch mostly as a thinly veiled attempt to somehow extend the business model of the currently entrenched oil and gas industries. Who will not go away without a fight.

It’s the customers of the “oil and gas interests” who will not go away or be pushed into inferior alternatives without a fight. That’s all of us.

I’m always amazed by the vilification that is heaped upon the oil industry as if they were the equivalent of heroin dealers. Oil is so useful that it sells itself without any persuasion.

So does heroin. Heroin doesn't need any sales pitch from the dealers. Both opioids including heroin and fossil fuels are useful, abuse-able and harmful past a point. And both can't be quit without both time and pain. The faster you want to quit, the more the pain.


EVs are not an inferior alternative. Fastest car ever for the Pike's Peak Hill Climb was an EV. Sure, not yet for everyone. 500Wh per kg and $50 per kWh will make gasoline obsolete for most transportation. Perhaps there will be some space left for hybrids, especially in aviation.

https://arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/files/Grigorii-Soloveichik-Fast-Pitch-2018.pdf

Also I don’t see how hydrogen as a transport fuel would extend their business model. It will always be more efficient to use natural gas directly vs reforming it into H2 to drive fuel cells.

Look for the greenwash. Some tiny fraction of the hydrogen will be green, and can fill the headlines. Efficiency and cost doesn't matter, it is for the PR. Think short term, not long term.

 

[WetEV]

I for one think PHEV is the best option for a large section of the population that want to limit the number of vehicles they own

I agree. Especially for areas of the country with poor public charging networks, and for drivers with more longer trips. Increasing infrastructure will reduce the first, and improving energy density will improve the BEV alternative for the second.

There still is a case for pure ICE as well. Battery production is limited, so someone has to drive the old technology even if they didn't want to. And rural people with mostly too long of drives for PHEVs or current BEVs, little or no public charging, shouldn't even consider an EV at this time.

 

[SageBrush]

Also I don’t see how hydrogen as a transport fuel would extend their business model. It will always be more efficient to use natural gas directly vs reforming it into H2 to drive fuel cells.

Green washing

 

[LeftieBiker]

Hydrogen will only work if it's cracked directly from water, using surplus solar capacity. Anything else is, yes, green washing.

 

[oxothuk]

Hydrogen will only work if it's cracked directly from water, using surplus solar capacity. Anything else is, yes, green washing.

I agree. But if those electrolysis plants pull power from the grid when excess RE is unavailable, then that’s also greenwashing.

 

[LeftieBiker]

Hydrogen will only work if it's cracked directly from water, using surplus solar capacity. Anything else is, yes, green washing.

I agree. But if those electrolysis plants pull power from the grid when excess RE is unavailable, then that’s also greenwashing.

Try this scenario: a green grid, used to make heavy trucks in urban settings zero tailpipe emission. Even with some carbon burned to do it, the net result can be better - especially for those who usually have to breathe diesel exhaust. Please note that I'm not a supporter of hydrogen as a major fuel or storage medium. I'm just thinking of specific cases in which it could do some good.

 

[oxothuk]

Hydrogen will only work if it's cracked directly from water, using surplus solar capacity. Anything else is, yes, green washing.

I agree. But if those electrolysis plants pull power from the grid when excess RE is unavailable, then that’s also greenwashing.

Try this scenario: a green grid, used to make heavy trucks in urban settings zero tailpipe emission. Even with some carbon burned to do it, the net result can be better - especially for those who usually have to breathe diesel exhaust. Please note that I'm not a supporter of hydrogen as a major fuel or storage medium. I'm just thinking of specific cases in which it could do some good.

I agree that getting rid of exhaust emissions in urban areas is a huge advantage of EVs. It’s a mistake to focus only on CO2.

I’m skeptical that we will ever have a green grid unless we make peace with nuclear. Without cheap long duration storage (currently nonexistent) we can’t run the grid on intermittent wind and solar.

 

[SageBrush]

Nuclear is a bridge to nowhere.

As for the clean energy transition, you may wish to read Stanford Prof Mark Jacobson's work or books to get up to speed. The tech is already available. The missing ingredient is political will.

 

[oxothuk]

Nuclear is a bridge to nowhere.

As for the clean energy transition, you may wish to read Stanford Prof Mark Jacobson's work or books to get up to speed. The tech is already available. The missing ingredient is political will.

Actually, political will is the missing ingredient for nuclear - a known technology that already powers entire countries like France.

As for long term storage, we are nowhere close to what is needed for a 100% RE grid.
https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/long-duration-energy-storage-can-help-clean-up-the-grid-but-only-if-its-super-cheap/

 

[SageBrush]

nuclear - a known technology that already powers entire countries like France.

Don't look now, but France is winding down its nuclear fleet due to cost and safety problems And that is in a country where labor unions and state ownership have kept the moribund nuclear industry afloat for years, perhaps decades, longer than a rational economy would support.

 

[rmay635703]

nuclear - a known technology that already powers entire countries like France.

Don't look now, but France is winding down its nuclear fleet due to cost and safety problems And that is in a country where labor unions and state ownership have kept the moribund nuclear industry afloat for years, perhaps decades, longer than a rational economy would support.

And our country keeps dumping research funding to carbon capture exhaust a completely moronic dead end that works as well as the Aliso Canyon Porter Ranch Leak

We keep dumping money into air to air heat pumps that are far worse for the environment than normal heat sources due to the extreme rate of refridgerant release especially during disposal and repair

Sometimes it is worth extra cost to avoid other forms of damage down the road, MSR thorium for example would have been a good R&D investment beyond the Oak Ridge unit that ran producing power into the 70’s

 

[Bouldergramp]

Dan Neil has an interesting "Rumble Seat" column in today's Wall Street Journal:
“Next to Tesla, Plug-In Hybrids Are an Illusion of Eco-Consciousness
Unlike truly electric cars, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (or PHEVs) often have short electric ranges, which, combined with powerful gas engines, do little to improve overall fuel efficiency, writes Dan Neil. And that’s when owners bother to plug them in…
The problem with PHEVs? The more limited their electric range is, the less likely owners are to actually charge them overnight.”

 

[SageBrush]

Dan Neil has an interesting "Rumble Seat" column in today's Wall Street Journal:
“Next to Tesla, Plug-In Hybrids Are an Illusion of Eco-Consciousness
Unlike truly electric cars, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (or PHEVs) often have short electric ranges, which, combined with powerful gas engines, do little to improve overall fuel efficiency, writes Dan Neil. And that’s when owners bother to plug them in…
The problem with PHEVs? The more limited their electric range is, the less likely owners are to actually charge them overnight.”

Yep. Dan Neil gets it.

Back in the day, my wife and I had to decide whether to sell 'my' PHEV or 'her' LEAF. She wanted to keep the PHEV but I wanted to keep the LEAF, in part to remove any temptation to fall back into fossil habits. Now that the ICE habit is broken, neither of us has any thought of driving anything anything but EV.

The irony is that even a 25 mile range PHEV will do wonders for fuel economy, but most owners do not use them as intended. They just buy them for the subsidies and perks, and continue their fossil habits. Study after study shows the same thing. I think only GRA and Toyota still lives the PHEV fantasy.

 

[WetEV]

Dan Neil has an interesting "Rumble Seat" column in today's Wall Street Journal:
“Next to Tesla, Plug-In Hybrids Are an Illusion of Eco-Consciousness
Unlike truly electric cars, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (or PHEVs) often have short electric ranges, which, combined with powerful gas engines, do little to improve overall fuel efficiency, writes Dan Neil. And that’s when owners bother to plug them in…
The problem with PHEVs? The more limited their electric range is, the less likely owners are to actually charge them overnight.”

About half of all PHEV miles are electric. Yet that's not the only problem.

PHEVs may yet have a bigger problem: NOX, or nitrous oxide, a hazardous smog-forming product of combustion. At a workshop in May, CARB officials raised concerns about PHEVs’ excessive NOX emissions during full-power cold starts, as when an IC engine kicks on after a period of electric driving. One probable explanation: Emission-scrubbing catalytic converters in exhaust systems only work after they are well heated by the exhaust stream, typically requiring 20 seconds or so. It’s most cars’ dirtiest seconds; PHEVs often spend them with wide-open throttles.

In November the environmental pressure group Transport & Environment published a study of the emissions of the popular BMW X5, Mitsubishi Outlander, and Volvo XC60 plugins. The study observed that, even with a fully charged battery and in optimal conditions, the emissions of these vehicles were 28-89% higher than the official value. In cases when the battery went flat, emissions jumped three to eight times higher than listed. And, as when a PHEV runs the gas engine hard to charge the battery, the report says emissions were up to 12 times higher.

 

[GRA]

Been busy for the past ten days or so, and it will take me a few days to catch up with replies to posts.

FCEVs/PHFCEVs are a possible passenger car ZEV future (it's already clear they're going to have a major role in heavy transport), as they're better matched to road trip requirements than BEVs, unless batteries improve far more than they're likely to anytime soon (if ever) and experience no resource constraints. I'm a believer in using whichever tech best meets the task requirements. BEVs are best for regular local use where range needs are modest and they return to the same location every day and can be charged there over long periods of time, given their efficiency advantage. But hauling around 1,000 lb. or more of battery which will rarely be used makes the car bigger, heavier and more expensive, and reduces its efficiency all the time, not to mention requiring more resources in construction.

"A major role in heavy transport" if green hydrogen was free, perhaps. Or even 3x electric power in cost.

Heavy transport is mostly small demonstration projects fueled by natural gas generated hydrogen. Production of "green hydrogen" is in very tiny demonstration projects.

Impact would be lower if they used the natural gas directly.

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/08/touted-clean-blue-hydrogen-may-be-worse-gas-or-coal

Horseless carriages were heavier than horse drawn carriages. Horses didn't prevail.

Long term? Transport of goods changed when steam locomotives and horses changed to mostly trucks. I suspect that there will be changes when the source energy changes to a sustainable mix (solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, ...) from a fossil fueled mix. Some that we can't hope predict in advance. More transport on rail? Or self driving and automatic recharging BEV trucks for long haul? And/or something else? I don't know and you don't either.

As I have posted in the "H2 and FCEV " and "AFV Commercial Vehicles" topics, over the past 18 months or so both the number and scale of projects for production, transport, and use of green and blue H2 being announced has increased exponentially, with billions (in some cases, tens) being invested. These projects involve both governments and large corporations, and they are moving either into dem/val or in some cases early commercialization phases. As with any new tech, inevitably some of these projects will fail to live up to expectations or be cancelled, but some will succeed and future projects will build on those successes.

Rail transport is one of the areas where H2 or derivatives will almost certainly be making inroads (in areas where it's un-economic to electrify the lines), along with long haul trucks, ocean- or at least coastal shipping (ocean-going ships seem more likely to me to use ammonia, methanol or LOHC rather than LH2), and probably regional airliners. Plus industrial uses and seasonal storage of electricity, maybe some heating as well. There is uncertainty as to just how much of each may be possible, along with how big the niches of competitive techs will be, but the general direction is clear. Self-driving and auto-refueled FCEVs benefit even more time-wise than self-driving/auto charging BEV trucks, never mind the payload advantage.

The fuel cell remains less energy efficient than the battery, but it's far more time efficient and flexible on trips especially in cold weather, and has longevity advantages. Plus, we have an existing fueling infrastructure with an identical business model, ideal for conversion to support them.

Fuel cells degrade with time. Lifetime of 2,500 hours is often quoted in the real world. You don't lose range, you lose kW of output, and to a lesser extent efficiency. Storage tanks have lifetimes as well. Better than batteries? Hard to say, especially a decade or more in the future. Better in the future? Maybe. Maybe not.

You need to move the comma one place to the right and add a zero. I believe I've posted this previously, but to remind you:

Fact of the Month January 2019: Five Fuel Cell Buses in the United States Have Exceeded the DOE/DOT Target of 25,000 Hours and More Are Getting Close

One fuel cell bus operating in the United States has surpassed 29,000 hours of drive time and twelve buses have exceeded 20,000 hours without major repairs or replacement of the fuel cell stack. This is comparable to the life expectancy of a diesel engine in a transit bus. Diesel buses have an engine that is sometimes rebuilt halfway through its usable life at 6 years/250,000 miles on average. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has collected data on fuel cell buses for more than 8 years.

https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcel...cell-buses-united-states-have-exceeded-doedot

AC transit happens to be my local bus line, and they're certainly operating in the real world. These are probably almost hand-built stacks and achieving that kind of life in mass production and for long-haul trucks that operate continuously at high power levels will undoubtedly be more difficult. OTOH, those stacks are at least one and maybe two generations behind the current state-of-the-art, and research is underway to achieve that, e.g.

National labs M2FCT researchers outline prospects and challenges for hydrogen fuel-cells in heavy-duty transportation

. . . With $50 million funded by DOE HFTO over five years, a team of five national labs co-led by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) have set out with a 2030 goal of demonstrating systems that have a 25,000-hour, or 1-million mile, lifetime for long-haul trucks. . . .

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/04/20210412-m2fct.html

So yes, fuel cells degrade with time, although that time is far beyond what any battery can manage. 10% degradation after 12 years seems to be a common figure; the best battery capacity warranty is 70% capacity (30% degradation) after 8 years - which would you rather have? In the trial of FCEV buses posted above, 12 out of 13 buses in the AC Transit fleet had reached 20,000 hours or more. As for tanks, the Gen. 1 Mirai were certified for 15 years IIRR. Assuming your vehicle lasts that long, which will be cheaper to replace, tanks or battery packs? Make that replacing your 3rd battery pack.

Now, commercial vehicles get used far more hours per day than privately owned ones, which sit idle on average 23 out of 24 hours, so an FCEV stack with a 6,000 hour lifetime would easily reach 15 years (365x15=5,475). A PHFCEV could get away with an even shorter stack life, as it would be used much less.

BEVs are more time efficient on daily trips, as no time needs to be taken to drive to a fuel station, wait your turn, wait for the pressure to get back up, and wait for the car to fuel. As there are far more daily trips than long trips, BEVs are in net better, for most people. Yes, you are not "most people", we have covered that enough.

You've completely ignored the fact that the same also applies to PHEVs/PHFCEVs as I stated, given home or work charging, and they will be more efficient in routine use because they're not hauling around hundreds of lb. of excess batteries.

Your selling of hydrogen based on "same business model" is missing a whole lot of points. Consider that most or all urban stations go away with PHEV, fuel celled or not. Business model of local gas stations does not apply to hydrogen stations.

Sure, many gas stations will go away as fossil-fueled ICEs dwindle. So what? Instead of having intersections with 2, 3 or even all 4 corners occupied by gas stations, maybe only one will be. But the business model remains the same. Alternatively, since gas stations make a profit on selling stuff in the convenience store and not on selling fuel, they may just reduce the number of dispensers and stay in business, if that makes sense. Lower turnover, but they may be able to use the space for something more valuable.

As for BEVs being time efficient, I drove 5 hours and 40 minutes yesterday, and the human net charging time was near zero. To Artist Point on Mt Baker. A beautiful place, and a beautiful drive. Yes, did stop for a charge, but mostly because the wife wanted to stop. Car was done long before she was, I wanted (but really didn't need) to pick up 10% (~5 minutes), as else would have been below 20% when I got home. Most of the energy for the trip came from home charging.

As you indicate, your driving endurance is determined by your wife's needs not yours, and certainly not mine. Those of us who don't have such limitations find BEVs a huge time suck on extended trips, even assuming that we can charge when and where we want. For now, given the low infrastructure density and its lack of reliability, that's often not the case.

 

[WetEV]

Impact would be lower if they used the natural gas directly.

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/08/touted-clean-blue-hydrogen-may-be-worse-gas-or-coal

As I have posted in the "H2 and FCEV " and "AFV Commercial Vehicles" topics, over the past 18 months or so both the number and scale of projects for production, transport, and use of green and blue H2 being announced has increased exponentially, with billions (in some cases, tens) being invested.

Luckily there is a lot of natural gas. "Blue hydrogen" is probably worse than coal.

 

[GRA]

Impact would be lower if they used the natural gas directly.

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/08/touted-clean-blue-hydrogen-may-be-worse-gas-or-coal

As I have posted in the "H2 and FCEV " and "AFV Commercial Vehicles" topics, over the past 18 months or so both the number and scale of projects for production, transport, and use of green and blue H2 being announced has increased exponentially, with billions (in some cases, tens) being invested.

Luckily there is a lot of natural gas. "Blue hydrogen" is probably worse than coal.

When that's the case, it will (eventually) be banned. But if CCUS works, then bring it on. Obviously, green H2 would be preferable, but it would be dumb to limit our options at this point.