Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[ydnas7]

"There is no market today to justify that premium and that market needs to be created to encourage investment in upstream hydrogen production capability. There is currently a trade-off between hydrogen carbon footprint and cost"


http://press.ihs.com/press-release/automotive/global-hydrogen-fuel-cell-electric-vehicle-market-buoyed-oems-will-launch-1

 

[smkettner]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[TonyWilliams]

Mary Nichols, the chairman of the California Air Resources Board, "All promising low-carbon non-petroleum transportation options, including hydrogen fuel cell vehicles [before they added "electric"], battery electric vehicles, and advanced liquid biofuels in combustion engines, face significant technical, resource, and market challenges. Hydrogen and fuel cells show great potential and have met or exceeded nearly all of the technical milestones set out by US DOE. Several major automakers are pursuing early market testing with consumers beginning this year and are expected to ramp up production to nearly 50,000 vehicles in California by 2017."

 

[GRA]

"There is no market today to justify that premium and that market needs to be created to encourage investment in upstream hydrogen production capability. There is currently a trade-off between hydrogen carbon footprint and cost"


http://press.ihs.com/press-release/automotive/global-hydrogen-fuel-cell-electric-vehicle-market-buoyed-oems-will-launch-1

Thanks for linking that. Here's some more from the same source, which I also agree with:

Many comparisons are made between Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) and FCEVs. Current generation FCEVs share similar benefits to conventional cars; short refueling times and long range. Most BEVs on the road today do not have these advantages. “Refueling habits with an FCEV will be very similar to that of a conventional car. This will definitely help with customer acceptance of FCEVs,” Scott said.

Battery technology is improving each year, with $/kWh decreasing, while energy density increases. Although hydrogen has the advantage in terms of refueling times and range, battery technology is catching up. Until this happens, the FCEV market has a window of opportunity to establish itself as a serious contender in long term zero-carbon mobility. IHS analysts say. If the FCEV market has not reached this stage in the next 20-25 years (i.e., moved past the early adopter phase), then FCEVs will remain only in niche applications.. . .

Personally, I think the window is more like 10-15 years, but that depends on the rate that batteries advance.

 

[GRA]

Ah, I love technical cross-pollination. Via ABG:

Scientists at Toyota have developed battery technology that allows for higher energy density. Using material from hydrogen storage, researchers at the Toyota Research Institute of North America (TRINA) in beautiful Ann Arbor, Michigan have created an electrolyte that works well with a magnesium metal anode. Besides improving energy density for smaller, more powerful batteries, magnesium is also more stable than lithium, making it a safer alternative. Rather than guarding their secret, Toyota is sharing details of this breakthrough in order to advance the technology in hopes of an earlier mass deployment of magnesium batteries. See the video above, and read more in the press release below.

But of course, we've all been told that Toyota is vehemently anti-battery/BEV. :lol: More from Toyota's Press Release:

. . . Magnesium metal has long been theorized as a much safer and more energy-dense alternative to current lithium battery technology. Lithium metal, in its natural state, is unstable and can ignite when exposed to air. In order to make lithium metal safe for batteries, ions are taken from the lithium metal and embedded into graphite rods, which are then used in batteries. That lack of actual metal, however, limits the amount of power a battery can store. Magnesium, on the other hand, is a very stable metal with the potential to store much more energy. But until now, research on magnesium-based batteries was limited because a magnesium-friendly electrolyte did not exist.

Close Collaboration Leads to Discovery

Enter Toyota principal scientist and chemical engineer Rana Mohtadi. Mohtadi was researching hydrogen storage materials and their application to fuel cell technology; upon hearing her fellow researchers discussing the challenges of developing an electrolyte for a practical magnesium battery, Mohtadi realized her hydrogen storage material might just solve the longstanding problem. With further experimentation and the help of fellow researchers, her theory proved correct. . . .

Of course, this is lab research, and the article says we may not see any commercialization for 20 years (to which I would add, as with all lab results, 'If ever').

 

[ydnas7]

Personally, I think the window is more like 10-15 years, but that depends on the rate that batteries advance.

personally, I think the window is already closed, there is no room for HFC when there are Volts and Tesla's on the market.
No room


the cheaper 200 mile class LEAFs, Bolts, model 3, they just dancing a jig on top of Hydrogen's coffin.

Nov-Dec 2013, the race was won, permanently

all thats left now, is just the combustion of money to build hydrogen infrastructure.

By the time that the cost of hydrogen infrastructure reduces to less then the cost of FREE Teslas, the cost of Hydrogen Infrastructure will still be greater than the cost of FREE Bolts and LEAFs2. Hydrogen Vehicle Infrastructure is sheer madness, but at least its money paid for employing technical people.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Sad day for the hydrogen dreamers... all this yummy government money, and almost ALL of it goes to EVs... at least 56 EV buses, and a paltry 3 Hydrogen Fuel Cell buses:

http://insideevs.com/seven-electric-and-fuel-cell-bus-projects-granted-by-fta-for-total-22-5-million/

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal TransitAdministration (FTA) has announced a new round of alternative energy grants.

TOTAL $22,500,000


CA LACMTA under Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) will receive $4,275,000 toward five battery-electric zero-emission buses, as well as eight charging stations. This electric bus infrastructure will serve the Metro Orange Line bus rapid transit corridor in the City of Los Angeles. LACMTA will also partner with the Southern California Regional Transit Training Consortium to include workforce development in support of zero-emission technology. $4,275,000

CA Foothill Transit under Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Foothill Transit will receive $1,310,000 toward electric charging facilities that will support the agency’s ongoing electric bus program, which includes an electric-only bus line. This program will help expand Foothill Transit’s electric bus capabilities. $1,310,000

CA AC Transit Under the Metropolitan Transportation Commission Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) will receive $1,551,611 toward five battery-electric buses and related equipment. AC Transit has experience deploying zero-emission buses, including battery-electric buses and fuel cell electric buses. This project will expand AC Transit’s clean vehicle infrastructure in addition to providing valuable data comparing battery-electric to fuel cell technology. $1,551,611

OH Stark Area Regional Transit Authority The Stark Area Regional Transit Authority (SARTA) will receive $4,015,174 toward three zero-emission American Fuel Cell Buses (AFCBs). This project will build on SARTA’s successful, existing fuel cell bus program, which has already established hydrogen fuel cell infrastructure and will soon deploy five AFCBs in Stark County. $4,015,174

PA Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) will receive $2,585,075 toward the purchase of 25 zero-emission all-electric buses and related equipment. These vehicles will be deployed on bus routes in South Philadelphia, and an associated workforce development program will further contribute to the project’s economic impact. $2,585,075

UT Utah Transit Authority (UTA) The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) will receive $5,427,100 toward five battery-electric zero-emission buses. Partnering with the University of Utah, these buses will serve the route connecting the campus to Salt Lake City. This program builds on UTA’s extensive commitment to low and no-emission vehicles and technology. $5,427,100

WA King County King County Metro will receive $3,336,040 toward eight battery-electric zero-emission buses, which will allow two routes to be operated using entirely zero-emission vehicles. $3,336,040

 

[GRA]

Personally, I think the window is more like 10-15 years, but that depends on the rate that batteries advance.

personally, I think the window is already closed, there is no room for HFC when there are Volts and Tesla's on the market.
No room


the cheaper 200 mile class LEAFs, Bolts, model 3, they just dancing a jig on top of Hydrogen's coffin.

Nov-Dec 2013, the race was won, permanently

all thats left now, is just the combustion of money to build hydrogen infrastructure.

By the time that the cost of hydrogen infrastructure reduces to less then the cost of FREE Teslas, the cost of Hydrogen Infrastructure will still be greater than the cost of FREE Bolts and LEAFs2. Hydrogen Vehicle Infrastructure is sheer madness, but at least its money paid for employing technical people.

Guess we'll see which of us is right, in a decade or so. It's already clear that the Gen 2 affordable BEVs can't provide ICE capability: 200 miles under ideal conditions for at best five years is not comparable to 300+ miles plus a reserve year-round for the life of the car, especially not once the federal tax credits go away. Not even the most expensive BEVs can do that yet, nor are they likely to for at least five years and maybe ten, barring a major battery breakthrough or else massive improvements in insulation and the efficiency of electric heating, or (my personal favorite for the near-term) an optional auxiliary fuel-fired heater for those who know they'll need it. Make it multi-fuel so it can burn sustainable biofuels when available.

FCEVs are closer to providing complete ICE capability, say 80-90% of the way there, but still need a generation or two of price reductions to get there (plus the extensive and expensive fueling infrastructure). In the interim, PHEVs remain the best all-around utilitarian, flexible choice, and the best value for money. The major question for me is whether we'll see sustainable biofuels or fuel cells replace PHEV's fossil-fueled ICE range extenders, or whether batteries, fuel cells or biofuels will develop fast enough to eliminate the need for plug-in hybrids. I consider a full biofuel replacement for fossil fuels impossible for lack of production capacity. I'm not sure now whether it makes more sense to use a much smaller quantity of biofuels to replace the 10-20% of ground transport miles that PHEVs will still need to do on their range extenders, or whether it should be dedicated to air transport, and only if there's excess for ground or FTM, sea transport.

 

[rcm4453]

Personally, I think the window is more like 10-15 years, but that depends on the rate that batteries advance.

personally, I think the window is already closed, there is no room for HFC when there are Volts and Tesla's on the market.
No room


the cheaper 200 mile class LEAFs, Bolts, model 3, they just dancing a jig on top of Hydrogen's coffin.

Nov-Dec 2013, the race was won, permanently

all thats left now, is just the combustion of money to build hydrogen infrastructure.

By the time that the cost of hydrogen infrastructure reduces to less then the cost of FREE Teslas, the cost of Hydrogen Infrastructure will still be greater than the cost of FREE Bolts and LEAFs2. Hydrogen Vehicle Infrastructure is sheer madness, but at least its money paid for employing technical people.

Guess we'll see which of us is right, in a decade or so. It's already clear that the Gen 2 affordable BEVs can't provide ICE capability: 200 miles under ideal conditions for at best five years is not comparable to 300+ miles plus a reserve year-round for the life of the car, especially not once the federal tax credits go away. Not even the most expensive BEVs can do that yet, nor are they likely to for at least five years and maybe ten, barring a major battery breakthrough or else massive improvements in insulation and the efficiency of electric heating, or (my personal favorite for the near-term) an optional auxiliary fuel-fired heater for those who know they'll need it. Make it multi-fuel so it can burn sustainable biofuels when available.

FCEVs are closer to providing complete ICE capability, say 80-90% of the way there, but still need a generation or two of price reductions to get there (plus the extensive and expensive fueling infrastructure). In the interim, PHEVs remain the best all-around utilitarian, flexible choice, and the best value for money. The major question for me is whether we'll see sustainable biofuels or fuel cells replace PHEV's fossil-fueled ICE range extenders, or whether batteries, fuel cells or biofuels will develop fast enough to eliminate the need for plug-in hybrids. I consider a full biofuel replacement for fossil fuels impossible for lack of production capacity. I'm not sure now whether it makes more sense to use a much smaller quantity of biofuels to replace the 10-20% of ground transport miles that PHEVs will still need to do on their range extenders, or whether it should be dedicated to air transport, and only if there's excess for ground or FTM, sea transport.

The problem with FCEVs is that you will still be forever tied to the filling station paying at the pump evey week. How is this any better then a PHEV? Or even an ICE vehicle for that matter? You can charge a BEV or PHEV using solar for free at home, can you say the same for FCEVs? Who cares if a FCEV gets a 300 mile range when you have to pay a lot for each fill up. Tesla Model S can get close to 300 miles range today and way out performs any FCEV by a long shot! FCEVs are way less efficient, total waste of time, they're nothing more then "big oil" trying to stay in the loop of everyone's transportation energy needs.

 

[TonyWilliams]

I happen to agree that some zero-carbon / zero-emision cabin and battery heater is needed for extreme cold climates. Thankfully, this is merely a component on a car, so it can be retrofitted or added at assembly.

What zero emission heat producing choices are available?

1) hydrogen - not readily available nor likely to be in remote cold climates, very expensive to implement (pressurized container), fuel is very expensive

2) biofuel - low cost storage, could be available n one gallon containers at auto parts stores

3)

 

[GRA]

The problem with FCEVs is that you will still be forever tied to the filling station paying at the pump evey week. How is this any better then a PHEV? Or even an ICE vehicle for that matter?

It's not better, but the world has found it acceptable for the past century, given the other benefits. This assumes that home production of H2 via electrolysis/photochemical/thermochemical methods never becomes commercially viable, which would eliminate that objection (not that I'm expecting it).

You can charge a BEV or PHEV using solar for free at home, can you say the same for FCEVs?

You can charge a BEV at home for free? You must have found a philanthropic solar company to give you the panels and install them for nothing - I always charged my customers. But at least for three years in the U.S., an FCEV customer can get H2 for free, not that that's sustainable over the long term.

Who cares if a FCEV gets a 300 mile range when you have to pay a lot for each fill up.

See above.

Tesla Model S can get close to 300 miles range today and way out performs any FCEV by a long shot!

Let me fix that for you: "It can get close to 300 miles of range in very limited, unrealistic conditions for a limited period of time, at a price starting over $80k." As for the performance, while being able to go 0-60 in 2.9 seconds in Ludicrous mode is all sorts of fun, nobody needs to be able to do that. Nor is there any reason why an FCEV (actually an FCHEV, which all of them are now) couldn't be designed to do so, when and if anyone decides to.

FCEVs are way less efficient, total waste of time, they're nothing more then "big oil" trying to stay in the loop of everyone's transportation energy needs.

FCEVs are certainly less efficient than BEVs, at least when the weather's warm (not sure if that holds true when the cars are providing CHP in cold temps, but I expect the overall efficiency is pretty close then - it's currently something like 75% for FCEVs for CHP. BEV efficiency is in the 90-95% range without providing heat, which is why I think they need auxiliary fuel-fired heaters for long trips in cold climates (to prevent the double range hit due to cold).

Big Oil is behind California's 33% RFS for transportation H2, a percentage that will surely be increased over time? Are they also behind Air Liquide's plan to have 50% of the H2 in the stations they're building in the Northeast be renewable by 2020? Or Denmark's plan to generate all their H2 from excess wind power, and one of the other Scandinavian countries (Sweden?) which plans to do the same? Or Toyota's partnering with a couple of Japanese cities to generate H2 likewise? Reports for all of these and many others have been linked upthread.

 

[smkettner]

But at least for three years in the U.S., an FCEV customer can get H2 for free, not that that's sustainable over the long term.

When owners are required to pay retail will be first day of reckoning for H2.

 

[GRA]

But at least for three years in the U.S., an FCEV customer can get H2 for free, not that that's sustainable over the long term.

When owners are required to pay retail will be first day of reckoning for H2.

Indeed. Hopefully everyone has figured out that they should lease and not buy an FCEV at this time, given the uncertainty about the cost of H2 when the three years are up. I'm assuming that Toyota et al will still need to provide some fuel subsidies for some years after that, but hope to be able to reduce them substantially and eventually eliminate them. Or maybe oil prices will will go crazy and make cheaper but still expensive H2 competitive by then. At the moment that seems unlikely, but then a few years back I would never have predicted that I'd ever again have the chance to buy gas at $2.00 gal., and I could for about a week or two in February (currently $2.56). My corner station bottomed out at $2.20, and they're back up to $2.86 now on the news from Alberta, after holding at $2.80 for several weeks.

 

[RegGuheert]

The problem with FCEVs is that you will still be forever tied to the filling station paying at the pump evey week. How is this any better then a PHEV? Or even an ICE vehicle for that matter? You can charge a BEV or PHEV using solar for free at home, can you say the same for FCEVs? Who cares if a FCEV gets a 300 mile range when you have to pay a lot for each fill up. Tesla Model S can get close to 300 miles range today and way out performs any FCEV by a long shot! FCEVs are way less efficient, total waste of time, they're nothing more then "big oil" trying to stay in the loop of everyone's transportation energy needs.

Well said. GRA is here to argue against BEVs because he feels inefficient, expensive cars will dissuade people from driving cars.

 

[rcm4453]

The problem with FCEVs is that you will still be forever tied to the filling station paying at the pump evey week. How is this any better then a PHEV? Or even an ICE vehicle for that matter?

It's not better, but the world has found it acceptable for the past century, given the other benefits. This assumes that home production of H2 via electrolysis/photochemical/thermochemical methods never becomes commercially viable, which would eliminate that objection (not that I'm expecting it).

You can charge a BEV or PHEV using solar for free at home, can you say the same for FCEVs?

You can charge a BEV at home for free? You must have found a philanthropic solar company to give you the panels and install them for nothing - I always charged my customers. But at least for three years in the U.S., an FCEV customer can get H2 for free, not that that's sustainable over the long term.

Who cares if a FCEV gets a 300 mile range when you have to pay a lot for each fill up.

See above.

Tesla Model S can get close to 300 miles range today and way out performs any FCEV by a long shot!

Let me fix that for you: "It can get close to 300 miles of range in very limited, unrealistic conditions for a limited period of time, at a price starting over $80k." As for the performance, while being able to go 0-60 in 2.9 seconds in Ludicrous mode is all sorts of fun, nobody needs to be able to do that. Nor is there any reason why an FCEV (actually an FCHEV, which all of them are now) couldn't be designed to do so, when and if anyone decides to.

FCEVs are way less efficient, total waste of time, they're nothing more then "big oil" trying to stay in the loop of everyone's transportation energy needs.

FCEVs are certainly less efficient than BEVs, at least when the weather's warm (not sure if that holds true when the cars are providing CHP in cold temps, but I expect the overall efficiency is pretty close then - it's currently something like 75% for FCEVs for CHP. BEV efficiency is in the 90-95% range without providing heat, which is why I think they need auxiliary fuel-fired heaters for long trips in cold climates (to prevent the double range hit due to cold).

Big Oil is behind California's 33% RFS for transportation H2, a percentage that will surely be increased over time? Are they also behind Air Liquide's plan to have 50% of the H2 in the stations they're building in the Northeast be renewable by 2020? Or Denmark's plan to generate all their H2 from excess wind power, and one of the other Scandinavian countries (Sweden?) which plans to do the same? Or Toyota's partnering with a couple of Japanese cities to generate H2 likewise? Reports for all of these and many others have been linked upthread.

95% of current U.S. hydrogen is produced by steam-methane re-forming of non-renewable natural gas. Believe me, Big Oil will be in the loop and profiting from hydrogen fuel stations. Isn't Shell oil one of the biggest right now for hydrogen fuel stations? It is significantly cheaper to reform methane to get hydrogen than to extract it from water using electrolysis. The market does not price carbon, therefore there is no economic penalty for using methane as the H2 source. The market will not support a higher cost fuel over a less expensive fuel. People will not fuel their FCEVs with low carbon H2 (renewable) but with H2 from reformed methane.

So what if people who lease FCEVs are getting free H2 right now, that's not going to last forever then what? Do you really think H2 will be cheaper then gasoline? Definitely won't be cheaper then using electricity to power a BEV. It takes 2x to 3x as much electricity to drive a FCEV a mile as it does to drive a BEV a mile. You claim solar panels aren't free, that's very true but over time they will eventually pay for themselves. Can you say the same for a FCEV? Nope you sure can't because you're tied to the filling station paying at the pump week after week for the life of the vehicle. Plus you won't have the option to refuel your FCEV at home, which is one of the biggest perks of having a BEV. Another big problem with FCEVs is they are SLOW! You need a big battery to get decent performance and FCEVs have too small of a battery to deliver decent performance. I'm not saying they need to go 0-60 in 2.9 seconds but from the reviews I've read on the FCEVs that are out now, they are really slow in the acceleration department. The Chevy Bolt and Tesla model 3 will have better performance then the FCEVs and will be cheaper to buy and operate! Let's face it, a BEV beats a FCEV in almost every way, especially the ones coming out in the next few years. The only thing a FCEV wins at is faster refueling time, that's it! It loses to a BEV in EVERY other way so why would you choose a FCEV? Is there even a practical reason to go down the path of FCEVs? Why not just continue using ICE vehicles until BEVs improve even more? Why put resources into developing an inferior technology? Just make the transition from ICE vehicles to BEVs.

 

[GRA]

The problem with FCEVs is that you will still be forever tied to the filling station paying at the pump evey week. How is this any better then a PHEV? Or even an ICE vehicle for that matter? You can charge a BEV or PHEV using solar for free at home, can you say the same for FCEVs? Who cares if a FCEV gets a 300 mile range when you have to pay a lot for each fill up. Tesla Model S can get close to 300 miles range today and way out performs any FCEV by a long shot! FCEVs are way less efficient, total waste of time, they're nothing more then "big oil" trying to stay in the loop of everyone's transportation energy needs.

Well said. GRA is here to argue against BEVs because he feels inefficient, expensive cars will dissuade people from driving cars.

Reg, you really shouldn't mis-represent my position; it adds nothing to your argument.

 

[RegGuheert]

GRA is here to argue against BEVs because he feels inefficient, expensive cars will dissuade people from driving cars.

Reg, you really shouldn't mis-represent my position; it adds nothing to your argument.

That's true, that's why I didn't.

Everyone can read what you wrote on September 13, 2015. And I will quote my response to your post from here:

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.

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).

To this, you responded:

It's not exactly a secret that making driving more convenient leads to more driving.

So, I will repeat what I said:

GRA is here to argue against BEVs because he feels inefficient, expensive cars will dissuade people from driving cars.

 

[GRA]

The problem with FCEVs is that you will still be forever tied to the filling station paying at the pump evey week. How is this any better then a PHEV? Or even an ICE vehicle for that matter?

It's not better, but the world has found it acceptable for the past century, given the other benefits. This assumes that home production of H2 via electrolysis/photochemical/thermochemical methods never becomes commercially viable, which would eliminate that objection (not that I'm expecting it).

You can charge a BEV or PHEV using solar for free at home, can you say the same for FCEVs?

You can charge a BEV at home for free? You must have found a philanthropic solar company to give you the panels and install them for nothing - I always charged my customers. But at least for three years in the U.S., an FCEV customer can get H2 for free, not that that's sustainable over the long term.

Who cares if a FCEV gets a 300 mile range when you have to pay a lot for each fill up.

See above.

Tesla Model S can get close to 300 miles range today and way out performs any FCEV by a long shot!

Let me fix that for you: "It can get close to 300 miles of range in very limited, unrealistic conditions for a limited period of time, at a price starting over $80k." As for the performance, while being able to go 0-60 in 2.9 seconds in Ludicrous mode is all sorts of fun, nobody needs to be able to do that. Nor is there any reason why an FCEV (actually an FCHEV, which all of them are now) couldn't be designed to do so, when and if anyone decides to.

FCEVs are way less efficient, total waste of time, they're nothing more then "big oil" trying to stay in the loop of everyone's transportation energy needs.

FCEVs are certainly less efficient than BEVs, at least when the weather's warm (not sure if that holds true when the cars are providing CHP in cold temps, but I expect the overall efficiency is pretty close then - it's currently something like 75% for FCEVs for CHP. BEV efficiency is in the 90-95% range without providing heat, which is why I think they need auxiliary fuel-fired heaters for long trips in cold climates (to prevent the double range hit due to cold).

Big Oil is behind California's 33% RFS for transportation H2, a percentage that will surely be increased over time? Are they also behind Air Liquide's plan to have 50% of the H2 in the stations they're building in the Northeast be renewable by 2020? Or Denmark's plan to generate all their H2 from excess wind power, and one of the other Scandinavian countries (Sweden?) which plans to do the same? Or Toyota's partnering with a couple of Japanese cities to generate H2 likewise? Reports for all of these and many others have been linked upthread.

95% of current U.S. hydrogen is produced by steam-methane re-forming of non-renewable natural gas. Believe me, Big Oil will be in the loop and profiting from hydrogen fuel stations. Isn't Shell oil one of the biggest right now for hydrogen fuel stations? It is significantly cheaper to reform methane to get hydrogen than to extract it from water using electrolysis. The market does not price carbon, therefore there is no economic penalty for using methane as the H2 source. The market will not support a higher cost fuel over a less expensive fuel. People will not fuel their FCEVs with low carbon H2 (renewable) but with H2 from reformed methane. [/quote

Of course Big Oil will be in the loop; they're energy companies. They've also been in the loop re PV (at least Shell, Arco and BP have all had PV divisions at one time or another) and batteries. After all, it was a division of Exxon which first commercialized and marketed lithium batteries, and I see that Total is tendering to buy SAFT:

Total to acquire battery-maker Saft in US$1.1-billion deal

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/05/20160509-total.html

That 95% of H2 is currently being made from SMR has been stated here many times, by me among others. That's why so many jurisdictions are requiring RFS for transportation H2, in the same way that so many are requiring RFS for electricity (the majority of which is also still generated by burning fossil fuels). If H2 with an ever-increasing proportion produced renewably can't be sold at prices that are cheaper than fossil fuels, then it will fail, simple as that. That may come about through decreases on the cost of renewable H2, natural or artificial (carbon tax etc.) hikes in the price of fossil fuels or both. Or neither, in which case bio-fuel PHEVs, BEVs and/or bio-fueled ICEs will instead achieve mass adoption first. I'm fine with any of them, as long as they lead to the elimination of fossil fuels.

So what if people who lease FCEVs are getting free H2 right now, that's not going to last forever then what? Do you really think H2 will be cheaper then gasoline?

That's the intent of DoE and the auto and H2 companies, although it's highly unlikely that we'll reach that point within the next three years, which is why I said that the auto companies with FCEVs would likely need to continue H2 subsidies a a lower level for some time afterwards.

Definitely won't be cheaper then using electricity to power a BEV. It takes 2x to 3x as much electricity to drive a FCEV a mile as it does to drive a BEV a mile. You claim solar panels aren't free, that's very true but over time they will eventually pay for themselves. Can you say the same for a FCEV? Nope you sure can't because you're tied to the filling station paying at the pump week after week for the life of the vehicle. Plus you won't have the option to refuel your FCEV at home, which is one of the biggest perks of having a BEV.

Sure, FCEVs will be more expensive to fuel than BEVs, provided you can do so somewhere with cheap electricity. As I've pointed out at length in this and other threads, most people living in apartments, condos and townhouses, especially in urban areas can't do so, nor can they put PV on their roofs (because they don't own said roofs). Most of the world's urban car-owning population doesn't live like the (small: 56%) majority of the U.S. car-owning population who can charge at home. So, the fact that homeowners with access to low-cost electricity at home will have lower LCO and more convenience is great for them, but for the next several decades at least while the public charging infrastructure is being built up, irrelevant for most. If someone is in the fortunate position of being able to reap the major benefits of a BEV and it otherwise suits their needs, then by all means that's the way they should go.

I can't speak for Toyota and the other companies that have decided to go with fuel cells, but IMO they have reasoned much as I have; that most of the world's car-owning population doesn't fall into the BEV-suitable category now or mid-term future, and therefore another fossil-fuel free tech is necessary for them. That FCEVs (also biofueled ICEs/HEVs) also require essentially no change in personal habits is a bonus for consumer acceptance.

Another big problem with FCEVs is they are SLOW! You need a big battery to get decent performance and FCEVs have too small of a battery to deliver decent performance. I'm not saying they need to go 0-60 in 2.9 seconds but from the reviews I've read on the FCEVs that are out now, they are really slow in the acceleration department. The Chevy Bolt and Tesla model 3 will have better performance then the FCEVs and will be cheaper to buy and operate! Let's face it, a BEV beats a FCEV in almost every way, especially the ones coming out in the next few years. The only thing a FCEV wins at is faster refueling time, that's it! It loses to a BEV in EVERY other way so why would you choose a FCEV? Is there even a practical reason to go down the path of FCEVs? Why not just continue using ICE vehicles until BEVs improve even more? Why put resources into developing an inferior technology? Just make the transition from ICE vehicles to BEVs.

As I've pointed out, there is no technical reason why FCHEVs need to be slow, just cost and design point reasons. FCEVs beat BEVs currently in range for price, range in cold conditions, speed of refueling, lack of limitations on where one lives or works or the type of housing, ease of transition (for the consumer used to an ICE), and (probably) usable life. Even if fuel cells degrade at the same rate as batteries do, since they start off with more range and can be refueled so quickly they're prctical range remains much greater over the long term. I've said repeatedly that I don't believe in silver bullets, and that I think it more likely we'll adopt a variety of fossil-fuel free transportation techs for various needs rather than just one. However, if one of them out-competes all the others and can completely replace fossil fuels that's just fine by me, and I don't much care which one it might be, although AOTBE I'd of course opt for the most energy-efficient one.

 

[GRA]

GRA is here to argue against BEVs because he feels inefficient, expensive cars will dissuade people from driving cars.

Reg, you really shouldn't mis-represent my position; it adds nothing to your argument.

That's true, that's why I didn't.

Everyone can read what you wrote on September 13, 2015. And I will quote my response to your post from here:

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.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).

To this, you responded:

It's not exactly a secret that making driving more convenient leads to more driving.

So, I will repeat what I said:

GRA is here to argue against BEVs because he feels inefficient, expensive cars will dissuade people from driving cars.

Reg, where have I ever said that I'm against efficient transportation? I've said that I'm against emphasizing the convenience of cars over all other forms of transportation, (most of which, given the same propulsion methods, are more energy-efficient), and that it will be necessary, if we are to reduce GHGs by 80% by 2050, to reduce the energy and resources used by the built environment.

Cars are poorly-suited to medium and high density urban areas because they take up too much space, regardless of how they are powered or how efficient they are. They also make possible a suburban, car-dependent lifestyle that is the least energy and resource efficient available. It's also true that cars are less energy-efficient than virtually all other forms of transport, given the same propulsion source. But people don't use cars because they are the most energy-efficient means of transportation, it's because they (and the infrastructure that supports them) provide quick, flexible, convenient, and (to a greater or lesser degree) weather-protected and climate-controlled transport for themselves, their passengers and cargo, while requiring virtually no physical exertion. The fact that the U.S. and most other auto-dependent cultures are suffering from obesity epidemics isn't unrelated to that last. Taking all the above into account, and with that 80% reduction goal in mind, it will be necessary to reduce the amount of travel by car. It will also be necessary to improve the efficiency of the car travel that remains.

Cars aren't going away - they will continue to be the transportation of choice in rural areas, and will still make up the majority of VKT per capita in urban areas (Newman and Kenworthy suggest that a reduction from 95%+ car VKT in the typical U.S. city to perhaps 75% of VKT, typical of many European cities, is enough to make a city no longer auto-dependent) [Edit: Brain Fart. For VKT, Vehicle Kilometers Traveled per capita read PKT, Passenger KT etc., the metric I meant]. However, it's no more than right that, just as with any other technology/product that imposes negative externalities, the users of that tech/product be made to bear a greater proportion of the costs of those externalities, preferably the full cost. The shift from auto-dependence to a more balanced mix of transportation modes seems to be happening by choice (outside of authoritarian/totalitarian states). In any case, we've had these arguments many times before, so I'll just point you to the source of the data showing this shift, so you can check it for yourself: http://islandpress.org/book/the-end-of-automobile-dependence

Edit: BTW, it seems that the older millennials may well now be moving out to the suburbs, but it's not the classic suburbs, it's suburbs that have been updated to provide the kind of work-leisure more walking/biking/transit and less car design that I've been talking about. See: http://gizmodo.com/millennials-will-live-in-cities-unlike-anything-weve-se-1716074100

Naturally, one article doesn't confirm a trend, but I have been seeing a few other such straws in the wind.

 

[GRA]

One of my occasional posts showing the types of research being conducted to make H2/FCEVs less costly/more efficient. As always, don't expect to see this soon if ever. Via GCC:

Columbia team develops simple, low-cost, scaleable membraneless electrolyzer fabricated with 3D printing for H2 production

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/05/20160509-oneil.html

Also GCC:

Argonne rolls out updated version of AFLEET alternative fuels and advanced vehicles analysis tool

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/05/20160510-afleet.html

. . . Sponsored by the DOE Clean Cities program, AFLEET (Alternative Fuel Life-Cycle Environmental and Economic Transportation Tool) is a free, publicly-available tool that provides users with a roadmap for assessing which types of vehicles and fuels are right for them. The 2016 AFLEET Tool and user guide are available online. Although anyone can download and use the tool, AFLEET was designed for managers that purchase and maintain a fleet of vehicles.

The latest version includes, for the first time: gaseous hydrogen fuel cell vehicles; state-based (rather than national-based) fuel pricing, private station fuel pricing and fueling infrastructure costs. Updates to existing inputs include new light-duty vehicle costs; vehicle air pollutant emission factors derived from the Environmental Protection Agency’s emissions modeling system, MOVES 2014a; and petroleum use and greenhouse gas and relative air pollutant emissions from the 2015 GREET model, Argonne’s leading fuel life-cycle analysis model that is now in its twentieth year. . . .

This is exactly the sort of thing that should be required to be used by fleet managers before choosing any AFV tech.