Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[GRA]

If there had never been any subsidies or mandates, the EV growth would have been slower, but would still happen. Batteries got better and cheaper driven by uses other than cars until after 2010. The rational for subsidies and/or mandates is to speed the process.

Hydrogen fuel cell powered cars might happen on their own if and only if hydrogen gets cheap. And that's not even going to start for "5 to 10 years".

Cheap is relative. What the study forecasts is that H2 will be comparably priced with gas on a per mile basis in the U.S. in 5 to 10 years, which means that it will be competitive in areas with higher gas prices sooner. Always assuming that the forecast is accurate and the required steps are taken, neither of which is ever guaranteed.

I have serious doubts about your claim that (P)EV growth would have happened without subsidies or mandates this time. Sure, Nissan and GM might have been able to sell a few LEAFs and Volts to Hollywood celebs and the like, and Fisker might have done so too, but would Tesla ever have appeared let alone survived to produce the Model S (and maybe the Roadster too) without government funds?

Consider something you might know about, EV conversions. Take a car, usually older with a blown motor, buy it cheap, and put batteries and an electric motor into it.

Did you follow that scene much?

At first, it was hobby projects. Then various places started offering parts for common conversions, such as VW beetles. Then various places selling predone conversions. For one place, it was all electric VW beetles. For another, it was all Toyota Corollas.

Battery prices kept falling, so the cost of a conversion kept falling. As the volume of conversions kept rising, parts needed became more available and cheaper. And as places started selling predones, you didn't need to be a geek to get one. I don't have a good source for statistics, but it went from it was easy for me to know of everyone that owned an EV on the West Coast to far too many to count over a decade. Perhaps a hundred conversions. Or more. Subsidies and mandates didn't apply to conversions.

The above is history pre-2008. Next is speculation.

A possible next step is the one Tesla did with the Roadster. Buy new cars without engine, and make it electric. Without the mandate that created the EV1 and expanded the market and investment for EVs, this wouldn't have happened when it did, but it seems to me like it was going to happen even with no subsidies. Sooner or later the profitable business of converting VW bugs is going to run out of VW bugs to convert. Then what? Buy the tooling from VW Mexico or Brazil when they phased out the Beetle? Maybe, if they could get it cheap enough. Buy Fiat Spider bodies from Fiat? Or something else?

Or perhaps it happens a different way. EV dragsters (such as White Zombie) were showing up gas cars on drag strips. Perhaps someone like Porsche decided to make a car that could hold it's own against the EVs... by engineering an EV. Initially as a halo car and very spendy, but as the demand would grow and the cost to produce would fall, volume would build... And competition would show up.

The path to market for EVs with no subsidies or mandates is from the top end. When a $80k converted car can beat up a $1million "super car" on the drag strip, someone's going to figure it out.

Next, price of EVs is going to fall as cost to produce EV declines with increasing production and as competition increases. Sure, first BEVs start as very expensive cars. But they don't stay there.

Oddly enough, back when I was doing solar in the early '90s a few of my customers had conversions; the one I remember best was a Karmann Ghia. There were also companies like Solar Electric Engineering? who did Escort and Fiero 'production' conversions, or at least claimed to - I always felt the guy running it was a bit of a con artist.

But they, and later cars like the tzero out of which Tesla's Roadster grew, were never going to be more than a trickle of orders for geeks and the few ideologically-committed individuals who were willing to pay a high price for them while also putting up with their limitations, I e. City cars only. I've been re-reading Michael Schiffer's 1994 book "Taking Charge", which in addition to detailing the early history of BEVs in the US ca. 1900s, forecasts the 'near' future thanks to the 1990s CARB mandate, the conversions you mentioned, the impending arrival of the 'Impact' (not yet known as the EV1), etc. He brings up all the points you do to arrive at a favorable prognosis, albeit 10-20 years earlier.

But then (and in the 1900s) as now, the public simply wasn't ready to adopt short-range BEVs that couldn't tour. Only the development of much better, bigger batteries and faster charging infrastructure in the past couple of years plus mandates and subsidies has brought BEVs even into the conversation for the mass market, and we're still several years away from the needed capability/price point.

Hydrogen relies on subsidies and mandates completely.

For now, sure. Reduced costs for RE H2 would be a game changer. And QCing is also completely reliant on subsidies and mandates, because no one is yet able to make a profit on them at electricity prices equal or less than gas.

I'll likely never see an FCEV beyond several I've seen at University Engineering exhibits.

What, Anheuser-Busch doesn't sell beer in your area? I expect you'll also see them on high speed ferries on Puget Sound in the not too distant future - it's not as if BEVs have a hope of doing that job anytime soon.

 

[smkettner]

This thread alone is almost 7 years old and virtually no real progress has been made. Just continued spending of government money.

 

[WetEV]

Consider something you might know about, EV conversions. Take a car, usually older with a blown motor, buy it cheap, and put batteries and an electric motor into it.

Did you follow that scene much?

At first, it was hobby projects. Then various places started offering parts for common conversions, such as VW beetles. Then various places selling predone conversions. For one place, it was all electric VW beetles. For another, it was all Toyota Corollas.

Battery prices kept falling, so the cost of a conversion kept falling. As the volume of conversions kept rising, parts needed became more available and cheaper. And as places started selling predones, you didn't need to be a geek to get one. I don't have a good source for statistics, but it went from it was easy for me to know of everyone that owned an EV on the West Coast to far too many to count over a decade. Perhaps a hundred conversions. Or more. Subsidies and mandates didn't apply to conversions.

The above is history pre-2008. Next is speculation.

A possible next step is the one Tesla did with the Roadster. Buy new cars without engine, and make it electric. Without the mandate that created the EV1 and expanded the market and investment for EVs, this wouldn't have happened when it did, but it seems to me like it was going to happen even with no subsidies. Sooner or later the profitable business of converting VW bugs is going to run out of VW bugs to convert. Then what? Buy the tooling from VW Mexico or Brazil when they phased out the Beetle? Maybe, if they could get it cheap enough. Buy Fiat Spider bodies from Fiat? Or something else?

Or perhaps it happens a different way. EV dragsters (such as White Zombie) were showing up gas cars on drag strips. Perhaps someone like Porsche decided to make a car that could hold it's own against the EVs... by engineering an EV. Initially as a halo car and very spendy, but as the demand would grow and the cost to produce would fall, volume would build... And competition would show up.

The path to market for EVs with no subsidies or mandates is from the top end. When a $80k converted car can beat up a $1million "super car" on the drag strip, someone's going to figure it out.

Next, price of EVs is going to fall as cost to produce EV declines with increasing production and as competition increases. Sure, first BEVs start as very expensive cars. But they don't stay there.

Oddly enough, back when I was doing solar in the early '90s a few of my customers had conversions; the one I remember best was a Karmann Ghia. There were also companies like Solar Electric Engineering? who did Escort and Fiero 'production' conversions, or at least claimed to - I always felt the guy running it was a bit of a con artist.

I thought that might have been the case that you knew a few of those people. You seem to have been correct about that guy at SEE. The guy running that later went on to sell a "Worldcar", which was to be hydrogen fuel cell powered...Mostly to investers who never got a dime back as no Worldcars were ever made. I'm amazed I remember the Worldcar, but a search for that name and solar electric gives this:

https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2008/04/zap-electric-vehicles-we-wont-get-fooled-again/

I'm also under the impression that he sold a lot fewer BEVs than claimed as well.


Solar cells in 1990 was a pretty tiny niche business, wasn't it?

source: https://maartensteinbuch.com/2017/06/12/photovoltaic-growth-reality-versus-projections-of-the-international-energy-agency/

And it is not so anymore. Economics have changed, some utility installs in the past couple of years with no subsidies.

But they, and later cars like the tzero out of which Tesla's Roadster grew, were never going to be more than a trickle of orders for geeks and the few ideologically-committed individuals who were willing to pay a high price for them while also putting up with their limitations, I e. City cars only. I've been re-reading Michael Schiffer's 1994 book "Taking Charge", which in addition to detailing the early history of BEVs in the US ca. 1900s, forecasts the 'near' future thanks to the 1990s CARB mandate, the conversions you mentioned, the impending arrival of the 'Impact' (not yet known as the EV1), etc. He brings up all the points you do to arrive at a favorable prognosis, albeit 10-20 years earlier.

But then (and in the 1900s) as now, the public simply wasn't ready to adopt short-range BEVs that couldn't tour. Only the development of much better, bigger batteries and faster charging infrastructure in the past couple of years plus mandates and subsidies has brought BEVs even into the conversation for the mass market, and we're still several years away from the needed capability/price point.

In the 1990's with lead acid batteries, it was a city car only then. In the 1990's it looked like better batteries were just a matter of time.

Oddly enough, that seem to be the case.

The "mass market" isn't a single point, it is a distribution.

Hydrogen relies on subsidies and mandates completely.

For now, sure. Reduced costs for RE H2 would be a game changer. And QCing is also completely reliant on subsidies and mandates, because no one is yet able to make a profit on them at electricity prices equal or less than gas.

At the upper end of the market, how price sensitive is a Porsche driver to the price of gasoline?
So the price is higher. Ever buy any part for a Porsche? Does anyone buy a $200k car for saving a few cents per mile...

I'll likely never see an FCEV beyond several I've seen at University Engineering exhibits.

What, Anheuser-Busch doesn't sell beer in your area?

They actually sell beer? Fooled me. But then again, I don't have a sense of humor.

I expect you'll also see them on high speed ferries on Puget Sound in the not too distant future - it's not as if BEVs have a hope of doing that job anytime soon.

Oh? Guemes Island Ferry is going be BEV very soon. It is out for bid. There are a lot of BEV ferries in operation, they are cheaper to operate and more reliable than diesel ferries. Saving money convinces a lot of people. Mainstream.

California seems to be building the very first fuel cell powered ferry. Good luck with that.

Notice, there are multiple paths for BEVs to "go mainstream", even without subsidies, but only massive subsidies keep FCEVs going.

 

[GRA]

This thread alone is almost 7 years old and virtually no real progress has been made. Just continued spending of government money.

Are you reading the AFV truck/commercial vehicles topic?

 

[Oilpan4]

Just apply Murphys law to hydrogen on boats and see how long it stays popular.

 

[GRA]

Oddly enough, back when I was doing solar in the early '90s a few of my customers had conversions; the one I remember best was a Karmann Ghia. There were also companies like Solar Electric Engineering? who did Escort and Fiero 'production' conversions, or at least claimed to - I always felt the guy running it was a bit of a con artist.

I thought that might have been the case that you knew a few of those people. You seem to have been correct about that guy at SEE. The guy running that later went on to sell a "Worldcar", which was to be hydrogen fuel cell powered...Mostly to investers who never got a dime back as no Worldcars were ever made. I'm amazed I remember the Worldcar, but a search for that name and solar electric gives this:

https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2008/04/zap-electric-vehicles-we-wont-get-fooled-again/

I'm also under the impression that he sold a lot fewer BEVs than claimed as well.


Solar cells in 1990 was a pretty tiny niche business, wasn't it?

Oh, absolutely, in my case it was for systems to people living off-grid. There was no off-the-shelf grid intertie equipment - the only such system I ever saw was at Amory and Hunter Lovins' home/Rocky Mtn. Institute office in Colorado, but that was a far bigger system than was typical then - 4kW IIRC.

source: https://maartensteinbuch.com/2017/06/12/photovoltaic-growth-reality-versus-projections-of-the-international-energy-agency/

And it is not so anymore. Economics have changed, some utility installs in the past couple of years with no subsidies.

Sure, and it's only taken us 70+ years of government subsidies and R&D to get here.

But they, and later cars like the tzero out of which Tesla's Roadster grew, were never going to be more than a trickle of orders for geeks and the few ideologically-committed individuals who were willing to pay a high price for them while also putting up with their limitations, I e. City cars only. I've been re-reading Michael Schiffer's 1994 book "Taking Charge", which in addition to detailing the early history of BEVs in the US ca. 1900s, forecasts the 'near' future thanks to the 1990s CARB mandate, the conversions you mentioned, the impending arrival of the 'Impact' (not yet known as the EV1), etc. He brings up all the points you do to arrive at a favorable prognosis, albeit 10-20 years earlier.

But then (and in the 1900s) as now, the public simply wasn't ready to adopt short-range BEVs that couldn't tour. Only the development of much better, bigger batteries and faster charging infrastructure in the past couple of years plus mandates and subsidies has brought BEVs even into the conversation for the mass market, and we're still several years away from the needed capability/price point.

In the 1990's with lead acid batteries, it was a city car only then. In the 1990's it looked like better batteries were just a matter of time.

Oddly enough, that seem to be the case.

Better batteries have been just a matter of time for 130 years now, and we still aren't there yet.

The "mass market" isn't a single point, it is a distribution.

But that distribution is totally dependent on price point for an adequate capability.

Hydrogen relies on subsidies and mandates completely.

For now, sure. Reduced costs for RE H2 would be a game changer. And QCing is also completely reliant on subsidies and mandates, because no one is yet able to make a profit on them at electricity prices equal or less than gas.

At the upper end of the market, how price sensitive is a Porsche driver to the price of gasoline?
So the price is higher. Ever buy any part for a Porsche? Does anyone buy a $200k car for saving a few cents per mile...

No one considers a Porsche or any Tesla with a range even approaching an ICE to have a mass market price, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

I'll likely never see an FCEV beyond several I've seen at University Engineering exhibits.

What, Anheuser-Busch doesn't sell beer in your area?

They actually sell beer? Fooled me. But then again, I don't have a sense of humor.

Strangely enough, my local hangout is a brewpub, one of if not the first in the country, even though I don't drink. All beer tastes like stale water to me, whether some mass market stuff in a can or some trendy craft brew in a bottle, so I have no opinion whether or not what A-B brews and sells is considered beer or bat's piss.

I expect you'll also see them on high speed ferries on Puget Sound in the not too distant future - it's not as if BEVs have a hope of doing that job anytime soon.

Oh? Guemes Island Ferry is going be BEV very soon. It is out for bid. There are a lot of BEV ferries in operation, they are cheaper to operate and more reliable than diesel ferries. Saving money convinces a lot of people. Mainstream.

For short trips at moderate speed, they're fine, just as BEV trucks are fine for local P&D.

California seems to be building the very first fuel cell powered ferry. Good luck with that.

Yup, a perfect example of a BEV being unable to meet a more demanding operational requirement, while an FCEV could. Not that luck is needed to make it work, it's making it work economically that's the issue. You did read the design studies I posted on that back a few years ago, right, where a BEV was considered and rejected for that reason? This'll get you started:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/10/20161006-sandia.html

And here's the current (well, pre-covid) state of the dem-val ferry:

https://watergoround.com/

Notice, there are multiple paths for BEVs to "go mainstream", even without subsidies, but only massive subsidies keep FCEVs going.

So far, except at the luxury end of the scale BEVs still require massive subsidies and mandates as well, e g. Germany's just announced requirement that all gas stations have QCs, plus more government subsidy to pay for both the charging infrastructure and to allow more people to afford the cars (or bribes to get them to buy a car they otherwise wouldn't).

 

[WetEV]

And {solar}it is not so anymore. Economics have changed, some utility installs in the past couple of years with no subsidies.

Sure, and it's only taken us 70+ years of government subsidies and R&D to get here.

Not all of which was aimed at utility scale production of power. 1839, solar was an interesting new bit of science. Early 1900's solar cells were useful for things like exposure meters for cameras and counting things as they went past by a light. Bell Labs, R&D but not government, found and developed the first practical solar cells in the 1930's, 1940's and 1950's. Solar cells were mostly for space until the 1970's. Up to this point, there was government funding, but not for solar cells as primary energy. Want a communications satellite? Need solar cells. Want a radio transmitter on a mountain peak without having to keep a generator active year round? Need solar cells. Cheaper than the alternatives. From the 1970's until today isn't 70+ years. The oil crisis changed things. Yet, suppose the oil crisis never happened?

It seems to me very likely that solar would have still gotten cheaper with time, just not so fast. More and more applications would become cost effective, just later. More and more solar cells would have been produced, just slower. And at least likely that we end up with solar power exploding, just later. The market for solar cells isn't just single point at utility scale, it is a distribution. Once a product overlaps the market, and the product can improve faster than the incumbent, the use of that product is going to grow.

But they, and later cars like the tzero out of which Tesla's Roadster grew, were never going to be more than a trickle of orders for geeks and the few ideologically-committed individuals who were willing to pay a high price for them while also putting up with their limitations, I e. City cars only. I've been re-reading Michael Schiffer's 1994 book "Taking Charge", which in addition to detailing the early history of BEVs in the US ca. 1900s, forecasts the 'near' future thanks to the 1990s CARB mandate, the conversions you mentioned, the impending arrival of the 'Impact' (not yet known as the EV1), etc. He brings up all the points you do to arrive at a favorable prognosis, albeit 10-20 years earlier.

But then (and in the 1900s) as now, the public simply wasn't ready to adopt short-range BEVs that couldn't tour. Only the development of much better, bigger batteries and faster charging infrastructure in the past couple of years plus mandates and subsidies has brought BEVs even into the conversation for the mass market, and we're still several years away from the needed capability/price point.

In the 1990's with lead acid batteries, it was a city car only then. In the 1990's it looked like better batteries were just a matter of time.

Oddly enough, that seem to be the case.

Better batteries have been just a matter of time for 130 years now, and we still aren't there yet.

We have much better batteries than 130 years ago. Why do you think the winner of the Pike's Peak Hillclimb last year was a BEV? Until 1970, there was no rechargeable battery that could even climb Pike's Peak, much less do it in record time.

BEVs have an edge over ICE now, at the high end of the market. And as costs of batteries keep falling, that line is going to move downwards. Sure, subsidies and mandates make things happen faster. But doesn't change the end point, we just get there faster.
The market is a distribution, not a point.

The "mass market" isn't a single point, it is a distribution.

But that distribution is totally dependent on price point for an adequate capability.

I don't think you understand my point.

There isn't a single point labled "mass market", there is a distribution of wants and needs and price sensitivity. The market is a distribution.

QCing is also completely reliant on subsidies and mandates, because no one is yet able to make a profit on them at electricity prices equal or less than gas.

At the upper end of the market, how price sensitive is a Porsche driver to the price of gasoline?
So the price is higher. Ever buy any part for a Porsche? Does anyone buy a $200k car for saving a few cents per mile...

No one considers a Porsche or any Tesla with a range even approaching an ICE to have a mass market price, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

The market is a distribution, not a point.

I expect you'll also see them on high speed ferries on Puget Sound in the not too distant future - it's not as if BEVs have a hope of doing that job anytime soon.

Oh? Guemes Island Ferry is going be BEV very soon. It is out for bid. There are a lot of BEV ferries in operation, they are cheaper to operate and more reliable than diesel ferries. Saving money convinces a lot of people. Mainstream.

For short trips at moderate speed, they're fine, just as BEV trucks are fine for local P&D.

BEVs are mainstream for ferry operation, FCEVs are not.

So far, except at the luxury end of the scale BEVs still require massive subsidies and mandates as well, e g. Germany's just announced requirement that all gas stations have QCs, plus more government subsidy to pay for both the charging infrastructure and to allow more people to afford the cars (or bribes to get them to buy a car they otherwise wouldn't).

Subsidies and mandates speed up the process, but BEVs are taking over.

FCEVs are totally reliant on subsidies and mandates at this time. Now there are applications where the high MJ/Kg is very important. Like rockets and aircraft.

 

[smkettner]

This thread alone is almost 7 years old and virtually no real progress has been made. Just continued spending of government money.

Are you reading the AFV truck/commercial vehicles topic?

Not really. Have kept track of some efforts but I don't see anything much on the free market yet. Very interested to see Nikola bring something out but again it looks like Nikola will have a BET before hydrogen. I suspect Nikola will have more battery in the forthcoming trucks and an optional hydrogen range extender at best. Maybe in 10 years?

 

[GRA]

Sorry for the delay, been busy. These lists are getting so long with all the quotes it's getting to be a real pain to edit them on my phone, so I'm only going to hit a few points.

And {solar}it is not so anymore. Economics have changed, some utility installs in the past couple of years with no subsidies.

Sure, and it's only taken us 70+ years of government subsidies and R&D to get here.

Not all of which was aimed at utility scale production of power. 1839, solar was an interesting new bit of science. Early 1900's solar cells were useful for things like exposure meters for cameras and counting things as they went past by a light. Bell Labs, R&D but not government, found and developed the first practical solar cells in the 1930's, 1940's and 1950's. Solar cells were mostly for space until the 1970's. Up to this point, there was government funding, but not for solar cells as primary energy. Want a communications satellite? Need solar cells. Want a radio transmitter on a mountain peak without having to keep a generator active year round? Need solar cells. Cheaper than the alternatives. From the 1970's until today isn't 70+ years. The oil crisis changed things. Yet, suppose the oil crisis never happened?

It seems to me very likely that solar would have still gotten cheaper with time, just not so fast. More and more applications would become cost effective, just later. More and more solar cells would have been produced, just slower. And at least likely that we end up with solar power exploding, just later. The market for solar cells isn't just single point at utility scale, it is a distribution. Once a product overlaps the market, and the product can improve faster than the incumbent, the use of that product is going to grow.

Better batteries have been just a matter of time for 130 years now, and we still aren't there yet.

We have much better batteries than 130 years ago. Why do you think the winner of the Pike's Peak Hillclimb last year was a BEV? Until 1970, there was no rechargeable battery that could even climb Pike's Peak, much less do it in record time.

BEVs have an edge over ICE now, at the high end of the market. And as costs of batteries keep falling, that line is going to move downwards. Sure, subsidies and mandates make things happen faster. But doesn't change the end point, we just get there faster.
The market is a distribution, not a point.

In what way that matters to most people do BEVs have the edge over ICEs now? Certainly not price, capability for the price, or flexibility.

But that distribution is totally dependent on price point for an adequate capability.

I don't think you understand my point.

There isn't a single point labled "mass market", there is a distribution of wants and needs and price sensitivity. The market is a distribution.

I understand your point, I just disagree with it. To achieve a mass market, a product must be affordable by the masses. As I've mentioned before, the size of the potential market for cars doubles for every $5k reduction in price. So the potential market for a 300 mile $50k Model 3 LR is only 1/4 the size of one priced @$40k, 1/8 of one @ $35k, 1/16 of one at $30k etc. With the median sales price of all LDVs including pickups and big SUVs currently around $37 or maybe $38k, it's obvious that no mass market exists for cars priced at $50k, a fact confirmed by the limited sales % and numbers. In a constrained market such as we now have the % of $50k cars bought will go up (as it already has in Europe), but that's just reflecting the fact that people in higher income jobs are less likely to have lost them, and have less need to be concerned about max. value for money in any case.

At the upper end of the market, how price sensitive is a Porsche driver to the price of gasoline?
So the price is higher. Ever buy any part for a Porsche? Does anyone buy a $200k car for saving a few cents per mile...

No one considers a Porsche or any Tesla with a range even approaching an ICE to have a mass market price, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

The market is a distribution, not a point.

For short trips at moderate speed, they're fine, just as BEV trucks are fine for local P&D.

BEVs are mainstream for ferry operation, FCEVs are not.

Hardly mainstream yet, there are a few here and there, mostly subsidized. An I usually post that info in the AFV trucks and commercial vehicles topic.

So far, except at the luxury end of the scale BEVs still require massive subsidies and mandates as well, e g. Germany's just announced requirement that all gas stations have QCs, plus more government subsidy to pay for both the charging infrastructure and to allow more people to afford the cars (or bribes to get them to buy a car they otherwise wouldn't).

Subsidies and mandates speed up the process, but BEVs are taking over.

Nonsense. If it weren't for those subsidies and mandates, BEVs would remain a tiny niche product for those few people who care enough about pollution/AGCC to buy one, or who just want to have something rare. If subsidies and mandates aren't needed, remove them.

FCEVs are totally reliant on subsidies and mandates at this time. Now there are applications where the high MJ/Kg is very important. Like rockets and aircraft.

And trains on thin routes, and long-haul trucks, and ships, and cars if you don't want to be forced to dick around while your car charges, and so on. But sure, they're dependent on subsidies and mandates now, which gets us right back to my point that reducing the price of sustainably-produced H2 to be competitive with gas will be a game changer, if it can be done in the next few years. Batteries that can last the life of the vehicle while providing ICE range (for that life) and recharging speeds at a comparable price would be likewise. Neither is yet the case.

 

[GRA]

This thread alone is almost 7 years old and virtually no real progress has been made. Just continued spending of government money.

Are you reading the AFV truck/commercial vehicles topic?

Not really. Have kept track of some efforts but I don't see anything much on the free market yet. Very interested to see Nikola bring something out but again it looks like Nikola will have a BET before hydrogen. I suspect Nikola will have more battery in the forthcoming trucks and an optional hydrogen range extender at best. Maybe in 10 years?

Sooner than that, by all accounts. It makes sense that a brewing company would opt for FCEVs over BEVs for distribution even if both have the needed range, as liquid loads are weight rather than volume critical, and and FCEV will be lighter once the range exceeds a certain point. But it's not just trucks, its buses, trains, ships etc., anywhere all-weather range and/or rapid refueling are major requirements. It's still mainly at the dem/val stage, but expanding.

 

[GRA]

Both GCC:

Tokuyama and Toyota start verification tests in Japan for stationary fuel cell generator that uses by-product hydrogen; Mirai FC system

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2020/06/20200616-toyotafc.html

. . . A feature of the new tests is the use of hydrogen generated as a by-product in the manufacture of sodium hydroxide by Tokuyama, using the chloralkali process as fuel for the FC generator.

Tokuyama will be responsible for the steady supply of by-product hydrogen, and the electricity produced by the FC generator will be supplied to the Tokuyama Factory at a rated output of 50 kW.

Toyota will verify and evaluate aspects including the energy efficiency—the amount of electricity generated per unit of hydrogen—the stability of the generated output, durability, ease of maintenance of the generator, and the impact of salt-air damage from the sea breezes. In addition, the tests will be used to estimate the impact on power generation from the use of by-product hydrogen, and the economics of this in comparison with purchasing from an external source. . . .

PowerCell signs MoU with ABB Power Grids on stationary fuel cell power solutions

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2020/06/20200611-powercell.html

 

[WetEV]

BEVs have an edge over ICE now, at the high end of the market. And as costs of batteries keep falling, that line is going to move downwards. Sure, subsidies and mandates make things happen faster. But doesn't change the end point, we just get there faster.
The market is a distribution, not a point.

In what way that matters to most people do BEVs have the edge over ICEs now? Certainly not price, capability for the price, or flexibility.

Ah, most people. Once again, you have totally missed my argument.

Consider that a person perhaps can deal with a noisy, 0-60 in 36 seconds, shake rattle and roll,...as long as it cheap.

Others might want a quiet, 0-60 under 6 seconds, almost no vibrations, rattles and doesn't roll on curves... and can pay for it.

The market is a distribution. The above are "two ends of the market", but the market is multidimensional, not a line. Still others want to tow a boat or a RV. Others want seating for 8... or 12 or even 16. And so on.

BEVs will not have an advantage for the first person for many decades. As long are there are cheap used ICE "it runs" available. And you can still buy gasoline, of course.

BEVs have an advantage for the second person.

BEVs have an advantage over parts of the distribution. As costs fall, the pars where BEVs have an advantage will expand.

Once the "median guy", the center of the market, decides that a BEV is better, this is about the end of the end of ICE. Less than one doubling time to go. Only holdouts like you will still want an ICE.

There isn't a single point labled "mass market", there is a distribution of wants and needs and price sensitivity. The market is a distribution.

I understand your point, I just disagree with it. To achieve a mass market, a product must be affordable by the masses.

In order to disagree with a point, you need a reply that shows you understand the point. Rather than just ignoring the point.

 

[smkettner]

A bit of a status report on Nikola:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...exaggerated-the-capability-of-his-debut-truck

 

[GRA]

BEVs have an edge over ICE now, at the high end of the market. And as costs of batteries keep falling, that line is going to move downwards. Sure, subsidies and mandates make things happen faster. But doesn't change the end point, we just get there faster.
The market is a distribution, not a point.

In what way that matters to most people do BEVs have the edge over ICEs now? Certainly not price, capability for the price, or flexibility.

Ah, most people. Once again, you have totally missed my argument.

Consider that a person perhaps can deal with a noisy, 0-60 in 36 seconds, shake rattle and roll,...as long as it cheap.

Others might want a quiet, 0-60 under 6 seconds, almost no vibrations, rattles and doesn't roll on curves... and can pay for it.

The market is a distribution. The above are "two ends of the market", but the market is multidimensional, not a line. Still others want to tow a boat or a RV. Others want seating for 8... or 12 or even 16. And so on.

BEVs will not have an advantage for the first person for many decades. As long are there are cheap used ICE "it runs" available. And you can still buy gasoline, of course.

BEVs have an advantage for the second person.

BEVs have an advantage over parts of the distribution. As costs fall, the pars where BEVs have an advantage will expand.

Once the "median guy", the center of the market, decides that a BEV is better, this is about the end of the end of ICE. Less than one doubling time to go. Only holdouts like you will still want an ICE.

That's just stating the obvious. Of course once the median person concludes that a new product is better, the market for the old one will start to decrease rapidly, PROVIDED they can actually afford the new one. A 911 is undoubtedly a superior car for driving fast than any car I've ever owned, but as its price is beyond my means its superiority is moot.

And if I need a car to do things that the 911 can't but a much cheaper car can, it's an inferior product for me at a much higher price. Which is exactly how mass-market customers see BEVs they can afford now, almost 10 years after the first mass-produced one became available, and why semi-affordable BEVs remain dependent on subsidies and mandates. It's also why I've always advocated for maximum price and income limits for such subsidies; the well-off don't need them.

There isn't a single point labled "mass market", there is a distribution of wants and needs and price sensitivity. The market is a distribution.

I understand your point, I just disagree with it. To achieve a mass market, a product must be affordable by the masses.

In order to disagree with a point, you need a reply that shows you understand the point. Rather than just ignoring the point.

Right back at ya. We always seem to arrive at the same juncture when discussing this subject: You say that the mass-market is a distribution, and I point out that there can be no mass market if a product is too expensive to be affordable by the mass. I'm sure most people would love to have an actual painting by da Vinci on their wall, but what most people can afford is more in the 'dogs playing poker' range.

Since we've once again arrived at our usual endpoint, I suggest we leave it there for now, until the next time we start this same argument cycle over again.

 

[Oilpan4]

Every day electric vehicles are getting more numerous, getting more and better charging, further ahead and in a typical month nothing happens with conflated hydrogen vehicles or the making of hydrogen, which still comes from natural gas.

 

[GRA]

A bit of a status report on Nikola:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...exaggerated-the-capability-of-his-debut-truck

Thanks. Although it refers to something that was true four years ago, I posted the link in the AFV Trucks topic as I think that's the appropriate one, crediting you and adding the article headline.

 

[WetEV]

Right back at ya. We always seem to arrive at the same juncture when discussing this subject: You say that the mass-market is a distribution, and I point out that there can be no mass market if a product is too expensive to be affordable by the mass. I'm sure most people would love to have an actual painting by da Vinci on their wall, but what most people can afford is more in the 'dogs playing poker' range.

Since we've once again arrived at our usual endpoint, I suggest we leave it there for now, until the next time we start this same argument cycle over again.

No, I say that the market is a distribution. The mass market is a subset of the market.

I'm not disputing that EVs are not there for the mass market yet. Once they are, the ICE age is over.

 

[GRA]

Right back at ya. We always seem to arrive at the same juncture when discussing this subject: You say that the mass-market is a distribution, and I point out that there can be no mass market if a product is too expensive to be affordable by the mass. I'm sure most people would love to have an actual painting by da Vinci on their wall, but what most people can afford is more in the 'dogs playing poker' range.

Since we've once again arrived at our usual endpoint, I suggest we leave it there for now, until the next time we start this same argument cycle over again.

No, I say that the market is a distribution. The mass market is a subset of the market.

I'm not disputing that EVs are not there for the mass market yet. Once they are, the ICE age is over.

On that point we have no disagreement, assuming the required charging infrastructure is also available. Or rather, the end of the ICE age will be in view, even if it will take another two decades or so to replace the fleet.

 

[GRA]

GCC:

Toshiba integrated hydrogen energy system starts operation at Toranomon Hills Business Tower in Tokyo
21 June 2020

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2020/06/20200621-toshiba.html

. . . H2One consists of a hydrogen generator, a hydrogen storage tank, and hydrogen fuel cells, and batteries. The overall system is controlled by Toshiba’senergy management system H2EMS, which carries out power generation and power storage with associated operation of a 30-kW solar power system and batteries. H2One allows for maximum use of the solar power system by converting and storing unstable solar power, which varies depending on the time of day and weather, into hydrogen, and supplies it as electric power on demand.

Toranomon Hills Business Tower is a 36-story office tower with a large office area and commercial facilities. In addition to H2One, the tower has its own power supply system in the third-level basement, which features an environmentally-friendly energy network consisting of in-house power generation systems, such as gas cogeneration systems (CGS) and high efficiency heat generation systems with large-scale heat accumulators and waste heat recovery plants that supplies heat and electric power for the Toranomon Hills area. . . .

 

[GRA]

Both GCC:

Cummins to form joint venture with NPROXX for hydrogen storage

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2020/06/20200624-cummins.html

Cummins Inc. will form a joint venture with NPROXX, a designer, developer and manufacturer of Type 4 pressure vessels for the storage of hydrogen under high pressure, for hydrogen storage tanks. The joint venture will continue under the name NPROXX. . . .

NPROXX Type 4 composite pressure vessels are extremely lightweight and provide outstanding robustness and durability—potentially delivering up to 30 years of use without needing to be replaced. . . .

The acquisition of Hydrogenics Corporation in September 2019 provided Cummins with both proton exchange membrane (PEM) and alkaline fuel cells electrolyzers to generate hydrogen. Cummins has also invested in LOOP Energy, signed a memo of understanding with Hyundai Motor Company and invested in the development of solid oxide fuel cells.

"Cummins has more than 2,000 fuel cell installations across a variety of on- and off-highway applications as well as more than 500 electrolyzer installations. We continue to increase our capabilities in fuel cell technologies, and this partnership with NPROXX is another step forward. We look forward to partnering closely with NPROXX’s team as we work towards closing this transaction. . . ."

DOE to invest up to $100M in two new consortia to advance hydrogen and fuel cell R&D

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2020/06/20200623-doeh2.html

. . . This funding is subject to appropriations.

One consortium will conduct R&D to achieve large-scale, affordable electrolyzers, which use electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. These electrolyzers are powered by various energy sources, including natural gas, nuclear, and renewables. This R&D will complement and help support large industry deployment by enabling more durable, efficient, and low-cost electrolyzers.

The other consortium will conduct R&D to accelerate the development of fuel cells for heavy-duty vehicle applications, including long-haul trucks. This initiative will set a five-year goal to prove the ability to have a fully competitive heavy-duty fuel cell truck that can meet all of the durability, cost, and performance requirements of the trucking industry. . . .