Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[rcm4453]

Your claim that I favor FCEVs is incorrect. I favor whichever fossil-fuel free transportation technology will work and be acceptable to the public.

Call me when FCEV are a fossil fuel free transportation technology. BEV can be fossil fuel free now if you have solar power or purchase only renewable power from your electric utility (mine is fossil fuel free in operation, though not in the manufacturing part yet). My guess is that FCEV could hit the mark in 20-30 years, which is time we don't have if we care about maintaining a livable climate for future generations. We need rapid deployment of carbon free technologies NOW:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/05/10/3776465/everything-you-know-climate-change-solutions-outdated/

Oh, for heaven's sake. I have given examples just a page or two back of entire countries that are going to make their transportation H2 without using fossil fuels. As with fossil-fuel free electricity, it takes the will to do it, time, and reduction in costs. I too want to see us reduce our GHGs as speedily as possible, but the quickest cheapest way to do that right now is with HEVs followed by PHEVs, not BEVs. You can have the most ideal tech in the world, but if customers won't buy it (without massive bribes), you will fail to achieve the transition you seek. It remains to be seen whether 200 miles EPA (which I consider a real-world 135 when new) will cross the threshold to mainstream acceptance, given the lack of charging infrastructure in much of the world. But I have no doubt whatever that, given the necessary cost reductions and the fueling infrastructure, FCEVs will be acceptable to the general public. We know they will be, because they virtually duplicate the capabilities that most people have found perfectly acceptable for the past century.

FCEVs are like ICE vehicles in that the general population finds them acceptable isn't saying all that much. Why make a lateral move like that? Why not focus on moving up to a superior tech? Why waste resources on a tech that's no better then what we have now? Why reinvent the wheel? Start back at square one? Keep using what we have now and focus on advancing BEV tech until it reaches parity with ICE tech. BEVs have much more potential then FCEVs ever will due to the laws of physics. Yes, H2 can be renewable, and it may be in other countries but not here. It won't be here for the simple fact that it's less efficient and costs more to do it that way. About 95% of hydrogen in the US is made from natural gas in large central plants, according to the Department of Energy. It’s a method called natural gas reforming. How is this any better then using gasoline? It's definitely not as renewable as using solar or wind to charge a BEV at home!


Here's a good read if you're interested, has some data to back up many of my points:

http://www.energypost.eu/toyota-vs-tesla-can-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-compete-electric-vehicles/

This one is more in depth about hydrogen:

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/06/04/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-about-not-clean/

 

[Stoaty]

Oh, for heaven's sake. I have given examples just a page or two back of entire countries that are going to make their transportation H2 without using fossil fuels.

As I said, call me when that happens. Fossil fuel free electricity is here now.

 

[epirali]

Your logic is flawed by saying if one can improve then so can the other. A FCEV will never be as efficient as a BEV. It's simple laws of physics, no way to change that. So by you admitting BEVs will improve over time then that would mean fast charging times will get faster. See where I'm going? Since you think it all boils down to "needing to refuel in 5 minutes" for it to compete with a FCEV. So lets say in 15 - 20 years you can recharge a BEV in 10 minutes instead of 30? So knowing this is the case then why not forget about FCEVs, keep using ICE tech until this happens? Seems the cheapest, most practical direction to go! We don't need FCEVs to sideline the progress of BEVs, especially since they have the capability in the future to be the superior choice on so many levels. You seem to think they will both be on the market together, both evolving but that's false. Whatever direction the general public goes is the one that will win. The loser will basically be shelved and forgotten about. Kind of like beta vs VHS or HD-DVD vs Blu-ray. The general public will eat what you feed them, they don't know any better. The powers that be know this. They know everyone is used to paying at the pump whatever price it may be to continue driving their cars. So easy to push the FCEV on them since they so closely mimic what they are used to which is ICE vehicles. It's all about profits, not about what's the best tech to go with, the fool cell vehicle fits this strategy to the T!!!

Ok this is where I get off this conspiracy tainted mary-go-round. Good luck.

 

[rcm4453]

Oh, for heaven's sake. I have given examples just a page or two back of entire countries that are going to make their transportation H2 without using fossil fuels.

As I said, call me when that happens. Fossil fuel free electricity is here now.

These fool cell supporters just don't get it. They think H2 is going to be cheap and plentiful and come from renewable sources. It's economics 101 here folks. What motive is there for energy companies to provide H2 to the whole U.S. for next to nothing? They are businesses and they are there to make money. They don't care whether they're selling you gasoline, H2 or fairy dust to power everyone's cars, just as long as you keep coming back for more, that's part of their business model. So why would these giant companies want everyone to own vehicles that don't use what they're selling? Believe me....they have a hand in this whole fool cell movement! So now I'm called a conspiracy theorist for being smart enough to realize what's going on. Give me a break already. It's not a conspiracy it's the way the business world works, money makes the world go around, everyone knows this. I guess what I like about BEVs so much is we can have more control about where the energy comes from. We can invest in our own renewable energy sources at home, gives us the consumer a little power for a change. It's a sense of freedom in a way. Nobody cares right now because gas prices are low but what about when they go up? Then everyone complains! This same sort of thing will be happening with H2 as well. As long as big energy companies are the only means of refueling you will be at their mercy when it comes to what you pay at the pump. Aren't you people tired of this? I know I sure am! A BEV is the only way to go to change all that.

 

[rcm4453]

Your logic is flawed by saying if one can improve then so can the other. A FCEV will never be as efficient as a BEV. It's simple laws of physics, no way to change that. So by you admitting BEVs will improve over time then that would mean fast charging times will get faster. See where I'm going? Since you think it all boils down to "needing to refuel in 5 minutes" for it to compete with a FCEV. So lets say in 15 - 20 years you can recharge a BEV in 10 minutes instead of 30? So knowing this is the case then why not forget about FCEVs, keep using ICE tech until this happens? Seems the cheapest, most practical direction to go! We don't need FCEVs to sideline the progress of BEVs, especially since they have the capability in the future to be the superior choice on so many levels. You seem to think they will both be on the market together, both evolving but that's false. Whatever direction the general public goes is the one that will win. The loser will basically be shelved and forgotten about. Kind of like beta vs VHS or HD-DVD vs Blu-ray. The general public will eat what you feed them, they don't know any better. The powers that be know this. They know everyone is used to paying at the pump whatever price it may be to continue driving their cars. So easy to push the FCEV on them since they so closely mimic what they are used to which is ICE vehicles. It's all about profits, not about what's the best tech to go with, the fool cell vehicle fits this strategy to the T!!!

Ok this is where I get off this conspiracy tainted mary-go-round. Good luck.

It's not a conspiracy theory, it's business 101. Excuse me for being smart enough to realize what's going on. It's been a blast hasn't it?!? Good luck to you as well.

 

[RegGuheert]

I guess what I like about BEVs so much is we can have more control about where the energy comes from. We can invest in our own renewable energy sources at home, gives us the consumer a little power for a change. It's a sense of freedom in a way.

Right on! (That phrase sounds like it's coming from the wrong decade! )

Not only the large oil companies, but also the utilities are fighting about this transition. They don't like the fact that people like me now make 100% of our electricity and 80% of our transportation fuel at home using equipment we purchase from companies they do not own. Six PV modules is all it takes to drive our BEV 8000 miles per year. If I wanted to drive an FCV, I would need about 25 of them (modern commercial equipment consumes 54 kWh to produce 1 kg of H2, per a presentation earlier in this thread). In addition, the refueling equipment I would need to purchase would cost many, many times as much as what I paid for my EVSE and its associated wiring.

 

[epirali]

I guess what I like about BEVs so much is we can have more control about where the energy comes from. We can invest in our own renewable energy sources at home, gives us the consumer a little power for a change. It's a sense of freedom in a way.

Right on! (That phrase sounds like it's coming from the wrong decade! )

Not only the large oil companies, but also the utilities are fighting about this transition. They don't like the fact that people like me now make 100% of our electricity and 80% of our transportation fuel at home using equipment we purchase from companies they do not own. Six PV modules is all it takes to drive our BEV 8000 miles per year. If I wanted to drive an FCV, I would need about 25 of them (modern commercial equipment consumes 54 kWh to produce 1 kg of H2, per a presentation earlier in this thread). In addition, the refueling equipment I would need to purchase would cost many, many times as much as what I paid for my EVSE and its associated wiring.

I just don't see the and/or proposition. BEVs lend themselves very well for home/off grid charging. FCEVs lend themselves very well to public infrastructure, long range and people who can't charge at home.

I think that is the main disagreement or argument: is this really a proposition where one approach somehow kills/invalidates the other? And obviously there are those who believe it does, and those who do not.

 

[finman100]

Make people pay for the hydrogen. real costs not "free" for 3 years. make them drive a 67 MPGe mirai. and for fun make them fuel up at home. (ha)

Then make them buy electricity. real costs. Make them drive a 114 MPGe Leaf. and for fun make them fuel up at home.

something tells me the math folks will choose properly.

and lots of people do the math. money DOES rule, all other factors are considered, but if it's cheaper...let's be honest, too few care about other factors.

If you aren't a math person, then don't complain about getting less for more money in a fool cell car. period. only really, really, really un-smart people do these types of things.

 

[GRA]

Oh, for heaven's sake. I have given examples just a page or two back of entire countries that are going to make their transportation H2 without using fossil fuels. As with fossil-fuel free electricity, it takes the will to do it, time, and reduction in costs. I too want to see us reduce our GHGs as speedily as possible, but the quickest cheapest way to do that right now is with HEVs followed by PHEVs, not BEVs. You can have the most ideal tech in the world, but if customers won't buy it (without massive bribes), you will fail to achieve the transition you seek. It remains to be seen whether 200 miles EPA (which I consider a real-world 135 when new) will cross the threshold to mainstream acceptance, given the lack of charging infrastructure in much of the world. But I have no doubt whatever that, given the necessary cost reductions and the fueling infrastructure, FCEVs will be acceptable to the general public. We know they will be, because they virtually duplicate the capabilities that most people have found perfectly acceptable for the past century.

FCEVs are like ICE vehicles in that the general population finds them acceptable isn't saying all that much. Why make a lateral move like that? Why not focus on moving up to a superior tech? Why waste resources on a tech that's no better then what we have now? Why reinvent the wheel? Start back at square one? Keep using what we have now and focus on advancing BEV tech until it reaches parity with ICE tech. BEVs have much more potential then FCEVs ever will due to the laws of physics. Yes, H2 can be renewable, and it may be in other countries but not here. It won't be here for the simple fact that it's less efficient and costs more to do it that way. About 95% of hydrogen in the US is made from natural gas in large central plants, according to the Department of Energy. It’s a method called natural gas reforming. How is this any better then using gasoline? It's definitely not as renewable as using solar or wind to charge a BEV at home!

Here's a good read if you're interested, has some data to back up many of my points:

http://www.energypost.eu/toyota-vs-tesla-can-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-compete-electric-vehicles/

This one is more in depth about hydrogen:

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/06/04/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-about-not-clean/

I'm really not sure why you feel the need to keep making the same points which I've already addressed (such as the 95% H2 via SMR) in previous posts, but I'm tired of writing the same answers over and over again. I've been studying H2, pro and con, at least since the '90s. Up until a few years ago I was equally anti-H2 as you are, largely influenced by Joseph Romm's 2004 book "The Hype about Hydrogen". But enough has changed in the intervening period that I believe H2/FCEVs have a chance of success - note, I said a chance.

You don't think FCEVs make any sense. Fine. I think that until one or more potentially (I stress potentially) fossil-fuel free transportation technologies, whether BEV, FCEV, or sustainable biofuels have achieved all the advances necessary in performance, cost and infrastructure that will allow them to replace fossil-fueled ICEs, we should continue developing all of them, with the near certainty that we will have wasted some money and will strand assets. I'm okay with that - I sometimes ride my bike past a Mickey D's with empty Blink L2s paid for with government funds, and a stupider choice for the type of business to put L2s at couldn't be imagined - they might as well have burned the money up front. Same goes for the Chargepoints, also gov't funded, that were installed around here at Walgreen's drugstores. At least H2 stations will be _used_ by people who have FCEVs, regardless of whether FCEVs are ultimately successful vis a vis BEVs or other tech.

 

[GRA]

Oh, for heaven's sake. I have given examples just a page or two back of entire countries that are going to make their transportation H2 without using fossil fuels.

As I said, call me when that happens. Fossil fuel free electricity is here now.

Ring. Ring. So is fossil-fuel free H2, albeit (just as with fossil-fuel free electricity) only in limited areas and in limited amounts. In fact, fossil-fuel free H2 has been available to the public for a couple of years, from bio-methane at least.

 

[GRA]

Make people pay for the hydrogen. real costs not "free" for 3 years. make them drive a 67 MPGe mirai. and for fun make them fuel up at home. (ha)

Then make them buy electricity. real costs. Make them drive a 114 MPGe Leaf. and for fun make them fuel up at home.

something tells me the math folks will choose properly.

and lots of people do the math. money DOES rule, all other factors are considered, but if it's cheaper...let's be honest, too few care about other factors.

If you aren't a math person, then don't complain about getting less for more money in a fool cell car. period. only really, really, really un-smart people do these types of things.

Now, make them pay for equal range capability, year around. That's $57,500 base MSRP for the 312 mile EPA range Mirai, versus $88.3k base MSRP for a 294 mile EPA base Model S 90D (Tesla has removed the S90 from their site), both before gov't incentives, not that they have equal range in winter when using heat, and as I've said before, anyone with any sense will lease rather than buy an FCEV now, given the uncertainty of future H2 fuel prices.

At my local H2 station (with no nearby competition), H2 is currently selling for $16.78/kg., and at other sites in state we know it was selling for $13.59 and $13.99, which is obviously non-competitive with gasoline, and which is why the DoE goal is an ultimate price (untaxed) of $4/kg. Anyway, let's assume a current average price of $15/kg, and absolutely no reduction in the next three years. The difference in base MSRP is $88.3 - $57.5 = $29.8k. At $15.00/kg divided by 67 miles/kg = ~$0.224/mile. $29,800/$0.224 = 133,035 miles you can drive the Mirai before you equal the amount you spent on the Model S, assuming you get all the electricity you charge the Tesla with for free (note that I've ignored the higher D&H, licensing and insurance costs for the Tesla, as well as the cost of money, depreciation and the cost of any electrical upgrades required to provide a 240V circuit to charge it with). Gee, isn't math fun?

In short, It just depends on your personal situation and what your priorities are. At the moment, no one primarily concerned with Life Cycle costs will buy _any_ AFV, because none of them pencil out without subsidies.

 

[finman100]

where are u going in the mirai? thought so. pretty limited range. thanks for playing. the fool cell nonsense continues. and 'assume' those hydrogen cost numbers? ya kinda have to since NONE of it is a reality today. AT ALL. please. <shakes head>

oh wait. maybe in 10 years? sounds familiar.

 

[GRA]

where are u going in the mirai? thought so. pretty limited range. thanks for playing. the fool cell nonsense continues. and 'assume' those hydrogen cost numbers? ya kinda have to since NONE of it is a reality today. AT ALL. please. <shakes head>

oh wait. maybe in 10 years? sounds familiar.

Well, I could go up to Tahoe or down to LA from the Bay Area now, if i wanted to. The station in Truckee due to open by the end of June would extend my radius considerably, but would be more important for giving a bigger cushion for winter driving around the Lake. I couldn't go to Yosemite yet let alone through it to Lee Vining, but I can't do that in a Tesla yet either, and they've had three more years to get it done.

I used to do a lot more out of state driving than I have recently; In fact, thinking about it I realize that it's been at least 15 years since I did any significant amount of driving out of state. Depending on the spacing, I-80 from S.F. to NYC would only require a maximum of 16 stations, including the one at each end. If Tesla could build an inefficient coast to coast route in two years, anyone can build a more efficient one for H2, just takes money and desire.

As to assumed H2 price numbers, I provided actual current prices in my immediately preceding post, and assumed no change for three years. Do try to keep up.

 

[RegGuheert]

I have given examples just a page or two back of entire countries that are going to make their transportation H2 without using fossil fuels.

Political will, like all things in this universe, is bound by the laws of physics. There are good, physical reasons why Germany's emissions of greenhouse gases have been completely flat over the past seven years, in spite of their expense of tens of billions of Euros each year.

As with fossil-fuel free electricity, it takes the will to do it, time, and reduction in costs.

Sigh. It seems that many people live under such a delusion. None of that is even CLOSE to sufficient for us to get to fossil-fuel-free electricity OR hydrogen.

Here is what is ACTUALLY needed for us to wean ourselves from fossil fuels: RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES WITH AN EROEI OVER 10. Not just the devices themselves, but the ENTIRE INDUSTRIES which make the devices need to operate at EROEI over 10. No amount of WILLPOWER or TIME or COST REDUCTION will help if we fail to get EROEI over 10.

So, where are we today?
- This article discusses a recent paper that claims that EROEI for PV in Europe is around 0.83. While I don't think that is the final word on the subject, I suspect it is not far from the truth in places like Germany where solar resources are somewhat scarce. In the US, I suspect the numbers are significantly better, but I think we still have a long way to go.
- Offshore wind is likely WAY worse than PV in Germany, given that MASSIVE amounts of fossil-fuel-powered ships and equipment will be used to service these beasts in the North Sea (to the tune of 100X the installation costs). I would not be at all surprised if the off-shore wind generators in the North Sea are abandoned before too much time (and money) passes.
- Onshore wind EROEI, may be able to approach 10, but ONLY if there is sufficient wind AND the maintenance costs are very low for 25 years or so. Countries such as Germany do not have enough area to erect enough wind turbines to meet their needs, even given BEV-based transportation and sufficient grid storage, particularly now that Bavaria's high court has upheld the new 10H rule.
- Hydroelectricity is one source of renewable electricity which gets us where we need to be. Countries like Norway may be able to make a go of it with their resources.

Now, is you saddle these fledgling resources with an immediate hit to the overall EROEI of 1/3 by converting it to hydrogen and then driving fuel cell cars, you have immediately crippled any effort to make a successful transition to renewable resources.

Simply put, when we drive hydrogen vehicles, we do NOT reduce our emissions, we INCREASE them. We also waste massive amounts of other valuable resources. Even when we drive BEVs using PV-generated electricity, we may be driving up emissions if we are deploying these PV panels in places where they do not generate sufficient electricity during their lifetime to offset the energy consumption of the entire PV industry which created them. Hopefully we are getting there with PV in sunnier locales, but I don't think we are there, yet.

 

[GRA]

I have given examples just a page or two back of entire countries that are going to make their transportation H2 without using fossil fuels.

Political will, like all things in this universe, is bound by the laws of physics. There are good, physical reasons why Germany's emissions of greenhouse gases have been completely flat over the past seven years, in spite of their expense of tens of billions of Euros each year.

As with fossil-fuel free electricity, it takes the will to do it, time, and reduction in costs.

Sigh. It seems that many people live under such a delusion. None of that is even CLOSE to sufficient for us to get to fossil-fuel-free electricity OR hydrogen.<snip rest>

Reg, you are aware that I've often pointed out what IMO is the mistake of Germany subsidizing PV instead of wind, and that I'm also not a big fan of off-shore wind for many of the reasons given (although the need to service them with fossil-fueled ships isn't one of them).

Where I think we differ is that, AFAICT, you believe that a simple switch in our transportation from fossil-fuels to green sources will accomplish our goals, whereas I believe that it also take a reduction in the embodied energy of our buildings and infrastructure, as each area makes up (IIRR) something over 30% of our energy use and GHG production. Reducing the embodied energy use will require a reduction in the need to drive long distances, along with more efficient transport for any driving that remains. Your approach requires the highest possible efficiency from personal vehicles that can't (alone) get us where we need to be; mine requires the highest possible efficiency from all vehicles that is acceptable to the public, along with a modal shift away from individual (motorized) vehicle use.

In any case, we've all had our say, repeating the same arguments again with no change of opinions (not that I expected any), so I'm going to do my best not to respond to opinions which I've already answered numerous times, and just post news items. Life's too short to waste any more of it re-arguing these things, especially since nothing any of us says here will change the plans of companies or governments in the slightest.

 

[WetEV]

At the moment, no one primarily concerned with Life Cycle costs will buy _any_ AFV, because none of them pencil out without subsidies.

Oh?

Amazing claim.

BEV in cool northwest, getting $0.024 per kWh electric power (only a few miles away from me), home charging mostly. Compare with ICE, lower sticker price, higher maintenance costs, higher fuel costs and the bother of side trips to fill the tank. 12k miles per year, 10 year ownership period.

LEAF S without subsidies at local dealer is $23,278 out the door.

An exact duplicate ICE is a bit hard to find, of course. But you don't save much, if you want the features, space and comfort of the Leaf. Sure, you get more range with an ICE, but if you don't need it you don't need to pay for it. The Leaf is quieter, smoother and generally much nicer to drive than any car in this class. Maybe a Honda Civic LX $18,000 out the door?

Over the next 120k miles, the Leaf will use 30,000 kWh of electric power at a cost of $720.

Over the next 120k miles, the ICE (40 mpg rated HWY) will use 3000 gallons of gasoline, assume $3, cost of $9000. Might be a lot more. Unlikely to be a lot less.

Both cars need tires. Both cars need brake fluid. ICE will need brake pads, oil changes, timing belt, spark plugs, and so on. Leaf will not.

Now, hot places can't, and places with high electric prices can't. But locally to me, makes lots of sense.

 

[GRA]

At the moment, no one primarily concerned with Life Cycle costs will buy _any_ AFV, because none of them pencil out without subsidies.

Oh?

Amazing claim.

BEV in cool northwest, getting $0.024 per kWh electric power (only a few miles away from me), home charging mostly. Compare with ICE, lower sticker price, higher maintenance costs, higher fuel costs and the bother of side trips to fill the tank. 12k miles per year, 10 year ownership period.

LEAF S without subsidies at local dealer is $23,278 out the door.

An exact duplicate ICE is a bit hard to find, of course. But you don't save much, if you want the features, space and comfort of the Leaf. Sure, you get more range with an ICE, but if you don't need it you don't need to pay for it. The Leaf is quieter, smoother and generally much nicer to drive than any car in this class. Maybe a Honda Civic LX $18,000 out the door?

Over the next 120k miles, the Leaf will use 30,000 kWh of electric power at a cost of $720.

Over the next 120k miles, the ICE (40 mpg rated HWY) will use 3000 gallons of gasoline, assume $3, cost of $9000. Might be a lot more. Unlikely to be a lot less.

Both cars need tires. Both cars need brake fluid. ICE will need brake pads, oil changes, timing belt, spark plugs, and so on. Leaf will not.

Now, hot places can't, and places with high electric prices can't. But locally to me, makes lots of sense.

Okay, now what do you do when you need to drive beyond the LEAF's capability? Rent, with the attendant hassle? Own an ICE for that? There's no question that if you have extremely low cost electricity, you can make a BEV work within its limitations. and I've never argued that an EV isn't a more pleasant car to drive, But more pleasant is in the 'nice to have' category, not the 'essential' category.

 

[rcm4453]

Make people pay for the hydrogen. real costs not "free" for 3 years. make them drive a 67 MPGe mirai. and for fun make them fuel up at home. (ha)

Then make them buy electricity. real costs. Make them drive a 114 MPGe Leaf. and for fun make them fuel up at home.

something tells me the math folks will choose properly.

and lots of people do the math. money DOES rule, all other factors are considered, but if it's cheaper...let's be honest, too few care about other factors.

If you aren't a math person, then don't complain about getting less for more money in a fool cell car. period. only really, really, really un-smart people do these types of things.

Now, make them pay for equal range capability, year around. That's $57,500 base MSRP for the 312 mile EPA range Mirai, versus $88.3k base MSRP for a 294 mile EPA base Model S 90D (Tesla has removed the S90 from their site), both before gov't incentives, not that they have equal range in winter when using heat, and as I've said before, anyone with any sense will lease rather than buy an FCEV now, given the uncertainty of future H2 fuel prices.

At my local H2 station (with no nearby competition), H2 is currently selling for $16.78/kg., and at other sites in state we know it was selling for $13.59 and $13.99, which is obviously non-competitive with gasoline, and which is why the DoE goal is an ultimate price (untaxed) of $4/kg. Anyway, let's assume a current average price of $15/kg, and absolutely no reduction in the next three years. The difference in base MSRP is $88.3 - $57.5 = $29.8k. At $15.00/kg divided by 67 miles/kg = ~$0.224/mile. $29,800/$0.224 = 133,035 miles you can drive the Mirai before you equal the amount you spent on the Model S, assuming you get all the electricity you charge the Tesla with for free (note that I've ignored the higher D&H, licensing and insurance costs for the Tesla, as well as the cost of money, depreciation and the cost of any electrical upgrades required to provide a 240V circuit to charge it with). Gee, isn't math fun?

In short, It just depends on your personal situation and what your priorities are. At the moment, no one primarily concerned with Life Cycle costs will buy _any_ AFV, because none of them pencil out without subsidies.

You are really going to compare that slow, under powered economy class Mirai against a P90D Tesla?!? You've got to be kidding me right?!? The Tesla runs circles around the Mirai in styling, performance, class basically in EVERY way possible! It's a Luxury car!!! Hello! Of course it's going to cost more. That's an apples to oranges comparison and you know it. Besides, most who could afford the Mirai would spend the extra money to get a FAR SUPERIOR car such as the Tesla P90! Why don't you compare it to the upcoming Chevy Bolt EV? Now run those numbers again and let me know what you get....too funny!

 

[WetEV]

At the moment, no one primarily concerned with Life Cycle costs will buy _any_ AFV, because none of them pencil out without subsidies.

Now, hot places can't, and places with high electric prices can't. But locally to me, makes lots of sense.

Okay, now what do you do when you need to drive beyond the LEAF's capability? Rent, with the attendant hassle? Own an ICE for that? There's no question that if you have extremely low cost electricity, you can make a BEV work within its limitations. and I've never argued that an EV isn't a more pleasant car to drive, But more pleasant is in the 'nice to have' category, not the 'essential' category.

I notice you didn't disagree, just changed the subject. For me, I'm probably close to break even, without subsidies, as I have much more expensive electric power, still less than the national average and a more expensive Leaf SL. I'm well ahead counting subsidies. At break even, you pick on the 'nice to have' categories, such as the more pleasant car. Or the nice feeling that nearly carbon free driving gives.

Beyond the Leaf's capability? A little beyond works fine with public charging. Often the BEV is a second car in the household, as it is in my household. Drive to Canada, might take the BEV. Might not as well. Drive to Portland, will take the Prius. Or Amtrak.

So a few people concerned about life cycle costs might well buy a BEV, as it pencils out without subsidies for them right now. Might not for you, might not for most people. But it does for me.

 

[epirali]

You are really going to compare that slow, under powered economy class Mirai against a P90D Tesla?!? You've got to be kidding me right?!? The Tesla runs circles around the Mirai in styling, performance, class basically in EVERY way possible! It's a Luxury car!!! Hello! Of course it's going to cost more. That's an apples to oranges comparison and you know it. Besides, most who could afford the Mirai would spend the extra money to get a FAR SUPERIOR car such as the Tesla P90! Why don't you compare it to the upcoming Chevy Bolt EV? Now run those numbers again and let me know what you get....too funny!

Now I'll be the first one to admit the Mirai is underwhelming in styling and general ride/drive from what I've seen in reviews. But I didn't expect much from Toyota. I'd be curious what a BMW FCEV may look like.

But the tesla model s is NOT a luxury car, it's barely a step up in interior from an American car. And it in no way competes with ANY German luxury car at that price range. To say model S styling is great and it's a luxury car is...too funny! Only thing Model S has going for it is range, and shortly that will be challenged by cars that cost 1/3 the price.

And honestly if all I cared about was straight line speed is pick many other cars first. Now the Model 3 IF it ever actually comes out at $35k and 200 miles will be something. But even though I have a deposit I'm not holding my breath.