WetEV wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 02, 2019 9:45 am
Thank me for what, saying the exact same thing I've been saying for years?
For example, from Feb. 2013 (I've highlighted some of the qualifications I stated):
I''m surprised at you, Train. We agree that they [GRA: BEVs] aren't acceptable to the masses now, but the section I highlighted indicates that you now believe that they will never be. I thought we were in agreement that, in addition to getting the cost of batteries down, the rate of BEV adoption would be largely dependent on the price and supply of gas.
Unlike many here, I don't believe that even larger scale production than we already have will significantly lower the price of batteries - the cost curves I've seen don't indicate that. I expect nothing more than incremental improvement, the 6-8%/year such as McKinsey and others have said is the historical pace of improvement. Major improvements will require a breakthrough, something beyond Lithium-ion. Lots of people are working on them, but breakthroughs are by their nature unpredictable.
I wrote in another thread that I thought mainstream buyers wouldn't start to adopt BEVs in more than token numbers until the base model MSRP/mile of EPA range drops to $200/mile (i.e. $30k/150 miles of range), and major sales won't happen until the ratio drops to $100/mile ($30k/300 miles or $20k/200 miles). It appears that ARPA-E agrees, as they've just asked for grant proposals that (hopefully) lead to $30k/240 miles (i.e. $125/mile) within 5 years.
Again, that will require a breakthrough, and I expect that what we'll actually see in Gen. 2 in 2015/2016 will be something like base model MSRPs of $30k with 100+ mile EPA range. Still not mainstream, but the cars will be acceptable to a larger niche. And for all we know, given the way the driver demographic is changing in this country (more urban, less car ownership), it's possible that may be enough, especially if gas prices don't just spike to but stay above say $5.00/gallon.
Here's part of another, from Oct. 2013:
Someone posted that they think that BEV ranges will have improved to fuel cell range in the next few years at a lower price. Certainly that's a possibility but by no means a certainty, and the competition between them will improve both types.
I've got no preference for which ultimately wins, but it's far too early to say which will prove superior. Or perhaps each will find their own niche(s), or FCHVs will rule.
One more, from Sep. 2014 (I've left out much back and forth, and only included my own statements?):
Neither BEVs or FCEVs are currently viable now on a mass market basis (Tesla having a small niche at the luxury end) without subsidy. We agree that fossil-fuel based H2 production is currently of dubious benefit, but then the requirement is to move from 33% to 100% renewables. FCEVs are judged to be about 5 years behind BEVs in development timescale, which means they're right about where the Tesla Roadster was when it was launched, but have far bigger engineering departments behind them. . . .
On the contrary, I think the decision not to put plugs and bigger batteries on the current generation of FCHVs (which they all are) is the correct one. I think it will take another generation of reducing the size, weight and cost of fuel cells and batteries before turning them into PHFCEVs will make sense. Note that I'm speaking of Volt type passenger EREVs with the ICE replaced by a fuel cell here, not commercial delivery PHFCEVs such as the French mail vans, which appear to be more of an i3 analog, and where more space is available in any case.
As for the number of fueling stations required, if we could build the gas station infrastructure in this country I have no doubt that we can build an H2 station infrastructure likewise, especially since many of them will undoubtedly be at currently operating or closed gas stations. Costs will have to come down, naturally. . . .
[This is an only partly tongue-in-cheek reply to moans about government 'wasting' money on tech like FCEVs] I, agree, Reg. For starters, I want all the money that the government is spending on AFVs and their infrastructure to be returned to cities, so that it can be spent on densification via mixed-use infill, improving pedestrian and bicycling access and transit. The most important changes we can make that would benefit the environment are to reduce VMT, make our living spaces smaller and more easily heated, and make sure all the services we need are within easy walking, biking and transit distance. Hoping that AFVs will make sprawl sustainable is _so_ twentieth century.
Oh, what the hell, another from May 2014:
My take, assuming that hydrogen and fuel cell costs come down to be equal or below gas, is that convenience will win out over efficiency every time, just as it did 100 years ago. ICEs didn't become the technology of choice over BEVs because they were more efficient. In the case of H2/fuel cells, barring some technological breakthrough that allows direct, high efficiency electrolysis of H2 via photosynthesis or somesuch, It will never be as efficient as batteries. I consider the operational and convenience advantages will triumph over energy efficiency, just as they usually do. If not, there wouldn't be millions of garages in this country equipped with automatic door openers, we wouldn't be using remote controls to save us walking a few steps to our TVs and entertainment systems, and people wouldn't be charging their cell phones on inductive chargers just so they don't have to plug them in.
Then there's the societal issue of people moving back to city cores. Charging in your garage is great, if you've got one. If not, I suspect the cost of putting curbside charging in every spot in every residential apartment neighborhood will be far higher than the cost of putting H2 fueling stations at every gas station, once H2 shifts into mass use.
One approach, which you mention above, is to go with a hybrid system, BEVs for local and FCEVs for trips. Such an approach (typically called 'separate spheres'; see David Kirsch: "The Electric Vehicle and the Burden of History") failed a century ago; maybe it would work this time around, but only if people buy into it. I expect that most people will prefer (or will only be able to afford) to have one car that can do both short and long trips, which is unquestionably cleaner (assuming renewables produce the H2) than fossil fuels, and just accept the lower efficiency vs. BEVs. It's going to be an interesting few years, watching the pace at which each technology advances.
In the time since the above were written, I believe that batteries and fuel cells have advanced enough, in energy and power density respectively, that PHFCEVs now make technical sense. Of course, they still don't make economic sense, any more than ICE-comparable range BEVs do. And I don't begrudge the money spent on AFVs, or urban design, or public transit, or building efficiency improvements, or what have you.
You ducked my question again, so to refresh your memory: "Yes they can, but they can also be simple questions, unlike unambiguous statements claiming to be 'fact', such as yours that I "have as a fact that hydrogen fuel cells are the future". I challenged you to provide a quote where I said any such thing. You have not.
I'll repeat my question and will do so as long as you keep ducking an answer - Do you now agree that I haven't made any such conclusive statement regarding H2, or any other alternative energy source FTM? Time to man up."