Charging and OBC discussion split from Nissan Ariya thread

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
WetEV said:
You want a simple answer to a complex question? OK, 42. Happy? I even bolded it for you.
Love it.

When my kids were young and had disputes over who would get to ride shotgun, we would settle them by playing "guess the number". Took a long time for them to realize that the answer was always going to be 42.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
FCEV is dead.

So you contend (I assume you mean for passenger cars) many of the manufacturers disagree, as reflected in their projections for future sales in the latest California annual report. we'll see who's correct.

Or do they? Looks more like a case of greenwashing to me.

FCEVs (passenger vehicles) have been sold by major manufacturers for longer than BEVs.

If FCEVs are so great, why are sales of FCEVs still minuscule?

https://cafcp.org/by_the_numbers

FCEVs—Fuel cell cars sold and leased in US* 11,674

The LEAF exceeded that by 2012
 
oxothuk said:
WetEV said:
Let us know when a fool cell tries it. We will wait.
I'm not surprised we haven't seen one given that (a) HFCEVs are rare beasts to begin with and (b) there's little or no H2 fueling infrastructure in Colorado.

But I see no technical reason why an HFCEV couldn't be competitive with BEV in this race if a sponsor wanted to try it.

An FCEV is airbreathing. Less air at altitude. Mirai sea level is 182 HP (136kW), perhaps half of that at 10,000 feet. BEVs running competitive are 500kW +

Yet putting a second blower in might recover much of that loss.

A turbocharged Honda Civic powered by natural gas would likely be cleaner, faster and burn less natural gas. Most hydrogen comes from natural gas.

FCEVs don't come in large HP versions as fuel cells are both expensive and require lots of cooling.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Again, you ignore my answer.

What matters now is what capabilities, price and such to get from 2% market share to 4% market share. "Mainstream new car buyer" isn't even part of the possibilities today or two years from now, the battery plants needed for the "mainstream" or median buyer have yet to have ground broken. Much less the details of the resulting vehicles determined.

And still less the details of the mainstream used car buyer, and the less still of last 10% of buyers dependent on remote rural infrastructure and similar sob stories.

Norway is already to "mainstream".


I ignore your answer because it's not in reply to my question. Which is what do you think it will take to convince mainstream buyers here to switch? That' isn't a matter of a few % here or there, it's a basic question of capability and price. Mainstream consumers have an idea of what they expect a car to do and how much they're willing to pay for it, and I'm asking you what you think those numbers are.

As for Norway, as I wrote before, given large enough subsidies, perks and mandates you can make a BEV mainstream, at least in some areas where range is less of an issue. Norway's about 10% smaller than California, with most of the population living in the southern third, and only a single through road running from north to south. The U.S. is a continental-sized country, with climate and transportation options to match.

The world's economies are linked. We import and export a lot of things, and our local market may well follow a different path as it already is. Worldwide:

mWTa6WX.png


The USA is a small fraction of the total. I'm sure that the smaller slices you look at the more variability you will see. And the growth has been exponential. Looks likely to continue, which is about as far as I'd care to speculate.

It isn't a "basic question of capability and price". It is far more complex. Sure, the car must meet the wants and needs of the buyer, including the buyer's budget. Yet consider two different possible futures. One with $2 per gallon gasoline, and one with $10 per gallon gasoline. Which one will have the higher BEV demand? Duh. Repeat for low and high real interest rates. Repeat for various technological change over the next decade, such as solid state batteries doubling or tripling energy density. And a long list of other factors.

People are far more complex than you give them credit for. Projecting your wants and needs onto the "mainstream buyer" isn't interesting, useful or helpful. The world is far more complex that you give it credit for. While you drive long distances to very remote places, this isn't "mainstream". Most people's range wants and needs are rather lower than yours, as people keep pointing out and you keep ignoring.

You want a simple answer to a complex question? OK, 42. Happy? I even bolded it for you.


So long, and thanks for all the fish. I do find your unwillingness to offer your own opinion on this basic question odd, as I know you're not bashful about stating it. Again, I'm not asking you what would happen if the situation radically changes, only what you think it will take assuming essentially the status quo prevails. Numerous surveys have indicated what the general public expects from a BEV, with variations by country as their different circumstances reflect. I've posted just such a survey's results in the past: https://www.castrol.com/en_gb/unite...vehicle-fluids/electric-vehicle-adoption.html

Or you can download the full pdf 10Mb). Google "Accelerating the Evolution" and add "Castrol" if the first doesn't work.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Fueling is a problem? Of course it is until you build the infrastructure. Did you not bother to read any of the articles in the link from this week?
Notice that none of the links have anything to do with farm hydrogen fueling. You don't have an answer, so you throw up a bunch of niche biofuels, aviation, trucking and such.

Hydrogen will have some niche applications. And even some mainstream ones, as hydrogen is being used in industrial applications now.

The FCEV is dead.
In other words, you choose to ignore all the companies and countries developing/deploying FCEVs and related techs in the areas which you dismiss.

Ho Ho.

FCEVs are mostly greenwashing, as is some but not all of "related techs".

Fuel cells might power future aircraft, might power some future longer range trucks, but not most, as most are local delivery where BEV trucks have a substantial advantage. Once, of course, there is large supplies of green hydrogen. Decades in the future.

Fuel cells today are dirtier than coal.


GRA said:
As to farm H2, I consider that a niche; maybe it will work, maybe it won't, but there have been developments in that area, and I've posted links to same. Here's one (consider the source applies): https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/hydrogen-fuel-is-shaping-the-future-of-agriculture/

Press releases are ... not very useful.

Under development since ... 1959

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMznpOp81iY


GRA said:
Take a train or plane? Sure, See the articles on FCEV trains and planes I've provided links to in the "AFV Truck and Commercial Vehicle" topic.

Trains seem possible, yet are tiny fraction of energy use. Planes seem more useful.


GRA said:
In fact, it's so much niche that it isn't niche anymore.

Some of those niches might be important to get a hydrogen solution. Farming, for one. Long distance trucking could be replaced with rail transport. Rail could be a mix of batteries and electrified rail. Hydrogen is already key to various industrial processes, and would be key to many others to replace fossil fuels.

But personal transportation?

The FCEV is dead.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
It isn't a "basic question of capability and price". It is far more complex.

You want a simple answer to a complex question? OK, 42. Happy? I even bolded it for you.


So long, and thanks for all the fish. I do find your unwillingness to offer your own opinion on this basic question odd, as I know you're not bashful about stating your opinion. Numerous surveys have indicated what the general public expects from a BEV, with variations by country as their different circumstances reflect. I've posted just such a survey's results in the past.

My answer is that this is a complex question. A simple answer isn't useful, regardless of how many people you ask.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Even if the majority of the new car buying population wanted an electric today, they couldn't buy one. For years. So something must stop them.

Cost seems to be the main stopper. Not trips. Electric cars are more expensive now, but not for very much longer.

Trips are getting less of a problem. Your examples of where BEVs can't go keep changing.


Sure, trips are getting easier as BEVs and the infrastructure improve. But your contention that cost alone is what's stopping people isn't born out by surveys. Price, range, and charging concerns are the big three items, with the exact order bouncing around from survey to survey.

Charging concerns are significant and real for a minority. A declining concern. Not an issue for the next couple of doublings.


That minority was 44% of U.S. households who couldn't charge at home a few years back. Assuming no significant change in that percentage, it would be about 58 million U.S. households now. But it's not a problem for you, so ipso facto not a problem.


WetEV said:
Range is a declining concern. Who really wants to sit in a car without a stop for 500 miles? How about 800? 1000? Not an issue for the next couple of doublings.


Who's talking about 500 miles? People want about 300 (or more), guaranteed no worries, like an ICE. I formulate it more rigorously to meet my needs: 4 hours at freeway speeds (which can be 80 mph in the west), plus allowances for climate, headwinds, terrain and a reserve, for the life of the car. Or as Dan Jones put it in the Cybertruck topic:
My order was for Tri

Not because I want 0-60 in insanely short time periods, I would be perfectly happy with 0-60 in 7 seconds. But because I want the range. even now their are vast areas of the West I can't get to in an EV. And if you add a trailer... it gets really bad.


As it is, the number of BEVs that can meet even the easier standard is tiny, and the ones that can cost far more than even the current inflated average price for a new car.


WetEV said:
That leaves price. Was a declining concern, before the chip shortage drove up all auto prices.


See above. The cheapest "300-mile" BEV (Model 3 LR AWD, 333.8 miles Hwy) is currently base-priced at $51,190 MSRP + dest. The average new car price hit $41k back in July. Meanwhile, an el cheapo Nissan Versa Sedan has a base MSRP + dest. of $15,955 and gets 35 mpg Hwy with a 10.8 gallon tank (378 miles Hwy). And unlike the BEV, it will do a real 300 miles plus on the road over and over again with no degradation, and can be fully refueled in 2 minutes or less, no 80% nonsense. Now, the Model 3 is a lot higher performance, but the fact is there still isn't a single "300 mile" BEV priced below $40k, never mind $30 or $20k.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Notice that none of the links have anything to do with farm hydrogen fueling. You don't have an answer, so you throw up a bunch of niche biofuels, aviation, trucking and such.

Hydrogen will have some niche applications. And even some mainstream ones, as hydrogen is being used in industrial applications now.

The FCEV is dead.
In other words, you choose to ignore all the companies and countries developing/deploying FCEVs and related techs in the areas which you dismiss.

Ho Ho.

FCEVs are mostly greenwashing, as is some but not all of "related techs".

Fuel cells might power future aircraft, might power some future longer range trucks, but not most, as most are local delivery where BEV trucks have a substantial advantage.


And BEV trucks are being used for that purpose (and shorter-range distribution), as they should be. just as FCEV trucks will be used for long-haul and longer-range distribution. As Daimler put it:

"Both technologies (electric and hydrogen) will be needed," Daimler Truck CEO Martin Daum told an investor presentation on Thursday. "And we intend to lead the way in both technologies."

Daimler Truck said zero-emission vehicles should make up 60% of its sales by 2030 and 100% of sales by 2039.

As truck makers move towards a zero-emission world — and their hitting sustainability targets becomes more important for their customers — electric trucks are expected to be used for shorter distances, but the batteries needed for longer journeys would be too heavy and hydrogen fuel cells will need to be used instead.
https://www.autoblog.com/2021/05/22/daimler-truck-hydrogen-electric-commitment/

and

We are consistently pursuing our technology strategy for the electrification of our trucks. We want to offer our customers the best locally CO2-neutral trucks—powered by either batteries or hydrogen-based fuel-cells, depending on the use case.

The hydrogen-powered fuel-cell drive will become indispensable for CO2-neutral long-haul road transport in the future. This is also confirmed by our many partners with whom we are working together at full steam to put this technology on the road in series-production vehicles. Moreover, considerable momentum is being generated by the clear commitment of national and European regulators to the use of hydrogen for road freight transport. Political support plays an important role in promoting the creation of an infrastructure for green hydrogen and making an economically viable use of fuel-cell trucks possible for our customers.

—Martin Daum, Chairman of the Board of Management of Daimler Truck AG and Member of the Board of Management of Daimler AG

The development engineers at Daimler Trucks are designing the GenH2 Truck so that the vehicle and its components meet the same durability requirements as a comparable conventional Mercedes-Benz Actros. This means 1.2 million kilometers on the road over a period of ten years and a total of 25,000 hours of operation. . . .
https://mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?t=22441&start=380#p604705

And then there are trains, in areas where track electrification isn't an option for cost or other considerations. Plus ships. I've posted examples of all of the above FCEVs in or entering use in the "AFV Truck and Commercial vehicles" topic.


WetEV said:
Once, of course, there is large supplies of green hydrogen. Decades in the future.

Fuel cells today are dirtier than coal.


Nonsense. Yes, green hydrogen supplies will need to increase radically (as will green electricity) to allow FCEV growth. Both are underway. Again, you ignore that California, which has been taking the steps necessary to increase green H2 production, achieved 90% renewable H2 in 2019, and 92% in 1H2021 retail H2 stations. Not decades in the future. Now. See the first link here for another example of development/deployment: https://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=14744&p=611622#p611622


WetEV said:
GRA said:
As to farm H2, I consider that a niche; maybe it will work, maybe it won't, but there have been developments in that area, and I've posted links to same. Here's one (consider the source applies): https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/hydrogen-fuel-is-shaping-the-future-of-agriculture/

Press releases are ... not very useful.

Under development since ... 1959

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMznpOp81iY


BEVs have been under development since the 1890s. They're finally approaching fruition as commercially viable.


WetEV said:
GRA said:
Take a train or plane? Sure, See the articles on FCEV trains and planes I've provided links to in the "AFV Truck and Commercial Vehicle" topic.

Trains seem possible, yet are tiny fraction of energy use. Planes seem more useful.

A small fraction, but a huge percentage of freight:
Rail freight accounted for 2.0 percent of transportation energy use, although it carries roughly 30 percent of U.S. freight ton-miles.
https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2016/chapter_7

The more inter-regional passenger transport we can switch to high-speed trains the fewer planes we'll need, and trains have far lower energy cost per passenger-mile. That also holds true for ton-mile costs for freight trains vs. trucks, albeit trains are a lot slower and more limited in where they can go.


WetEV said:
GRA said:
In fact, it's so much niche that it isn't niche anymore.

Some of those niches might be important to get a hydrogen solution. Farming, for one. Long distance trucking could be replaced with rail transport. Rail could be a mix of batteries and electrified rail. Hydrogen is already key to various industrial processes, and would be key to many others to replace fossil fuels.

But personal transportation?

The FCEV is dead.



So you claim, not that it matters. Neither of us will decide that.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
It isn't a "basic question of capability and price". It is far more complex.

You want a simple answer to a complex question? OK, 42. Happy? I even bolded it for you.


So long, and thanks for all the fish. I do find your unwillingness to offer your own opinion on this basic question odd, as I know you're not bashful about stating your opinion. Numerous surveys have indicated what the general public expects from a BEV, with variations by country as their different circumstances reflect. I've posted just such a survey's results in the past.

My answer is that this is a complex question. A simple answer isn't useful, regardless of how many people you ask.


Yet in this case it's absolutely on point, since people won't buy a car unless it does what they want it to. It doesn't matter whether someone else thinks this or that tech is superior if the customers won't buy it.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Sure, trips are getting easier as BEVs and the infrastructure improve. But your contention that cost alone is what's stopping people isn't born out by surveys. Price, range, and charging concerns are the big three items, with the exact order bouncing around from survey to survey.

Charging concerns are significant and real for a minority. A declining concern. Not an issue for the next couple of doublings.


That minority was 44% of U.S. households who couldn't charge at home a few years back. Assuming no significant change in that percentage, it would be about 58 million U.S. households now. But it's not a problem for you, so ipso facto not a problem.

Hey, nice twisting my words.

Not an issue for the next couple of doublings.

Doesn't say "not an problem."

Doesn't say "not a problem for me."

You said those things, not me.

What I say is it is not a problem now, but is a concern for the longer term. It might be a serious problem in 20 years or so.


One kinda good thing is we can watch how most of the rest of the world handles this. The USA is behind, so we get to watch how the leaders do.

For example, Norway has a home ownership rate of about 80%, higher than the USA's 65%, but still a significant number of people renting. EV ownership is over 20% of cars on the road, how are renters handling it?
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
My answer is that this is a complex question. A simple answer isn't useful, regardless of how many people you ask.

Yet in this case it's absolutely on point, since people won't buy a car unless it does what they want it to. It doesn't matter whether someone else thinks this or that tech is superior if the customers won't buy it.

Again a simple answer for a complex question isn't meaningful or useful.

42
 
GRA said:
The cheapest "300-mile" BEV (Model 3 LR AWD, 333.8 miles Hwy) is currently base-priced at $51,190 MSRP + dest. The average new car price hit $41k back in July. Meanwhile, an el cheapo Nissan Versa Sedan has a base MSRP + dest. of $15,955 and gets 35 mpg Hwy with a 10.8 gallon tank (378 miles Hwy). And unlike the BEV, it will do a real 300 miles plus on the road over and over again with no degradation, and can be fully refueled in 2 minutes or less, no 80% nonsense. Now, the Model 3 is a lot higher performance, but the fact is there still isn't a single "300 mile" BEV priced below $40k, never mind $30 or $20k.

Cars.com shows 990 new Versa's for sale right now.

Wait time for a Tesla can be 12 months.

So, if the Versa is such a great deal, why are people not buying them off the lot now and waiting for the Tesla?

Oh, and while I could buy a Sentra from the closest dealer, a Versa from the next closest, I have to drive 70 miles to buy a LEAF off the lot. I can get one closer if I'm willing to wait a few weeks. Or however long a vehicle in transit takes. Why is that?
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
My answer is that this is a complex question. A simple answer isn't useful, regardless of how many people you ask.


Yet in this case it's absolutely on point, since people won't buy a car unless it does what they want it to. It doesn't matter whether someone else thinks this or that tech is superior if the customers won't buy it.

How a customer answers a marketing survey today and how a customer will spend their money years in the future are not the same.

The customer will have changed.

The product will have changed, and not in just in range and recharge time.

The infrastructure will have changed.

For that matter, the whole economy will have changed.

Near term, some things can be said with confidence.

Most EV production for the next year will sell quickly. If it isn't already sold. There is no shortage of customer demand for EVs that can be produced near term.

Seems fairly clear to me that EV production and sales will double, double again and such ... until a limit is reached. A limit must be reached sometime after most cars sold are EVs... more than a decade from now, for the USA. Norway is already there.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Once, of course, there is large supplies of green hydrogen. Decades in the future.

Fuel cells today are dirtier than coal.


Nonsense. Yes, green hydrogen supplies will need to increase radically (as will green electricity) to allow FCEV growth. Both are underway. Again, you ignore that California, which has been taking the steps necessary to increase green H2 production, achieved 90% renewable H2 in 2019, and 92% in 1H2021 retail H2 stations. Not decades in the future. Now. See the first link here for another example of development/deployment: https://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=14744&p=611622#p611622

California can select from the tiny amount of renewable hydrogen for the minuscule amount needed to fill the infinitesimal number of FCEVs on the road.

Hydrogen is still dirtier than coal.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Charging concerns are significant and real for a minority. A declining concern. Not an issue for the next couple of doublings.


That minority was 44% of U.S. households who couldn't charge at home a few years back. Assuming no significant change in that percentage, it would be about 58 million U.S. households now. But it's not a problem for you, so ipso facto not a problem.

Hey, nice twisting my words.

Not an issue for the next couple of doublings.

Doesn't say "not an problem."

Doesn't say "not a problem for me."

You said those things, not me.

What I say is it is not a problem now, but is a concern for the longer term. It might be a serious problem in 20 years or so.


The worst pollution is in major urban areas, where the majority of people are renters and ZEVs are most needed, so it is a problem now. In addition, single-person households are now the largest 2nd largest % (27%) household type in the U.S., and they are more likely to live in rental property. Even among those who can charge at home, a large % (those who don't own or who don't own detached, single family homes with garages supplied with electricity) are almost always limited to L1.

Of course, an even better answer for dense urban areas is mixed-use development plus providing excellent public transit and infrastructure that enables active transportation (walking/biking/skating etc.), thus eliminating most people's needs to own a car. It's not a surprise that New York City (particularly Manhattan), has the lowest rate of car ownership (and IIRR, driver's licenses) of any major (IRR any) city in the country:
What percentage of New Yorkers have no cars?

A few highlights: 54.5 percent of New York City households are car-free. Manhattan households are the most likely to not own any vehicles — the borough is 76.6 percent car-free
https://www.google.com/search?clie...DQIHd2fAPcQzmd6BAgYEAU&biw=1920&bih=955&dpr=1

If I had the ability to easily rent an affordable ZEV that met my other requirements for trips, I could give up car ownership now. [Edit]: The news today that Hertz is buying 100k Model 3s could go a long way towards what I need, depending on price. I don't care for many of the Model 3's features so wouldn't choose one if I had other options, and it doesn't really fix my long range problem, but they would at least allow me to go ZEV for all in-state non-winter weekend trips. I'll have to see if they show up at my local Hertz, and if so at what price. They're available on Turo too, but are usually too expensive or too inconvenient to pick up.



WetEV said:
One kinda good thing is we can watch how most of the rest of the world handles this. The USA is behind, so we get to watch how the leaders do.

For example, Norway has a home ownership rate of about 80%, higher than the USA's 65%, but still a significant number of people renting. EV ownership is over 20% of cars on the road, how are renters handling it?


We already know how the rest of the world is handling it. In countries that offer large bribes, big perks and/or strict mandates, sales are higher, and where they don't they're lower. Big surprise.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
The cheapest "300-mile" BEV (Model 3 LR AWD, 333.8 miles Hwy) is currently base-priced at $51,190 MSRP + dest. The average new car price hit $41k back in July. Meanwhile, an el cheapo Nissan Versa Sedan has a base MSRP + dest. of $15,955 and gets 35 mpg Hwy with a 10.8 gallon tank (378 miles Hwy). And unlike the BEV, it will do a real 300 miles plus on the road over and over again with no degradation, and can be fully refueled in 2 minutes or less, no 80% nonsense. Now, the Model 3 is a lot higher performance, but the fact is there still isn't a single "300 mile" BEV priced below $40k, never mind $30 or $20k.

Cars.com shows 990 new Versa's for sale right now.

Wait time for a Tesla can be 12 months.

So, if the Versa is such a great deal, why are people not buying them off the lot now and waiting for the Tesla?

Oh, and while I could buy a Sentra from the closest dealer, a Versa from the next closest, I have to drive 70 miles to buy a LEAF off the lot. I can get one closer if I'm willing to wait a few weeks. Or however long a vehicle in transit takes. Why is that?


Which just tells us that the people at the low end of the income scale have largely dropped from the customer base for now, while those at the higher end can buy what they want (and probably own more than one car). A Versa is cheap basic transportation (in the U.S.), and most people who are buying are willing and able to spend a bit more to get a fair bit more. But as the price increases, you get less and less value for each additional dollar spent. Even so, despite the Versa being a basic econocar, it will take you anywhere you want to go on any paved road in the U.S. in reasonable comfort, and do so in less time (once you get beyond un-recharged range) than any Tesla, no matter how expensive. Is the Model 3 a nicer car? Of course, but it's not 3+ times nicer, and it's less capable. Also, the Versa has lots more competition from other ICEs and HEVs that don't cost more than 3 times as much for the same (or better) range; they usually jsut provide more comfort, more performance or more bling, but their basic transportation capability is the same.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
My answer is that this is a complex question. A simple answer isn't useful, regardless of how many people you ask.

Yet in this case it's absolutely on point, since people won't buy a car unless it does what they want it to. It doesn't matter whether someone else thinks this or that tech is superior if the customers won't buy it.

How a customer answers a marketing survey today and how a customer will spend their money years in the future are not the same.

The customer will have changed.

The product will have changed, and not in just in range and recharge time.

The infrastructure will have changed.

For that matter, the whole economy will have changed.


Sure, but people's needs and wants likely won't significantly. They're still going to expect and demand a car do certain things, and be affordable to them.


WetEV said:
Near term, some things can be said with confidence.

Most EV production for the next year will sell quickly. If it isn't already sold. There is no shortage of customer demand for EVs that can be produced near term.


The survey in question indicated most private customers expected BEVs would have improved enough by 2023 or 2024, so we're not talking about decades in the future, we're talking near term. If BEVs can't meet those requirements, then no sale.



WetEV said:
Seems fairly clear to me that EV production and sales will double, double again and such ... until a limit is reached. A limit must be reached sometime after most cars sold are EVs... more than a decade from now, for the USA. Norway is already there.


Do you see us in the U.S. providing the same level of incentives that Norway does? Do you see the U.S. suddenly shrinking down to the size of Norway, or our climate extremes aligning with theirs? Obviously, as BEVs (or any other AFV tech) improves, sales will increase (assuming no competing AFV tech is judged superior by customers), but as long as sales remain driven by government actions there's no indication that BEVs can compete on their own, except at the high end when people can afford multiple toys.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
My answer is that this is a complex question. A simple answer isn't useful, regardless of how many people you ask.

Yet in this case it's absolutely on point, since people won't buy a car unless it does what they want it to. It doesn't matter whether someone else thinks this or that tech is superior if the customers won't buy it.

Again a simple answer for a complex question isn't meaningful or useful.

42


Yet 9,000 consumers around the world were able to answer the questions. Do you think auto company marketeers consider their answers neither 'meaningful or useful'?
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Once, of course, there is large supplies of green hydrogen. Decades in the future.

Fuel cells today are dirtier than coal.


Nonsense. Yes, green hydrogen supplies will need to increase radically (as will green electricity) to allow FCEV growth. Both are underway. Again, you ignore that California, which has been taking the steps necessary to increase green H2 production, achieved 90% renewable H2 in 2019, and 92% in 1H2021 retail H2 stations. Not decades in the future. Now. See the first link here for another example of development/deployment: https://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=14744&p=611622#p611622

California can select from the tiny amount of renewable hydrogen for the minuscule amount needed to fill the infinitesimal number of FCEVs on the road.

Hydrogen is still dirtier than coal.



Keep writing it often enough and you may just convince yourself. California and the numerous countries with hydrogen strategies are all busy increasing the production of green H2, for the obvious reason that they know they need to if they're to get off fossil fuels for transport (also industry, heating, energy storage etc.).
 
Oh, here's a post that's actually on-topic. IMO, any current BEV that doesn't DCFC at a max. rate of 1.5C or better, or that takes more than 30 minutes to FC from 20-80% is at best un-competitive, at worst obsolescent if not obsolete. Any BEV that takes more than 45 minutes to charge from 20-80%, i.e. the Bolt/EUV is obsolete.

Medium (say sub-20kWh, e.g. Volt/RAV4 Prime) and small (<10?kWh) battery PHEVs should have OBCs that enable them to fully opportunity charge at (sufficiently powerful) L2s in 2-2.5 hours.
 
Back
Top