WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Hydrogen cost makes hydrogen cars unattractive. Hydrogen car performance makes hydrogen cars unattractive. Hydrogen car cost makes hydrogen cars unattractive. All of these are probably not fixable.
Most of your bolded assertions are nonsense, unless nothing changes in the future.
That's a very very funny way of saying those assertions are true. You made my morning.
It's a way of pointing out that the current situation isn't going to remain static. You seem to believe that only batteries will improve, while everything to do with H2 and fuel cells won't. This is completely unrealistic. The question is HOW MUCH each of them will improve and how much relative to the other, not whether they will.
WetEV said:
Hydrogen is too expensive, and the cheapest hydrogen comes from fossil fuels. A huge amount of hydrogen is needed for industrial processes, and even if renewable hydrogen from overproduction of solar/wind became as cheap as hydrogen from fossil fuels it would first need to displace industrial uses. However, note that renewable hydrogen from renewable electric power is always going to be three or more times the cost of renewable electric power unless someone repeals the laws of thermodynamics. Or someone develops some radically novel way to produce hydrogen.
As I've pointed out over and over, it doesn't matter how efficient it is compared to directly charging batteries, if it provides capability that batteries lack but customers want. You know, the same way even more energy-inefficient fossil-fueled ICEs do now. And developing a radically new way of producing H2 is exactly what much of the R&D is aimed at. Always assuming the H2 can be produced in the necessary quantity, of course, but that's one reason I'm in favor of PHFCEVs, to use each tech where its advantages are most and its disadvantages least important.
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Hydrogen car performance is quite typical of most cars now, and if anyone wanted to build an ultra high-performance FCEV they could. It's just a matter of providing a powerful enough motor along with a battery pack able to supply enough surge current to handle rapid accel. Someone undoubtedly will build one, eventually.
This "ultra high-performance FCEV" could be made even higher performance by just removing the fuel cells. Hydrogen has a good energy density, but fuel cells don't have a good power density.
Please define "good power density". Current stacks in cars produce around 3kW/L, roughly double the preceding gen. Being conservative, I expect the next gen will probably be 4kW/L if not more. Either way, the power density is ample. The issue with fuel cells isn't power density, it's ramp rate, which is what the battery is there to provide. But a fuel cell and H2 storage gets lighter and smaller than a battery pack as the required range increases, which is why long-haul trucks will be FCEVs (always barring an enormous improvement in battery energy densities, longevity, and recharging times), but local P&D trucks will be BEVs.
WetEV said:
GRA said:
FCEVs currently available cost considerably less than say a Model S of roughly comparable max. range (practical range is greater for the FCEV), despite their much lower production volumes. How much the manufacturers may be subsidizing their price is unknown. Economies of scale will bring prices down just as they have for BEVs (and every other mass-produced product).
That should be price rather than cost, as you point out the hydrogen cars are subsidized by the manufacturers. Range isn't why people buy a Model S rather than a Honda Civic. The Civic has larger range. So what? Yes, the Civic would fit your (GRA's) needs better than an electric. But you are not in the first half of electric car adopters, due to your wants and needs.
The reason people buy a Civic instead of a Model S (or some more expensive ICE) is because they can only afford a Civic.
BTW, it's my needs not wants that hold me back. I
want a ZEV, but as none (including the necessary energy replenishment infrastructure) yet exist that meet my needs, I'm forced to wait.
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Lowering the cost of sustainable H2 is the key factor in FCEV viability. Everything else is minor.
Renewable hydrogen is going to be 3 times the cost of renewable electric power at best due to the laws of thermodynamics. Yes, that is a lot cheaper than today. And yes, hydrogen might gain a niche like electric cars have today... some day in the distant future.
Or much sooner, starting in Europe and other high fuel-tax countries, and spreading as the price drops further.
WetEV said:
GRA said:
There's much more after that. I'm in general agreement with them, and believe that the charging infrastrucure along with better batteries are key. But that and $7.50 will get me a latte'; nobody knows how things are going to develop.
Making my latte at home costs under $2. About 25 cents for the coffee, about 150 cents for the milk, and something for electric power.
Which tells us absolutely nothing about your ability, or anyone else's, to accurately forecast the future.
