Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[GRA]

Isn't H2O a greenhouse gas? Isn't the water that these fuel cell vehicles emit considered an "emission" of some sort?

Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change

New Study Confirms Water Vapor as Global Warming Amplifier

Somewhere upthread this was discussed, as many of us had wondered if the water emissions from FCVs would have a significant effect. I think I was the one who found a study that said, essentially, the amount was so small as to be meaningless. [Edit]: Found it.

I had wondered about the amount of water vapor being generated and what the macro-scale effects might be (don't want to turn L.A. into Atlanta), but read this sometime back and have ceased to worry about it:

Once transformed into a hydrogen-powered society, will the combined amount of water vapor from fuel cells cause environmental or climate problems?

The Union of Concerned Scientists have issued a report stating that, "If the entire U.S. passenger vehicle fleet were powered by hydrogen FCVs (fuel cell vehicles), the amount of water emitted annually (assuming no losses) would be 0.005% the rate of natural evapotranspiration, water that is released by plants during photosynthesis, in the continental U.S."

 

[GRA]

Via GCC:

Report: Iwatani boosting liquified hydrogen production 80% to meet demand from fuel cell vehicles

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/07/20150709-iwatani.html

The Nikkei reports that Iwatani will invest as much as ¥12 billion (US$97.3 million) to boost its production capacity for hydrogen gas 80% by fiscal 2018 to meet future demand from fuel cell vehicles. The new investments will give Iwatani the capacity to produce 504,000 liters of liquefied hydrogen a day (equivalent to 397,202 m3 of gaseous hydrogen), or enough to fill up 7,200 Toyota Mirai fuel cell cars. The company is targeting hydrogen sales of 600 million m3 on anticipated fuel cell vehicle demand of 2,400 million m3 by 2025.

The Japanese company will expand its two existing factories in Chiba and Yamaguchi prefectures and build a plant with two hydrogen gas production facilities in Kanagawa Prefecture.

Iwatani emphasizes the high-volume transport and storage characteristics of liquefied hydrogen. Liquefaction of hydrogen gas reduces its volume some 800 times, making it possible to increase transportation efficiency approximately 10 times compared to that of compressed hydrogen gas. . . .

and

Cal Energy Commission approves >$10M in grants for medium- and heavy-duty battery-electric and fuel cell vehicle projects

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/07/20150708-calenergy.html

• . . . The ARFVTP projects include:
  
  $2.9 million to CALSTART, Inc. to build and test four 33-foot BYD battery-electric buses in Los Angeles. The buses will be built at the permitted BYD facility and the demonstration will occur in disadvantaged communities of Los Angeles as part of the Los Angeles Department of Transportation fleet.
  
  $2.8 million to Motiv Power Systems, Inc., to build and test 5 Class C battery-electric school buses in Reedley, Colton and Los Angeles. The buses will be electric versions of the Starcraft Quest XL (“eQuest”) bus platform.
  
  $2.6 million to Hydrogenics USA Inc., for an advanced fuel-cell Class 8 drayage truck to transport containers from ports in Los Angeles and Long Beach along a 150-mile loop to a rail network and $2.1 million for an advanced fuel-cell bus (New Flyer bus platform, Siemens drive system) to be tested in the Coachella Valley. . . .

 

[TonyWilliams]

Most all auto OEMs are hedging their future product line by either closely monitoring FC development
or actually in development of a FC product, obviously with the exception of Tesla. It's easy to joke
about a future FC vehicle and be myopic about it as a Tesla owner who spent $80K - $100K for vehicle
that may become another Fisker. If in the next year or two when two or three OEMs market a FC vehicle
and once the infrastructure for re-fueling develops, Tesla is basically "done" or a very small niche
player for those that need another "Rolex".

Yes, traditional automakers are "hedging their bets" with both hydrogen and EVs, much like Kodak did with digital cameras (until it was too late).

Anybody who just casually tosses out there that Tesla may become a Fisker really doesn't have a clue to the reality. Thankfully, even the big auto manufacturers know better than that.

I think you'll find the continued exploration of hydrogen by very large established auto makers through at least 2025, while smart companies like Tesla go for the end game. It's the game plan they laid out almost ten years ago:

1) Make very expensive, limited production play-thing car (Tesla Roadster)

2) Make less expensive production car (Model S & X)

3) Build worldwide dedicated fast charging network (Tesla Superchargers)

4) Build mass market car (Model 3, due March 2016 for first showing, late 2017 first delivery, 2018 production)

5) Move into full product line vehicles (pickup, another Roadster, smaller car "Y", et al)

We are at step 3 for Tesla.

 

[lorenfb]

Anybody who just casually tosses out there that Tesla may become a Fisker really doesn't have a clue to the reality..

Really? With a 6 month YTD of sales of just 22K+ units and a 2015 guidance of 55K, a negative cash flow,
a yet to deliver Model X, a supplier (Panasonic) that "committed" $2B but only provided about 10%,
and an imaginary $35K "people's" car, where might I find a crystal ball like yours that "sees" future
non-disruptive of "present disruptive" technology evolutions and predicts whether corporate failures
will not occur?

Bottom Line: The Tesla is no more than a 'brute-force' application, e.g. > 1K lbs of batteries, of existing
technologies that any auto OEM could easily implement in a BEV.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Anybody who just casually tosses out there that Tesla may become a Fisker really doesn't have a clue to the reality..

Really? With a 6 month YTD of sales of just 22K+ units and a 2015 guidance of 55K, a negative cash flow,
a yet to deliver Model X, a supplier (Panasonic) that "committed" $2B but only provided about 10%,
and an imaginary $35K "people's" car, where might I find a crystal ball like yours that "sees" future
non-disruptive of "present disruptive" technology evolutions and predicts whether corporate failures
will not occur?

Bottom Line: The Tesla is no more than a 'brute-force' application, e.g. > 1K lbs of batteries, of existing
technologies that any auto OEM could easily implement in a BEV.

You sound like the many short sellers who are getting their posteriors handed to them. If calling Tesla a Fisker makes you happy, be my guest. We've had your type for years with regard to EVs in general, and tesla in particular. Here's some that you may like:

"Elon Musk is an idiot".... "Tesla will fail before they ever get the first production Roadster on the road" ... "Tesla will fail before the Model S ever enters production"... "Nobody wants an electric car, there's zero demand for them".... "Electric cars just move the pollution from the tailpipe to the smokestack"... "Even if they make a production electric car, it will never have the performance of an ICE car"... "They are only suitable for neighborhhod vehicles at slow speeds"... "there's never going to be an infrastructure to support electric cars"... "the Grid will fail if we convert to electric cars".... "Electric cars will always be too high priced and owning one will be a more expensive proposition than an ICE car"... "The battery pack will never last, they cost too much and they will not work in cold winter weather"... "They will fail at Tesla because they are NOT big Detroit OEM experts"... "They don't know ANYTHING about sustained production of automobiles" .... "Tesla will NEVER achieve 20,000 cars built in a year... "Hydrogen will be an instantly available fuel infrastructure from clean 100% renewable resources for affordable FCEV's that cost less than a ICE car".

 

[Zythryn]

Most all auto OEMs are hedging their future product line by either closely monitoring FC development
or actually in development of a FC product, obviously with the exception of Tesla. It's easy to joke
about a future FC vehicle and be myopic about it as a Tesla owner who spent $80K - $100K for vehicle
that may become another Fisker. If in the next year or two when two or three OEMs market a FC vehicle
and once the infrastructure for re-fueling develops, Tesla is basically "done" or a very small niche
player for those that need another "Rolex".

To keep this somewhat on topic...
The Mirai, before it can even compete with Tesla, much less bury them, needs at the very least, a nationwide hydrogen network. It doesn't have to be fancy, heck, it can be very rudimentary. But Mirai drivers need to be able to get hydrogen, even if it is low pressure.

For myself, the fueling could be double the optimal station density and free to use and I won't be driving a Mirai. The convenience of fueling up in my garage each night is simply to great.
And, the ability to choose the fuel source to produce my electricity is very appealing.

In the last year, 20 CHadeMO/CCS quick chargers have popped up in Minnesota. The state's third supercharger is being built up in Duluth and two more are expected by the end of the year.

The Mirai is where the Roadster was 6-7 years ago, except for the infrastructure as with the Roadster a rudimentary infrastructure existed across the nation.

I just don't see the Mirai doing anything other than allowing Toyota to get more ZEV credits with fewer cars.

 

[lorenfb]

The Mirai, before it can even compete with Tesla, much less bury them, needs at the very least, a nationwide hydrogen network. It doesn't have to be fancy, heck, it can be very rudimentary. But Mirai drivers need to be able to get hydrogen, even if it is low pressure.

Right, so we'll have to wait and see and not doom any technology which can eliminate the ICE and benefits
society. Given the rapidity at which technology has evolved in the last few decades, it's become more difficult
to predict the winners and losers, with the exception of those with a crystal ball.

 

[Zythryn]

Right, so we'll have to wait and see and not doom any technology which can eliminate the ICE and benefits
society. Given the rapidity at which technology has evolved in the last few decades, it's become more difficult
to predict the winners and losers, with the exception of those with a crystal ball.

No doubt, and miracle break throughs do, and have happened.
The difference here is that the state of CA already is deciding winners, and the winner they have chosen is H2. If the goal is to get more ZEVs on the road, they are doing it the wrong way.
The additional cost of the infrastructure is also major issue.

I suppose that is off topic though.

I look forward to hearing reports from actual Mirai drivers

 

[lorenfb]

Right, so we'll have to wait and see and not doom any technology which can eliminate the ICE and benefits
society. Given the rapidity at which technology has evolved in the last few decades, it's become more difficult
to predict the winners and losers, with the exception of those with a crystal ball.

No doubt, and miracle break throughs do, and have happened.
The difference here is that the state of CA already is deciding winners, and the winner they have chosen is H2. If the goal is to get more ZEVs on the road, they are doing it the wrong way.
The additional cost of the infrastructure is also major issue.

I suppose that is off topic though.

I look forward to hearing reports from actual Mirai drivers

The basic issue is to transition the typical vehicle purchaser from an ICE vehicle requiring as little as possible
in changes to his/her lifestyle, e.g. having to install home charging equipment, lengthy charging times,
limited range, & obviously cost. For most all of us on this forum that transition was not an issue, but that's
not the case for the typical vehicle purchaser. Until that transition becomes 'transparent', the elimination of
an ICE vehicle as a primary means of transportation will not be easy, thus necessitating the consideration
of multiple energy options besides just batteries to facilitate the process. Case in point was the transition
to a hybrid, as it was totally 'transparent' to the vehicle purchaser, i.e. most don't even know what it is.

 

[eloder]

How they came to that mpge rating, I'll never know. The costs of hydrogen fill-ups are well-documented, and unless Toyota has tripled the efficiency of the last FC vehicle created it's still going to cost more than a gasser to drive, once that convenient fuel subsidy is lifted.

I'd be convinced to go back to a sufficiently luxury ICE if someone bought me gas for three years, too.

That would be your choice, others spend way more than they need in order to support a technology they believe in. Case and point: Tesla. It is in no way cost effective, I can buy a diesel luxury car for $40K, and I would have a hard time spending the other $40K in gasoline over the lifetime ($15K for 200,000 miles worth of diesel).

So essentially by this logic no one should buy a Tesla?

I'm very confused because of several points.

You're comparing a $40k car with a $75k+ car, for one. If you're really interested in cost savings, you could compare my Leaf to a similar size and functionality of ICE. On my lease, the two don't even compare because from day1 I'm in the money from gas savings with my overall monthly payment. The only new car on the market cheaper than my Leaf on a monthly payment basis is a gas smart car, my last vehicle, for my personal situation.

For a second reason, a base-model Tesla costs significantly less than a $40k diesel vehicle over 200,000 miles. Diesel maintenance becomes increasingly more expensive with time, while EVs have little real maintenance past tires/fluids and annual inspections. Actual Tesla owners are able to comfortably make the jump from a $30k ICE and still save money due to TCO.

A base-model hydrogen car doesn't start that far below a Tesla at all. What's so special about hydrogen that it requires such a high expense? There's no big battery. Even adding in the cost of going mass market and high volume production, hydrogen cars are going to remain way over the price of ICE vehicles--unlike EVs which have been significantly cheaper than gas cars for a while in many areas of the country.

Hydrogen is limited by price, refuelability, performance, range, and viability; EVs are only limited by range and charging speed but blow hydrogen out of the water on every other category (and Tesla has solved the range and charging speed problem, it's just not at mass market prices yet--however, you don't need range and charging to have a very viable vehicle for many people).

Hydrogen, on top of this, has no conceived of breakthroughs that'll make it easier to use. There are potential breakthroughs for the fuel to become cheaper, but the drivetrain and actual tech outside of fuel has as much potential for advancement as an ICE does.

There's a difference in "believe in technology" and "believing in technology that actually works and is viable/practical/cost-effective".

 

[epirali]

I'm very confused because of several points.

You're comparing a $40k car with a $75k+ car, for one. If you're really interested in cost savings, you could compare my Leaf to a similar size and functionality of ICE. On my lease, the two don't even compare because from day1 I'm in the money from gas savings with my overall monthly payment. The only new car on the market cheaper than my Leaf on a monthly payment basis is a gas smart car, my last vehicle, for my personal situation.

For a second reason, a base-model Tesla costs significantly less than a $40k diesel vehicle over 200,000 miles. Diesel maintenance becomes increasingly more expensive with time, while EVs have little real maintenance past tires/fluids and annual inspections. Actual Tesla owners are able to comfortably make the jump from a $30k ICE and still save money due to TCO.

A base-model hydrogen car doesn't start that far below a Tesla at all. What's so special about hydrogen that it requires such a high expense? There's no big battery. Even adding in the cost of going mass market and high volume production, hydrogen cars are going to remain way over the price of ICE vehicles--unlike EVs which have been significantly cheaper than gas cars for a while in many areas of the country.

Hydrogen is limited by price, refuelability, performance, range, and viability; EVs are only limited by range and charging speed but blow hydrogen out of the water on every other category (and Tesla has solved the range and charging speed problem, it's just not at mass market prices yet--however, you don't need range and charging to have a very viable vehicle for many people).

Hydrogen, on top of this, has no conceived of breakthroughs that'll make it easier to use. There are potential breakthroughs for the fuel to become cheaper, but the drivetrain and actual tech outside of fuel has as much potential for advancement as an ICE does.

There's a difference in "believe in technology" and "believing in technology that actually works and is viable/practical/cost-effective".

I was addressing your point that "I'd be convinced to go back to a sufficiently luxury ICE if someone bought me gas for three years, too." I assume you meant that about the hydrogen fuel cell fill ups being included for 3 years. I wasn't comparing a Tesla to a Leaf, or TCO. I was simply saying that paying a large surcharge for a "luxury" car like Tesla (imo it is 30K over priced), is no different than what would happen if Mirai is expensive (which is really is), but the fuel is included for x years. With Tesla the same exact thing is hidden in a price that really can't be justified for the quality of car (this is my personal opinion).

And there is a whole thread on fuel cells that I won't go into here in order not to derail the thread, but in short everything you state is only a temporary state in hydrogen and would be eliminated IF hydrogen fuel cell technology and infrastructure caught on. Which is the exact parallel of the Tesla "IF we build a gigafactory and sell a LOT of electric cars the price will come down."

Toyota has also clearly stated that the Mirai pricing is way high and they are looking at this to drop as they develop technology and scale. Again a direct parallel to Tesla.

 

[GRA]

<snip>
A base-model hydrogen car doesn't start that far below a Tesla at all. What's so special about hydrogen that it requires such a high expense? There's no big battery. Even adding in the cost of going mass market and high volume production, hydrogen cars are going to remain way over the price of ICE vehicles--unlike EVs which have been significantly cheaper than gas cars for a while in many areas of the country.

Without getting into all the other issues you mentioned that have been discussed ad nauseum in the H2 and Fuel Cell thread, I'm amused that you don't consider $17,500 (Mirai base MSRP $57.5k, Tesla S70D base $75k) to be "not starting all that far below a Tesla at all"; the S85 (which falls 47 miles short of the Mirai in EPA range, and probably considerably more when using the heater), has a base MSRP of $79,570, or $22,070 more than the Mirai. Even if you were to compare it to now discontinued base S60 with SC @ ~ $72k, that's still$14.5k, for a car with an EPA range more than 100 miles less than the Mirai.

If you really meant what you said, you are clearly in a very different income range from the average American consumer, as the mean U.S. household income is $50,500, and the median household income $51,939 (2013 data, as of Census Bureau in Sept. 2014). As of 2013, the average Tesla _owner_ had an income of $293,200, never mind their household income. I imagine it has come down a bit given the availability of used cars now, but still several times that of the U.S. mean or median.

 

[TonyWilliams]

... the mean U.S. household income is $50,500, and the median household income $51,939 (2013 data, as of Census Bureau in Sept. 2014). As of 2013, the average Tesla _owner_ had an income of $293,200, never mind their household income. I imagine it has come down a bit given the availability of used cars now, but still several times that of the U.S. mean or median.

So, let's move to 2018-2020:

1) 100 mile EPA base LEAF, 200 mile EPA option
2) GM Bolt, probably 150-200 EPA miles
3) Tesla Model 3
4) BMW i-something with likely 100-200 mile range
5) Kia / Hyundai car(s) with 100-200 mile range

All the above selling in the "mainstream" $30k - $50k bracket with seating for 5. A "family" car at a family new car price. All charge at home. All have THOUSANDS of public fast charging points worldwide (developed first world). All have virtually no maintainamce, and can operate for $0.05 cents per mile.

Where will that mythical hydrogen Toyota in that metric?

1) true car cost, as any mass car must be sold?
2) true cost per mile to operate?
3) available infrastructure?

 

[epirali]

... the mean U.S. household income is $50,500, and the median household income $51,939 (2013 data, as of Census Bureau in Sept. 2014). As of 2013, the average Tesla _owner_ had an income of $293,200, never mind their household income. I imagine it has come down a bit given the availability of used cars now, but still several times that of the U.S. mean or median.

So, let's move to 2018-2020:

1) 100 mile EPA base LEAF, 200 mile EPA option
2) GM Bolt, probably 150-200 EPA miles
3) Tesla Model 3
4) BMW i-something with likely 100-200 mile range
5) Kia / Hyundai car(s) with 100-200 mile range

All the above selling in the "mainstream" $30k - $50k bracket with seating for 5. A "family" car at a family new car price. All charge at home. All have THOUSANDS of public fast charging points worldwide (developed first world). All have virtually no maintainamce, and can operate for $0.05 cents per mile.

Where will that mythical hydrogen Toyota in that metric?

1) true car cost, as any mass car must be sold?
2) true cost per mile to operate?
3) available infrastructure?

I think everything you just said is pretty logical in guessing game, except these:

1) "All have THOUSANDS of public fast charging points worldwide (developed first world)."
2) "... can operate for $0.05 cents per mile"

No way. Not buying it. It was bad enough with the CHADEMO standard on the Leaf to find chargers that worked, now that I have an i3 and realize that the CCS standard is USELESS on my coast, and there is no push or plan to develop any, I am even less convinced electric charging stations will be developed to meet the needs of the masses. I think it is somewhat reasonable to say that people can stop for 30 minutes every 150 miles for charging (pushing it, but not unreasonable, it would add 25% time to any long trip) with these longer range affordable cars. But there is no plan, no push, nothing that says there will be a network of usable and well placed charging stations within say 10 miles of well travelled roads.

I believe the Toyota Mirai in the long term would become viable ONLY if the gasoline distribution industry can be convinced/incentivized/coerced into adding hydrogen fuel to existing gas stations. It fits the current distribution model, and can be made to be profitable for owners of these industries.

As for what the final cost would be: it is way to early to guess. Electricity is well regulated and used on a massive scale. And even then if you look at public charging stations that exist you are paying WAY more than 0.05c/mile.

 

[GRA]

... the mean U.S. household income is $50,500, and the median household income $51,939 (2013 data, as of Census Bureau in Sept. 2014). As of 2013, the average Tesla _owner_ had an income of $293,200, never mind their household income. I imagine it has come down a bit given the availability of used cars now, but still several times that of the U.S. mean or median.

So, let's move to 2018-2020:

1) 100 mile EPA base LEAF, 200 mile EPA option
2) GM Bolt, probably 150-200 EPA miles
3) Tesla Model 3
4) BMW i-something with likely 100-200 mile range
5) Kia / Hyundai car(s) with 100-200 mile range

All the above selling in the "mainstream" $30k - $50k bracket with seating for 5. A "family" car at a family new car price. All charge at home. All have THOUSANDS of public fast charging points worldwide (developed first world). All have virtually no maintainamce, and can operate for $0.05 cents per mile.

Where will that mythical hydrogen Toyota in that metric?

1) true car cost, as any mass car must be sold?
2) true cost per mile to operate?
3) available infrastructure?

All charge at home, for people who can do that, which is a slight majority of U.S. households (56% and dropping, vice 44% and climbing), and a small minority of foreign households. I realize that this forum has a U.S.-centric membership, but the U.S. is no longer the tail wagging the auto manufacturer's dog, and hasn't been since China passed us as the world's largest car market in 2009. Last year Chinese sales were around 23 million and forecast to continue increasing, while U.S. sales were around 16.5 million and are essentially replacement only. The developing world is where it's at as far as future sales growth, because the developed world's auto markets are saturated.

And for those who can't charge at home, $0.05/mile is a fantasy. For me, even assuming an unrealistically optimistic 4 mi./kWh and paying between $0.544 and $0.576/kWh from the wall for the closest L2 public chargers ($0.49/kWh / efficiency of 85-90%), my cost would be 13.6-14.4 cents/mile. At 27 mpg (EPA HWY rating for my not very high mpg 12 year old car, but I usually get 28-31, and rarely use my car in town) and $4.00/gallon (today's price $3.06) my cost is 14.8 cents/mile; at current gas prices, 11.33 cents/mile. Maintenance cost are certainly higher, but then I haven't spent thousands more up front to buy the car, and it's far more flexible and versatile, having the benefit of longer range, faster refueling, waste heat and a century's worth of infrastructure.

So, while there is certainly a place for 100-200 mile BEVs as described above, they certainly won't suffice for all the people who can't charge at home (or work), for the decades it will take to install adequate charging infrastructure everywhere. Of course, $57.5k FCEVs with fuel more expensive than gas won't work for them either, but as I've pointed out before the automakers and fuel producers know that, and are all pushing R&D to reduce costs.

As for infrastructure, I posted up thread the rate at which gas stations increased in the U.S., and now we don't even need to start from scratch, as H2 fueling can just be added on to many to them. The big advantage of fast refueling is that you can divorce fuel stops from everything else, whereas with slower recharging, even at Tesla SC rates, any attempt to do so considerably increases your down time - you pretty much have to have amenities (food and bathrooms at a minimum) at recharging stations. Longer-ranged and/or faster charging BEVs could alleviate that. So, as I've said many times before, we'll just have to see how fast each of the technologies and related infrastructure improves, until we reach the point where we can say with far more certainty than we can now, okay, our best solution is X, Y, or X+Y.

 

[GRA]

... the mean U.S. household income is $50,500, and the median household income $51,939 (2013 data, as of Census Bureau in Sept. 2014). As of 2013, the average Tesla _owner_ had an income of $293,200, never mind their household income. I imagine it has come down a bit given the availability of used cars now, but still several times that of the U.S. mean or median.

So, let's move to 2018-2020:

1) 100 mile EPA base LEAF, 200 mile EPA option
2) GM Bolt, probably 150-200 EPA miles
3) Tesla Model 3
4) BMW i-something with likely 100-200 mile range
5) Kia / Hyundai car(s) with 100-200 mile range

All the above selling in the "mainstream" $30k - $50k bracket with seating for 5. A "family" car at a family new car price. All charge at home. All have THOUSANDS of public fast charging points worldwide (developed first world). All have virtually no maintainamce, and can operate for $0.05 cents per mile.

Where will that mythical hydrogen Toyota in that metric?

1) true car cost, as any mass car must be sold?
2) true cost per mile to operate?
3) available infrastructure?

All charge at home, for people who can do that, which is a slight majority of U.S. households (56% and dropping, vice 44% and climbing for those who can't), and a small minority of foreign households. I realize that this forum has a U.S.-centric membership, but the U.S. is no longer the tail wagging the auto manufacturer's dog, and hasn't been since China passed us as the world's largest car market in 2009. Last year Chinese sales were around 23 million and forecast to continue increasing, while U.S. sales were around 16.5 million and are essentially replacement only. The developing world is where it's at as far as future sales growth, because the developed world's auto markets are saturated.

And for those who can't charge at home, $0.05/mile is a fantasy. For me, even assuming an unrealistically optimistic 4 mi./kWh and paying between $0.544 and $0.576/kWh from the wall for the closest L2 public chargers ($0.49/kWh / efficiency of 85-90%), my cost would be 13.6-14.4 cents/mile. At 27 mpg (EPA HWY rating for my not very high mpg 12 year old car, but I usually get 28-31, and rarely use my car in town) and $4.00/gallon (today's price $3.06) my cost is 14.8 cents/mile; at current gas prices, 11.33 cents/mile. Maintenance cost are certainly higher, but then I haven't spent thousands more up front to buy the car, and it's far more flexible and versatile, having the benefit of longer range, faster refueling, waste heat and a century's worth of infrastructure.

So, while there is certainly a place for 100-200 mile BEVs as described above, they certainly won't suffice for all the people who can't charge at home (or work), for the decades it will take to install adequate charging infrastructure everywhere. Of course, $57.5k FCEVs with fuel more expensive than gas won't work for them either, but as I've pointed out before the automakers and fuel producers know that, and are all pushing R&D to reduce costs.

As for infrastructure, I posted up thread the rate at which gas stations increased in the U.S., and now we don't even need to start from scratch, as H2 fueling can just be added on to many to them. The big advantage of fast refueling is that you can divorce fuel stops from everything else, whereas with slower recharging, even at Tesla SC rates, any attempt to do so considerably increases your down time - you pretty much have to have amenities (food and bathrooms at a minimum) at recharging stations. Longer-ranged and/or faster charging BEVs could alleviate that. So, as I've said many times before, we'll just have to see how fast each of the technologies and related infrastructure improves, until we reach the point where we can say with far more certainty than we can now, okay, our best solution is X, Y, or X+Y.

 

[JasonA]

Charging a Rav4EV with CHAdeMO at $0.06/mile is currently an option and we do it. With NRG's pricing ($14.95/mo & .10/min) with the 50kwH ABB units, we get 1mile of range every 28 to 31sec (aka 2miles a min)

My average charge sessions are 20-30min max and equal 80 to 100miles of range. If my last bill was $32 and I went 540 miles on NRG alone..

Avg Charges/Mo 6
Avg Min/Charge 30
Per Month Fee 14.95
Per Minute Fee 0.10
Estimated Monthly Cost $32.95
540 NRG miles driven = 0.0610/mile

Now how is that bad??

P.S. I charge at home (have a very large solar array) but the Rav is used for long 150+ mile long trips and NRG is really kicking in now.

 

[lorenfb]

So, let's move to 2018-2020:

1) 100 mile EPA base LEAF, 200 mile EPA option
2) GM Bolt, probably 150-200 EPA miles
3) Tesla Model 3
4) BMW i-something with likely 100-200 mile range
5) Kia / Hyundai car(s) with 100-200 mile range

All the above selling in the "mainstream" $30k - $50k bracket with seating for 5. A "family" car at a family new car price. All charge at home. All have THOUSANDS of public fast charging points worldwide (developed first world). All have virtually no maintainamce, and can operate for $0.05 cents per mile.

Again, you're using that crystal ball, i.e. your market forecast 3-5 years out is about as reliable as Tesla's
given how fast technology can change. Most all auto OEM strategic marketing departments aren't using
the same assumptions in their forecasting model as you. Your forecast is similar to using a linear regression
on historical sales to forecast future sales, i.e. totally naive.

 

[TonyWilliams]

So, let's move to 2018-2020:

1) 100 mile EPA base LEAF, 200 mile EPA option
2) GM Bolt, probably 150-200 EPA miles
3) Tesla Model 3
4) BMW i-something with likely 100-200 mile range
5) Kia / Hyundai car(s) with 100-200 mile range

All the above selling in the "mainstream" $30k - $50k bracket with seating for 5. A "family" car at a family new car price. All charge at home. All have THOUSANDS of public fast charging points worldwide (developed first world). All have virtually no maintainamce, and can operate for $0.05 cents per mile.

Again, you're using that crystal ball, i.e. your market forecast 3-5 years out is about as reliable as Tesla's
given how fast technology can change. Most all auto OEM strategic marketing departments aren't using
the same assumptions in their forecasting model as you. Your forecast is similar to using a linear regression
on historical sales to forecast future sales, i.e. totally naive.

Hey, gotta admit that I busted out laughing on that one. Naive is not a word generally associated with me. Aggressively flushing out BS is, however.

If you are investing hoping that Tesla will fail (which seems to be a recurrent theme for you and a handful of others who post here), all I can say is, "good luck".

 

[lorenfb]

If you are investing hoping that Tesla will fail (which seems to be a recurrent theme for you and a handful of others who post here), all I can say is, "good luck".

The demise of any EV company is not beneficial to our society and is not what I'm "hoping" for, but it appears
others are hoping/predicting the demise of competing EV technologies to the benefit of companies which forecast
hyperbolic growth 3-5 years henceforth. Some seem to forget recent examples of companies that had the future
to themselves as many thought, e.g. Blackberry, but ignored other technologies to their demise.