California retail H2 fuel stations

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:
GRA said:
As Toyota, along with Honda and Hyundai are still eating ca. $15k in fuel costs per FCEV

At $150 per kWh, the expected battery cell cost in 2025, that would be the same as adding 100kWh.

https://electrek.co/2017/02/18/tesla-battery-cost-gigafactory-model-3/
 
SageBrush said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
As Toyota, along with Honda and Hyundai are still eating ca. $15k in fuel costs per FCEV

At $150 per kWh, the expected battery cell cost in 2025, that would be the same as adding 100kWh.

https://electrek.co/2017/02/18/tesla-battery-cost-gigafactory-model-3/
Oh, well, if Tesla claims something it must be true, because they've never made overoptimistic claims and they're a highly profitable company.;)

Battery costs will come down, obviously, the question is how quickly they do so vis a vis the competition.
 
Forward looking production guesses have squat to do with a statement of costs TODAY; and profit as some sort of metric of statement veracity is more than casually stupid. Are you a Trumper ?
 
SageBrush said:
Forward looking production guesses have squat to do with a statement of costs TODAY; and profit as some sort of metric of statement veracity is more than casually stupid. Are you a Trumper?
If you can seriously ask that question despite my posting here for the past six years, you really haven't been paying attention.

Have we had any independent verification of Tesla's battery cost claims? No? And do Tesla's alleged battery costs allow them to price their products to make a profit after 14 years in business? No, although some of the cars may be profitable.

Tesla remains a faith-based enterprise, which is fine as long as the economy stays robust, but will almost certainly lead to swift failure or a buy-out if that changes. While I'd love to take Tesla's claims at face value, nothing about their history leads me to do so. At least they're now forced to use GAAP accounting methods, instead of using whichever set of numbers they choose that make things look best.
 
GRA said:
SageBrush said:
Forward looking production guesses have squat to do with a statement of costs TODAY; and profit as some sort of metric of statement veracity is more than casually stupid. Are you a Trumper?
If you can seriously ask that question despite my posting here for the past six years, you really haven't been paying attention.

Have we had any independent verification of Tesla's battery cost claims? No? And do Tesla's alleged battery costs allow them to price their products to make a profit after 14 years in business? No, although some of the cars may be profitable.

Tesla remains a faith-based enterprise, which is fine as long as the economy stays robust, but will almost certainly lead to swift failure or a buy-out if that changes. While I'd love to take Tesla's claims at face value, nothing about their history leads me to do so. At least they're now forced to use GAAP accounting methods, instead of using whichever set of numbers they choose that make things look best.

GRA, 95% of your posts, typically, are excellent.
But then you go off the rails and into wild conspiracy land.

For example, your last statement. Your statement implies that they didn't use GAAP accounting methods. Tesla has been reporting GAAP numbers for years, quite possibly since they went public in 2010 or so.
Likewise, they have never used "whichever set of numbers they choose...". They have listed both GAAP and non-GAAP numbers and detailed why they believe non-GAAP to be a truer representation of the financials.
Now, you are welcome to completely disregard anything Tesla reports, but that doesn't leave much of any way to converse with you if Tesla come up.
 
Let's observe how biased GRA's comments are:

Without expressing ANY reservations, GRA first offers up wild projections DECADES INTO THE FUTURE from the DOE which I have clearly shown are based almost-certainly-false assumptions:
GRA said:
Also see:
DOE analysis suggests rapid convergence of FCEV and BEV TCOs; FCEVs less expensive for majority of LDV fleet by 2040; mass compounding
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/01/20180114-doe.html
But then when SageBrush offers information from Tesla about CURRENT manufacturing costs, we get this:
GRA said:
SageBrush said:
WetEV said:
At $150 per kWh, the expected battery cell cost in 2025, that would be the same as adding 100kWh.
https://electrek.co/2017/02/18/Tesla-battery-cost-gigafactory-model-3/
Oh, well, if Tesla claims something it must be true, because they've never made overoptimistic claims and they're a highly profitable company.;)
Then this:
GRA said:
Battery costs will come down, obviously, the question is how quickly they do so vis a vis the competition.
History can be very educational here:

Here's what battery costs have done over the past six years (as of one year ago):

battery-cost-1.png


...and here's what's happening with fuel cell costs:

CARBFuel_Cell_Production_Costs2017.png


If you squint, you can see a very slight difference in the rate of manufacturing cost reduction since between the two technologies. :D

Notice that both graphs have 2020 and later cost forecasts on them. Can you spot which graph is heading toward the projection and which one is NOT?

Also note that the first graph is based on REAL COSTS while the second graph is just a guess from the DOE on volume manufacturing costs. Why is the DOE offering a guess of manufacturing costs for dates in the past? Simple: If they gave us the ACTUAL costs to build fuel cells during that period it would be immensely clear just how far out of the race they really are. The 500,000-unit-per-anum costs are mere guesses since no one has yet figured out how to make that many fuel cells in a year. But don't worry, that fact is just a minor bump in the road to world domination for the technology. :roll:

Meanwhile, the transition to battery-electric vehicles continues to pick up steam while the CA government tries to defy the physical reality by wasting OPM building H2 refueling stations.
 
The "ultimate" target for a fuel cell cost is $30/kW, which already covers 36 kWh of a battery in a Tesla with a 150 kW motor TODAY
Then there is that trifling issue of fuel costs differences, currently up to > 30x fold and the cost of infrastructure, at 100x fold difference.

I'm inclined to speculate that FC costs have not dropped like the battery due to scale differences, and basic research advances will help both in somewhat equal measures. But even that rosy approach to FCV implies that they will never close the gap with EVs, and of course does nothing when it comes to infrastructure and fuel costs.

By the way, GM reported that their 2016/2017 battery cell costs from LG are $145/kWh and projected to be $100/kWh by 2022. In that context the Tesla cost pronouncements are if anything conservative, since LG lacks the GF scale, is shipping from Asia, and is tacking on a profit margin.

Consistent with that assessment is the VP of investor relations at Tesla's statement in mid 2016 that Tesla pack prices are already below $190 per kWh. That is before GF pricing kicks in. Fwiw, packaging costs are about $70 a kWh at GM. Given Tesla's scale advantage, I'll presume packing costs are $50 a kWh. That implies 2016 cell costs at Tesla of $140/kWh. When GF is operating at capacity in 2019 a 35% reduction in costs is expected, that works out to $90 a kWh cell cost and then $140/kWh pack cost. About $7,300 production cost for the SR Model 3 battery, and about $11,200 for the LR Model 3 (52 and 80 kWh, respectively)

Pretty soon the battery cost curve will be mostly a story of packaging costs -- soft costs, if you will, similar to PV today.

https://insideevs.com/gm-chevrolet-bolt-for-2016-145kwh-cell-cost-volt-margin-improves-3500/
 
Zythryn said:
GRA said:
SageBrush said:
Forward looking production guesses have squat to do with a statement of costs TODAY; and profit as some sort of metric of statement veracity is more than casually stupid. Are you a Trumper?
If you can seriously ask that question despite my posting here for the past six years, you really haven't been paying attention.

Have we had any independent verification of Tesla's battery cost claims? No? And do Tesla's alleged battery costs allow them to price their products to make a profit after 14 years in business? No, although some of the cars may be profitable.

Tesla remains a faith-based enterprise, which is fine as long as the economy stays robust, but will almost certainly lead to swift failure or a buy-out if that changes. While I'd love to take Tesla's claims at face value, nothing about their history leads me to do so. At least they're now forced to use GAAP accounting methods, instead of using whichever set of numbers they choose that make things look best.

GRA, 95% of your posts, typically, are excellent.
But then you go off the rails and into wild conspiracy land.

For example, your last statement. Your statement implies that they didn't use GAAP accounting methods. Tesla has been reporting GAAP numbers for years, quite possibly since they went public in 2010 or so.
Likewise, they have never used "whichever set of numbers they choose...". They have listed both GAAP and non-GAAP numbers and detailed why they believe non-GAAP to be a truer representation of the financials.
Now, you are welcome to completely disregard anything Tesla reports, but that doesn't leave much of any way to converse with you if Tesla come up.
Have you forgotten this (it was just over a year ago)?:
SEC Criticizes Tesla Over ‘Tailored’ Accounting
Electric car maker has dropped non-GAAP metrics flagged by the regulator
https://www.wsj.com/articles/sec-criticizes-telsa-over-tailored-accounting-1480373158

Or perhaps you'd prefer this article instead:
SEC takes Tesla to task over accounting practices

Published: Nov 30, 2016 10:59 a.m. ET

It took four letters from the Securities and Exchange Commission, three letters from Tesla’s lawyers, five amendments to the original registration filing and at least one conference call before the SEC was satisfied
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/s...-and-individually-tailored-numbers-2016-11-29

For a selection of articles dealing with this practice, google https://www.google.com/search?q=tes...rome..69i57.3942j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Apparently ConspiracyLand is populated by the SEC. AFAIA, Tesla (and other companies) aren't required to disclose the cost specifics of their batteries, only to (now) use GAAP when filing their quarterly and annual statements. They can claim whatever the hell they want to otherwise, and hope that no one has any reason to sue them later (and win, as Norwegian owners did over Tesla's less than complete power claims for the P85D).

Just like politicians, companies lie or spin the truth all the time if they think it's an advantage for them, and Tesla's no different. I apply the same standard to Tesla that I would to any information source: Before I decide how much credence to put on them, I want to know what their track record is.
 
SageBrush said:
The "ultimate" target for a fuel cell cost is $30/kW, which already covers 36 kWh of a battery in a Tesla with a 150 kW motor TODAY
Then there is that trifling issue of fuel costs differences, currently up to > 30x fold and the cost of infrastructure, at 100x fold difference.
I'd say that overstates the cost differences considerably, especially the latter.

SageBrush said:
I'm inclined to speculate that FC costs have not dropped like the battery due to scale differences, and basic research advances will help both in somewhat equal measures. But even that rosy approach to FCV implies that they will never close the gap with EVs, and of course does nothing when it comes to infrastructure and fuel costs.
Agreed, it's the latter two that will likely ultimately determine the fate of H2/FCEVs. But unlike many here, I don't believe that H2/FCEVs have to be cheaper than BEVs, only that they have to be cost competitive with ICEs, which still make up 97% of car sales in the U.S.

SageBrush said:
By the way, GM reported that their 2016/2017 battery cell costs from LG are $145/kWh and projected to be $100/kWh by 2022. In that context the Tesla cost pronouncements are if anything conservative, since LG lacks the GF scale, is shipping from Asia, and is tacking on a profit margin.

Consistent with that assessment is the VP of investor relations at Tesla's statement in mid 2016 that Tesla pack prices are already below $190 per kWh. That is before GF pricing kicks in. Fwiw, packaging costs are about $70 a kWh at GM. Given Tesla's scale advantage, I'll presume packing costs are $50 a kWh. That implies 2016 cell costs at Tesla of $140/kWh. When GF is operating at capacity in 2019 a 35% reduction in costs is expected, that works out to $90 a kWh cell cost and then $140/kWh pack cost. About $7,300 production cost for the SR Model 3 battery, and about $11,200 for the LR Model 3 (52 and 80 kWh, respectively)

Pretty soon the battery cost curve will be mostly a story of packaging costs -- soft costs, if you will, similar to PV today.

https://insideevs.com/gm-chevrolet-bolt-for-2016-145kwh-cell-cost-volt-margin-improves-3500/
I'm well aware of GM's cost statements, and since they tend to agree with outside (and my own) pack cost analyses of $200-$250/kWh, as well as reports that LGChem wasn't at all pleased to have that number out there, I consider it likely to be fairly accurate. Tesla will have the advantage of scale when the Gigafactory is fully up and running and they've got all the bugs out. We know that they were still dealing with those bugs as of a month or two ago, and we simply don't know the current state, as there have been rumors on both sides of the issue.
 
From Wards Auto's report from CES a year ago:
John McElroy of Wards Auto said:
Let’s start with the EV batteries. Back in 2010 the Department of Energy set a cost goal of $125 per kilowatt hour for an EV battery pack by 2022, because that would make electric-propulsion systems equal to the cost of an internal-combustion engine. In addition to individual cells, the battery pack also includes the supporting structure, cooling mechanisms, and battery management systems.

At the time no one saw a clear path of how to get to that cost. But at CES, several EV experts told me the DOE’s number is turning out to be a very conservative goal. They assured me those costs will be under $100 before 2020, and not long after that they will go down to about $80 per kilowatt hour.
At $100/kWh, 60-kWh batteries are very comparable in cost with the powertrain in an ICE. Further cost reductions below that point will be just gravy, but will not be required for rapid adoption.

That's a completely different story than fuel cells, which no one has yet learned how to mass produce.
 
RegGuheert said:
From Wards Auto's report from CES a year ago:
John McElroy of Wards Auto said:
Let’s start with the EV batteries. Back in 2010 the Department of Energy set a cost goal of $125 per kilowatt hour for an EV battery pack by 2022, because that would make electric-propulsion systems equal to the cost of an internal-combustion engine. In addition to individual cells, the battery pack also includes the supporting structure, cooling mechanisms, and battery management systems.

At the time no one saw a clear path of how to get to that cost. But at CES, several EV experts told me the DOE’s number is turning out to be a very conservative goal. They assured me those costs will be under $100 before 2020, and not long after that they will go down to about $80 per kilowatt hour.
At $100/kWh, 60-kWh batteries are very comparable in cost with the powertrain in an ICE. Further cost reductions below that point will be just gravy, but will not be required for rapid adoption.

That's a completely different story than fuel cells, which no one has yet learned how to mass produce.
Yes, fuel cell mass production will be the key to their costs making the next major step down, which is exactly where the companies which are producing FCEVs are devoting much of their R&D - Toyota certainly is. Other R&D areas are reducing or eliminating Pt and increasing both power density and longevity. So far, every succeeding generation of FCEVs deployed has seen these last three areas improve by 50% or more (about 100% for power density) compared to the immediately preceding generation. Those curves will start to flatten soon, if they haven't already.
 
Via GCC:
California Energy Commission awards First Element Fuel ~$8M for hydrogen fueling stations
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/01/201801-cec.html

The California Energy Commission awarded First Element Fuel almost $8 million in Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program (ARFVTP) grants to build hydrogen fueling stations in Redwood City, Studio City, Beverly Hills, and Mission Hills. . . .
I need to check for these specific stations, but most of the grants now being awarded are for stations with 300 kg+ of H2 storage and two dispensers.
 
GRA said:
RegGuheert said:
From Wards Auto's report from CES a year ago:
John McElroy of Wards Auto said:
Let’s start with the EV batteries. Back in 2010 the Department of Energy set a cost goal of $125 per kilowatt hour for an EV battery pack by 2022, because that would make electric-propulsion systems equal to the cost of an internal-combustion engine. In addition to individual cells, the battery pack also includes the supporting structure, cooling mechanisms, and battery management systems.

At the time no one saw a clear path of how to get to that cost. But at CES, several EV experts told me the DOE’s number is turning out to be a very conservative goal. They assured me those costs will be under $100 before 2020, and not long after that they will go down to about $80 per kilowatt hour.
At $100/kWh, 60-kWh batteries are very comparable in cost with the powertrain in an ICE. Further cost reductions below that point will be just gravy, but will not be required for rapid adoption.

That's a completely different story than fuel cells, which no one has yet learned how to mass produce.
Yes, fuel cell mass production will be the key to their costs making the next major step down, which is exactly where the companies which are producing FCEVs are devoting much of their R&D - Toyota certainly is. Other R&D areas are reducing or eliminating Pt and increasing both power density and longevity. So far, every succeeding generation of FCEVs deployed has seen these last three areas improve by 50% or more (about 100% for power density) compared to the immediately preceding generation. Those curves will start to flatten soon, if they haven't already.
Et voila', via GCC:
Report: Toyota to cut costs of fuel cell cars’ core technologies by >50% for new model in 2020; cut by 75% by 2025
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/01/20180119-toyota.html

. . . While production for of the Mirai, Toyota’s first mass-produced fuel cell model has grown steadily since its introduction in 2014, the car remains pricey at about $63,000 [GRA Note: In Japan] and has sold only a little more than 5,000 units.

Plans call for reducing the cost of the fuel cell system and other components further after the next-generation model is launched, cutting those costs by three-quarters around 2025. Toyota targets annual sales of over 30,000 vehicles globally, including more than 10,000 in Japan.

According to the Nikkei report, Toyota plans to reduce the cost of the fuel cell system and other components further after the next-generation model is launched, cutting those costs by three-quarters around 2025. . . .
As Toyota's a very conservative company when it comes to announcing new developments and prices, the above strongly implies that Toyota has developed the methods needed to move into limited-rate mass production of stacks, i.e. 25-50k/yr. The next major step-down will probably require rates of 100-250k/yr, by which time the cost curve will definitely be flattening, and beyond which cost reductions will likely be incremental.
 
What GRA says:
GRA said:
As Toyota's a very conservative company when it comes to announcing new developments and prices,...
Of course we know the opposite to be true when it comes to Toyota making claims about future developments with fuel cell vehicles:
Jim Press back in 2005 - Then COO of Toyota North America talking about fuel-cell vehicles at 1:03:22 said:
But 15 to 20 years from now they'll be the norm.
That quote was from this entertaining video:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZZGpMjJr4A[/youtube]
My other favorite quote by Toyota in that video was this one:
Jim Press back in 2005 - Then COO of Toyota North America at 49:40 said:
There's a lot of debate today about what powertrains will emerge tomorrow: internal combustion engines, hybrid-electric, diesel, fuel cells, Solar. All of these are great new technologies that are emerging that are making internal combustion engines better.
Notice which technology he did NOT mention? BEVs. In other words, Toyota is bucking physics to try to force the square peg into a round hole. They will fail.

So Toyota has just confirmed that they will not come close to being able to produce 500,000 fuel cells per year even in 2025. That matches my view on the topic.
 
GRA said:
RegGuheert said:
From Wards Auto's report from CES a year ago:
John McElroy of Wards Auto said:
Let’s start with the EV batteries. Back in 2010 the Department of Energy set a cost goal of $125 per kilowatt hour for an EV battery pack by 2022, because that would make electric-propulsion systems equal to the cost of an internal-combustion engine. In addition to individual cells, the battery pack also includes the supporting structure, cooling mechanisms, and battery management systems.

At the time no one saw a clear path of how to get to that cost. But at CES, several EV experts told me the DOE’s number is turning out to be a very conservative goal. They assured me those costs will be under $100 before 2020, and not long after that they will go down to about $80 per kilowatt hour.
At $100/kWh, 60-kWh batteries are very comparable in cost with the powertrain in an ICE. Further cost reductions below that point will be just gravy, but will not be required for rapid adoption.

That's a completely different story than fuel cells, which no one has yet learned how to mass produce.
Yes, fuel cell mass production will be the key to their costs making the next major step down, which is exactly where the companies which are producing FCEVs are devoting much of their R&D - Toyota certainly is. Other R&D areas are reducing or eliminating Pt and increasing both power density and longevity. So far, every succeeding generation of FCEVs deployed has seen these last three areas improve by 50% or more (about 100% for power density) compared to the immediately preceding generation. Those curves will start to flatten soon, if they haven't already.
My slightly more cynical impression is that the car companies are focusing on fuel cells because they hope the infrastructure will be somebody else's problem and cost. Not unlike GM and the legacy automakers where it comes to charging infrastructure.
 
GRA said:
Via GCC:
California Energy Commission awards First Element Fuel ~$8M for hydrogen fueling stations
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/01/201801-cec.html

The California Energy Commission awarded First Element Fuel almost $8 million in Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program (ARFVTP) grants to build hydrogen fueling stations in Redwood City, Studio City, Beverly Hills, and Mission Hills. . . .
I need to check for these specific stations, but most of the grants now being awarded are for stations with 300 kg+ of H2 storage and two dispensers.
That is my memory as well.

300 kg is around 75 fill-ups in the Mirai. What is involved in replenishing the tank ?
 
SageBrush said:
GRA said:
RegGuheert said:
From Wards Auto's report from CES a year ago:At $100/kWh, 60-kWh batteries are very comparable in cost with the powertrain in an ICE. Further cost reductions below that point will be just gravy, but will not be required for rapid adoption.

That's a completely different story than fuel cells, which no one has yet learned how to mass produce.
Yes, fuel cell mass production will be the key to their costs making the next major step down, which is exactly where the companies which are producing FCEVs are devoting much of their R&D - Toyota certainly is. Other R&D areas are reducing or eliminating Pt and increasing both power density and longevity. So far, every succeeding generation of FCEVs deployed has seen these last three areas improve by 50% or more (about 100% for power density) compared to the immediately preceding generation. Those curves will start to flatten soon, if they haven't already.
My slightly more cynical impression is that the car companies are focusing on fuel cells because they hope the infrastructure will be somebody else's problem and cost. Not unlike GM and the legacy automakers where it comes to charging infrastructure.
Of course, no car company want's to build an infrastructure if they don't have to. It's because building the gas station infrastructure was profitable that that infrastructure developed so quickly. My concern with BEVs, in this country at least, is that I don't see any way to make the cost reductions necessary to make public charging profitable at a price the public is willing to pay, which is why all such charging infrastructure (other than the SC network) has remained dependent on public subsidies for new installations, and has thus grown slowly. AFAIA, no one (who has to provide the electricity) is making money on them.
 
SageBrush said:
GRA said:
Via GCC:
California Energy Commission awards First Element Fuel ~$8M for hydrogen fueling stations
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/01/201801-cec.html

The California Energy Commission awarded First Element Fuel almost $8 million in Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program (ARFVTP) grants to build hydrogen fueling stations in Redwood City, Studio City, Beverly Hills, and Mission Hills. . . .
I need to check for these specific stations, but most of the grants now being awarded are for stations with 300 kg+ of H2 storage and two dispensers.
That is my memory as well.

300 kg is around 75 fill-ups in the Mirai. What is involved in replenishing the tank ?
I'd put it at fewer than that, once the infrastructure is dense enough to provide piece of mind, i.e. running down to say .5 kg remaining out of 5 kg, instead of people being more cautious owing to the possibility of needing to go further if their local station is U/S.

Re the bold, I don't understand what you're asking for here. Can you clarify?
 
RegGuheert said:
What GRA says:
GRA said:
As Toyota's a very conservative company when it comes to announcing new developments and prices,...
Of course we know the opposite to be true when it comes to Toyota making claims about future developments with fuel cell vehicles:
Jim Press back in 2005 - Then COO of Toyota North America talking about fuel-cell vehicles at 1:03:22 said:
But 15 to 20 years from now they'll be the norm.
That quote was from this entertaining video:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZZGpMjJr4A[/youtube]
That's nice, but then that's not Toyota talking about definite timescales based on their own developments, unlike the case here.

RegGuheert said:
My other favorite quote by Toyota in that video was this one:
Jim Press back in 2005 - Then COO of Toyota North America at 49:40 said:
There's a lot of debate today about what powertrains will emerge tomorrow: internal combustion engines, hybrid-electric, diesel, fuel cells, Solar. All of these are great new technologies that are emerging that are making internal combustion engines better.
Notice which technology he did NOT mention? BEVs. In other words, Toyota is bucking physics to try to force the square peg into a round hole. They will fail.

So Toyota has just confirmed that they will not come close to being able to produce 500,000 fuel cells per year even in 2025. That matches my view on the topic.
Yup, 500k is almost certainly too high. 100k might be doable by then, but we'll see.
 
GRA said:
That's nice, but then that's not Toyota talking about definite timescales based on their own developments, unlike the case here.
Right. Definite timescales. Got it. 12 years ago their timescales for fuel-cell vehicle development were "not definite" and incredibly overly-optimistic. But today, their timescales are "definite" and "very conservative".

Meanwhile, all along the way, Toyota completely missed the train on BEVs, including today. I have detailed the many reasons their plan is doomed to fail. There is no reason to believe otherwise.

Sorry, but Toyota has lost all credibility in this arena. So far they've chosen to game CARB for the sole purpose of selling more gasoline powered vehicles. The longer they cling to that goal, the farther they will fall from grace.
 
Back
Top