lorenfb wrote:Any company, e.g. Tesla, relying on a single technology to maintain long term growth and not maintaining an R&D effort to transition to new technologies, e.g. FCEVs, as they become competitive is very likely to become marginal or non-existent, e.g. Kodak, Blackberry, IBM (marginal), HP (marginal), Intel (marginal compared to Qualcomm), and Microsoft (before the cloud). An automotive OEM would be very naive and negligent to their shareholders to not maintain a development effort for a FCEV, since it provides the most "transparent" transition from an ICEV for the consumer.
That all assumes that hydrogen is the end-game when it comes to transportation. It is not, as I have pointed out repeatedly in this thread as well as others:May 26, 2014:
June 8, 2014:
RegGuheert wrote:What I object to is the idea that hydrogen is somehow the "end game". I believe this is the message being pushed by some in the oil industry since they believe that they have a chance to at least partially control the hydrogen market while they have little they can do with BEVs except lose market share to them. However, for most applications I believe BEVs are the "end game" and hydrogen is now simply a distraction from the steady roll-out that is now occurring.
September 25, 2014:
RegGuheert wrote:6) There are many people, corporations and governments who are pushing hydrogen as the end-game when BEVs are that for most personal transportation applications. That tells me there are ulterior motives for the push for hydrogen. It is clear what it is for petroleum companies.
May 10, 2015:
RegGuheert wrote:FCVs cannot compete with BEVs in ANY of the significant cost areas:
- Manufacturing cost
- Fueling infrastructure costs
- Fuel costs
There is NO crossover point for fueling infrastructure costs or fuel costs, so BEVs will always win there. While there is a possibility of a crossover point in manufacturing costs, the differences today are so great that it is extremely unlikely. And even if that happens in a couple of decades, the issue of fuel efficiency will always result in BEVs being the best overall solution for the environment and the economy.
The simple conclusion is that FCVs are NOT the end-game for transportation, BEVs are, since they are the solution with the lowest overall costs and also the lowest impact to the environment. FCVs need not apply for any task that a BEV can handle, which includes most personal transportation tasks. Because FCVs are so much more expensive than BEVs, the opportunity cost of funding their deployment today is huge: many more BEVs could be fielded with the same government expenditure. As a simple result, each time the government spends so much money to put an FCV on the road, they do significant damage to the environment through the massive expenditure of resources, but they also cause many more ICEs to be put on the roads that would have otherwise been replaced by efficient BEVs.
May 17, 2015:
RegGuheert wrote:What I and others have demonstrated repeatedly in this thread is that whatever resources are required to transition the world's energy resources to renewable generation and battery-based storage are a small fraction of what would be required by the "hydrogen economy" which has been dreamed up by politicians and economists who somehow believe that physics does not apply to their pet project. Put another way, any transition away from fossil fuels by storing energy in H2 will require more resources and will produce more waste and will result in more damage to the environment than will an approach which stores the energy in batteries (or capacitors). As such, hydrogen will ONLY be applied in applications where other, more efficient, storage technologies cannot meet the requirements (or where politicians can distort the economics enough to overcome hydrogen's glaring inadequacies).
The "hydrogen economy" is a political idea which is directly at odds with physics. Physics will always win in the end, but that does not mean that politicians will not ruin the world in the meantime.
May 18, 2015:
RegGuheert wrote:Physics tells me that BEVs are the end game, not hydrogen. Plus, I really like refueling at home.
August 15, 2015:
epirali wrote:- Actually physics tells me the opposite: with technology recycling water-> H2 / O -> water is the end game, NOT batteries with chemicals. Its so simple it is obvious. Assuming the technology improves I would then say the same: electro-chemical batteries are just a stepping stone in energy storage.
The truth of the matter is exactly the opposite of what epirali has written.
Here are statements of fact which will help everyone understand why H2 electrolysis/transportation/delivery/fuel cell cannot and will not EVER achieve the efficiency of Li-ion batteries:FACT #1: NO CHEMICAL REACTIONS ARE INVOLVED IN THE FUNDAMENTAL OPERATION OF A LI-ION BATTERY
Li-ion batteries are fundamentally different than other battery technologies in that chemical reactions are NOT involved in the charging and discharging of the battery. Instead, the charging and discharging of a Li-ion battery involves ONLY the movement of lithium ions from the anode to the cathode and back again. That is the reason why efficiencies approaching unity are already being achieved in Li-ion batteries. From Battery University
Battery University wrote:Charging and discharging batteries is a chemical reaction, but Li-ion is claimed to be the exception.
Losses in Li-ion batteries are associated with electrical resistances and unwanted chemical reactions occurring inside the cells. The areas of research ongoing are focused on solving these issues. The result is that efficiencies will move closer to 100% and battery life will be extended dramatically from where it is today. And, as I have already posted, these batteries will be made from materials which are more and more recyclable and FACT #2: CHEMICAL REACTIONS ARE INVOLVED IN THE OPERATION OF BOTH ELECTROLYSIS DEVICES AND FUEL CELLS
There are several chemical reactions involved in the so-called hydrogen cycle, with most steps separated from each other. Here are some numbers I have found for theoretical maximum efficiencies:Electrolysis
Transportation/Storage: 95% (depends on the distance traveled and time stored)Delivery
: ~75% (per compression cycle) (This number is being generous since you really need to HEAT and then COOL the H2 during delivery. There is virtually NO possibility to save here and still allow H2 to achieve its singular benefit: refuel time.)Fuel Cell:
Overall H2 THEORETICAL efficiency: 1.2*0.95*0.75*0.83 = ~70%
But we know that we are nowhere near these numbers today, as has been discussed at length.
The bottom line: H2 as a storage medium suffers from the fact that many chemical reactions as well as compression/decompression and leakage will ALWAYS hinder its efficiency. Li-ion does not suffer from these efficiency hits since the many challenges of chemical reactions and compression/decompression/storage do come into play.
May 26, 2016:
RegGuheert wrote:BEVs ARE the end game for nearly every passenger vehicle application. FCVs need to find applications where BEVs CANNOT play in order to have any chance for market acceptance. Even then, they need to be able to beat out incumbent ICE technologies. They are not close to that point today.
Aug 16, 2016:
Here is Toyota's prediction for BEVs back in 2005:
Jim Press - Then COO of Toyota North America at 49:40 wrote: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.
The point is that their disinformation campaign is designed to point people away from BEVs and make people think that hydrogen is somehow the end game. This approach allows them to continue the status quo and to therefore build massive quantities of gasoline-powered cars.
RegGuheert wrote: lorenfb wrote:
RegGuheert wrote:Since we know that BEVs are the end-game technology for personal transportation
Yes, we do...from first principles. I have covered this in detail multiple times: Because there is no chemical reaction involved in energy storage in a LI-ion battery, 98% round-trip energy efficiency is achieved with today's battery technology. This is approximately 3X the efficiency achieved with hydrolysis and a fuel cell.
A world striving to wean itself off fossil fuels cannot reasonably increase worldwide electricity production by 50%. Getting to 100% of today's electricity production will be a monumental challenge in itself.
As a clear result, H2 FCVs will be relegated to ONLY the tasks which cannot be accomplished in a more efficient manner.
ETA: Look at what OakLeaf just posted: MIT Study: Electric Vehicles can meet 90% of our transportation needs