Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[lorenfb]

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:

You have some valid points. But if you were the Engineering Director of R&D whose responsibility was to advise
corporate and the Board of Directors about future competitive technologies, you would assume the risk for the
corporation's future viability of not budgeting for R&D funds to evaluate and position the corporation for future technology breakthroughs, e.g. fuel cell generator and/or H2 production cost reductions, right?

[GRA]

Via GCC:

DOE FY17 SBIR Phase I Release 2 topics include fuel cells, EV batteries, engines

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/11 ... 8-doe.html

. . . The US Department of Energy (DOE) has announced the 2017 Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer (SBIR/STTR) Phase I Release 2 topics, including three subtopics focused on hydrogen and fuel cell technologies. The fuel cell subtopics include innovative materials for bipolar plates; liquid organic hydrogen carriers; and emergency hydrogen refuelers. . . .

The fuel cell topics:

Innovative Materials and/or Technologies for Bipolar Plates for PEM Fuel Cell. This subtopic solicits applications that directly or indirectly address the cost and weight reduction of PEM fuel cell stacks. Applications should focus on innovative materials, manufacturing processes, and/or designs of bipolar plates. All proposed projects must demonstrate potential to meet or exceed DOE’s 2020 bipolar plate technical targets as well as the cost target of $3/kW.

Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carriers (LOHC). Applications are sought for the development and demonstration of a reversible LOHC that is non-toxic and enables hydrogen delivery to a refueling station or centralized terminal at <$5.00/kg, including the cost of the carrier itself, cost of the catalyst, and energy consumption associated with hydrogenation/dehydrogenation.

Emergency Hydrogen Refuelers. Applications are sought for the development of two types of emergency hydrogen refuelers. The first is a roadside assistance—portable emergency hydrogen refueler to be carried on roadside assistance vehicles and capable of providing hydrogen to at least three stranded vehicles before needing to be recharged. The second is a personal device—portable emergency hydrogen refueler that can be carried onboard the fuel cell electric vehicle, such as in the trunk, easily handled by the driver, and able to provide hydrogen to at least one stranded vehicle. . . .

[rcm4453]

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:

You have some valid points. But if you were the Engineering Director of R&D whose responsibility was to advise
corporate and the Board of Directors about future competitive technologies, you would assume the risk for the
corporation's future viability of not budgeting for R&D funds to evaluate and position the corporation for future technology breakthroughs, e.g. fuel cell generator and/or H2 production cost reductions, right?

So what you're saying is an engineering director of R&D can't be wrong about the future of FCEVs? I'm sure they've never been wrong before in the history of the auto industry right? Just because OEMs like Toyota are wasting millions of dollars on FCEVs doesn't mean they will succeed as being the ICEV replacement of the future. There are just far too many hurdles and obstacles for the FCEV to overcome and if/when they can get through them it will be far too late, BEVs will be too far ahead of the game.

Oh...and another thing, you keep throwing the word "seamless" around when it comes to going from ICEV to FCEVs. Have you ever stopped to think that maybe consumers will want something better? ICEVs are nothing special so since FCEVs are just like them that's more of a lateral move, not an upgrade like going from an ICEV to the BEV of the future. Many people who have gone from an ICEV to a BEV realize what an upgrade they are and aren't looking back!

[RegGuheert]

You have some valid points. But if you were the Engineering Director of R&D whose responsibility was to advise
corporate and the Board of Directors about future competitive technologies, you would assume the risk for the
corporation's future viability of not budgeting for R&D funds to evaluate and position the corporation for future technology breakthroughs, e.g. fuel cell generator and/or H2 production cost reductions, right?

I'll start by saying this is PRECISELY the mistake that the VP of Engineering made at Toyota. He bet on H2 FCVs over BEVs, even though BEVs have a broad range of superior characteristics. As a result of this poor decision, Toyota is in the unfortunate position of playing catch-up in a battle they should be winning.

But to answer your question: I agree that the VP of Engineering for a very large auto manufacturer needs to keep options like H2 FCV in play. There absolutely are applications where that technology will have a benefit, fleets being the main applications we have discussed here. OTOH, if you are Tesla, you absolutely need to focus on what will win. Tesla has access to huge growth for the foreseeable future just within BEVs. As such, Elon Musk is not hurting himself by eschewing H2 FCV. In fact, Tesla is hurting ALL H2 FCV efforts BECAUSE they are so laser-focused on BEVs.

If you want to sell H2 FCVs, you need to find a market where they can win. Indoor forklifts is one. Heavy trucking might have a possibility, but that market is sensitive to fuel cost, so perhaps not.

[lorenfb]

You have some valid points. But if you were the Engineering Director of R&D whose responsibility was to advise
corporate and the Board of Directors about future competitive technologies, you would assume the risk for the
corporation's future viability of not budgeting for R&D funds to evaluate and position the corporation for future technology breakthroughs, e.g. fuel cell generator and/or H2 production cost reductions, right?

I'll start by saying this is PRECISELY the mistake that the VP of Engineering made at Toyota. He bet on H2 FCVs over BEVs, even though BEVs have a broad range of superior characteristics. As a result of this poor decision, Toyota is in the unfortunate position of playing catch-up in a battle they should be winning.

But to answer your question: I agree that the VP of Engineering for a very large auto manufacturer needs to keep options like H2 FCV in play. There absolutely are applications where that technology will have a benefit, fleets being the main applications we have discussed here. OTOH, if you are Tesla, you absolutely need to focus on what will win. Tesla has access to huge growth for the foreseeable future just within BEVs. As such, Elon Musk is not hurting himself by eschewing H2 FCV. In fact, Tesla is hurting ALL H2 FCV efforts BECAUSE they are so laser-focused on BEVs.

If you want to sell H2 FCVs, you need to find a market where they can win. Indoor forklifts is one. Heavy trucking might have a possibility, but that market is sensitive to fuel cost, so perhaps not.

So we basically agree. Obviously if you're Tesla, you focus 100% on the BEV and either win or lose with that strategy. There's no middle outcome for a corporate culture with a single long term technology strategy.

In the long run, though, the marketplace will be the final determinant of what type of vehicle will replace
the ICEV. But as yet, given the marginal growth of the BEV, the marketplace has not accepted it as the
ICEV replacement.

[smkettner]

Tesla could switch in a heartbeat if hydrogen suddenly became feasible and profitable.
What do you think Space-X runs on? Tesla is no slouch for engineering.

Now let's talk about how much has been wasted so far....
Take the rotary engine.... I think I read GM wasted a BILLION on this back in the '70s.
Why go down that path again?

[rcm4453]

given the marginal growth of the BEV, the marketplace has not accepted it as the
ICEV replacement.

That's only because of 3 important factors with Gen 1 BEVs:

- $2/gallon gasoline
- Range too limited for typical ICEV driver
- Cost of Gen 1 BEVs too high

Why would the marketplace jump in given those 3 factors? You can't use Gen 1 BEVs as an example of what the marketplace will accept going forward. You must look at Gen 2 on up at this point, once you have ranges around 210 -240 miles per charge (such as with the Bolt EV and Model 3) I think the marketplace will be far more accepting. The 400k model 3 reservations is proof that the marketplace does want BEVs, they just want GOOD BEVs at an acceptable price point. You also must remember that many Americans are slow to adopt new technology, BEVs are considered a disruptive technology to the automotive marketplace. Look how long it took the Prius to gain traction in the marketplace!

[GRA]

Hardly news, but via GCR:

Battery-electric cars cheaper, better at cutting emissions than fuel cells: Stanford study

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/110 ... ford-study

. . . Battery-electric cars are better at reducing emissions, and are more cost-effective than fuel-cell cars, according to researchers from Stanford University and the Technical University of Munich (TUM).

Their study, published in the journal Energy and conducted with some support from BMW, looked at the potential effect of large-scale battery-electric and fuel-cell car adoption on overall energy use, focusing on California. . . .

Researchers used the town of Los Altos Hills—located just a few miles from the Stanford campus—as a test case for hypothetical future scenarios. That included one scenario for the year 2035 that assumed battery-electric and fuel-cell cars would make up 38 percent of vehicles in the town. It also assumed hydrogen would be produced locally in the cheapest way possible, be it with electricity generated from renewable sources or taken from the grid. Researchers also considered the possibility of using excess solar power to produce hydrogen and, conversely, to use excess hydrogen for electricity generation, or as an alternative to natural gas for home heating.

In the end, battery-electric vehicles were found to be the better option. In order to be cost-competitive, fuel-cell cars would have to be sold at much lower prices than battery-electrics, researchers concluded. . . .

As for using excess hydrogen to generate electricity and home heat, researchers found that to be a non-starter. Only a small amount of solar-generated hydrogen will be used for heating buildings in 2035, they concluded. . . .

Unfortunately, the original article here http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 4216311173 is not available for free, but if anyone's willing to pony up $35.95 they can get it.

[Stoaty]

Hardly news, but via GCR:

Battery-electric cars cheaper, better at cutting emissions than fuel cells: Stanford study

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/110 ... ford-study

. . . Battery-electric cars are better at reducing emissions, and are more cost-effective than fuel-cell cars, according to researchers from Stanford University and the Technical University of Munich (TUM).

That's what some of us have been saying for the last 372 pages of this thread. Now confirmed. In other news, it is now believed the sun will rise in the East tomorrow and water is wet. No matter how much you keep pushing FCEV for a task for which they are not competitive.

[GRA]

Hardly news, but via GCR:

Battery-electric cars cheaper, better at cutting emissions than fuel cells: Stanford study

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/110 ... ford-study

. . . Battery-electric cars are better at reducing emissions, and are more cost-effective than fuel-cell cars, according to researchers from Stanford University and the Technical University of Munich (TUM).

That's what some of us have been saying for the last 372 pages of this thread. Now confirmed. In other news, it is now believed the sun will rise in the East tomorrow and water is wet. No matter how much you keep pushing FCEV for a task for which they are not competitive.

Uh, competitive how? AFAIA, no one here has ever said that FCEVs were the cheapest option (certainly not currently), but that they provided the quickest, easiest ZEV transition for the public based on their operating capabilities and divorce of fueling from living situations. There's never been any question that a BEV which can meet the operating requirements and has the lowest TCO is the optimum choice for those who can use it.