jlv
Well-known member
I don't see that at all. I don't think 3 minutes pumping gasoline to put in 400 miles of range has anything to do with how widespread gas stations are.mux said:
Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell
- Thread starter RegGuheert
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
Oils4AsphaultOnly
Well-known member
jlv said:
Have you factored in the travel time to get to the gas station? If there wasn't one around the corner, you'd have to make a trip to the gas station (could be a 5-15 min detour). You could combine it with a costco run, but now you have to add a 15-min line-wait.
jlv
Well-known member
Even if there was a 100+kW DCFC everyplace there is a gas station today, it would still take 20-40 minutes to charge. The quickness of the fill-up time for gas is still the benchmark people want to see.
The point is that you're never filling up an EV completely and charging speeds are going up so fast that we're rivaling gas pump dwell times. A 350kW DCFC from 20-80% means you're only there for about 7 minutes. That is barely more than typical gas station visits, in fact, it's slightly below the average gas station visit in my country.
So if H2 infra isn't being deployed nearly as quickly as EV DCFC and the charging times are getting reduced by so much, where's the USP of any high-density fuel?
So if H2 infra isn't being deployed nearly as quickly as EV DCFC and the charging times are getting reduced by so much, where's the USP of any high-density fuel?
jlv
Well-known member
OK, I see that logic!mux said:
Of course, once you toss in the ability to DCFC at 350kW at a reasonable cost...
GetOffYourGas
Well-known member
jlv said:
Of course, we are talking here about the occassional road trip. What we are missing is the elephant in the room - the daily commute. This is the bulk of most people's annual mileage. How much time do you save in a year by charging while sleeping or working (i.e. about 10 seconds/day to plug/unplug your car) versus travelling to the pump (gas or H2) once a week and standing there for 5 minutes while pumping fuel? I know it's a change in mindset, but I'll take the slightly longer road trip over the weekly fuel stop any day.
But going further, the last time I took a trip beyond my car's range, I simply timed my charge stop to coincide with a meal. So even my 40 minute charge session took considerably less time out of my trip than gassing up. If I had to buy gas, I would have eaten dinner and then had to go to the pump for 5 minutes to refuel.
GRA
Well-known member
Reg, don't be silly. Any vehicle with a longer range and faster refueling, capable of the same speed, will arrive first if one or more stops is required. The only thing that prevented the Mirai from getting there even faster is the current sparsity of fueling stations, which requires driving at slower speeds to stretch the range to reach them. As I stated in the post you are quoting,RegGuheert said:
This is no different than any other vehicle, regardless of its energy source. Or are you claiming that such speed compromises don't have to be practiced by Tesla drivers wherever the SC infrastructure is too sparse for the range? You know better, but here's a current example from the lack of an SC on I-10 in Ft. Stockton, TX:
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/supercharger-fort-stockton-texas.81725/page-54With my old P85 each trip through the area cost me about 3 hours of my life.
Forced to take the Jeep most trips, starting in early 2014. After 4 years I decided to punt and buy the bigger battery.
With the new 100D it only costs me about 30 minutes per trip - plus the $110,000 of course
As to current costs being too high, did you expect an argument from me? I've been consistently saying that the price of fuel, of fuel cell stacks, and fueling infrastructure must come down for H2/FCEVs to be commercially viable. You know this, or should, because I've said it directly to you numerous times. FCEVs are already operationally viable, if the necessary fueling infrastructure is available, because they currently provide 80-90% of the same capability as ICEs, with more to come, and longer lifespans with less degradation than BEVs. BEVs are down in the 50-70% range owing to the life/degradation issues, but improving as well.
GRA
Well-known member
Perhaps, although the cost of H2 fueling infrastructure is coming down with economies of scale (see the most recent California report in the California Retail H2 Station topic), along with technical developments. And the higher throughput of the H2 stations means less land is required per car served.smkettner said:
GRA
Well-known member
Sure, sales are better where subsidies are highest, just as BEVs have the largest market share of any country in the world in Norway, for the same reason. Which just reinforces the fact that both techs are commercially unviable for the mass market at the moment, and most customers need direct bribes and other bennies to take them. At the higher end of the market, people have money to burn and economic viability matters a lot less, which is why cars like the Model S/X could survive the loss of subsidies far better than cars priced and bought for basic transportation. For more, see:mux said:
https://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=26147#p531881
GRA
Well-known member
If you're in something like a Prius, it's 1 minute for 500 miles or more. But the density of gas stations has two different reasons. One is convenience for travelers. The other is necessity for locals. If you have the ability to refuel/recharge at home, you need far less of the latter. Since almost no one can refine gas at home (some farmers can make ethanol), that isn't an option for ICEs and currently not for FCEVs.jlv said:
The availability of at-home charging varies widely through the world, but few if any countries have the percentage of detached, single family homes with electricity available where needed that the U.S. does, and even here the percentage where home charging is currently possible is only about 56%. In Britain it's apparently around 20%, and most countries' housing looks a lot more like Britain's then the U.S.
GRA
Well-known member
Sure, that can be an issue locally, but on road trips? Where's the gas station on an interstate? Right off the exit, usually along with a few others plus a collection of fast food restaurants and maybe motels. And for added convenience, odds are there's such a collection of stations at every major junction, plus gateway towns to major recreation areas, and sometimes inside those areas, and generally there'll be one station no more than every 30 miles apart. Regardless of the type of energy storage and replenishment, that sort of density is necessary to maximize speed and convenience on trips, and Tesla has devoted most of their SC construction this year (in the U.S., at least), to providing that density along major routes, to the detriment of expanding the network's coverage to new areas.Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
GRA
Well-known member
You seem to be arguing against yourself. Yes, charging speed are increasing, something that's much needed if BEVs are to compete with ICEs for long trips. But why should that be necessary, if refueling speed doesn't matter? The reason people 'never fill up an EV completely' is because it's very slow and also increases degradation, something that doesn't happen with liquid or gaseous fuels. When I'm on a road trips, I'm always filling up my ICE completely, to maximize my options and minimize my required stops. There's simply no reason (other than high-priced fuel in that particular location) not to do so.mux said:
350-400kW charging, once there's a car that can actually take that, will be a major step towards full ICE replacement. But will still don't know what such charging will cost, and it will still be far slower than liquid or gaseous fuels can replace range - retail gas pumps are limited by regulation in the U.S. to 10 gpm, so even at 20mpg that's 200 miles/min compared to say 360kW = 6 kWh/min. x say 4mi./kWh, or 24 miles/min.
If we can simultaneously increase the range of those BEVs, it may not matter. I've been saying for a long time that 4 hours at freeway speed while using the HVAC system, plus a reserve, would likely be considered adequate for the vast majority of consumers, if they could recharge and do the same thing again without degradation while eating a fast food meal. 2 hours as above, alternating short and long stops, says 20 minutes (incl. food) and 10 minutes for stretching/bathroom, might be acceptable to many. But the existing paradigm is 4+ hours as above, with only 5-10 minutes including a bathroom visit required before repeating ad nauseam, adding longer breaks wherever you wish, not where the car makes you take them.
GRA
Well-known member
All true, for those who can charge at home. For those who can't, which is currently most of the world's car-owing population, you have the same issue of time spent driving to/from the station, plus a much longer wait once you get there, and owing to the currently shorter ranges of affordable BEVs, you'll probably be doing it more often too. Which is why I think installing charging at workplaces and local parking lots, along with a switch to AV BEVs which can charge wirelessly, will be essential to make the large-scale switch I think is needed quickly, instead of over a half-century or more.GetOffYourGas said:
smkettner
Well-known member
Exactly this.GetOffYourGas said:
If you build all the infrastructure for fueling all cars as hydrogen it will be a huge undertaking. If you build infrastructure to charge EVs for long distance there is not any need for the same scale. 80%+ would be my guess that EVs would charge at home with less than 20% needed for long distance travel. You just do not need as much public infrastructure for an EV.
GRA said:
In these really long comment chains the original context often seems to get lost. I'm arguing a systematic point: if refueling speed is the major USP of high-density fuels, then this is poised to become moot as charging speed and availability of DCQC stations increases. Right now, charging speed is still a weak point of contemporary EVs compared to gas, diesel or hydrogen, but this is going to be moot in a very short timespan as range on a single charge as well as QC speeds improve.
That's my actual point, and that is completely congruent with what I've said so far.
GetOffYourGas
Well-known member
GRA said:
Yes, this is also true. The solution is to provide charging outlets where people are parked overnight, not to add more high-power chargers so they can continue the old MO. I know that will take a while, but I have to believe that adding L2 charging to street/lot parking spots would be cheaper than building a ton of H2 fueling stations. But that's just my gut. I haven't done the math - feel free to prove me wrong.
More to the topic, home fueling is the ace in the hole for EVs. It won't happen for H2 at any larger scale than the current hobbyist making bio diesel at home. In order to be competitive at all, FCVs will need a bigger battery and a plug, with an AER sufficient for a typical commute. But then that causes a downward pressure on demand for H2 fueling stations, which makes it even harder to build and operate one profitably. I'm in the camp that doesn't see FCVs ever working out as passenger cars. The Mirai only seems to confirm that.
GetOffYourGas said:
Most quantitative arguments never deal in these kinds of absolutes. It is essentially unprovable that the total cost, all said and done, of an equilibrium system of either kind will go one way or another. What's usually done, though, is that you either
1) work from the current day and extrapolate current trends for as much as they will reasonably stretch,
2) work from first principles (raw material cost, complexity arguments, energy cost) and reason your way towards a likely outcome
Moreover, these kinds of questions are then STILL almost impossible to answer considering most factors driving uptake will be political and social, not physical or financial. If oil companies tomorrow decide to go all-in on hydrogen fuel cells and subsidize the **** out of them (and they can - there's a couple dozen trillion dollars on the line that can be diverted, more than enough to litter the world with untold amounts of free hydrogen cars and fueling stations), skewing the calculation a lot.
If you want I can rattle off some raw numbers of hydrogen vs battery-electric charging infrastructure if you need context.
RegGuheert
Well-known member
Absolute nonsense. You conveniently ignore the fact that the vast majority of BEV refueling is done at the destination, requiring NO additional land.GRA said:
RegGuheert
Well-known member
What's missing in this discussion is that BEVs can actually pay back the cost of the infrastructure by lowering the cost of fuel, particularly when PV is providing the electricity. That is why many homeowners are willing to pay for the charging infrastructure to add BEVs into their fleet. With H2 gas, there is NO way to payback the cost, meaning that it is simply the government wasting the taxpayers' money.mux said:
GRA
Well-known member
We have no disagreement that charging speeds are increasing and must do so to be fully competitive with ICEs, the issue is at what point it will become moot, i.e. how close to ICE capability do charging speeds and range need to be to be considered generally acceptable to the public as a full ICE replacement. I don't believe 150kW is enough, 350-400 kW is closer and will satisfy many, but 900-1000kW (China's talking about 900kW for GB/T) would probably be necessary to render the discussion moot, as 6-7 minutes would give enough range to allow my 4 hour plus reserve freeway with HVAC replenishment, and that's probably close enough assuming every energy replenishment stop will at least include a bathroom break. The cost of the infrastructure necessary to provide anything approaching such rates is so far unknown. Such high-rate infrastructure can be limited to major road trip corridors, but will still be expensive.mux said:
