Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[epirali]

... if there is a trade off between efficiency and adoption I'll take adoption, and I understand that is not a position others share. ...

I do not believe anybody disagrees with that position.
What people disagree with is that FCVs will garner more adoption that plugin vehicles.
Yes, there is a place for them, but not nearly for as large a place as plugins hold.

And I guess that is a very succinct and clear way of stating the difference of opinion between those who see FCEVs with potential and ones who don't. But it is really just opinion and guesswork. I think it only gets heated here when opinion becomes FACT and disagreement becomes personal attacks.

But I do believe there is at least one person who may not agree with your summation about the trade-off.

 

[RegGuheert]

And I guess that is a very succinct and clear way of stating the difference of opinion between those who see FCEVs with potential and ones who don't. But it is really just opinion and guesswork.

No, it is not. I have demonstrated that a high rate of adoption of such a low-efficiency solution requires a MASSIVE 50% increase in the overall amount of electricity which the U.S. generates. In response to a request for a plan on how this additional generation will be created at a time when we are struggling to try to transition to renewable energy I have received nothing.

Simply put, the low efficiency of FCVs completely blocks widespread adoption. Full stop.

Each FCV fielded blocks approximately four BEVs from being fielded. This "solution" is blocking progress toward the end which you claim to espouse.

 

[epirali]

And I guess that is a very succinct and clear way of stating the difference of opinion between those who see FCEVs with potential and ones who don't. But it is really just opinion and guesswork.

No, it is not. I have demonstrated that a high rate of adoption of such a low-efficiency solution requires a MASSIVE 50% increase in the overall amount of electricity which the U.S. generates. In response to a request for a plan on how this additional generation will be created at a time when we are struggling to try to transition to renewable energy I have received nothing.

Simply put, the low efficiency of FCVs completely blocks widespread adoption. Full stop.

Each FCV fielded blocks approximately four BEVs from being fielded. This "solution" is blocking progress toward the end which you claim to espouse.

Well I guess you didn't quote the part where I also wrote: "But I do believe there is at least one person who may not agree with your summation about the trade-off."

I don't agree with "Full Stop." Again opinion is different than fact. I respect that is your opinion. But it is so much more useful when we can differentiate the two.

What is missing in my view (my opinion) is that BEVs will not be fully adopted due to charge times required. And if this is true then FCEVs MAY be a solution (again opinion). The energy trade off is fine in that case because I care more about CO2 reduction than absolute energy production. Because between renewable power sources (wind, solar, geothermal) and nuclear power we can easily produce all the energy we need without producing carbon. And that is all TODAYs technology, not something that may happen one day.

And I believe it is an unsupported assumption that "Each FCV fielded blocks approximately four BEVs from being fielded." Can you give some data or a theory as to why this would be the case?

 

[RegGuheert]

Because between renewable power sources (wind, solar, geothermal) and nuclear power we can easily produce all the energy we need without producing carbon.

This is the kind of nonsense written by those who have done next to no research into where electricity comes from and how many resources it takes to produce it. It is this kind of thinking that is leading to massive destruction of our environment in many places around the world.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

What is missing in my view (my opinion) is that BEVs will not be fully adopted due to charge times required.

I would propose that what is missing is not charging SPEED but charging ACCESS. You (and others) have proposed several valid examples of drivers who cannot charge a BEV overnight - today. But to take my point to the extreme, what would happen if every single parking spot - everywhere- had a 120V outlet in front of it? Would those apartment dwellers be able to charge then? I would say yes. And that would cover most of their needs. The rest would be handled by a robust QC network along the highways. After driving 200-300 miles, a driver can afford to, nay by all means should, take a 20-30 minute break.

Before anyway picks apart my theoretical scenario above, know that I am not proposing we try to push this model (an outlet at every parking spot). Rather, it was meant as a thought experiment. Again, in my opinion, the major hurdle in the near future (of 200-mile BEVs) is convenient access to electricity. This means overnight charging for 90% of days, and a robust QC network for the rest. No technological breakthroughs needed for BEVs.

 

[epirali]

Because between renewable power sources (wind, solar, geothermal) and nuclear power we can easily produce all the energy we need without producing carbon.

This is the kind of nonsense written by those who have done next to no research into where electricity comes from and how many resources it takes to produce it. It is this kind of thinking that is leading to massive destruction of our environment in many places around the world.

I will again urge you to not throw around words like "nonsense," and consider you are not the only keeper of an absolute truth. There are many other out there with just as much knowledge and experience as you may have, who simply don't see things your way. I do not respond to your comments by calling it nonsense, and suggest you try doing the same.

If we are truly concerned about the destruction of the environment then we would have supported and built many many new design nuclear power plants, which have minimal or no CO2 impact. But we are not doing it because of the same kind of "logic" that keeps us from solving our problems.

But this is completely off-topic to this discussion.

 

[epirali]

What is missing in my view (my opinion) is that BEVs will not be fully adopted due to charge times required.

I would propose that what is missing is not charging SPEED but charging ACCESS. You (and others) have proposed several valid examples of drivers who cannot charge a BEV overnight - today. But to take my point to the extreme, what would happen if every single parking spot - everywhere- had a 120V outlet in front of it? Would those apartment dwellers be able to charge then? I would say yes. And that would cover most of their needs. The rest would be handled by a robust QC network along the highways. After driving 200-300 miles, a driver can afford to, nay by all means should, take a 20-30 minute break.

Before anyway picks apart my theoretical scenario above, know that I am not proposing we try to push this model (an outlet at every parking spot). Rather, it was meant as a thought experiment. Again, in my opinion, the major hurdle in the near future (of 200-mile BEVs) is convenient access to electricity. This means overnight charging for 90% of days, and a robust QC network for the rest. No technological breakthroughs needed for BEVs.

That is absolutely true. We have everything we need technologically to support BEVs today. But my concern is more about human behavior. Warning OPINION AHEAD.

I do not think you will get majority of people to accept waiting 20-30 minutes in order to gain 150 mile range. I know some do, but most simply won't. We are just too used to getting 300+ mile range from a 3-5 minute stop. And as much as we say people SHOULD stop they won't. Now granted there is nothing that says batteries will not evolve rapidly. There has already been interesting variants that can charge very rapidly and I could see a scenario in which you could get 150-200 mile range in say 10 minutes. The problem then becomes the safety/connector and cable handling.

As for 120v, honestly that is a non starter. I have charged Leafs and Teslas off 120, and unless you have a 10-20 mile total drive range it just doesn't work. An L2 EVSE is a must for most daily driving and fast charge is a great solution for longer trips.

 

[RegGuheert]

Nonsense is nonsense and I will point it out to you.

But this is completely off-topic to this discussion.

That's right. Here is the proper thread for that discussion: Economics of Renewable Power, simplified.

 

[RegGuheert]

As for 120v, honestly that is a non starter.

No, it is not. Level 1 EVSEs are the BEST solution for apartment dwellers (with available parking) since it allows the most plugs to be made available with the lowest impact on infrastructure while allowing the property owner to have SOME level of limit on the amount of electricity consumed. Level 1 will meet the majority of commuting needs.

 

[downeykp]

Because between renewable power sources (wind, solar, geothermal) and nuclear power we can easily produce all the energy we need without producing carbon.

This is the kind of nonsense written by those who have done next to no research into where electricity comes from and how many resources it takes to produce it. It is this kind of thinking that is leading to massive destruction of our environment in many places around the world.

I will again urge you to not throw around words like "nonsense," and consider you are not the only keeper of an absolute truth. There are many other out there with just as much knowledge and experience as you may have, who simply don't see things your way. I do not respond to your comments by calling it nonsense, and suggest you try doing the same.

If we are truly concerned about the destruction of the environment then we would have supported and built many many new design nuclear power plants, which have minimal or no CO2 impact. But we are not doing it because of the same kind of "logic" that keeps us from solving our problems.

But this is completely off-topic to this discussion.

I had to call you on the "new design nuclear power plants". Unless I am mistaken, there is still no technology that can deal with the waste of spent nuclear fuel. Nuclear waste is still a huge problem.

 

[lorenfb]

Level 1 EVSEs are the BEST solution for apartment dwellers (with available parking) since it allows the most plugs to be made available with the lowest impact on infrastructure while allowing the property owner to have SOME level of limit on the amount of electricity consumed. Level 1 will meet the majority of commuting needs.

Like most that gets posted, that's your opinion and not a fact or reality, especially for Gen 2 BEVs
with more desirable ranges!

 

[epirali]

As for 120v, honestly that is a non starter.

No, it is not. Level 1 EVSEs are the BEST solution for apartment dwellers (with available parking) since it allows the most plugs to be made available with the lowest impact on infrastructure while allowing the property owner to have SOME level of limit on the amount of electricity consumed. Level 1 will meet the majority of commuting needs.

No, no its not (I am quoting).

At 3 miles/hour charge rate (at best of time) on 120 and a daily commute of 60 miles you would need 20 hours of charge every night, which defies the laws of space time continuum. I think 60 mile daily driving is a pretty reasonable standard for the US and in fact is used by a lot of current crop BEVs.

Not to mention even this assumes a high quality 120 line drop, with NO OTHER LOAD and no extension cord.

 

[epirali]

If we are truly concerned about the destruction of the environment then we would have supported and built many many new design nuclear power plants, which have minimal or no CO2 impact. But we are not doing it because of the same kind of "logic" that keeps us from solving our problems.

But this is completely off-topic to this discussion.

I had to call you on the "new design nuclear power plants". Unless I am mistaken, there is still no technology that can deal with the waste of spent nuclear fuel. Nuclear waste is still a huge problem.

I do agree there is no new technological way to dispose of spent fuel. I should have been clear: by new I mean in safety design.

But in my opinion long term storage of fuel in places like Nevada has no real environment impact and is in fact infinitely better than what we do every day by burning fossil fuels. I for one am happy to rely on fission nuclear plants and associated waste storage until the day we have functioning and cost effective fusion reactors, which will not have the disposal issue.

BTW, why does everyone think they are "calling out" someone or have to take an adversarial position just to disagree or to raise a point? I mean is it beyond possibility that I am actually sharing my opinion and there is no agenda or no need to be "called out?"

 

[GetOffYourGas]

As for 120v, honestly that is a non starter.

No, it is not. Level 1 EVSEs are the BEST solution for apartment dwellers (with available parking) since it allows the most plugs to be made available with the lowest impact on infrastructure while allowing the property owner to have SOME level of limit on the amount of electricity consumed. Level 1 will meet the majority of commuting needs.

No, no its not (I am quoting).

At 3 miles/hour charge rate (at best of time) on 120 and a daily commute of 60 miles you would need 20 hours of charge every night, which defies the laws of space time continuum. I think 60 mile daily driving is a pretty reasonable standard for the US and in fact is used by a lot of current crop BEVs.

Not to mention even this assumes a high quality 120 line drop, with NO OTHER LOAD and no extension cord.

True, with a 60-mile daily commute and 3mph charge rate, you'd need 20 hours of charging. What you missed is that I said every parking spot. So the car would need to be parked somewhere for 20 hours/day, a max of 4 hours/day of driving. This is an extreme example (most commutes are much less than 60 miles/day), but would still work with 3mph charging because you'd charge during the day while you work too. Of course, there are issues with wintertime driving (no way are you getting 3mph from L1), but I will leave that can of worms alone.

 

[epirali]

At 3 miles/hour charge rate (at best of time) on 120 and a daily commute of 60 miles you would need 20 hours of charge every night, which defies the laws of space time continuum. I think 60 mile daily driving is a pretty reasonable standard for the US and in fact is used by a lot of current crop BEVs.

Not to mention even this assumes a high quality 120 line drop, with NO OTHER LOAD and no extension cord.

True, with a 60-mile daily commute and 3mph charge rate, you'd need 20 hours of charging. What you missed is that I said every parking spot. So the car would need to be parked somewhere for 20 hours/day, a max of 4 hours/day of driving. This is an extreme example (most commutes are much less than 60 miles/day), but would still work with 3mph charging because you'd charge during the day while you work too. Of course, there are issues with wintertime driving (no way are you getting 3mph from L1), but I will leave that can of worms alone.

You are right, sorry I did miss the assumption. With access in every spot then yes it would work fine, even if you assume 30 mph driving you can only drive 3 hours, and that gives you plenty of time to recharge.

I think 60 mile commute per day is not extreme but probably somewhere in the middle, but should cover a lot of people.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

I do not think you will get majority of people to accept waiting 20-30 minutes in order to gain 150 mile range. I know some do, but most simply won't. We are just too used to getting 300+ mile range from a 3-5 minute stop. And as much as we say people SHOULD stop they won't. Now granted there is nothing that says batteries will not evolve rapidly. There has already been interesting variants that can charge very rapidly and I could see a scenario in which you could get 150-200 mile range in say 10 minutes. The problem then becomes the safety/connector and cable handling.

This is where, IMHO, EREVs will help bridge the gaps. True, most people will not just jump into such a different behavior overnight. But EREVs offer most of the advantages of EVs without the disadvantage of a 20-30 minute recharge time on the road. I think there will be a large number of Volt owners who, after a few years with the car, will be quite comfortable jumping to pure electric. Volt owners already knew how rarely they go to a gas station. Replacing those rare visits with a QC isn't earth shattering. But there will be holdouts.

Personally, I believe that synthetic liquid fuels (specifically, liquid at room temperature/pressure) should be the solution to range extenders in the future. Fuels like ethanol or biodiesel. But that's another topic entirely.

I was very excited about hydrogen in the 1990s, but after decades of learning about them, my excitement has fizzled out. I'm not saying there won't be hydrogen in our future. Just that, IMHO, it is not the right solution.

 

[epirali]

I do not think you will get majority of people to accept waiting 20-30 minutes in order to gain 150 mile range. I know some do, but most simply won't. We are just too used to getting 300+ mile range from a 3-5 minute stop. And as much as we say people SHOULD stop they won't. Now granted there is nothing that says batteries will not evolve rapidly. There has already been interesting variants that can charge very rapidly and I could see a scenario in which you could get 150-200 mile range in say 10 minutes. The problem then becomes the safety/connector and cable handling.

This is where, IMHO, EREVs will help bridge the gaps. True, most people will not just jump into such a different behavior overnight. But EREVs offer most of the advantages of EVs without the disadvantage of a 20-30 minute recharge time on the road. I think there will be a large number of Volt owners who, after a few years with the car, will be quite comfortable jumping to pure electric. Volt owners already knew how rarely they go to a gas station. Replacing those rare visits with a QC isn't earth shattering. But there will be holdouts.

Personally, I believe that synthetic liquid fuels (specifically, liquid at room temperature/pressure) should be the solution to range extenders in the future. Fuels like ethanol or biodiesel. But that's another topic entirely.

I was very excited about hydrogen in the 1990s, but after decades of learning about them, my excitement has fizzled out. I'm not saying there won't be hydrogen in our future. Just that, IMHO, it is not the right solution.

Funny you should say that, I switched from the Leaf to an i3 w/Rex. I like the idea of the much larger EV range with Rex as backup. For some reason the Volt doesn't appeal to me, but obviously it does for a lot of people. I do wonder if the Volt sees a lot more gas usage or are most Volts driven purely as electric. Because the i3 balance is such that I find myself driving even MORE electric miles just having the Rex backup, but it is definitely only secondary. So barring unforeseen trips or occasional "get me home Rex!" its sitting idle.

My personal ideal (with my bias) is to have BEV with hydrogen for range extension. But this would only be more weight practical for very long range needs, like driving cross country. I don't think hydrogen is there yet, but with the right technological advances (some of which I posted here) it actually can be very compelling. Something things like artificial leaf generating hydrogen from solar at 80+% efficiency, much lighter and more efficient fuel cells and an infrastructure could potentially make it solid replacement for fossil fuel and coal type applications. It will be interesting to see how Germany ends up in its balance of excess renewable power between battery systems and hydrogen in the next few years.

 

[TonyWilliams]

What is missing in my view (my opinion) is that BEVs will not be fully adopted due to charge times required. And if this is true then FCEVs MAY be a solution (again opinion).

If charge time were truly the difference between an EV world and a H2 one (for personal vehicle transport), we would just have ubiquitous battery swapping. Again, my premise is that hydrogen has a singular advantage over batteries; recharging time, which is trumped with battery swapping.

That 5-10 year point where I predict we will have 250kW charging and well over a million EVs, and perhaps up to 100 hydrogen stations and "thousands" of hydrogen cars, we should have:

1) 286 mile range EVs, with 120kW charging are available today (Tesla 90D) at 150 miles added in 30 min. I predict 300 miles added in 30 minutes within 5 years, which means 100 miles every 10 min.

2) Hydrogen won't charge appreciably faster with the standard nozzle. It's hard to imagine making the H2 colder or increasing the pressure to speed up refueling. Therefore, I predict, much like a gasoline car today, a typical refueling event can add 100 miles in 3-5 min, and 286 miles range in perhaps 10 minutes in ideal conditions.

Sorry, I just don't see this singular issue swinging the favor to hydrogen, when countered with all the major distractors from a consumer standpoint:

a. Cost per mile will always be more expensive for H2
b. Refueling / recharging time can be matched, or even beaten by EVs with battery swapping

 

[epirali]

What is missing in my view (my opinion) is that BEVs will not be fully adopted due to charge times required. And if this is true then FCEVs MAY be a solution (again opinion).

If charge time were truly the difference between an EV world and a H2 one (for personal vehicle transport), we would just have ubiquitous battery swapping. Again, my premise is that hydrogen has a singular advantage over batteries; recharging time, which is trumped with battery swapping.

That 5-10 year point where I predict we will have 250kW charging and well over a million EVs, and perhaps up to 100 hydrogen stations and "thousands" of hydrogen cars, we should have:

1) 286 mile range EVs, with 120kW charging are available today (Tesla 90D) at 150 miles added in 30 min. I predict 300 miles added in 30 minutes within 5 years, which means 100 miles every 10 min.

2) Hydrogen won't charge appreciably faster with the standard nozzle. It's hard to imagine making the H2 colder or increasing the pressure to speed up refueling. Therefore, I predict, much like a gasoline car today, a typical refueling event can add 100 miles in 3-5 min, and 286 miles range in perhaps 10 minutes in ideal conditions.

Sorry, I just don't see this singular issue swinging the favor to hydrogen, when countered with all the major distractors from a consumer standpoint:

a. Cost per mile will always be more expensive for H2
b. Refueling / recharging time can be matched, or even beaten by EVs with battery swapping

All valid point imho. And as I have said myself it is feasible that battery charging rates could go up dramatically, making the one differentiating issue much less compelling. My only counter to this (opinion) is human psychology and the curve of change. Assuming there is no dramatic speed up people already accept 3-5 minute fuel.

I am personally all for public funding of electric charging infrastructure. I don't see battery swapping catching on for a few reasons. One of the main ones being the complexity, the other being I don't want random batteries. But then again maybe that's just me.

And I do see a ceiling in EV adoption, I think we are starting to hit that. But it will be very interesting to see if the 200 mile BEVs at $30-$35K that are coming make a big dent. If there is a large bump in adoption then I would have to say your are correct.

 

[TonyWilliams]

My personal ideal (with my bias) is to have BEV with hydrogen for range extension. But this would only be more weight practical for very long range needs, like driving cross country. I don't think hydrogen is there yet, but with the right technological advances (some of which I posted here) it actually can be very compelling. Something things like artificial leaf generating hydrogen from solar at 80+% efficiency, much lighter and more efficient fuel cells and an infrastructure could potentially make it solid replacement for fossil fuel and coal type applications. It will be interesting to see how Germany ends up in its balance of excess renewable power between battery systems and hydrogen in the next few years.

This dynamic (plug in hydrogen hybrid) would be the most expensive of all. Hydrogen infrastructure outside of major metro areas (where they are needed for long range) would result in relatively low usage at extremely high installation and operation cost. Because of the high cost, and assuming no gasoline / diesel / natural gas hybrid options), the pressure would be for longer range battery cars.

Hybrids work best using already established fossil fuels, and there is little to no future in a hydrogen hybrid car.

Trucks, perhaps, assuming the worst for diesel and natural gas.