Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[TonyWilliams]

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!

It's a bit nutty to have unmetered electric use in condos and apartments, when a Chevy Spark EV traveling at 5 miles per kWh on 50 mile commute uses only 10kWh plus charger inefficiency, so about 12kWh from the wall, while a Tesla Model X with 90 or 100kWh battery at 3 miles per kWh can suck down nearly double the energy for the same commute. These are not insignificant costs in most of the USA, particularly extremely high cost electric areas like San Diego, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, etc.

36 cents per kWh in Hawaii is about $3.60 per day for the Spark, and $7 per day for the Tesla.

 

[RegGuheert]

Level 1 will meet the majority of commuting needs.

... a daily commute of 60 miles...

The average commute is around 40 miles, not sixty. Anything beyond what can be covered by the L1 needs to be handled by extra charging on the weekend and public charging. My statement stands as given.

There is no issue with extension cords and/or loading if you install L1 EVSEs, as suggested.. A monthly fee can provide access to the parking spots with EVSEs.

 

[RegGuheert]

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!

The amount of charge needed for a commute has NOTHING to do with the size of the battery in the car. Only efficiency and distance matter. L1 apartment charging is even more suited to BEVs with bigger batteries since they can store up more on the weekends/at quick chargers to meet the owners needs.

Putting a bunch of L2 EVSEs in an apartment complex would mean fewer EVSEs to go around due to the fact that the infrastructure has a limited capability.

 

[ydnas7]

It's a bit nutty to have unmetered electric use in condos and apartments, when a Chevy Spark EV traveling at 5 miles per kWh on 50 mile commute uses only 10kWh plus charger inefficiency, so about 12kWh from the wall, while a Tesla Model X with 90 or 100kWh battery at 3 miles per kWh can suck down nearly double the energy for the same commute. These are not insignificant costs in most of the USA, particularly extremely high cost electric areas like San Diego, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, etc.

36 cents per kWh in Hawaii is about $3.60 per day for the Spark, and $7 per day for the Tesla.

condos and apartments tend to allow for shorter communtes, that is a major part of their attraction.
anyway, a 110V 1.4kW charge (like the volt) is naturally limited in how much it dispenses. so why bother withe the expense of a billing infrastructure unless it is near free like Korea EV-line.

 

[GRA]

... 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.

As I read his posts, RegGuheert (for one) does appear to disagree, and believes that efficiency should outweigh adoption. epirali and I are on the other side, and I'll let others describe where they stand.

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.

I suppose the obvious rebuttal to that is that there are several major automakers who have come to the opposite conclusion, and backed it up with several billion dollars of their own money spent on R&D, in Toyota's case now extending over 23 years. Doesn't mean they'll prove to be right, but I believe I understand (and have repeatedly stated) why they've come to that conclusion, which I think is based on rational considerations.

 

[GRA]

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.

Yes, L1 will meet the majority of commuting needs (although commuting distances have been increasing as sprawl moves people ever further away from their jobs). Where L1 fails is its inability to meet spontaneous needs when the pack is depleted, or to make up for shortfalls due to recovery from non-typical driving days. L1 near both work and home, combined with large enough packs to allow for some reserve would work, but L1 at just one of the two locations strikes me as too limiting to be acceptable to mainstream users, barring PHEVs. Which is one reason I'm a fan of PHEVs with the smallest possible pack that provides someone's typical daily range, yet can be charged overnight on L1, because (as you say), you can install a lot more L1 than L2 for a given amount.

The other advantage I see of L1 is that it's fairly cheap to upgrade it to low-power L2 as battery packs get bigger, but that suggests that it might make more sense to install L2 from the get-go, and allow the customer to choose the power level by pricing - say L1 for X cents/kWh (or just a flat monthly rate), L2 up to 3.3 kW for 2X cents/kWh, 6.6 kW for 3X cents/kWh, and so on. The downside of this approach is that you have to design the distribution network to handle the maximum potential load, or else limit the maximum rates at peak times.

 

[Zythryn]

... 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.

As I read his posts, RegGuheert (for one) does appear to disagree, and believes that efficiency should outweigh adoption. epirali and I are on the other side, and I'll let others describe where they stand.

I stand corrected.
As FCVs are more efficient that ICE vehicles, I have little issue with their efficiency.
As they are less efficient, less convenient for many, have lower performance and drive quality than plugins, they are a poor choice for most, but they are better than ICE.

There is a big difference between multi-billion dollar companies hedging their bets and truly believing in a product.
I think lots of eyes are on Toyota and the Mirai. They may well determine if other companies dive in, or just continue to dip their toes in the water.

 

[GRA]

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.

No, it also has the advantage of longer range currently owing to higher energy density of the 'fuel' (energy carrier if we want to be pedantic), and of much narrower range swings between winter/summer, which means it's simpler for people who aren't techies to use without thinking. Bigger packs at an affordable price would solve the issue, but we aren't there yet.

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.

Except that typical refueling events for H2 stations designed for commercial use already exceed that, with full fills to 300 miles or so of range in 3-5 minutes (and no need to worry that filling the tank will lead to a shorter lifetime, as is the case with current batteries). While that's still longer than gassing up takes (I recently put 13.91 gallons in my tank in 1 minute 28 seconds, or just under 9.5 gal./mins), it's still a lot better than 30 minutes to 80% capacity.

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

I've mentioned above three advantages for the consumer of an H2 FCEV, plus flexibility of where you can choose to work or live, owing to rapid fueling stations not needing to be co-located at work or home. That is a problem that time and money could cure, but at current rates of charging infrastructure addition, I don't think we can afford to wait that long. After all, given the number of publicly-accessible charging stations installed in San Francisco over the past 4.5 years, it would take just short of 2 millennia to install charging stations at every public parking spot in the city. And then there's the cost of doing so, when most cities are struggling to pay for the infrastructure they already have. So, while the work/live limitations imposed by PEVs will ease over time given new construction regulations and an increase in demand, it's going to take at least 20 years and probably closer to 50 to provide enough charging stations for BEVs to not limit people's flexibility to unacceptable levels.

There's another advantage, in that fuel cells currently have longer lifetimes than batteries and, even with significant degradation, still provide enough range to be useful as a used car to a large segment of the population. Currently, no BEV other than a more expensive Tesla can match that.

IMO large-scale battery swapping will only be commercially viable (outside of fleets) when automakers agree on standardized, leased battery packs. Seeing as how they can't even agree on using standardized charging connectors and protocols yet, I don't expect that to happen anytime soon.

 

[GRA]

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?"

While I'm in agreement with epirali that I consider the risks of nuclear waste acceptable compared to fossil fuels, as I pointed out way upthread the last time this was discussed there are reactor designs that minimize waste, and what waste they do produce, while considerably more radioactive than what's currently produced by Gen 2 PWRs, also has much shorter half-lives, to the point that it only needs to be stored for timespans that humans can relate to. This was discussed extensively upthread, but suffice it to say that China, in addition to building passive-cooling Gen 3 reactors as fast as they can, is also working on Gen 4, with the intention of introducing them to full commercial service in 20 years or so. The DoE is also supporting R&D on them.

 

[GRA]

As I read his posts, RegGuheert (for one) does appear to disagree, and believes that efficiency should outweigh adoption. epirali and I are on the other side, and I'll let others describe where they stand.

I stand corrected.
As FCVs are more efficient that ICE vehicles, I have little issue with their efficiency.
As they are less efficient, less convenient for many, have lower performance and drive quality than plugins, they are a poor choice for most, but they are better than ICE.

Why do you think they have lower performance and drive quality than plug-ins? So far, it's really only possible to directly compare one car with fuel cell HEV as opposed to BEV, the B-class, and they use the same electric motor. Their driving quality should be virtually identical, as should their performance barring the minor weight advantage the FCEV has. It's true that the best performing PEV is higher performance than the best performing FCEV currently, but that's a matter of design decisions rather than technological limitations.

Edit: see the link in the Mirai thread to C&D's road test, wherein the Mirai was described as " . . . at home in the L.A. sprawl. It's comfortable, isolation-chamber quiet, and a pleasant means of enduring clotted freeways. . . . whle the Mirai's ability to reach 60 mph in 9.4 seconds and 80 mph in the quarter-mile is adequate to keep up with the Priuses and pool-cleaners' pickups, it's unlikely to accelerate any enthusiast's heart. When you nail the right pedal, there's a gentle moan and the nose rises eagerly. providing a false sense of acceleration. But with only 152 horsepower propelling a Camry-sized car weighing more than two tons, this is no Tesla."

As for being less convenient, for households with home charging, sure. But that's not the majority of the world's urban population, and it's only a small majority (56/44%) of the U.S. population. OTOH, 100% of the U.S. and world's urban population have access to gas stations, and H2 fueling can be added to many of them. Rural connector stations are even easier, as land is cheap (but getting H2 to them is likely to be expensive, just as gas often is).

There is a big difference between multi-billion dollar companies hedging their bets and truly believing in a product.
I think lots of eyes are on Toyota and the Mirai. They may well determine if other companies dive in, or just continue to dip their toes in the water.

Toyota clearly isn't hedging their bets on H2. BMW seems to be going the 'all-of-the-above' route, Daimler is similar, and I'm not up enough on current GM and Ford FCEV development to say where they are.

 

[lorenfb]

The amount of charge needed for a commute has NOTHING to do with the size of the battery in the car. Only efficiency and distance matter.

To the typical consumer, your sentence and the "fragmented" sentence have the same meaning.

Most who consider a BEV focus on total available range and NOT the "typical commute", which
then correlates with available battery capacity. Using your logic, the average ICE commuter
is totally irrational when not even considering the purchase of the Gen 1 BEV with its range
that exceeds the "typical commute", right? Given your logic, the Gen 2 projected ranges
approaching 200 miles will not offset the "leveling-off" of BEV sales in 2015. So it's all about
educating the consumer about the "typical" commuter's drive, right? Obviously then, most Leaf
sales persons have been mis-guided in their sales "pitch" of not having "educated" the potential
Gen 1 BEV consumer, which as your logic would indicate correlates with the marginal
acceptance rate we've seen in 2015 of BEVs, notwithstanding Tesla although its sales seem
to be flattening too. So, you obviously have some insightful strategic marketing theories
that could be beneficial to improving the lack-luster BEV sales, that have been over looked,
e.g. Nissan.

L1 apartment charging is even more suited to BEVs with bigger batteries since they can store up more on the weekends/at quick chargers to meet the owners needs.

Right, the typical family apartment dweller isn't going to allocate 30-40 minutes of weekend family
time to locate a QC and possibly wait in line for availability to charge his/her BEV? Again, your
logic is lacking.

 

[downeykp]

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.[/quote]

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?"[/quote]
While I'm in agreement with epirali that I consider the risks of nuclear waste acceptable compared to fossil fuels, as I pointed out way upthread the last time this was discussed there are reactor designs that minimize waste, and what waste they do produce, while considerably more radioactive than what's currently produced by Gen 2 PWRs, also has much shorter half-lives, to the point that it only needs to be stored for timespans that humans can relate to. This was discussed extensively upthread, but suffice it to say that China, in addition to building passive-cooling Gen 3 reactors as fast as they can, is also working on Gen 4, with the intention of introducing them to full commercial service in 20 years or so. The DoE is also supporting R&D on them.[/quote]


It looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree on nuclear waste. There is no acceptable level of waste and no way to mitigate it. There are many examples of how the nuclear experiment is a failure. Chernobyl, Fukushima to name just a few. Everyone who has waste has a problem.
How would you like to live within proximity of Yucca Mountain. While being very remote it still has an effect on leakage, seepage from containment vessels getting into groundwater. Fukushima and Chernobyl may never be repopulated. So I think you might want to rethink your support of the nuclear industry.

 

[epirali]

Level 1 will meet the majority of commuting needs.

... a daily commute of 60 miles...

The average commute is around 40 miles, not sixty. Anything beyond what can be covered by the L1 needs to be handled by extra charging on the weekend and public charging. My statement stands as given.

There is no issue with extension cords and/or loading if you install L1 EVSEs, as suggested.. A monthly fee can provide access to the parking spots with EVSEs.

L1 charging is not feasible in MY OPINION no matter how much you stand by your OPINION.

Extension cords are an issue, they are in trip hazard, you must use high quality cords, and the connection to/from the plugs must be very high quality. You can not use coiled extension rolls.

 

[epirali]

It looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree on nuclear waste. There is no acceptable level of waste and no way to mitigate it. There are many examples of how the nuclear experiment is a failure. Chernobyl, Fukushima to name just a few. Everyone who has waste has a problem.
How would you like to live within proximity of Yucca Mountain. While being very remote it still has an effect on leakage, seepage from containment vessels getting into groundwater. Fukushima and Chernobyl may never be repopulated. So I think you might want to rethink your support of the nuclear industry.

I do respect that you have different position than me. But I don't support the nuclear industry. I support the idea that knowledge and technology has a very significant role to play in the problems we have created with our knowledge and technology!

Nuclear power does have risks. But so does almost any human endeavor. I believe that nuclear technology causes stronger and more visceral emotions in most people. But using Fukushima is misleading, as it is an exception caused by a massive natural disaster. And even then it did not cause any significant deaths. How do you compare 19,000 deaths caused by the natural disaster to Fukushima? And Chernobyl is just a red herring altogether, you are talking about a bad design of an older reactor made with laughable safety standards. We are headed towards a planet that will become less and less habitable, I am honestly not frightened off by one small area being uninhabitable because of very bad design. We are managing to do much more complex things everyday without any irrational fear, but the word nuclear is just toxic (some pun intended).

Anyway this is off topic and I won't belabor the point.

 

[RegGuheert]

There is no issue with extension cords and/or loading if you install L1 EVSEs, as suggested.

Extension cords are an issue, they are in trip hazard, you must use high quality cords, and the connection to/from the plugs must be very high quality. You can not use coiled extension rolls.

You do not seem to get the concept that there are no extension cords, as I have stated.

 

[epirali]

There is no issue with extension cords and/or loading if you install L1 EVSEs, as suggested.

Extension cords are an issue, they are in trip hazard, you must use high quality cords, and the connection to/from the plugs must be very high quality. You can not use coiled extension rolls.

You do not seem to get the concept that there are no extension cords, as I have stated.

You are right I did not understand that from your post. So I'll revise: L1 EVSEs are simply impractical regardless of you OPINION for vast majority of BEV users.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

I think my point has been lost in the ongoing discussion of L1. Do we really think that installing a large number of outlets is cost prohibitive, yet replacing tens of thousands of gas stations with hydrogen stations is not? Remember that the electricity is already there. All major cities are literally glowing with electricity. Hydrogen is not present yet, and each hydrogen station built is the equivolent of a chemical processing plant. How many outlets are needed to serve a major city? How many gas stations?

I've mentioned above three advantages for the consumer of an H2 FCEV, plus flexibility of where you can choose to work or live, owing to rapid fueling stations not needing to be co-located at work or home. that is a problem that time and money could cure, but at current rates of charging infrastructure addition, I don't think we can afford to wait that long. After all, given the number of publicly-accessible charging station installed in San Francisco over the past 4.5 years, it would take just short of 2 millenia to install charging stations at every public parking spot in the city. And then there's the cost of doing so, when most cities are struggling to pay for the infrastructure they already have. So, while the work/live limitations imposed by PEVs will ease over time given new construction regulations and an increase in demand, it's going to take at least 20 years and probably closer to 50 to provide enough charging stations for BEVs to not limit people's flexibility to unacceptable levels.

Could you elaborate on why you think H2 will solve this problem quicker? We seem to all agree that today's technology is not quite ready yet. Plus today's H2 stations are prohibitively expensive. The only stations being installed are heavily subsidized experimental projects. Noone yet knows how to make money with H2. On the BEV side, you have Tesla who just hit their 500th supercharger. They are rolling out a network on their own dime, and have a clear plan to become profitable by it.

Right, the typical family apartment dweller is going to allocate 30-40 minutes of weekend family time to locate a QC and possibly wait in line for availability to charge his/her BEV? Again, your
logic is lacking.

Even Quick Chargers are much cheaper than H2 stations. So if there is a line there (caused by high utilization), how much more likely is there to be a line at an H2 station? Remember that most of the time, EVs are charged at home whereas FCVs are always refueled at an H2 station.

 

[RegGuheert]

L1 apartment charging is even more suited to BEVs with bigger batteries since they can store up more on the weekends/at quick chargers to meet the owners needs.

Right, the typical family apartment dweller is going to allocate 30-40 minutes of weekend family time to locate a QC and possibly wait in line for availability to charge his/her BEV? Again, your logic is lacking.

Your comprehension is lacking. In the phrase "on the weekends/at quick chargers" the "/" means "or". The point is that the car can charge over the weekend OR at quick chargers (whenever convenient).

Simply put, many BEV owners choose L1 charging today because it meets their needs. For those that it doesn't, they can get a Prius and avoid the expense and inconvenience of an H2 FCV.

 

[RegGuheert]

You are right I did not understand that from your post. So I'll revise: L1 EVSEs are simply impractical regardless of you OPINION for vast majority of BEV users.

Many BEV owners choose L1 today. For most, L2 charging is simply a convenience, not a necessity.

If it meets your commuting needs, a BEV on L1 is quite a bit more convenient than an H2 FCV since it will seldom require a refueling stop away from home.

Charging BEVs slowly overnight (or at work, or both) can offer many benefits to the grid by providing a lower load.

Also, while the LEAF is currently less efficient when charged at L1 versus L2, as the efficiency of the charger approaches unity, the pumps can be eliminated during L1 charging, making it MORE efficient than L2.

 

[Zythryn]

Why do you think they have lower performance and drive quality than plug-ins? ...

This first hand review from someone familiar with electric drive performance and drive quality.
https://transportevolved.com/2015/08/25/first-drive-report-2016-toyota-mirai-hydrogen-fuel-cell-sedan/

Having spent plenty of time with the Rav4 EV we looked forward to that grin-inducing, constant torque electric motor acceleration that makes children and adults giggle. We selected ‘Power’ mode, but found that acceleration from a dead stop, or from 30 or 40 MPH lacked the instant torque and acceleration familiar to drivers of electric cars.

In fact, acceleration in the Mirai is average and perhaps even a little on the slow side. While the Mirai does have enough power to drive safely on the freeway, its 0-60 time of 9.0 seconds is slower than that of a 2015 Corolla. Unlike most electric cars, which have a low center of gravity thanks to weighty battery packs low in the chassis, the center of gravity of the 4,080 pound Mirai is higher, exhibiting noticeable lean on cornering. While we’re making comparisons to the RAV4 EV and other zero emission cars, we found the Mirai’s regenerative ‘B-mode’ mild in comparison to many electric cars on the market today.

The passenger cabin is insulated to decrease noise, yet our test drive model was louder than expected. The drivetrain made a distinct noise under acceleration – the Mirai is louder than electric cars on the market today

I have no doubt the drive quality is better than an ICE, but am very skeptical that it matches an electric.
I look forward to seeing ore first hand reviews as the cars get on the roads.

The numbers you provided for garage owners are good information.
However, what are the percentage of car owners that have a garage. I know of people that own no cars, and all of them reside in urban zones.
How about percentage of early adopters?

I don't see the lack of a place to plug in on a daily basis to be a problem at this stage.
Once EVs get to 50% market share, then that may be an issue. By that time, I expect the charging infrastructure to have grown to cover most businesses, condos and apartment complexes that have off street parking.

And yes, there will be a smattering of people that find an FCV meets their needs better than EVs. But it is a very small number, IMO.