Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[epirali]

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.

<snip>

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.

What I am puzzled by is that Mirai has a 1.6 KW hour battery that is probably either an assist or storage for power, so I am not sure why it would be so weak. I have also seen reviews where although it is slow it does have electric like power off the line. Not Model S Tesla mind you, but sounds more Leaf like.

And I am curious when you say an FCV doesn't meet the needs of very small numbers do you mean as they are now with existing limited infrastructure, or do you mean ever?

 

[epirali]

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.

Again I understand this is your opinion, I do not share it. L1 charging, even at 100% efficiency, will still relegate BEVs to a very tiny fraction of the market. I think it downright counter-productive to put this idea forward as feasible to most of the population. For BEVs to get serious adoption (or any product for that matter) you have to stop explaining to people what they need or want and actually listen to what they need or want.

 

[Zythryn]

...
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.

...

And I am curious when you say an FCV doesn't meet the needs of very small numbers do you mean as they are now with existing limited infrastructure, or do you mean ever?

That is not what I said.
Eventually many will find an FCV meets their needs. Very few, ever (IMO) will ever find it meets their needs better than a plugin vehicle.

In addition, even fewer will find it meets their needs and wants more than both plugins and ICE vehicles, ever (again, IMO).

 

[epirali]

...
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.

...

And I am curious when you say an FCV doesn't meet the needs of very small numbers do you mean as they are now with existing limited infrastructure, or do you mean ever?

That is not what I said.
Eventually many will find an FCV meets their needs. Very few, ever (IMO) will ever find it meets their needs better than a plugin vehicle.

In addition, even fewer will find it meets their needs and wants more than both plugins and ICE vehicles, ever (again, IMO).

I was no implying that was your position, was asking for clarification (which you made). I know it seems surprising but questions around here sometimes are not at all leading.

In that same vain: I am curious, and I apologize if I missed this before, why do you think very few will find FCVs to meet their needs better than BEVs? Assuming a healthy infrastructure for hydrogen (let's say as common as gasoline) do you assume the number of people without easy access to daily charging is very small? Or is the percent of people who may need to drive more than is feasible on a single charge on BEVs to be small? Because in my wild guesstimate the number of people who will never adopt a pure BEV with todays charging rates (even assuming an equivalently healthy charging infrastructure as gasoline stations) is way over 50% of the population (and even that is being generous). I am using 50% as the percentage of people who do not have private garages.

 

[TonyWilliams]

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.

Battery swapping is a dead end. I only throw it out there as a a possibility, and there may be small, isolated circumstances where swapping makes sense (probably a taxi fleet with cheap, smallish batteries... small batteries tend to be more difficult to charge fast in the only metric that matters... range added per unit of time charging).

I'm not sure that we "know" that fuel cells have longer life than the best batteries. Hydrogen cars, in the 20 plus years of modern development, have never really been in public hands... for a whole lot of very good reasons.

"Cost" is thrown around here without the obvious caveats... hydrogen is GROSSLY subsidized. Toyota originally advertised that their car was $98,000, but are selling it for $57,000.

Tesla and Nissan (the two leaders in EVs) both reportedly make money on their cars.

 

[RegGuheert]

Again I understand this is your opinion, I do not share it. L1 charging, even at 100% efficiency, will still relegate BEVs to a very tiny fraction of the market. I think it downright counter-productive to put this idea forward as feasible to most of the population. For BEVs to get serious adoption (or any product for that matter) you have to stop explaining to people what they need or want and actually listen to what they need or want.

Serious adoption of BEVs is happening because they offer the best economics for many applications. They are also more convenient for some applications. People are adopting the technology to get access to these economic usage benefits.

Widespread adoption of FCVs will not happen because they cost more (in terms of money and resources) to make, they cost more (in terms of money and resources) to operate and they are less convenient than BEVs (must refuel at a public station). In addition, it costs approximately $12,000 PER VEHICLE to build (renewable) refueling infrastructure for FCVs.

They have one benefit: They can be refueled quickly. That *might* make them attractive for a handful of applications. The problem is that standard automobiles on the roads today ALSO have that same advantage. So FCVs are left with the fact that they offer one benefit over BEVs and virtually no customer benefits over ICEVs and ICE-based hybrids.

There's a reason why people are not standing in line for FCVs.

 

[RegGuheert]

"Cost" is thrown around here without the obvious caveats... hydrogen is GROSSLY subsidized. Toyota originally advertised that their car was $98,000, but are selling it for $57,000.

Exactly. There is a difference between cost and price.

A friend of mine used to own a SCUBA shop in Hawaii. He liked to tell a story of how a customer came in to get a tank of air one day. He told the customer "That will be $100." The customer complained that the shop down the street rented them for $75, so my friend suggested that the customer get the tank from them. The customer then explained that they were out of tanks. My friend then explained to this customer that he rents tanks of air for only $50 when he doesn't have any.

The point is that Toyota can charge anything they want for their FCVs since they are only selling a very small quantity of them. The price that people are paying does not give any clue about the actual costs. The same applies to the fuel. I think we all understand that they hydrogen is not free.

Just because someone else is paying for the technology does not mean that it is affordable. And someone has to pay for it.

 

[epirali]

Again I understand this is your opinion, I do not share it. L1 charging, even at 100% efficiency, will still relegate BEVs to a very tiny fraction of the market. I think it downright counter-productive to put this idea forward as feasible to most of the population. For BEVs to get serious adoption (or any product for that matter) you have to stop explaining to people what they need or want and actually listen to what they need or want.

Serious adoption of BEVs is happening because they offer the best economics for many applications. They are also more convenient for some applications. People are adopting the technology to get access to these economic usage benefits.

Widespread adoption of FCVs will not happen because they cost more (in terms of money and resources) to make, they cost more (in terms of money and resources) to operate and they are less convenient than BEVs (must refuel at a public station). In addition, it costs approximately $12,000 PER VEHICLE to build (renewable) refueling infrastructure for FCVs.

They have one benefit: They can be refueled quickly. That *might* make them attractive for a handful of applications. The problem is that standard automobiles on the roads today ALSO have that same advantage. So FCVs are left with the fact that they offer one benefit over BEVs and virtually no customer benefits over ICEVs and ICE-based hybrids.

There's a reason why people are not standing in line for FCVs.

I think there is validity in your observation, that there is a significant cost of adoption and use and economics driving some early BEV adopters. For people with that as the highest priority I will completely agree that there is no question about superiority of BEVs, short and medium term. I will not speak to long term as it is too speculative. But there is a hard ceiling to this population, otherwise we would have seen much greater Leaf adoption as the economics are hard to beat.

As for FCEV adoption: this is not something one can seriously discuss right now. There are very few early options, none well developed, all alpha/test units and as it has been correctly pointed out no real infrastructure for refueling to being with. Only people who would use FCEVs right now are bleeding edge adopters, tech enthusiasts, and conceptual supporters.

But I do disagree in your statement about ICE/PHEVs always being better than FCEVs. First hydrogen can be produced in a renewable fashion (please note the CAN), fossil fuels CAN NOT. Hydrogen with correct energy source CAN be used to generate no CO2 footprint, ICE/PHEVs CAN NOT. I think you are discounting these factors. I do agree that in short and medium term PHEVs will be cheaper to buy and operate, but this is where policy and things like "I don't want to keep destroying the environment" kicks in and makes FCEVs potentially a much better option for longer ranges/fast refueling needs.

But I'll repeat so there is no misunderstanding: I will still agree that BEVs are much better for a portion of population due to cost, ease of use, and the fact that it fits their daily needs with great ease. But you still need an L2 EVSE!

 

[RegGuheert]

Hey, some agreement!

I think there is validity in your observation, that there is a significant cost of adoption and use and economics driving some early BEV adopters. For people with that as the highest priority I will completely agree that there is no question about superiority of BEVs, short and medium term. I will not speak to long term as it is too speculative. But there is a hard ceiling to this population, otherwise we would have seen much greater Leaf adoption as the economics are hard to beat.

I don't see a "hard ceiling" anywhere. IMO, all drawbacks BEVs have today are solvable as the technologies improve.

As for FCEV adoption: this is not something one can seriously discuss right now. There are very few early options, none well developed, all alpha/test units and as it has been correctly pointed out no real infrastructure for refueling to being with. Only people who would use FCEVs right now are bleeding edge adopters, tech enthusiasts, and conceptual supporters.

Fair enough. But IMO, the real question is whether or not FCVs will be a dead-end technology and only command a *very* small niche or whether they can achieve a real market presence (say, over 10%). I suspect they will never approach BEV adoption rates because they will never approach the benefits BEVs offer.

But I do disagree in your statement about ICE/PHEVs always being better than FCEVs. First hydrogen can be produced in a renewable fashion (please note the CAN), fossil fuels CAN NOT. Hydrogen with correct energy source CAN be used to generate no CO2 footprint, ICE/PHEVs CAN NOT. I think you are discounting these factors. I do agree that in short and medium term PHEVs will be cheaper to buy and operate, but this is where policy and things like "I don't want to keep destroying the environment" kicks in and makes FCEVs potentially a much better option for longer ranges/fast refueling needs.

Sure. So you are left with the only people adopting FCVs are the ones you listed above: "bleeding edge adopters, tech enthusiasts, and conceptual supporters." In order for mass adoption, you must address the infrastructure issue (which seems quite intractable) AND one or both of the vehicle cost and/or the fuel cost issues. If there is no infrastructure OR there is no crossover on fuel/vehicle costs, there will be no widespread adoption.

But I'll repeat so there is no misunderstanding: I will still agree that BEVs are much better for a portion of population due to cost, ease of use, and the fact that it fits their daily needs with great ease.

I think we only disagree on the size of that portion. I do agree that it is a small portion today (half or fewer of homeowners who commute). In fact, I personally do not recommend the LEAF to my friends who commute since they drive beyond the range which is workable. OTOH, I do not see a real limit as the technology improves. MY2016 LEAFs will expand the reach of the LEAF, and the MY2017s should move it to a point which meets the needs of most commuters who can plug in at home.

But you still need an L2 EVSE!

While I don't NEED L2, I will agree that I PREFER L2. That's why I upgraded my EVSE to L2.

 

[epirali]

Hey, some agreement!

Part of what I have been trying to say for a while is that there is a lot of areas of agreement that get completely lost in polarized positions and tons of assumptions (and yes sometimes name calling). I prefer personally the "honest broker" approach. That doesn't mean everyone agrees, but I don't think there is a need for right/wrong and zero sum tactics.

The hard ceiling is an opinion/guess on my part. We can only see. And I have said before I think when the 200 mile/30K BEVs are available it will be a good data point. From what I see there is quite a bit of resistance to change, and real paradigm change and range anxiety resistance. I can convince technical/engineer friends relatively easily to evaluate a BEV, but for everyone else it still is a hard sell. I think you may underestimate the psychology of change. Range anxiety is alive and well, even with potential of fast charging.

And I will happily concede that one very possible outcome of FCEV and hydrogen development MAY be a dead end. It may not get cheap enough, efficient enough, or other events can completely make the development for personal transport unnecessary (again I'll pick the idea of a battery that can charge at 5-10x current supercharger rates). But I don't agree with the out of hand dismissal and as GRE put it well "putting all our eggs in one basket." So this is one area where we disagree. As you put it yourself about BEVs some of the problems with FCEV may be solved as technology and manufacturing improves.

I think if people look back without the "heat" they may see that those of us who are more positive on FCEVs have never downplayed BEVs nor have we been "against" them. Some of the rhetoric rises because of the overly emphatic rejection of potential of FCEVs.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

But I do disagree in your statement about ICE/PHEVs always being better than FCEVs. First hydrogen can be produced in a renewable fashion (please note the CAN), fossil fuels CAN NOT. Hydrogen with correct energy source CAN be used to generate no CO2 footprint, ICE/PHEVs CAN NOT. I think you are discounting these factors. I do agree that in short and medium term PHEVs will be cheaper to buy and operate, but this is where policy and things like "I don't want to keep destroying the environment" kicks in and makes FCEVs potentially a much better option for longer ranges/fast refueling needs.

There are other options out there that can be 1) generated without a CO2 footprint (in theory) and 2) used in an ICE/PHEV, particularly as a range-extender fuel (i.e. only needed for <25% of miles travelled). Two such fuels are ethanol and biodiesel. People are working on making them from algae farms for example. I don't want to hijack this thread. I should probably start a thread discussion them. My point in bringing them up is that hydrogen is not the only other option besides BEVs.

But I'll repeat so there is no misunderstanding: I will still agree that BEVs are much better for a portion of population due to cost, ease of use, and the fact that it fits their daily needs with great ease. But you still need an L2 EVSE!

Since you have been quick to point out others' opinions, I will reciprocate and point out that this is yours. Clearly we don't all agree on the extent of the necessity of an L2 EVSE. Certainly there are many cases that would require it. But there are many others that don't (given a robust QC network). The question is - given enough access to L1, how many would truly need L2?

 

[RegGuheert]

I think if people look back without the "heat" they may see that those of us who are more positive on FCEVs have never downplayed BEVs nor have we been "against" them.

You don't call this quote downplaying BEVs?

My point is the fundamental economics of BEVs on a large scale are wrong.

Even if you don't, I do.

 

[epirali]

But I'll repeat so there is no misunderstanding: I will still agree that BEVs are much better for a portion of population due to cost, ease of use, and the fact that it fits their daily needs with great ease. But you still need an L2 EVSE!

Since you have been quick to point out others' opinions, I will reciprocate and point out that this is yours. Clearly we don't all agree on the extent of the necessity of an L2 EVSE. Certainly there are many cases that would require it. But there are many others that don't (given a robust QC network). The question is - given enough access to L1, how many would truly need L2?

Absolutely anything that is not a statement of fact or figure is my opinion. I will be happy to keep stating it as such, I just assumed it was assumed. And please understand I am NOT the one who states opinion as absolute fact, so feel free to opinion-check others too.

The L2 case is both with the assumption that L1 is available everywhere (which really is not the case) and only with very limited and predictable driving requirements. An L2 charger means I can be ready to go on an expected trip in less than 3 hours, but if i relied solely on L1 and my car is not charged I am stuck. Is that a good enough example or should I try others?

 

[epirali]

I think if people look back without the "heat" they may see that those of us who are more positive on FCEVs have never downplayed BEVs nor have we been "against" them.

You don't call this quote downplaying BEVs?

My point is the fundamental economics of BEVs on a large scale are wrong.

Even if you don't, I do.

Can you provide context, otherwise I can guess what I was trying to say. The economics of BEVs, as I recall, was in the context of charging stations and what people are used to paying. They are wrong and I can not personally come up with a business model that would allow private industry to install tons of chargers (DC/quick) and charge as little as people seem to want.

I can happily provide a lot of quotes you have made out of context and try to play gotcha, but I won't. I urge you to spend more time trying to understand the position of others and less time with this kind of garbage. Trust me I have all the "ability" you and other use to be what I will happily call unproductive and generally obnoxious, I just choose not to use them. Because it adds nothing to the discussion and it significantly diminishes involvement of others.

And I'll wait for the first post where you actually acknowledge the validity of other peoples points, even if you don't agree, or factually correct yourself when data is presented.

 

[RegGuheert]

I think if people look back without the "heat" they may see that those of us who are more positive on FCEVs have never downplayed BEVs nor have we been "against" them.

Here's another one:

In my opinions BEVs will dead end with a certain small percentage of population at large. So I don't care if they are more efficient for the next 5 years. It's a dead end.

That's what I see when I "look back".

 

[epirali]

I think if people look back without the "heat" they may see that those of us who are more positive on FCEVs have never downplayed BEVs nor have we been "against" them.

Here's another one:

In my opinions BEVs will dead end with a certain small percentage of population at large. So I don't care if they are more efficient for the next 5 years. It's a dead end.

That's what I see when I "look back".

Wow you really don't get it, but ok. Actually I think you don't get it on purpose.

BEVs are a dead end for mass adoption, they have a ceiling in adoption, I have said the same thing over and over and over. UNLESS THERE IS A DRAMATIC BREAKTHROUGH IN CHARGING RATE AND INFRASTRUCTURE THEY WILL ONLY APPEAL TO A SMALL PORTION OF THE POPULATION. FCEVs have a much LARGER POTENTIAL OF ADOPTION than BEVs barring this kind of breakthrough. So I DON'T CARE IS THEY ARE MORE EFFICIENT FOR THE NEXT 5 YEARS IF THEY HIT A HARD CEILING. If you have not quote-mined you would have known that is what I was saying. Can you understand that sentence or should I try shadow puppets? I think you do, I think you are purposefully and willfully ignorant.

I have politely told you I don't agree with you. I have tried to stay civil with you despite your refusal to do the same. You don't even realize how offensive the tone of most of your posts are. You think fact twisting and out of context quote is an argument. So I guess its time to return the favor:

You are confusing your personal beliefs with truth. Stop preaching to others, and try to learn by listening to others. That is what I try to do. I take in information, even if I don't agree with it. I can change my mind and be flexible. Try that. I don't think you are capable of it.

I am still waiting for you to admit your error about BEV efficiency from charge to use. I caught you pretty well on that early on. Your childish response was "I stand by what I say," when you essentially got caught being wrong. Try correcting that one first, admit your mistake then I'll bother to answer your purposefully twisted out of context comments.

What a joke.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Assuming a healthy infrastructure for hydrogen (let's say as common as gasoline) do you assume the number of people without easy access to daily charging is very small? Or is the percent of people who may need to drive more than is feasible on a single charge on BEVs to be small? Because in my wild guesstimate the number of people who will never adopt a pure BEV with todays charging rates (even assuming an equivalently healthy charging infrastructure as gasoline stations) is way over 50% of the population (and even that is being generous). I am using 50% as the percentage of people who do not have private garages.

Why would this future include DC chargers at today's charging rate? Does that even seem likely?

I will presume, as virtually anybody would, that future DC charging rates will be "faster". I do not presume that hydrogen is as widespread as gasoline.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Wow you really don't get it, but ok. Actually I think you don't get it on purpose... I have politely told you I don't agree with you. I have tried to stay civil... So I guess its time to return the favor:

You are confusing your personal beliefs with truth. Stop preaching to others, and try to learn by listening to others. That is what I try to do. I take in information, even if I don't agree with it. I can change my mind and be flexible. Try that. I don't think you are capable of it...

What a joke.

You don't seem to be "taking information" very well.

 

[TonyWilliams]

The economics of BEVs, as I recall, was in the context of charging stations and what people are used to paying. They are wrong and I can not personally come up with a business model that would allow private industry to install tons of chargers (DC/quick) and charge as little as people seem to want.

It's not surprising that you can't figure out that business model, from a person who generally has a negative views of EVs. Yet, they keep popping up. There must be a lot of REALLY DUMB PEOPLE out there who didn't check in with you to determine that it's a dead end business. Both Tesla (now with 500 charging stations and thousands of DC quick charge stalls, plus thousands more destination charging locations) and NRG / eVgo are exploding with growth. They seem to have "a model", and both models are completely different. The same is not true of hydrogen.

From 2011, when the first DC charging station was put in the ground in the North America until today, the growth of public DC charging has been absolutely incredible. That first one in Vacaville, California, was 50kW, and by the next year, Tesla bumped that up to 90kW, then 120kW, and now 135kW. So, your entire concept that somehow DC charging stays the same in the future is beyond laughable. The same is not true of hydrogen.

There have been "public" hydrogen stations for over ten years. They just haven't grown, and any hydrogen station growth is a publicly paid venture. All the hydrogen planned is in niche areas, generally corresponding with regulatory requirements for zero emission vehicles.

Forward looking statement 1: There will not be a SINGLE hydrogen station installed in the next 20 years that is outside of a regulatory area (CARB-ZEV), -or- that is paid for solely with private money.

Not one. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

Factual statement 1: Today, there is not a SINGLE hydrogen station PLANNED to be installed outside of a regulatory area.

Not one. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

Forward looking statement 2 : There will be continued growth throughout the first and developing world of EVs and public DC charging, including continued increases in vehicle range and charge rate.

I can happily provide a lot of quotes you have made out of context and try to play gotcha, but I won't. I urge you to spend more time trying to understand the position of others and less time with this kind of garbage. Trust me I have all the "ability" you and other(s) use to be what I will happily call unproductive and generally obnoxious, I just choose not to use them. Because it adds nothing to the discussion and it significantly diminishes involvement of others.

Maybe it's time for a "Time Out"? You seem to be going off the tracks again; aren't your little tantrums getting old?

By the way, your position is clear:

EVs are capped out on sales / charge rate bad now and will be in the future / infrastructure bad and will be in the future / nobody will sit to charge if they could just have a "good" gasoline hybrid or hydrogen car.

WE GOT IT.

 

[TonyWilliams]

They have one benefit: They can be refueled quickly. That *might* make them attractive for a handful of applications. The problem is that standard automobiles on the roads today ALSO have that same advantage. So FCVs are left with the fact that they offer one benefit over BEVs and virtually no customer benefits over ICEVs and ICE-based hybrids.

There's a reason why people are not standing in line for FCVs.

I think you're very close to the perfect summary statement on the issue of hydrogen personal transport. Natural gas powered cars have virtually ALL the same characteristics of hydrogen cars, but they have failed miserably in the market with FAR lower cost cars and refueling.

Natural gas and hydrogen both refuel nearly as quickly as a gasoline experience (close enough that the public won't mind), yet Honda killed their nat-gas car because it just never caught on.

Why anybody would think that FAR more expensive hydrogen made from the very same natural gas, or even more expensively with electricity and water, would somehow catch on (without regulatory pressure) is beyond me.

Yet, EVs are growing quite nicely (more than I would have imagined, to be honest).

Forward looking statement 3: Refueling speed is not the number one determiner of mass adoption. Cost is.

I have no illusions that EVs will ever transfer energy as quickly as a fossil fuels, or fossil fuel derived energy like hydrogen, but I don't think that matters. EVs just need to be close.

As I've said many times, I think a 250kW charge rate is close enough. That's only double where we're at today.