rcm4453 said:
GRA said:
rcm4453 said:
The problem with FCEVs is that you will still be forever tied to the filling station paying at the pump evey week. How is this any better then a PHEV? Or even an ICE vehicle for that matter?
It's not
better, but the world has found it acceptable for the past century, given the other benefits. This assumes that home production of H2 via electrolysis/photochemical/thermochemical methods never becomes commercially viable, which would eliminate that objection (not that I'm expecting it).
rcm4453 said:
You can charge a BEV or PHEV using solar for free at home, can you say the same for FCEVs?
You can charge a BEV at home for free? You must have found a philanthropic solar company to give you the panels and install them for nothing - I always charged my customers. But at least for three years in the U.S., an FCEV customer
can get H2 for free, not that that's sustainable over the long term.
rcm4453 said:
Who cares if a FCEV gets a 300 mile range when you have to pay a lot for each fill up.
See above.
rcm4453 said:
Tesla Model S can get close to 300 miles range today and way out performs any FCEV by a long shot!
Let me fix that for you: "It can get close to 300 miles of range in very limited, unrealistic conditions for a limited period of time, at a price starting over $80k." As for the performance, while being able to go 0-60 in 2.9 seconds in Ludicrous mode is all sorts of fun, nobody needs to be able to do that. Nor is there any reason why an FCEV (actually an FCHEV, which all of them are now) couldn't be designed to do so, when and if anyone decides to.
rcm4453 said:
FCEVs are way less efficient, total waste of time, they're nothing more then "big oil" trying to stay in the loop of everyone's transportation energy needs.
FCEVs are certainly less efficient than BEVs, at least when the weather's warm (not sure if that holds true when the cars are providing CHP in cold temps, but I expect the overall efficiency is pretty close then - it's currently something like 75% for FCEVs for CHP. BEV efficiency is in the 90-95% range without providing heat, which is why I think they need auxiliary fuel-fired heaters for long trips in cold climates (to prevent the double range hit due to cold).
Big Oil is behind California's 33% RFS for transportation H2, a percentage that will surely be increased over time? Are they also behind Air Liquide's plan to have 50% of the H2 in the stations they're building in the Northeast be renewable by 2020? Or Denmark's plan to generate all their H2 from excess wind power, and one of the other Scandinavian countries (Sweden?) which plans to do the same? Or Toyota's partnering with a couple of Japanese cities to generate H2 likewise? Reports for all of these and many others have been linked upthread.
95% of current U.S. hydrogen is produced by steam-methane re-forming of non-renewable natural gas. Believe me, Big Oil will be in the loop and profiting from hydrogen fuel stations. Isn't Shell oil one of the biggest right now for hydrogen fuel stations? It is significantly cheaper to reform methane to get hydrogen than to extract it from water using electrolysis. The market does not price carbon, therefore there is no economic penalty for using methane as the H2 source. The market will not support a higher cost fuel over a less expensive fuel. People will not fuel their FCEVs with low carbon H2 (renewable) but with H2 from reformed methane. [/quote
Of course Big Oil will be in the loop; they're energy companies. They've also been in the loop re PV (at least Shell, Arco and BP have all had PV divisions at one time or another) and batteries. After all, it was a division of Exxon which first commercialized and marketed lithium batteries, and I see that Total is tendering to buy SAFT:
Total to acquire battery-maker Saft in US$1.1-billion deal
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/05/20160509-total.html
That 95% of H2 is currently being made from SMR has been stated here many times, by me among others. That's why so many jurisdictions are requiring RFS for transportation H2, in the same way that so many are requiring RFS for electricity (the majority of which is also still generated by burning fossil fuels). If H2 with an ever-increasing proportion produced renewably can't be sold at prices that are cheaper than fossil fuels, then it will fail, simple as that. That may come about through decreases on the cost of renewable H2, natural or artificial (carbon tax etc.) hikes in the price of fossil fuels or both. Or neither, in which case bio-fuel PHEVs, BEVs and/or bio-fueled ICEs will instead achieve mass adoption first. I'm fine with any of them, as long as they lead to the elimination of fossil fuels.
rcm4453 said:
So what if people who lease FCEVs are getting free H2 right now, that's not going to last forever then what? Do you really think H2 will be cheaper then gasoline?
That's the intent of DoE and the auto and H2 companies, although it's highly unlikely that we'll reach that point within the next three years, which is why I said that the auto companies with FCEVs would likely need to continue H2 subsidies a a lower level for some time afterwards.
rcm4453 said:
Definitely won't be cheaper then using electricity to power a BEV. It takes 2x to 3x as much electricity to drive a FCEV a mile as it does to drive a BEV a mile. You claim solar panels aren't free, that's very true but over time they will eventually pay for themselves. Can you say the same for a FCEV? Nope you sure can't because you're tied to the filling station paying at the pump week after week for the life of the vehicle. Plus you won't have the option to refuel your FCEV at home, which is one of the biggest perks of having a BEV.
Sure, FCEVs will be more expensive to fuel than BEVs, provided you can do so somewhere with cheap electricity. As I've pointed out at length in this and other threads, most people living in apartments, condos and townhouses, especially in urban areas can't do so, nor can they put PV on their roofs (because they don't own said roofs). Most of the world's urban car-owning population doesn't live like the (small: 56%) majority of the U.S. car-owning population who can charge at home. So, the fact that homeowners with access to low-cost electricity at home will have lower LCO and more convenience is great for them, but for the next several decades at least while the public charging infrastructure is being built up, irrelevant for most. If someone is in the fortunate position of being able to reap the major benefits of a BEV and it otherwise suits their needs, then by all means that's the way they should go.
I can't speak for Toyota and the other companies that have decided to go with fuel cells, but IMO they have reasoned much as I have; that most of the world's car-owning population doesn't fall into the BEV-suitable category now or mid-term future, and therefore another fossil-fuel free tech is necessary for them. That FCEVs (also biofueled ICEs/HEVs) also require essentially no change in personal habits is a bonus for consumer acceptance.
rcm4453 said:
Another big problem with FCEVs is they are SLOW! You need a big battery to get decent performance and FCEVs have too small of a battery to deliver decent performance. I'm not saying they need to go 0-60 in 2.9 seconds but from the reviews I've read on the FCEVs that are out now, they are really slow in the acceleration department. The Chevy Bolt and Tesla model 3 will have better performance then the FCEVs and will be cheaper to buy and operate! Let's face it, a BEV beats a FCEV in almost every way, especially the ones coming out in the next few years. The only thing a FCEV wins at is faster refueling time, that's it! It loses to a BEV in EVERY other way so why would you choose a FCEV? Is there even a practical reason to go down the path of FCEVs? Why not just continue using ICE vehicles until BEVs improve even more? Why put resources into developing an inferior technology? Just make the transition from ICE vehicles to BEVs.
As I've pointed out, there is no technical reason why FCHEVs need to be slow, just cost and design point reasons. FCEVs beat BEVs currently in range for price, range in cold conditions, speed of refueling, lack of limitations on where one lives or works or the type of housing, ease of transition (for the consumer used to an ICE), and (probably) usable life. Even if fuel cells degrade at the same rate as batteries do, since they start off with more range and can be refueled so quickly they're prctical range remains much greater over the long term. I've said repeatedly that I don't believe in silver bullets, and that I think it more likely we'll adopt a variety of fossil-fuel free transportation techs for various needs rather than just one. However, if one of them out-competes all the others and can completely replace fossil fuels that's just fine by me, and I don't much care which one it might be, although AOTBE I'd of course opt for the most energy-efficient one.