GRA said:
No, it must present the data and methodology that will allow someone to know what assumptions were used and make an informed estimate of the accuracy of the conclusions, instead of one based solely on pre-existing opinions.
It seems you are having difficulty with this, but I have pointed out the absurdity of what is provided in the chart you posted. As I said, it is so absurd, that it seems the authors are on something. Clearly their pre-existing opinions are clouding their judgments. Let's have a closer look at the chart you linked:
I am looking specifically at the items labeled BEV210 and H2FCEV on the chart.
Let's start with the black "Current Technology" line. This indicates that with "current" (2015) technology, the lifecycle cost of an H2 FCV is LOWER than a 210-mile BEV. Let's list the problems with this:
- Toyota has stated that they DO NOT KNOW how to mass-produce fuel cells in high volume. Given that, how in the world can you estimate fossil-fuel consumption in high-volume production? The simple answer is that we have NO IDEA how much fossil fuel is required to manufacture H2 FCVs in high quantities. In other words, they are simply pulling numbers out of thin air here.
- As far as we currently know, it takes MUCH MORE fossil fuel to manufacture an H2 FCV than a BEV.
- Using current technology it costs over 50X per mile as much to manufacture H2 fuel from renewable sources and over 15X as much from fossil fuel sources as the manufacture fuel for a BEV from renewable sources. That implies that SIGNIFICANTLY MORE fossil fuels are consumed to produce the H2 fuel than the BEV fuel.
Simply put, there is NO WAY that the lifetime fossil-fuel consumption of H2 FCVs is currently lower than a 210-mile BEV using current technology.
Next up: The improvement by vehicle efficiency gain. The little chart indicates that they might be the same. Really?
- Simply put, there is VERY LITTLE vehicle efficiency gain left to be had in BEVs. The 27% shown in the chart is probably about right.
- OTOH, the efficiency of the fuel cell in an H2 FCV is currently operates at an average of around 40%. The theoretical maximum efficiency for combining H2 and O2 to make H2O is 83%. Right there is a factor of over 2X in vehicle efficiency which, in theory, could be had by H2 FCVs over BEVs.
Simply put, the idea that H2 FCVs are ALREADY as optimized in terms of efficiency as BEVs is simply pure fantasy. (This goes back to the top black line more than anything.)
Finally, the biggy: That BEVs and H2 FCVs will end up at the same point when it comes to fossil-fuel consumption.
- Currently, it takes about 250 Wh of electricity to propel a BEV one mile. Since it takes about 50 kWh to produce one kg of H2, it takes about 1000 Wh of electricity to propel an H2 BEV that same mile. (And lest anyone wants to imagine that wasting 75% of the energy is no big deal as long as the source is renewable, I will point out that it is a VERY BIG DEAL. ALL renewable technologies are struggling to achieve a high enough EROEI to actually allow them to power the society of the future. An overall EROEI needed to do that is above about 10:1. Unfortunately, H2 FCVs currently waste 3/4 of what is produced. In other words, if you power them from renewable sources, it is very much equivalent to reducing the EROEI of the source by a factor of 4.)
- The reason the efficiency of BEVs is because Li-ion batteries TODAY have a round-trip energy efficiency of over 97%. That is possible because there is NO chemical reaction involved in the charging and discharging of the battery. OTOH, there is no getting around the fact that the creation and consumption of H2 FCV fuel requires TWO chemical reactions. In each case, the current state-of-the-art limits our efficiency to about 50% of the theoretical maximum for each. We have NO IDEA IF or WHEN sufficient breakthroughs will occur to allow us to achieve close to maximum efficiency from BOTH reactions. For this paper to simply ASSUME that it will happen is a real stretch. (Do we know of ANY industrial chemical reactions which we currently cause to happen with no energy loss?)
- Rapid fueling, the ONE big claim-to-fame of H2 FCVs, requires SIGNIFICANT ENERGY to accomplish to allow the fuel to be compressed to very high pressures and to be cooled to very low levels to prevent the vehicle tank from being melted when fueled. If you want to imagine this energy loss to disappear, you MUST show that there are, at the very least, theoretical approaches which allow these losses to be eliminated.
The bottom line is that it is reasonable to assume that technology will allow the 4:1 gap with currently exists between the creation of fuel for H2 FCVs and BEVs to be reduced to 3:1 or perhaps 2:1, but to imagine, with no credible roadmap provided, that it will simply disappear is, as I said, completely unwarranted.
No, this study is not based on actual facts. Rather, much of it is simply made up out of thin air. My impression is that the conclusions were foregone and the analysis was crafted to match those conclusions.