Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[GetOffYourGas]

More data points:
Volvo XC40, starting MSRP $34,100
Volvo XC40 Recharge, starting MSRP $55,300

Ford F-150, starting MSRP $29,290
Ford F-150 Lightning, starting MSRP $39,974

You originally said

Let me know when you buy a BEV (or HFCEV) for the same price as an ICEV of the same size/trim/functionality.

Not

Let me know when every BEV (or HFCEV) is the same price as an ICEV of the same name.

Nothing like moving the goalposts.

 

[WetEV]

Scary study.

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a38043667/study-electric-cars-higher-cost-questions/

Until you read the detail.

 

[GRA]

More data points:
Volvo XC40, starting MSRP $34,100
Volvo XC40 Recharge, starting MSRP $55,300

Ford F-150, starting MSRP $29,290
Ford F-150 Lightning, starting MSRP $39,974

You originally said

Let me know when you buy a BEV (or HFCEV) for the same price as an ICEV of the same size/trim/functionality.

Not

Let me know when every BEV (or HFCEV) is the same price as an ICEV of the same name.

Nothing like moving the goalposts.

Here's an apples to apples comparison of relative value, to me. IIRR, C&D tested the Bolt and came up with a 0-60 time of 6.5 seconds or thereabouts. My current car model, when tested by them, had a 0-60 time of 9.6 seconds. So let's look at the current, 6.5 second Bolt vs. a theoretical 9.5 second Bolt for the same price, but with some optional changes to see which one provides the greater value, utility, flexibility and/or convenience.

1. 6.5 second Bolt (great passing, lots of fun to drive fast).

2. 9.5 second Bolt (perfectly adequate passing, fun to drive fast) with either

• a. 300+ mile range
  
  b. <=30 minute FC from 20-80% (2021 Bolt took me 47 minutes from 45-80%)
  
  c. Heat Pump.

Given the choice between 1 or 2 with any of the options, I'd opt for 2a, b or c in a heartbeat. The Bolt1 is more fun to drive, but Bolt 2 provides me with more useful capability, utility, flexibility, and convenience, and would still provide faster passing at altitude than my current car owing to no power loss in thinner air. In fact, a Bolt 2 with all three options would probably be worth paying an extra $5k for me, if the Bolt met most of my major requirements (it doesn't, as it's too short and lacks both AWD and a space for spare).

There are plenty of roughly comparable ICEs that provide me with even more capability than a Bolt 2 with all options, and do so at a much lower price. They may or may not cost more long-term, but they're also far more affordable upfront and give me far more car in the process, as they will meet my needs for much longer before needing replacement. AFAIR none of the cost comparison studies mentioned above included the price of a pack replacement, and even a 300 mile BEV when new has only marginal range for me, and will need at least one and possibly two pack replacements during its life with me to regain needed range.

If that's too abstract, how about comparing the RAV4, both ICE and HEV, to an ID.4 w/AWD, as they're all compact CUVs. Actually, the ID.4 falls well short of option a, barely meets option b and I think it's also missing option c, so the upcoming Ionic 5/EV6 would be a better match as I expect them to come in within about $2k of a comparably-equipped ID.4.

RAV4 AWD base MSRP, $27,750, 35 mpg Hwy, 478.5 mile Hwy range.
Rav4 AWD Hybrid base MSRP, $28,500, 38 mpg Hwy, 551 miles Hwy range.
ID.4 AWD base MSRP, $43,675. I haven't been able to find Hwy range for it , but judging by the non-AWD range drop from 260 combined to 237 miles, I'd expect the AWD version to come in around 225 miles Hwy. https://insideevs.com/news/533041/volkswagen-id4-awd-epa-range/

Ionic5/EV6 AWD should do a bit better on EPA range than the ID.4, with much faster FC and a heat pump so a better match for my requirements.

The Castrol study I've referenced elsewhere said that the average range wanted by U.S. car buyers before they'd consider a BEV was 517 km (321 miles) with an FC time of around 30 minutes (most people don't know that BEV charging slows way down when past 80%, and discharging too low can hurt the battery; I'm willing to bet most people in the survey meant 30 minutes from 0-100%), so I'd say the Bolt 2 requirements I stated above were if anything less rigorous than the typical U.S. car buyer's.

BTW, U.S. fleet owners wanted considerably more range - I forget the exact number but it was something like 740 km/500 miles, although they were okay with slower charging. If it were available for not too much more, I'd take it. My current car's no-worries range in non-terrible conditions is at least 400 miles. The best I can recall was 468 miles before the low-fuel light (2.4 gallons remaining) came on, and when that light comes on I assume a soft reserve of 30 miles and a hard one of 50, but I could probably manage another 60 or a bit more depending on how much of the fuel in the tank is unusable. As it is, that range allows me to do some weekend trips un-refueled, but generally I stop once on the way up and often on the way back for gas because it's significantly cheaper outside the Bay Area, in the Central Valley. Per Gasbuddy the station I typically get gas at locally is currently $4.36/gal. Reg. (the station 1.5 blocks from home is $4.60); The station I most often use on the way to/from Yosemite and the east side of the Sierra is currently $4.16.

Today's prices are something like $1.22 higher than this time last year, but for the sake of argument let's assume gas will stay at $4.50/gal. forever. For the $15,925 price difference of the RAV4 to the ID.4 I could put gas in the RAV4 AWD and drive it on the Hwy for 123,861 miles to breakeven (I'm ignoring maintenance, insurance, pack replacements etc. here).

For the $15,175 price difference of the RAV4 AWD Hybrid vs. the ID.4 AWD I could drive the former 128,144 miles before breakeven.

 

[GRA]

See https://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=22441&p=611925#p611925


GCC:

Alaska Air Group collaborating with ZeroAvia to develop hydrogen powertrain for 76-seat zero-emission aircraft

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/10/20211027-zeroavia.html

ZeroAvia announced a development collaboration with Alaska Air Group, the parent company of Alaska Airlines, for a hydrogen-electric powertrain capable of flying 76-seat regional aircraft in excess of 500 NM. Alaska is also joining the list of top investors for the company, alongside a fellow Seattle-based Amazon Climate Pledge Fund and Bill Gates’s Breakthrough Energy Ventures.

Alaska and ZeroAvia engineers will work together to scale the company’s existing powertrain platform to produce the ZA2000, an engine family capable of producing between 2,000 and 5,000 kilowatts of power with a 500-mile range. The partnership will initially deploy a 3MW+ hydrogen-electric powertrain system into a full-size De Havilland Q400 aircraft, previously operated by Alaska Air Group subsidiary Horizon Air Industries, Inc., capable of transporting 76 passengers.

ZeroAvia will also work closely with aircraft regulators during this project to ensure the aircraft meets both safety and operational requirements. ZeroAvia will set up a location in the Seattle area to support this initiative.

Alaska has also secured options for up to 50 kits to begin converting its regional aircraft to hydrogen-electric power through ZeroAvia’s zero-emission powertrain, starting with the Q400 aircraft. This pioneering zero-emission aviation rollout will be supported by the ground fuel production and dispensing infrastructure from ZeroAvia and its infrastructure partners, such as Shell. Working to advance novel propulsion is one of the five parts of Alaska’s strategy to achieve net zero.

Recently, ZeroAvia also successfully ground-tested its 600 kW powertrain capable of flying airframes 10-20 seats in size 500 miles, is well advanced in preparing a 19-seat aircraft for flight testing at Cotswold Airport in the UK and is moving to full-size prototype manufacturing of its 2,000 kW engine for demonstrations in 2022. . . .

 

[GRA]

Scary study.

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a38043667/study-electric-cars-higher-cost-questions/

Until you read the detail.

Which includes this:

Being able to charge at home is key to the ownership-cost equation, and we would expect that the charging ratio of many EV owners is more like 90/10 percent in favor of at-home charging. Over the past two years, our long-term Tesla Model 3 is running at a 55/45 percent split in favor of at-home charging, and we would expect our figures to be on the high side of commercial charging as ours is constantly driven by people without a 240-volt hookup at home and also going on long trips.

 

[Oils4AsphaultOnly]

More data points:
Volvo XC40, starting MSRP $34,100
Volvo XC40 Recharge, starting MSRP $55,300

Ford F-150, starting MSRP $29,290
Ford F-150 Lightning, starting MSRP $39,974

You originally said

Let me know when you buy a BEV (or HFCEV) for the same price as an ICEV of the same size/trim/functionality.

Not

Let me know when every BEV (or HFCEV) is the same price as an ICEV of the same name.

Nothing like moving the goalposts.

Here's an apples to apples comparison of relative value, to me. IIRR, C&D tested the Bolt and came up with a 0-60 time of 6.5 seconds or thereabouts. My current car model, when tested by them, had a 0-60 time of 9.6 seconds. So let's look at the current, 6.5 second Bolt vs. a theoretical 9.5 second Bolt for the same price, but with some optional changes to see which one provides the greater value, utility, flexibility and/or convenience.

1. 6.5 second Bolt (great passing, lots of fun to drive fast).

2. 9.5 second Bolt (perfectly adequate passing, fun to drive fast) with either

• a. 300+ mile range
  
  b. <=30 minute FC from 20-80% (2021 Bolt took me 47 minutes from 45-80%)
  
  c. Heat Pump.

Given the choice between 1 or 2 with any of the options, I'd opt for 2a, b or c in a heartbeat. The Bolt1 is more fun to drive, but Bolt 2 provides me with more useful capability, utility, flexibility, and convenience, and would still provide faster passing at altitude than my current car owing to no power loss in thinner air. In fact, a Bolt 2 with all three options would probably be worth paying an extra $5k for me, if the Bolt met most of my major requirements (it doesn't, as it's too short and lacks both AWD and a space for spare).

There are plenty of roughly comparable ICEs that provide me with even more capability than a Bolt 2 with all options, and do so at a much lower price. They may or may not cost more long-term, but they're also far more affordable upfront and give me far more car in the process, as they will meet my needs for much longer before needing replacement. AFAIR none of the cost comparison studies mentioned above included the price of a pack replacement, and even a 300 mile BEV when new has only marginal range for me, and will need at least one and possibly two pack replacements during its life with me to regain needed range.

If that's too abstract, how about comparing the RAV4, both ICE and HEV, to an ID.4 w/AWD, as they're all compact CUVs. Actually, the ID.4 falls well short of option a, barely meets option b and I think it's also missing option c, so the upcoming Ionic 5/EV6 would be a better match as I expect them to come in within about $2k of a comparably-equipped ID.4.

RAV4 AWD base MSRP, $27,750, 35 mpg Hwy, 478.5 mile Hwy range.
Rav4 AWD Hybrid base MSRP, $28,500, 38 mpg Hwy, 551 miles Hwy range.
ID.4 AWD base MSRP, $43,675. I haven't been able to find Hwy range for it , but judging by the non-AWD range drop from 260 combined to 237 miles, I'd expect the AWD version to come in around 225 miles Hwy. https://insideevs.com/news/533041/volkswagen-id4-awd-epa-range/

Ionic5/EV6 AWD should do a bit better on EPA range than the ID.4, with much faster FC and a heat pump so a better match for my requirements.

The Castrol study I've referenced elsewhere said that the average range wanted by U.S. car buyers before they'd consider a BEV was 517 km (321 miles) with an FC time of around 30 minutes (most people don't know that BEV charging slows way down when past 80%, and discharging too low can hurt the battery; I'm willing to bet most people in the survey meant 30 minutes from 0-100%), so I'd say the Bolt 2 requirements I stated above were if anything less rigorous than the typical U.S. car buyer's.

BTW, U.S. fleet owners wanted considerably more range - I forget the exact number but it was something like 740 km/500 miles, although they were okay with slower charging. If it were available for not too much more, I'd take it. My current car's no-worries range in non-terrible conditions is at least 400 miles. The best I can recall was 468 miles before the low-fuel light (2.4 gallons remaining) came on, and when that light comes on I assume a soft reserve of 30 miles and a hard one of 50, but I could probably manage another 60 or a bit more depending on how much of the fuel in the tank is unusable. As it is, that range allows me to do some weekend trips un-refueled, but generally I stop once on the way up and often on the way back for gas because it's significantly cheaper outside the Bay Area, in the Central Valley. Per Gasbuddy the station I typically get gas at locally is currently $4.36/gal. Reg. (the station 1.5 blocks from home is $4.60); The station I most often use on the way to/from Yosemite and the east side of the Sierra is currently $4.16.

Today's prices are something like $1.22 higher than this time last year, but for the sake of argument let's assume gas will stay at $4.50/gal. forever. For the $15,925 price difference of the RAV4 to the ID.4 I could put gas in the RAV4 AWD and drive it on the Hwy for 123,861 miles to breakeven (I'm ignoring maintenance, insurance, pack replacements etc. here).

For the $15,175 price difference of the RAV4 AWD Hybrid vs. the ID.4 AWD I could drive the former 128,144 miles before breakeven.

You don't get to rewrite the laws of physics to suit your wants. The performance comes with the range. Only in the ICE world is that an either/or selection.

The whole range issue (aka national parks) has been argued ad-nauseam. 200+ miles is non ideal, but can be made to work with your use cases. You would rather not "inconvenience" yourself is all. And you already know that your driving pattern isn't typical of most americans, so it's okay if a BEV doesn't fit your needs, since it fits many others. That's the point. A BEV is a viable alternative to an ICE for most consumers, whereas an FCEV is not. There is no "BEV's and FCEV's are both not ready yet".

 

[oxothuk]

There seem to be many on this forum who believe that (a) BEVs are, right now, a suitable replacement for ICEs for most consumers, and (b) further development of FCEVs should be abandoned. They also seem to think that lack of information is the only reason most consumers continue to purchase ICEs.

Both of these views are mistaken, IMHO.

There are now enough BEVs on the road (at least in the blue states) that most people see them every day and probably know someone who has one and can discuss the experience. Nonetheless, most of these people continue to buy ICEs. It is patronizing to assert that these consumers are simply ignorant and don't understand their needs as well as we do.

FCEVs have a number of potential advantages, including (a) making range a non-issue, (b) longer life, (c) less need for large-scale mining of Lithium and Cobalt. Whether these advantages can ever be realized is still an open question, as well as whether we can develop affordable green hydrogen at scale. But I don't believe the case for BEVs is such a slam-dunk that we shouldn't continue to work on alternatives.

 

[LeftieBiker]

There seem to be many on this forum who believe that (a) BEVs are, right now, a suitable replacement for ICEs for most consumers, and (b) further development of FCEVs should be abandoned. They also seem to think that lack of information is the only reason most consumers continue to purchase ICEs.

Both of these views are mistaken, IMHO.

As someone who you probably include in the above, I'd like to correct you a bit. What I and many others here think is that a BEV like a Leaf is a nearly ideal second car for local use. I don't think that current BEVs, possibly excepting Teslas, are good candidates for a sole car for people who do a lot of driving, especially longer distances. I realize that people don't make rational decisions about vehicles very often, as evidenced by the enormous numbers of large pickup trucks being used as commuter vehicles, but if you want to argue the merits of the case, then a Gen II Leaf is vastly better as a second family car, in every way except cargo capacity, than something like an F150 or Ram.

As for hydrogen, I actually think that it has great potential - but as energy storage for fleet vehicles, especially large trucks, and even for rail transport. What I don't believe is that HFCEVs are anything but a way for recalcitrant auto makers like Toyota and Honda to delay electrification of their vehicles, while getting paid by the government to do so.

 

[oxothuk]

There seem to be many on this forum who believe that (a) BEVs are, right now, a suitable replacement for ICEs for most consumers, and (b) further development of FCEVs should be abandoned. They also seem to think that lack of information is the only reason most consumers continue to purchase ICEs.

Both of these views are mistaken, IMHO.

As someone who you probably include in the above, I'd like to correct you a bit. What I and many others here think is that a BEV like a Leaf is a nearly ideal second car for local use. I don't think that current BEVs, possibly excepting Teslas, are good candidates for a sole car for people who do a lot of driving, especially longer distances.

I pretty much agree with you, which is why I own a Gen 2 Leaf myself. But I have all the right conditions to make it work
a) I have an ICE Highlander for out of state trips or when I need to carry more people/cargo
b) I live in a SFH where I can easily charge the Leaf
c) I have enough income to fully exploit the tax credit and thus offset the BEV price premium

 

[SageBrush]

As someone who you probably include in the above, I'd like to correct you a bit. What I and many others here think is that a BEV like a Leaf is a nearly ideal second car for local use. I don't think that current BEVs, possibly excepting Teslas, are good candidates for a sole car for people who do a lot of driving, especially longer distances.

Our Tesla would work just fine as a sole car but my wife does not like taking it into the city out of fear of damage/vandalism so we also keep a LEAF as a 1/2 car (aka 'city' car.)

That said, I have started mulling over a change in car ownership because the LEAF gets the lion's share of days driven. Not only does that make the Tesla expensive on a per day basis, the extended downtime has lead to rodent problems. It may be most prudent for us to only own a 1/2 car and rent a full car when wanted. I'm going to watch the Hertz EV space to see if they can accommodate that arrangement.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

More data points:
Volvo XC40, starting MSRP $34,100
Volvo XC40 Recharge, starting MSRP $55,300

Ford F-150, starting MSRP $29,290
Ford F-150 Lightning, starting MSRP $39,974

You originally said

Let me know when you buy a BEV (or HFCEV) for the same price as an ICEV of the same size/trim/functionality.

Not

Let me know when every BEV (or HFCEV) is the same price as an ICEV of the same name.

Nothing like moving the goalposts.

Here's an apples to apples comparison of relative value, to me.
<snip>

So what we have established is that for at least one person (me), a BEV costs less, provides better performance, and better utility than an equivalent ICE. And for at least one person (you), it does not.

Anecdotes are typically not very useful in a broad term, but I was addressing the statement:

Let me know when you buy a BEV (or HFCEV) for the same price as an ICEV of the same size/trim/functionality.

Not saying it will never happen, but we’re nowhere close at the moment.

As requested, I let him know. And it's not nowhere close at the moment. It is true right now.

There seem to be many on this forum who believe that (a) BEVs are, right now, a suitable replacement for ICEs for most consumers, and (b) further development of FCEVs should be abandoned. They also seem to think that lack of information is the only reason most consumers continue to purchase ICEs.

Both of these views are mistaken, IMHO.

There are now enough BEVs on the road (at least in the blue states) that most people see them every day and probably know someone who has one and can discuss the experience. Nonetheless, most of these people continue to buy ICEs. It is patronizing to assert that these consumers are simply ignorant and don't understand their needs as well as we do.

FCEVs have a number of potential advantages, including (a) making range a non-issue, (b) longer life, (c) less need for large-scale mining of Lithium and Cobalt. Whether these advantages can ever be realized is still an open question, as well as whether we can develop affordable green hydrogen at scale. But I don't believe the case for BEVs is such a slam-dunk that we shouldn't continue to work on alternatives.

Don't lump me in this group either. For my use case, a BEV is superior to an ICE today. But, like GRA, my use case doesn't represent anything more than that. My own. The question is NOT whether a BEV is superior for anyone (I demonstrated that it is), but rather for what percent of the market it is superior. I think you are guilty of making the reverse of the fallacy you point out. That since it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for anyone.

 

[GRA]

You originally said


Not


Nothing like moving the goalposts.

Here's an apples to apples comparison of relative value, to me.
<snip>

So what we have established is that for at least one person (me), a BEV costs less, provides better performance, and better utility than an equivalent ICE. And for at least one person (you), it does not.

Anecdotes are typically not very useful in a broad term, but I was addressing the statement:

Let me know when you buy a BEV (or HFCEV) for the same price as an ICEV of the same size/trim/functionality.

Not saying it will never happen, but we’re nowhere close at the moment.

As requested, I let him know. And it's not nowhere close at the moment. It is true right now.

There seem to be many on this forum who believe that (a) BEVs are, right now, a suitable replacement for ICEs for most consumers, and (b) further development of FCEVs should be abandoned. They also seem to think that lack of information is the only reason most consumers continue to purchase ICEs.

Both of these views are mistaken, IMHO.

There are now enough BEVs on the road (at least in the blue states) that most people see them every day and probably know someone who has one and can discuss the experience. Nonetheless, most of these people continue to buy ICEs. It is patronizing to assert that these consumers are simply ignorant and don't understand their needs as well as we do.

FCEVs have a number of potential advantages, including (a) making range a non-issue, (b) longer life, (c) less need for large-scale mining of Lithium and Cobalt. Whether these advantages can ever be realized is still an open question, as well as whether we can develop affordable green hydrogen at scale. But I don't believe the case for BEVs is such a slam-dunk that we shouldn't continue to work on alternatives.

Don't lump me in this group either. For my use case, a BEV is superior to an ICE today. But, like GRA, my use case doesn't represent anything more than that. My own. The question is NOT whether a BEV is superior for anyone (I demonstrated that it is), but rather for what percent of the market it is superior. I think you are guilty of making the reverse of the fallacy you point out. That since it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for anyone.

I've never at any time claimed that BEVs don't work for anyone, in fact I've said that they could work for far more people than currently use them. What I've said, and this is supported by both surveys and sales, is that they don't currently provide enough value for most people to be willing to switch from ICEs. 2.5% have bought BEVs (or maybe that's PEVs, I forget) in 1H 2021 in the U.S., 97.5% haven't. Which is to say, 97.5% don't consider them superior to what they have now, even though for many they would be. Surveys tell us what it will take for those people to be convinced that BEVs are superior for them, so that they can seriously consider buying one.

 

[GRA]

You originally said


Not


Nothing like moving the goalposts.

Here's an apples to apples comparison of relative value, to me. IIRR, C&D tested the Bolt and came up with a 0-60 time of 6.5 seconds or thereabouts. My current car model, when tested by them, had a 0-60 time of 9.6 seconds. So let's look at the current, 6.5 second Bolt vs. a theoretical 9.5 second Bolt for the same price, but with some optional changes to see which one provides the greater value, utility, flexibility and/or convenience.

1. 6.5 second Bolt (great passing, lots of fun to drive fast).

2. 9.5 second Bolt (perfectly adequate passing, fun to drive fast) with either

• a. 300+ mile range
  
  b. <=30 minute FC from 20-80% (2021 Bolt took me 47 minutes from 45-80%)
  
  c. Heat Pump.

Given the choice between 1 or 2 with any of the options, I'd opt for 2a, b or c in a heartbeat. The Bolt1 is more fun to drive, but Bolt 2 provides me with more useful capability, utility, flexibility, and convenience, and would still provide faster passing at altitude than my current car owing to no power loss in thinner air. In fact, a Bolt 2 with all three options would probably be worth paying an extra $5k for me, if the Bolt met most of my major requirements (it doesn't, as it's too short and lacks both AWD and a space for spare).

There are plenty of roughly comparable ICEs that provide me with even more capability than a Bolt 2 with all options, and do so at a much lower price. They may or may not cost more long-term, but they're also far more affordable upfront and give me far more car in the process, as they will meet my needs for much longer before needing replacement. AFAIR none of the cost comparison studies mentioned above included the price of a pack replacement, and even a 300 mile BEV when new has only marginal range for me, and will need at least one and possibly two pack replacements during its life with me to regain needed range.

If that's too abstract, how about comparing the RAV4, both ICE and HEV, to an ID.4 w/AWD, as they're all compact CUVs. Actually, the ID.4 falls well short of option a, barely meets option b and I think it's also missing option c, so the upcoming Ionic 5/EV6 would be a better match as I expect them to come in within about $2k of a comparably-equipped ID.4.

RAV4 AWD base MSRP, $27,750, 35 mpg Hwy, 478.5 mile Hwy range.
Rav4 AWD Hybrid base MSRP, $28,500, 38 mpg Hwy, 551 miles Hwy range.
ID.4 AWD base MSRP, $43,675. I haven't been able to find Hwy range for it , but judging by the non-AWD range drop from 260 combined to 237 miles, I'd expect the AWD version to come in around 225 miles Hwy. https://insideevs.com/news/533041/volkswagen-id4-awd-epa-range/

Ionic5/EV6 AWD should do a bit better on EPA range than the ID.4, with much faster FC and a heat pump so a better match for my requirements.

The Castrol study I've referenced elsewhere said that the average range wanted by U.S. car buyers before they'd consider a BEV was 517 km (321 miles) with an FC time of around 30 minutes (most people don't know that BEV charging slows way down when past 80%, and discharging too low can hurt the battery; I'm willing to bet most people in the survey meant 30 minutes from 0-100%), so I'd say the Bolt 2 requirements I stated above were if anything less rigorous than the typical U.S. car buyer's.

BTW, U.S. fleet owners wanted considerably more range - I forget the exact number but it was something like 740 km/500 miles, although they were okay with slower charging. If it were available for not too much more, I'd take it. My current car's no-worries range in non-terrible conditions is at least 400 miles. The best I can recall was 468 miles before the low-fuel light (2.4 gallons remaining) came on, and when that light comes on I assume a soft reserve of 30 miles and a hard one of 50, but I could probably manage another 60 or a bit more depending on how much of the fuel in the tank is unusable. As it is, that range allows me to do some weekend trips un-refueled, but generally I stop once on the way up and often on the way back for gas because it's significantly cheaper outside the Bay Area, in the Central Valley. Per Gasbuddy the station I typically get gas at locally is currently $4.36/gal. Reg. (the station 1.5 blocks from home is $4.60); The station I most often use on the way to/from Yosemite and the east side of the Sierra is currently $4.16.

Today's prices are something like $1.22 higher than this time last year, but for the sake of argument let's assume gas will stay at $4.50/gal. forever. For the $15,925 price difference of the RAV4 to the ID.4 I could put gas in the RAV4 AWD and drive it on the Hwy for 123,861 miles to breakeven (I'm ignoring maintenance, insurance, pack replacements etc. here).

For the $15,175 price difference of the RAV4 AWD Hybrid vs. the ID.4 AWD I could drive the former 128,144 miles before breakeven.

You don't get to rewrite the laws of physics to suit your wants. The performance comes with the range. Only in the ICE world is that an either/or selection.

That's not necessarily true. if the transmission final drive ratio has been chosen to provide acceleration rather than range, then you can in fact trade off range vs. acceleration. After all, that's what every overdrive gear ratio does. ICEs can make that trade-off, and so can BEVs. Porsche minimizes the issue by providing a two-gear transmission, just as Tesla did way back when (but couldn't get one to survive the Roadster's torque at the time. Obviously, that's no longer the case).

The whole range issue (aka national parks) has been argued ad-nauseam. 200+ miles is non ideal, but can be made to work with your use cases. You would rather not "inconvenience" yourself is all. And you already know that your driving pattern isn't typical of most americans, so it's okay if a BEV doesn't fit your needs, since it fits many others. That's the point. A BEV is a viable alternative to an ICE for most consumers, whereas an FCEV is not. There is no "BEV's and FCEV's are both not ready yet".

My driving 'pattern' is skewed towards one end of the spectrum, but while most drivers spend most of their time at the other end or the middle, most of them also want their car to be able to operate in the same situations I do routinely, no matter how rarely they might do so aka 'The Occasional Use Imperative'. Which is why they expect any car to provide 300+ miles of range with rapid, convenient refueling, and buy accordingly. As I've said many times, far more of those in a multi-car family with guaranteed, convenient charging could make use of a BEV (or PHEV) for at least one of those, but most of them also demand ICE road-trip range and convenience from every car, even if they almost never require that simultaneously. Single-car households, especially those without charging, are a different matter. Anyone who demands go anywhere, anytime flexibility with the minimum of inconvenience is still restricted to an ICE/HEV/PHEV.

A Bolt is a terrible road-trip car owing to its excruciatingly slow FC rate, made worse by its inadequate range. A Niro/Kona would be better from the charging perspective, an ID.4 better still, and the Ionic 5/EV6 would be approaching the level needed. Of course, most people coming from ICEs still want ICE-time recharging. From the Castrol survey:

Bringing charge times down to 31 minutes
for all consumers is the first part of this
critical challenge for the industry, but the
ultimate goal is charging as quickly as an ICE
refuel. Two out of three (67%) consumers
told us they believe the majority of new
cars will be electric when the rapid charge
time of EVs becomes comparable to ICE
equivalents.

https://www.castrol.com/content/dam...adoption/accelerating_the_evolution_study.pdf Page 21.


FCEVs are limited primarily by infrastructure at the moment, and price of the cars and fuel. The latter two will be cured by economies of scale, the learning curve and the usual incremental technological improvements, leaving only the former. FCEVs already provide ICE level inherent capabilities.

 

[GRA]

GCC:

Plug Power and Lhyfe partner to develop green hydrogen plants throughout Europe; 300MW by 2025

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/10/20211028-pp.html

Plug Power and Lhyfe, a producer and supplier of renewable hydrogen, announced an partnership to pursue and develop jointly green hydrogen generation plants throughout Europe. The initiative seeks to generate a total hydrogen capacity of 300MW by 2025, and to start the development of a 1GW production site.

The agreement builds upon the working relationship already established between the two companies earlier this year. In that project, Plug Power’s hydrogen electrolyzer technology will provide 1MW of capacity to the world’s first offshore hydrogen production facility, developed by Lhyfe and powered by electricity from a floating wind turbine off the coast of Le Croisic, at SEM-REV, Centrale Nantes’ offshore test site, which will be operational by 2022.

Plug Power is the largest buyer of liquid hydrogen globally and has been present in Europe for more than 10 years. The company has made significant progress in deploying hydrogen applications with key European industrials, logistics customers and vehicle manufacturers, including its joint venture with Renault called HYVIA.

Plug Power has installed several PEM technology solutions in Germany, France, The Netherlands, Italy and Portugal, and recently announced the launch of its European headquarters in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany.

In September, Lhyfe inaugurated the world’s first industrial production site for renewable hydrogen in direct connection with a wind farm. The company will also launch the world’s first offshore renewable hydrogen production site on the SEM-REV offshore test site in 2022. Lhyfe is deploying some 60 projects in Europe for mobility and industry. . . .

 

[Oils4AsphaultOnly]

Here's an apples to apples comparison of relative value, to me. IIRR, C&D tested the Bolt and came up with a 0-60 time of 6.5 seconds or thereabouts. My current car model, when tested by them, had a 0-60 time of 9.6 seconds. So let's look at the current, 6.5 second Bolt vs. a theoretical 9.5 second Bolt for the same price, but with some optional changes to see which one provides the greater value, utility, flexibility and/or convenience.

1. 6.5 second Bolt (great passing, lots of fun to drive fast).

2. 9.5 second Bolt (perfectly adequate passing, fun to drive fast) with either

• a. 300+ mile range
  
  b. <=30 minute FC from 20-80% (2021 Bolt took me 47 minutes from 45-80%)
  
  c. Heat Pump.

Given the choice between 1 or 2 with any of the options, I'd opt for 2a, b or c in a heartbeat. The Bolt1 is more fun to drive, but Bolt 2 provides me with more useful capability, utility, flexibility, and convenience, and would still provide faster passing at altitude than my current car owing to no power loss in thinner air. In fact, a Bolt 2 with all three options would probably be worth paying an extra $5k for me, if the Bolt met most of my major requirements (it doesn't, as it's too short and lacks both AWD and a space for spare).

There are plenty of roughly comparable ICEs that provide me with even more capability than a Bolt 2 with all options, and do so at a much lower price. They may or may not cost more long-term, but they're also far more affordable upfront and give me far more car in the process, as they will meet my needs for much longer before needing replacement. AFAIR none of the cost comparison studies mentioned above included the price of a pack replacement, and even a 300 mile BEV when new has only marginal range for me, and will need at least one and possibly two pack replacements during its life with me to regain needed range.

If that's too abstract, how about comparing the RAV4, both ICE and HEV, to an ID.4 w/AWD, as they're all compact CUVs. Actually, the ID.4 falls well short of option a, barely meets option b and I think it's also missing option c, so the upcoming Ionic 5/EV6 would be a better match as I expect them to come in within about $2k of a comparably-equipped ID.4.

RAV4 AWD base MSRP, $27,750, 35 mpg Hwy, 478.5 mile Hwy range.
Rav4 AWD Hybrid base MSRP, $28,500, 38 mpg Hwy, 551 miles Hwy range.
ID.4 AWD base MSRP, $43,675. I haven't been able to find Hwy range for it , but judging by the non-AWD range drop from 260 combined to 237 miles, I'd expect the AWD version to come in around 225 miles Hwy. https://insideevs.com/news/533041/volkswagen-id4-awd-epa-range/

Ionic5/EV6 AWD should do a bit better on EPA range than the ID.4, with much faster FC and a heat pump so a better match for my requirements.

The Castrol study I've referenced elsewhere said that the average range wanted by U.S. car buyers before they'd consider a BEV was 517 km (321 miles) with an FC time of around 30 minutes (most people don't know that BEV charging slows way down when past 80%, and discharging too low can hurt the battery; I'm willing to bet most people in the survey meant 30 minutes from 0-100%), so I'd say the Bolt 2 requirements I stated above were if anything less rigorous than the typical U.S. car buyer's.

BTW, U.S. fleet owners wanted considerably more range - I forget the exact number but it was something like 740 km/500 miles, although they were okay with slower charging. If it were available for not too much more, I'd take it. My current car's no-worries range in non-terrible conditions is at least 400 miles. The best I can recall was 468 miles before the low-fuel light (2.4 gallons remaining) came on, and when that light comes on I assume a soft reserve of 30 miles and a hard one of 50, but I could probably manage another 60 or a bit more depending on how much of the fuel in the tank is unusable. As it is, that range allows me to do some weekend trips un-refueled, but generally I stop once on the way up and often on the way back for gas because it's significantly cheaper outside the Bay Area, in the Central Valley. Per Gasbuddy the station I typically get gas at locally is currently $4.36/gal. Reg. (the station 1.5 blocks from home is $4.60); The station I most often use on the way to/from Yosemite and the east side of the Sierra is currently $4.16.

Today's prices are something like $1.22 higher than this time last year, but for the sake of argument let's assume gas will stay at $4.50/gal. forever. For the $15,925 price difference of the RAV4 to the ID.4 I could put gas in the RAV4 AWD and drive it on the Hwy for 123,861 miles to breakeven (I'm ignoring maintenance, insurance, pack replacements etc. here).

For the $15,175 price difference of the RAV4 AWD Hybrid vs. the ID.4 AWD I could drive the former 128,144 miles before breakeven.

You don't get to rewrite the laws of physics to suit your wants. The performance comes with the range. Only in the ICE world is that an either/or selection.

That's not necessarily true. if the transmission final drive ratio has been chosen to provide acceleration rather than range, then you can in fact trade off range vs. acceleration. After all, that's what every overdrive gear ratio does. ICEs can make that trade-off, and so can BEVs. Porsche minimizes the issue by providing a two-gear transmission, just as Tesla did way back when (but couldn't get one to survive the Roadster's torque at the time. Obviously, that's no longer the case).

Yes, it IS true. Just compare a 2011 Leaf (24kwh battery) with a 2016 (30kwh) and a 2018 (40kwh). I assure you they didn't change the drive ratio (nor motor) between the years.

Your bias is clouding your comprehension abilities.

Edit: Save you the trouble of looking it up, the larger the batteries, the faster the 0-60 time and the higher the top speed. Absolutely nothing changed about the gearing.

The whole range issue (aka national parks) has been argued ad-nauseam. 200+ miles is non ideal, but can be made to work with your use cases. You would rather not "inconvenience" yourself is all. And you already know that your driving pattern isn't typical of most americans, so it's okay if a BEV doesn't fit your needs, since it fits many others. That's the point. A BEV is a viable alternative to an ICE for most consumers, whereas an FCEV is not. There is no "BEV's and FCEV's are both not ready yet".

My driving 'pattern' is skewed towards one end of the spectrum, but while most drivers spend most of their time at the other end or the middle, most of them also want their car to be able to operate in the same situations I do routinely, no matter how rarely they might do so aka 'The Occasional Use Imperative'. Which is why they expect any car to provide 300+ miles of range with rapid, convenient refueling, and buy accordingly. As I've said many times, far more of those in a multi-car family with guaranteed, convenient charging could make use of a BEV (or PHEV) for at least one of those, but most of them also demand ICE road-trip range and convenience from every car, even if they almost never require that simultaneously. Single-car households, especially those without charging, are a different matter. Anyone who demands go anywhere, anytime flexibility with the minimum of inconvenience is still restricted to an ICE/HEV/PHEV.

A Bolt is a terrible road-trip car owing to its excruciatingly slow FC rate, made worse by its inadequate range. A Niro/Kona would be better from the charging perspective, an ID.4 better still, and the Ionic 5/EV6 would be approaching the level needed. Of course, most people coming from ICEs still want ICE-time recharging. From the Castrol survey:

Bringing charge times down to 31 minutes
for all consumers is the first part of this
critical challenge for the industry, but the
ultimate goal is charging as quickly as an ICE
refuel. Two out of three (67%) consumers
told us they believe the majority of new
cars will be electric when the rapid charge
time of EVs becomes comparable to ICE
equivalents.

https://www.castrol.com/content/dam...adoption/accelerating_the_evolution_study.pdf Page 21.


FCEVs are limited primarily by infrastructure at the moment, and price of the cars and fuel. The latter two will be cured by economies of scale, the learning curve and the usual incremental technological improvements, leaving only the former. FCEVs already provide ICE level inherent capabilities.

That "lack of infrastructure" is a $1T hurdle. The price of the fuel is secondary issue to the source of that fuel - namely natural gas.

 

[LeftieBiker]

Save you the trouble of looking it up, the larger the batteries, the faster the 0-60 time and the higher the top speed. Absolutely nothing changed about the gearing.

What changed was the inverter output. The battery size matters only in that the battery has to have enough power to feed those hungrier inverters. To put it another way, the battery sizes enables the higher motor output, but it doesn't actually cause or provide it.

 

[SageBrush]

Save you the trouble of looking it up, the larger the batteries, the faster the 0-60 time and the higher the top speed. Absolutely nothing changed about the gearing.

What changed was the inverter output. The battery size matters only in that the battery has to have enough power to feed those hungrier inverters. To put it another way, the battery sizes enables the higher motor output, but it doesn't actually cause or provide it.

The larger battery IS the increased power. Connected to a capable drivetrain.

This is why we don't say the key feature of more power is a fatter wire.

 

[Oils4AsphaultOnly]

Save you the trouble of looking it up, the larger the batteries, the faster the 0-60 time and the higher the top speed. Absolutely nothing changed about the gearing.

What changed was the inverter output. The battery size matters only in that the battery has to have enough power to feed those hungrier inverters. To put it another way, the battery sizes enables the higher motor output, but it doesn't actually cause or provide it.

I was trying to show GRA how the power, speed, AND efficiency improved without a change to the final drive ratio (which he is convinced is a marketing choice). He won't get more range by having a smaller (and thus slower) motor. If anything, the reduced regen capability would actually translate to a shorter range!

 

[LeftieBiker]

The larger battery IS the increased power.

No. The larger battery is the "increased amount of stored energy." The higher HP output comes from a higher output inverter, feeding more current to the electric motor - which, in the case of the Leaf, is the same motor used since 2013. The motor then produces more power to drive the front wheels. Your claim is like saying that muscle cars were powerful because they had large gas tanks. There seems to be some confusion here about the contextual meaning of the word "power."

 

[SageBrush]

The larger battery IS the increased power.

No. The larger battery is the "increased amount of stored energy." The higher HP output comes from a higher output inverter, feeding more current to the electric motor - which, in the case of the Leaf, is the same motor used since 2013. The motor then produces more power to drive the front wheels. Your claim is like saying that muscle cars were powerful because they had large gas tanks. There seems to be some confusion here about the contextual meaning of the word "power."

A larger battery is both more energy and more power.