Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[AndyH]

Certainly not yet, and unlike Andy I don't expect home H2 refueling to be a major player anytime soon, if ever.

If I'm expected to be the person delivering this message, I demand proper seasoning and that it be cooked at least medium-well, thank you very much. :lol:

I'm not now and have to my knowledge never said that home H2 refueling would be a major player anytime soon. What I have said and stand by is that it's being done today and therefore can be expanded if/as demand increases tomorrow. I said that it's possible because many of the 'aginits' here continue to use the 'possible' metric when 'proving' the superiority of BEV over any other tech.

Okay, my bad. The impression I got was that you were saying that this could be scaled up relatively rapidly, and that off-the shelf cost-effective tech was available now.

No worries, Guy. Home H2 generation/FCEV refueling equipment exists and is in the field today - there's nothing to scale up as it's already full-size. Cost effectiveness (compared to what?) isn't limited by tech, it's tied to mass production. That, in turn, is tied to a decision to 'make it happen'. I think you've already pointed out that BEV infrastructure isn't cost effective yet, either.

Further, I don't think that home H2 refueling should be the goal as it's not necessary and is a waste of resources. What I expect to see, should Mr Peabody give us a ride in his new 'WayForward Machine', is a neighborhood/cellular model of refueling deployment that includes H2 and DCFC. But I don't expect this to be adopted by most of the folks alive today over the age of 40 as there's way too much of an attitude probl..er...inertia.

Most people don't need it, just as they don't need a bulk gas tank in their garage.

One thing that H2 provides that BEVs do not is the ability to keep a 'gas can' in their garage should they desire to do so. Many people won't desire, and many people won't need - especially once the infrastructure's fleshed out. But it is an available capability that can be useful, and it works even when the power's out. When I made biodiesel from waste oil, I kept 5-gallon cans of fuel in the garage. Today I keep those cans stocked with ethanol. I've found that 'belt and suspenders' capability to be useful when choosing to use fuels that aren't widely available. It's not like any of these ideas are new - my in-laws' place in MA (built in 1928) has an underground fuel tank and a gas pump in the garage, and farmers/ranchers don't drive their tractors to the local truck stop...

We agree that the most likely place for home H2 storage is in rural areas, just as there are lots of propane tanks and often non-taxed fuel storage now. But that's a very small % of the market, and I'm guessing among the last areas that will change over, unless they've got wind/PV/bio-gas anyway.

If this was part of an evolutionary process, I'd agree that it would be useful to look at where we are today with regards to market segment sizes and such. But I think we're facing a serious need for a revolution, and I think we'll have one even if we're not ready.

Yes, farmers are a very small percentage of our population today and they work very large tracts of land. There appear to be a number of problems hitting us all at once that will very likely change this, however. We're in the vicinity of peak oil - that directly impacts diesel fuel, petrochemical fertilizer, and nearly all of our herbicides/pesticides. We're losing soil at alarming rates - estimates from the USDA suggest we have about 40 years left if we keep doing what we're doing. We're also at or near peak-rock-phosphate, peak water, and have serious climate problems. All of those are forcing us to completely rework our food production system. I expect that'll mean a slow return to smaller farms and more farmers. Our rural areas, especially the main continental farm areas, are both in or near our wind generation corridors and also have biogas capability.

On the city side of things, expanding mass transit, walking and biking, and car-sharing should continue the decline in both vehicle ownership numbers and miles traveled. Overall, I really don't expect that the next 50 years will look very much like the past 50.

One last look at the validity of "cost effective" solutions. In spite of your historic drought,it's more economical for California farmers to ship hay to China than to Northern California. The only way most things in our current world appear to be "cost effective" is because the system in which they're produced is insane. Reality's tapping us on the shoulder - it'll be much less painful to turn around and listen, I think...

 

[TonyWilliams]

It's not like any of these ideas are new - my in-laws' place in MA (built in 1928) has an underground fuel tank and a gas pump in the garage, and farmers/ranchers don't drive their tractors to the local truck stop...

I grew up in an area of "home gasoline" refueling... that leaked all over, and that the EPA wisely made very difficult for in ground tanks. Above ground tanks are the new standard. You won't be popping one of these in your condo association parking garage.

With the potential dangers of other flammables, like hydrogen, I doubt those will be popping up at condo associations anytime soon, either.

Possible doesn't equate to probable.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Tony, I am thankful for your efforts to make Fast Chargers available for fair prices. I'm hopeful that you'll see continued growth in business as longer range EVs become available and capable of using CHAdeMO. If you were to install a Fast Charger right at the base of our mountain, in Highland, CA, we'd become regulars in our LEAF.

We are definitely growing. Several installations in the works, two sites already operational.

I tried to get that 7-11 site near you under our umbrella. It didn't work, and honestly, we can't offer good rates without a lot of use. So, we will stick to high demand locations.

 

[GRA]

Via ABG:

"Toyota: East Coast hydrogen cars on the horizon"

http://green.autoblog.com/2014/08/12/toyota-east-coast-hydrogen-cars-on-the-horizon/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is mostly an article about a Toyota exec's speech and press release, which is so full of fluff it's amazing it didn't float away. The valuable info is as follows:

"Toyota thinks the running costs for the first H2 cars will be $50 to go 300 miles, and this will drop to "about $30" in the future. That equals a future cost of $5-to-$7 per kilogram after starting at around $9-to-$11 per kg."

This works out to about 16.7 cents/mile ((5 kg @ $10/kg)/300 miles) initially, dropping to about 10 cents/mile ((5 kg @ $6/kg)/300 miles). Depending on what happens with gas prices and emission regs that may or may not be enough, but that seems to be based on a car a lot bigger than a Prius - the Highlander-based FCHV-ADV got about 60 miles/kg (versus the 28 mpg for the Highlander Hybrid). If they can get H2 down to $5/kg they're down to 8.33 cents/mile, and at $4/kg it's 6.7 cents/mile.

 

[AndyH]

It's not like any of these ideas are new - my in-laws' place in MA (built in 1928) has an underground fuel tank and a gas pump in the garage, and farmers/ranchers don't drive their tractors to the local truck stop...

I grew up in an area of "home gasoline" refueling... that leaked all over, and that the EPA wisely made very difficult for in ground tanks. Above ground tanks are the new standard. You won't be popping one of these in your condo association parking garage.

With the potential dangers of other flammables, like hydrogen, I doubt those will be popping up at condo associations anytime soon, either.

Possible doesn't equate to probable.

You've missed the entire point, Tony. Nobody is suggesting going back to underground gasoline tanks. Nobody else is talking about condos, either. The simple fact remains that one can keep a H2 cylinder in their garage just as easily as any other compressed gas cylinder or 5 gallon gasoline can.

Old-skool EVers are already prepared for H2, anyway, as their lead-acid powered BEVs needed regular watering and a ventilated place to recharge because lead-acid batteries release hydrogen during charging. So do NiFe cells. The early J1772 protocol had a 'ventilation required' function that would turn-on a garage vent fan. I don't recall if the current spec includes that safety feature, but it's not really relevant to the topic.

 

[RegGuheert]

Judged purely on long-term business viability, QC is a complete bust to date. It remains to be seen whether H2 will be also, but at least the companies acknowledge going in that it will have to be cheaper than gas to succeed in the mass market.

What remains to be seen?

We have already done the calcs for a FCV filling station which produces its hydrogen by electrolyzing water and that approach requires recovering about $11,500 PER VEHICLE just to build the station, and then the costs to produce the fuel are higher than providing electricity for a BEV. The simple point is a hydrogen refueling station costs significantly more per vehicle served and costs more per mile to provide fuel than a QC station for a BEV.

What are the obvious conclusions?

- Refueling a fuel-cell vehicle using renewable sources costs more than refueling a BEV using the same sources.
- If there is no business case for QC stations for BEVs, then there is an even more difficult business case for electrolysis-based hydrogen stations.
- The only way you can create a business case for an electrolysis-based hydrogen refueling station for FCVs is to charge more per mile for fuel than would be required to create a business case for QC stations for BEVs. (I'm not saying this is not possible. Clearly BEV owners have the possibility to avoid QCs if they choose.)
- Since they cost more to purchase AND more to operate, FCVs will need to have significant advantages over BEVs to be viable.
- As BEV technology improves, the bar for FCVs gets higher.

So, where does that leave us?

- Hydrogen fueling stations likely will NEVER be viable unless they are reforming fossil fuels and/or providing hydrogen for a high-value application which BEVs cannot fill (such as air travel).
- If hydrogen fueling stations are producing their hydrogen by reforming fossil fuels, then it is very doubtful they offer *any* benefits over today's PHEVs.
- FCVs for consumer use will need to have plugs to be viable for most applications. But it appears the vehicle manufacturers have omitted that feature. Perhaps that omission is required to try to make a business case for hydrogen refueling stations?

But, of course, this has all been covered here before. So, please, stop the hand waving and show us the business case for FCVs. Just saying you don't see a business case for BEVs so perhaps FCVs will work is not sufficient.

 

[TonyWilliams]

You've missed the entire point, Tony. Nobody is suggesting going back to underground gasoline tanks. Nobody else is talking about condos, either. The simple fact remains that one can keep a H2 cylinder in their garage just as easily as any other compressed gas cylinder or 5 gallon gasoline can.

Old-skool EVers are already prepared for H2, anyway, as their lead-acid powered BEVs needed regular watering and a ventilated place to recharge because lead-acid batteries release hydrogen during charging. So do NiFe cells. The early J1772 protocol had a 'ventilation required' function that would turn-on a garage vent fan. I don't recall if the current spec includes that safety feature, but it's not really relevant to the topic.

First, yes, the current J1772 standard includes the ventilation mode.

Mass market acceptance of zero emission vehicles won't be "old-skool" home chemists storing hydrogen, nor will local fire codes likely allow this practice. Many local fire codes also prohibit storing gasoline and tires for the (hopefully) obvious fire dangers. Again, you confuse what could happen with what is probable with mass markets.

About half the population of the USA live in other than single family detached housing. So, if you're not including them, you missed the boat. Frankly, I'm surprised that you are not all over that since that is one of the singular benefits to hydrogen over battery cars; off-site fast refueling that condos and apartment dwellers may benefit from.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Judged purely on long-term business viability, QC is a complete bust to date. It remains to be seen whether H2 will be also, but at least the companies acknowledge going in that it will have to be cheaper than gas to succeed in the mass market.

- Refueling a fuel-cell vehicle using renewable sources costs more than refueling a BEV using the same sources.

That "bust" is obviously not considering what already exists today with Tesla Superchargers and EVOasis CHAdeMO chargers and what MIGHT be in California in the future after the tax payers get hydrogen fleeced, aka Blink.

$0.02 to $0.08 per mile - Tesla Supercharger at 150,000 miles divided by $2500 expense equals 2 cents per mile. The EVOasis CHAdeMO chargers at 15 cents per minute can add about 2 miles per minute, therefore $0.075 per mile.

$0.16 to $0.25 - hydrogen at $4 per kg with each kg equalling the same range as a gallon of gasoline means that a 25mpg equivalent car costs $0.16 per mile in hydrogen costs. Clearly, hydrogen that costs $7 per kg from renewable (non-methane gas sources) would significantly increase the cost.

Toyota thinks the running costs for the first H2 cars will be $50 to go 300 miles, and this will drop to "about $30" in the future. That equals a future cost of $5-to-$7 per kilogram after starting at around $9-to-$11 per kg.

 

[AndyH]

You've missed the entire point, Tony. Nobody is suggesting going back to underground gasoline tanks. Nobody else is talking about condos, either. The simple fact remains that one can keep a H2 cylinder in their garage just as easily as any other compressed gas cylinder or 5 gallon gasoline can.

Old-skool EVers are already prepared for H2, anyway, as their lead-acid powered BEVs needed regular watering and a ventilated place to recharge because lead-acid batteries release hydrogen during charging. So do NiFe cells. The early J1772 protocol had a 'ventilation required' function that would turn-on a garage vent fan. I don't recall if the current spec includes that safety feature, but it's not really relevant to the topic.

First, yes, the current J1772 standard includes the ventilation mode.

Thank you.

Mass market acceptance of zero emission vehicles won't be "old-skool" home chemists storing hydrogen,

Do you realize how dramatically you've marginalized DIY BEV owners, auto shops, golf cart vendors, off-grid home owners, telecom and other facilities that use lead-acid storage, labs that perform gas chromatography, and the vegetable- and lubricating oil industry by attempting to paint hydrogen use as some fringe activity? Really?!

nor will local fire codes likely allow this practice. Many local fire codes also prohibit storing gasoline and tires for the (hopefully) obvious fire dangers. Again, you confuse what could happen with what is probable with mass markets.

I do agree there might be confusion here. Will you provide links to a fire code that restricts either keeping 15 gallons of gasoline, or a an oxy-acetylene welding rig, or a propane tank inside or within 50 feet of a home please? Thanks in advance.

About half the population of the USA live in other than single family detached housing. So, if you're not including them, you missed the boat. Frankly, I'm surprised that you are not all over that since that is one of the singular benefits to hydrogen over battery cars; off-site fast refueling that condos and apartment dwellers may benefit from.

If you've read what I've actually been saying, rather than continuing to paint an alternate image, you'd realize that I don't suggest that anyone would need in-home H2 refueling. I have from the beginning of my involvement in this thread been jumping forward to the 'destination case' (looking ahead to where I hope we'll be in ~2050) for distributed renewable generation and distributed refueling/recharging for both BEVs and FCEVs. I don't think that there is any need whatsoever for home H2 refueling any more than there's a need for a DCQC in every garage.

 

[AndyH]

Judged purely on long-term business viability, QC is a complete bust to date. It remains to be seen whether H2 will be also, but at least the companies acknowledge going in that it will have to be cheaper than gas to succeed in the mass market.

What remains to be seen?

We have already done the calcs for a FCV filling station which produces its hydrogen by electrolyzing water and that approach requires recovering about $11,500 PER VEHICLE just to build the station, and then the costs to produce the fuel are higher than providing electricity for a BEV. The simple point is a hydrogen refueling station costs significantly more per vehicle served and costs more per mile to provide fuel than a QC station for a BEV.

Anyone can make their favorite program look good, or their most hated program look bad - by cooking the books as you've done here.

What are the obvious conclusions?

Your starting assumption is bogus, therefore so is your conclusion. Sorry.

One doesn't build public infrastructure, especially infrastructure for a brand new capability, by assigning a cost per the number of users - because even after all these years division by zero is undefined. We could have done this with the first batch of DCQC sites, or the first public L2 charge points - but didn't. I'm not convinced that hypocrisy is the best use of our time here...

 

[DaveEV]

As to the costs, the goal is to get H2 down to between $2-$4/kg, with one kg of H2 containing ~ the same energy as 1 kg of gas (I recently found a source that IIRR gave H2 as 143 MJ/kg, gas as something like 42.9 MJ/kg). But the kg of H2 will take the car a lot further, seeing as the car has electric drive (assuming it's not an HEV).

A kg of H is about 33 kWh of energy. With the retail cost of electricity in California being around $0.18 / kWh, even assuming 100% efficient electrolysis, how do you get cheaper than $6/kg?

$2 / kg = $0.06 / kWh
$4 / kg = $0.12 / kWh

If you can get the energy to profitably sell H at $2 / kg, then you can also get the energy to profitably sell electricity at $0.06 / kWh. So at best, H may approach the cost of electricity in terms of fueling costs, but EVs will always win as the drivetrain will always be more efficient. Tony above has already provided other data for Hydrogen costs.

As far as real-life QC costs go, I had the pleasure of using all 3 Evoasis QC stations last weekend across 4 different sessions (PS - Tony - the handle on QC1 in Irvine was a bit sticky and took a bit of fiddling to get it to engage - QC2 was good - the new style gun handle at SJC is so much easier to use!):

1. 10.1 kWh 26 min, $3.90, $0.39 / kWh
2. 0.9 kWh 9 min, $1.35, $1.50 / kWh
3. 9.1 kWh 26.4 min, $3.96, $0.44 / kWh
4. 2.6 kWh 8.2 min, $1.23, $0.47 / kWh

So a total of 22.7 kWh for $10.44 (avg $0.46 / kWh) which let me drive about 100 miles farther than I would have otherwise - about 10c / mile. This is basically the same price as driving the Prius for those wondering! (45 mpg, $4.10/gal = 9c / mile). Only drawback in comparison is of course charging time. A newer LEAF or a car with a bigger battery would have charged faster at at less cost - mine only has around 11 kWh usable between LBW and 80%.

In hindsight, I could have skipped the two short charging sessions by driving even more conservatively which would have gotten the price under the cost of driving the Prius - total trip time would have been about the same. Session 2 was immediately after session 1 as I wanted a bit of buffer as I still had 50-55 miles to go and wanted to avoid stopping if possible. ~6 kW charging is 2x faster than L2 and more convenient than stopping a 2nd time - no to mention, no more Evoasis QCs charging by the minute! Session 4 was 15 miles down the road from session 3, but wanted to top off as I had 55-60 miles to go.

 

[AndyH]

As to the costs, the goal is to get H2 down to between $2-$4/kg, with one kg of H2 containing ~ the same energy as 1 kg of gas (I recently found a source that IIRR gave H2 as 143 MJ/kg, gas as something like 42.9 MJ/kg). But the kg of H2 will take the car a lot further, seeing as the car has electric drive (assuming it's not an HEV).

A kg of H is about 33 kWh of energy. With the retail cost of electricity in California being around $0.18 / kWh, even assuming 100% efficient electrolysis, how do you get cheaper than $6/kg?

We've already referenced the retail price of a kilo of H2 from one of the existing CA public refueling stations and it's in the $4 range. Remembering that a FCEV is about 2.2 times more efficient than a comparable ICE, that's like filling the gasoline tank with $2/gallon fuel.

The war we're in is not with the price of fuel, it's with emissions.

 

[RegGuheert]

Anyone can make their favorite program look good, or their most hated program look bad - by cooking the books as you've done here.

Then you should be able to do it. Please show us how you can make the provision of electrolyzed hydrogen as cheap or cheaper than the provision of electricity.

The simple point is, you cannot ever achieve a lower cost for electrolyzed hydrogen than the electricity itself, since you need more electricity to create the hydrogen than if you simply used it directly. (BTW, the idea of hydrolyzing water with otherwise-curtailed renewables you have repeatedly posted about has the same issue: It is more cost-effective and energy-efficient to simply charge BEVs instead.)

Again, the conclusion is simple:

- Refueling a fuel-cell vehicle using renewable sources costs more than refueling a BEV using the same sources.

There can NEVER be a crossover point at which electrolyzed hydrogen costs less than the electricity used to produce it. Best to use the electricity directly instead of wasting some of it to produce hydrogen. The exceptions, as previously noted are applications for which BEVs do not work. Airplanes are the clearest example. Long-haul over-road trucking is another. Combat vehicles may be another. But for the kinds of FCVs being produced by the car manufacturers today, the utility is only marginally better than a BEV for long-distance travel, and worse for commuting. Those cars need a plug, but it has gone missing. Without one, they will cost more to purchase AND more to operate than the equivalent BEV. They are being consumed because of *massive* subsidies which hide the real costs from those leasing them. Those subsidies are an order of magnitude larger than what exists for BEVs today, perhaps more.

If you find hydrogen that is cheaper than electricity for a BEV per mile, then it is either subsidized by the government or it is created from fossil fuels. There is no other possibility.

Two months ago I started a thread on an example of an FCV which is likely to have a future: a class 8 truck. It even has a plug. It's interesting that no one has shown any interest in a promising application of fuel cells for transportation like that one.

 

[DaveEV]

We've already referenced the retail price of a kilo of H2 from one of the existing CA public refueling stations and it's in the $4 range.

But that's not the true cost of hydrogen as it's highly subsidized.

 

[RegGuheert]

We've already referenced the retail price of a kilo of H2 from one of the existing CA public refueling stations and it's in the $4 range.

But that's not the true cost of hydrogen as it's highly subsidized.

+1
We've been talking about the fact that JUST THE COST OF THE ELECTRICITY TO ELECTROLYZE THE HYDROGEN IS MORE THAN THAT. Add to that the very high cost of building the station and then add in some profit to make it a business.

And I wonder what portion of that hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels.

 

[WetEV]

We have already done the calcs for a FCV filling station which produces its hydrogen by electrolyzing water and that approach requires recovering about $11,500 PER VEHICLE just to build the station, and then the costs to produce the fuel are higher than providing electricity for a BEV. The simple point is a hydrogen refueling station costs significantly more per vehicle served and costs more per mile to provide fuel than a QC station for a BEV.

The first of anything is more expensive than the hundredth, or the thousandth. So there is a chance that the capital cost per vehicle advantage of a FC station over a H station might not last. Yes, I mostly agree that FCVs are likely to be niche vehicles, but I think that there is a chance that they might end up cheaper per mile to fuel than QC stations, at some of the time, but quite unlikely to be cheaper than charging a BEV at home, while shopping or at work.

The cost of a kWh is not a constant. Storage of a kWh isn't free.

A kg of H is about 33 kWh of energy. With the retail cost of electricity in California being around $0.18 / kWh, even assuming 100% efficient electrolysis, how do you get cheaper than $6/kg?

$2 / kg = $0.06 / kWh
$4 / kg = $0.12 / kWh

If you can get the energy to profitably sell H at $2 / kg, then you can also get the energy to profitably sell electricity at $0.06 / kWh. So at best, H may approach the cost of electricity in terms of fueling costs, but EVs will always win as the drivetrain will always be more efficient.

Assume that there is a completely 100% solar powered economy. Assume that solar power is reasonably cheap. And assume that storage isn't free, isn't loss less and isn't unlimited. The daytime power rate is cheap, roughly than the cost of generation by solar power. In this case, workplace charging would be cheap. The nighttime power rate is high, as it costs both to generate the electric power and also costs to store it. Home charging might end up being fairly expensive, unless you can charge in daylight hours.

Hydrogen could never compete with the daytime price of electric power. But hydrogen might compete with the nighttime cost of electric power. Why? The energy is only stored once, not twice.

So the case for hydrogen is long distance fast refueling niche, can't charge at home or work or while shopping niche, and the nighttime and cloudy time of year might be a little bit cheaper niche.

There might be a business case, but it looks to me to be both for a niche, and is a long time in the future. Not a bad idea to research and develop, as it has a reasonable chance of being needed. Not a bad idea to run a few prototypes to work out the kinks and bugs out, and find cost savings with small numbers before you really need the technology.

 

[GRA]

Judged purely on long-term business viability, QC is a complete bust to date. It remains to be seen whether H2 will be also, but at least the companies acknowledge going in that it will have to be cheaper than gas to succeed in the mass market.

- Refueling a fuel-cell vehicle using renewable sources costs more than refueling a BEV using the same sources.

That "bust" is obviously not considering what already exists today with Tesla Superchargers and EVOasis CHAdeMO chargers and what MIGHT be in California in the future after the tax payers get hydrogen fleeced, aka Blink.

$0.02 to $0.08 per mile - Tesla Supercharger at 150,000 miles divided by $2500 expense equals 2 cents per mile. The EVOasis CHAdeMO chargers at 15 cents per minute can add about 2 miles per minute, therefore $0.075 per mile.

$0.16 to $0.25 - hydrogen at $4 per kg with each kg equalling the same range as a gallon of gasoline means that a 25mpg equivalent car costs $0.16 per mile in hydrogen costs. Clearly, hydrogen that costs $7 per kg from renewable (non-methane gas sources) would significantly increase the cost.

Toyota thinks the running costs for the first H2 cars will be $50 to go 300 miles, and this will drop to "about $30" in the future. That equals a future cost of $5-to-$7 per kilogram after starting at around $9-to-$11 per kg.

As I already pointed ou in my previous reply when you posted the above, the range from a kg of H2 is more than double that from a gallon of gas for the same (HEV) vehicle, and that's using last gen. fuel cell tech. As to Superchargers, tacking on an additional $2 or $2.5k to a car that starts at $70k is a fairly small hit, which won't be the case if the base car costs half as much. Besides, how many people are ever going to use SCs enough to gain 150,000 miles from them, especially since Tesla tries to locate them away from cities so that locals won't use them? I know they aren't doing so in China, but that appears to be a case of little or no L2 infrastructure at the moment making it essential to have SCs right now. It will be interesting to see if Tesla continues this policy, because if they do there will be demands to do the same thing here, and that will likely make the current SC business model untenable.

BTW, I'm talking about point of sale billing QCs usable by _anyone_, not a system that's currently restricted to cars from a single company. We'll have to see if anyone else chooses the Tesla standard, but I have my doubts; companies that use a different standard are unlikely to be in any hurry to help Tesla out.

As to EVOasis, $9.00/hour for a maximum of what, 60-70 miles of range before it tapers is cheaper than a Prius, which can gain 100 miles for $8.00 (2 gallons at $4.00/gallon), and do so in a fraction of a minute even assuming a slow (5 gal/minute) dispenser?

 

[RegGuheert]

Assume that there is a completely 100% solar powered economy. Assume that solar power is reasonably cheap. And assume that storage isn't free, isn't loss less and isn't unlimited. The daytime power rate is cheap, roughly than the cost of generation by solar power. In this case, workplace charging would be cheap. The nighttime power rate is high, as it costs both to generate the electric power and also costs to store it. Home charging might end up being fairly expensive, unless you can charge in daylight hours.

Hydrogen could never compete with the daytime price of electric power. But hydrogen might compete with the nighttime cost of electric power. Why? The energy is only stored once, not twice.

Agreed that in your 100% solar scenario, those late-night BEV charges would be more expensive, perhaps even ridiculously expensive. In the case of solar plus wind, those expensive fill-ups would only occur when BOTH solar and wind together are below the requested load.

So the question becomes: Do I make more money supporting the grid from my BEV during these periods than I spend charging from the grid during the same periods? I suppose if I have a large-enough battery, I can nearly-always avoid charging when the electricity is very expensive and I can often afford to share some energy when it is needed by others.

There might be a business case, but it looks to me to be both for a niche, and is a long time in the future. Not a bad idea to research and develop, as it has a reasonable chance of being needed. Not a bad idea to run a few prototypes to work out the kinks and bugs out, and find cost savings with small numbers before you really need the technology.

I don't think we are talking about research and development here. It sounds like CA is all about deployment at this point, no matter what the current cost.

As I said, I'm all for hydrogen for the proper applications.

 

[WetEV]

Not a bad idea to run a few prototypes to work out the kinks and bugs out, and find cost savings with small numbers before you really need the technology.

I don't think we are talking about research and development here. It sounds like CA is all about deployment at this point, no matter what the current cost.

A few was a poor choice of words. Can't find all of the kinks and bugs with one prototype, you agree? And the cost of one and the cost of ten is going to be almost exactly the same, due to engineering costs and infrastructure costs. A hundred might not cost that much more.

How many are really needed? And what motivates the roll out? Good questions that I'm going to dodge, but research into a possible world changing technology , even if HCV just becomes a niche, is valuable in and for its self. Even if the results are "Don't even think about fuel cells for transportation".

 

[RegGuheert]

Good questions that I'm going to dodge, but research into a possible world changing technology , even if HCV just becomes a niche, is valuable in and for its self.

But there are opportunity costs involved, and I think many here, including me, feel that they are significant. The current subsidy system sends a message that FCVs are the future. As I pointed out in the Hyundai thread, their brochure is explicit on this point: FCVs are the next generation beyond BEVs. And many people believe this false message. So they continue to drive their gasoline-fueled vehicles while they wait for the FCVs to come along. IMO, that's a travesty.

So, instead of recognizing that the two technologies will likely occupy different spaces in the future, our governments seem to be working to REPLACE BEVs with FCVs. This misguided approach is diverting significant amounts of funding that could be used to further accelerating BEV deployment.