Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[NeilBlanchard]

A fuel cell electric vehicle will always be less efficient than a battery electric vehicle.

Period.

 

[AndyH]

A fuel cell electric vehicle will always be less efficient than a battery electric vehicle.

Period.

Why is that important to you, Neil, and do you consider FCEV to be worse than, equal to, or an improvement on ICE vehicles?

Thanks.

 

[NeilBlanchard]

A fuel cell electric vehicle is better than a fossil fuel powered car IF the hydrogen comes from renewable energy sources. But, a fuel cell electric vehicle will always be worse than a battery electric vehicle.

But why do this? Why do we want to wait for a HUGE infrastructure to get built - that is not even DESIGNED yet?

 

[AndyH]

A fuel cell electric vehicle is better than a fossil fuel powered car IF the hydrogen comes from renewable energy sources. But, a fuel cell electric vehicle will always be worse than a battery electric vehicle.

But why do this? Why do we want to wait for a HUGE infrastructure to get built - that is not even DESIGNED yet?

Neil - you didn't answer my main question - why is vehicle efficiency so important to you? Why do you and others see it as what appears to be the single most important factor? Thanks in advance.

 

[Stoaty]

Neil - you didn't answer my main question - why is vehicle efficiency so important to you? Why do you and others see it as what appears to be the single most important factor?

I expect that we will be running short of energy 20-30 years from now if we cut way back on fossil fuels (which we must for the sake of our climate/survival). I don't think we will have enough renewable energy to be able to waste it.

 

[smkettner]

Neil - you didn't answer my main question - why is vehicle efficiency so important to you? Why do you and others see it as what appears to be the single most important factor?

I expect that we will be running short of energy 20-30 years from now if we cut way back on fossil fuels (which we must for the sake of our climate/survival). I don't think we will have enough renewable energy to be able to waste it.

Or you can spend an extra $20,000 to increase your solar production to make up for the efficiency losses :roll:

I am on Andy's foe list so this post is for everyone else. :lol:

 

[NeilBlanchard]

Efficiency matters for several reasons. It is how we get the most out of the batteries we have to go as far as possible. Climate change is forcing us to look to renewable energy, and when we can gather enough for our needs - then efficiency doesn't really matter. But, why waste energy when we can do all we need to with less?

We will have plenty to deal with with all the other effects of climate change. I think gathering all the energy we need is the easiest part.

We already see that directly powered solar cars are possible, so I will turn the question around:

Why is hydrogen so important to you? Especially when it is made moot by battery electric cars?

 

[AndyH]

Efficiency matters for several reasons. It is how we get the most out of the batteries we have to go as far as possible. Climate change is forcing us to look to renewable energy, and when we can gather enough for our needs - then efficiency doesn't really matter. But, why waste energy when we can do all we need to with less?

We will have plenty to deal with with all the other effects of climate change. I think gathering all the energy we need is the easiest part.

We already see that directly powered solar cars are possible, so I will turn the question around:

Why is hydrogen so important to you? Especially when it is made moot by battery electric cars?

I agree completely that climate change is bringing us plenty of challenges to solve. It appears that the first place we might be missing each other, if it's accurate to parse this: "when we can gather enough for our needs" is that you might not believe that we can provide enough energy with renewables. The good news is that when folks become familiar with the Third Industrial Revolution plan, and/or Reinventing Fire, and/or The Solutions Project that it's very clear that not only do we have much more energy available than we need, but we don't need to wait for new tech or politicians.

On your excellent point "why waste energy when we can do all we need to with less" - I agree completely as well! This comes down to capability. Looking at today's BEV line-up, which is pretty sparse as is normal in the very early days of a transportation revolution, there are a number of vehicles that are perfect for commuting, but there's really only one BEV suitable for long-range travel. As Tony pointed out earlier, it's not possible to drive east-west across most of California today with a Leaf. Yes, it's possible to drive from Mexico to Canada. It will take a LOT more L2 and DC charging infrastructure across the country to unleash our current batch of BEVs. Yes - none of those are pickup trucks. None of the current flock of BEVs (and none planned that I know of) are capable of holding much less moving sheets of plywood. There are a few small vans (Transit Connect) but while they can move bulky items (flower delivery, parcels), they cannot move them very far. Capability must must be included. It's meaningless to ignore more than 2/3s of 'light' transportation needs (no capability whatsoever) and jump to efficiency. That's my first point - we cannot currently "do all we need" with anything, much less with "less". Looking at efficiency from another direction now: We have enough wind capability in the US central plains to power the entire country 8x over. If we cover only parking lots in the US we can power ALL of transportation 3x over. We have orders of magnitude more PV capability than we need, not just for transportation but for ALL energy needs. Climate change is not going to stop us from making or installing wind turbines or PV or solar-thermal or wave/tidal generation. The problem we have is one of numbers and speed - we must replace ICE and we must replace them as quickly as we can. Numbers first - then we can tweak. Finally, a third point on hydrogen and efficiency: Look again at the TIR: H2 allows capture and use (with either a geographic or a temporal shift) of renewable generation that would otherwise be lost - whether on today's mostly-fossil grid or tomorrow's 100% renewable grid. Batteries will help, CAES and pumped water will help - but only H2 is capable of storing energy on the scales we need. This isn't about home storage - this is continental scale capability that only one current tech can handle.

Why is H2 important to me? Learn about the Third Industrial Revolution. And sorry, no - it's not made moot by BEVs.

Thanks Neil.

http://www.amazon.com/Third-Industrial-Revolution-Lateral-Transforming/dp/0230341977
http://www.rmi.org/reinventingfire
http://thesolutionsproject.org/

 

[TonyWilliams]

Or you can spend an extra $20,000 to increase your solar production to make up for the efficiency losses :roll:

I am on Andy's foe list so this post is for everyone else. :lol:

It is amazing that things as large as the gross electrical inefficiency of H2 gets "explained away" because it can't be denied.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

It is amazing that things as large as the gross electrical inefficiency of H2 gets "explained away" because it can't be denied.

Isn't the theory that in some future world we'll be up to our armpits in renewables, so the efficiency won't matter? (sorry to ask a dumb question, I haven't read the books)

 

[TonyWilliams]

... Looking at today's BEV line-up, which is pretty sparse as is normal in the very early days of a transportation revolution, there are a number of vehicles that are perfect for commuting, but there's really only one BEV suitable for long-range travel.

Tony's predictions for California and USA:


EV today - about 100,000 of the 80-ish mile EV commuter cars, built largely for CARB-ZEV compliance, plus the "exceptions"; Nissan, Mitsubishi, BMW, and Kia, all building cars for both compliance and market share. The other notable exception, Tesla, has long range cars, plus a nationwide, fast growing quick charging network. Battery costs are $250-$500 per kWh, dropping dramatically from over $1000 per kWh just five years earlier.

Many, many thousands or public charge locations and about 1000 public DC quick charge stations exist.


H2 today - a handful (and I do mean a handful) of extreme limited production, California only and lease only (to be crushed at the end) compact SUV and a few cars.


5 years from now:


EV tomorrow - battery costs will largely be under $200, approaching $100 per kWh. Tesla's first Gigafactory will be up to speed, building batteries for hundreds of thousands of EV's, including their newly announced pickup truck.

Tesla also is enjoying explosive growth in battery grid storage, both for homes with solar, but larger scale commercial and industrial sites as well. Over 35% of California's electricity is from renewables, and it's never been cleaner, greener, or cheaper to use and store electricity. Coal grid power no longer exists in California. All nuclear reactors have been shut down.

Nissan, Mitsubishi, BMW, GM and Kia are battling for a larger share of that 100-150 mile range category, with some of their cars pushing 200 miles to take on Tesla's newest lower cost Model Y. Short range small trucks and vans are almost 50% EV now, and many cities have adopted all-electric bus fleets.

DC car charging still requires no employees to operate, is now faster than ever with new 100-250kW stations (including Tesla's dual Supercharger inlet option on their 500 mile range car, charging at 300kW).


H2 tomorrow - produced by a handful of manufacturers, each of which are REQUIRED to meet CARB-ZEV, each manufacturer building exactly ONE model, still promising the "car of the future", just like when George Bush II did almost twenty years earlier.

None will offer that "work truck" you need, and every single one built will cost more money to produce than they sell / lease for.

Hydrogen refueling stations will be primarily in California only, however a few demonstration H2 stations are likely to pop up in "progressive" non-California locations, such as the CARB-ZEV state coalition - California, New York, Massachusetts, Oregon, Vermont, Maryland, Connecticut and Rhode Island. Maine and New Jersey are participating with ZEV initiatives, but are not signatory CARB-ZEV states.

California is just finishing up its 68th H2 station, after cost overruns that amounted to $50 million total. The safety record has been good so far; only one horrific H2 explosion that killed several nearby residents and three H2 stations employees.

 

[smkettner]

It is amazing that things as large as the gross electrical inefficiency of H2 gets "explained away" because it can't be denied.

Isn't the theory that in some future world we'll be up to our armpits in renewables, so the efficiency won't matter? (sorry to ask a dumb question, I haven't read the books)

Yes just the same as nuke power at the onset. Electric was to be so cheap there would be no meters. We all just pitch in a few $$ each month. All electric homes were all the style in the late 50s into the 60s. I expect the 3rd revolution to be similar. Big promises, even bigger costs. Not to say we should just keep burning oil, just saying it will not come cheap.

 

[AndyH]

It is amazing that things as large as the gross electrical inefficiency of H2 gets "explained away" because it can't be denied.

Isn't the theory that in some future world we'll be up to our armpits in renewables, so the efficiency won't matter? (sorry to ask a dumb question, I haven't read the books)

I've not read every single book, paper, or plan, but I've not seen anything that suggests that efficiency isn't important or won't matter - and nothing I've been suggesting is along those lines, either.

Let me repeat that for you, Tony, drees, and even smkettner - I have not seen and I do not believe that efficiency should NOT be considered! I've been a fan of efficiency since before I could drive and it figures into every single personal decision I make.

There's a really important piece that some here don't appear to understand, however, that I think is very, very important: When choosing a device, we must start with the PURPOSE, FUNCTION, or MISSION first -- efficiency is only important ONCE THE MISSION OR FUNCTION CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED.

Yes, a Model S should be more efficient from a 'wall to wheels' standpoint than a FCEV, and both should be more efficient than a Peterbilt tractor with a 500 HP turbodiesel engine under the hood. So we're done here - right? Just make sure everyone buys a Model S and we're golden - we can replace all the cars, trucks, vans, long-haul trucks, service vehicles, buses, trains, and boats with Model S-85 and we're done!

Except we cannot - because a Model S cannot tow an 80,000 lb trailer; cannot haul a pallet of solar panels 300 miles; cannot carry a ton of roof racks, tool boxes, and air conditioning equipment; and they sure as hell cannot carry thousands of 40 foot containers from Taiwan to San Diego.

Efficiency is important, but is it NOT the single most important characteristic.

This ain't rocket surgery, guys...

 

[AndyH]

Tony - your predictions are interesting - we'll check back in 5 years.

Ummm..you might want to familiarize yourself with your DCQC competition, howevever. Please note that there's a plan for an east coast H2 highway that runs to that progressive and solid-blue state called Florida - and also note that the largest producers and consumers of H2 in the country are in Texas, not California or the other so-called 'progressive' states...

See you in five years...

 

[TonyWilliams]

Except we cannot - because a Model S cannot tow an 80,000 lb trailer; cannot haul a pallet of solar panels 300 miles; cannot carry a ton of roof racks, tool boxes, and air conditioning equipment; and they sure as hell cannot carry thousands of 40 foot containers from Taiwan to San Diego.

Efficiency is important, but is it NOT the single most important characteristic.

This ain't rocket surgery, guys...

The most obvious "not rocket science" part is that a hydrogen Honda Clarity, Hyundai Tucson H2 car, or upcoming Toyota, Honda, VW, Mercedes, et al, H2 won't pull 80,000 pounds or haul solar panels 300 miles.

Non sequitur.

 

[GRA]

Via GCC:

Ongoing market rollout for SAE hydrogen fueling standards

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/11/20141110-saeh2.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[GRA]

Except we cannot - because a Model S cannot tow an 80,000 lb trailer; cannot haul a pallet of solar panels 300 miles; cannot carry a ton of roof racks, tool boxes, and air conditioning equipment; and they sure as hell cannot carry thousands of 40 foot containers from Taiwan to San Diego.

Efficiency is important, but is it NOT the single most important characteristic.

This ain't rocket surgery, guys...

The most obvious "not rocket science" part is that a hydrogen Honda Clarity, Hyundai Tucson H2 car, or upcoming Toyota, Honda, VW, Mercedes, et al, H2 won't pull 80,000 pounds or haul solar panels 300 miles.

Non sequitur.

OTOH, this could:

http://visionmotorcorp.com/tyrano.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[Zythryn]

Except we cannot - because a Model S cannot tow an 80,000 lb trailer; cannot haul a pallet of solar panels 300 miles; cannot carry a ton of roof racks, tool boxes, and air conditioning equipment; and they sure as hell cannot carry thousands of 40 foot containers from Taiwan to San Diego.

Efficiency is important, but is it NOT the single most important characteristic.

This ain't rocket surgery, guys...

The most obvious "not rocket science" part is that a hydrogen Honda Clarity, Hyundai Tucson H2 car, or upcoming Toyota, Honda, VW, Mercedes, et al, H2 won't pull 80,000 pounds or haul solar panels 300 miles.

Non sequitur.

OTOH, this could:

http://visionmotorcorp.com/tyrano.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Once again, this is not part of the "light vehicle fleet".

I think hauling freight is a decent use for hydrogen. The infrastructure is much more streamlined.
Frankly, I suspect freight trains are still more efficient.

I just don't see an argument for the light vehicle fleet.

 

[AndyH]

Except we cannot - because a Model S cannot tow an 80,000 lb trailer; cannot haul a pallet of solar panels 300 miles; cannot carry a ton of roof racks, tool boxes, and air conditioning equipment; and they sure as hell cannot carry thousands of 40 foot containers from Taiwan to San Diego.

Efficiency is important, but is it NOT the single most important characteristic.

This ain't rocket surgery, guys...

The most obvious "not rocket science" part is that a hydrogen Honda Clarity, Hyundai Tucson H2 car, or upcoming Toyota, Honda, VW, Mercedes, et al, H2 won't pull 80,000 pounds or haul solar panels 300 miles.

Non sequitur.

No, it's not a non sequitur, Tony. There are H2 fuel cell class-8 tractors pulling loads in SoCal today - right bloody now. That's in CA. For the rest of the world - the places that are much more active in dealing with both climate change and electrifying transportation, there are many more FCEV on the road - and they're already deploying V2G infrastructure - because they understand that a future grid with 25% of their vehicles plugged-in at any one time (that's BEV and FCEV, by the way...) that their electric grid will be more stable and more resilient than the current fossil fuel grid.

BEV and FCEV compliment each other - they each have strengths the other doesn't, and they each have weaknesses the other doesn't. An electrified future will be better for us with both technologies - and could fail without both.

 

[AndyH]

The most obvious "not rocket science" part is that a hydrogen Honda Clarity, Hyundai Tucson H2 car, or upcoming Toyota, Honda, VW, Mercedes, et al, H2 won't pull 80,000 pounds or haul solar panels 300 miles.

Non sequitur.

OTOH, this could:

http://visionmotorcorp.com/tyrano.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Once again, this is not part of the "light vehicle fleet".

I think hauling freight is a decent use for hydrogen. The infrastructure is much more streamlined.
Frankly, I suspect freight trains are still more efficient.

I just don't see an argument for the light vehicle fleet.

The infrastructure too many here are complaining about allows more trucks to transition from diesel. The money spent to spread H2 fueling allows folks to get their toys from Amazon without their neighbor's kids having asthma attacks - even if we run out of diesel tomorrow. This thread, after all, isn't about what the Hyundai Tucson can or can't tow - it's about kick-starting the infrastructure that allows us to leave fossil fuels in the ground. That seems to me to be a very important thing to remember and a very worthwhile goal.