Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[DaveEV]

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.

None of the infrastructure we're complaining about is usable by class 8 trucks.

As Zythryn says, I don't think many (if anyone) here have anything against class 8 trucks going H2. Just a couple properly placed H2 stations to fuel trucks on longer fixed routes would probably work great.

But when thinking of little Johnny with asthma next door, I also think of all the low hanging fruit for which we have affordable solutions today. Just go stand outside a local school at pickup and dropoff time. Then imagine if all those vehicles plugged in. The reduction in air pollution and noise pollution would be significant.

What if all those vehicles were Tuscon FC vehicles? Well, they'd be better than most of the other fossil fuel vehicles. Certainly better with regards to local pollution. But in terms of global warming emissions they're about the same as a stinky Prius. Anything that plugs in will do significantly better.

I continue to see more and more battery storage hit both the roads and the grid and accelerating in growth. Meanwhile - I'd love to see how many Tuscon FCEVs have hit the road. Haven't heard anything about them so far.

 

[AndyH]

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.

None of the infrastructure we're complaining about is usable by class 8 trucks.

Why is that, drees? Do large trucks use a different hydrogen connector? Maybe the hoses are too short and they cannot reach the fill port? Please do cite a source for this major engineering failure! Thanks in advance!

What if all those vehicles were Tuscon FC vehicles? Well, they'd be better than most of the other fossil fuel vehicles. Certainly better with regards to local pollution. But in terms of global warming emissions they're about the same as a stinky Prius. Anything that plugs in will do significantly better.

Nobody disputes that today's power grid can be better, and that CA's 'minimum 33% renewable' H2 can be better. Your conclusion from the UCS article is erroneous, however. Firstly, a BEV charged from a partially renewable grid has a fossil carbon footprint just as a FCEV fueled from partially renewable has a fossil carbon footprint. Nobody disputes this. That's why, for the past year this thread's been alive, participants have linked 'cradle to grave' and 'well to wheels' comparisons of BEV, ICE, and FCEV. Those are required references if one is going to start with the UCS article and then make a declaration as you have done.

A FCEV fueled from 100% renewable sources has a 0% fossil carbon score. A BEV charged from 100% renewable sources also has a 0% fossil carbon score. (Both from a well to wheels standpoint.)

So no, it is not accurate to say that one is cleaner than the other when they're both fueled from renewable sources.

At least two papers already linked here multiple times provides a direct comparison of BEV and FCEV fossil carbon emissions when charged/fueled from today's CA grid. Their emissions are identical. Neither is cleaner than the other.

Yes, one can 'cook the books' to make one look better or worse than the other, but when they're put on a level field...well, do we really have to keep beating this dead horse?!

 

[Zythryn]

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.

None of the infrastructure we're complaining about is usable by class 8 trucks.

Why is that, drees? Do large trucks use a different hydrogen connector? Maybe the hoses are too short and they cannot reach the fill port? Please do cite a source for this major engineering failure! Thanks in advance!

What is the size of the tanks on class 8 trucks?
Then ask yourself what the daily capacity of the hydrogen stations being built.

Also, the infrastructure for class 8 trucks will be much easier. Truck depots can have their own stations. Stations can also be limited much more to interstates than they could if being built for passenger vehicles.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Hydrogen (largely derived from natural gas) or straight natural gas in Class 8 trucks, fueled at commercial stations with professional handling.

Same for merchant shipping and rail. And grid storage.

Sounds awesome for now.

 

[AndyH]

None of the infrastructure we're complaining about is usable by class 8 trucks.

Why is that, drees? Do large trucks use a different hydrogen connector? Maybe the hoses are too short and they cannot reach the fill port? Please do cite a source for this major engineering failure! Thanks in advance!

What is the size of the tanks on class 8 trucks?
Then ask yourself what the daily capacity of the hydrogen stations being built.

Also, the infrastructure for class 8 trucks will be much easier. Truck depots can have their own stations. Stations can also be limited much more to interstates than they could if being built for passenger vehicles.

Thanks - I've sold to trucking fleets and agree 100% that at least some long-haul fleets that run regular runs will install their own H2 infrastructure just as they do today with fuel and service. (I've given an example of this already for a Dallas-based company that runs the NAFTA corridor along I-35 from Mexico to Canada.)

Two points on this: First - there are far more class 6 and larger trucks, busses, and vans on the road than the small number that run regular corridors. More infrastructure = more deployment along UPS and FedEx routes, school buses, etc. Secondly: Fueling capability scales just fine - delivery volumes will grow with demand just as gasoline and diesel stations have grown their infrastructure for more than 100 years. Suggesting that H2 must 'fail' because fuel stations are too small is...something other than reasonable.

 

[mbender]

Given that we're now talking about trucks, it's becoming apparent that we have more agreement here about H2 than we might realize (or some may want, ;-)). H2 for large trucks (and especially large large-truck fleets), where centralized, dedicated filling stations can be built and used, seems to be a great idea and use for H2.

Which brings up two questions for Andy regarding this:

1. Are you an advocate for making FCEV passenger vehicles as soon as possible, or rather for first proving (&or improving) the tech in heavier vehicles? And
2. Do you think Toyota, Honda, Hyundai et al share your 'altruistic' reasoning and motivation for moving to H2 (and in their case, being effectively anti-EV)?

I (and many here, I suspect) do think that more needs to be done to clean up the many fleets of grossly-polluting heavy-duty vehicles. And there will likely be many approaches to doing that, including all-battery, hydrogen, and a fascinating one I've just recently learned more about: turbine-powered PHEVs, as Wrightspeed is pioneering in San Jose, CA. Freight trains/rail is in many ways ideal, but the first and last 10 (or 50, or more) miles would still need to be dealt with.

 

[smkettner]

I would invest in electric rail long before H2 in a class 8.
I could also see battery class 8 with trolley poles to go long distance or up hills.

 

[AndyH]

Given that we're now talking about trucks, it's becoming apparent that we have more agreement here about H2 than we might realize (or some may want, ;-)). H2 for large trucks (and especially large large-truck fleets), where centralized, dedicated filling stations can be built and used, seems to be a great idea and use for H2.

Not trying to move the conversation to trucks as much as I'm hoping to expand the conversation to the full range of transportation needs rather than focusing only on commuter vehicles. The thread began as a 'complaint' about using alternative fuel funds to expand alternative fueling infrastructure, after all.

Which brings up two questions for Andy regarding this:

1. Are you an advocate for making FCEV passenger vehicles as soon as possible, or rather for first proving (&or improving) the tech in heavier vehicles? And

1. 
   I'm advocating for the complete electrification of all transportation as rapidly as possible. I'm also an advocate for eliminating unnecessary motor vehicles. It's more than a paper exercise for me personally - I sold my ICE three weeks ago. I'm using my feet, my bicycle, and a BEV motorcycle with ~30 miles of range and no ability to use L2 or DC charging infrastructure.
   
   Considering that fuel cells have been fielded for decades in heavy vehicles, and are in use in Class-8 form hauling heavy loads, I think it's pretty clear that there's no need for further improvement in order to replace ICE.
   
   

   [*] Do you think Toyota, Honda, Hyundai et al share your 'altruistic' reasoning and motivation for moving to H2 (and in their case, being effectively anti-EV)?

Firstly, no company selling FCEV are anti-EV - effectively or not - because FCEV ARE electric vehicles. Secondly, I don't consider my reasoning or motivation to be altruistic, but rather pragmatic.

As for what motivates auto manufacturers, I think there are three major factors informing their processes: 1. awareness that the fossil fuel era is ending and that change is necessary if they want to continue to sell vehicles, 2. awareness that the car buying public has well-entrenched expectations (including the ability to use cabin heat without range loss, and the ability to trust that their car doesn't lose 40-50% of it's range after 5 years), and 3. awareness of the relative positions on the development/price curves for batteries and fuel cell stacks and thus an understanding of which tech has the potential to fall in price the fastest. Based on my understanding of business, I expect their motivation is largely pragmatic as well.

I (and many here, I suspect) do think that more needs to be done to clean up the many fleets of grossly-polluting heavy-duty vehicles. And there will likely be many approaches to doing that, including all-battery, hydrogen, and a fascinating one I've just recently learned more about: turbine-powered PHEVs, as Wrightspeed is pioneering in San Jose, CA. Freight trains/rail is in many ways ideal, but the first and last 10 (or 50, or more) miles would still need to be dealt with.

Yes, there's plenty of room for emissions improvement, but we are rapidly running out of time for the climate and fossil fuel access. I strongly suspect those two factors are much more important than any focus on incremental emissions reductions as we've done in the past.

I hope that's useful.

 

[AndyH]

Something came to mind overnight, gents, that I think merits repeating. Sorry in advance for the old-timers here that have heard this already many times over.

The US electric grid is not ready today for a 100% electric vehicle transition. Electricity providers have already had to begin transformer upgrades to handle the very tiny number of BEVs fielded in the US, and we're required to spend billions of dollars for infrastructure upgrades (with or without a 'Reinventing Fire' or 'Third Industrial Revolution' transition). (Recall that projections for the Reinventing Fire plan show that we can save $5 billion over business as usual). So, no - it's probably not a reasonable argument to suggest that a simple EVSE VS. H2 fuel station cost comparison is worthwhile. We'll need plenty of infrastructure to make this transition and it'll cost plenty of money. But it's much less expensive to pay now...

 

[Zythryn]

If Fuel Cells are so well proven in heavy vehicles why not replace enough of that fleet so the public notices? Fuel is a huge cost in that industry and if H2 is cheaper it should be readily accepted by companies that want a competitive edge.

If you want the complete electrification of vehicles as quickly as possible, I would think you would be against FCEV incentives Carb is dishing out.
If CA, instead of splitting their resources, piled another 48 million into expanding EV infrastructure that would speed the adoption of EVs substantially.
Toyota would not have dropped their BEV programs and their PHEV program would likely not be on life support.

The buying public could car less that their car looses range in the winter, as long as they still have sufficient range, and/or refueling is easy.
You spouting 40%-50% range loss after 5 years as a general statement about BEVs sure sounds anti BEV to me? That is affecting some LEAFs in hot weather climates.
Other BEVs and Leafs in cooler climates aren't seeing anything like that.
Nissan has already addressed this (they have said) and going forward further improvements will continue to be made.

The grid, really?
Today's electric grid can handle about 60% of our LVF being electric. It will take 11 years to get to that point IF plugin vehicles are 50% of sales (which we are a longggg ways from). This gives utilities plenty of time to make changes they need to. The utilities are ready and eager for plugin vehicles.

 

[Stoaty]

awareness that the car buying public has well-entrenched expectations (including the ability to use cabin heat without range loss, and the ability to trust that their car doesn't lose 40-50% of it's range after 5 years)

The only BEV that might fit the 40-50% range loss in 5 years are pre-2015 Leafs in hot desert areas... and those Leafs will get a new battery under warranty. Exaggerating won't help make your case.

 

[TonyWilliams]

A FCEV fueled from 100% renewable sources has a 0% fossil carbon score. A BEV charged from 100% renewable sources also has a 0% fossil carbon score. (Both from a well to wheels standpoint.)

True, however left unsaid is that the amount of electricity to propel the same car for 1 mile powered by H2 is many times more total electric consumption than to just recharge a battery with the same electricity.

The infrastructure to recharge those battery cars is everywhere in the world. The H2 infrastructure to refuel cars is virtually non-existent, and very expensive to implement, in addition to the relative inefficiency of electricity. I've left out the relative safety comparisons, and ongoing costs for H2 versus electricity for transport.

I think the bulk of us that frequent this thread will agree that H2 is both less safe and more expensive.

 

[mbender]

• Do you think Toyota, Honda, Hyundai et al share your 'altruistic' reasoning and motivation for moving to H2 (and in their case, being effectively anti-EV)?

Firstly, no company selling FCEV are anti-EV - effectively or not - because FCEV ARE electric vehicles. Secondly, I don't consider my reasoning or motivation to be altruistic, but rather pragmatic.

1. Yes, I forgot the 'B' before the 'EV'! Or, more accurately, perhaps
   I should have said '100% BEV' or 'pure-BEV', since FCEVs have batteries too.
2. I put 'altruistic' in small quotes to give you the benefit of the doubt.

And with that cleared up, I'll leave the push-back on your other points to others. ;-)

 

[AndyH]

awareness that the car buying public has well-entrenched expectations (including the ability to use cabin heat without range loss, and the ability to trust that their car doesn't lose 40-50% of it's range after 5 years)

The only BEV that might fit the 40-50% range loss in 5 years are pre-2015 Leafs in hot desert areas... and those Leafs will get a new battery under warranty. Exaggerating won't help make your case.

I'm not exaggerating, Stoaty. While I realize this is a Leaf forum, there are many more BEVs on US streets that have different batteries and different numbers of wheels. And yes - my personal motorcycle with LiFePO4 is down to just below 50% range after about 4 years and 4000 miles.

 

[AndyH]

If Fuel Cells are so well proven in heavy vehicles why not replace enough of that fleet so the public notices? Fuel is a huge cost in that industry and if H2 is cheaper it should be readily accepted by companies that want a competitive edge.

This is already happening. All across Texas, for example, warehouses are retiring their BEV forklifts and replacing them with fuel cell equipment. This seems like it would be a 'slam dunk' for batteries - the vehicles stay close, there's a ton of recharging infrastructure in the warehouses, and they generally have long overnights of down-time to recharge - yet they're switching to hydrogen. Why is that? (I'll give you a hint - it's got nothing to do with the oil or gas industry or non-existent alternative fuel programs...) Yes - this is already documented in this thread.

If you want the complete electrification of vehicles as quickly as possible, I would think you would be against FCEV incentives Carb is dishing out.
If CA, instead of splitting their resources, piled another 48 million into expanding EV infrastructure that would speed the adoption of EVs substantially.
Toyota would not have dropped their BEV programs and their PHEV program would likely not be on life support.

The transportation we need to transition is not centered in California. Please guys - it's not all about California or CARB or even the USA. Yes, I've said that before. I and others have said this repeatedly as well: HYDROGEN VEHICLES ARE ELECTRIC VEHICLES.

The buying public could car less that their car looses range in the winter, as long as they still have sufficient range, and/or refueling is easy.
You spouting 40%-50% range loss after 5 years as a general statement about BEVs sure sounds anti BEV to me? That is affecting some LEAFs in hot weather climates.
Other BEVs and Leafs in cooler climates aren't seeing anything like that.
Nissan has already addressed this (they have said) and going forward further improvements will continue to be made.

- I've already answered this but will say it again: I happen to live in a hot climate, I have had a BEV for more than 4 years, and I'm down to just under 50% capacity on my LiFePO4 battery.
- The BEV world does not orbit CARB or California, or the USA, and there are more BEVs deployed around the world with fewer than 4 wheels.
- Your belief in the desires of the US buying public are not supported by facts that can be found on this board or in this thread. As for winter range and capability, the reverse of your suggestion is true. While the current Leaf heater is better than the old, life in the upper Midwest consists of about 8 months of cold and 4 months of hot. Cold country BEVers are required to buy an excessive amount of summer range in order to have the range they need in the winter.

The grid, really?
Today's electric grid can handle about 60% of our LVF being electric. It will take 11 years to get to that point IF plugin vehicles are 50% of sales (which we are a longggg ways from). This gives utilities plenty of time to make changes they need to. The utilities are ready and eager for plugin vehicles.

You might want to read some of the info linked in the early days of this thread. Transformers in CA neighborhoods have already been upgraded in response to multiple BEVs on the block. If you spend the time reviewing planning info from Project Get Ready you'll find that this is a very real concern and one of the first things that must be reviewed before EVSE can be deployed. Or just dig-into Reinventing Fire, The Solutions Project, and/or the Third Industrial Revolution. RMI in Reinventing Fire completely describes the way our power grid must be upgraded to support electrified transportation and the replacement of fossil fuel generation with renewables - and that's in addition to any work on vehicle-to-grid. And finally, I'm working to get a 240 outlet installed in my garage. I have to call it a dryer outlet that'll be used for a welder - my request for an EVSE outlet was denied because the local transformer hasn't yet been upgraded...

So yeah, Zythryn - the grid, really.

 

[Stoaty]

I'm not exaggerating, Stoaty. While I realize this is a Leaf forum, there are many more BEVs on US streets that have different batteries and different numbers of wheels. And yes - my personal motorcycle with LiFePO4 is down to just below 50% range after about 4 years and 4000 miles.

Are these cars using Lithium ion batteries and produced by a major manufacturer and currently available for sale, or is this homebrew or stuff that was built a number of years ago (like your motorcycle)?

 

[Zythryn]

Carb rules greatly affect what auto manufactures develope. And what auto manufacturers make for California they tend to make elsewhere.
No, Carb doesn't dictate US sales, but it does heavily influence it.

I'm sorry to hear your block had issues with their transformer. Yours is the first case I have ever heard of that.
Luckily transformer upgrades are not very expensive.

Many places outside your state, and perhaps outside your neighborhood have had no such issues. Yes, local transformers are the weakest link. However most utilities seem to have gotten ahead of the game.

There is some great info, and references about exactly how big, or small an issue that is at this link:
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/02/03/grid-capacity-electric-vehicles-actually-problem-studies-find/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

An excerpt:

The local distribution transformer is the most vulnerable location to EV demand on the power grid, Navigant points out. “Residential customers are supplied electricity through a transformer that feeds a number of units. If all or many of the units supplied by a transformer require increased load for PEVs, the transformer may need to be upgraded to increase peak capacity and use.”

Every time a customer purchases an EV, say Pacific Gas and Electric representatives, who serve large EV populations, the company conducts a grid service check to ensure the local distribution transformer has enough power to charge it. Out of the 10,000 checks, the company has only had to upgrade 12 local grids. A recent report by Southern California Edison attributed less than 1% of transformer upgrades directly to plug-in vehicles. Green Car Reports says that local distribution transformer updates are a relatively low-cost fix.

Bold added by me.

 

[GRA]

If Fuel Cells are so well proven in heavy vehicles why not replace enough of that fleet so the public notices? Fuel is a huge cost in that industry and if H2 is cheaper it should be readily accepted by companies that want a competitive edge.

This is already happening. All across Texas, for example, warehouses are retiring their BEV forklifts and replacing them with fuel cell equipment. This seems like it would be a 'slam dunk' for batteries - the vehicles stay close, there's a ton of recharging infrastructure in the warehouses, and they generally have long overnights of down-time to recharge - yet they're switching to hydrogen. Why is that? (I'll give you a hint - it's got nothing to do with the oil or gas industry or non-existent alternative fuel programs...) Yes - this is already documented in this thread.

As someone who'd spent plenty of time on truck docks and done my share of forklift driving, most trucking 'barns' (they aren't actually warehouses, they serve as trans-shipping points) these days run at least two and often three or more overlapping dock shifts. Having used gas, diesel, battery and propane forklifts and pallet jacks from 2k to 30k lb. capacity, rapid re-fueling capability is critical if you're operating more than one shift. And if you're using battery powered forks or pallet jacks on a single shift, if the power goes out when they're charging in the off hours you may not be able to get any work accomplished during the shift - BTDT. All of this assumes that the driver remembered to plug it in at the end of their shift, and that's not guaranteed. Of course, if you were to employ QCs that would somewhat ameliorate the problem, but probably at a cost to longevity and with a high upfront capital cost and continuing demand charges.

Swappable battery packs are big, heavy and take up extra space. Pressurized hose refueling or swappable tanks (I've used both for propane forklifts) are far preferable. I can personally attest that the mandated switch from diesel or gas to propane material handling equipment in covered/enclosed areas made for a major improvement in the working environment, and although battery-powered MHE would be better yet on that score, IME their operational limitations pretty much preclude them from being used for high intensity, time sensitive operations. Restocking aisles in warehouse home improvement centers is fine, but 16-24 hour/5 to 7 day usage, no. All things considered, FC-powered MHE strike me as the best compromise in most situations.

As to the economics, given current oil and NG prices I have my doubts that there's a general economic case to be made at the moment for any over-the-road non-fossil fuel AFV, whatever the type. Meanwhile (via GCC),

DOE fuel cell market report shows continued growth, with sales surpassing $1.3B worldwide in 2013

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/11/20141112-doefuelcell.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Direct link to report here:

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/11/f19/fcto_2013_market_report.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The transportation section starts on page 30 of the report.

A couple of quotes from the GCC article:

The US Department of Energy (DOE) released the 2013 edition of its annual Fuel Cell Technologies Market Report, detailing trends in the fuel cell and hydrogen technologies market. More than 35,000 fuel cell systems were shipped in 2013, an increase of more than 26% over 2012 and 400% more than 2008. In 2013, worldwide fuel cell industry sales surpassed $1 billion for the first time, reaching $1.3 billion.

Although early markets such as stationary power and material handling account for the bulk of sales, DOE noted that the fuel cell industry made “tremendous progress” in the light-duty transportation sector in 2013. Achievements include the launch of H2USA (earlier post), a public private partnership focusing on overcoming the barriers to hydrogen infrastructure. The UK launched a similar initiative called UK H2Mobility (earlier post). Hyundai began leasing its first series production fuel cell electric vehicle at select dealerships in Southern California. (Earlier post.) . . .

Deployments and orders for fuel cells for telecommunications backup expanded into the Middle East, China, the Philippines, and other international markets. With more than 300 fuel cell-powered material handling equipment vehicles at its existing fleet in Spartanburg, South Carolina, BMW now claims the largest number at a single location in the world. A 14.9 MW fuel cell power park opened in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and the world’s largest fuel cell power plant, 59 MW, was installed in Korea.

Here's a quote from the DOE report re MHE:

• Material Handling
  In 2013, the material handling sector continued to be an active market for the fuel cell industry, with a large
  majority of sales and deployments occurring in the U.S. Fuel cell manufacturer Plug Power is the major player in
  this area, with an estimated 80% of the market share. Other U.S. companies focused in this sector include Nuvera
  Fuel Cells and Oorja Protonics, with H2 Logic, a Danish company, leading the small number of deployments in
  Germany and Europe.
  
  Table 17: Top Ten Fuel Cell Lift Truck Customers
  
  1 Sysco 734+ forklifts at 7 sites
  2 Walmart 523 forklifts at 3 sites*
  3 Associated Wholesale Grocers 500+ forklifts at 2 sites
  4 P&G 340 forklifts at 4 sites
  5 BMW 275+ forklifts at 1 site
  6 Central Grocers 234 forklifts at 1 site
  7 WinCo Foods 200+ forklifts at 1 site
  8 Lowe’s 157 forklifts at 1 site
  9 Kroger 150+ forklifts at 1 site
  10 Wegmans 140+ forklifts at 1 site
  *In March 2014, Walmart ordered 1,738 fuel cells for more than 1,500 forklift trucks at six distribution centers around the U.S. In July 2014, the company announced
  an additional site and 286 additional fuel cells.

And here's one re Trucks:

Trucks and Utility Vehicles
In Texas, DOE awarded $3.4 million to the Houston Galveston Area Council to demonstrate 20 heavy duty
TYRANO™ hydrogen fuel cell-electric trucks from Vision Industries at the Port of Houston. Expected benefits of
the project include displacement of 200,000 gallons of diesel annually and annual emissions reductions of 39 tons
of nitrogen oxides and 0.8 tons of particulate matter. Hydrogen for the fuel cell trucks will be locally sourced from
natural gas.116
Proton Motor Fuel Cell GmbH unveiled a battery-fuel cell hybrid electric commercial vehicle based on the
battery-powered Newton vehicle built by Smith Electric Vehicles. Proton Motor integrated a HyRange 8-kW fuel
cell system with the battery to increase range and power air conditioning and other equipment. The project was
supported by funding from Germany’s NIP program.

 

[AndyH]

Carb rules greatly affect what auto manufactures develope. And what auto manufacturers make for California they tend to make elsewhere.
No, Carb doesn't dictate US sales, but it does heavily influence it.

Sure - it's a factor in CA and the NE 'CARB-lite' states - but is has absolutely zero to do with S Korea, China, Germany, the UK, Denmark, etc. - and they all had FCEV on the road before CA got their first whiff of one.

I'm sorry to hear your block had issues with their transformer. Yours is the first case I have ever heard of that.
Luckily transformer upgrades are not very expensive.

No worries - the local municipal power company is taking care of upgrades for both PV and BEVs as well as deploying smart meters. Eventually we'll get there...

Many places outside your state, and perhaps outside your neighborhood have had no such issues. Yes, local transformers are the weakest link. However most utilities seem to have gotten ahead of the game.

There is some great info, and references about exactly how big, or small an issue that is at this link:
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/02/03/grid-capacity-electric-vehicles-actually-problem-studies-find/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

An excerpt:

The local distribution transformer is the most vulnerable location to EV demand on the power grid, Navigant points out. “Residential customers are supplied electricity through a transformer that feeds a number of units. If all or many of the units supplied by a transformer require increased load for PEVs, the transformer may need to be upgraded to increase peak capacity and use.”

Every time a customer purchases an EV, say Pacific Gas and Electric representatives, who serve large EV populations, the company conducts a grid service check to ensure the local distribution transformer has enough power to charge it. Out of the 10,000 checks, the company has only had to upgrade 12 local grids. A recent report by Southern California Edison attributed less than 1% of transformer upgrades directly to plug-in vehicles. Green Car Reports says that local distribution transformer updates are a relatively low-cost fix.

Bold added by me.

I don't disagree with this. There's something very critical here, however: The word "had". That's past tense. That means they didn't have to upgrade very much to meet the current demand at that time. Reinventing Fire, the Solutions Project, and the Third Industrial Revolution (and the deployment of FCEV and BEV in large numbers, V2G, and electrified transportation is not past tense - it's future. The 1000 or so FCEV that are expected to appear in CA next year are not 2050 numbers, but those three pathways to a 2050 world are. And for us to get from here, now, today, to 2050, we'll be putting many, many billions of dollars into upgrading transformers and other portions of the grid. That's not a 'maybe' - that's required.

So, yet again - yes, it's the grid. It's also EVSE deployments. And DCQC deployments. And H2 fueling deployment. And V2G, and grid-storage, and decentralized generation, and smart grid tech. Enough H2 stations across the country is a pretty small portion of what we've got on our plates between now and then.

 

[AndyH]

I'm not exaggerating, Stoaty. While I realize this is a Leaf forum, there are many more BEVs on US streets that have different batteries and different numbers of wheels. And yes - my personal motorcycle with LiFePO4 is down to just below 50% range after about 4 years and 4000 miles.

Are these cars using Lithium ion batteries and produced by a major manufacturer and currently available for sale, or is this homebrew or stuff that was built a number of years ago (like your motorcycle)?

My motorcycle was not homebrew - it's commercial manufacture with a VIN and is still being sold. And yes, LiFePO4 is lithium ion - one that's supposed to have a considerably longer cycle life in normal service than the LiMn in the Leaf when kept thermally comfortable. So no - you cannot paint this as some type of outlier...sorry about that.