GRA
Posts: 12160
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Sat Feb 08, 2020 5:12 pm

Oilpan4 wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 12:06 am
With electric vehicles you don't need opm to pay for electricity.

Yet that's exactly what's happening at all public charging stations.

Oilpan4 wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 12:06 am
Most people don't care if their cost per mile goes up to 10 cents a mile if they go out of town 1 or 3 times a year.

Also if hydrogen vehicles only get 50 to 70 miles per KG of hydrogen then there's no efficiency advantage over bev.
Electric vehicle, go from grid or your own solar panels to road for around 90% efficiency.

Hydrogen vehicle, go from what ever the hydrogen is made from natural gas or water and electricity, compress it, distribute it, compress it more to finally burn it in a fuel cell for maybe 50% source to road efficiency. All that waste and all those losses are why it's always going to be ridiculously expensive. With the added bonus of not being able to fill up at home.
There's also no guarantee that H2 will always be "ridiculously expensive", as that's what everyone is trying to change. My contention is that it only has to be as cheap as fossil fuels.

That electrolysis will never be as efficient as using electricity directly to charge a battery isn't in dispute. Again, you assume that efficiency is the determining factor, and that's rarely been the case, as shown by the last century of ICE dominance. You also assume that high pressure H2 will always be the norm, and as I've noted that's not guaranteed, and as it's less desirable for most uses, that's why there's lots of R&D to find other means of storage.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

Oils4AsphaultOnly
Posts: 751
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:09 pm
Delivery Date: 20 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 313890
Location: Arcadia, CA

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Sat Feb 08, 2020 7:01 pm

GRA wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 4:47 pm
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:19 pm
GRA wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 5:30 pm



On the contrary, BEVs did have cost/mile advantages from the earliest days, for both commercial vehicles and (from about 1910 on) personal use in cities. See both of the following from my EV Bibliography page:




As noted above, David Kirsch's "The Electric Vehicle and the Burden of History" has comparable costs of BEV delivery vehicles vs. horses and ICEs. Within their best radius (in between the other two), BEVs were cheaper/mile. But ICEs could cover all three radius rings, so even though they were more expensive at shorter ranges, companies with only a small fleet came out ahead because they only needed one type of delivery vehicle instead of two or three, with the advantages in spares/maintenance/dispatch flexibility that the ICE provided. So the individually most expensive per mile option won out.

Current commercial BEVs still rely on subsidies for purchase and often O&M; their advantage is in emissions, not yet a demonstrated, reliable cost advantage (BYD buses suffered one major failure to perform already, where they were taken out of service and the company was sued). They will be able to achieve cost advantages widely at some point, but they aren't yet at a point where they're the obvious answer.
Your ancient historical reference, which wasn't relevant anytime in the 100 years afterwards, only solidifies the cost/mile point. You're only thinking in terms of operating costs, but your example points out that capital costs shifted the cost/mile away from BEV's.

Edit: So no, BEV's never had that advantage, or if they really did (it's hard to judge based on such old historical data during a time when information only traveled as fast as the pony express), that advantage was temporary and combustion vehicles eventually gained the cost/mile advantage until only recently.

Nope, BEVs had a cost/mile advantage regardless, but ICEs could go out further without refueling, expanding the territory covered in a given time (which was already expanded over horse coverage by BEVs); even installing intermediate depots for BEVs was cheaper than ICEs, but the time and flexibility factors were judged more important than the cost (cf. Amazon today, or why people buy SUVs they'll hardly ever need). Note that truck delivery was strictly an urban phenomenon, as there were no hard-surfaced roads outside of cities, and the rubber available at the time meant heavy vehicles like trucks had to have solid rubber tires, so they had limited speeds regardless. It didn't hurt that BEVs didn't have to be hand-cranked (the "Ford Fracture" being a common injury, when the crank kicked back) and were also quiet (mufflers not being a requirement), which is one reason they were often used by doctors, who often made house calls at night. But those same doctors often owned ICEs for touring.

The development of better tires, and the invention of the electric self-starter in 1916 (by Charles Kettering's Dayton Electric Labs Co., or as it's far better known nowadays, Delco) eliminated many of the BEV's advantages, and mass production of the go-anywhere ICE brought its costs down enough that along with better roads, it was the no-brainer choice for trucks, even though it was still more expensive per mile than a BEV.

In cities (the only place where there was electricity), personal BEVs were also cheaper per mile, but they couldn't tour, and that was what private car owners wanted to be able to do then as now, even if they did so rarely or never. In short, we're experiencing a "Back to the Future" moment.

BEVs retained their cost advantages all through that century plus,and were used for a few jobs which still matched their capabilities (milk floats in the U.K., etc.), and those are much the same jobs we're now seeing modern commercial BEVs re-acquire: mail and package P&D and similar jobs where frequent stops, low speeds and limited range with overnight charging at a central depot are acceptable, and quiet, zero emissions and low operating costs are significant pluses. As batteries and costs continue to improve the range of jobs for which BEVs are best suited will expand.
That's not what your referenced study concluded.
:: Model 3 LR :: acquired 9 May '18
:: Leaf S30 :: build date: Sep '16 :: purchased: Nov '16
100% Zero transportation emissions (except when I walk) and loving it!

smkettner
Posts: 7490
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:13 pm
Delivery Date: 26 Feb 2014
Location: Orange County, CA

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:00 pm

GRA wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 4:51 pm
Some might be, but as noted elsewhere it be far more equitable to charge weight-based mileage taxes instead, with separate taxes for carbon or what have you - I'd love to see a Central Command support tax on Middle East fossil fuels, preferably back-dated to at least 1990.
I think the idea is if the vehicle is bigger and heavier it will use more fuel and pay more tax.

I would certainly support a tariff on all carbon fuels coming into the US. From middle east, Canada, Mexico... all of it. Use the money to fight related pollution.
1 bar lost at 21,451 miles, 16 months.
2 bar lost at 35,339 miles, 25 months.
LEAF traded at 45,400 miles for a RAV4-EV
RAV4 traded in for I-Pace Dec 2018

Oilpan4
Posts: 1598
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:51 pm
Delivery Date: 10 May 2018
Leaf Number: 004270

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Sun Feb 09, 2020 9:39 am

There's 2 kinds of chargers.
Free (opm powered).
And ones you pay for.
If some cities or states want to use opm for charging electricity that's their choice. It doesn't need federal dollars.

The only way California has a chace to get out of owing the top 6 spots for "worst air polluted cities in the county" is electric vehicles and pollution exportation. If they want to keep EV numbers rapidly increasing it will take opm give aways in the form of vehicles and electricity.

Some where like new Mexico we don't need opm powered charging.

We are just going to have to assume high pressure or liquid hydrogen is the only way to transport it. Or hydrogen bound to nitrogen such as ammonia, carbon in the form of natural gas or oxygen in form of water.
There is always a chance of a game changer revolutionary unicorn miracle hydrogen storage and transport solution that uses an unknown mechanism, but I wouldn't bet on it.

GRA
Posts: 12160
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Mon Feb 10, 2020 6:14 pm

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 7:01 pm
GRA wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 4:47 pm
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Fri Feb 07, 2020 11:19 pm


Edit: So no, BEV's never had that advantage, or if they really did (it's hard to judge based on such old historical data during a time when information only traveled as fast as the pony express), that advantage was temporary and combustion vehicles eventually gained the cost/mile advantage until only recently.

Nope, BEVs had a cost/mile advantage regardless, but ICEs could go out further without refueling, expanding the territory covered in a given time (which was already expanded over horse coverage by BEVs); even installing intermediate depots for BEVs was cheaper than ICEs, but the time and flexibility factors were judged more important than the cost (cf. Amazon today, or why people buy SUVs they'll hardly ever need). Note that truck delivery was strictly an urban phenomenon, as there were no hard-surfaced roads outside of cities, and the rubber available at the time meant heavy vehicles like trucks had to have solid rubber tires, so they had limited speeds regardless. It didn't hurt that BEVs didn't have to be hand-cranked (the "Ford Fracture" being a common injury, when the crank kicked back) and were also quiet (mufflers not being a requirement), which is one reason they were often used by doctors, who often made house calls at night. But those same doctors often owned ICEs for touring.

The development of better tires, and the invention of the electric self-starter in 1916 (by Charles Kettering's Dayton Electric Labs Co., or as it's far better known nowadays, Delco) eliminated many of the BEV's advantages, and mass production of the go-anywhere ICE brought its costs down enough that along with better roads, it was the no-brainer choice for trucks, even though it was still more expensive per mile than a BEV.

In cities (the only place where there was electricity), personal BEVs were also cheaper per mile, but they couldn't tour, and that was what private car owners wanted to be able to do then as now, even if they did so rarely or never. In short, we're experiencing a "Back to the Future" moment.

BEVs retained their cost advantages all through that century plus,and were used for a few jobs which still matched their capabilities (milk floats in the U.K., etc.), and those are much the same jobs we're now seeing modern commercial BEVs re-acquire: mail and package P&D and similar jobs where frequent stops, low speeds and limited range with overnight charging at a central depot are acceptable, and quiet, zero emissions and low operating costs are significant pluses. As batteries and costs continue to improve the range of jobs for which BEVs are best suited will expand.
That's not what your referenced study concluded.

Oh didn't it? Pages127-128 of Kirsch, summing up commercial BEV use:
Numerous reports proved that under appropriate conditions the electric truck was more economical to operate than its gasoline-powered cousin. But with the gradual demise of horse-based transport, the approval of more fundamental changes within delivery systems, the standardization of the ton-mile, the acceptance of speed and range as necessary components of long-haul trucking and the inability of proponents of separate spheres to practically define the economic boundaries between supposedly distinct fields of action, the appropriate sphere of the electric truck grew smaller and smaller. Local merchants, faced with the choice of either internal combustion or electricity - but not both - almost invariably opted for internal combustion because only gasoline trucks could provide universal service. Had a hybrid market for passenger vehicles emerged or had battery service* been introduced a decade earlier, perhaps the situation would have developed differently. As it was, however, the electric vehicle was slowly relegated to increasingly narrow fields of action - industrial trucks (moving freight inside warehouses and factories) and personal mobility (motorized wheelchairs and golf carts) - until its rediscovery in the early 1960s.


*Battery service was introduced by a few utilities working in conjunction with usually a single truck manufacturer and battery supplier. Under it, customers bought the truck but leased the battery, which was charged and serviced by the utility. The battery came with a guaranteed minimum capacity (80% typical), and could be freely exchanged whenever the customer wanted to, as the trucks were designed for rapid battery swapping. This allowed BEV trucks to travel further during the day, although swapping outstations seem to have been a rarity so the useful radius wasn't increased. Unfortunately, manufacturers were unable to agree on a voluntary standard for battery pack design/swapping, which made it impossible to expand usage much beyond single cities/manufacturers. Nothing has changed in that regard; only a government mandate will likely work.

The relegation of BEV trucks by ICEs was happening gradually anyway for the same reasons as private vehicles, but was radically speeded up in the U.S. by WW1. The western powers quickly ran out of their own truck capacity and started to buy from the U.S., so economies of scale kicked in and reduced the price of ICE trucks (BEVs being inherently unsuited for military use in the field). Add to that U.S. railroad companies were psychologically incapable of cooperating and were so dysfunctional that once the U.S. entered the war the government had to take them over. Even then they were unable to handle all the military traffic, so trucks became increasingly necessary for interurban use.

All the above, combined with private car owners wanting to tour, led to the U.S. government support of improved and ultimately paved inter-urban roads (Federal Aid Road Act of 1916; Federal Aid Highway Act of 1921 etc.) during and after the war. For that story I recommend
The Big Roads: The Untold Story of the Engineers, Visionaries, and Trailblazers Who Created the American Superhighways
by Earl Swift and
The Road Taken: The History and Future of America's Infrastructure
by Henry Petroski.

We're now seeing the same process play out in reverse, as BEVs gradually expand their capabilities in hopes that they can ultimately replace ICEs as the 'universal vehicle', but pretty much every technique and argument for and against one or the other tech was tried a century ago. It's entirely possible that unlike then, we may see the idea of separate spheres become the norm, with far fewer people owing their own vehicles but only using one as needed - they didn't call it "Mobility as a Service" then, but that was the idea. Or history will repeat itself, and everyone will own their own personal BEV/FCEV or what have you.
Last edited by GRA on Mon Feb 10, 2020 7:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 12160
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Mon Feb 10, 2020 6:20 pm

smkettner wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 9:00 pm
GRA wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 4:51 pm
Some might be, but as noted elsewhere it be far more equitable to charge weight-based mileage taxes instead, with separate taxes for carbon or what have you - I'd love to see a Central Command support tax on Middle East fossil fuels, preferably back-dated to at least 1990.
I think the idea is if the vehicle is bigger and heavier it will use more fuel and pay more tax. <snip>
Using a solely weight-based tax penalizes vehicles that are used as little as possible, and incentivizes owners to drive as much as possible. After all, every extra mile costs less if you're paying a flat fee. What is wanted are incentives that not only encourage people to drive a less-polluting vehicle, but also ones that encourage them to use it as little as possible, because the more it's used the more impact it has on the roads. These are two separate issues, environmental and infrastructure impact, and should be valued and taxed separately.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 12160
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Mon Feb 10, 2020 6:58 pm

GCR:
Hyundai takes a big-picture look at the hydrogen economy
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/11 ... en-economy

Hyundai is one of a handful of automakers to remain committed to hydrogen fuel-cell cars. But the automaker is also looking beyond cars, anticipating an entire “hydrogen economy” where fuel cells have a variety of other uses. . . .

Technological advances are making more widespread uses of hydrogen possible, while the need to address climate change provides the impetus to switch to hydrogen from fossil fuels, a Hyundai presentation said.

Hyundai also cited a McKinsey & Company report saying hydrogen could meet 18 percent of global “final energy demand” by 2050.

The automaker expects hydrogen to eventually generate $2.5 trillion in revenue per year, with half of that revenue coming from sales of hydrogen itself, and the other half from sales of fuel-cell vehicles and energy storage units.

Another reason to be bullish on fuel cells is government policy. South Korea and China are preparing to invest heavily in hydrogen infrastructure. Japan has also long supported hydrogen, both because it lacks domestic fossil fuel reserves and because the country can no longer rely on nuclear power in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima disaster. . . .
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

Oils4AsphaultOnly
Posts: 751
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:09 pm
Delivery Date: 20 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 313890
Location: Arcadia, CA

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:30 pm

GRA wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 6:14 pm
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 7:01 pm
GRA wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 4:47 pm



Nope, BEVs had a cost/mile advantage regardless, but ICEs could go out further without refueling, expanding the territory covered in a given time (which was already expanded over horse coverage by BEVs); even installing intermediate depots for BEVs was cheaper than ICEs, but the time and flexibility factors were judged more important than the cost (cf. Amazon today, or why people buy SUVs they'll hardly ever need). Note that truck delivery was strictly an urban phenomenon, as there were no hard-surfaced roads outside of cities, and the rubber available at the time meant heavy vehicles like trucks had to have solid rubber tires, so they had limited speeds regardless. It didn't hurt that BEVs didn't have to be hand-cranked (the "Ford Fracture" being a common injury, when the crank kicked back) and were also quiet (mufflers not being a requirement), which is one reason they were often used by doctors, who often made house calls at night. But those same doctors often owned ICEs for touring.

The development of better tires, and the invention of the electric self-starter in 1916 (by Charles Kettering's Dayton Electric Labs Co., or as it's far better known nowadays, Delco) eliminated many of the BEV's advantages, and mass production of the go-anywhere ICE brought its costs down enough that along with better roads, it was the no-brainer choice for trucks, even though it was still more expensive per mile than a BEV.

In cities (the only place where there was electricity), personal BEVs were also cheaper per mile, but they couldn't tour, and that was what private car owners wanted to be able to do then as now, even if they did so rarely or never. In short, we're experiencing a "Back to the Future" moment.

BEVs retained their cost advantages all through that century plus,and were used for a few jobs which still matched their capabilities (milk floats in the U.K., etc.), and those are much the same jobs we're now seeing modern commercial BEVs re-acquire: mail and package P&D and similar jobs where frequent stops, low speeds and limited range with overnight charging at a central depot are acceptable, and quiet, zero emissions and low operating costs are significant pluses. As batteries and costs continue to improve the range of jobs for which BEVs are best suited will expand.
That's not what your referenced study concluded.

Oh didn't it? Pages127-128 of Kirsch, summing up commercial BEV use:
Numerous reports proved that under appropriate conditions the electric truck was more economical to operate than its gasoline-powered cousin. But with the gradual demise of horse-based transport, the approval of more fundamental changes within delivery systems, the standardization of the ton-mile, the acceptance of speed and range as necessary components of long-haul trucking and the inability of proponents of separate spheres to practically define the economic boundaries between supposedly distinct fields of action, the appropriate sphere of the electric truck grew smaller and smaller. Local merchants, faced with the choice of either internal combustion or electricity - but not both - almost invariably opted for internal combustion because only gasoline trucks could provide universal service. Had a hybrid market for passenger vehicles emerged or had battery service* been introduced a decade earlier, perhaps the situation would have developed differently. As it was, however, the electric vehicle was slowly relegated to increasingly narrow fields of action - industrial trucks (moving freight inside warehouses and factories) and personal mobility (motorized wheelchairs and golf carts) - until its rediscovery in the early 1960s.


*Battery service was introduced by a few utilities working in conjunction with usually a single truck manufacturer and battery supplier. Under it, customers bought the truck but leased the battery, which was charged and serviced by the utility. The battery came with a guaranteed minimum capacity (80% typical), and could be freely exchanged whenever the customer wanted to, as the trucks were designed for rapid battery swapping. This allowed BEV trucks to travel further during the day, although swapping outstations seem to have been a rarity so the useful radius wasn't increased. Unfortunately, manufacturers were unable to agree on a voluntary standard for battery pack design/swapping, which made it impossible to expand usage much beyond single cities/manufacturers. Nothing has changed in that regard; only a government mandate will likely work.

The relegation of BEV trucks by ICEs was happening gradually anyway for the same reasons as private vehicles, but was radically speeded up in the U.S. by WW1. The western powers quickly ran out of their own truck capacity and started to buy from the U.S., so economies of scale kicked in and reduced the price of ICE trucks (BEVs being inherently unsuited for military use in the field). Add to that U.S. railroad companies were psychologically incapable of cooperating and were so dysfunctional that once the U.S. entered the war the government had to take them over. Even then they were unable to handle all the military traffic, so trucks became increasingly necessary for interurban use.

All the above, combined with private car owners wanting to tour, led to the U.S. government support of improved and ultimately paved inter-urban roads (Federal Aid Road Act of 1916; Federal Aid Highway Act of 1921 etc.) during and after the war. For that story I recommend
The Big Roads: The Untold Story of the Engineers, Visionaries, and Trailblazers Who Created the American Superhighways
by Earl Swift and
The Road Taken: The History and Future of America's Infrastructure
by Henry Petroski.

We're now seeing the same process play out in reverse, as BEVs gradually expand their capabilities in hopes that they can ultimately replace ICEs as the 'universal vehicle', but pretty much every technique and argument for and against one or the other tech was tried a century ago. It's entirely possible that unlike then, we may see the idea of separate spheres become the norm, with far fewer people owing their own vehicles but only using one as needed - they didn't call it "Mobility as a Service" then, but that was the idea. Or history will repeat itself, and everyone will own their own personal BEV/FCEV or what have you.
Ha! The best you could do was to cite that "under certain conditions", the "operating expense" was lower. What about the other conditions? Just give it up. Or better yet, find a study in the 1930's showing that BEV's still had a cost/mile advantage over combustion vehicles? You won't find any, because this situation literally ONLY came about in this past decade with the invention of the NiMH and Li-Ion batteries.
:: Model 3 LR :: acquired 9 May '18
:: Leaf S30 :: build date: Sep '16 :: purchased: Nov '16
100% Zero transportation emissions (except when I walk) and loving it!

Oilpan4
Posts: 1598
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:51 pm
Delivery Date: 10 May 2018
Leaf Number: 004270

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:58 pm

I found the only way hydrogen might work.
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle with CO2 capture and use/storage.
Take coal (oh no the badest 4 letter word) which is worth as much as dirt, use gasification, make a bunch of CO2, methane, petrochemical feed stocks, hydrogen, shoot the CO2 down an old oil well to drive off oil.

Just like I said all along, the fossil fuels industry is the only industry capable of making hydrogen and capturing CO2 in meaningful quantities. Even if said hydrogen comes from coal and said CO2 is used to drive oil up and out of an old oil well. Hey its better than fracking, but,,,, if you did frack an oil well it will hold more CO2...
The US has 200 to 300 years worth of coal, so it doesn't really matter that it's not renewable, they should have fusion power figured out by then.
trumpvirus
Is going to get you.

LeftieBiker
Moderator
Posts: 15282
Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 3:17 am
Delivery Date: 30 Apr 2018
Location: Upstate New York, US

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Mon Feb 10, 2020 9:26 pm

Just like I said all along, the fossil fuels industry is the only industry capable of making hydrogen and capturing CO2 in meaningful quantities. Even if said hydrogen comes from coal and said CO2 is used to drive oil up and out of an old oil well. Hey its better than fracking, but,,,, if you did frack an oil well it will hold more CO2...
The amounts of CO2 and methane released are always going to far exceed the amount of CO2 "sequestered" for some unknown length of time.
Scarlet Ember 2018 Leaf SL W/ Pro Pilot
2009 Vectrix VX-1 W/18 Leaf modules, & 3 EZIP E-bicycles.
BAFX OBDII Dongle
PLEASE don't PM me with Leaf questions. Just post in the topic that seems most appropriate.

Return to “Business / Economy and Politics”