Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
WetEV said:
GRA said:
BTW, one of the reasons I'm partial to PHEVs at this time is that, aside from being the only AFV tech that currently provides a complete replacement for ICEs, and their lower purchase price, they can pretty easily be fully charged overnight via L1, even at say 8 instead of 12A, which is not only safer if using a non-dedicated circuit (if still illegal), but also eliminates the need for and cost of a 240V EVSE and its circuit.

As cost of PEVs is usually the biggest reason given for lack of purchase, anything we can do to reduce the price and hassle is critical. As you say, L1 is cheaper than L2, if less efficient.

For you, I'd recommend an ICE (or hybrid ICE) for at least the next decade. You will not be happy with a BEV with no home charging, your trip profile and your expectations. As you don't have home charging, you gain nothing from the extra cost of having the plug. A FCEV can't go to places far beyond subsidized fueling stations. No trips to Arches for a decade or more, perhaps never, as hydrogen is far too expensive to produce and to handle.

A PHEV is useful for someone that has lots of short trips than can be all EV, and occasional long trips. You don't fit that profile.

As batteries get cheaper and longer lasting, the value of a PHEV is getting harder to find.


Until the charging infrastructure approaches that of the gas station network, we'll still need PHEVs, and as they can stretch out what remains a limited battery supply over 4-8 cars instead of one, and at lower cost per car while seriously reducing if not totally eliminating tailpipe emissions in local driving, they still have considerable value. The problem with PHEVs had always been explaining them to the general public, not their usefulness. They are a perfect example of the '80% soonest rather than 100% later' approach that I favor.

I've had the 'to go or not go PHEV for now' discussion with myself numerous times, trying to convince myself that the ability to control local emissions where I want to was worth the extra money up front, but it doesn't pencil out. I had my highest hopes for the Niro, whether BEV or PHEV, until I learned they weren't available with AWD. Still tried to convince myself to lease a BEV Niro for a few years, as I liked it when I drove it despite it falling well short of my needs, but seeing the dealers were slapping big ADMs on them ($5k where I test drove one) soured that.

The RAV4 Prime, despite being too big and having a few other issues, comes closest to meeting my needs at the moment, but dealers are putting an even bigger ADM on them, so screw 'em. My hope is that one of the regular rental agencies in town will start to carry BEVs as they become more mainstream, so that I can ditch car ownership altogether, as my need for a car is so limited and intermittent, but requiring ICE-level range and refueling times when I do. They can worry about degradation, as long as I've got enough guaranteed range to meet my need. Someday.
 
GCC:
Project HyTime demonstrates potential for major CO2 savings from hydrogen dual fuel


https://www.greencarcongress.com/2020/07/20200721-hytime.html


More than 14 tonnes of CO2 was saved in a two-year trial involving just 11 urban trucks and vans running on green hydrogen dual fuel. That is one result of the Low Emission Freight and Logistics Trial (LEFT) project to investigate the practical deployment of hydrogen powered vehicles in the UK.

With between 20-45% of the diesel fuel being displaced by green hydrogen on the various vehicles, the HyTIME project concluded that with the appropriate hydrogen infrastructure, fleet wide roll-out could provide a huge and timely step change in overall fleet emissions.

In the trial, ULEMCo—the company pioneering the adoption of ultra-low emission hydrogen fuel with its partners—converted four refuse trucks, a road sweeper, a patient transport vehicle, four panel vans and a refrigerated van to run on hydrogen as a dual fuel.

During the trial period, nearly 60,000 km were covered and 1619 kg of hydrogen used. . . .

The demonstrated benefits would have been even more significant had the hydrogen infrastructure been more developed. Project data show that the CO2 saving would have been about 45 tonnes per annum across the 11 vehicles. When the vehicles were not using hydrogen in their day to day operations, the principal reason was the lack of available refueling facilities.


Other conclusions from the work were that tail pipe emissions in a number of specific applications such as refuse trucks were significantly better than the EURO 6 base vehicles, with the NOx emissions reduced by between 29-85% across the range of cycles tested. If deployed full time, the vehicles would not only save carbon but also provide improvements to local air quality. At least 96% of the hydrogen used in the trial came from on-site electrolysis from renewable electricity.

The drivers and operators confirmed that, from an operational point of view, the vehicles ‘fitted well with their daily operation’, but said that reliability of the hydrogen infrastructure and fuel availability needed to be improved to get the most from the technology. . . .
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
As batteries get cheaper and longer lasting, the value of a PHEV is getting harder to find.
Until the charging infrastructure approaches that of the gas station network, we'll still need PHEVs, and as they can stretch out what remains a limited battery supply over 4-8 cars instead of one at lower cost, while essentially eliminating air pollution in local driving, they still have considerable value. The problem with PHEVs had always been explaining them to the public, not their usefulness. They are a perfect example of the '80% soonest, rather than 100% later' approach that I believe in.

The problem with a PHEV is that it is more complex. All of the pluses and minuses of a gasoline engine as well as an electric power train.

I've driven an Audi Q5 PHEV once, and the EV range of 20 miles isn't great, but I got 29+ miles before the ICE started with some altitude gain (~200 feet net) at mostly 55MPH, and the car drives nice in BEV mode. Q5 PHEV is a nice car, is probably out of your price range ($54k). What I can't stand is the accelerator pedal response when in hybrid/ICE mode. Also isn't as stable feeling due to higher center of gravity when compared with eTron. Smaller than eTron.

Now consider the PHEV Q5 vs ICE Q5 on dollar cost. Going by list price difference, there is almost $10k of extra price. Tax credit reduces that by $6.7k. Battery size is 14kWh, took about 12kWh (maybe 11kWh usable?) from empty to full on my home L2, and for that you get only 20 miles of EPA range?? Ah, the cost of mechanical all wheel drive. Ok, but if your commute fits so you don't burn gas during the week, you can save 20miles @24 mpg. Figure a gallon a day. At $3 per gallon, 5 days a week 50 working days a year, that is $750 in gas savings... less the $250 in electric cost. Might pay back in about 6 years... depending on lots of details. After tax credit of course, would be 20+ years otherwise.

Yes, the gasoline saved also reduces air pollution, and that's not as easy to value. Actual purchase prices may vary, see stealer for details.
 
GRA said:
I'm curious, do you have any personal experience of the costs of different types of public charging?

Last used of public charging was in March, with the LEAF. EVgo,
10.450 kWh. Your total cost for the session was $6.96.
Son was driving, needed a 90% charge due to stiff headwind, so was more expensive than normal. Charge rate tapers. Less than once a month, so pay a higher EVgo rate.

My last use of public charging is much more expensive than gasoline, often, not always. Sure, there are free stations at the local casino... Yea. And various special deals. Public charging at hotels is often free for guests, and restricted to guests. Work charging was $0.50 per hour, and that's cheaper than home... but more hassle.

Public charging cost is a bit factor in BEV ownership -- as long as most of your miles are charged at home.

Consider public charging at $1.00 per kWh. Home charging at $0.10 per kWh. Fraction of charging at home 95%. Effective cost of charging is

0.05*1+0.95*.10=0.145

Or $1.16 per egallon figuring 8 kWh is about an effective gallon of gas.

If most of the charging isn't at home, you might not be happy for a list of reasons... Cost is only one.

Your driving pattern appears to me to be to be likely a large fraction of public charging, even if you had charging at home, you would be paying a much higher net rate.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
As I've pointed out, it will be enormously expensive and time consuming to build all those charging stations.

As I have repeatedly replied, we don't have do all of those charging stations right away. To which I hear...crickets.

Still hearing ... crickets.

GRA said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
As noted in numerous replies to others I'm not, nor am I pro-H2/FCEV. I believe both along with biofuels have a part to play in getting off fossil fuels, but that doesn't blind me to the fact that there are enormous obstacles to success in the way of each of them.

Which might be interesting if you understood the advantages and disadvantages of BEVs, at minimum. You either don't, and don't want to learn, or just hate the whole idea. Hard to tell the difference.

Which is your incorrect perception. Let's check, shall we?

Corrections in bold.

GRA said:
Advantages:

Highest efficiency.

Best convenience for daily use for those who have a guaranteed, convenient place to charge at home,work or elsewhere.

Related to above, currently most options for energy replenishment.

Currently lowest initial cost alternative (albeit with less capability).

Probably lowest fueling cost, at least if charging at home.

Smoother, quieter, cleaner, better driving experience.

Lifetime durability of the battery. Excluding older BEVs.

Disadvantages:

Shorter range than other options, esp. in cold weather, however enough range for most people.

Longer energy replenishment times, which usually doesn't matter as is overnight.

People who can't charge at home or work or other frequent location likely shouldn't own one at this time, as isn't convenient

Away from home or major urban areas/transportation routes, energy replenishment options are often seriously limited and often of questionable reliability (this is true for now for all AFVs to varying degrees).

Limited production capability at the moment, no material resource constraints long term.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
As batteries get cheaper and longer lasting, the value of a PHEV is getting harder to find.
Until the charging infrastructure approaches that of the gas station network, we'll still need PHEVs, and as they can stretch out what remains a limited battery supply over 4-8 cars instead of one at lower cost, while essentially eliminating air pollution in local driving, they still have considerable value. The problem with PHEVs had always been explaining them to the public, not their usefulness. They are a perfect example of the '80% soonest, rather than 100% later' approach that I believe in.

The problem with a PHEV is that it is more complex. All of the pluses and minuses of a gasoline engine as well as an electric power train.

True, but does it matter? If the typical ICE lasts 15 years in daily service, and now you're eliminating say 80% of its running time, does anyone care that it's more complex? A PHEV is essentially an HEV with a bigger battery and a receptacle.



WetEV said:
I've driven an Audi Q5 PHEV once, and the EV range of 20 miles isn't great, but I got 29+ miles before the ICE started with some altitude gain (~200 feet net) at mostly 55MPH, and the car drives nice in BEV mode. Q5 PHEV is a nice car, is probably out of your price range ($54k).


Yes, along with being a much bigger, heavier car than I need.


WetEV said:
What I can't stand is the accelerator pedal response when in hybrid/ICE mode.

Yes, some companies do a better job of that than others, and personal taste also comes in.


WetEV said:
Also isn't as stable feeling due to higher center of gravity when compared with eTron. Smaller than eTron.

Now consider the PHEV Q5 vs ICE Q5 on dollar cost. Going by list price difference, there is almost $10k of extra price. Tax credit reduces that by $6.7k. Battery size is 14kWh, took about 12kWh (maybe 11kWh usable?) from empty to full on my home L2, and for that you get only 20 miles of EPA range?? Ah, the cost of mechanical all wheel drive. Ok, but if your commute fits so you don't burn gas during the week, you can save 20miles @24 mpg. Figure a gallon a day. At $3 per gallon, 5 days a week 50 working days a year, that is $750 in gas savings... less the $250 in electric cost. Might pay back in about 6 years... depending on lots of details. After tax credit of course, would be 20+ years otherwise.

Yes, the gasoline saved also reduces air pollution, and that's not as easy to value. Actual purchase prices may vary, see stealer for details.


I suspect for most people, a PHEV won't pay for itself at the moment bar subsidies, but I favor perks in any case. I'd love to see U.S. cities start imposing ULEV/ZEV zones such as London has. I've never liked SO HOV stickers because they result in those lanes being congested too, but I have no objection to adding a ULEV lane next to the HOV lane, and add more gradually as the % of PEVs/FCEVs increases, until we're down to just one or two all-vehicle lanes.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
I'm curious, do you have any personal experience of the costs of different types of public charging?

Last used of public charging was in March, with the LEAF. EVgo,
10.450 kWh. Your total cost for the session was $6.96.
Son was driving, needed a 90% charge due to stiff headwind, so was more expensive than normal. Charge rate tapers. Less than once a month, so pay a higher EVgo rate.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I meant the cost to build different types of public charging, not use it. I agree with the rest of what you wrote, and as you note, having to do virtually all my charging at public stations is more expensive than buying gasoline, even in California. Some of the sites along I-15 in Utah I might need to use on some trips are $5.00 + $0.50/kWh. EA's a relative bargain, and even they're more expensive than gas. EVgo seems like the best generally. Chargepoint around here is typically $0.10/min. + $0.25/kWh.


WetEV said:
My last use of public charging is much more expensive than gasoline, often, not always. Sure, there are free stations at the local casino... Yea. And various special deals. Public charging at hotels is often free for guests, and restricted to guests. Work charging was $0.50 per hour, and that's cheaper than home... but more hassle.

Public charging cost is a bit factor in BEV ownership -- as long as most of your miles are charged at home.

Consider public charging at $1.00 per kWh. Home charging at $0.10 per kWh. Fraction of charging at home 95%. Effective cost of charging is

0.05*1+0.95*.10=0.145

Or $1.16 per egallon figuring 8 kWh is about an effective gallon of gas.

If most of the charging isn't at home, you might not be happy for a list of reasons... Cost is only one.

Your driving pattern appears to me to be to be likely a large fraction of public charging, even if you had charging at home, you would be paying a much higher net rate.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
As I have repeatedly replied, we don't have do all of those charging stations right away. To which I hear...crickets.

Still hearing ... crickets.

The EU plans to build 1 million chargers by 2030. McKinsey says they'll need , I forget, 14 million? by then. See the problem?


WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Which might be interesting if you understood the advantages and disadvantages of BEVs, at minimum. You either don't, and don't want to learn, or just hate the whole idea. Hard to tell the difference.

Which is your incorrect perception. Let's check, shall we?

Corrections in bold.

GRA said:
Advantages:

Highest efficiency.

Best convenience for daily use for those who have a guaranteed, convenient place to charge at home,work or elsewhere.

Related to above, currently most options for energy replenishment.

Currently lowest initial cost alternative (albeit with less capability).

Probably lowest fueling cost, at least if charging at home.

Smoother, quieter, cleaner, better driving experience.

How so, compared to an FCEV?


WetEV said:
Lifetime durability of the battery. Excluding older BEVs.

Just as soon as such a battery appears and a company is willing to back up such a claim with their own money. For now, no such battery is available for sale, and no one is willing to warranty one for more than 8 years. The average age of the U S. LDV fleet was 11.8 years a year or two back, and Covid-19 will undoubtedly see that grow just as it did during and after the recession, which means there'll be even more cars on the road with ages similar to mine.


WetEV said:
Disadvantages:

Shorter range than other options, esp. in cold weather, however enough range for most people.

While true, the public doesn't agree, not do the companies (still waiting for your comments on Tesla cancelling the Y SR).

WetEV said:
Longer energy replenishment times, which usually doesn't matter as is overnight.

People who can't charge at home or work or other frequent location likely shouldn't own one at this time, as isn't convenient

Yup.


WetEV said:
Away from home or major urban areas/transportation routes, energy replenishment options are often seriously limited and often of questionable reliability (this is true for now for all AFVs to varying degrees).

Limited production capability at the moment, no material resource constraints long term.

The last is an assumption. It's like saying that there are no material resource constraints for fossil fuels in September 1973. Cobalt from the DRC, lithium from Chile and Bolivia, rare earth elements from China, etc. We have no way of knowing what may happen politically, aside from any physical constraints.

You could just as easily say the Desertec plan to supply solar to Europe from North Africa had no resource constraints. Gee, the EU dependent on solar from Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and let's not forget Saudi Arabia - nah, no opportunity for supply disruptions there.
 
"People who can't charge at home or work or other frequent location likely shouldn't own one at this time, as isn't convenient"

"Yup."

And if they want to advocate for clean air they should consider moving to a facility that has charging access. People need to be part of the solution.... not just expecting more government money to build infrastructure.

Time to walk the walk. If you want something go get it. No more being absolved of responsibility because of your living or working situation.
 
smkettner said:
"People who can't charge at home or work or other frequent location likely shouldn't own one at this time, as isn't convenient"

"Yup."

And if they want to advocate for clean air they should consider moving to a facility that has charging access. People need to be part of the solution.... not just expecting more government money to build infrastructure.


Or they can do even better, and move to a facility that allows them to do all their routine errands on foot and the rest plus commuting by bike, just using a car for those trips where it's essential, which is far less expensive, less polluting and less energy intensive as well as healthier for the individual.

But if they can't or aren't willing to do that, and must do all of that by car, then a PEV/FCEV may be the best that they can do.
 
Both IEVS:
Trevor Milton Reveals More About Nikola Badger Truck Sales And Operation


https://insideevs.com/news/435512/trevor-milton-nikola-badgers-details-sales-operation/


The electric pickup truck will be able to operate 100 percent on the fuel cells, battery, or both. . . .

Apart from that, Milton said the BEV version of the Badger would be sold in all US states by 2022. The FCEV will not: it will only be sold in the same places where Nikola will place its first hydrogen stations, which are linked to the deal it has with Anheuser-Busch Inbev.

“The fuel cell will be on a slow roll-out plan. It is going to go on the markets where the fuel cell semi-truck and hydrogen stations are going in. Why? Because we will use all stations as our main production and we will distribute the hydrogen to the cities for people to be able to fill up the Badger. So most likely we will be starting in California, heavily, and moving into other cities and they’ll follow the routes of the Anheuser-Busch contracts that we have for the fuel cell semi-truck. If you want to know where Badger is going to be released in the fuel cell version first, you can follow the routes where the Anheuser-Busch distribution models are. . . ."



Nikola’s Coolidge Plant Groundbreaking Reveals Ambitious Plans For Hydrogen


https://insideevs.com/news/435488/nikolas-coolidge-plant-groundbreaking-reveals-hydrogen-plans/


The refueling stations for the company will be open to anyone in need of clean hydrogen. . . .

Perhaps we should have focused on the fact that the Coolidge factory will be able to produce 35,000 Class 8 commercial semi-trucks every year in two shifts. It will also employ 1,800 workers and be ready to get started by the end of 2021. The first truck to be produced will be the Nikola Tre, while the Nikola Two is scheduled for 2023. However, the hydrogen story really caught our attention.

We already told you that all the hydrogen Nikola aims to produce at its refueling stations. So far, Nikola bought five electrolyzers from Nel, each able to produce eight tons of hydrogen per day. According to Trevor Milton, you have to make sure this hydrogen will be used in full for the business to be viable. That is why the hydrogen stations will be open to every FCEV around. Nikola aims to sell the gas at $2 to $3 per kg. . . .

The refueling stations for the company will be open to anyone in need of clean hydrogen.

Milton even considers offering the FCEV version of the Badger with some free hydrogen for the first buyers. By the way, he also made it clear that the Badger will not be built in Coolidge: it will be manufactured by a partner OEM – we bet on FCA (or Stellantis, if you prefer).

Apart from making sure its hydrogen stations are profitable and not a money drain, Nikola will help create a hydrogen network to serve other manufacturers, such as Toyota and Hyundai, which sell respectively the Mirai and the Nexo. These cars could be offered in many more states if such a network exists. Trevor Milton said:

“I know hydrogen fuel cells are less efficient, I get it, but that does not mean it is more expensive to drive.”


If the bolded sections are accurate quotes, it seems Mr. Milton has been taking lessons from Elon in over-promising and under-deiivering. Give me a break 🙄
 
There's no way $17 per Kg hydrogen even if fuel cells were 100% efficient is going to be able to compete with $3 a gallon diesel or sub $2 a gallon equivalent compressed natural gas.
Hydrogen can't even be delivered for $3 per Kg if it were free.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:

Still hearing ... crickets.

The EU plans to build 1 million chargers by 2030. McKinsey says they'll need , I forget, 14 million? by then. See the problem?

Private installs of L1 and L2 expected are ___ million? I doubt zero. Got a better answer?

Norway has about 13,687 public charging points and about 400,000 electric and plug in cars, as of December 2019.

So how does that work, again?
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Still hearing ... crickets.

The EU plans to build 1 million chargers by 2030. McKinsey says they'll need , I forget, 14 million? by then. See the problem?

Private installs of L1 and L2 expected are ___ million? I doubt zero. Got a better answer?

Norway has about 13,687 public charging points and about 400,000 electric and plug in cars, as of December 2019.

So how does that work, again?

It works for Norway because 61.2% of their population lives in detached, single family homes. In Germany it's 23%, in France 39%. But if you live in Norway, Croatia, Slovenia, Hungary, Romania, or Serbia, you're in luck (assuming you can afford a car), as they all have rates over 60%. See
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_in_Europe

Unfortunately, most of Europe's population, especially in the countries with higher rates of car ownership, aren't so favored. To be sure, some of the people living in Semi-detached houses (townhomes) may have garages or off-street parking, but everyone else is probably parking at the curb.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
The EU plans to build 1 million chargers by 2030. McKinsey says they'll need , I forget, 14 million? by then. See the problem?

Private installs of L1 and L2 expected are ___ million? I doubt zero. Got a better answer?

Norway has about 13,687 public charging points and about 400,000 electric and plug in cars, as of December 2019.

So how does that work, again?

It works for Norway because 61.2% of their population lives in detached, single family homes. In Germany it's 23%, in France 39%. But if you live in Norway, Croatia, Slovenia, Hungary, Romania, or Serbia, you're in luck (assuming you can afford a car), as they all have rates over 60%. See
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_in_Europe

Unfortunately, most of Europe's population, especially in the countries with higher rates of car ownership, aren't so favored. To be sure, some of the people living in Semi-detached houses (townhomes) may have garages or off-street parking, but everyone else is probably parking at the curb.
Still doesn't answer the question of private installs.
Single family usually has offstreet parking, but not always.
Duplex and townhouses likewise.
Flats might or might not own a parking garage or a parking lot.
In Boston, MA, there are some curbside parking spaces owned by individuals.

The easy stuff first, of course.

The hardest country might be Malta.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9129529,14.4997321,3a,75y,280.37h,101.97t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s23j3GYar8VpVMOdKUA4mbg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D23j3GYar8VpVMOdKUA4mbg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D73.9496%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malta#Transport

577 cars per km^2? Almost 0.5% of the country is covered by cars! (assuming a car takes up 2 m x 4 m)
 
GCC:
BMW to pilot second-generation hydrogen fuel cell drives in small series from 2022


https://www.greencarcongress.com/2020/07/20200725-bmw.html


The BMW Group will pilot the second generation of hydrogen fuel cell drives in a small series in the BMW i Hydrogen NEXT based on the current BMW X5 from 2022. The fuel cell stack and the overall system are original developments of the BMW Group; individual cells of the fuel cell will come from Toyota. . . .

In the future, the hydrogen fuel cell drive can be an attractive alternative to battery-electric vehicles, in particular for customers who do not have their own access to electric charging infrastructure and who often drive long distances, BMW said.
With a sufficient refueling infrastructure, hydrogen vehicles offer great flexibility, as the full range is available again after a short refueling process of around four minutes regardless of temperature conditions. . . .

The system performance of the BMW i Hydrogen NEXT comes to a total of 275 kW (374 hp) and ensures typical BMW driving dynamics. The fuel cell system alone generates up to 125 kW (170 hp) of electrical energy. . . .

Two 700 bar tanks are housed in the vehicle itself, which together hold six kilograms of hydrogen.

The fifth-generation electric drive, which is used for the first time in the BMW iX3, is also fully integrated in the BMW i Hydrogen NEXT. The power buffer battery, which is positioned above the electric machine, can provide additional dynamics when overtaking or accelerating, for example.

The BMW Group also underscores the belief in the future viability and potential of hydrogen fuel cell technology with its involvement in the BRYSON research project (space-efficient HYdrogen storage facilities with optimized usability). . . .

The aim of the project is the development of flat tanks. The 3.5-year project, which is also funded by the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, will also result in a reduction in the manufacturing costs of hydrogen tanks for fuel cell vehicles. This will improve their competitiveness compared to battery electric vehicles.


The last bolded part is presumably adsorption or nanotubes, requiring only low pressures.

Oh, that reminds me, re your claim that range isn't compelling to car buyers.

IEVS:
After Killing Tesla Model Y SR, Musk Says New Normal Range Is 300 Miles

https://insideevs.com/news/435523/musk-says-new-normal-range-is-300mi/


. . . He also said 300 mi under the EPA cycle, which means WLTP 300-mi ranges do not count. . . .

Musk's exact words were these:

“With regard to passenger vehicles, I think the new normal for range is going to be, just in U.S. EPA terms, approximately 300 miles. So I think people will really come to expect that as some number close to 300 miles as normal.

That's a standard expectation because you do need to take into account, like, is it very hot outside or very cold? Or are you driving up into a mountain with a full load? And it's – people don't want to have – get to the destination with like 10 miles range. They want some reasonable margins. So I think 300 is going to be really – or close to 300 is going to be a new normal, call it 500 kilometers, basically, roughly.”


I would go one step further, and say 300 miles EPA HWY should be the new minimum. As Dan Jones has pointed out, any of the 200 mile EVs has plenty of range for urban usage, where it's hours not miles that matter. On trips it's miles that count.

Not that I think 300 miles highway is enough, as that's only four hours at 70 with an inadequate 20 mile reserve and no allowance for HVAC, winds, climbing or degradation. But it's a step in the right direction, and as I've mentioned about the minimum that a BEV has to have to be of even marginal utility to me. It's enough to get most people to weekend destinations unrecharged, e g. Bay Area to Tahoe summer or winter, albeit with limitations as degradation occurs, that will eventually require an (increasingly lengthy) enroute charging stop.

Of course, the cars also have to be affordable - Aye, there's the rub.
 
Barron's:
Hydrogen Fuel-Cell Stocks Are Soaring. Yes, It’s a Bubble.


https://www-barrons-com.cdn.ampproj...-stocks-have-hit-bubble-territory-51595623974


Wall Street discovered hydrogen this year. It has been around for 13 billion years, but the big bucks earmarked for green-energy projects, and a fresh craze for shares of companies aiming to make hydrogen-fueled trucks, have raised the investment profile of all things connected to this ubiquitous gas.

That includes shares of hydrogen fuel-cell makers such as Plug Power , Ballard Power Systems , and Bloom Energy , the first two of which are up fourfold in the past 12 months. Trading at more than 50 times future cash flow, the stocks look priced to disappoint. . . .

Fueling the fuel-cell bubble is a growing consensus that hydrogen will provide green energy in places where solar and wind can’t, such as heavy transport, backup power, and industry. The European Union unveiled a plan this month to invest hundreds of billions of euros in technologies enabling it to get a substantial share of its energy from hydrogen by 2050. The news lifted the shares of big hydrogen-gas sellers Linde (ticker: LIN) and Air Products & Chemicals (APD), and it ignited a stampede into hydrogen pure plays Plug (PLUG), Ballard (BLDP), and Bloom (BE).

In the race to stop global warming, hydrogen power can’t arrive soon enough. But it could take a decade before environmentally friendly hydrogen is competitively priced with natural gas. Moreover, small companies are up against big players, including government-backed rivals in China and deep-pocketed manufacturers, such as Cummins (CMI). . . .

Industrial-gas suppliers Air Products and Air Liquide (AI.France) get about 24% and 10% of their revenue, respectively, from hydrogen. Linde gets about 5%. The hydrogen suppliers’ interim solution is to capture their carbon exhaust and sequester it underground, but the goal is to power most hydrogen production with solar or wind farms. . . .

On July 8, the EU announced a plan calling for Europe to have at least six gigawatts of renewable hydrogen electrolyzers by 2024, versus one gigawatt (a billion watts) of electrolyzers in the bloc today. By 2050, the EU aims for 500 gigawatts. China, Japan, and Korea also have ambitious hydrogen goals.

If the sort of government incentives and mandates that spawned industries in solar, wind, and electric cars come to hydrogen, it will be good for polar bears and electrolyzer makers, such as the New Power unit of Cummins, and European specialists like NEL (NEL.Norway) and ITM Power (ITM.UK), which have soldiered through years of modest sales and negative cash flow. Their stocks were neglected until hydrogen’s star started rising.

But fuel-cell stocks have shot highest, notwithstanding their history of losses. Bloom Energy shares doubled recently, to $18, on new hydrogen initiatives. Bloom reported revenue of $786 million in 2019 and lost $302 million, or $2.63 a share, after installing 450 megawatts of fuel cells and restating more than two years’ worth of previous results.

Bloom’s fuel cells run on natural gas. On July 15, the company announced a deal to supply a megawatt of hydrogen-powered fuel cells to Korea’s SK Group in 2022. Bloom also plans to introduce an electrolyzer next year, with no customer disclosed yet. “One reason we’re doing these pilots in Korea is because the government there has very aggressive timelines and standards,” says Ed Kim, Bloom’s director of strategic development.

Plug Power acquired a producer of liquid hydrogen and a maker of electrolyzers in June, which will allow it to capture the profit margin on hydrogen used by customers such as Walmart (WMT) and Amazon.com (AMZN) to run more than 40,000 forklifts powered by Plug fuel cells. These cells moved over 25% of the country’s retail food during the Covid-19 pandemic, says chief executive Andy Marsh. Plug posted $230 million in revenue last year, but lost $86 million, or 36 cents a share.

Plug Power’s vertical integration and a recent financing give Marsh confidence that it can grow annual revenue to $1.2 billion in 2024, with earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization of at least $250 million. He expects Plug’s green hydrogen operations to become cost-competitive with bigger companies’ fossil-fueled assets.

Plug Power and other hydrogen upstarts are on the right road, but it is a long one. After Plug’s enterprise value doubled last month to $3.5 billion, Barclays Capital analyst Moses Sutton lowered his rating from the equivalent of a Buy to Hold. The Hydrogenie had granted investors’ wishes, Sutton said in a July 9 note, but Plug now trades at 10 times his estimated 2021 sales and 95 times his projected Ebitda. Expecting no profit before 2024, the analyst pronounced Plug fairly valued at $10 a share. It now changes hands around $9.
 
The cost of Hydrogen production be it from natural gas or electrolysis doesn't look like it will
ever match the cost per mile of BEV's as the price of batteries drops. This doesn't even take into account
the woeful distribution network at present...
 
GRA said:
Wall Street discovered hydrogen this year. It has been around for 13 billion years, but the big bucks earmarked for green-energy projects, and a fresh craze for shares of companies aiming to make hydrogen-fueled trucks, have raised the investment profile of all things connected to this ubiquitous gas.

That includes shares of hydrogen fuel-cell makers such as Plug Power , Ballard Power Systems , and Bloom Energy , the first two of which are up fourfold in the past 12 months. Trading at more than 50 times future cash flow, the stocks look priced to disappoint. . . .

Fueling the fuel-cell bubble is a growing consensus that hydrogen will provide green energy in places where solar and wind can’t, such as heavy transport, backup power, and industry.

Hydrogen's use for rockets, aircraft, perhaps trains and ships, backup power and industry are all likely to be important.

Cars? Unlikely.

Start with rockets. Batteries can't compete. Energy to mass ratio is the most important thing.
Aircraft? IF high output air cooled fuel cells can be developed, and it seems at least possible, then long range transportation at non ridiculous costs is likely possible. Batteries might only compete at fairly short ranges, as batteries don't have as high of energy to mass ratio.
Trains and ships seem reasonable ideas, but is such a tiny fraction of current energy use isn't a big deal.
Backup power seems huge. Solar + batteries (and wind and hydro) could provide electric power for most of the USA for 80% percent of the time at a cost that is similar to today's fossil fueled cost. Yet long term (seasonal) storage is needed. Perhaps hydrogen, perhaps iron redux cells, perhaps something else.
Industry, everything from fertilizer production to chemical production needs chemical energy. Hydrogen is used today.

Cars? Unlikely.
 
I notice you left out long haul trucks (and motor coaches) which will clearly need to be H2 if ZEV, barring a major technical improvement in batteries. As it is, batteries simply can't meet the operational requirements of long range, rapid refueling and light weight. Fuel cells for trucks have much the same requirements as cars, reducing R&D and tooling costs. As it is, Toyota and others are using dual stacks developed for cars for trucks and buses now, although purpose-designed stacks for heavy vehicles such as Nikola, Cummins and Daimler are developing will undoubtedly replace them eventually.
 
Back
Top