Toyota negative on batteries because it has more experience than other others on them

All I can go by is austin energy and california hydrogen rules. My excess wind directly offsets at least as much fossil power as I use, giving me a net negative fossil footprint on the grid. That is austin energy's rule for selling wind. I do use some fossil, but am paying for extra green electricity to cut more fossil than I use.

When hydrogen claims to be green in california they don't have to follow as strict rules. They just need to offset the number of kwh, but can produce whenever they have demand. Why not give the electric purchaser who is following stricter rules the benefit of the doubt instead of pretending all the time that if you offset fossil fuel someone else has to get the credit, because you simply don't like effective green regulation.

We are on a thread with Craig Scott saying Plug-ins are bad because they need more than 10 years but hydrogen is ready. Other Toyota statements are much more realistic, but We should clearly criticise this false choice.

Tesla actually supported the fuel cell test, but here Toyota is going out to say batteries won't work.

Not at all I am against the fuel cell lobby putting out these false characterizations that batteries won't work so the government has to keep increasing fuel cell spending.

Do a small test in southern california. Why make it more expensive with crazy number on the east coast at the same time. Why say you should cut the subsidy for plug-ins but keep increasing it for fuel cell vehicles that really haven't demonstrated that they are desirable. Why all the extra spending on renewables. If the test works then make more of the commercial station renewable with the subsidies (the reason test stations are renewable is to pretend fcv are "greener" than plug-ins so deserve more money). I don't know the scale, but a 5000 car test should be good enough, why pretend there will be 50,000 fcv on US roads so soon? Get some of the bugs and costs worked out before saying we need more more more.

 

That is one of the primary advantages of plugins over FCVs that ought to be obvious. All that infrastructure already exists and is very efficiently shared with other residential, commercial, and public energy users. The utility grid will be undergoing major restructuring over the next 20-30 years but that will be driven by carbon reduction from renewable power and distributed generation for all grid power users.

Plugin vehicle infrastructure needs are minimal in comparison with FCVs and are primarily related to early replacement of some selected neighborhood distribution transformers.

 

It seems you missed the context.

He said that--for now--there are unassailable limits on how much electricity can be stored in a given volume, and how quickly a battery can charge.

"We don't see anything for the next 10 years," he said, noting that anything in the laboratory right now would take at least that long to transition to production.
​

He is saying, a 300+ miles Mira size BEV that can recharge under 5 mins is at least 10 years away. There is no battery technology that can do that, even in the lab.

He is highlighting on the standard that gasoline set, on which the alternatives need to compete.

 

Why include those? The $2.2 million is the average cost just for the station. It doesn't include the gas and water lines to the stations with onsite reformation, nor the electric. It doesn't pay for the trucks hauling in hydrogen from off site production.

In the case of high pressure hydrogen, it is only quick is the fill tank isn't low when you pull up to fuel.

I don't see the value in stored renewable energy just for fast fueling, though. If a charger location includes solar or wind power to offset the energy used by the charger, then it doesn't matter if the charger actually uses natural gas or coal off the grid. The spike of fossil fuel generation will be balanced by displacing the fossil fuel otherwise used instead of the steady renewable. As I said early, others to account for these things like you do.

Now, storage of renewable electric made when production exceeds demand I do see a value in, and this might be a great application of fuel cells.

If Austingreen is paying for wind, and the power company has the wind to cover his use, or builds more, then he is using 100% wind. Different accounts, that actually isn't much different than the accounting that lets you sell SRECs.

I, and I believe Austin, have said fuel cells may work out for cars, but they aren't ready to push for commercialization. The recent Forbes interview you have posted states that the refueling systems are a generation behind the cars. If that is the case, and I actually believe it is, then you will be a constant cycle of spending millions, mostly tax payer funds, updating the stations until the cars get down to mainstream price. How about we just spend less money in total on R&D to get the costs down and onto some steady refueling standard. With Volvo's diesel powered fuel cell, and Audi's diesel from water, CO2, and electric, hydrogen powered FCEVs may just end up as a historical footnote at this point.

As for the Tesla comment, the Model S does not need a Supercharger like a hydrogen FCEV needs a hydrogen station. Even short range BEVs and PHVs can do a lot to reduce emissions with fast DC chargers. You like calling the federal plug in tax credit inefficient. How is How is higher incentives, the ZEV credits, for FCEVs than them efficient?

And why do we even need such a BEV when a PHV will work for those that truly need such ability?
As pointed out here and elsewhere, Model S owners are already making long distance trips. Even those that have the option for a battery swap appear to prefer using the Supercharger. By the time a 300 mile BEV is cheap enough for mainstream, a 50 mile PHV will be even cheaper.

 

that's what i thought he was saying, like trips from the northeast to florida. do we have battery experts saying we will have 10 minute 300 mile charging in 10 years?

 

I am saying this is a strawman, just like pretending the i3 in the lexus internet commercial, didn't have a gas tank, then removing the filler door in post production. Toyota needs to stop making these misleading statements if they want to pretend they are being honest about plug-ins. Batteries can be swapped, and the infrastructure is probably cheaper per vehicle than hydrogen because most charging will be done at night in garages, not at public stations. Phev also aren't unicorns never seen in the wild, they can refuel quickly on gasoline, as well as run most miles on clean green electricity.
​

That and $3 will get you a cup of coffee. If that is what he wanted to say he should have just said it, and we all would have noted that the problem is cost and infrastructure. Things also not likely to be solved in only a decade. Instead he pretended physics makes fuel cell vehicles more viable than plug-ins in the next decade. If he only said the first, not problem, but that is not what toyota is saying.

Perhaps toyota should get the memos
Plug-In Electric Car Sales Booming Worldwide
Survey: Buyers Willing To Pay 60% More For A Tesla, 83% Percent Would Recommend Tesla To Friends

Perhaps plug-ins don't need to copy everything from gasoline cars. Some people like the ability to charge at home, or not have to go to a gas station as often.

Non offensive: Some people need to fill up as fast as gasoline. That is why toyota thinks fuel cells will be viable sometime in the future.

Offensive: plug-ins all need to be bevs to be environmental(lexus commercial), and they all need to be able to fill as fast as gasoline. We think L3 chargers don't exist, and you need to wait 4 hours (lexus commercial). Physics stop batteries being made to charge fast enough for people to buy plug-ins.

 

Why not swap cars? Jump into another BEV and it would be faster than swapping battery packs.

It still cost the tax payers and that was the point of the discussion.

It is physics. Battery has yet to allow gas level performance that FCV achieved.

I'd bet he was responding with the style what Musk said about hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.

 

How much extra space and weight does the tank add above say a conventional car ?

 

I haven't heard such. I only hear the requirement from those that insist that a BEV do everything a car with an ICE can do. Since plug in hybrids exist, that seems to be a requirement put forth by those unwilling to change. People had to change in order to go from the horse to the car.

Now you are just being silly, but I'll play. It really be faster moving over all your luggage, kids and car seats, and possibly cargo and carriers from the roof and hitch points. As pointed out multiple times, most of the BEVs charging will be at home. The only time fast battery swapping maybe needed is for longs trips. The majority of long trips are vacations, not daily commutes, so it won't just be yu that will need to switch cars.

The grid needs upgrading whether or not there are plug in cars. This will be a big cost. The government incentives for plug in chargers is tiny compared to the total cost.

That doesn't mean the FCEV is viable. Besides, his claim wasn't that plug ins won't be viable because they can't recharge as fast an ICE can refuel, but that they weren't viable, while they are already selling in the thousands, with battery technology improving and costs decreasing.

Except Musk didn't refer Tesla's experience and expertise on batteries to speak out against FCEVs, nor did he produce anit-FCEV ads and media to go along with his statement. Or ones about the pluses of plug ins.

 

In the Mirai, the tank is 87.5kg empty, and a little over 122 liters, or 32 gallons, internal volume. The thicker walls required will make them bigger than a comparable liquid fuel tank in size. The required cylinder shape will mean a larger amount of space is needed. No luck finding an actual weight for a gasoline tank, but people needing to do repairs manage to drop the tank, with pump, without the need of a jack. Lifting an empty one isn't a strain.

How heavy is a 5 gallon gas can for a lawn mower weight? That is the energy equivalent of hydrogen in a Mirai. With thicker, or steel, walls, plus the fuel pump, I don't see it getting over 25lbs. Volume wise, the hydrogen tanks are going to need over 6 times the space. It is why the Mirai seats four.

 

That is actually what many short range bev, and current fcv owners do. They have anouther gasoline or diesel vehicle at home and swap. Pony express riders used this method with other cars ready. Fiat and BMW have loaner vehicles for a certain number of days a year. Zip cars are available in many cities, including mine, to get the occational car for a long trip. I myself have traded my prius with a friend for a pick up truck, and ridden in other vehicles when camping that were more appropriate for our dogs and gear. All kinds of solutions for the occasional long trip or need of a truck bed that a bev or fcv can not make because of lack of fast enough infrastructure (a bigger constraint on fcv than a 200 mile + bev) or choice of vehicle. As a comparison tesla expects to increase sales over 50% world wide to over 50,000 model S and X.

Battery swap is the technical solution to get more power quickly. It simply is two expensive to break even without hundreds of thousands of compatable plug-in vehicles in an area. It does solve the artificial technical problem of needing a bev to "refuel in 10 minutes or less". If California had continued funding them with zev credits there would be more than the 1 in california, and 3 in china (bus).

Well no. fcv soon will ship to limited areas of california with a range of 312 miles, beating the tesla's 270 miles. Tesla will soon have a 400 mile roadster upgrade, going further than the 312 miles. Which means you can get the distance, the problem with batteries is the price, so the 240 mile tesla will be the major seller with 0-60 of 5.2 seconds, which tesla, nissan, gm, and bmw think is good enough for most buyers. 400 miles (roadster 3) and 2.8 seconds 0-60 (S P90D) will be available for those with more to spend. To get more miles is not a technical limitation its a matter of weight and price, versus what people will normally see as good enough. I'm sure toyota could build a 412 mile fcv to beat the roadster 3, but it may end up heavier if it is going to have the same acceleration and handling. The 312 is also probably good enough, but other parts of the mirai need to be improved for it to sell above the token numbers (3000/year starting in 2017 world wide, if there is enough demand). That will wait for some technical innovation.

Then we have the refueling speed, which AFAIK is only super fast on the mirai in Japan. Never fear some california stations should be able to do it soon. All it takes is money, and for a test we should be some stations in Southern california. For BEV cars in california there is exactly one swap station. For more money you could technically build more, but why? Plenty of people want a bev but don't care about the 30 minutes it takes to get prepaid (part of the car purchase price with the S) fuel at a super-charger versus wanting to spend $50 to get out faster. Now California and tesla could eat that money, like toyota and california are doing on hydrogen fuel, and people would use the battery swap stations, but there is no reason for taxpayers or tesla to do this.

By all means it is expensive to get a bev to perform the same as a gasoline car. It is not a technical limitation of batteries, but one of cost. Tesla expects sales to increase a great deal in 2018 when the gigafactory has brought battery costs down, and they release a car designed for the lower priced batteries (model 3).

 

No what the plug-in polls are saying is we don't need those to buy plug-ins.

If people often make these long trips a phev, hybrid, or diesel is more appropriate than a bev. YMMV depending on your driving cycle. There should one available in the household (although it may also include bevs) or the owner be willing to rent one if they want to do this type of travel.

Once there are a lot more bevs on the road, battery swap may become economic, but that probably won't happen for at least 5 more years, and world require around 200 miles range on a fresh battery to be economic. Good to design battery packs for swap, but no reason to build battery swap stations until some future date where this is a problem that people are willing to pay to solve.. Who knows a small 1000 mile aluminum air or other recyclable primary cell may be what is swapped.

For the majority of american drivers, a 200 mile range bev may have enough range especially if you can charge to 80% (technical limitation of current chemicstry) fast (under 30 minutes but can go down) and charge fast enough. Telsa has the only nation wide network for these drivers today, but no reason chademo or combo plug won't work and a network be built when chevy, nissan, ford and anyone else produces one. Those companies were mentioned because they all expect such a vehicle in the next 5 years.

Does anyone expect a hydrogen highway with 10 minute 300 mile charging available for most road trips in the next 10 years? If not why would that be a fuel cell advantage today? How long does Mr. Scott expect people to buy and hold there fcv waiting to go on the road trip. There isn't even a plan to build stations to the grand canyon from LA in the next decade let alone boston to miami. This is an excellent reason to support phevs, and not restrict support ot bevs, but not a good reason to favor fcv over plug-ins.

other thoughts on fast charging
Volkswagen Develops Automated Quick Charging e-smartConnect (w/video)

 

none the less, i think that's what he's saying.

 

The enabling technology for FCV is done, rolling out in a few months in CA first. East coast is next. It only make sense the two coasts would be connected.

For BEV, there is no battery or charger that can do, in or out of the lab.

 

First, Thanks for answering the question fully.

Second, I too want to advance to sustainability.

Third, the best technology cannot be dictated by edict. This statement does not oppose fuel cells, but it does requiring knowing exactly why a government is declaring an edict. In California, the more we look, the more corrupt it looks.

I need to make the clear distinction between what I think is good government vs. bad government.

Good government puts out regulations and policies that are technology independent and instead are very end goal directed. Policies requiring reduced pollution (however acheived) and sustainable energy (whatever technology) were what California did decades ago. These resulted in multiple technologies being pursued with the best performing technologies often being different than what the politicians expected. A lot of good progress was made. I can give a couple of excellent examples if you are interested.

Bad government does not bother with pollution or sustainability goals. Instead it legislates for one technology and simultaneously legislates against competing technologies. The California air pollution agency made the complete reversal from air pollution reduction to fuel cell advocacy. Meanwhile, folks who actually care about pollution reduction and sustainability are considered "anti-environmental" for questioning why technology funding has replaced pollution control regulations and sustainibilty measures. Toyota claim FCV are good for the environment (maybe), but then say EVs cannot be as good (against all evidence to the contrary). That's a problem.

 

No. It is utility payments that paid for most or all of the grid in the vast majority of the country. Taxes were not the primary funding source.

 

he's not looking for an expensive ride, foreign made, that needs fossil fuel, has unreliable refueling infrastructure & mediocre power ... otherwise he'd be all over it.

.

 

i also was thinking of him. leonardo?

 

To maintain it, yes. When it was building and expanding, majority must've come from government.

Why do we have fed tax incentives based on battery size? Instead of efficiency, low emission, fossil fuel displacement or other general goal that would enable different technologies to achieve the same goal?

It was tried in CA and nobody used it. Tesla racked up ZEV credits regardless and CARB put a stop to it.

I wouldn't want to come back to pick up my old battery pack. If multiple were swapped, I would have to trace my route back home.

I don't think physics would agree with that. Battery pack capable of 5 mins recharge is about half energy densed as EV packs. For 312 EV range, the car would be so heavy and with so little interior space that it would become impractical. Not to mention the charging cable would be a bundle of power lines going into 115 homes (100 amp service). It would be so heavy and inflexible to plug.

 

After calling fool cell and bullshit, he used his experience with hydrogen rocket as anti-FCV.

Model S. Musk countered this week by arguing that hydrogen fuel cells, even in the "best case," can't equal what lithium ion batteries currently offer in terms of cost and range. He also said such technology would require more cost-intensive distribution systems while posing serious dangers to consumers, since hydrogen is a flammable gas.

"It's suitable for rockets," he added, "but not for cars."

Elon Musk thinks hydrogen cars are 'bullshit' | The Verge