VW says, fuel cells stupid for the next decade.

In California where the majority of alternative fuel vehicles will be sold at first, there is no wide spread installation of charging stations at Condos or apartments. At this time there are no laws that when a new development is built that there needs to be charging stations included in the plans. Maybe this is one of the reasons Tesla is installing random charging stations through out the state. So owners of condos and apartment dwellers who don't have a garage are more likely not to purchase an EV.

 

Now this, I completely agree with.
Here in Minnesota ther is also no wide spread installation of chargers at multi-housing dwellings. What I took point with was your implication that there were none. Current plugin owners will gravitate towards the ones that do.
As more and more people start driving plugins, more and more multi-housing units will make that available.
And that will happen faster than hydrogen stations pop up across the U.S.

 

I think the future of plug in chargers might be challenged. Below ground inductive charging might be the competition. That would solve the snow removal obstacles of the high snow states.

 

Toyota vs. Tesla - Can Hydrogen Fuel-Cell Vehicles Compete with Electric Vehicles? - Tony Seba

 

The water use aspect is surprising to me. This is really surprising if I believe the numbers. I don't believe the 100% EV use by 2030. That shows the author does not understand infrastructure realities. (That is like saying no phone landlines exist anymore since we are 100% cell use now..which we are not.)

 

WOW! - ev powered snow plows, except,what happens when the power goes out during a snow storm?
Back to hand shoveling?

DBCassidy

 

Hopefully that was humor...but just to be sure, I was just pointing out an EV charging station does not require a post or connection box to be sticking up out of the pavement. The snowplow could scrape the entire parking lot without worry. I certainly don't expect any EV powered snow plows in my lifetime.

 

First, I am not anti-EV. I drive a plugin car and I have a 7.8 kW PV system on my roof. I am responding because of the level of misinformation and bias toward hydrogen fuel cell.

1) Hydrogen is not an energy source.
Electricity is not an energy source either. You'll have to generate it, transport it and store it -- just like hydrogen.

2) Electric Vehicles are at least three times more energy efficient than Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.
It depends on the source of energy you start with. If you start from natural gas, FCV is more efficient.

The author isn't aware of Photocalyst panels that converts solar energy to hydrogen. He was quick to draw conclusion based on cherry picked scenario.

3) You need to build a multi-trillion dollar hydrogen delivery infrastructure.
Building the grid probably cost more yet, we still have slow charging network. Most homes have 200 amp service. To recharge a 312 miles EV in 5 mins, you'll need 12,000 amp service (about 60 homes). That's the scale FCV is able to achieve with minimal loss (relative) in compressing H2 gas to 10,000 psi.

4) Hydrogen is Not Clean.
Neither is electricity. More than 2/3 of it comes from fossil fuel. In the US, 100 MPGe EV emits about the same greenhouse gas as a 50 MPG gas car.

5) Hydrogen is not ‘Renewable’!
Sure it is. Excess renewable electricity can be captured in hydrogen, which works better than storing in the battery packs. Photocatalys panels can also generate 100% renewable hydrogen straight from the roof.

6) Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles can’t compete with Electric Vehicles.
There is no 312 miles EV that you can purchase for the price of Mirai $58k. There will be more H2 stations than SuperChargers in the state of California by the end of this year.

Former DOE Secretary Steven Chu also changed his mind about hydrogen before he resigned.

 

well for one, you were thinking plugins are no good because of apartment dwellers - and therefore hydrogen cars are the best answer for future autos.
Problem is, majority of apartment dwellers will never be able to afford a hydrogen car. The people that can, for the majority, would never want them. That's why in part, many have to wait for months to get a Tesla .... because it's a better deal - whereas hydrogen cars are virtually unavailable most everywhere, use non-renewable natural gas as fuel for the future, and no one knows for certain whether they'll even be around in the near future. (disclaimer - not an automotive FC advocate)

in South OC there hasn't had to be any laws to install EVSE's because some of the condo manufacturers are already installing charge stations in their garages as an option;

The above picture is of us in a new (model home) tract just a few blocks away. The PV inverter? Those are stock - but they don't work for creating your own home brew hydrogen.
.

 

In all fairness, most of the criticism of fuel cells has not been with the technology, but the use of taxpayer money to force a technology deployment prematurely or uneconomically. Points 1, 4, 5 are really not issues with the posters here. I will agree to those.

Number 6 is obvious. If it could compete, then all the government money being poured into the premature deployment would not be needed. How stupidly the government waste money is not evidence of competitive equality.

Number 3 is also obvious. The grid was built to power nearly everything, so commenting on the entire grid cost is a red herring to be honest. The cost that matter are what is needed for autos. EV infrastructure cost is orders of magnitude less than the H2 infrastructure cost no matter how contorted the numbers are manipulated. The 5 minute artificiality is overblown. It certainly matters to a fractional percentage of drivers but nowhere near the majority unless the economics are even.

Which brings us to Number 2. It does depend on the energy source you start with...and all the inefficiencies getting to the final utilization. So far, EVs look to be remain in the lead. If recurring fuel cost and non-recurring vehicle buying costs are vastly better with EVs, then don't expect FCVs to be anywhere close to a majority car technology.

 

That slide set the goal for 2020.

They're right on schedule for 2015.

 

In some sense "efficiency" and "economics" are interchangeable in these discussions if the starting point is electrical generation sources. When the start point is not the same energy types (e.g. Solar Electric vs Natural Gas), then efficiency is quite secondary to economics. In these situations I would not call it a red herring, but it is secondary.

 

Why not the same criticism to EVs and PHEV with 16kWh+ battery when they were launched?

 

Because I have made the same criticism! But I need to be clear about the criticism specifics. I have no problem with tax incentives and other government measures when they are technology independent and driven by regulatory requirements, such as clean air. I have a huge problem with technology dependent government measures when specific technologies are singled out. This includes favoring specific battery sizes, chemistries, etc. It also includes subsidizing specific infrastructures such as EV recharging stations paid for by the government. Other posters may not agree with my point here, but I have always stressed the consistent failure of government to pick the best technology combination for whatever technology is favored.

 

Thats great news that some builders are adding chargers as an option. But what about the other 90% of condos that have been build from the 70's through 2013......there are over 300,000 Community Associations in the US and with about 60 million living in Community Associations. That a whole lot of vehicles. How many of these owners don't have garages and must park outside in designed spaces with no means to a charger? So yes, FCV and Hybrids will be needed and demanded by many who can't or won't buy an EV.

 

+1
That was the same reason why I was critical of some BEV, Volt and other badly designed PHEVs. Not only there were pork specific to the battery from NREL battery patent, loan to build factors, manufacturing, ZEV incentives to manufacturers and federal, state and local tax incentives to buy plugins. On top of that free electricity were provided and they don't clean the air either. PHEV version of the hybrid version emitted more. A compact Volt emit more than a regular Prius. Pre-2012 Leaf emitted more than Prius. Model S was the only one that did better than comparable gas or diesel cars.

I would have the same criticism with Hydrogen Fuel Cell if it didn't deliver the results (cleaner well-to-wheel emission). It has many of the good things from battery electric and gasoline vehicles. The only negative criticism is the lack of infrastructure and the cost of fuel. Both of those can be addressed simply by scaling to the mass market, which by way is naturally going to happen.

FCHV-adv prototype came out in 2008 and that was based on the Highlander. 68 MPGe was not an official EPA rating but from a lab test.

This from a 2010 article:

TOYOTA SAYS IT has cut the cost of building fuel-cell vehicles by 90 percent and could sell its first hydrogen vehicle for $50,000 by 2015.

Toyota says it has cut the cost of building such cars by 90 percent in recent years. It hopes to cut that by another 50 percent in coming years, so it can can sell an “affordable” mid-sized hydrogen-fuel-cell vehicle. Such a car would offer the same range as a conventional auto “with some extra cost,” says Yoshihiko Masuda, Toyota’s managing director of advanced vehicles.

“Our target is, we don’t lose money with introduction of the vehicle,” Masuda told Bloomberg. “Production cost should be covered within the price of the vehicle.”
​

When it was stated, there was $8,000 federal tax credit for FCVs. The real news is, they were able to cut the cost of FCHV-adv from $1 million to $58,000 and sell it without loosing money. At the time of the announcement, you guys did not believe it could be done. You guys probably still believe that Toyota is selling Mirai at a loss which lead to negative perception of fuel cell vehicle viability.

Toyota scaled down the FC components to fit in a midsize sedan (perhaps to share parts with Camry hybrid to lower cost) but lost a seat in the rear. I think Honda did a better job with their upcoming FCV but price is still unknown. Hyundai and Mercedes stuck with SUV.