The Economist: Electric cars Difference Engine: Tailpipe truths

The minuscule amount of precious metals in catalytic converters has turned them into a profitable industry for thieves. Now ... even if we CAN reduce a fuel stack's requirements 8 or 10 fold - so that metal requirements were closer on par to a catalytic converter (in some theory it may be possible ... you know ... in 10yrs ) it takes lots of (carbon based fuel) energy to mine precious metals. Thus as fuel costs spiral ever upwards, so do the costs of precious metals. So even if in theory we could some day reduce a fuel stack's needs (never minding the stack dies and has to be replaced) ... the theoretical decreased amount is offset by the real world's scarcity/upward price spiral. It's going to be hard enough to meet rare earth / metal demands for the metals in EV/PHEV batteries (which hydrogen cars need too) but throwing those scarce resources into a multi-decade failed hydrogen program gets even more & more wasteful, imo. Don't get me wrong ... I wish hydrogen were a silver bullet. Heck, I'd be delighted if hydrogen were only 20% less beneficial than PHEV's/EV's.

.

 

lol. Not much chance that toyota will sell tens of thousands $50,000 fuel cell vehicles in 2015. Who would buy them? if they sell ten thousand that would be extremely optimistic at that price. Say they lose $20K a car at 10 thousand cars that is $200 Million. I'm sure they don't even expect to sell that many. They are exaggerating to get more government money.

+1

People in the government tried to call the bluff, supporters of the "research" got it back into a bill. The ringleader in the US is CARB, and it diverts money to hydrogen from much better uses.

we could simply drop the investment, but still fund fuel cell research. We will know when costs really drop. There is no reason to pay for a fueling infrastructure when the cars are so expensive. Germany is building one, so all these car companies do have a place to test. Ford and GM have already said it was hype. Honda and Toyota seem to be the big champions, let them just take the money from their government. Hyundai is there to play, just in case some big breakthrough happens. I haven't seen them push it, but they are supportive.

 

Understand the FUD due to FC history. I would keep my mind open and keep tack of recent breakthroughs. The prototype includes 4 hydrogen tanks as well.

I am optimistic and think we are very close to reality. As I said, I understand those that doubt. FC industry fully deserves it but they came a very long way.

4 sweater $50k will be a niche. Ten of thousands projected is probably for global market. Majority may be for Japan since the government is investing a lot now. Obama admin put hydrogen in the back burner and I am afraid we'll get behind.

It appears GM is already 5 years behind Toyota in mass produced FCHV.

 

Yep - A simple J1772 L2 EVSE can be DIY (see the Open EVSE project) for about $300 today and most of that cost is in the J1772 plug/cable.

The plug/cable shouldn't cost more than $100 in volume - so for less than $200 you should be able to build an EVSE that can charge up to 17kW.

Retail price for J1772 L2 EVSE is under $1000. To install in your garage is typically less than $1000 to pay an electrician to do it - usually half that unless your main panel is a long ways from where you want to put your EVSE.

How much does even a home NG filling station let alone a Hydrogen reformer cost?

 

Blowing apart your SHOWSTOPPER theory of fuel cells having some platinum in them as well.

Whoops another water line hit to your SHOWSTOPPER theory as we now find that gasoline cars and hybrids have the same precious metals as fuel cells but somehow it's a showstopper for hydrogen but has not been for gasoline and hybrids.

 

Since there is much LESS infrastructure required vs. electric cars as we see with the costs for public charging spots. Huge build out if a lot of electric cars. Not feasible without major upgrades to the entire electric distribution system. And even then not practical for use as too many competitors for too few spots so the EV cannot be trusted to "get home". Which is it's entire problem now per Toyota, EV's biggest booster and manufacturer.

Speedy refills at existing fueling stations is one of the big advantages of hydrogen over electric. Range is the other big advantage.

It's why all those involved Airproducts to Toyota to state and Federal government are building up the refueling infrastructure with the introduction of the cars.

 

Because the range issue would require a second car. It's why there is such a costly build out going on such as the charging stations at LAX. But even the small number of electrics on the road now overwhelm the charging stations, people parking in the spot without charging or leaving car there blocking the spot. Even the build out won't help.

Range and refueling are the showstoppers for all electrics.

Hydrogen is a sustainable fuel the has all the advantages of electrics and none of the major problems with electrics, range and refill.

Hydrogen can also fill all transport requirements, airplanes for example, which electric cannot do. So build out of hydrogen based transport can apply across the range of all transportation requirements going forward.

 

Not per Toyota's analysis reprinted and linked above. Hydrogen had the best efficiency, end to end.

Same as electric but hydrogen doesn't NEED the refuel in the home cost so that would be another reason that hydrogen is a better choice.

That hydrogen CAN have a home refueling option while not NEEDING one is double advantage over electric.

 

Huh? Less infrastructure for Hydrogen compared to EVs? Please back this up with some facts.

Let's start with some facts for EVs:

1. 85% of EV owners charge at home.
2. A majority of the rest charge at work or other locations because it's free.

"Major upgrades" are not required to the distribution system since the vast majority of charging takes place at night during off-peak. My EV starts charging at 1am and is typically done around 3am. There is a big dip in electricity demand from 1am-7am while everyone sleeps. In California on a typical day, minimum demand during this time is at least 6 GW lower than at peak demand. On a maximum demand day, minimum demand during this time is around 20 GW lower than the peak demand.

So let's assume that we have 10 hours of "off-peak" (11am-9am) and we have 10 GW of spare capacity. 10 GW is enough to charge 2.5 M cars at any one time at 4 kW - but your typical car is only going to need about 3 hours to charge at most - this means we have enough spare capacity to charge at least 8 million EVs driven an average 30-40 miles per day.

This would be a third of the total California fleet - it would really be a dream to have these types of EV demand issues.

Uh, Toyota is far from EV's biggest booster. Nissan has far more skin in the game than Toyota.

They are - but the costs aren't worth it and probably won't be close enough for mainstream adoption for another 10 years.

Building hydrogen fueling stations is a waste of money when there are no cars that can use them and there are no cars coming out for at least another 3 years in perhaps very limited quantities.

+1. By far the majority get by just fine with just charging at home. Unless you regularly drive 60+ miles/day charging at home is just fine.

Yep, you typically need at least an hour to get any significant charge - though many times that's all you need since one doesn't typically plan trips well beyond the range of the LEAF unless they have other things to do while charging.

60% of households have more than 1 car.

Without providing any costs, this isn't much of an argument. Either way - most figure that a plain-old parking spot costs $10k. Adding 10-20% to the price of a spot to add a charging station isn't bad - and if you charge for it at least you'll get some of the cost back.

LAX EV parking is overwhelmed because EV parking is free and parking normally costs $25/day. If you charged even $10/day for EVs and an additional $10/day to plug in, I can guarantee that demand will go way down for those stations.

They're not - how else do you explain Nissan and Tesla's success in the market? Really the biggest issue with EVs is cost of the battery.

Hydrogen is not sustainable as long as it requires natural gas to be cost effective. Hydrogen through electrolysis is twice as energy intensive as an EV to fuel.

I don't think you'll find many argue that Hydrogen might make sense where energy density is an issue. But then I think you'll find that most will say why not just use CNG and biofuels?

Thought there was an article on this guy on greencarreports but I can't find it. He drives about 130 miles/day - 65 mile commute - charges at work of course.

Didn't we cover this already? Toyota's numbers are quite cherry picked. I've got over 3 kW of PV on my house good for over 5,000 kWh/year - enough to drive nearly 20,000 miles. Failing that, in my area (look up yours here) as of 2011 my electricity comes from about 50% natural gas, 7% coal, 16% nuclear, 12% hydro and 10% renewables. 40% of my electricity is effectively emissions free and has half the CO2 emissions of the US average. That completely invalidates Toyota's assumptions in their report for me.

EV doesn't NEED to refuel in the home, either. But it's benefits outweigh the advantages:

1. Wake up fully charged
2. Utilize under-utilized grid increasing efficiency
3. No more annoying weekly stops going out of your way to refuel


Look - I don't pretend that EVs work for everyone. But I do think they can work for a very large portion of the fleet even with the limitations of today's EVs. These EVs will mostly charge at home, but with some well placed QC stations can be used to enable longer trips.

Will EVs ever be road-trip vehicles? Currently only if you're wealthy and can afford a $87k Telsa Model S with a 85 kWh battery pack and a well placed "super charger" or two. But how often do you make those sorts of trips? And since most households have 2 cars - isn't it likely that 1 car will be a "commuter" EV and the other will have the range capability required for long trips?

My ideal personal fleet is an EV and a PHEV for those longer trips. The EV would have at least 50 miles "real world" range and the PHEV would have at least 20 miles EV range before the range extender kicks in.

Just ditching one gas car with an EV has let my household reduce gasoline consumption from 500 gallons/year to 200 gallons/year (we drive the Prius less now that we have the EV). 20 mile PHEV instead of the Prius would probably get us to 75 gallons/year of gas or so or 1/10th our old consumption. Now imagine that millions of other people did that, too...

 

Eyup...all we need are filling stations...oh...we have them already...OK.

They have no other place to charge, no other time. It is one of the drawbacks to electrics.

Not sure that 8% of a very, very small percentage of car owners is a meaningful number. The build out to make each parking spot come with a charger is another huge problem for electrics.

Hydrogen needs electricity, solar, wind work great. On energy efficiency, again refer to Toyota's study posted above. They concluded hydrogen was more efficient.

 

Please tell me where all these hydrogen filling stations are. It's going to cost $500 billion to build out a hydrogen fueling network. It costs $1M for a 10 kg/day methane reformer. You are going to need quite a few of those... http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/37903.pdf

Charging at home is a benefit, not a drawback. And charging networks are growing daily. And in a pinch or if you have time - all you need is a regular old 120V/15A outlet to charge.

You don't need each spot to have a charging station since most charging will occur at home where it's cheaper.

Toyota concluded that hydrogen from natural gas was more efficient than EVs powered by a 39% thermal efficient grid.

They did NOT conclude that hydrogen from electrolysis using renewables was more efficient than EVs powered by renewables.

 

+1

In california using real fuel cell demos and fueling stations they are less efficient than the mix of EVs. Since california is where the fc test is going to be run, that amounts to easy facts to show this is wholesale distortion.

http://www.cleanfleetreport.com/hydrogen-goes-public-in-southern-california/

For example this shell station pays for green power, but uses much more of it per mile in hydrogen than a phev or bev driver would use. An EV driver could also pay for that renewable power in the area. Where is the efficiency savings? Note these stations have very few customers and won't for the foreseeable future. That is why most have closed down.

Toyota would also have you believe that a fuel cell vehicle that can go 400 miles is much cheaper to produce than a BEV that can go 300 miles. Currently toyota uses 50 onz of platinum in the fuel cell, which at todays price is around $75,000 for one metal alone. They hope one day to drop that to 10 onz, but it is unlikely that such a fuel cell will last 8 years or be available in 2015. They are selling hopes in dreams for R&D government handouts. Toyota and Honda were supposed to have 5 million cars running around in japan today.

 

Hydrogen isn't a fuel. It's an energy storage medium.

And it's not sustainable. Even if the source of electricity is renewable, hydrogen uses more to make, more to keep it there, and more to get it out again.

 

None of that stops it from being sustainable. Even though biodiesel is far more efficient, ethanol is (now) a sustainable fuel because it has a EROI greater than 1.

All you're saying is that it's not good enough yet to be a realistic long-term, large-scale solution.

 

Yep, just like electricity

Unless it takes more energy to (make+keep+use) than is in the hydrogen itself, it can be renewable if made from renewable sources. The problem is the lifecycle efficiency for one; and costs in particular.

I find it interesting to think of the hydrogen problem* using the Prius as a metaphor:

On the one hand, Prius adds energy conversions into the mix (into and out of a battery) that imply that all else being equal, the Prius "should" be less efficient than an ICE only car. The opposite is of course true, but it is DESPITE the extra conversion steps, the design allows a more efficient ICE to be used, at an overall efficiency much closer to peak than other cars.

In hydrogen's case the more efficient fuel cell replaces the less efficient combustion engine. Offsetting that major advantage are conversion requirements of the sources into hydrogen.

I think it is clear that if electricity is the source (PV or thermal or wind,) then batteries win easily. The battery is more efficient than the fuel cell, and the conversion step to hydrogen is avoided.

Starting from NG, if electricity is made in a best case combined combustion plant allowing ~ 55% efficiency and subsequent 85& efficiency in the battery, this is about equal (but in reverse order) to the 80% best case NG reformation to hydrogen and 60% efficiency in the hydrogen car.


* lifecycle efficiency only discussed. The cost of hydrogen is a joke.

 

It is quite sustainable, given even dockets hydrogen can be produced by wind and sun. The problem is cost and efficiency. Given less energy a phev running biofuels will cost less and go further.

 

Every gas station is a filling station. All they need to add is a Hydrogen pump next to other fuel pumps. As for it costing $500B. Assuming about $1M to add a pump at every existing filling station (150,0000) stations, that would be $150M

It's a necessity and one limited to people with homes with garages. It's the necessity to charge at home and the inability to quickly recharge out side of the home that creates the range and refuel limitations for the all electrics.

 

Hydrogen produced by electrolysis also need to attribute the energy required to produce oxygen. Many people discard it but there is a value and market for oxygen as well.

Why would anybody convert electricity to hydrogen (and oxygen byproduct)? To super concentrate the energy so the refueling speed and range are on par with gasoline and avoid a huge battery pack. The best way to get H2 is from NG instead of using electricity and water.