Plug-In Hybrids vs. FCV

Ok there are 4 goals that carb seems to have in california

1) reduce tailpipe emissions in heavily polluted areas
2) reduce ghg
3) reduce oil use
4) sell in high enough volume to make a difference

Let me also introduce mpgp from zythryns link, Jullian cox's is using miles per green house gas equivalent of a gallon of gasoline wtw.
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle Myths Debunked

We have 5 vehicles, the prius liftback (hv), volt (i3 is the same but volt has worse numbers) (phev), tesla (long range bev), leaf (short range bev), toyota fcv (fuel cell vehicle.

1) Even the average car made today only has 8% of the tailpipe emissions of a car built in 2000, when carb was making these rules. I would stipulate that the volt and prius are much cleaner than the average car today, so carb should be happy with either. CARB really needs to update its measure of tailpipe pollution to include different calculations for phevs, as the current rules act as if they never are plugged in. I call it a wash, not a victory for the zevs.

2)Using mpgp we get
50 mpgp prius liftback (no coversions necessary)
54 mpgp volt (california fueleconomy.gov rating for all plug-ins)
72 mpgp tesla S 85 kwh
90 mpgp leaf
42 mpgp toyota fcv (estimate)

Estimate comes from link above

Note mpgp varies considerably based on electrical source. I used california as the example for this using old epa 2007 figures (grid is much cleaener today) from fuel economy.gov. Other states have higher or lower output, and I did not consider renewables reducing ghg expect those owned by the utilities.

Of course the fuel cell advocates will talk about using grid tied renewable energy to produce the hydrogen, but this could just as easily be used to fuel a plug-in, but the plug-in would need a much smaller amount of kwh to go the same distance. Anyway if we use enough renewables fcv can climb to lower ghg than phevs but not lower than bevs because they are less efficient.

3) asssuming a 30 mpg vehicle burns 500 gallons in 15,000 miles what are the savings
200 gallons (40%) prius
350 gallons (70%) volt
500 gallons (~100%) All the rest, but big if. Many will chose a different vehicle for some trips, so this savings should be reduced my amount driven in other cars.

4) This is where the rubber meets the road so to speak. That fuel cell vehicle is worse than all other comers in ghg emissions unless we are counting renewables and then its worse than everything but the prius. The prius does well especially considering it is much easier to sell than the other cars. If you get the cost down of fcv enough and eneough stations maybe it can help, but in ghg its a laggard far behind plug-ins. Given the massive volume difference I can't see a $50,000 fcv like toyota is showing as being as good for the environment as any of the other catagories.

Now what about that tundra and sequoia? If carb draws the line at 42 mpgp, should it ban toyota from selling higher ghg vehicles? I say its silly, but 35 seems a better line than 50 ;-)

 

While some will say a car with stop/start is a microhybrid, those things aren't make a hybrid car a hybrid. It is the mix of two, different kinetic energy sources; a chemical one from the ICE, and a electric(or hydraulic) one from the motor. Regardless of how many motors a FCEV has, they are all powered by electricity. The hybrid term can also be applied when the car has two or more fuel types, such as bi-fuel gasoline/CNG or plug in hybrid. The FCEV only uses hydrogen.

The only entity referring to FCEVs as hybrids is Toyota. No one else does. Hyundai refers to theirs as "an EV for people on the move" on its site with no mention of hybrid. If the three things listed was all it took, then BEVs are hybrids.

Agree with the rest of the post.

From here:https://archives.media.gm.com/volt/eflex/docs/paper.pdf
"Hybrid- A hybrid is defined by SAE [4] as: “A vehicle with two or more energy storage systems both of which must provide propulsion power – either together or independently.” In practice, hybrid vehicles typically require both sources to provide full vehicle capability. The engine is also typically the larger of the two propulsion sources, being sized to provide most of the power during high power vehicle events. The motor is typically the smaller of the two propulsion sources, being sized to maximize the amount of energy that can be captured during braking and for limited low speed EV operation."

Note the use of engine and motor. Engine generally refers to an ICE.
The quoted SAE may not be the complete official definition, but I am not spending the $70 to find out. This likely has it: J1715: Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV) and Electric Vehicle (EV) Terminology - SAE International
Note the topic tags include hybrid electric vehicles, and electric vehicles, but no fuel cell vehicles.

Here is the fuel cell one: J2574: Fuel Cell Vehicle Terminology - SAE International

As I said only Toyota uses hybrid in reference to their FCEV or FCV.

 

The Prius only uses Petrol.

 

But later you say....

Right, so therefore an FCV is a hybrid in the same way a Prius is a hybrid. I don't see any requirement in that quoted SAE definition which requires energy to be output in kinetic form.

A BMW i3 with range extender is a series hybrid, right? Now modify the motorcycle engine to burn hydrogen. It's still a hybrid, right? Now swap out the engine and generator and replace it with a fuel cell stack. Sudden it's no longer a hybrid?

I don't mean to be harsh, but I think saying that FCVs are not hybrids is pedantic nonsense akin to GM denying the Volt is a hybrid. Doing so confuses more than it clarifies, in my opinion. FCVs seem mysterious at first but they are easily understood as being hybrids with a fuel cell stack instead of an engine.

 

Jeff, I agree with you 99% and understand FCV exactly the same.
Now, about that 1%: Is it worthwhile to differentiate a car that uses two fuels independently, from a car that mixes them together ? I think so, and would call the former a bi-fueled vehicle and the latter a hybrid. In the case of the Volt it starts out independent in CD mode, and then operates as a mix-em-up hybrid in CS mode. The point of a hybrid, as USB likes to point out, is synergy. I prefer to call it improved efficiency.

And by the way, this notion that an ICE is very, very different than a FC seems like a trivial distinction to a chemist from a certain POV: in both cases hydrogen is oxidized to water. The difference is in the by product: heat in the case of an ICE, electricity in the case of the FC.

 

I would agree with you if HSD in Toyota's FCV does not have the synergy in it. Volt has a battery and gas engine too. It doesn't mean they operate in synergy.

Regarding the hype, I see no hype. All we have is executives talking about it and even how much more expensive H2 is over gasoline.

It is very different than Volt 1.0 hype.

 

Start/Stop "hybrid" don't propel the vehicle with electricity, therefore it is not a hybrid. We've been calling it out when GM called theirs a hybrid.

Then you have ICE + flywheel hybrids. Both are mechanical.

 

Yes, Prius was subsidized initially to become commercial success.

Do you know why PNGV SuperCars failed but Prius succeeded? The goals. Prius's goal was to double Corolla MPG while SuperCar wanted to achieve 80 MPG.

The fundamental difference was Prius was technologically "pulled". While SuperCars were "pushing" the mass-producible technology. With Volt, I see the same "pushing" of technology.

While Prius cut the emission by half of the lowest at that time, Volt did not top the Prius emission (value) standard.

 

Also, the funding for PNGV was redirected in 2001 to the fool-cell program. Only Honda, Toyota, and Ford developed and sold hybrids for a decade before the others finally joined the fuel-efficient, party.

Bob Wilson

 

Nothing undignified about that at all.

 

Yup, fool-cell back then. Pushed the technology from genesis.

After so many breakthroughs and progress in cost reduction in both FC stack and carbon fiber (H2 tank), I think technology is ready to pull into affordable mass production in 5 years (2nd gen).

 

I did not read the whole thing, just the beginning. He isn't debunking anything. We already know H2 production is less efficient than gasoline, hence more carbon in a gallon equivalent.


FCV makes up for it at Tank-to-Wheel (vehicle operation). If 2015 FCV gets 62.5 MPGe, it would be 42 WTW (62.5 x 0.67).

50 MPG Prius with 84% well-to-tank would also be 42 WTW.

For a site that claims "#1 clean-tech focused", why don't they apply the same to EVs? 100 MPGe EV would be 39 WTW.

 

If you kept reading you would see that they did.

 

True statement about hybrid passenger cars.

New Flyer began selling hybrid busses with GM hybrid 2-mode transmission in the 2003 model year with test busses deployed as early as 2001.

Ford's first hybrid was the escape SUV in model year 2005. GM's first SUV hybrid was the Tahoe in model year 2008 followed by large pickups in 2009.

 

Not just initially it was subsidized in 2013 too.. The corrolla plant in mississippi was subsidized, and created 0 american jobs (just transfers from california). So if you problem is that volt and leaf and tesla are subsidized, but the prius phv was not, well that is silly. It simply was subsidized by japanese instead of the american government. That is all I was saying, but you seem to want to make this about something else. None of those cars have extra subsidizes on replacment

Well books have been written on this, and too high of a goal was one reason. Anouther the stupidity of combining the goal of fuel efficiency and american compeitiveness. A third that it focused on diesel technology that could not pass new epa tests. And 4th and probably the worst there were no requirements or subsidies for commercialization, so they built very expensive prototypes.
+1

Yep that too.

The next administration creaated 2 programs for cars, freedom car based off pngv, which was the fuel cell program that toyota likes so well, and plug-ins. The freedom car program promised tens of thousands of fcv on the road by 2015 and millions by 2020, and we know the $2.8B federal money spent so far (yes cut back but not canceled) has been a abject failure. There were subsidies for the cars but they are way too expensive to sell in those numbers even subsidized.

The other program has put over 250,000 plug-ins on american roads so far. It won't make the goal of a million by 2015, but it will make it by 2018 or 2019, and that goal was a political one not an engineering one. It was also the goal of the next administration. The big goals of the plug-in program was to bring down battery costs so plug-ins are competitive. All projections look like by 2020 costs will be substantially down, under $300/kwh for an lg battery, under $200/kwh for a tesla battery. We need to check again in 2020 for those millions of fcv on american roads, and to see if battery costs did drop that far.

There is also a funny side note. The ford energis and tesla model S hit all the goals of the pngv, in a much better way than if that prgram had coninued. The goal for the program, american car company produced, speed and comfort of the early 90s mid sized sedan, 80mpg on the old pre 2008 epa rating but using modern mpge.

But this is all distracting talk. For comericalization tesla, gm, and nissan have set low profit margin on replacement batteries. That's a good thing, as there will be a lot more of these vehicles on the road in 10 years than fcv, and there will be fud from the fcv that the batteries die early and cost alot to replace.

The gen I prius, of course it did. The current prius, you are right there. Lucky the ice only turns on for 20% of the trips, and the current volt has a button so you can have no tailpipe emissions in the polluted city, but turn the ice on, on the interstate.

Again I thought this thread was phev versus fcv.

 

It is but he really hates the Volt and loves the PIP a little too much.

 

You didn't read it properely, he multiplied it back by the gasoline well to tank factor, so that mpg could be compared to epa. If it does come out at 62.5 MPGe then if it runs on hydrogen produced from natural gas at the station it will produce the same amount of green house gas as a 42 mpg car (YMMV) (). He averaged a lot of figures to get that conversion factor, which all produce less ghg than the current DOE estimate of hydrogen stations. The thought is future hydrogen stations will become more efficient so that that conversion factor is true only if for more efficient future fuel stations. Modern figures won't agree at all with that toyota chart since efficiencies are very different in actual cars than toyota was assuming back then.

The reason you can not apply one figure to all plug-ins is because there is not one national grid where everything averages out. The amount of ghg produced from a kwh of electricity varies wildly based on what part of the grid you are on, time of day, and in my case even the time of year (winter is more ghg intense than summer here, but we average them out). Most of these environmental sites give figures broken down on the state level. As opposd to more idealized more efficinet hydrogen generation used for ghg, most electrical figures are past figures that are less enfficient than charging from the grid today. There are lots of choices of figures to use, and reasons to use most of them, but you won't find one set that has more ghg out of a tesla in california than a fcv.

100% of fuel cell cars sold (not given away) in the US will be california for the next 5 years
~40% of plug-in cars sold in the US are in california, so I used that state to compare, but you can pull figures yourself for other states, and drill down to providers and if solar or wind are used.

 

USB, the chart you published is not bad, except for one fatal flaw: it ignores opportunity cost.
As an example, if some of the money spent on converting to a hydrogen car transport was spent on building combined cycle NG power plants instead, the EV would then be 0.6 * 0.85 = 0.51

Or even more one-sided: instead of spending the money on hydrogen processing and distribution, spend it on windmills, PV, and grid infrastructure instead.

 

But it has a gasoline engine and electric motor both providing kinetic energy. While hybrid can refer to two different fuel types, it is mainly used to referring to kinetic energy sources. Fuel hybrids are generally called bi-fuel in the US.

The quoted definition comes from a paper discussing HEV, PHV, and EREV. We don't know if it is the complete SAE definition or simply part of it quoted for the paper because the paper was already established as talking about ICE/electric hybrids. There is a SAE paper with their definitions for hybrid terms, and also one for FCV terms. I provided links to them. I didn't have the means of getting past the pay wall. Anybody else is free to do so.

A serial hybrid takes chemical energy, converts it kinetic or mechanical energy, and then converts it to electrical. Which then goes to a motor for kinetic energy to move the car. So two points at which kinetic energy is made. The i3 w/ range extender is also bi-fuel; grid electric and gasoline.

FCV takes chemical energy and converts it to electrical, which then goes to a motor to move the car. That is what a battery does. It's done a little differently, but both are ultimately converting chemical energy directly to electricity.

And I think comparing the fuel stack to the ICE is a disservice and more confusing to the public. They understand that the engine takes fuel and makes to car go. Even in hybrids, that is how it works. Tell them the fuel cell just replaces the engine, and they'll think it is taking fuel and making the car go. But fuel cells can't make anything go on their own. Tell them it is an electric car in which the fuel cell is an onboard generator if you want an analogy that is closer to how they actually work.

Part of how a term is defined is in how it used by the masses, regardless of any official definition. Slut was no where near as negative a terma have century ago, and just meant sloppy back then. But it has changed, not because of some official body, but because the people started using differently.

GM could, technically use hybrid to describe their bi-fuel gasoline and CNG Impala. Mazda already does in relation to their bi-fuel gasoline and hydrogen Premacy in Japan. Would that fly here?

Toyota is the only one calling their FCV a hybrid. Everyone else is going with EV that fills with hydrogen instead of plugging. The only other site linking FCV and hybrid was a plug in concept by Ford. So it is just Toyota, and its supports, linking the two terms. It is because Toyota is hoping the Prius success can help their FCEV.

Then you need to call out most of the companies selling them in Europe and elsewhere. And technically GM's eAssist did provide some EV propulsion to a minor degree.

Haven't heard? CleanTechnica is a pro-BEV and anti-FCV site.

 

I can understand the utility of paying attention to social stereotypes of sexual mores, but let's not be silly and extend the courtesy to engineering.

In the same vein, GM marketing spin is not a valid counter-argument to physics.