1st Fuel Cell to Market: Not Toyota

Discussion in 'Prius, Hybrid, EV and Alt-Fuel News' started by hill, Jun 4, 2014.

  1. Jeff N

    Jeff N The answer is 0042

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    2,382
    1,302
    0
    Location:
    California, USA
    Vehicle:
    2011 Chevy Volt
    It would be dumb to only design cars that worked best for average conditions -- unless you lived in a Worker's Paradise where the government gives everyone the same car to drive.

    Given a free market, there is no one answer that works best for everyone in all energy locales. So, car companies should make multiple models that can work best for individual circumstances.

    EV's can be four times as clean on CO2 on Northern California grid mix as the world's most efficient mass-production hybrid and almost infinitely better on 100% renewable. Plugin hybrids work great also. Plugin hybrids with large batteries can be the best choice for some.

    In areas with high carbon intensity electricity it will make more sense for most to choose something similar to a non-plug Prius unless they have solar panels or can optionally buy into green energy plans.

    That means hundreds of millions of people around the globe would do best by having the option to choose vehicles with large batteries even if those cars are worse than a Prius on today's US average electricity mix.
     
    #41 Jeff N, Jun 18, 2014
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2014
    austingreen likes this.
  2. 3PriusMike

    3PriusMike Prius owner since 2000, Tesla M3 2018

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    2,466
    1,826
    0
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    All based on made up numbers since no one mass produced a FC back then nor are they doing it now. An ICE, meanwhile costs less than $1000. A hybrid ICE/electric drive train costs $3000, maybe, $4000. A PHEV drive train adds whatever amount of battery you want (minus the hybrid battery). And the fuel cell alone is, who knows? $30K, $50K?

    This is a false comparison. Most people in an EV/PHEV will charge with L1 and/or L2 for 50 out of 52 weeks a year for the next decade or two. i.e. at home and/or work. They will only need the superchargers when going on a longer trip. And for the next decade or more this will be rare in a pure EV.

    It doesn't matter much what they cost. There will need to be many fewer of them. Imagine a world where there are only EVs or only FCHV. There will need only a small number of supercharger stations, maybe 1% to 5% as many as there are gas station pumps. Most people will charge at home or work for daily driving. Longer trips the first charge will be from home as will the last charger after empty. But there would need to be about the same number of hydrogen filling stations as there are gas pumps.

    I'm all for companies competing on envisioning the best technology, designing it, trying to sell it, etc. I'm not for throwing a lot of public money at providing the infrastructure when we have no idea how practical it is. They should be required, IMO, to build a few thousand fleet vehicles where there can be a small number of refueling stations in different cities with different climates for 3-5 years before they get the vote for my public funding.

    See link: Fuel cell bus trial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    None of these trials shows they are cost effective.

    Mike

    These numbers all depend on the ratio of HV and EV. As well as the mix of electricity (NG, coal, hydro, nuclear, solar, wind etc.) Just as we've discussed before I don't buy any of the numbers having to do with the mix of electricity. Looking forward (large percentages of EV miles) the grid will be different. What matters is the delta to the grid, not the current grid.

    Changing how cars propel themselves and changing how the grid gets its power, to me, are two (almost) completely different problems to be solved and intertwining them just leads you (us) to an incorrect place.

    Mike
     
    #42 3PriusMike, Jun 18, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 30, 2014
    austingreen and Trollbait like this.
  3. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    24,082
    13,684
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    Oh, you mean like the US Marine Corps?
    • 6 day work weeks - if in garrison, longer if not
      • no OT
    • free medicine
      • by high school and GED graduate, Navy corpsmen
    • two weeks, paid vacation at a shooting range with a fully automatic rifle
      • higher ranks get pistol time too!
    • job security
      • you can't quit . . . who would?
    • travel
      • meet interesting people and shoot them
    Bob Wilson
     
  4. hill

    hill High Fiber Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2005
    17,088
    6,514
    54
    Location:
    South OC So Cal & Nashville, TN
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    IV
    Maybe we should all go back to using straight gas'ers - where 100% of their fossil fuel is refined via grid coal natural gas, etc.
    ;)
    .
     
    austingreen likes this.
  5. bwilson4web

    bwilson4web BMW i3 and Model 3

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    24,082
    13,684
    0
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Plus
    I'm OK with a science experiment but hydrogen fuel-cells from lab to traffic lanes involves solving a lot of hard technical problems. We're Prius people who compared to many are 'early adopters.' Just buying a hybrid has put us in the small 2-3% of all car buyers willing to 'do the experiment.' Even now, many Prius adopters have moved on to early EVs, another leap of faith in technology. But one hinderance of fuel-cell vehicles, so far, all promise but very small volumes.

    Sometimes adding a new technology advances the art rapidly to increase quantity and quality. But what we know of hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles, well I wish the early adopters good luck. But I suspect it will take a long time before they show up in North Alabama. Given what I know about hydrogen, it is a steep technological hurdle to overcome.

    Bob Wilson
     
  6. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    12,918
    3,564
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    I would like to weight ghg/mi by the actual energy mix they use. We do have sales data by state, which is a good proxy.

    Using the national grid really is making the assumption that fuel cell cars will quickly sell equally distributed in all states. Everyone including Toyota and Hyundai, the fuel cell lobby, carb, cec, etc knows this is a bad assumption. When you are asking for tax payer money to subsidize comercialization, we should at least get rid of the really bad and misleading graphics.

    If say these companies think they can quickly sell fuel cells equallly distributed accross the country despite the lack of infrastructure then they need to defend that. Otherwise they need to put up the graph of ghg where they will sell. For the next 15 years, IMHO, in the US that is California. They have this data, but don't show it. They had special graphs made to hide it.

    Do you think the US should base its subsidies of fuel cell cars based on how plug-ins would run in say the congo? These documents are made to get US taxpayer money. It is entirely misleading.

    Well sure it was in the linked document,
    Hyundai On Hydrogen Fuel-Cell Vehicles: Critiquing Its Claims (Page 2)
    which contained this, from the toyota funded research at UCI.
    http://www.apep.uci.edu/3/Research/pdf/SustainableTransportation/WTW_vehicle_greenhouse_gases_Public.pdf
    On the graphs toyota and hyundai show, they don't include california mix or using renewables, which were clearly part of the study. Why were they part of the study? UCI would have been totally discredited if they chose to willfully ignore the criticism.

    I support research, but don't think we should be paying to commercialize these things. The Japanese government is quite candid that they support fuel cells because they are hoping they will be made with japanese workers and exported. I don't understand why Fuel cells should get more subsidies than plug-ins, in order to support japanese jobs.

    When we see these distorted statements, where the only way the numbers work is a large number of bad assumptions, then is it really wrong to point them out. FCV are not equally good today. Why not wait until they have solved some of the cost issues before the US and California government throws even more money at Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai.

    Well sure there is a sense of bias. Toyota and Hyundai are pretending that fcv are going to greatly decrease ghg in the US in the next couple of decades, yet when we look at where they are likely to sell them, they will produce more ghg than the plug-ins they argue are no good.

    CARB and the fuel cell lobby put out a document two short years ago that there would be 53,000 fcv in california by the end of 2017. Talk to me when 2017 comes. Even toyota the biggest PR monster here thinks its only 10,000 now (Jim Lentz in Fortune interview 2014). That is a far cry from national coverage.

    Well sure, but if the volt is $15,000 less expensive and produces lower ghg, will you call out the toyota fcv?

    No I wish to end it because it really is a lie that fcv produce less ghg than plug-ins in the markets where they are sold.

    I wish that we agree that we don't use really bad numbers for fcv. If you insist, can we at least wait until toyota gets and EPA number and real emissions can get calculated. Plug-ins are not standing still, nor is the grid. by 2020 I expect fcv to look even worse.

    GHG is not the only reason to invest in new car technology, but lets admit that a fcv sold in california will produce more ghg than a bev in california. Let's also understand hydrogen produced by renewable electricity, will go only a small fraction of the miles as a plug-in using the same electricity.

    The economics in california make it the best state for a hydrogen test. I expect that fcv will need a number of advances, and perhaps then, would I support commercialization. Right now it looks like giving money to solyndra.
    Severe Issues with Fuel Cell Vehicle GHG Emissions Claims and Hydrogen Refueling Infrastructure Grants | CleanTechnica

     
    #46 austingreen, Jun 19, 2014
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2014
    finman and Trollbait like this.
  7. Troy Heagy

    Troy Heagy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2013
    1,218
    4
    0
    Vehicle:
    2013 Prius
    Model:
    One
    No of course not..... I was refuting the claim that Solar-paneled superchargers produce tons of electricity & dump it to the grid. The truth is the solar panels only produce enough to fuel 3/8th of the cars that visit it. (This argument reminds me of people who say Tesla should put a solar panel on the roof & just drive on the sun. People don't realize a panel doesn't produce that much energy..... enough to light a bulb or spin a fan. That's about it.)
     
  8. Trollbait

    Trollbait It's a D&D thing

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    16,317
    7,631
    0
    Location:
    eastern Pennsylvania
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Because they aren't.
    I think a fuel cell would be great as a range extender for a plug in. Because it solves the refueling time for long trips, and alleviates the infrastructure cost for hydrogen refueling somewhat. The majority of driving will be powered by the grid though.

    But it appears fuel cell range extenders will be between to market by Al-air batteries. Phinergy has a partnership will Alcoa, and announced a large scale delivery to a major auto maker in 2017(Tesla or GM my guess). Aluminum is a lot cheaper than platinum, and if there isn't a distilled water pump at a gas station,rst stop, EV charger location, you can pick some up at Wal-mart or a supermarket.
    You may want to avoid it because it doesn't look good on EV but there is no better place to discuss than Priuschat.[/QUOTE]
    When do you think you will be able to get a FCEV in New York?
    The FCEV lobby is using the national grid average to compare to fuel cell cars that will only be available in California. It is apples to oranges. The grid is getting cleaner. By the time a FCEV is available nation wide, the nation average for BEVs will be lower than it is now.

    Then what are they using for the FCEV CO2 emission number? The old 60mpge Honda Clarity, the new 29mpge Hyundai Tucson FCEV, or some hypothetical car that only exists on paper?

    Then there is the question I asked, but you ignored; are they(I originally ask specifically about Toyota) amusing CO2 sequestering with the steam reformation in their calculations?
     
  9. usbseawolf2000

    usbseawolf2000 HSD PhD

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    14,487
    2,981
    0
    Location:
    Fort Lee, NJ
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    Trollbait, Hyundai Tucson FCEV is rated 50 MPGe. That's probably as clean as 75 MPGe BEV SUV but with much shorter range.

    Regarding the question about Toyota's calculation, ask Toyota. I don't work for them and have no inside knowledge.

    Austingreen, I think the incentive structure for FCVs and the claim of carbon footprint is sound. They are keeping it simple without going into weighting per sales as there is no historic data. It could be argued that FCV sale may spreaf like gas cars because they refuel like gas.

    Much better than plugin tax credit that is based on the battery size and not the efficiency or ability to reduce carbon footprint. You have a compact 4 seater rated 250g/mi getting $7,500 while a midsize 5 seater rated 210g/mi getting $2,500. While Leaf rated 200g/mi is capped at $7,500.

    I think performance based tech neutral incentive is the way to go. Not the bailout type that was aimed toward Volt.

    I think BEVs like Leaf deserve more, say $10,000. Volt deserves $2,500 the same as a 42 MPG regular hybrid. PiP deserves $7,500. Again, all based on performance.

    Since FCVs are as clean as EVs, they also deserve $10,000.

    Also, CleanTechnica you sourced is a known EV bias site.

    I called out Volt because it is $20k more expensive than Prius c and higher carbon footprint, especially when you include battery pack production emission.

    If Toyota FCV is not clean, I will call it out for sure.

    83% efficiency of 100% fossil fuel (gas) is better than 33% efficiency of 67% fossil fuel (electricity). Refuels a heck faster too.
     
    #49 usbseawolf2000, Jun 20, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 30, 2014
  10. hill

    hill High Fiber Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2005
    17,088
    6,514
    54
    Location:
    South OC So Cal & Nashville, TN
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    IV
    That's FINE .... but pooh pooh'ing Tesla's grid-tied (growing) super charger network for not making 100% of the power they use, really neglects a WAY more important element.
    Illustration: Tesla goes ~ 265miles (combined driving) on 85kwh's (appx 3miles/per kWh. A similarly styled/sized/powerful 4 door gas'er like a Jag (13 mpg combined driving using E85) uses 20gallons to go that far, which is equivalent to ~ 600kWh's of electric energy. In effect, the large/high powered EV just saved more than 1/2 the energy that the high powered 4-door Jag would use, just to travel the same distance.

    The high powered gas'ers waste almost as much energy (the 5/8 not provided by Tesla super charger solar panels) as the Tesla saved. Couple THAT important element with the fact that many Tesla owners will more frequently use home charging (of which a good % are solar) as opposed to using super charging all the time - and the source of the 5/8 of Tesla Super Charger energy becomes even more of a red herring.

    Meanwhile, what % of the multi-billion $$ hydrogen highway is being built out by Hyundai / Toyota / Honda?? And what % of that same hydrogen highway will run on solar?? And (not that the auto industry will put in solar at all) what % will these same auto dealers PAY for any solar / hydrogen distillation power ?? Will they pay to build out 3/8 of their needed power in solar ?? ....... 1/8 ?? Zero? If we primarily use natural gas to run fuel cells .... (ignoring C 02) ... how much faster will our newly fracked natural gas wells hit peak production. Or is it just stupid to think beyond the next 10 years.
    .
     
    #50 hill, Jun 20, 2014
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2014
  11. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    12,918
    3,564
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    Yes to 50 m/kg hydrogen, that is what the epa gave the Tucson, they gave the Rav4 EV 76 mpge (miles per 33.7kwh electricity). Given the current grid and hydrogen structure where the cars live the Rav4 EV should pruduce about half the ghg/mile, but california should be building less carbon intense fueling structure, so we shouldn't handicap the tucson completely with how much more ghg its going to put out today. As for range? Right now the Tucson can't even make it to Northn California. I would give the range thing to the Rav4 EV and the Tesla X is out in less than a year and should be able to travel the country with the super charger network. That Tuscon needs to have a truck following it

    OK so you think a fcv that is getting what looks like over $10K/vehicle + money + 26 ZEV credits for 3 year leases then they might be crushed are that much better than a leaf or a volt
    The leaf gets 3 zev credits, less than $100car for refueling infrastructure, the volt gets 0 zev credits.

    WHy on earth do you think that fuel cells deserve so much more per vesicle.

    The fuel cell car costs much more for similar performance than a phev or bev. Both the volt and leaf have 500 Million + electric only miles, over 1 billion between them and can be refueled in your garage. On the other hand its been estimated that it will cost a minimum of $9B of taxpayer, not private money to build a skeleton system of hydrogen stations accross the country. Tesla will have a similar system by the end of 2012. How are fuel cell cars going to grow faster than plug-ins. No one in the world believes that.

    You are still mad at the battery tax credit that seems to be working that you think the tax payer should throw $20K or $30K at each fcv we import from japan or korea. That 4 seat toyota fcv likely produces more ghg on the roads it will run on than the volt. Will you at least open your eyes. I know you have been duped, and I won't argue with you anymore on this.


    well then the fuel cell would get nothing. I don't understand your metric.
    Fuel cell vehicles have gotten much more than the volt, and are likely less good for the environment.

    They are already getting much more than $10K/vehicle the money simply is going to the car companies and companies like UCI that are picked by the car companies instead of as a tax credit. It is likely each toyota fcv will recieve $40K of government money.

    I don't think

    Fine then why would you give toyota's fcv money it is much more than the volt (y) Its fuel cost taxpayers much more than the volts:mad: We don't know the carbon footprint, but current california is at least double idealized in the toyota chart, while the volt is likely bellow 200 g/mile

    whose numbers will you use? Will you use idealized hydrogen production versus the nationwide grid many years ago. Or will you use actual hydrogen production where the cars live. Idealized versus idealized plug-ins win. California electricity today versus idealized hydrogen (granting solar to plug-ins where owners use it, and tri gas and reweables where california pays for ti + idealized in the non ideal spots) the plug-in will produce less ghg.

    The key to fuel cell vehicles is they need costs to be lower than plug-ins (phev and tesla like bev) for them to be adopted. Japan has a plan. They say they will start subsidizing them to make them cost less, and they expect 40K/fcv sold per year in japan. I say fine for japan, and then if they bring costs down, it would be fine to subsidize hydrogen stations.
     
    #51 austingreen, Jun 20, 2014
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2014
  12. Trollbait

    Trollbait It's a D&D thing

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    16,317
    7,631
    0
    Location:
    eastern Pennsylvania
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Thanks, I was only remembering the x9 mpge from a headline, and had no luck finding the article.

    The Rav4 EV produces 180 g/mile of CO2.

    I'm asking you because you regularly post their graphic.

    No one is talking about weighing a car's carbon emissions besed on sales here. Just to compare the emissions on where they will likely be sold/leased in the near future. FCEVs will likely only be sold in California for the next ten years.

    Yes, their sales may spread like gasoline cars if they cost as much as one, and hydrogen refueling was as readily available as gasoline.

    Have you contacted your representatives yet about this gross injustice?

    What performance; efficiency, domestic fuel use, or carbon emissions?

    They already get a $8000 federal tax credit that is rolled into the lease. How long did it take Toyota to do so with Rav4 EV leases? In California, were they are only available, there is a $2500 rebate. Then there incentives on the manufacture side that are greater than those EVs.

    Then it should be easy to prove the article is full of BS.

    Looking over the original thread on that article brought up a question. If the cost of hydrogen is included in the price of the lease, won't that lead to reckless FCEV use?

    It is $15k more expensive. If there is an actual sales price listed for this upcoming Lexus FCEV, that will sit as many adults as the Volt, it will be $50k to $70k more than the Prius C.
     
    austingreen likes this.
  13. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    12,918
    3,564
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    +1
    If hydrogen is reformed in small production on site from natural gas, it produces about 14 Kg of CO2. Using this figure and 50 m/kg

    Rav4 EV 180 g/mile co2
    Tucson Fuel cell 280 g/mile co2

    But right now this hydrogen often is produced ofsite in california and trucked to the station. That means if you aren't on the hydrogen pipeline the stations require a lot more electricity and diesel for the trucking. A tucson fuel cell today using the average hydrogen california mix would be closer to 350 g/mile of co2. If we use the average US mix it might even be higher.

    Neither the Tucson or the Rav4 EV will be sold outside California. They are both compliance cars. The Rav4, can be driven out of state though. That rav4 owner can also charge at home, and can control the source of electricity. The Tesla X should do even better.

    Say the toyota fcv gets 70 miles/kg. That is about 200 g/mile co2 if the taxpayer pays to build reformers at each hydrogen fueling station. The gen 2 volt and prius phv should produce less than this, as does the current leaf, spark ev, i3, tesla S, fiat 500e, etc.


    I only want to count the energy the cars actually use. Percentage sales are a proxy. We know the fuel cell percentage sales will be negligable in states with high carbon intensity electricity. To pretend otherwise really is misleading.

    There is no way fcv spread faster than bevs at the costs that hyundai, honda, and toyota, seem to be paying. Hyundai has admitted it is for the credits. If each credit is worth $2K, then hyundai gets $52,000 worth of ZEV credits for each fuel cell car they sell in california. Why would they sell it outside the state, when they have said they are leasing it far bellow cost. Without the zev credits and the public money given to these car makers directly and indirectly (through subsidized fueling), they would not try to commercialize.

    In Japan the toyota fcv will be priced at 8 million yen, about $80K. Would more than 100 people in the US pay that price when they can get a Tesla S 60kwh for much less? They can get a prius phv advance for less than half the price. I'm sure toyota will lease it lower in california for the ZEV credits ;-)
     
    #53 austingreen, Jun 20, 2014
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2014
  14. usbseawolf2000

    usbseawolf2000 HSD PhD

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    14,487
    2,981
    0
    Location:
    Fort Lee, NJ
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    Guys, CO2 carbon footprint is a global issue (don't forget about battery manufacturing emissions -- a big one). Don't try to make it into a national or even a state level issue.

    I understand you want to focus on California figures but if you want a green car that's not CARB complaint, do not use California electricity as a baseline. Use the national grid mix, even better, use global average.

    AG is angry about ZEV credit FCVs are getting. Focusing on the current state rather than the potential and the effect it can have on global scale. AG thought importing FCV from Korea and Japan is bad. Volt battery is from Korea and transaxle is from Japan. Tesla battery cells are also from Japan. I know Tesla mega factory will build them here and Leaf battery is already made here. That doesn't mean FCVs can't be made here as well.

    Global issue takes precedent over any national or state level issues/politics. Mother Earth doesn't care who is lowering the carbon footprint. Chinese, Japanese, Korean, European, American, Republican, Democrats, etc. It doesn't matter but support all solutions that lower it get going. Shoot down / call out those have bad implementations.

    Someone said about platinum usage in FC stack. It is getting less which is why the price has gone down to 1/10th. I think the plan was to eliminate it altogether down to another 1/10th cost.

    Some of you guys' hate for FCV were probably from the big 3 mishandling of money wasted under Bush presidency. We got nothing back from that hydrogen highway investment.

    Where are big 3's with FCV now? They can get those ZEV credits, if they want them. Just get those FCVs out of the door.
     
    #54 usbseawolf2000, Jun 20, 2014
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2014
  15. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    12,918
    3,564
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    Agreed ghg are a global issue.

    I am focusing on California, because that is where the fuel cell advocates - California Fuel cell partnership, Toyota, Hyundai, and Honda - you know the companies pushing these things. That is where they are asking for US taxpayer money to be spent.

    Now if you have a really dirty power plant, I would hope you would replace it with a cleaner one. If you have an old dirty power plant in indiana, that is not charging any cars, why would you use its emissions for a car sold in california? The EPA and DOE are trying to fix the pollution from these bad powerplants, but that has nothing to do with selling fuel cells in the US.


    Why not use the average hydrogen emissions for fueling vehicles? The lobby is pushing an idealized generation hydrogen, certainly less than we produce it today, against yesterdays power generation.

    The questioin steven chu asked was how much lower will ghg be in the US in 20 years if the DOE does a big push for hydrogen. The answer is a negligable amount. In the next 2 decades it is highly doubtful that more than 10% of fcv will be fueled outside of california. Inside california they aren't likely to be much lower in ghg emissions than the car they are replacing. If someone in california chooses a fcv over a plug-in they will be producing more ghg.

    Can you tell me how that isn't misleading? FCV won't be substituted for porsches or plug-ins in indiana or montana. They will be substituted for small numbers of other cars.

    How about this compromise. Why don't you tell me the states that

    A) hydrogen (actual ghg, not idealized) is likely to be lower than plug-ins. Let's agree that those are better for fuel cells, and see how much the fuel cell lobby, toyota, hyundai, and honda try to sell there. I count 28 states that are better for plug-ins. Let me know how sales go in those other states, and how their grid improves before the first fuel cell sale.

    Let the koreans, Japanese, and germans fund their own development from their taxpayer money. I am against the hypocracy, and faslse and misleading statements. Sure there is other corruption in government but why give this a pass.

    The fuel cell advocates want foreign jobs not american jobs. Notice how when METI opened the coffers to toyota to build fuel cells, talk of moving prius production for north america, to north america stopped.

    I think its should be pointed out its not a level playing field. FCV are subsidiesed by tax payers much more than plug-ins. Its not anger, I've long since stopped being angry. Its hypocrisy.

    I don't understand. Do you think the US funding fuel cells in California really will stop global warming? That's crazy. We aren't going to stop the Japanese or Korean funding. I doubt they will produce anything, but us cutting off these huge subsidies won't add to global warming. Perhaps using the money in a better way might slow ghg, but even if we spent $100B on fcv, it would not greatly decrease the transportation ghg load. Infrastructure is just too expensive and slow to construct for fcv to make much of a dent in the near term. Why not stop commercialization funding in 2017, and wait for the manufacturers to get closer to a vehicle that might sell. I"m not for cutting of R&D, but comercializtion based on lies is stupid.

    The 1/10th future number is a bogus number. Toyota is saying the current drivetrain cost $50K. 10% would mean it only cost $5. Toyota said they use about 30g of platinum per car (90kw) versus 100g in early cars. That is only about $1500 in today's prices, but not responsable for much of the drop. There is probably anouther $1500 of paladium and other metals making raw materials only $5000, down from maybe $15,000. Drop in precious metals really might have only accounted for $10K out of the the $950,000 drop in price.

    Say they drop precial metals down to $1000. How do you pay for the hydrogen tanks, inverters, motors, batteries for only $4000. The real goal honda and toyota talk about is 3 million to 5 million yen, or $30K-$50K by 2020. If they hit 3 million yen it may be time to commercialize. If its 5 million yen, that is really expensive.


    Well we heard all these false promises from CARB and Schwartzenager in 2004. I don't see what is different this time. Honda and Toyota were advocating for feul cells back them as now. The numbers all seemed false back then.

    Last I checked fuel cell vehicles still need batteries. I would bet that a toyota fcv because of the way it is produced produces more ghg than a tesla S. If they are crushed in 3 years which is a strong possibility (they get all those credits with a 3 year lease then crushing) then the ghg is much much higher.

    GM is working with honda, ford with mercedes and nissan. Chrysler is out. GM and ford are waiting for some technological mericals. They have admitted that fuel cell hype of a decade ago was hype. If there are major breakthroughs they have said they will use them in plug-ins. In the mean time gm and ford are not bashing plug-in cars, and putting out misleading advertising. You may notice Lexus recently had to apologize for false claims against plug-ins and for fcv

    no one is selling fcv today. Hyundai is leasing them in califonia.
    I simply want to focus on where the fuel cell advocates say they will sell the cars. If they are going to sell them in timbuktu we can talk about those numbers.

    How is this it takes 1000 kg co2/kg hydrogen to produce hydrogen in timbucktu because it is shipped so far. It has 8000x more ghg than a hummer. Does that sound like a fair comparison? That is about as unbiased as the fuel cell lobby here. They are obviously misleading.


    I mean if you tell me they will sell fcv in texas we can use texas, but no one wants to sell them here. We do have a plug-in fuel cell bus, that is able to charge batteries from wind at night to lower ghg, but that doesn't fit the fuel cell lobbies slides. I mean it produces less ghg when gulp plugging into the austin grid.
     
    #55 austingreen, Jun 20, 2014
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2014
  16. Trollbait

    Trollbait It's a D&D thing

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    16,317
    7,631
    0
    Location:
    eastern Pennsylvania
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    FCEVs also have batteries along fuel cell stacks and carbon fiber polymer tanks(which have a limited life). If the manufacturing of a BEV produces a greater amount of carbon emissions than a FCEV, can you cite a source?
    What green car is not CARB compliant?

    I thought we were to think globally and act locally? There are regions in which a BEV and plug in produces less carbon emissions than a hybrid and even a FCEV. If a person living in those regions uses just some national or global average for the grid for their decision process, they'll likely end up in a car emitting more carbon.
    The ZEV program is a Californian one that is meant to help reduce all emissions from the state's vehicle fleet. BEVs and FCEVs both have zero tailpipe emissions. Why is there such a big difference in the amount of credits for each type of vehicle? Why were the regulations changed to exclude battery swapping as quick refueling after Tesla demonstrated their swapping system? Why are national averages for emissions being used for a state policy? Since CARB is regulating CO2, why give the car with higher carbon emissions within the state a larger credit? It isn't helping with the cars' price to the consumer.
    And we are.

    Which means nothing without knowing what the initial cost was.
    I liked the idea FCEVs in the beginning. I don't like high pressure or liquid hydrogen for the fuel because the infrastructure would have a steep cost for a country the size of the US. That cost coupled with the cost of the cars means their adoption rate will be too slow to have any impact on emissions.

    Metal hydride needs much lower pressures for hydrogen refueling, and disc swapping means you don't need as many hydrogen stations to be built. Swap out discs for local refueling, and put stations along major highways, at first. Methanol fuel cells would be even better. They both still need more work. In the mean time, we will likely see Al-air battery, range extended plug ins on the road before FCEVs outside California.
    They realized how costly the project was, and, if they are still researching them, have formed partnerships with another company(ex. GM and Honda).

    They are probably getting enough credits through their compliance BEVs already. Two of the three companies bringing out FCEVs don't, or won't have a BEV for that purpose. Toyota cancelled there partnership with Tesla, so no more Rav4 EVs, and Honda's Fit EV was a limited test lease without word of extension. Honda might also want to not be shown up by Toyota with having the Clarity out for years in a test program. Hyundai is hedging their bets with a Kia Soul EV. I'm not sure if the companies are considered joint or seperate for the ZEV, but if separate, I'm sure Hyundai with get a discount from Kia for any needed credits.

    MB, which had FCEV test lease, is going with a EV version of the same model with aid from Tesla. The question that you should be asking, is why don't others have FCEVs in California? As pointed out they have been working on them for years, GM actually has the most patents, and the US government spent billions on the research. So it isn't an issue of being behind.
     
    austingreen likes this.
  17. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    12,918
    3,564
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    Just a blast from the past from evnut (daryld i believe)
    http://www.evnut.com/docs/acp_fc_pollution.pdf

    Old data, its been my contention for a long time that low - hybrids - are better than zero, because 0 isn't so good. Here we have the old beutiful picture on page 16. Which Schwarzeneger saying
    . That was on electrolysis hydrogen in 2004.
    Perhaps that under $1 price was just a bit misleading, do you think? Tax payers just had to kick in $7.90/kg. I find the lexus advertising and the UCI slides just as misleading.
     
  18. 3PriusMike

    3PriusMike Prius owner since 2000, Tesla M3 2018

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    2,466
    1,826
    0
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    No, we didn't get nothing. Here is what we got:

    VTA finds hydrogen buses cost much more to run than diesel vehicles - San Jose Mercury News
    http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/40615.pdf

    Executive Summary: (note: ZEB = fuel cell bus)

    The most glaring figure: Zero-emission buses - or ZEBs - cost $51.66 to fuel, maintain and operate per mile compared with just $1.61 for a 40-foot conventional diesel coach. They break down much more frequently, and replacement parts are next to impossible to order, according to the report.

    Yes, this was 8+ years ago and things have changed. So, let's repeat the "test" or something similar to it BEFORE we jump in feet first. Doesn't that sound like a more scientific way to proceed?

    Mike
     
    Trollbait and austingreen like this.
  19. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    12,918
    3,564
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    I love quote at the bottom
    Buses make a great deal of sense to test fuel cells in. You don't need billions in refueling infrastructure (the egg or the chicken?). They show us that it's not a chicken or egg problem, its a technology and cost problem. Until you can get the costs to work on busses, it will never work on cars. Canada put up 20 fuel cell busses, which is the biggest fleet in the world (20 busses use a lot more hydrogen than the 44 honda fcv in southern cal + the 100 gm fcv.

    Whistler’s hydrogen fuel cell bus program in jeopardy
    http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60603.pdf

    We have learned a couple of things from the test.

    1) Fuel cell vehicles are not all that reliable. Most people knew that, but its good to have maintenance costs included. With dedicated mechanices (which you can have with a bus fleet) they were able to keep them on the road a high percentage of the time but only 69% availability versus a target of 85%.

    2) fuel cells efficiency is exaggerated. Originally these were supposed to be twice as efficient as diesel buses. They turned out to be 4.53 miles per diesel equivalent gallon. This compares to 4.28 miles per diesel gallon of diesel trucks doing the same routes.

    3) Renewable hydrogen is very expensive, especially when the renewables are far away. $10.55/kg not counting the $6M infrastructure built to fuel the buses.

    Fuel cell advocates correctly point out, that as they get more test vehicles on the road reliability can increase. Engineers can iron out reliability issues, even if you change out the fc every x number of miles.

    The big problem for even initial adopters to swallow are 2 and 3. If you are going to use the vehicle for large numbers of miles, renewable hydrogen is just too expensive. DOE is spending money for R&D to make it cheaper, but that will take some technological breakthrough or one of those fuel cell miracles. Even if they get some miracles it will be much more expensive to fuel a fcv with renewables than a plug-in.

    The whistler operation was big enough to fuel 200 cars a day, far larger than any of the hydrogen stations in the US. It definitely is large enough that putting a steam reformer (SMR) to produce the hydrogen. That would have knocked fuel costs down a great deal. Unfortunately one of the goals is to produce lower ghg, and given the efficiency, using natural gas will produce more ghg than the diesel busses these replaced.

    Austin only has one fuel cell bus, but will probably get anouther with what we have learned and with advances in plug in technology. It is part of UT's pickle research center, and uses a plug-in + fuel cell bus. The fuel cell can be much smaller and less expensive (cheaper maintenance) since the bus can run purely on plug-in power. The bus uses a fuel cell only 1/3 as powerful as the one in the toyota fcv. This also solves the ghg problem, by using enough renewables at the plug total ghg are lower than a diesel hybrid in spite of using natural gas as the feedstock for hydrogen. The research center can also experiment with its SMR, to try to make hydrogen production more cost effective. There are no plans to capture carbon at the reformer, as this would make the fuel cost even less competitive.

    If you build it the way fcv are today, customers will not come.

    Hydrogen vehicles are the holly grail of the energy dreamers. It is an impossible quest, that is based on faith alone, and will never happen the way the true believers believe. Those on the grail quest are likley to be abused by the priests that will simply want to suck the life out of real energy solutions.
     
    #59 austingreen, Jun 21, 2014
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2014
    3PriusMike and bwilson4web like this.
  20. Troy Heagy

    Troy Heagy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2013
    1,218
    4
    0
    Vehicle:
    2013 Prius
    Model:
    One
    Don't care. :D My only focus was to correct the non-fact "Tesla solar superchargers dump energy into the grid". They don't..... all the energy produced gets consumers by the cars that visit the charger.
     
Loading...