Featured FCEVs still not as hot as Tesla

But that is the whole point. If you have an existing solution that is just as "clean" why would you pay a LOT more for another solution? (excepting a few applications which might have some odd requirements?)

Mike

 

If BEVs were cheap, had long range, had not been recalled due to fire risk, could be charged quickly, did not degrade over time, and did not lose range in the winter, we wouldn't be having this conversation about hydrogen cars. As it stands, I see value in advancing both technologies and seeing where they land in 5 years. Hydrogen cars can advance the hydrogen infrastructure even though the technology will pivot to propelling larger vehicles like trucks, busses and ships.

 

Absolutely, and given we now have run the experiment, we know there has to be technical breakthroughs for hydrogen to be economically feasible. The US should work on that R&D but subsidizing commercialization when each milestone has failed is throwing more good money after bad. 101 hydrogen stations are now funded in California. That probably is enough to prove they work or don't. Around 50 are up and running, and 58 are close and will be running sometime next year. 71 are scheduled to be completed by end of 2023 but that number is unlikely as even in 2019 there were supposed to be 64 now, they keep missing their numbers.

Hydrogen fueling infrastructure in California has had hiccups - non-reliability in 2018, 2019, 2020. The latest is gulf coast hurricanes stopped some gulf coast hydrogen production. That's right the network realizes on Taking inexpensive hydrogen produced from natural gas for gulf coast refineries being liquified and trucked half way across the country. Why they didn't upgrade California refineries to supply this hydrogen has to do with the greenwashing politics (its not brown if its produced in Louisiana, but CEC couldn't really greenwash a lot more natural gas hydrogen production in California.

They are building hydrogen production which they are calling green near LA for 2023. Is it green? They are taking recyclable paper and plastic and turning its energy to hydrogen. China is no longer buying it so they would have put it in a landfill, so they are claiming it would turn to methane and liberating the CO2 is less of a greenhouse gas. OK if its cheap enough but its not really green but is getting called that. Its a high risk plant by a company that has never successfully built one. We already know how to make the stuff into electricity but cost to make it hydrogen may just be too high. It would stop the diesel and natural gas for the current system. Article I read said they are shooting for $15/kg of hydrogen delivered (you still need trucks but not as many as they are going shorter distances), and if the state kicks in $9/kg for being green then we can get down to the $6/kg they think they need. I think if they instead built windmills and got the cost of electrolyzers down, they could build many smaller hydrogen production facilities that needs fewer trucks and would actually be green and likely more cost effective. R&D is still needed for the smaller electrolyzers and california needs more wind to be cost effective.

BEV busses have already proven to be more reliable and less expensive than fuel cell busses. PG&E is buying a big battery (182.5 MW for 4 hours, 730 MWh total capacity) from tesla (really 256 megabatteries) to create a BESS (battery electric storage system). Grid storage and reliability was supposed to be one of the big hydrogen abelites that batteries were too expensive to do but battery prices have gone down so much that batteries are being deployed.

 

Hundreds of thousands of traditional cars have been recalled due to fire risk over the years, and many were because of faulty switches. No car or fuel type will be immune to this risk.
...did not degrade over time, and did not lose range in the winter...[/quote]Fuel cells degrade over time too, and it has taken a lot of R&D to simply not have them freeze up in winter temperatures.
All cars lose efficiency in the cold. The issue for BEVs are this time is refueling times and infrastructure to deal with it. Until then, there is PHEVs. Perhaps a fuel cell will replace the ICE as a range extender.

There is more than these two options. There green fuels that can be made nearly as easily as green hydrogen, perhaps easier. Ammonia, methanol, and methane all have potential, and the 'meths' have actually shown it. They all have distribution infrastructure to varying degree already in place. We will need green sources of them for other purposes in a fossil free world, so development is already under way.

The drawback is simply that cars and public refueling isn't available. CNG buses and local trucks are already in use in some places. Methanol flex fuel cars were made in the past. Ammonia hasn't actually been used as a fuel at scale, but it has storage advantages over CNG. It and methanol appear to be the top contenders for fueling ships.

If we are willing to pay the cost, we can also make green gasoline and diesel.

Just want to add that it hasn't been commercialization milestones that have been missed, also some on the R&D side. Which is more expected, but commercial FCEVs being sold now may not meet the fuel cell durability target for acceptable commercialization.

 

And burn it? That solution could be carbon neutral but it would still emit NOx, CO, and particulate matter. And nobody is stopping anyone from pursuing this solution. There are already billions of vehicles that can use this fuel if someone could develop it cheaply.

 

Porsche is starting a plant for gasoline in Chile.

 

Look at cost to buy AND to refuel and tell me how the current fuel cell cars compare for 100-150K miles

We have 300 and 400 mile range BEV today. With known battery improvements we'll easily get to 500 and 600 before anyone can build enough hydrogen stations to get you across one state. (See Tesla battery day and all the other developments coming in the next couple of years)

Already noted that all car types have recalls. BEV fires are less per mile driven

We have more 250KW and 350KW chargers than hydrogen stations by more than 10x

Million mile batteries are on their way. Even if they only last 1/4 of that it is far better than the life of a high pressure hydrogen tank

Getting to 500 and 600 mile ranges solved this.
BTW, the percentage loss is FAKE news. If a 200 mile range car loses (for example) 40% in freezing weather when you increase the battery range to 400 miles (for example) you don't still lose 40% because the portion of the "loss" required to heat the cabin doesn't double.

I have no problem with continuing to advance hydrogen fuel cells. But it would be best to do it with fleet vehicles where the refueling locations are strategically placed where they will get high use and not placed all over the state(s) where many will be ghost towns for the convenience of saying we have a hydrogen highway to "some" where.

Mike

 

And insurance and cost of repair. Yes, EVs narrow the gap but you cannot honestly tell someone looking at purchasing a Corolla hybrid for $25k that he should purchase an EV instead to save money. Yes, the EV is probably quicker off the line but it's a moot point if it is outside of people's budgets.

Yes. None for under ~$50k.

This is a different argument. You cannot argue for fewer hydrogen stations and complain that there are not as many at the same time. The fastest charger would still take significantly longer to go from 10% to 100% than filling up a hydrogen tank.

 

With all the various incentives, they could probably buy or lease a BEV for near that of a Corolla hybrid. they can get a Prius Prime for less with them.

That is not what he is saying. The costs of hydrogen stations and keeping them supplied is a huge hurdle. Fewer stations used by fleets not only means lower costs from less stations, but also better utilization, which means more use per dollar spent on stations. The number of super fast chargers was just an example of how those stations costs hamper deployment for personal car use.

Fast charging isn't done to 100%. Going to that last 20% adds a lot to the charge time. Fast filling with hydrogen isn't as guaranteed as filling with a liquid fuel. Variables can push that fill time up near fast charging to 80%. Getting that fast fill also is inefficient and costly; most of the dispenser price for hydrogen is for getting it to the station, and into the car.

 

You only charge enough to reach the next, fast DC charger. With 120-180 miles between SuperChargers. This typically takes enough time for bathroom, snack, and stretching, 15-30 min.

Bob Wilson

 

Since the title of this thread is about FCEV I was comparing a BEV plus fuel to a FCEV plus fuel (ignoring the short term free Supercharging offers, short term free hydrogen and short term purchase rebates).

Mike

 

Not quite. The Model 3 Long Range Dual Motor AWD is 353mi EPA range and $46,990 (before state, utility, and other incentives).

 

Yes, but you're saying that since BEVs are ahead of FCEVs right now, we should just declare BEVs the winner and move on. I'm saying, there's no need to ask anybody to pack up their bags yet. Let both technologies advance.

 

Oh cool. I stand corrected.

 

Nope. I'm saying that hydrogen is fine for companies to work on, Fine to work on an economical way to generate the hydrogen from renewable energy. And the best way for government policy to promote this is with fewer hydrogen refueling stations but for fleet vehicles where the stations will be highly utilized. BEVs have "crossed the chasm" so-to-speak and anyone can buy one and charge at home or work and on interstates. Can't do that with FCEVs. Why have tax payers pay for a second choice that will likely cost buyers more and cost more for infrastructure until costs are lower or benefits much better

Mike

 

but you can't ignore that a continually larger & larger contingent of plug-in owners are going solar ... getting their juice for free, once the panels are amortized (then, amortized for life)
Call me when i can build a (safe / inexpensive to operate / carbon free) hydrogen electrolyzer
on my roof.

EV's are more than 1% of new car purchased in many countrys. Thus, considering the 500 'other fires' that actually makes EV rates of fires much safer than gas burners. That's got to gaul the OP, thinking he was spreading more FUD about EV's when in fact he accidentally pointed out their greater safety.

.

 

The same people who pay far more in subsidies to the oil industry.

 

It could be argued that OPEC paid for them.
Since BEVs are a serious long term competitor to oil and people are buying them (partially thanks to subsidies) it has helped cause turmoil in the oil markets (not as big as COVID) and lowered the cost of oil products for all consumers.

Mike