Competing technologies to BEV

[mrdoubleb]

Having no pipe emissions on cars is an improvement in my world. However, I consider hydrogen cars to be "bombs on wheels", and that single factor for me is a deal breaker that overshadows any other considerations. I have seen hydrogen explode and will never forget that.
As a driver, I would much rather drive "computer on a skateboard" than "bomb on wheels". I also think that the differences between the two concepts are sufficiently glaring to sway all drivers towards the non FCV electric cars, despite political and other games.

^This.
Forget environmentalism, forget price of the vehicle and fuel costs.

I absolutely mean no harm to anyone and am not rooting for this, but remember how no one thought the Model S can get into, khm, smoky problems after those stellar crash tests and the thick, strong aluminum casing of the battery? Then came a piece of metal debris on the road. The fuel tanks of FCVs have been tested and tried, but when you'll have 10k of them on the road, sooner or later an unforeseen accident will happen, and God knows how much damage a pressurized hydrogen tank can do.

The only pile of money higher than what Toyota spends on FCV development will be the pile they spend on marketing, damage control after that - with no result.

 

[Julian Cox]

This is the difference between caring about total emissions and caring about air quality.

CARB cares about air quality which means they care most about improving the poor air quality in urban areas like LA. Given CARB's mission, they're ok with moving emissions somewhere else, maybe even increasing total emissions if it improves air quality in horrible urban areas and doesn't hurt the air quality too much where it's good.

Which is why I think it makes sense for CARB to back FCVs to a limited extent.

We can see that Tesla is on the path to mass adoption of EVs. But it's not there yet and if Tesla stumbles, mass adoption of EVs could still be a decade away (or more).

Given that, it makes sense for CARB to add a second string to the bow and back FCV's too.

rcc, it might not create smog but $2 million a pop H2 filling stations are definitely local SMR stations with local emissions.

CARB remit is bent and artificially delineates between vehicle emissions and emissions in total. The joke of it is that Air Products Inc. Suppliers of hydrogen and filling stations to California are boasting about making most of their H2 from fossil fuels in California.


A message from Air Products:

"Just as most power produced today comes from fossil fuels like coal and natural gas, so does most hydrogen. There are a few solar, wind and hydroelectric projects producing hydrogen, but this hydrogen is generally committed and volumes are limited. Several biomass projects are planned. More renewable hydrogen will become available as customers demand renewable fuel and the cost of renewable power becomes more competitive"

That is the crux of it. Renewable electricity can be highly competitive per vehicle mile to power an EV while remaining deeply uncompetitive to make hydrogen to power an FCV.

Which is great - if you happen to be in the business of producing petrochemicals instead of renewable electricity. What is astonishing is the invitation bought and paid for by CARB to displace EVs with FCVs and Solar with Hydrogen without requiring that hydrogen for private transport to be CO2 sequestered - that is just to set up a $3.5 per Kg competitive advantage for pollution - once set, there is no way out of that trap, what are they going to do, wait until they have 100s thousands of FCVs on the road and then up the price of Hydrogen by $3.50 per Kg (or be forced to pay for CO2 sequestration out of the state budget in perpetuity for private cars?????).

 

[yobigd20]

Tesla doesn't have any competition. Period. End of story. All other EVs that exist today and/or announced/planned for the future are several years (if not more) behind in technology and innovation and design. Tesla is in a class of its own with absolutely no competitors in sight.

 

[rcc]

Julian,

If you've read my posts, you should understand that I don't believe hydrogen vehicles will reach large-scale adoption. I think the cost of the supporting infrastructure is so high that no one can build a business model/case that will justify the investment. If I'm wrong, I'd love to know.

But even with that, I have a hard time faulting CARB for trying to reduce tailpipe emissions by turning some future ICE purchases into FCV purchases if the FCV + local refueling emissions are lower than the equivalent ICE + gas station refueling emissions.

 

[kenliles]

some perspective against a possible ModS AWD -
jeezzz
2014 Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG Electric Drive Photos and Info Car and Driver

 

[Robert.Boston]

some perspective against a possible ModS AWD -
jeezzz
2014 Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG Electric Drive Photos and Info Car and Driver

I'm puzzled by this -- what implications do you see from AMG's €416,500 super-car design for Tesla? It appears to my eye that AMG has taken an extraordinarily costly approach with the transmission, apparently so that all the torque from all the motors can go anywhere. This sort of complexity would be silly in a production car, so it's good that Tesla isn't going that route.

If anything, my take-away from this article is that MB/AMG realizes that only electric power trains can deliver the next level of performance. That's a good thing for gearheads to start chewing on.

 

[VolkerP]

I don't believe hydrogen vehicles will reach large-scale adoption. I think the cost of the supporting infrastructure is so high that no one can build a business model/case that will justify the investment.

Julian is not debating a possible business model for FCVs. He is sounding the alarm bell that lobbyists try to siphon billions of CA taxpayer money into a FCV infrastructure and free hydrogen, a structure that would not live for 10 seconds in a free market. And it's all to harm Tesla where it hurts.

 

[kenliles]

I'm puzzled by this -- what implications do you see from AMG's €416,500 super-car design for Tesla? It appears to my eye that AMG has taken an extraordinarily costly approach with the transmission, apparently so that all the torque from all the motors can go anywhere. This sort of complexity would be silly in a production car, so it's good that Tesla isn't going that route.

If anything, my take-away from this article is that MB/AMG realizes that only electric power trains can deliver the next level of performance. That's a good thing for gearheads to start chewing on.

oh exactly- I was being completely facetious. Found it interesting they would do something like this as representative of current best efforts in any category. It looks to me like less than the performance of a (future)ModS-AWD at half the range and 4 times the price. If Tesla ever gets around to doing their actual SuperCar.... agree, it's good for the gearheads food for thought.

 

[ggr]

Julian is not debating a possible business model for FCVs. He is sounding the alarm bell that lobbyists try to siphon billions of CA taxpayer money into a FCV infrastructure and free hydrogen, a structure that would not live for 10 seconds in a free market. And it's all to harm Tesla where it hurts.

Yes. A previous example of this kind of tactic is the fact that Los Angeles is only now rebuilding its public transport infrastructure, after Big Oil convinced everyone that cars were the way to go.

 

[Robert.Boston]

Julian is not debating a possible business model for FCVs. He is sounding the alarm bell that lobbyists try to siphon billions of CA taxpayer money into a FCV infrastructure and free hydrogen, a structure that would not live for 10 seconds in a free market. And it's all to harm Tesla where it hurts.

I agree with the theory that they are trying to siphon lots of money into hydrogen, but I disagree about the motive. The pro-FCV guys have been trying to siphon money out of government coffers for far longer than Tesla has been a competitive threat. The real reason, I believe, is far simpler: it's to siphon money out of government coffers into their pockets, a time-honored tradition in the industrial-military complex.

 

[Julian Cox]

I agree with the theory that they are trying to siphon lots of money into hydrogen, but I disagree about the motive. The pro-FCV guys have been trying to siphon money out of government coffers for far longer than Tesla has been a competitive threat. The real reason, I believe, is far simpler: it's to siphon money out of government coffers into their pockets, a time-honored tradition in the industrial-military complex.

There is a distinct correlation between the rise of EVs and the efforts to counter with FCVs.

In the late '90s it was 100% BS, nowhere near to having a viable product, just pure desperation to keep GM locked in symbiosis with big oil.

In 2014 and at all times pre 2017 there is and will be a monumental push to get FCVs in the face of politicians, media and consumers as the 'real' environmental future of society. This is an assault on media cut through, Gen III reservations, investor confidence and political support for EVs and to confuse scientists and green-leaning NGOs. Two things currently bother me the most, NGOs (Union of Concerned Scientists for example) infiltration with positive advocacy for hydrogen and California Energy Commission / CARB, even the City of London UK actively treating Hydrogen as the real deal and a desirable goal to aspire to on environmental grounds. Trying to hoodwink society is one thing, evidence of succeeding is altogether more troubling. There is also the bait and switch - free "green" hydrogen that is of course anything but green luring consumers in the Gen III price bracket into effectively a critical mass of "green" opposition to EVs before slamming them with the cost of CO2 sequestration - that's really bad.

The other thing is something very different to late 1990s. There is clear and understandable support in the US to reduce foreign oil dependency, coupled with dwindling oil reserves that are cheap to exploit, and a complete boom in hydraulic fracturing for ultra-cheap Natural Gas. The practice is horrific from an environmental standpoint, but economically getting NG onto the roads instead of gasoline is a very attractive option. The push for FCVs potentially kills two birds with one stone. It can substantially kill the threat from renewable energy, relegating it to a corner case contender for a bit part in a chemical economy (converting some night time wind energy etc) and it can if marketed duplicitously lure in enough eco-conscious consumers that when one day the question comes up about the cost of sequestering the CO2 during production of hydrogen, the green lobby falls on its sword with one voice because they are the ones being asked to pay the $3.50 per gallon equivalent extra for green hydrogen vs dirty. Fuel Cells also represent a development pathway that works around the low flame propagation speed of NG that results in extremely poor performance and economy of CNG vehicles, so that depending on the economics of actually producing fuel cells they are potentially a better way to get fracked natural gas to market than CNG via internal combustion.

All in all this is not something to ignore. I am compiling a large document as previously mentioned with the aim of getting some bench marks into the discussion. For example a standard figure for CO2 per Kg of Hydrogen and mpg-pollution equivalence figures need to be in the repertoire of every internet commentator and news anchor when dealing with the subject of FCVs. It needs to be common knowledge that Hydrogen fuel cells are what they are and not a contender for an environmentally pleasant outcome, and the overriding question for FCVs needs to be 'who is going to bear the cost of cleaning up hydrogen production following the introduction of cheap and dirty hydrogen from natural gas?'.

 

[Auzie]

Comparison of BMWi8 and Tesla Model S in The Motley Fool article.

Summary: "On a purely electric-car versus electric-car basis, the Model S toys with the i8 the way a cat toys with a captured mouse before its inevitable death."

 

[Auzie]

Titanic speeding up

Toyota unveils ambitious plans for hydrogen fuel vehicles.
Toyota expects fuel cells to replace batteries.
This year, Toyota entered into an agreement with BMW in order to conduct extensive research on hydrogen fuel cell technology.

Toyota abandons Tesla's ev tech, will push hydrogen fuel cell vehicles instead.

Toyota bets on the success of hydrogen fuel cells

Toyota captains are sailing their Titanic into fuel cell future.
Interesting demographics on the Toyota board.

Akio Toyoda	68 Relationships	President and Director	--	57
Mitsuhisa Kato	34 Relationships	Executive Vice President and Director	--	60
Seiichi Sudo	34 Relationships	Executive Vice President and Director	--	62
Satoshi Ozawa	34 Relationships	Executive Vice President and Director	--	64
Masamoto Maekawa	34 Relationships	Executive Vice President and Director	--	64
Kiyotaka Ise	62 Relationships	Senior Managing Officer and Director	--	58
Shigeki Terashi	34 Relationships	Senior Managing Officer and Director	--	62
Yasumori Ihara	52 Relationships	Chief Officer of The Purchasing Group, Executive Vice President and Director	--	62
Nobuyori Kodaira	50 Relationships	Executive Vice President and Director	--	64
Koei Saga	49 Relationships	Senior Managing Officer and Director	--	62
Tokuo Fukuichi	34 Relationships	Senior Managing Officer, Head of The Lexus Division and Director	--	--
Yoshimi Inaba	35 Relationships	Executive Advisor and Executive Chairman of Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.	--	67

 

[kenliles]

Toyota unveils ambitious plans for hydrogen fuel vehicles.
Toyota expects fuel cells to replace batteries.
This year, Toyota entered into an agreement with BMW in order to conduct extensive research on hydrogen fuel cell technology.

Toyota abandons Tesla's ev tech, will push hydrogen fuel cell vehicles instead.

Toyota bets on the success of hydrogen fuel cells

Toyota captains are sailing their Titanic into fuel cell future.

This is a huge mistake.
I worked on the space shuttle fuel cell technology.
This is a huge mistake.

 

[pz1975]

I'm finding it hard to reconcile all the negatives I have been reading about fuel cell technology and the fact that several huge very successful companies are sinking millions/billions into it as a potential future game-breaker. Something is missing. I have a chemistry background and read through the in-depth analysis presented on this site and believe its validity. But then why don't Toyota and other major car companies see this too? I can't believe they are simply being duped by Big Oil. I feel like their own future bottom lines are too important to risk being swayed without doing their own extremely thorough analysis. What are we/they missing here?

 

[gg_got_a_tesla]

What are we/they missing here?

They believe that big batteries with "enough range" will never be cheap enough.

 

[Johan]

They believe that big batteries with "enough range" will never be cheap enough.

But still it is a very valid question to ask WHY DO THEY BELIEVE THIS? They really should be able to read current technology are where we are headed in the next few years.

 

[Auzie]

This is a huge mistake.
I worked on the space shuttle fuel cell technology.
This is a huge mistake.

Maybe it is a matter of perspective. Such course may be a mistake from our point of view, but I am sure that the Toyota Board of Directors have very different point of view and their decision serves their point of view quite well.

 

[renim]

But still it is a very valid question to ask WHY DO THEY BELIEVE THIS? They really should be able to read current technology are where we are headed in the next few years.

H2 is cheap and fungible
In parts of Asia (like HK), H2 is cheaper than Ch4, that is to say seaborne coal is cheaper than seaborne natural gas.
No one at Toyota is comparing renewerable energy for the source automotive power, because they say it is silly, and that chemical derived H2 is far cheaper than electricity derived H2.

Historically H2 was never a contender for automotive use, pre 1960s or after the emergence of Li ion mobile computing. but those who developed their technical intuition around the time of the space race has a predispoition for H2 fuel cells.

If NiMH as a battery technology is the proxy for batteries, then yes, H2 fuel cells seem better long term.
but if
Li Ion as a battery technology is the proxy for batteries, then no, H2 fuel cells will never be competitive, (except perhaps for forklift duty)

both from a cost and a volume density, today's Li ion is superior to tomorrow's 700bar H2 fuel cells...

- - - Updated - - -

i did a quick seeking alpha instablog on H2 vs battery http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/3...-li-ion-beats-hydrogen-fuel-cell-for-vehicles

I thought i was quite lenient for H2 fuel cells, but even then, any power requirement over 80kw, fuel cells becomes cost prohibative compared to Li ion.
(and that was excluding infrastructure burden for H2).

 

[ggr]

H2 is cheap and fungible
In parts of Asia (like HK), H2 is cheaper than Ch4, that is to say seaborne coal is cheaper than seaborne natural gas.
No one at Toyota is comparing renewerable energy for the source automotive power, because they say it is silly, and that chemical derived H2 is far cheaper than electricity derived H2.

Historically H2 was never a contender for automotive use, pre 1960s or after the emergence of Li ion mobile computing. but those who developed their technical intuition around the time of the space race has a predispoition for H2 fuel cells.

If NiMH as a battery technology is the proxy for batteries, then yes, H2 fuel cells seem better long term.
but if
Li Ion as a battery technology is the proxy for batteries, then no, H2 fuel cells will never be competitive, (except perhaps for forklift duty)

both from a cost and a volume density, today's Li ion is superior to tomorrow's 700bar H2 fuel cells...

- - - Updated - - -

i did a quick seeking alpha instablog on H2 vs battery http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/3...-li-ion-beats-hydrogen-fuel-cell-for-vehicles

I thought i was quite lenient for H2 fuel cells, but even then, any power requirement over 80kw, fuel cells becomes cost prohibative compared to Li ion.
(and that was excluding infrastructure burden for H2).

H2 is not cheaper than methane either per unit of energy or unit of pollution. It can't be, because the only commercially viable way to make it is to make it from methane! It's cheaper by kilogram, because it's lightweight, that's all.