Competing technologies to BEV

[kenliles]

@Julian without quoting your post above
I think EM has come to that basic conclusion as well and sees the transformation happening fastest through competitive pressures (some of his comments reflect that position). Also think that's why he's going full bore on GF (including dual location strategy). Wants to get to the obvious solution faster than FUD can bend the course
Thank again for all your excellent analysis work

 

[Julian Cox]

CARB is a joke. Alan Lloyd as head of CARB, proponent of Fuel Cell Partnership, is a travesty. Obviously bought and paid for by Big Oil and Auto.

It makes me sick, too.

Indeed.

Get this: Toyota Joins California Hydrogen Push in Station Funding - Bloomberg

Oh - and this!!! California Energy Commission (check the recent news items).


Pretty vital to get on to CARB (injunction?) about spending taxpayer's money on distributed SMR stations in California.

SMR stations are fed with Natural Gas and release local pollution as defined by the EPA into the air in California. This is CARB spending 100s $Millions defeating its own mandate.

If Toyota/GM/Big Oil want's SMR stations, let them pay for it. Emission reduction resources need to go to emission reductions, not emissions!

$200 Million of Utility Scale Solar would probably be a much better idea - actually help and not severely hinder.


Give me a while to collect all this FCV stuff together in a coherent document for use as ammo and let's go get these guys.


The bad guys are not the only ones that can think like a tank.

 

[roblab]

Indeed.

Get this: Toyota Joins California Hydrogen Push in Station Funding - Bloomberg

Yeah, I read what Toyota says: Blatant lies. What the Frunk?

“We believe that fuel cell -- due to its convenience to the customer, no range anxiety, no temperature issue -- will really become the standard of the future,” he said.

No range anxiety? So you are looking for a Hydrogen station. Think they will be common? Try finding diesel stations today. And at $2M a pop, riiigght. But I see where they are trying to work into "temperature issues", and they think fuel cells will be for "larger" vehicles: Like what? Model X?

I fear for the average person. No ability to see these lies, only believe the advertising, like "clean" diesel. Who questions that!

 

[Julian Cox]

@Julian without quoting your post above
I think EM has come to that basic conclusion as well and sees the transformation happening fastest through competitive pressures (some of his comments reflect that position). Also think that's why he's going full bore on GF (including dual location strategy). Wants to get to the obvious solution faster than FUD can bend the course
Thank again for all your excellent analysis work

Much appreciated.

EM has noted that Big Auto is dragging its feet and that regulation and competitive pressure is the likely answer.

EM has noted that regulation is unlikely to do the trick as lobbying budgets of the theoretically regulated unduly influence policy. What we see on the ground, however, is not just regulation failing to encourage Big Auto to pursue EVs, but actually to assist in funding polluting competition to EVs in the name of green energy and transportation policy.

In public at least EM has concluded that competitive pressure will drive Big Auto to produce competing EVs. Short to medium term that is not the outcome EM has obtained from competitive pressure, not even close.

Instead Big Auto is responding (with the backing of Big Oil) with a strategy aimed at attacking EVs in general and Tesla in particular.

This renders the Tesla mission statement obsolete: "Our core mission of catalysing the electric vehicle industry" is a mission that is no longer available, at least without a long period of holy war with Big Auto & Big Oil.

The new Tesla Mission Statement that is now forced upon Tesla whether it likes it or not is "To transform the vehicle industry with electric vehicles" (or to be swept aside by an overwhelming force of protectionist corruption).


I personally find the larger battle to have been inevitable in the coming and in fact much more entertaining and interesting than all this talk of catalysing anyway.

In chemistry catalysts are helpful in reducing the activation energy for desirable reaction pathways that would probably occur given enough time, that may well be true on a very long time horizon for EVs but there is no catalysing a reaction that does not want to occur. On a short time horizon you can't catalyse ICE Auto Makers to give up their core business, that is not the kind of help they are looking for.

I somewhat expect that Mr Musk is equally aware of it. An overwhelmingly superior product ring fenced with patents and consolidating multi-year unassailable cost advantages in Gigafactories is not inclusive behaviour, it is leadership behaviour. Still does not hurt to talk a good talk when it comes to inclusiveness though.

 

[rcc]

CARB is a joke. Alan Lloyd as head of CARB, proponent of Fuel Cell Partnership, is a travesty. Obviously bought and paid for by Big Oil and Auto.

It makes me sick, too.

I think we need to cut CARB some slack. As long as our air sucks, it's CARB's job to push hard to make things better. Sometimes what they try won't work. That's ok as long as they push a bunch of different solutions instead of trying to pick one winner. If they back a bunch of different solutions, one of them will pay off big and some others won't be a total write-off. Considering their mission and what they're up against, that's a win.

 

[rcc]

Can someone convince me of the business plan for hydrogen vehicles?

I have a hard time believing that hydrogen powered vehicles will sell in large quantities because I think the cost of adequate refueling and fuel transport infrastructure is so high that no one will fund it. Not even the federal and state governments. They can afford to build a little bit but nowhere close to enough.

So even if Big Auto companies can engineer a hydrogen powered vehicle that will make a profit, without the supporting infrastructure, they won't sell enough of them to be a major threat to anything.

After all, your average ICE has a range of ~400 miles on a full tank and the latest Honda hydrogen car has a range of 300-400 miles. Look at how many gas stations we seem to need to make "ICE range anxiety" go away. Imagine if those gas stations weren't there.

So a hydrogen fueling station is supposed to cost 1-2 million to build. There's about 175K gas stations in the US. Let's say we only need 50K hydrogen stations because we have too many gas stations anyway. That's a $50-100 billion dollar bet on one technology. I don't see the US governments making that kind of bet. Way too expensive.

Ok, scenario two. If someone invents a home refueling solution that cost ~$500 USD and then builds out a refueling network at the same density as the full supercharger network, that would probably work. But a fueling station seems to be 10-20x more expensive than a Supercharger and probably 2-4x the cost of a battery swap station ... and slower too. I could see the governments building a handful of these. But the rest would have to paid for by private industry. Tesla funds the Superchargers by applying some money from each car sale. Hydrogen stations are too expensive for that to work. That means other companies have to step in. They're not going to do it unless they make money off the stations. That's not likely to happen unless the cars sell like hotcakes so there's lots of them on the road.

The Model S sells like hotcakes. Set up a store and the car practically sells itself. People buy it in spite of the technology and infrastructure risks because it's that good a car and because they believe that Tesla will build out enough Superchargers on its own.

Big Auto isn't going to make a car like that. Their hydrogen car is going to be like their existing gasoline cars only quieter, with a non-proven drivetrain that depends on a very spotty refueling infrastructure that Big Auto can't afford to expand. This is not a recipe for a car that will sell like hotcakes. This seems more like a chicken-and-egg problem with very expensive eggs.

So the long-term business plan seems dicey to me. Lots of hype but I don't see how this can be real threat to the Model E.

What am I missing?

 

[Julian Cox]

@Kenlilies

Thinking further on your point above. EM is the definitive grand master of timing. Never seen or even heard of his equal. I actually think the auto market was won in 2008 with the EM decision to bail out Tesla with is last dime while GM & Chrysler execs lost the will (and their businesses). Ever since then ICE has been on borrowed time. Across 2015~2017 I would be comfortable to state that Musk will unveil things that will make a fool out the efforts to take on Tesla, FCVs included, Tesla's metal air rechargeable range extender for example is so killer that I think few outside of Tesla have any clue. 500 + mile $35~$45K GIII seems like silly talk but not according to the patent filings.

Nevertheless right now there is a live example with SpaceX demonstrating technology capable of flying and landing in-house designed rockets that makes a fool out of Lockheed Martin that cannot even design a rocket engine. That has not prevented ULA stitching SpaceX up in back room deals requiring Musk to handle an injustice. On this occasion handle it he will and probably win the day. US military space launch is 'only' a $70 bn item with questionable real world relevance to the daily lives of most of the people on Earth (even if there are very fine answers to the question). Compared with Big oil and Big Auto ULA it is a trivial opponent and it is ridiculous for the US not to save a ton of cash on space launch if it has the chance.

@rcc

CARB has a mission that is very supportable. However whether it is incompetence or corruption, right now it is funding competition to positive environmental change. This is a case of fooled them once, shame on Big Auto, fooled them twice, shame on CARB.

Funding false competition to EVs would seem to be wrong. The most vocal and active supporter of lobbing CARB to fund pollution is Toyota. Coincidentally this is a company with about 2 million Prius vehicles on he road - an important source of business that is on the verge of being wiped out by the Tesla Gen III. 25% of Tesla Model S sales are conquests of Toyota products of which 15% is Prius. I don't blame Toyota for being frightened, but I cannot give credence to CARB for being unable to identify a frightened bully. Toyota has had a great run of decimating US auto industry with vehicles that gained a reputation for reliability and low running costs vs Ford & GM products. Now for the fist time US industry is taking the fight to Toyota - and now Toyota USA has a sense of entitlement and wants government assistance in seeing off its American rival. Got to be kidding right?

The talk around the camp fire in big auto basically comes down to how to stop Tesla disrupting their businesses. Toyota currently heads the list. FCVs are the line of attack as a lobbying and PR tool. It does not matter much that the technology essentially worthless - so long as the idea of it serves as a spanner in the works of EVs. Big Oil thinks it might be a way to get Natural Gas on the roads before gasoline dries up and either way a solar and EV revolution is unpalatable to both of their interests.

This is not a technical issue, Tesla wins there, in my opinion this is a lobbying/marketing issue best dealt with in advance of Musk having to face an injustice on a scale that the ULA can only dream of.

 

[Auzie]

Toyota developed new type of internal combustion engine that can generate electricity.

The engine can convert gasoline and other fuels into electricity. Such technology could lead to more efficient powertrains for hybrids. The compression ratio of the generator can be adjusted to accommodate any combustible fuel, including hydrogen.

Toyota promises to launch the hydrogen powered car next year.

Toyota engineers seem to be quite capable in developing new technologies. The direction that their efforts are taking seem incredulous.

 

[Cwin]

Huh. Crankless linear generator. I'm actually suprised someone hasn't tried this before.

 

[Julian Cox]

Toyota developed new type of internal combustion engine that can generate electricity.

View attachment 48632

The engine can convert gasoline and other fuels into electricity. Such technology could lead to more efficient powertrains for hybrids. The compression ratio of the generator can be adjusted to accommodate any combustible fuel, including hydrogen.

Toyota promises to launch the hydrogen powered car next year.

Toyota engineers seem to be quite capable in developing new technologies. The direction that their efforts are taking seem incredulous.

The desperation to cling to a chemical powered economy by any means possible is what is incredulous - especially as efforts are intensifying when we are no more than 3 years out from solar cost parity for energy generation.

As the investigation continues it is becoming increasingly obvious that fundamental purpose of FCVs is to put renewables behind the conversion-loss barrier to create chemical energy instead of fossil fuels behind the conversion-loss barrier to create electricity.

One more thing, bringing Hydrogen to market without mandatory sequestration of CO2 as a cost competitor to solar and marked as "green" is just flat wrong.

11 Million tones of hydrogen currently produced in the USA. 95% from SMR, discounting the other 5% as zero emission which it probably isn't = 129.58 Million tones of CO2 from hydrogen production, disproportionately in California I might add.

 

[hummingbird]

@Julian

Can you critique these two statements and articles by Kevin Bullis? Kevin Bullis seems a credible writer.

"A careful look at the emissions of competing technologies such as electric vehicle and conventional cars shows that fuel-cell cars have significant environmental benefits, even when the hydrogen is made from natural gas. In May, the U.S. Department of Energy released its most recent analysis ..."

Why Toyota and GM Are Pushing Fuel-Cell Cars to Market | MIT Technology Review

And here:

"While producing hydrogen from natural gas releases carbon dioxide, the emissions would still be about half as much as those from gasoline-powered cars today."

How Toyota Has Lowered the Cost of the Hydrogen Fuel Cell | MIT Technology Review



p.s. Note Kevin Bullis is the writer who interviewed JB Straubel (at lease two times now) that told us for certain the battery pack of the typical Model S sold is less than 25% of the car ( Lower-Priced Teslas in CTO’s Sights | MIT Technology Review )

 

[green1]

FCVs are irrelevant in the long run, once people find out they can fuel an electric car at home they'll never go back to wanting to stop somewhere to fuel. Hydrogen can only compete because the big manufacturers aren't making useful electric cars. Once good electrics are made available and people see the lower maintenance and lack of gas station stops the public will refuse to buy anything else.

 

[FluxCap]

FCVs are irrelevant in the long run, once people find out they can fuel an electric car at home they'll never go back to wanting to stop somewhere to fuel. Hydrogen can only compete because the big manufacturers aren't making useful electric cars. Once good electrics are made available and people see the lower maintenance and lack of gas station stops the public will refuse to buy anything else.

This.

 

[Julian Cox]

@Julian

Can you critique these two statements and articles by Kevin Bullis? Kevin Bullis seems a credible writer.

"A careful look at the emissions of competing technologies such as electric vehicle and conventional cars shows that fuel-cell cars have significant environmental benefits, even when the hydrogen is made from natural gas. In May, the U.S. Department of Energy released its most recent analysis ..."

Why Toyota and GM Are Pushing Fuel-Cell Cars to Market | MIT Technology Review

And here:

"While producing hydrogen from natural gas releases carbon dioxide, the emissions would still be about half as much as those from gasoline-powered cars today."

How Toyota Has Lowered the Cost of the Hydrogen Fuel Cell | MIT Technology Review



p.s. Note Kevin Bullis is the writer who interviewed JB Straubel (at lease two times now) that told us for certain the battery pack of the typical Model S sold is less than 25% of the car ( Lower-Priced Teslas in CTO’s Sights | MIT Technology Review )

I think the most succinct answer to this kind of thing is as follows:

Hydrogen is produced from natural gas, a fossil fuel, in a process that releases large amounts of carbon dioxide. Hydrogen can also be made using solar and wind power, but that process is inefficient and expensive.

Comparing FCVs with current ICE vehicles is a false dichotomy. Gasoline HEVs and in particular Gasoline PHEVs significantly exceed the environmental performance of both, whereas complete electrification is an ultimate solution. FCVs are marketed aggressively to policy makers and consumers as an alternative to EVs. FCVs are a chemically powered vehicle that by their nature are not directly compatible with renewable electricity generation. For that reason FCVs favour the economics of fossil fuels over the use of renewables. The considerable societal costs proposed by the fossil fuel industry for hydrogen infrastructure in the name of emissions reduction are clearly and obviously better spent on carbon sequestration of electricity supply from fossil fuels to reduce emissions drastically and directly per $dollar spent. Additional emissions reduction per $dollar would best be found in solar electricity generation and grid storage to offset reliance on fossil fuels and to reduce the societal cost of carbon sequestration.

Regards to the 2035 chart published by the EPA. EVs are on trend to advance in range and to halve in cost in three years. Solar cost is conforming to a well established trend to halve in cost every three years. Should that trend continue, come 2035, solar capacity that costs $740.00 per kW in 2014 at close to break-even with fossil fuels will cost $5.00 per KW in 2035. Given a trend even vaguely resembling the established downward trend in the price of solar electricity generation, introducing a vehicle type that is not compatible with electricity and funding infrastructure for it with intent to displace electric vehicles has only one function, that is prolong dependency on fossil fuels and to increase pollution accordingly.

 

[ggr]

... incredulous ...

You keep saying that. I don't think it means what you think it means. I'll grant you "inconceivable" ;-)

 

[Julian Cox]

You keep saying that. I don't think it means what you think it means. I'll grant you "inconceivable" ;-)

I was just trying to be very very short on chaaarm in response to previous caller.

 

[callmesam]

What do people think of the tailpipe emission argument? FCV moves the tailpipe somewhere else, but still reduces smog in urban areas with the poorest air quality.

 

[Auzie]

What do people think of the tailpipe emission argument? FCV moves the tailpipe somewhere else, but still reduces smog in urban areas with the poorest air quality.

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.

 

[rcc]

What do people think of the tailpipe emission argument? FCV moves the tailpipe somewhere else, but still reduces smog in urban areas with the poorest air quality.

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.

 

[aznt1217]

While FCV's have.... lower emissions than now it doesn't change the fact that electricity can be generated with Solar Energy (which will improve as time goes on). Fuel cells still use a LIMITED natural resource in the VERY VERY long term it isn't sustainable, but solar is. FCV's are bandaid, it's better to spend capital on EV's which have real long term potential.