Fair to say the Model 3 killed Hydrogen!

[Off Shore]

My point is that physics makes hydrogen advantageous on long haul, heavy vehicles against current battery technology. How many miles has Tesla said they'll get? The rumor is maybe 300 miles? How many kWh will it take for a 80,000lb truck and trailer combo to do 500+ miles? What about 1500 miles like some current long haul tractors? Protrerra just did 1100 miles with 660kWh in a lighter vehicle at probably some sort of optimum speed. That equals an efficiency of 1.67mi/kWh. Lets say the the semi does 1kWh/mi with an 80k travel weight. That would require 1500kWh of battery (with no buffer). Using 160Wh/kg pack level mass density (class leading right now), you're at 9,375kg (20,668 lbs) just for the battery pack. That doesn't include the cab, electric motor assemblies, or all the drivetrain and other things. Current Volvo tractors weigh 13k to 18k pounds, which leaves room for 62k to 67k of payload. At best, that's likely dropped 52.5k or so with a long haul BEV setup. Fuel cell setups do not suffer from the same linear increase in energy storage weight that BEVs do.

What does the charging distribution need to look like to handle a fleet of transport trucks? What's the point grid load on a station with a bunch of truck operators hooked up and charging at 500kW? Lets say you have 10 stalls like some of the Pilot stations I've seen. That's 5MW of continuous power. Dwell times for the trucks would be over 3 hours from empty.

Congratulations on your contract and best wishes for a successful run. Are you paid by the word or by the # of replies? Never mind, this is our last interaction.

 

[Xenoilphobe]

all 260 of them ended hydrogen. Wow impressive.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

My point is that physics makes hydrogen advantageous on long haul, heavy vehicles against current battery technology. How many miles has Tesla said they'll get? The rumor is maybe 300 miles? How many kWh will it take for a 80,000lb truck and trailer combo to do 500+ miles? What about 1500 miles like some current long haul tractors? Protrerra just did 1100 miles with 660kWh in a lighter vehicle at probably some sort of optimum speed. That equals an efficiency of 1.67mi/kWh. Lets say the the semi does 1kWh/mi with an 80k travel weight. That would require 1500kWh of battery (with no buffer). Using 160Wh/kg pack level mass density (class leading right now), you're at 9,375kg (20,668 lbs) just for the battery pack. That doesn't include the cab, electric motor assemblies, or all the drivetrain and other things. Current Volvo tractors weigh 13k to 18k pounds, which leaves room for 62k to 67k of payload. At best, that's likely dropped 52.5k or so with a long haul BEV setup. Fuel cell setups do not suffer from the same linear increase in energy storage weight that BEVs do.

What does the charging distribution need to look like to handle a fleet of transport trucks? What's the point grid load on a station with a bunch of truck operators hooked up and charging at 500kW? Lets say you have 10 stalls like some of the Pilot stations I've seen. That's 5MW of continuous power. Dwell times for the trucks would be over 3 hours from empty.

Just what kind of H2 station do you think is necessary to allow multiple fuel-ups of semis capable of delivering even 500+ miles? Even the newer stations would only be able to charge 3-4 of them a day, and it would take a LONG time for them to do so. How much energy would it take to produce and deliver the 700bar H2 required to fill a typical conventionally comparable semi?

Fuel cell setups do not suffer from the same linear increase in energy storage weight that BEVs do.

True, however, FCs suffer from volumetric energy storage issues that BEVs do not. Cylindrical tanks take up a great deal of space.

 

[Candleflame]

I wish this would be the case.

But many companies have spent too much money to give up at this point.
Toyota, Hyundai, Honda, Audi, BMW, Mercedes.... their Fuel Cell development is still very much alive.

Toyota has publicly stated their full support for FCV over pure EV.

Despite all the negative about hydrogen fuel, it does address one major obstacle for EV adoption - range anxiety.

There will always be a group of customers who cannot get over their range anxiety, and FCV can cater to that group of customers.

complete nonesense - a hydrogen car is an electric car which uses a hydrogen tank to store energy rather than a battery.
To burn coal to create electricity to create hydrogen to then create electricity is much more costly then just create electricity from the start.

I cannot really see how hydrogen cars solve range anxiety. Range anxiety is an issue of charging stations, not the fuel you use. AFAIK hydrogen cars also only have a range of 300-400km so on par with a long range model 3/S. On top of that I think it takes 10-15min to fill the tank.

How is this better than just supercharging your vehicle?

To be able to transport some petrol in a jerrycan is imho a mute point as both hydrogen cars as well as electric cars cannot do that.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

Year Wrap-Up: Who Sells More? 2016 Pickup Truck Sales Report (USA) - The Fast Lane Truck

Almost 2.25 million full size pick-up trucks were sold in 2016 alone. Tesla has a national Supercharger network for roughly 150k vehicles or so. The new Clarity Fuel Cell can do 366 miles on 5.46kg of hydrogen. That's about 67 mi/kg. For sake of argument, lets say that full size pickups can do 50mi/kg. 2.25 million trucks x ~12k mi/yr (~national average) x 50 mi/kg is about 1.35 billion kg of H2 per year, or about 3.7 million kg of H2 per day. That's only for new yearly new vehicles sold. Does not include large SUVs, other full size pickups in the fleet, or even medium size trucks and SUVs. Even at 10% of that volume, that's a significant volume of H2 production.

The EPA efficiency seems quite generous, according to C/D:

Yet when we hopped into the car, with the tank having been filled less than 10 miles previous, the gauge cluster indicated 221 miles to empty—far less than the claimed 366-mile range. Again that afternoon, after another refilling, the estimated range briefly indicated around 260 miles before plummeting again. Officials said that the trip computer was responding to the way the car had been driven. Nevertheless, that’s a big gap, especially considering the trip computer indicated an average of about 55 miles per kilogram of hydrogen on a hilly, curvy route, followed by just over 60 miles per kilogram in more relaxed driving. The fuel-cell Clarity’s range estimate is based on an EPA-rated 69 MPGe city and 67 MPGe highway (one kilogram of hydrogen has roughly the same energy content as a gallon of gasoline, and the Clarity can hold 5.5 kilos).

2017 Honda Clarity Fuel Cell First Drive | Review | Car and Driver

 

[FutureShock]

all 260 of [those Model 3s] ended hydrogen. Wow impressive.

Yah, those 450,000 Model 3 pre-orders don't exist. Tesla won't ramp up production, the whole thing was just a tease. Sure.

Outside of the Japanese market, hydrogen's essentially dead... it just doesn't know it yet. Look at all the major automakers jumping aboard the EV bandwagon. Even FCV-true-believer Toyota is now hedging its bets and getting more into EVs.

Writing's on the wall, brah. Brave noises aside.

.

 

[moridin2002]

Congratulations on your contract and best wishes for a successful run. Are you paid by the word or by the # of replies? Never mind, this is our last interaction.

I get paid by the number of responses to my responses. And the responses to those responses. Only a few more, and I’ll be upgraded to gold status for which Toyota will give me a fancy new key chain.

 

[Topher]

a hydrogen car is an electric car which uses a hydrogen tank to store energy rather than a battery.

a hydrogen car is an electric car which uses a hydrogen tank to store energy in addition to a battery.

Hence:
Cargo capacity, Toyota Mirai: 12.3 ft^3
Cargo capacity, Tesla Model S: 31.6 ft^3

Thank you kindly.

 

[Xenoilphobe]

Yah, those 450,000 Model 3 pre-orders don't exist. Tesla won't ramp up production, the whole thing was just a tease. Sure.

Outside of the Japanese market, hydrogen's essentially dead... it just doesn't know it yet. Look at all the major automakers jumping aboard the EV bandwagon. Even FCV-true-believer Toyota is now hedging its bets and getting more into EVs.

Writing's on the wall, brah. Brave noises aside.

.

I actually agree. The move by Toyota was a big indicator.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

a hydrogen car is an electric car which uses a hydrogen tank to store energy in addition to a battery.

Hence:
Cargo capacity, Toyota Mirai: 12.3 ft^3
Cargo capacity, Tesla Model S: 31.6 ft^3

Thank you kindly.

To be fair, the battery in an HFCV would need a lot less capacity than in a BEV. However, density would be lower due to performance requirements. (Mirai's battery is a 1.6kWh NiMH, like the Camry Hybrid's battery.)

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I actually agree. The move by Toyota was a big indicator.

Well, it says that the goalposts have moved.

Companies are scrambling right now to EV because:
- China has an EV percentage target coming soon.
- EU has tightening emissions targets coming, first in 2021 and then another in 2025
- California has a ramp on ZEV requirements
- Battery and power electronics prices have fallen
- Battery density has improved significantly
- Tesla

Even if Toyota still believes in HFCV and can improve the technology, because the "compliance market" has been taken from it by PHEV and BEV, it's struggling to use its HFCVs as compliance vehicles and get the necessary interest in other infrastructure from suppliers.

 

[RiverBrick]

In Quebec, I am embarrassed to say the government has been hoodwinked by Toyota's dog and pony show with the Mirai. They will now be spending millions on hydrogen stations for vehicles few people want.

 

[mspohr]

Toyota admits ‘Elon Musk is right’ about fuel cell, but moves forward with hydrogen anyway
Toyota admits Elon is right about Hydrogen but will continue to make H2 cars.

 

[run-the-joules]

Well, to be entirely fair the Mirai is still outselling the Model 3

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I'm mostly with Elon on "hydrogen is dumb".

However, my view changes a bit when I consider it though this theoretical mind game: What if we could, overnight, replace gasoline as the world's go to fuel with hydrogen. In this scenario, would there continue to be a need for hydrogen even after "full" BEV penetration?

I think there might be. Electricity is not practical everywhere or for all applications, having a transportable, storeable physical fuel would probably have its uses for a long time to come. If hydrogen could replace gasoline there, great.

But given that this is only a theoretical mind game, it is a bit harder to see where that push for hydrogen to replace the world's gasoline infrastructure would come. More likely we'd just see gasoline picking up the slack in the few areas where BEV isn't cutting it.

There is Japan, though. Anything can work in Japan.

 

[FutureShock]

Toyota admits ‘Elon Musk is right’ about fuel cell, but moves forward with hydrogen anyway
Toyota admits Elon is right about Hydrogen but will continue to make H2 cars.

Dear Toyota,

If you're the last one out of the fuel cell passenger-car market, can you please turn out the lights?

Thanks.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Toyota admits ‘Elon Musk is right’ about fuel cell, but moves forward with hydrogen anyway
Toyota admits Elon is right about Hydrogen but will continue to make H2 cars.

To be clear, the article is padded by other stuff before it gets to the actual meat, which is the engineer saying that it's better to plug in.

But really, that's never been the problem. The problem is cost and capability of plug-ins. The cheapest plug-in in the USA The cheapest ICEV is about $12k. The cheapest HEV is $20k. The cheapest PEV is $28k (choose between short range BEV or limited PHEV).

Plug-ins are expensive and slow to refuel. Until they're cheap and quick to refuel alternative lines of research will continue, especially when that research would have applications broader than transportation.

 

[GoTslaGo]

I'm mostly with Elon on "hydrogen is dumb".

However, my view changes a bit when I consider it though this theoretical mind game: What if we could, overnight, replace gasoline as the world's go to fuel with hydrogen. In this scenario, would there continue to be a need for hydrogen even after "full" BEV penetration?

I think there might be. Electricity is not practical everywhere or for all applications, having a transportable, storeable physical fuel would probably have its uses for a long time to come. If hydrogen could replace gasoline there, great.

But given that this is only a theoretical mind game, it is a bit harder to see where that push for hydrogen to replace the world's gasoline infrastructure would come. More likely we'd just see gasoline picking up the slack in the few areas where BEV isn't cutting it.

There is Japan, though. Anything can work in Japan.

Agree, gasoline—not hydrogen, will likely always have a role in transport, albeit decreasing over time. The main issue in my mind is the developing world (i.e.— most of the world).

As EVs become the norm, much of the developing world would and should concentrate their infrastructure development efforts on electricification and development of their grids (and micro grids). This has multiplier effects... we can all use electricity in gazillion ways, whereas gasoline and hydrogen realistically only have transport as an application.

So developing countries can focus their monies on building out their grid and not waste it on gas/hydrogen.

Besides, as a plug for our existing gas technologies, despite what Hollywood likes to portray, current fuel is relatively stable in storage and “lying” around compared to anything Hydrogen. FWIW the Las Vegas shooter tried to blow up a couple of Aviation Fuel tanks during his rampage, without any affect. I suspect given how much pressure one has to exert on H2 to keep it in storage, his efforts on a H2 fuel tank would have been more... Hindenburg-like.

 

[mspohr]

To be clear, the article is padded by other stuff before it gets to the actual meat, which is the engineer saying that it's better to plug in.

Plug-ins are expensive and slow to refuel. Until they're cheap and quick to refuel alternative lines of research will continue, especially when that research would have applications broader than transportation.

I think people make too much of the time to charge. Most of the time you just plug in at night or at work and have a full charge every day. On the rare occasion when you drive long distance, you do have a 30-45 minute break every few hours. But total time spent waiting over a year is less than time spent going to the gas station.

 

[Topher]

I suspect given how much pressure one has to exert on H2 to keep it in storage, his efforts on a H2 fuel tank would have been more... Hindenburg-like.

Seems unlikely. At that pressure, Hydrogen is going to escape outward at significant velocity, but it isn't going to burn/explode. Once it has depressurized, and mixed with Oxygen sufficiently, it would have a chance to explode, but would require a (new) spark. Soon after that it would be to dilute to explode.

The Hindenburg was low pressure, lots of surface area exposed to oxygen, and surrounded by skin painted with rocket fuel.

Thank you kindly.