TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker or making a Paypal contribution here: paypal.me/SupportTMC

Tesla is Betamax??

Discussion in 'TSLA Investor Discussions' started by rage_777, Oct 29, 2015.

  1. rage_777

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2013
    Messages:
    157
    Location:
    US
    http://www.profitconfidential.com/stock/tsla-stock-is-tesla-motors-the-betamax-of-automakers/

    Is this guy nuts? OK, it's probably click bait and I fell for it so if you don't want to click on it here are some highlights:

    This one was new to me, when did VW, GM, Ford and BMW go with Fuel Cell Vehicles?

     
  2. glhs272

    glhs272 Unnamed plug faced villian

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    781
    Location:
    Burlington, WI
    Yep, he's nuts.
     
  3. Petra

    Petra Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Messages:
    223
    Location:
    Palmdale, CA USA
    Things hydrogen fuel cell car makers haven't really talked much about:

    - Expected fuel cell stack life (it wasn't that many years ago that I was reading research papers about advancements successfully extending stack life to the equivalent of 75k miles)
    - High pressure hydrogen tank expected life (composite pressure vessels don't last forever)
    - Expected Li-Ion battery life
    - Expected high pressure fuel system life and design considerations made to account for hydrogen embrittlement
    - Rate of hydrogen loss (H2 is a notoriously difficult gas to contain and, as a result, there will be loss from the onboard systems and from every step of the fueling, distribution, and storage infrastructure chain)
    - Cost of building nationwide hydrogen fueling infrastructure
    - Overall efficiency

    Yeah, the guy is a bit nuts and FCVs have quite a few challenges to overcome... that said, fuel cell drive systems may serve well in industrial and commercial heavy equipment/trucking roles in the near future. BEVs, on the other hand, make the most sense as passenger vehicles.
     
  4. perkiset

    perkiset ... this one goes to 11

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2014
    Messages:
    240
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    Spot on, Petra.

    I believe that people completely miss the real Killer App of the Tesla: the SCs. Tesla brilliantly noted that adoption of a (relatively) new paradigm will take an infrastructure that eliminates range anxiety. Certainly, the time to charge is a downside compared to anything that you can just pour more fuel into, but the real question, to your point, is what are you going to pour fuel from? And unless one intends to build a network of fuel centers that pull hydrogen from the air, then you'll need a distribution network that is even more significant than the current gasoline network (no idea if that could actually be retrofitted, but it would mean a wholesale change for the petro companies).

    I think the OP had it right at the outset: Clickbait.
     
  5. electracity

    electracity Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2015
    Messages:
    1,797
    Location:
    60606
    Yes, but only in the short term. Tesla had no choice in building it. To the extent that future competitors don't incur the same expense, they may produce a better ROI on their EVs.

    One strategy you can be sure the SAE group is looking at is building a pay per use network and not letting Tesla join. If the majors are taking EVs seriously, none may not join Tesla's network either. It is game theory at its finest.
     
  6. SW2Fiddler

    SW2Fiddler Bannd Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    1,691
    Location:
    Houston TX
    SAE network of one-connection stations (like the CHAdeMOs around here)? Two connectors? Good luck keeping customer satisfaction with that model. More connections as with the SC network? Well then it's no longer a low expense...
     
  7. SteveG3

    SteveG3 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,671
    Location:
    US
    rage, this was the article I found most helpful in describing the limitations of hydrogen. I found it thorough without "dumbing down" the science, and understandable even though I did not take much science after high school. sort of the backup of Elon's "fool cells" description. I strongly recommend it to anyone with "betamax" concerns.

    The Hydrogen Hoax - The New Atlantis
     
  8. omarsultan

    omarsultan Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2013
    Messages:
    1,496
    Location:
    Northern California
    Protip: Stop reading as soon as someone begins espousing the green virtues of FCEVs
     
  9. austinEV

    austinEV Active Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2013
    Messages:
    2,486
    Location:
    Austin
    That is a great article and it outlines the problems of H2 pretty exhaustively. But, I note the article is pretty old and some of the impossible problems he lists must have been solved, to produce the (weak) FCEV's that are on the market or coming soon.

    For instance, he says that the onboard fuel cells must cost hundreds of thousands of dollars-- that must have come down pretty dramatically. There is no way they are taking a loss that big, if any. For another, he basically says that it isn't possible to pipe/store/create H2 at a filling facility. But filling facilities do exist. Are they steam reforming on site? Anyone know what tech they settled on for these stations? (I suspect they are making it onsite, and there are reports of the stations being empty a lot suggesting they don't fill quickly). Finally, he says it will basically be impossible to store compressed H2 on board. Another problem they solved with carbon fiber according to wikipedia.

    The conclusion is still valid, but it is interesting that some of his hyperbolic arguments are proven false. Unfortunately for FCEV's, there are many more unsolved.
     
  10. RDoc

    RDoc S85D

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2012
    Messages:
    1,569
    Location:
    Boston North Shore
    SAE isn't a group, it's a standards body, and, in any event, I'm extremely doubtful that a pay per use charging network can be reasonably profitable, or indeed profitable at all. If you mean BMW, Ford, GM, etc., then they're in exactly the same position as Tesla except with a far worse standard.

    Also, what do you mean,"not letting Tesla join"? Tesla the company, would have no reason to join such a network and it seems unlikely that a for profit charging network would refuse to accept Tesla cars. They'd want everybody they could get.
     
  11. RobStark

    RobStark Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2013
    Messages:
    2,903
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    The Mirai has 312 mile EPA range the Clarity does not have 450 mile EPA range.

    It takes three minutes to refuel if you arrive at fully loaded pump that has not been used in the last half hour and is therefore cool. If you try to refuel right after another customer you may need to wait up to 30 minutes for the fuel pump to cool down.

    In CA 1/3 of Hydrogen is "clean" and the other 2/3 is from steam reforming natural gas/methane.


    They are almost certainly taking a loss on every FCEV leased. Only a handful will be sold. Toyota engineers last year said they were hoping to get the fuel stack cost down to $60k within a few years. Not the entire car but the fuel cell stack. If they were not taking significant losses there would be no need to limit sales so strictly for the next 5 years. The Japanese government alone would probably buy the entire 2015-2020 allotment.
     
  12. perkiset

    perkiset ... this one goes to 11

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2014
    Messages:
    240
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    I would agree, if they actually had a plan to solve the infrastructure problem. Putting chargers at dealerships is hardly a plan - everyone I talk to about EV asks the same question about range, anxiety and "what do you do if you get stuck?"

    There's only one company out there that has realistically addressed that obstacle. Did I say obstacle? I meant show stopper. Tesla is WAY ahead ... and the first mover has the best opportunity to dominate. Not saying that they forever will, but at least for anything realistically on the horizon, I don't see a competitor. Cars, yes. Global adoption? No.
     
  13. SteveG3

    SteveG3 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,671
    Location:
    US
    fair point Austin, some things have changed in the 8 years since the article was published. reading the article about a year ago I still found there to be quite a set of hurdles that make the idea of fuel cells being a better option than EVs extremely improbable.
     
  14. electracity

    electracity Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2015
    Messages:
    1,797
    Location:
    60606
    I'm referencing the American auto company building out a charging network around a common standard. Certainly everyone is planning HVDC, regardless of what is available in the next few years. They have no reason to build a free/prepaid network. The cost of a network that would collect revenue would approach trivial for these companies. They would only allow Tesla if it were to their advantage. Just as it is to Tesla's advantage to get a major to pay to join the supercharger network.

    Any company not liking Tesla encroachment would naturally want Tesla's expenses to remain high as a new, small company.

    The fuel cell nonsense may push some of majors a bit faster in EV. I imagine some auto companies are divided internally on the strategy of fuel cell vs. EV.
     
  15. RobStark

    RobStark Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2013
    Messages:
    2,903
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    The Detroit and European companies already have a designated standard; the CCS(Combo Charging System) standard.
     
  16. electracity

    electracity Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2015
    Messages:
    1,797
    Location:
    60606
    Yes, part of SAEJ1772

    I don't know if Chrysler has signed on. Perhaps no one bothered to ask :)

    Is Volvo using that standard?
     
  17. larmor

    larmor Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    Messages:
    692
    Location:
    Irvine, CA
    Tesla is more like Baymax...
     
  18. stopcrazypp

    stopcrazypp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2007
    Messages:
    7,038
    The SAE CSS has actually been the most disappointing. The European version is going fine because of legal mandate for it to be the standard. However, US CSS charger growth has been extremely slow and the backers aren't showing much enthusiasm for installing them in a big way (despite all the talk of how they can "easily" built such a network at the drop of a hat).

    There is no way the network will be exclusive. It'll be similar to CHAdeMO, where Tesla cars can charge with an adapter.
     
  19. RobStark

    RobStark Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2013
    Messages:
    2,903
    Location:
    Los Angeles

    Ford, GM, Chrysler, and German Carmakers Adopt EV Charging Standard


    Electric Car Charging: The Basics You Need To Know (Page 2)


    • CCS (Combined Charging Standard): All U.S. and German electric cars fitted with DC quick charging use this standard, including those from BMW, Chevrolet, Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen, and Volvo.
    I know greencarreports failed to point out Volvo is Sino-Swedish not German.
     
  20. Larry93428

    Larry93428 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2014
    Messages:
    371
    Location:
    Cambria California, United States
    There are so many disadvantages to the fuel cell but I do not think "waiting 30 minutes for the pump to cool down" is one we can expect to continue.
    Surely this can be overcome with parallel pump stations or some heavy-duty cooling schemes.
    All the other drawbacks are still valid, yes.
    ~Larry
     

Share This Page