Why 'Fool' Cells.... WHY?

[tonybelding]

I'm going to try and give a serious answer to the question.

Fuel cells vehicles were conceived, and a lot was poured into research, at a time when BEVs were still powered by woefully inadequate lead-acid batteries. If the subject of BEVs came up at all, the answer was always: "Batteries haven't gotten better for the last hundred years, so obviously they aren't going to." Since then we've gotten NiMH batteries, which were a big improvement, and then lithium-ion, which was another big improvement. But... Even today's batteries are just about adequate, not wonderful, for automotive use, and there's just enough remaining skepticism and doubt about them that it's not obvious (not to everybody, not yet) that they're going to take over. In a world where BEVs until recently weren't seen as a viable option, and still aren't acknowledged as a viable option by some, hydrogen cars are the next logical option.

There's no question that hydrogen could be made to work if there were no better options available. The cost would be high, but if fossil fuels ran out, or if we really decided we had to stop using them, and batteries were still lead-acid, then we could do hydrogen. And hydrogen may yet prove to be a good option for big trucks and other similar applications. (But somehow I don't see Toyota rolling out hydrogen trucks??)

A big advantage of hydrogen is that it allows us to keep the same "lifestyle" that we're accustomed to: filling up at the gas station. It's just hydrogen gas instead of gasoline, but otherwise everything is the same. We should not underestimate the appeal of this scenario to the masses, to John and Jane Smith who grew up with this paradigm and aren't looking for change. This, I believe, is what Toyota are really banking on. They are a naturally conservative company based in a naturally conservative society, and they truly, deeply believe that the path to success is giving people a vehicle that works just like the vehicles they're already familiar with and doesn't require anyone to change their habits in any way. They don't want to make a better car. They think car buyers will reject a better-but-unfamiliar car.

 

[JPP]

...any thought as to the artificial incentives in California compelling Toyota et al to pursue this?? Not in the OP list of PRIMARY purposes to vote on....

 

[nwdiver]

They think car buyers will reject a better-but-unfamiliar car.

This is sad but true... maybe sad BECAUSE it's true...

My neighbors won a Fisker in Vegas... I was up on my roof finishing up my PV array when I heard the unmistakable 'Galactic' low speed sound of the Karma. I live in a very small town and I paid more for my Tesla than I did for my house... pretty sure the same is true for my neighbors. Not sure what the odds are of a Tesla and a Karma living next door to each other in an oil town of ~1000...

ANYWAY... I NEVER saw that poor car plugged in... EVER. I asked them once... why don't you plug your car in? The response, 'I don't have to'. This isn't an isolated case... a former co-worker (not an engineer) bought a Prius C over a Volt because 'The Prius don't need to get plugged in'..... the fact you CAN plug in a Volt is a feature... not a fault...

I tried to explain the concept that electric is ~3x more efficient... they just... couldn't grasp the concept; On some level using ONLY gasoline... even if it's 3x more... is more appealing than using gasoline AND electricity...

*sigh* I weep for humanity....

• Is just as much an issue for batteries. At some point the progress of energy/weight will slow down.

No... it's really not... there are physical limitations to how efficiently you can split water to produce H2 and physical limitations to how much electricity can be harvested by recombining it in a fuel cell... you can not achieve >50% efficiency... just like an ICE can't achieve >60% (best best case). That's thermodynamics. A Model S is >80% efficient.

... when I say efficiency... that's independent of mpge... I'm referring to Electrons => Wheels

 

[Saghost]

...any thought as to the artificial incentives in California compelling Toyota et al to pursue this?? Not in the OP list of PRIMARY purposes to vote on....

It's a definite possibility, one I attempted to articulate a couple posts back. I'm not sure how much I believe it, but it is certainly plausible - especially given how CARB has biased the credits (and rebates!) in favor of Fuel Cells.

 

[nwdiver]

It's a definite possibility, one I attempted to articulate a couple posts back. I'm not sure how much I believe it, but it is certainly plausible - especially given how CARB has biased the credits (and rebates!) in favor of Fuel Cells.

I wish I'd added that too... :redface:

I guess you could flip it and ask,'What's the PRIMARY purpose of fuel cell incentives'

 

[Doug_G]

A big advantage of hydrogen is that it allows us to keep the same "lifestyle" that we're accustomed to: filling up at the gas station. It's just hydrogen gas instead of gasoline, but otherwise everything is the same. We should not underestimate the appeal of this scenario to the masses, to John and Jane Smith who grew up with this paradigm and aren't looking for change. This, I believe, is what Toyota are really banking on. They are a naturally conservative company based in a naturally conservative society, and they truly, deeply believe that the path to success is giving people a vehicle that works just like the vehicles they're already familiar with and doesn't require anyone to change their habits in any way. They don't want to make a better car. They think car buyers will reject a better-but-unfamiliar car.

The lifestyle thing is a short-term problem. Once BEVs have enough market penetration that everyone knows someone who drives one, the word will be out - they are far more convenient. What could be easier than recharging while you're asleep? Who would trade 3 seconds plugging in their car each night in favor of pumping gas even once in horrible weather? Once the cost to buy a longer-range EV comes down, there will be an apparently sudden, major paradigm shift in people's attitudes.

I'm a member of a local car forum here in Ottawa. They used to totally dismiss electric cars - "not in my lifetime" was a common refrain. We had a few pro/con arguments on the forum, and along the way I destroyed some of them in drag races. Gradually the attitude has shifted, to the point where members are saying they're waiting for the day they can afford one. Now "not in my lifetime" has become a meme on the forum - it's used for making fun of people with outdated attitudes. This is on a car enthusiast forum!

The battle is already won... it's just a matter of time.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

OK, so I picked the 2nd option but...

It wasn't about consumers. It was fundamentally about government, and CARB in particular.

In the late 90s state of the art was NiMH. Batteries were expensive, large, heavy and slow to refuel. There wasn't much on the horizon that would suggest PEVs would be able to resolve those problems. The fracking revolution hadn't happened yet. So, at the time HFCV looked like a good long-term project, since it could theoretically check all the boxes.

Then along came consumer lithium batteries and, somewhat ironically, the Prius and other hybrids, and everything began to change.

Now it's HFCV that looks like the technology with bigger challenges. It's not that PEV is at a point where it can be the complete solution, but the combination of available approaches, BEV, EREV, PHEV, along with HEV and improvements in ICEV means that prospects look good for PEV having such a large impact that any aggressive pursuit of HFCV seems foolish.

 

[ggies07]

We should not underestimate the appeal of this scenario to the masses, to John and Jane Smith who grew up with this paradigm and aren't looking for change.

The lifestyle thing is a short-term problem. Once BEVs have enough market penetration that everyone knows someone who drives one, the word will be out - they are far more convenient.

This is another part of the transition. By the time my daughter is ready to drive (11 more years), she will be getting an EV for her first car and I seriously hope that by then EVs will be in the mid 20's, reaching even more of the masses. So I hope her generation who buy cars will never think about buying an ICE, it won't even enter their minds. So that generation should also understand and see that driving to a station to "fill up" is old hat and EVs are of course the only way to go.

 

[Zarwin]

This is another part of the transition. By the time my daughter is ready to drive (11 more years), she will be getting an EV for her first car.

Yes the transition is inevitable, and to stray slightly off topic, but not really.. My son has been riding primarily in EVs since he was 3 (he's 7 now, so probably similar in age to your daughter). He almost never experiences "filling up" at gas stations and the EV model is the norm to him. Even on road trips we take the Tesla so travel via supercharger is normal to him as well. Stop and think about the fact that our kids are a tiny part of the generation growing up right now that will always remember EVs as a normal mode of transportation. They won't experience the transition the way other kids their age will since they've always lived in the new model.

 

[Johan]

Yes the transition is inevitable, and to stray slightly off topic, but not really.. My son has been riding primarily in EVs since he was 3 (he's 7 now, so probably similar in age to your daughter). He almost never experiences "filling up" at gas stations and the EV model is the norm to him. Even on road trips we take the Tesla so travel via supercharger is normal to him as well. Stop and think about the fact that our kids are a tiny part of the generation growing up right now that will always remember EVs as a normal mode of transportation. They won't experience the transition the way other kids their age will since they've always lived in the new model.

THIS.

My sons are 5 and 3, my daughter is 8 months. I wonder if any of them will be required to drive an ICE to get a driver's licence, much less one with manual gearbox???

When my oldest son was only 3 we saw a car broke down/stopped along the side of the road and his spontanous reaction was: Look dad he forgot to charge his batteries.

 

[nwdiver]

I wonder if any of them will be required to drive an ICE to get a driver's licence, much less one with manual gearbox???

I wonder if they'll be required to drive a car that can't drive itself :wink:

 

[Spidy]

What could be easier than recharging while you're asleep? Who would trade 3 seconds plugging in their car each night in favor of pumping gas even once in horrible weather? Once the cost to buy a longer-range EV comes down, there will be an apparently sudden, major paradigm shift in people's attitudes.

Let me guess... you own a nice house with a garage? Well, a lot of people don't. Many people here park somewhere at on the side of the road. There are parking garages that are not designed with that many outlets in mid. There are outside parking lots with the same issue. A lot of people currently could not even buy an EV if they wanted to.

 

[nwdiver]

Let me guess... you own a nice house with a garage? Well, a lot of people don't. Many people here park somewhere at on the side of the road. There are parking garages that are not designed with that many outlets in mid. There are outside parking lots with the same issue. A lot of people currently could not even buy an EV if they wanted to.

It's slightly easier to provide more public charging options for BEVs that it is to make FCEVs reasonably efficient by violating the laws of thermodynamics :wink:

 

[Doug_G]

Let me guess... you own a nice house with a garage? Well, a lot of people don't. Many people here park somewhere at on the side of the road. There are parking garages that are not designed with that many outlets in mid. There are outside parking lots with the same issue. A lot of people currently could not even buy an EV if they wanted to.

Yes, but that problem will be resolved over time, and it won't take even a tiny fraction of the infrastructure rollout required for hydrogen.

 

[eloder]

Yes, but that problem will be resolved over time, and it won't take even a tiny fraction of the infrastructure rollout required for hydrogen.

Yuppers.

Even if the current charging speeds never increased (not likely), I think EVs will be a natural choice for those without garages once they are near or below the cost of ICEs with 250+ miles of range. If you choose not to buy a house with a garage due to the extra expense involved, doesn't it make you much more likely to buy a car that has extremely low to no fuel costs in exchange for spending 30-60 minutes to charge (while doing errands) once or twice a week? I don't believe EVs need to be exactly the same as ICEs to be mass adopted.

Plus, there's the possibility that people will follow what I did. For me, living further out of the city, combined with driving an EV, is much cheaper than buying a comparable gasoline car and living closer to work/errands. That came with other benefits such as 2.5x as much living space and not having to deal with very close neighbors.

 

[richkae]

I think that Toyota bringing an FCV to market now is trying to make lemonade out of lemons.

15 years ago BEVs did not look promising to the establishment, and fuel cells were an unknown with potential.
After years of research fuel cells haven't solved their fundamental problems.
Meanwhile batteries dramatically improved, and an outsider forced the issue to prove they work.

Toyota knew they had a dud a few years ago, but they had already spent a lot of money. Now they can use it to earn credits and extend the life of their hybrids by scaring people off BEVs.
When you watch the video of the Mirai factory, it is clear that they don't really intend to sell many.

When FCVs flop, they can try to tar BEVs with the same brush. "These new fangled alternative cars don't work. Stick with a familiar gasoline hybrid."
If that doesn't work, when they finally give up on FCVs a lot of the research they have done on the electric drivetrain for the FCV can be rolled into a BEV.

 

[Bangor Bob]

Fuel cells are brilliant.


Sorry, that need qualifying...


Solid-oxide fuel cells run on Natural Gas are brilliant for combined heat & power in stationary applications. Fuelled by CNG or LNG they may also be OK as a lower-emissions option to bunker fuel in ships (which currently have horrible emissions, bunker fuel is nasty stuff) and to diesel in large trucks, construction equipment, etc.

Shrunk down to the size needed for a car, even ignoring the thermodynamic problems, they need more work. And how come nobody ever brings up the platinum problem with hydrogen fuel cells? Lithium supply is raised as a "concern" for BEV's, but it's about ten million times more common on this planet than platinum. Sure, we make 80 million catalytic converters each year all containing platinum (and a couple other very rare metals, rhodium and palladium?), but fuel cells need a couple orders of magnitude more per-vehicle. What is the industry's plan to secure enough platinum for mainstream HFC cars?

 

[nwdiver]

And how come nobody ever brings up the platinum problem with hydrogen fuel cells?

I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on the materials... perhaps with enough R&D they can find a more common substitute for platinum... the efficiency issues are a bit trickier since...

Even if there were a readily available source of hydrogen... we need to use it in rockets before cars... you can't electrify rockets...

 

[beeeerock]

And how come nobody ever brings up the platinum problem with hydrogen fuel cells? Lithium supply is raised as a "concern" for BEV's, but it's about ten million times more common on this planet than platinum. Sure, we make 80 million catalytic converters each year all containing platinum (and a couple other very rare metals, rhodium and palladium?), but fuel cells need a couple orders of magnitude more per-vehicle. What is the industry's plan to secure enough platinum for mainstream HFC cars?

^^ THIS. I read this thread from start to finish and was going to make almost exactly this response until I found you'd beat me to it. When you ponder the Gigafactory and just how small a dent it will make in the future world demand for batteries when BEV's get ramped up, the idea of the volume of platinum required to flow in to supply a fuel cell factory becomes difficult to grasp. For me at least.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

Sure, we make 80 million catalytic converters each year all containing platinum (and a couple other very rare metals, rhodium and palladium?), but fuel cells need a couple orders of magnitude more per-vehicle. What is the industry's plan to secure enough platinum for mainstream HFC cars?

I am no defender of FCEVs, but Toyota has apparently been able to cut down the amount platinum pretty substantially in their current fuel cell.

There are plenty of other insurmountable issues with FCEVs, but it would appear platinum is not as great an issue as it once was. Of course, it's been explained as a cost-cutting measure, not one that seems to have produced gains...so perhaps there is another trade-off that is not being discussed.