GM says Fuel Cell cost coming down

I hate to cop out with a +1, but I'm afraid you've summed it up swimmingly.

 

How long do you think Toyota can keep giving free hydrogen to Mirai owners? I would guess by the time they start to sell many FCVs (5-10 years), the fuel cost would be addressed. I would think things will be in good shape by 2020 Olympic.

Many of the military technologies have made it into mainstream. It has to be proven there first.

BEVs never did so was never "military grade". It takes too long to charge and the battery pack is too big and heavy to be practical. It is good to cover short trips but that's about it until we get miracles to reduce it's size, weight, cost, 3-5 mins recharge time and last the life of the car.

 

You still ignore the advantages of a PHEV in your thinking. The military hasn't.

Yeah, a BEV takes too long to charge for the military, but private citizens don't need to make rapid counteracts against their neighbors.

If a hundred miles is a short trip for you, a FCEV isn't going to be a practical solution either. With ranges of a under 400 miles, they will require daily stops at the hydrogen station for a person with a 200 mile round trip commute. Plugging in and out every day beats stopping at the station every day even with 3 min fill ups.

 

If you make 3000/year and pay for hydrogen for 3 years and it costs $13/kg and you provide 200 kg/car that is $23M. how long can toyota afford to lose $23M/year? Probably forever, its a rounding error on the income statement.

If they make 30,000/year and subsidize them the same on fuel its $230 M. I figure they can do that for about a decade. Toyota made $17.9B in 2014. The question is not if toyota can afford it. 10 years would be about equal to the spend of GM up to 2009 on fuel cell R&D.

The bigger issue is how much are people willing to pay for hydrogen fuel. If its much less than it costs, then you never get to millions of vehicles. In Japan, its a easier thing, as the government can simply keep raising gas taxes to make hydrogen look competitive. They can even use the gas taxes to subsidize the building of the stations. In the US that is not likely politically, so costs need to come in line with what people are willing to pay. If its just the governments and the car companies, not the consumers willing to pay, then all stations will need significant government subsidies and businesses won't get into it unless government guaranties them a profit.

A lot of this depends on oil prices and development of biofuels, as well as getting fcv cost down. I wouldn't bet against them in Japan, its just going to be very slow. Nationwide skelleton infrastructure is promised in 2030. I would not expect much volume in US or Europe (no more than 100,000 fcv/year less than current plug-ins) until its proven in Japan.

 

Notice how no one wanted to respond to that point?

Even when the technology is a straight-forward affordable choice, actual implementation can be a major challenge.

That's a point many choose not to address when calculating cost and analyzing acceptance.

 

I don't think there is a good answer.

Technology takes time and money. Ofcourse even in 2050 there will probably still be around 30% that won't have access to plugs at home and are unwilling or unable to pay for them. How about hydrogen in 2050? What percent will be able to pay for it? The hyrogen challenge in the US takes a lot more money for infrastructure, but I agree adding plugs can be expensive.

I fully expect that those 30% will be supplied with liquid fuel not hydrogen, but your Chrystal ball may be better than mine. Do you think the US government would rather subsidize hydrogen stations accross the country in every old and rural neighborhood? Subsidize adding plugs (240VAC inside or weather proof outside)? Or allow slower adoption?

Who will pay for the hydrogen stations in Minnisota, and Wyoming, and Nebraska? My guess is no one. People in states without hydrogen will still have plugs and non plug-in cars. Perhaps we will have more flex fuel by then. You can make methanol with water, carbon dioxide and electricity, or from agricultural waste.

 

Who is paying for $7,500 per Volt and BEVs? Everyone.

How about upgrades and maintenance of the grid infrastructure? Everyone.

Who will pay for hydrogen infrastructure? Everyone.

Stop picking winners and losers. Let the market choose. In order to choose, you need at least two choices.

 

Everyone is paying for solar incentives, wind incentives, fuel cell incentives, incentives for home efficiency improvement, incents for geothermal heat pumps, etc. Plus, they paid for the expired hybrid and FCEV incentives. The plug in battery incentive is just one facet of legislation aimed at advancing technology, renewable energy, and efficiency.

The grid needs update no matter what. It is a subject independent of transportation, and a must for other sectors.

Compared to plug in incentives and fast chargers, the hydrogen infrastructure will cost several magnitude more to put in place for the US. It will only be for the benefit of FCEVs, and no one else. People aren't going to disconnect from the grid for the privilege of powering their home with a car. They aren't going to pay to switch from grid to a home fuel cell even if the extra cost of running hydrogen lines to homes is also included with the infrastructure cost.

There are all ready 4 choices; ICE, hybrid, BEV, and PHV. FCEV may become one, but it is a non-starter using elemental hydrogen for the fuel.

 

The point I was making: Plugin advocates wants to eliminate FCVs because they believe it is a waste of money and only fools would support it.

That's picking winner and loser before the fight.

That's not a good way to put it because plugins and FCVs are teammates. Who will perform better is the question. You need both to play, not eliminate one prior to the game.

 

Was that addressed to my comment.

The plug-in group of incentives are around $12B. Blanketing our nation with hydrogen infrastructure is estimated to cost in the hundreds of billions.

Like I said I'm for goverrnment paying for R&D. I think a little commercialization money is fine too.

I just don't like the idea of Government choosing Hydrogen as the winner, and subsidizing it so much more, even though it looks like it will be much more expensive, and needs a lot of technical advances. The winner the US government chose before was diesel hybrids. That didn't turn out well.

Again who is going to pay for all these hydrogen stations? If it is business, there needs to be a business case. If its government like it looks like in Japan, I doubt people will choose to pay hundreds of billions in taxes, because installing some more 240VAC wiring is too expensive for individuals. Hydrogen needs to prove itself before you can assume convient refueling.

The answer is, gasoline vehicles will be around until there is a business case for bevs and/or fcv to displace them.

 

I don't want to eliminate FCEVs. I think the fuel cell could be a great replacement once they are on liquid fuels.

I am against using hydrogen for transportation. Look at how successful CNG has been for personal cars. Hydrogen, or any gaseous fuel, has the same negative as CNG does for cars. Heavy, bulky tanks that constrain car design. Perhaps CNG cars could have been successful with more government support; perhaps not. Either way a real push to switch to CNG would be cheaper than a switch to hydrogen.

I am not for switching from natural gas to hydrogen because of the reduced energy content and safety issues.

Electrolysis combined with a fuel cell might work out for renewable energy storage. It just appears batteries will beat that on cost for awhile.

Methane, ammonia, gasoline, and diesel can all be made renewably. They all have about the same chance of coming to market as renewable hydrogen.

Yes, plug ins and FCEVs should be teammates, but the FCEV lobby wants more money for cars and stations that aren't quite ready for commercialization, and want to undercut plug ins to get it. The plug in side aren't the ones using old data to support their side.

 

You keep making statements about the positions of plugin advocates, and the plugin advocates keep telling you otherwise.
Like others, I'm good with the research. I'm also good with Carb credits and such. At this point, I would like to see the carb credits for FCV not be triple that of long range BEVs.
I also would like to see federal purchase incentives withheld until the product is available nationwide.

 

That's a huge assumption that all H2 stations and pipelines would be build by the government.

California is spending $47 millions to kick start with building 28 stations. Beyond the initial stations in CA, the rest should be built by private firms.

Toyota is working with two private companies, FirstElement Fuel of California and Air Liquide of France to build hydrogen stations. It doesn't have to be brand new stations either. It could be added H2 pump to the existing gas station.

$12 billion on plugin and $47 millions on H2 and you are already complaining?

Government is investing in both. Plugins arrived first so, more has been spent. H2 is kick starting and the technology is ready and Mirai is the proof of that.

I don't think CNG cars failed because of it's fuel is gaseous. It failed because the refuel time is very long, like the plugins, despite the convenience of ability to refuel at home in the garage.

Where is that information from? You know this because?

Are you talking about federal tax credit? FCV don't get anything but plugins get $7,500.

Are you talking about CARB ZEV credit? PHEV or BEV credits are not being reduced, so I am not sure what you are talking about. It is just FCVs are getting more during the initial roll out stage. And you see it as undercutting plugins?

It may not apply to you but it does to many others, including Elon Musk who is the biggest plugin advocate.

The credit is not only for the range but also the refuel speed. Tesla got ZEV credits for it's battery swapping stations that nobody used. I see the government is being fair here folks.

 

They failed because of lack of refueling infrastructure. And natural gas lines are basically everywhere in the US.

The overnight, slow fill at home is likely the only reason Honda was able to sell as many CNG Civics as they did. The fast fill times of hydrogen are only available to the first couple customers in a row at the stations being built now. After that, they fill as quickly as CNG.

Use the chillers and compressors required to get those fast fill times for hydrogen, and CNG would be just as fast.

The CNG CIvic also suffered from a smaller trunk for the CNG tank. Despite being a ground up hydrogen car, the Mirai still loses the fifth seat, and has unknown cargo space.

Elon Musk has called fuel cells a waste of time and money. I don't think you can find him working to end the FCEV experiment, though.

Battery swapping got credits for a time, but then CARB rewrote the rules. So what if nobody used it. The point of the fast fill credits was because of the belief that the cars needed a fast fill to be accepted by the public. Apparently that isn't true. How the fast fill happened shouldn't matter, because it doesn't matter much from the user's experience. But CARB decided how does matter, and rewrote rules when Tesla showed them what they thought impossible was possible.

Hey, shouldn't plug ins get a bonus credit for requiring a lower investment of tax funds on infrastructure, since most charges are at home.

 

I am curious, what would your opinion be if, beyond the initial stations in CA, more do require being built by state or federal governments?

 

Hey if it was just th first $47M, that would be great. Do you read the reports? They say nationwide infrastructure would cost hundreds of billions to trillions. Private firms were supposed to be building the hydrogen higway with a low low government payment of $1M/staton. None got built with that little money. Your $47M is just a tranche of the $220M meant to expand to 100 stations upgrading the 9 existing (91 new). The 2015 CARB statement told part of the bad news, these stations were costing even more, and it may need more than the $220M.

Sure if private firms found it profitable the government wouldn't be subsidizing to the tune of $2M/staton. I think it a bad assumption that this happens quickly even as California, Japan, and Germany are all telling us these stations are costing them more than they thought.

Yep they have loaned First Element money, thier chosen building, so that it wwould have the capital to qualify for the state money. They were working with professor brown back when he worked for UC-Irvine. That public money is going to First Element. It would

$12B is all the programs, $7B spent so far. Hydrogen is over $3B spent so far, which much higher spend per likely vehicle. The congress and carb are asking for $13,000 per car, 9zev credits, and $20M refueling infrastructure a year. A phev gets $9000, 0zev, averages almost no refueling subsidies, a tesla $10000, 4zev, and are building the refueling infrastructure from sales of their cars. DON"T REPEAT THE LIE hydrogen gets a much bigger subsidie, and looks like it is asking for even a bigger hand up. This is because CARB chose it as a winner, and it has failed every test. Let's not sugar coat the program. If fhe $100M hydrogen highway worked, we wouldn't be talknig about First Element is recieiving $27.5M for 18 stations, slightly less than average funding for 17 of the 18. Many are behind scedule, but hey if they build them cheaper, maybe california can cut the $2.2M/station allocated. My gut check says they allocated twice what they said they needed, and they will spend every dime and ask more more. No one but the government would pay for this infrastruture after seeing the crop of fcv for sale. They wouldnt sell well even with free gas.

Honda and Toyota are free to build their own stations if they think they can make a profit. It would be great if they demonstrated a profitable station and only took $1M in subsidies to do it.

The mirai is proof the government has been subsidizing this stuff for over 20 years. Toyota, gm, honda, ford all had fuel cells before tesla was a compnay.

Again lets stop with the lies.

Let's do this test. $20M/year fuel subsidy US plus $23000 of califoria givaways
3 million yes car subsidies and 4 billion yen fuelling subsidies per year
400 millioneuros in germany through 2023.

If that doesn't work. Its not worth more good money after bad.
It makes no sense to say its because it can be nationwide, unless there is a business case for low or no subsidies, not these $2m/station fiascos.

 

Like there are plugs everywhere but there is basically no public chargers around where I live. East coast hasn't spend as much money as CA on installing chargers.

It's actually the other way around. Nobody used it so, CARB stopped giving out credits to Tesla. It is a smart move.

Instead, they are trying again with H2. The ability to pump 300+ miles of renewable fuel in 3-5 minutes is a game changer. It should be rewarded because it will open the energy independence door.

I think H2 infrastructure investment should equal to the plugin investment by the state and federal governments.

It is government's role to help such technology become viable. US had a wonderful with the hybrid and was very successful.

However, the plugin incentives were not effective. Initially, only 45% of the buyers deserved it. Now, it is up to 66%. That means, plugins should be launched now -- that the grid is cleaner. They were prematurely commercialized and a lot of money was wasted. After 5 years, many of the plugins can't stand on it's own. Hybrids did in 2-3 years (that's how long the incentives lasted).

H2 and FCV will likely need gov support longer than 5 years because hybrids and plugins had existing infrastructures. I expect it but once it can stand on it's own, we'll be on the path to energy independent and massive consumption of renewable energy.

 

Interesting.
Putting aside the term "deserve", when did the switch take place? At 51%?

 

I think deserve is an interesting proposition.

As I understand this concept, a vehicle doesn't deserve an incentive in a state if there is a lower ghg vehicle in that state. The state of california has the bmw i3. which obvisously must deserve it. Unfortunately none of the fuel cell vehicles have as low a ghg footprint lifecycle as the i3. From that reasoning none of the fcv deserve a subsidy.

Those subsidies include HOV lanes, $20M/year fueling, 9zev credits worth about $18,000, $100M/year federal fuel cell and $5000 state of california rebate. The i3 gets $10,000 in california and 3zev ($9000).

Even if we only talk about funding as $5000/car thinkinig there will be many times the future cars, there still is $4000 more in credits for the bigger polluting outland fcv, mirai, clarity. I mean how can this be.

GHG has nothing to do with the level of incentives.

Less oil? Tailpipe pollution, R&D is higher in commercialization

The question is, why should tax payets in texas and indiana subsidize a car that pollutes more, and they never can if it akes it to their state. That seens non deserving, california only, but higher polluting that some cars there.

 

Deserve = Electric miles emit less than 50 MPG Prius.

That's a very generous $7,500.

That means only the BEVs. PHEV like Volt may meet that in EV mode but the gas engine would emit more bumping the overall emission.