Featured Another Fuel Cell Article

just fyi
https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/ab8/ab8_report_2017.pdf

For the latest available year period Oct 2016- Sept 2017 plug-ins have sold 190K units in the US and 1 M units world wide. Perhaps ARB should also be looking at potential competition from plug-ins for a reason their estimates for fcv in 2021 slipped so far in manufacturer estimates in only a year.

 

& if hydrogen car sale/lease/registration isn't pathetic enough, one might consider how many of these units are there, that the manufacturer's simply palmed off onto various government agencies, city/counties/universities that are way more willing waste taxpayer money, than individuals are willing to waste of their own money.

What an irony, when one considers municipalities and universities would seemingly make an ideal application for such things. However reality can be so very different, as Canada recently proved up;
Vancouver Ends Hydrogen Bus Program Amid High Costs - Gas 2
But unlike Canada WC Fields said there's a sucker born every minute. He must have been referring to US customers.
.

 

2 nails were driven in the coffin of the arguments that fuel cell vehicles are viable outside of japan within the next decade without huge subsidies. The first came from previous fuel cell proponent honda.

Honda Clarity Plug-In Hybrid Priced From $33,400, 47 Miles Range

This is one nail because it shows an apples to apples comparison to the most popular fuel cell vehicles the mirai and clarity fuel cell. In california the plug-in not only has a larger trunk (doesn't need those big hydrogen tanks) but better acceleration and lower ghg and a lower price to buy (even after fewer incentives) than the fuel cell variants. As a bonus it can travel everywhere and will be sold in all states.

The second announcement was mostly known, but fuel cell advocates were saying there was no way batteries could power as large a vehicle or provide the range of a fuel cell. Everything we learned from the Tesla Semi and Roadster event - The Verge We got a bev semi - and Walmart has already ordered 15 to try. The clarity pricing and semi announcement were already known, but the new roadster was a surprise.

500 mile range in a semi truck with 30 minute quick charging.
620 mile range in a convertable with acceleration beating the most exotic supercars.
I guess batteries beat fuel cells in range. Those hydrogen tanks are simply too big, bulky and expensive. The fuel cells themselves are simply too expensive per unit power to compete with batteries.

 

Not only that, but the Tesla Semi:

• Has a single gear
• Can accelerate much faster, fully loaded or just the trailer
• Can maintain 60mph going up steep incline vs 40mph for diesel trucks.
• Lower TCO vs diesel.

So the truck will save time, and money, and emissions.
It will also be easier to drive as well as safer.

I used to think fuel cells had a place in big rigs. I still think they do in some applications. But the window is quickly closing while Manufacturers pursue this fools errand (IMO) of passenger vehicles.

 

Will Toyota see the writing on the wall?
.

 

Probably not, until California and Japan stop giving them tax incentives to keep making fuel cell cars.

That Roadster 2.0 reveal from Tesla shows that hydrogen fuel cells are losing whatever advantages they had over a plug-in car. Granted, it'll cost about 5 times as much as a Mirai will, but the specs on it at least justify a higher price tag. Plus you can drive it nationwide thanks to the Supercharger network, which Tesla is still expanding on their own dime no less.

I don't see Toyota putting up hydrogen stations left and right to enable the Mirai to do the same thing. And so far every fuel cell car offering has been pretty weak in terms of performance. Sure, not everyone needs a 0-60 in less than 5 seconds car, but I'm sure they'd at least like something that has better acceleration than a Prius, especially if they can only fill it up in a few limited spots.

And I'm still interested to know what hydrogen fuel will cost Mirai and other fuel cell owners come year 4 of ownership, once the automaker stops footing the bill for it and assuming the govt doesn't give them even more subsidies than the oil industry to keep prices down. This alone will probably deter most people from even trying it out.

But hydrogen can be made cleanly, you say? I'd say putting tens of thousands to millions of plug-in hybrids that can do at least 40 miles of EV driving will do more for the environment than a few thousand hydrogen fuel cell cars. Sure, in coal powered areas it may not help that much, but one coal plant is easier to clean up than thousands of car exhausts. And as more renewable energy shows up on the grid, EV's will get cleaner over time anyway. Plus it's hard to beat the potential of being able to make your own fuel via the solar panels on your roof.

So bottomline, I think hydrogen fuel cell cars will just end up being a very expensive experiment, especially as plug-in cars get improvements in range, costs, and public charging station availability. Then there's that "fun to drive" factor that they inherently have built in, not to mention the much lower maintenance relative to a gas car that will entice millions of people in the coming years.

 

Who will be paying for the extra electric infrastructure to power all these electric cars?

 

Private companies are more than willing to build charging stations, Tesla pays for their charging stations ( as well as the solar and battery backups that are becoming more common at many supercharger stops) , companies are pay for their charging stations, e t c. The real question is why should taxpayers foot the bill for a trillion-dollar hydrogen infrastructure. So yeah, the gorilla in the room is who should pay for the electricity to compress a trillion-dollar hydrogen station tank all the way up to 10000 PSI. That's a lotta juice.
Hey, I know! our Central AC pulls almost twice as much power as our plugin. Should we remove all the AC units? How come "we" are not worried about all those AC units on new homes. Or is that what they call 'deflection'.

.

 

You did not answer my question. I am not asking about charging stations. I am talking about power plants to produce the electricity to power all these new electric vehicles. There will need to be more electricity to cover these charges. Who will pay for this?

 

That maybe true, but again higher rates are going to impact business and homeowners. But still as EV cars become law, the infrastructure will need to improve and expand. So how does this differ with creating the Hydrogen infrastructure that has some up in Arms, as its tax dollars being used? In California the lack of power during the summer months is already a concern.

 

I'm on time of day metering for electric consumption. Peak use is charged computing amount used and peak amount used during the peak periods (vary between winter and summer) and amount used during low use periods. I also have a smart solutions device that limits the max amount I can use at any one time. So my HVAC, water heater, dishwasher, dryer, etc are all controlled my the smart solution device and if, for example, the upstairs HVAC is using electricity, the downstairs can't. The only reason I am able to use this type of billing is because I am grandfathered, if you moved next to me and change the billing name in any way (for example adding a wife's name) then you can't use such a billing scheme.

The point of this posting is to suggest that we don't assume that a billing scheme we have is available to everyone everywhere no matter how much sense it makes ecologically.

 

Much of the electric infrastructure needs to be upgraded; it is getting as old as our bridges. This is required regardless of there being plug in cars on the road or not.

Electricity provides more benefits than just fueling a car. There is the lights, heating, air conditioning, cooking, entertainment, internet, etc just for a residence. That's why the government helps pay for building infrastructure out to rural areas. I also don't have an issue with government helping to expand the natural gas infrastructure for the same reasons.

Hydrogen on the other hand is just for fueling cars, and the infrastructure will have a much higher price tag because it needs to be made from scratch instead of just upgrading and extending.

Any of California's issues are likely self made through regulations. Right now, they are producing too much solar on sunny days, and have to give it away, possibly pay other utilities to take it.

 

Tesla flips switch to power U.S. island entirely with solar energy | Computerworld

Tesla is helping with electricity manufacturing, storage too. That's why one of the Hawaiian islands is powered by Tesla products.
Fud vanquished.
.

 

But who is paying for this?

 

Nothing is free in this world! Pick your poison. Unless your walking in bare feet each one of these alternative methods of transportation cause pollution from manufacturing, use and dismantling of these cars. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next 30 years.