Tesla Trumps Toyota

It is a blog series by Joe Romm, Joe Romm Archives - ThinkProgress, who once was a booster for FCEVs at the DOE, but has turned skeptic(even wrote a book on it). Some points get repeated through the series, which makes sense when it was read 'live', but is a concise summary of what us 'doubters' see.

Tesla Trumps Toyota: Why Hydrogen Cars Can't Compete With Pure Electric Cars | ThinkProgress
Tesla Trumps Toyota Part II: The Big Problem With Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles | ThinkProgress
Tesla Trumps Toyota 3: Why Electric Vehicles Are Beating Hydrogen Cars Today | ThinkProgress
Tesla Trumps Toyota: The Seven Reasons Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars Are Stalled | ThinkProgress

 

Did either of you read the articles?
The author choose that title as a response to another article titled "Toyota Bets Against Tesla"(IIRC), that I think got posted here.

 

There have historically been seven major (interrelated) barriers to AFV success in the U.S. market:

1. High first cost for vehicle: Can the AFV be built at an affordable price for consumers? Can that affordable AFV be built profitably?

2. On-board fuel storage issues (i.e. limited range): Can enough alternative fuel be stored onboard to give the car the kind of range consumers expect — without compromising passenger or cargo space? Can the AFV be refueled fast enough to satisfy consumer expectations?

3. Safety and liability concerns: Is the alternative fuel safe, something typical users can easily handle with special training?

4. High fueling cost (compared to gasoline): Is the alternative fuel’s cost (per mile) similar to (or cheaper than) gasoline? If not, how much more expensive is it to use?

5. Limited fuel stations (the chicken and egg problem): On the one hand, who will build and buy the AFVs in large quantity if a broad fueling infrastructure is not in place to service them? On the other, who will build that fueling infrastructure — taking the risk of a massive stranded investment — before a large quantity of AFVs are built and bought, that is, before these particular AFVs have been proven to be winners in the marketplace?

6. Improvements in the competition: If the AFV still needs years of improvement to be a viable car, are the competitors — including fuel-efficient gasoline cars — likely to improve as much or more during this time? In short, is it likely competitors will still be superior vehicles in 2020 or 2030?

7. Problems delivering cost-effective emissions reductions: Is the low-emission or emission-free version of the alternative fuel affordable? Are fueling stations for that version of the fuel affordable and practical?


That is from the most recent post, and he admits that BEVs suffer(ed) from #1 and #2.

Let's look at them in terms of the FCEV.

1. The price is beyond what most can afford. Toyota initially reported the yet to be named Mirai would be priced in the range of the Model S. Then there was some back pedaling, and it might be $100k. Then incentives and planets aligned and we got a $57.5k price. Which can buy alot of ICE, hybrid or not, car. That is not the cost. Toyota has made strides in reducing the cost of the fuel cell system, and has stated is has been reduced by 90% to 95%. If they had gotten the cost below their asking price, there would be a press release to that affect.
2. Tanks to contain the pressures that the hydrogen has to be stored are bulky, heavy, and inflexible in terms of packaging in a car design. The Mirai is just over 2 tons; making it 500lbs heavier than the Camry and 400lbs more than the Avalon. It still had to give up the middle rear seat. The 300 mile range beats the current BEVs, but the large majority of ICE cars people are used to have 400+ mile ranges. It does have the advantage of refueling speed, but realistically, it will likely be a little longer than filling an ICE now.
   
3. The author feels this still applies. I believe this has been mostly solved by now. Not as easy a gasoline pump, but the electronics and senors should only allow fueling with a properly connected hose. I have questions about hydrogen permeation, but onboard sensors should avert any tragedy that may stem from it.
4. Toyota's three years of free fuel for the Mirai has a dollar limit of $15,000. If they arrived at that figure using 15k annual miles, they are saying the hydrogen might cost them $22 a kilogram. At $10/kg, gasoline will have to be in the $4 to $5 range, at least, for the fuel cost to reach parity. At that time, people will switch to more affordable hybrids, plugins, or even just smaller cars before paying for a FCEV.
5. This is the big one for FCEVs. In time, the cost of the car could come down to be affordable by the majority, but how do we pay for the infrastructure? If BEVs won't be accepted because they can't do a cross country trip at a moments notice, why would people accept a FCEV that can't leave a state?
6. ICE cars have improved their efficiency over the past decade. So have hybrids. Li-ion batteries where in the $600 plus range per kWh when plugins first went on sale. They will likely be under $200 by the time FCEV start selling in niche car numbers.
7. If the goal is to move car emissions out of a metropolitan area, FCEV and BEV both work great. For GHG emissions, “Currently, the most state-of-the-art procedure is a distributed [on-site] natural gas steam reforming process. However, when FCVs are run on hydrogen reformed from natural gas using this process, they do not provide significant environmental benefits on a well-to-wheels basis (due to GHG emissions from the natural gas reformation process).” That is from Ford, who has a working FCEV program. There are renewable pathways for hydrogen, but that will raise the cost of fuel that may be too high to begin with. If based upon renewable electric, will result in less car miles on the road than if used to charge a plugin.

If this is just propaganda, it should be counterable.

 

I was going to explain the title in the OP, but then lunch time came.

 

FCEVs have their own lobby that includes CARB, the companies making the cars, and the companies supplying the hydrogen. The boom of cheap natural gas helped tip the politics in their favor.

While FCEVs aren't out of it, they have more hurdles, and require more money, to be successful. Toyota themselves are saying that there will only be about 3000 Mirai on the road in the next few years. Plugins sold that many within a year of release. The Leaf, Tesla, and Volt are approaching non-Prius hybrid sales figures. Mazda has offered hydrogen fueled ICEs in Japan, and my understanding is they could use these to meet their ZEV program requirement, but it appears they are taking the plugin path.

A break through that advances FCEVs quickly isn't impossible, but such a break through could also happen for plugins. FCEVs have higher hurdles to cross than other alternative fuel sources. While they work at getting over them, progress on plugins and renewable fuels for ICEs is also being made. Really, the technical issues for plugins have been solved. It is more a factor of battery cost for range, which has, and continues to improve. Their big hurdle is the social one in requiring changes in behavior.

A FCEV may not require the behavior change, but they have to solve the car and fuel cost, and the infrastructure issues first. I think by the time they do that, the social hurdle for plugins will be no more. So a fuel cell may end up in a car, but as a range extender. If we aren't just making diesel from air and water, and gasoline from vats of living goo.

 

You must then agree that FCEVs have some huge hurdles before they can be successful.

How many of those are a FCEV? BEV? Plug in hybrid? Or any type of alternated fueled vehicle? Plug in to plug in the Model S sell two to three, or more, time than the Prius plug in. But this isn't about sales, but the technology each is backing. Tesla is simply in the headline to generate clicks.

No one is denying plug in emissions vary with the grid mix, but the OP articles is talking about GHG emissions, not them plus NOx, sulfur, etc. Reducing GHG is part of CARB and the FC lobby push for FCEV. Ford, a company that as worked on, still works on FCEVs, and taken public money to do so, has basically said that there is no GHG reduction from FCEVs with hydrogen from reformed natural gas.

Compared to a gasoline car, a FCEV does have reduced GHG emissions. However, well to wheels, it is a lower reduction than FCEV proponents claim because of natural gas leaks. There is no reduction when compared to a NG burning ICE though. Why pay the multitude higher expense of switching to FCEVs and hydrogen, when switching to NG ICE has the same GHG benefit?

30% of hydrogen must be renewable in California. Some of that is bio-methane, or natural gas, and the rest is made with renewable electric. Audi already has a pilot plant using renewable electric to make methane from CO2 and water.

Natural gas ICEs do have other emisions, though lower than gasoline. But plug ins provide the same benefits to California that FCEVs do for lower cost. Yet FCEVs are favored under policy.