Hydrogen vs. Battery

[Tim]

I was under the impression that for normal ambient temperatures, hydrogen can't be liquified at any feasible pressure. Is that what you are referring to, Tim?

Pretty much. Liquid Hydrogen is very expensive, which is why most hydrogen cars use either compressed hydrogen(which has a lower energy density) or just reform some sort of hydrocarbon onboard, which defeats the whole purpose of the hydrogen car to begin with. Its one of the many problems with the whole hydrogen fallacy. Storage is difficult. Production is difficult. Distribution is difficult. All are expensive.

Tim

[JRP3]

We can't get lulled into the false sense of comfort that comes from the willingness of early adopters to pay a premium and deal with some minor inconveniences. I am thinking about cars that sell in the 100,000+ units and are sold to price senstive people. In that case, the smaller the battery pack the better since that is the most expensive part of the equation. But a smaller battery pack is only acceptable if there are numerous practical quick charge stations.

Not necessarily. I think there are a large number of people who would willingly deal with a limited range, if the price were right. For many people a second car with a range of 100-150 miles would be easily and enthusiastically integrated into their lives. However, the price of entry would have to reflect that limited range. The realities involved in building enough quick charge stations in enough places that people worried about range issues would feel "safe" will be prohibitive in the near term. Infrastructure can't be built quickly enough to overcome the range issue.

[JRP3]

My response on your blog page:

Some of the problems of perception with hydrogen are:
1. It's everywhere, therefore free or nearly so.
2. The only emission is water.
3. Fuel cells are inexpensive and require no maintenance and never wear out.

Of course all these ignore the realities of hydrogen and fuel cells, but coupled with the promised convenience of quick fill ups that people are used to end up perpetuating the myth of hydrogen. Myths die hard, even in the face of facts.

[graham]

Part of the problem, too, is that consumers at large are just not familiar with BEVs because they have not been exposed to them.

Hydrogen seems more like the gasoline that they know, so that seems more appealing. I think some of the low-price mass adoption folks would be interested in a 100-150 range car even with the current limitations knowing that it is always "full" when they leave the house in the morning, so they never have to go to the gas station.

I think that is one of those things that people will have to see working in practice by their early adopter neighbors before they begin to believe it. I think they will also like the quiet of electric cars over gas ('though admittedly hydrogen gives them that too).

[vfx]

JRP# wrote:

1. It's everywhere, therefore free or nearly so.
2. The only emission is water.

I'll add to this list.

4. Companies that I have heard of keep telling me it's the future. (not some science nerd or greenpeacer)

Apparently $3.50 was the magic breaking number. When gasoline went all the way to $5.00 a gallon a lot of people looked at the range and quick fill limitation again and many were willing to rework their lives to avoid the fuel stranglehold.

I agree with Tesla's early premise that if the car can go a whole day of traveling -around 500 miles- a significant portion of car buyers will be persuaded to convert -even with a long charge. Maybe not all, but certainly enough buyers to satiate multiple makers of EVs

[JRP3]

I agree with Tesla's early premise that if the car can go a whole day of traveling -around 500 miles- a significant portion of car buyers will be persuaded to convert even with a long charge. Maybe not all but certainly enough buyers to satiate multiple makers of EVs

500 mile range in an affordable package is many years away. I don't see that as a reasonable near term goal. I personally don't know anyone who travels more than 150 miles a day other than once or twice a year, and they all have more than one vehicle. Most people travel less than 40. As I've mentioned before, the perception of "need" is different than the reality. People need to get to work and run their errands, and not much else. A properly priced EV that can meet those needs with a comfortable safety margin will sell. I'm sure there is a range of "tipping" points where the range is high enough and the price low enough that people will buy, and I'll bet there are at least 100,000 who will buy at 150 mile range and a $25-$30k price right now. Unfortunately with current battery prices I doubt that would be profitable.

[dpeilow]

500 mile range in an affordable package is many years away. I don't see that as a reasonable near term goal. I personally don't know anyone who travels more than 150 miles a day other than once or twice a year, and they all have more than one vehicle.

That may be, but it is just about feasible to build a car that can do that today - probably in the $150k range if they could produce it in limited numbers. That is about the same as the proposed cost of the Lightning GT.

They may not sell lots of them - it may even be a one off special - but having such a Halo Car would be good for Tesla and the EV movement in general.

[JRP3]

I have to disagree. One of the biggest criticisms of the Roadster is it is unobtainium for most people. An even more outrageously priced vehicle won't help the image at all no matter how far it goes. Plus unlike the Roadster with all the battery you'd need it would not be a great performer.

[malcolm]

I think that there has been an important failing in the promotion of electric vehicles through the traditional motoring media. The present system functions on tight deadlines with new cars available for a few hours only. It would appear that EV manufacturers haven't succeeded in challenging this.

Naturally in this situation, review-writers agitate over any issue which may delay their work, so we shouldn't be surprised when they write of the "inconvenience of recharging". The prospect of having to lose review-time while the car is recharged is the auto-journalist's very own form of range anxiety. Call it "review anxiety".

Providing multiple cars is one approach, but as we saw with Top Gear, concern over recharing was the point they wanted to make, so they made it anyway. Maybe some minds will never be changed.

Likewise, talk of battery swapping will be jumped on by the press since it represents more of the same; it reinforces the perception that what we need in our motoring is yet more infrastructure. It's a red herring.

So until an EV manufacture goes the extra mile and fits a free charger in the home of an auto journalist, who then lives with the reality of home recharging for a couple of weeks or a month and then writes about their experiences, then no one is going to really understand the advantages of this system over the well-ingrained habit of regular trips to the re-fueling station.

Just to reinforce the point, a second (lower power) recharge point should be fitted in the journalist's office parking bay - just to emphasise how much non-driving/possible-recharging time is available in a typical 24 hour period.

Lots of people just assume that they couldn't live with a BEV. It's time to show them that's false.

A long-term test of the Roadster is long overdue. At least, that's what you tell the journalist - the real story is all about how easy it is to live with recharging.

[siry]

JRP# wrote:

Apparently $3.50 was the magic breaking number. Went gasoline went all the way to $5.00 a gallon a lot of people looked at the range and quick fill limitation again and many were willing to rework their lives to avoid the fuel stranglehold.

I agree and wrote about this topic this morning on my blog (and also a video comment on seesmic)

Darryl Siry's Blog: Cheap gas is a big problem