Competing technologies to BEV

[renim]

by way of reference
2 conventional petrol midsize would be Nissan Atlima, Mazda 6 i-loop
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=34247&id=33906
Fueleconomy.gov rates Nissan as 285g/mile tail pipe and 72 g/mile upstream (357g/mile) WTW
Fueleconomy.gov rates Mazda iloop 275g/mile tail pipe and 71 g/mile upstream (346g/mile) WTW

from the NREL document page 27 http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/54860.pdf
'The average WTW greenhouse gas emissions estimate for the Learning Demonstration fleet operating on hydrogen produced from on-site natural gas reformation was 356 g CO2-eq/mile'

brilliant, so a hydrogen fuel cell fleet is almost identical in CO2 emissions as a standard Nissan Altima, and is beat by a Mazda with i-loop

but isn't that obvious, hydrogen production and transportation is far more lossey than straight hydrocarbon use.

 

[Julian Cox]

Should also point out that a standard 2.5 Litre Nissan Altima is 182 hp 0~60 in 7.1 seconds.

That is 50% more powerful and 0~60 in 3.4 seconds or 47.9 % faster

Than a Toyota 2015 FCV. 122 hp 90KW O~60 10.5 Seconds.

Like for like it's also better that NREL's best case.

Probably the same would go for the Mazda too.

You can be quite certain that a 185hp Toyota FCV would not fare so favourably.

 

[dalalsid]

Going off the FCV topic for a moment. I just got lease pricing numbers for the BMW i3 and it is completely stupidly priced.

"Currently BMW has structured their leases to provide a $4875 credit to the lessee since any credit on a lease will return to the owner, or BMW Financial Services in this case. Under those terms and figuring annual mileage of 10k/year on a vehicle priced at $43,975, with a down-payment of $2,950, monthly lease payments would come to $513 with taxes and license fees in addition depending on state of registration."

That is triple my Leaf lease. Also BMW is eating part of the Federal Tax credit?

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Going off the FCV topic for a moment. I just got lease pricing numbers for the BMW i3 and it is completely stupidly priced.

"Currently BMW has structured their leases to provide a $4875 credit to the lessee since any credit on a lease will return to the owner, or BMW Financial Services in this case. Under those terms and figuring annual mileage of 10k/year on a vehicle priced at $43,975, with a down-payment of $2,950, monthly lease payments would come to $513 with taxes and license fees in addition depending on state of registration."

That is triple my Leaf lease. Also BMW is eating part of the Federal Tax credit?

Aggressive leasing puts the credit all into payments (Volt, Leaf), passive pricing splits it between payments and purchase. Depends on the manufacturer.

 

[dalalsid]

Aggressive leasing puts the credit all into payments (Volt, Leaf), passive pricing splits it between payments and purchase. Depends on the manufacturer.

I'm yet to see this passive pricing anywhere else. But the i3 might be temporarily pricing itself out of the market. I'm guessing they want to encourage people to buy and not lease. Maybe they thought it through and figured that people only want to lease until they can buy the Gen III Tesla.

 

[CalDreamin]

We are arriving at similar conclusions but I am sorry to say that I think it is important to take issue with some dangerously credulous assumptions you are making in your conspiracy theory theory.

"For many years, there has been a widespread belief among many government energy and environmental agencies, university and national laboratory experts, as well as many within the auto and energy industries that the future of sustainable transport involves hydrogen FCVs".

There is a fallacy of definition in this sentence. Sustainable yes, Environmentally Sustainable. No. The core NREL Fuel Cell commercial viability research is a Big auto and Big Oil consultancy project conducted by BP/Daimler, Chevron/Hyundai, GM/Shell, Ford/BP alongside SMR operators Air Products Inc. http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/54860.pdf

I believe the statement is correct in characterizing the motives behind FCV R&D, which has been on-going since the 1970's energy crises.

Agree the NREL demonstration testing indicates that 1st and 2nd gen FCVs in their test fleet aren't any breakthroughs in CO2 emissions per mile. The most efficient FCV in their fleet had an average WTW emissions of 237 g CO2e / mile using on-site SMR, and 222 g CO2e / mile using water electrolysis where the electricity source included "some renewable sources of electricity".

The EPA rates the WTW performance of the Prius at 222 g / CO2e / mile. So the most efficient FCV in the NREL test fleet using water electrolysis just matched the GHG emissions of a Prius. The Prius probably cost less than half what the FCV costs to purchase, is similar in size and performance, has greater range, and does not require a massive new multi-billion dollar fueling infrastructure to be constructed and supported.

The EPA rates the WTW emissions of the Tesla Model S 85 at 150 g CO2e / mile where I live in northern California, and 250 g CO2e / mile using the US national average electrical grid. So a larger, higher performance BEV charged from the US national grid is nearly as low in GHG emissions as the most efficient FCV in the NREL test fleet, and is substantially lower in GHG emissions using northern California's grid.

The EPA rates the WTW emissions of the Nissan Leaf at 120 g CO2e / mile where I live in northern California, and 200 g CO2e / mile using the US national grid. So the world's best-selling BEV has lower GHG emissions than the best FCV in NREL's demonstration test fleet.

FCVs have substantially lower GHG emissions if totally renewable sources are used to produce the hydrogen, and that's what's often premised when arguments are made for FCVs as sustainable transport. But if charged on totally renewable energy, BEVs have even lower WTW GHG emissions than FCVs. Also, a fully developed charging infrastructure for BEVs would be orders of magnitude less costly to build than a fully developed fueling infrastructure for FCVs.

They are not doing this despite the fact they believe they are doomed to fail. They clearly don't need to believe in it enough to take the risk on infrastructure costs - that needs to be borne by the rest of us by counting on the above LIES to usurp State and Federal environmental budgets by the $100s millions - but they are most definitely doing this to win by the destruction of BEVs in general and Tesla in particular.

Elon Musk was a little boy living in South Africa when FCV R&D started being seriously pursued by a number of automakers. I guess we have to agree to disagree on the motives behind FCVs.

 

[The Blue Owl]

Elon Musk was a little boy living in South Africa when FCV R&D started being seriously pursued by a number of automakers. I guess we have to agree to disagree on the motives behind FCVs.

I've no dog in this hunt, but it's perfectly possible that their motives have evolved since then.

 

[Newb]

@CalDreamin: I'm wondering where your motivation stems from to paint such a rosy picture of oil companies, but to discuss this issue would be way off-topic.

Just to make sure we talk about the same companies, let us start with a definition. Wikipedia’s definition of “Big Oil” lists the following companies:
BP plc (United Kingdom);
Chevron Corporation (United States);
ExxonMobil Corporation (United States);
Royal Dutch Shell plc (Netherlands and United Kingdom); and
Total SA (France).
Agreed? Okay, then let's discuss their agenda.

The oil companies don't strongly support FCVs over BEVs. Some are against both technologies.

It's always easy to simply reject a claim by saying “no, they don’t”. Where’s your evidence or logical reasoning? It’s difficult to follow your arguments when you constantly mix up a company’s stance on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions with its stance on fuel cell cars. What I can prove is this: Big Oil DO strongly favour a FCV scenario over a pure-BEV scenario. Here's just a hint at the overwhelming evidence:

Please do some research on oil companies supporting charging infrastructure for BEVs. You won’t find a single news or publication that would prove that big oil companies have significantly invested in or supported battery electric cars or battery technology development or BEV charging infrastructure. In contrast, you will find plenty of evidence that big oil companies have been supporting and funding fuel cell cars development, hydrogen infrastructure and related actions for many years – and they are currently ramping up their investments. (just a very few links on that: http://evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=582 (Exxonmobil, 2001), http://books.google.de/books?id=_IF...age&q=toyota and exxonmobil fuel cell&f=false (about Toyota/GM agreements on FCV technology with Exxonmobil), http://investor.chevron.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=130102&p=irol-newsArticle_Print&ID=676776&highlight= (Chevron investing in H2 stations in Cal)

…I could go on with much more evidence on this forever. Big Oil CLEARLY strongly support FCVs over BEVs. And by the way, have you ever read about Big Oil investing in superchargers? Or Big Oil partnering with or sponsoring Tesla, Fisker, Detroit Electric? Have you ever seen ads funded or made by ExxonMobil promoting battery electric cars? But I reckon, many of us have seen such Big Oil ads promoting fuel cell cars....

 

[kenliles]

You won’t find a single news or publication that would prove that big oil companies have significantly invested in or supported battery electric cars or battery technology development or BEV charging infrastructure.
…I could go on with much more evidence on this forever. Big Oil CLEARLY strongly support FCVs over BEVs. And by the way, have you ever read about Big Oil investing in superchargers? Or Big Oil partnering with or sponsoring Tesla, Fisker, Detroit Electric? Have you ever seen ads funded or made by ExxonMobil promoting battery electric cars? But I reckon, many of us have seen such Big Oil ads promoting fuel cell cars....

I think that's largely true and certainly to be expected given self-interest. I might point to one exception in Total ownership and capital funding of SunPower. I think there are some indications their self interest is bending by necessity to include the very technology that threatens to usurp their current endeavors. If they were smart, they would take that political lobby money and use it to capitalize divisions in alternative energy. As a group bough they're a long way from that seems to me. But if and when that happens, our investments in Solar/Tesla's of the world will soar indeed, as that is the culmination of tipping point

 

[Julian Cox]

@NewB

That Exxon link actually verges on the comical.

ExxonMobil Corporation Joins California Fuel Cell Partnership - EVWORLD.COM

I think they are going for the Guinness world record for the maximum number of energy conversions crammed into a single vehicle.

gasoline hydrogen battery hybrid.

 

[Newb]

I think that's largely true and certainly to be expected given self-interest. I might point to one exception in Total ownership and capital funding of SunPower.

Shell (and the other oil companies probably too) also has/had investments in alternative energy. But it is probably difficult for one of the big oil companies to become a electric utility company, which would mean Shell or Total or ExxonMobil would switch from selling gasoline to selling electricity - that wouldn't happen in the foreseeable future unless they take over electric utility companies. And as long as electricity is not one of the core "fuels" the big oil companies can produce & sell in large amounts, they will not favour a pure-BEV scenario, I would think.

Oh, speaking of Tesla competition - found this one on chargedevs:
Charged EVs | Toyota makes it official: Battery EVs stink, fuel cells rule
("Toyota makes it official: Battery EVs stink, fuel cells rule")

- - - Updated - - -

@Julian Cox: I wouldn't be surprised to see Toyota/GM gasoline hydrogen hybrids, at least (without the battery), on sale one day.

 

[CalDreamin]

@CalDreamin: I'm wondering where your motivation stems from to paint such a rosy picture of oil companies, but to discuss this issue would be way off-topic.

I'm trying to focus the argument against FCVs on technical arguments, and avoid attacks grounded in an alleged international conspiracy of liars in government agencies, national laboratories, academia, consulting groups, and industry. I suppose in doing so I should not be surprised that my own motivations are now publicly questioned.

Attacking motives is a distraction, requires speculation not grounded in facts, and in my opinion weakens the technical arguments against FCVs. Attacking motives is no doubt an effective tactic with the tens of millions of Americans who reflexively jump on conspiracy theory bandwagons, but it risks backfiring with those who strive to ground our conclusions on facts.

You won’t find a single news or publication that would prove that big oil companies have significantly invested in or supported battery electric cars or battery technology development or BEV charging infrastructure.

More than 1,000 electric-vehicle charging stations destined for Oregon's I-5 corridor by next summer | OregonLive.com
BP, Arco, Best Buy to install fast chargers for electric cars | Greenspace | Los Angeles Times
BP to Install EV Charging Ports - KickingTires
ExxonMobil Wins Innovation Award for Battery Separator Film Technology and Breaks Ground on New Film Plant
http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/~/media/The Lamp/2009/news_pub_lamp_2009-3.pdf
ExxonMobil and Electrovaya Launch Car Program in Baltimore | ExxonMobil News Releases</title>
Nissan and Showa Shell partner to test solar quick charge system
Shell Eco-marathon - Shell Global
http://www.mystore411.com/store/view/24785883/Electric-Vehicle-Charging-Station-Olympia
http://www.mystore411.com/store/view/24787662/Electric-Vehicle-Charging-Station-Phoenix
PlugShare - EV Charging Station Map - Find the nearest location to charge your electric car!

And by the way, have you ever read about Big Oil investing in superchargers?
Or Big Oil partnering with or sponsoring Tesla, Fisker, Detroit Electric?

Superchargers are a private network owned and operated by Tesla. That said, one of the first Tesla Superchargers, at Harris Ranch, was on the site of a Shell gas station.
Tesla is partnering with Sinopec in China to build Supercharger stations.

 

[Runarbt]

@NewB

That Exxon link actually verges on the comical.

ExxonMobil Corporation Joins California Fuel Cell Partnership - EVWORLD.COM

I think they are going for the Guinness world record for the maximum number of energy conversions crammed into a single vehicle.

gasoline hydrogen battery hybrid.

ROFL :-D

But to be fair, this is from 2001, and they planned to have a prototype in 18months... I figure someone realized this was crazy, and put an end to it before those 18 months had passed by.

 

[Newb]

...

Alright, I am surprised. There might be different coping strategies there, I have to admit. But most of the links you have posted are about "plans" or "intentions" to provide EV charging stations (e.g.: have they actually installed hundreds of charging stations at BP gas stations in Oregon yet?), or are single projects which can be regarded as part of a greenwashing strategy. (Greenwashing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

...and I also said "significantly invested"... spending millions of dollars in hydrogen infrastructure is quite a different thing, isn't it?

 

[kenliles]

Shell (and the other oil companies probably too) also has/had investments in alternative energy. But it is probably difficult for one of the big oil companies to become a electric utility company,

Agree difficult and will be a long time if at all. That is part of the Total-SunPower scope though. Still early stages, but the utility scale solar projects SunPower is doing are targeted for a possible HoldCo at would in fact be a Utility owner operator. Very early, but it is starting to take some shape. Really wish these and other Big Oil would use their tremendous capital to accelerate this process. He world really needs that and at last the business case is now becoming very strong. The more this happens, he faster it makes Tesla direction the obvious solution placating he competitive directions. Let's hope!

 

[CalDreamin]

Alright, I am surprised. There might be different coping strategies there, I have to admit. But most of the links you have posted are about "plans" or "intentions" to provide EV charging stations (e.g.: have they actually installed hundreds of charging stations at BP gas stations in Oregon yet?)

Plugshare shows EV charging stations at 91 BP stations, 25 Arco stations (Arco is a BP brand), 24 Exxon stations, 33 Mobil stations, and 171 Shell stations.

 

[Julian Cox]

I'm trying to focus the argument against FCVs on technical arguments, and avoid attacks grounded in an alleged international conspiracy of liars in government agencies, national laboratories, academia, consulting groups, and industry. I suppose in doing so I should not be surprised that my own motivations are now publicly questioned.

Attacking motives is a distraction, requires speculation not grounded in facts, and in my opinion weakens the technical arguments against FCVs. Attacking motives is no doubt an effective tactic with the tens of millions of Americans who reflexively jump on conspiracy theory bandwagons, but it risks backfiring with those who strive to ground our conclusions on facts.

CalDramin

You are overthinking it.

Politicians and the public are being lied to about the environmental credentials of Fuel Cell Vehicles. There is no excuse for that.

Suggesting that they are lying with the best of intentions is ridiculous.

The motivation does not take a genius to figure out either, it is official US Government policy:

Energy Department Launches Public-Private Partnership to Deploy Hydrogen Infrastructure | Department of Energy

"Recent development of the United States’ tremendous shale gas resources has not only helped directly cut electricity and transportation costs for consumers and businesses, but is also helping to reduce the costs of producing hydrogen and operating hydrogen fuel cells."

Consumers demand green sustainable transport that delivers a solution to climate change.

In the case of hydrogen the auto industry is telling consumers what they want to hear.

Except that

1. It is a lie.
2. We end up pouring $billions of green energy funding into SMR - that's fraud.
3. We will end up with hydrogen based on SMR in investment ETFs - that's fraud.

That's just the money side. I don't know better than anyone else what it means to keep shoving CO2 PPM past the 402ppm mark, all I do know is that I don't subscribe to risking it and I definitely don't subscribe to taxpayers and voters being disenfranchised of the opportunity to decide by a 100% dishonest promotion of policies to pursue hydrogen.

Fact natural gas is cheap and oil is expensive but natural gas is dirty and gets dirtier per mile when you waste lots of energy converting it to hydrogen. Maybe we go bust if we don't use natural gas regardless. - That decision has been made without consultation by a group of industries that consider their interests to be synonymous with the interests of "the economy" and therefore in it is everyone else's job to serve themselves up as consumers for natural gas whether we like it or not. Environmental objections are a problem for the marketing department to deal with.

If it succeeds in the objective of derailing renewable powered electric transportation and that's the difference between resource wars or climate stability - it's genocide.

How do you imagine that should be sugar coated so that objections should be taken more seriously?

For heaven's sake this an assault on the public interest with the fraudulent use of public funds - by the $billions.

 

[Tedkidd]

CalDramin

You are overthinking it.

I disagree. Everything he/she has written is really well thought and laid out. All the ideas reconcile elegantly.

Strategically, everyone can't be bad cop or rabid extremists, or all you get is deadlock. Having some good cops that diligently avoid ad hominem, or even appearance of falling into low debate, is crucial.

All the rest I agree with completely:

Politicians and the public are being lied to about the environmental credentials of Fuel Cell Vehicles. There is no excuse for that.

Suggesting that they are lying with the best of intentions is ridiculous.

The motivation does not take a genius to figure out either, it is official US Government policy:

Energy Department Launches Public-Private Partnership to Deploy Hydrogen Infrastructure | Department of Energy

"Recent development of the United States’ tremendous shale gas resources has not only helped directly cut electricity and transportation costs for consumers and businesses, but is also helping to reduce the costs of producing hydrogen and operating hydrogen fuel cells."

Consumers demand green sustainable transport that delivers a solution to climate change.

In the case of hydrogen the auto industry is telling consumers what they want to hear.

Except that

1. It is a lie.
2. We end up pouring $billions of green energy funding into SMR - that's fraud.
3. We will end up with hydrogen based on SMR in investment ETFs - that's fraud.

That's just the money side. I don't know better than anyone else what it means to keep shoving CO2 PPM past the 402ppm mark, all I do know is that I don't subscribe to risking it and I definitely don't subscribe to taxpayers and voters being disenfranchised of the opportunity to decide by a 100% dishonest promotion of policies to pursue hydrogen.

Fact natural gas is cheap and oil is expensive but natural gas is dirty and gets dirtier per mile when you waste lots of energy converting it to hydrogen. Maybe we go bust if we don't use natural gas regardless. - That decision has been made without consultation by a group of industries that consider their interests to be synonymous with the interests of "the economy" and therefore in it is everyone else's job to serve themselves up as consumers for natural gas whether we like it or not. Environmental objections are a problem for the marketing department to deal with.

If it succeeds in the objective of derailing renewable powered electric transportation and that's the difference between resource wars or climate stability - it's genocide.

How do you imagine that should be sugar coated so that objections should be taken more seriously?

For heaven's sake this an assault on the public interest with the fraudulent use of public funds - by the $billions.

 

[AustinPowers]

I disagree. Everything he/she has written is really well thought and laid out. All the ideas reconcile elegantly.

Strategically, everyone can't be bad cop or rabid extremists, or all you get is deadlock. Having some good cops that diligently avoid ad hominem, or even appearance of falling into low debate, is crucial.

All the rest I agree with completely...

+1 Somehow Julian seems like he is on a crusade, sorry to say. Don Quijote comes to mind as well.
While I agree with his motives in general, I find any allusions to some kind of conspiracy/big plan by Big Auto / Big Oil (as if such a thing even exisited - sure "big" oil companies will think alike, sometimes even form alliances, but in general they will - just like any carmaker - try to do business as effective and profitable as possible on their own) to destroy BEVs/Tesla as completely far-fetched.

I am sure anyone will agree that BMW and Renault (among others) are part of "Big Auto" as Julian will define it. So these companies have invested billions of Euros in BEV cars just for fun, or to see them fail???? BMW has also invested heavily in FCV cars (as a matter of fact, the first hydrogen prototypes I ever got to know of were BMWs), but do you see a BMW Hydrogen 7 in the current lineup or an i3 / i8 ?

 

[Auzie]

+1 Somehow Julian seems like he is on a crusade, sorry to say. Don Quijote comes to mind as well.
While I agree with his motives in general, I find any allusions to some kind of conspiracy/big plan by Big Auto / Big Oil (as if such a thing even exisited - sure "big" oil companies will think alike, sometimes even form alliances, but in general they will - just like any carmaker - try to do business as effective and profitable as possible on their own) to destroy BEVs/Tesla as completely far-fetched.

I am sure anyone will agree that BMW and Renault (among others) are part of "Big Auto" as Julian will define it. So these companies have invested billions of Euros in BEV cars just for fun, or to see them fail???? BMW has also invested heavily in FCV cars (as a matter of fact, the first hydrogen prototypes I ever got to know of were BMWs), but do you see a BMW Hydrogen 7 in the current lineup or an i3 / i8 ?

I agree with you that conspiracy theory is highly unlikely. Conspiracy would be akin to getting bunch of cats to cooperate, good luck with that.:smile:

I distrust car makers efforts to make good bevs. Their resources far exceed Tesla's resources. They have plenty of expertise, human and other capital, yet they make bev cars that do not sell. They seem to be making bevs for compliance reasons.