Competing technologies to BEV

[Newb]

I'm finding it hard to reconcile all the negatives I have been reading about fuel cell technology and the fact that several huge very successful companies are sinking millions/billions into it as a potential future game-breaker. Something is missing. I have a chemistry background and read through the in-depth analysis presented on this site and believe its validity. But then why don't Toyota and other major car companies see this too? I can't believe they are simply being duped by Big Oil. I feel like their own future bottom lines are too important to risk being swayed without doing their own extremely thorough analysis. What are we/they missing here?

I think Big Oil people are simply quite clever. Remember all the gas stations around the globe... they will be looking to adapt their business model "after oil" and it's logical to keep the pump and let people fill their tanks with hydrogen instead of gasoline.

The problem with electric vehicles is that people can generate electrictiy themselves which means nobody would ever need "gas stations" anymore... for a huge business like Big Oil it is all about keeping folks dependent.

 

[CHGolferJim]

There is the possibility that Toyota decision-making is distorted by government direction/incentives which have been very strong in Japan historically. I would love to read a learned paper or book on why Toyota and Nissan have gone in such opposite directions in many areas of new product development, particularly EV. Would not be surprised to discover that GOJ has given Toyota the exclusive on fuel cell and Nissan the exclusive on EV, so national industry will be a player in whichever technology goes the farthest. The R&D costs to pursue both would be too high for both companies most likely.

 

[30seconds]

May also depends on the perspective from which you start with. If you are Toyota and need to supply millions cars on an annual basis BEV will require battery supply that doesn't seem feasible.

 

[kenliles]

H2 is not cheaper than methane either per unit of energy or unit of pollution. It can't be, because the only commercially viable way to make it is to make it from methane! It's cheaper by kilogram, because it's lightweight, that's all.

In addition to that, it's not even competing with methane.
It's competing with free radicals from free photons, delivered for free, distributed world wide for free.
Agree with earlier posts, the fundamental energy/cost equations don't come close. This is a huge mistake
For automotive, fuel-cell direction is a huge mistake at a fundamental level, business level, human level

 

[Robert.Boston]

Toyota's calculus could simply be this: we are way behind Nissan (and Tesla) on BEV vehicles, and we have no in-house expertise to compete in that arena. The only way we can leverage our expertise and market position is if we stay with a combustion technology, so we need to back hydrogen.

 

[Dan5]

There is no way to make the fuel cell vehicles for 1 million cars per year; unless we are no longer earth bound or a huge platinum bearing meteor shower starts and rages for the next 100 years.

Essentially, current technology the FCV if using platinum requires 150 grams of it. Doesn't sound like alot, but only 133 tons are mined per year

133*1000 kg= 133,000 kg

Essentially if you took all the platinum mined per year, you could only make ~850,000 cars

 

[xhawk101]

Toyota's calculus could simply be this: we are way behind Nissan (and Tesla) on BEV vehicles, and we have no in-house expertise to compete in that arena. The only way we can leverage our expertise and market position is if we stay with a combustion technology, so we need to back hydrogen.

Calculus for obsoletion !

 

[renim]

H2 is not cheaper than methane either per unit of energy or unit of pollution. It can't be, because the only commercially viable way to make it is to make it from methane! It's cheaper by kilogram, because it's lightweight, that's all.

but commercially viable ways to produce hydrogen INCLUDE coal to hydrogen.

for example, recent Air Liquide award for 75,000 Nm[SUP]3[/SUP]/h of hydrogen per year http://www.airliquide.com/en/press/...ajor-coal-gasification-contract-in-china.html is because for that scenario, coal is cheaper feedstock than methane for a source of hydrogen.

likewise, Beijing's first hydrogen refuelling station, uses synthesis gas from coal http://english.people.com.cn/200611/09/eng20061109_319882.html

so for coal rich / natural gas poor nations (ahem China / Germany and Japan (coal from Indonesia/Australia)) coal to H2 is seen as a competitive way to complement imported natural gas to H2.


but back to renewable energy, Honda Fit EV and Clarity FCV share the same drivetrain, but if using renewable energy, the clarity would require about 3x as many kWh due to conversion inefficiencys (electricity -> hydrogen, then hydrogen -> electricity)

sunhydro station page 9 http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review13/tv020_moulthrop_2013_o.pdf

1kg H2 for 54kWh
in Honda clarity, 1kg H2 gets 60miles epa range
in Honda Fit EV, 54kWh gets 189mile epa range (118 mpge / 33.7 kWpge x 54 kWh)
so for comparable (same motor etc) vehicles, PV to HFC is about 1/3 as efficient as PV to battery.
tripling the cost of PV is not a workable solution.
H2 and Renewable energy are basically incompatible, apart from where the renewable energy is of nil value, and would be wasted. (which is unlikely to occur when there is off peek charging of EVs)

to understand why renewable energy cannot succeed for HFCs, do the comparision Honda Fit/Honda Clarity or soon Mercedes B class HFC vs EV

 

[TSLA Siempre]

IMO, the strategy for fuel cell is not that they succeed per se, but that they inject enough doubt among regulators, politicians, auto suppliers, investors, and customers that BEV's fail. that is the calculus. Fuel cells 'succeed' if Battery Electric Vehicles fail.

 

[xhawk101]

Tesla competition developments

IMO, the strategy for fuel cell is not that they succeed per se, but that they inject enough doubt among regulators, politicians, auto suppliers, investors, and customers that BEV's fail. that is the calculus. Fuel cells 'succeed' if Battery Electric Vehicles fail.

Looks like EV have already won. Toyota/ Lexus/ fool cells have lost.

 

[jkeyser14]

There is no way to make the fuel cell vehicles for 1 million cars per year; unless we are no longer earth bound or a huge platinum bearing meteor shower starts and rages for the next 100 years.

Essentially, current technology the FCV if using platinum requires 150 grams of it. Doesn't sound like alot, but only 133 tons are mined per year

133*1000 kg= 133,000 kg

Essentially if you took all the platinum mined per year, you could only make ~850,000 cars

Not all fuel cell designs use large amounts of platinum. You can use carbon black instead, but you wind up with a slightly lower current density in the membranes. I just left a job working on fuel cells. They are great in many applications, but automotive is not one of them.

Hydrogen is merely an energy storage medium and a poor once compared to batteries when it comes to conversion efficiency. Until we find a more efficient method of producing hydrogen, batteries are the best approach.

 

[Auzie]

Toyota's calculus could simply be this: we are way behind Nissan (and Tesla) on BEV vehicles, and we have no in-house expertise to compete in that arena. The only way we can leverage our expertise and market position is if we stay with a combustion technology, so we need to back hydrogen.

It is likely that Toyota has some calculus when backing fcv. It might be very difficult to guess their reasoning without knowing all the forces at play.

My wild guess is that there are multiple reasons for Toyota not entering bev space.

Lack of expertise in bev would be one of the top reasons, as building or buying expertise is costly. The same could be said for fcv expertise, and for some unknown reasons Toyota chose to back that technology.

If no other car manufacturer enters bev space, then the adoption curve of bevs will be much longer, giving ice technology longer life. There is a chance that Toyota is opting out of bev technology by backing fcv, in an attempt to further delay the new technology with a higher chance of prevailing one day.

Management compensation is directly linked with yearly sales and profits. Toyota shareholders are different to TSLA shareholders and have different expectations. They are unlikely to be as understanding of extra costs. That could be a small factor in favour of delaying any new technologies, although a petty one, so I am not sure about that.

 

[Pollux]

Could you please say why you think it's a huge mistake?

Thanks,
Alan

This is a huge mistake.
I worked on the space shuttle fuel cell technology.
This is a huge mistake.

 

[kenliles]

Could you please say why you think it's a huge mistake?

Thanks,
Alan

Due to extreme time limitation currently, I hesitate to post this. But I've had a handful of request to add info based on experience. So here's a very short opinion based on my experience as lead designer for the Hydrogen and Oxygen flow meters that measured and controlled flow rates to the Space Shuttle Fuel Cells. My responsibilities also included personal supervision of all testing of these, qualification/certification for use on the Shuttle (the Shuttle used Fuel Cells for power generation). It's a great technology, but the problems with Fuel Cells for consumer use in vehicle transportation are so numerous, I can't even prioritize them sufficiently to address them- if you know what I mean. Keeping the points at a very high level:
and I really apologize for the short conclusions on this- I'm swamped currently:
1) Fuel Cell power generation is chemical - (not combustion)- so it solves none of the power-rate density/storage/draw/charge/etc issues- it has the same issues here as batteries. It's essentially a battery in raw chemical form- using hydrogen
2) Concurrently, it carries combustable source issues FAR FAR greater than current gasoline. If you think gasoline is combustable, hydrogen is explosive. It is inherently unstable, explodes not only on exposure to heat or spark, but simply pressure. And not just pressure increases, but spontaneously when exposed to pressure reduction through venturi. Completely unpredictable behavior when exposed to oxygen under pressure. the Federal safety regulation for testing alone- required me to test in a remote missile site in Colorado behind 3 foot thick concrete walls (just the testing mind you of a small amounts)(think Hindenburg here, but under pressure). Excellent technology for the Shuttle since it's a bomb already (requiring traceability testing to match) and extended independent power. We (I) was one of the first inquiries of source when the Shuttle blew on launch for example due to the known inherent issues.
3) You don't have to value anything of my comments here- Elon has done the physics against the business case and made it clear. It carries the same fundamental limitations as batteries with many times more issues of safety, distribution, production- Federal regulations don't even accommodate it currently, and are very strict on current transportation etc. Local production from methane will carry the same issues.

really sorry- I don't have more time; but this is a TOTAL waste of resource (Honda even more than Toyota actually).- for what it's worth

 

[Auzie]

Due to extreme time limitation currently, I hesitate to post this. But I've had a handful of request to add info based on experience. So here's a very short opinion based on my experience as lead designer for the Hydrogen and Oxygen flow meters that measured and controlled flow rates to the Space Shuttle Fuel Cells. My responsibilities also included personal supervision of all testing of these, qualification/certification for use on the Shuttle (the Shuttle used Fuel Cells for power generation). It's a great technology, but the problems with Fuel Cells for consumer use in vehicle transportation are so numerous, I can't even prioritize them sufficiently to address them- if you know what I mean. Keeping the points at a very high level:
and I really apologize for the short conclusions on this- I'm swamped currently:
1) Fuel Cell power generation is chemical - (not combustion)- so it solves none of the power-rate density/storage/draw/charge/etc issues- it has the same issues here as batteries. It's essentially a battery in raw chemical form- using hydrogen
2) Concurrently, it carries combustable source issues FAR FAR greater than current gasoline. If you think gasoline is combustable, hydrogen is explosive. It is inherently unstable, explodes only exposure to heat or spark, but simply pressure. And not just pressure increases, but spontaneously exposed to pressure reduction through venturi. Completely unpredictable behavior when exposed to oxygen under pressure. the Federal safety regulation for testing alone- required me to test in a remote missile site in Colorado behind 3 foot thick concrete walls (just the testing mind you of a small amounts)(think Hindenburg here, but under pressure). Excellent technology for the Shuttle since it's a bomb already (requiring traceability testing to match) and extended independent power. We (I) was one of the first inquiries of source when the Shuttle blew on launch for example due to the known inherent issues.
3) You don't have to value anything of my comments here- Elon has done the physics against the business case and made it clear. It carries the same fundamental limitations as batteries with many time more issues of safety, distribution, production- Federal regulations don't even accommodate it currently and are very strict on current transportation etc. Local production from methane will carry the same issues.

really sorry- I don't have more time; but this is a TOTAL waste of resource (Honda even more than Toyota actually).- for what it's worth

Thanks kenliles.

I find it difficult to believe that Toyota's distinguished engineers are ignorant regarding hydrogen risks. Therefore it is likely that Toyota chose to back the horse that is certain to lose.

 

[Newb]

IMO, the strategy for fuel cell is not that they succeed per se, but that they inject enough doubt among regulators, politicians, auto suppliers, investors, and customers that BEV's fail. that is the calculus. Fuel cells 'succeed' if Battery Electric Vehicles fail.

So true. And I am pretty sure Big Oil, Toyota and GM have been working on a common strategy in this endeavor.

Anyone in doubt about Big Oil pulling the strings there, imagine you were boss of the biggest ICE car manufacturer in the world with a nice office in a skyscraper in Tokyo...who would regularly sit in your lobby? Who would try hard to influence your R&D strategy? Good guess: The businesses whose current business model heavily relies on ICE technology to stay THE dominant engine technology for as long as the crude oil is flowing.

 

[ggr]

but commercially viable ways to produce hydrogen INCLUDE coal to hydrogen.

But the logic is inescapable in this case too; you still can't get less CO2 emissions, nor can you get more energy, than by just burning the coal.

 

[Auzie]

Bloomberg Businessweek article, summary:

The Chinese billionaire who bought Fisker Automotive Holdings Inc. at a bankruptcy auction is planning to build a new slate of electric-drive cars in the U.S., challenging Tesla Motors Inc. on its home turf.
Lu Guanqiu, the chairman and founder of China’s Wanxiang Group Corp., plans to manufacture electric cars in the U.S. and ultimately in China, he said in his first extensive interview since prevailing in a February bidding war for Fisker’s assets.
“I’ll put every cent that Wanxiang earns into making electric vehicles,” he said at Wanxiang’s headquarters in Hangzhou, Zhejiang province. “I’ll burn as much cash as it takes to succeed, or until Wanxiang goes bust.

From reading the article, it is hard to discern if the plan relates to making hybrids or pure bevs. There seems to be a lot of will and money in Wanxiang, but I struggle to see much else.

 

[Pollux]

THANK YOU for clarifying!

Due to extreme time limitation currently, I hesitate to post this. But I've had a handful of request to add info based on experience. So here's a very short opinion based on my experience as lead designer for the Hydrogen and Oxygen flow meters that measured and controlled flow rates to the Space Shuttle Fuel Cells. My responsibilities also included personal supervision of all testing of these, qualification/certification for use on the Shuttle (the Shuttle used Fuel Cells for power generation). It's a great technology, but the problems with Fuel Cells for consumer use in vehicle transportation are so numerous, I can't even prioritize them sufficiently to address them- if you know what I mean. Keeping the points at a very high level:
and I really apologize for the short conclusions on this- I'm swamped currently:
1) Fuel Cell power generation is chemical - (not combustion)- so it solves none of the power-rate density/storage/draw/charge/etc issues- it has the same issues here as batteries. It's essentially a battery in raw chemical form- using hydrogen
2) Concurrently, it carries combustable source issues FAR FAR greater than current gasoline. If you think gasoline is combustable, hydrogen is explosive. It is inherently unstable, explodes only exposure to heat or spark, but simply pressure. And not just pressure increases, but spontaneously exposed to pressure reduction through venturi. Completely unpredictable behavior when exposed to oxygen under pressure. the Federal safety regulation for testing alone- required me to test in a remote missile site in Colorado behind 3 foot thick concrete walls (just the testing mind you of a small amounts)(think Hindenburg here, but under pressure). Excellent technology for the Shuttle since it's a bomb already (requiring traceability testing to match) and extended independent power. We (I) was one of the first inquiries of source when the Shuttle blew on launch for example due to the known inherent issues.
3) You don't have to value anything of my comments here- Elon has done the physics against the business case and made it clear. It carries the same fundamental limitations as batteries with many time more issues of safety, distribution, production- Federal regulations don't even accommodate it currently and are very strict on current transportation etc. Local production from methane will carry the same issues.

really sorry- I don't have more time; but this is a TOTAL waste of resource (Honda even more than Toyota actually).- for what it's worth

 

[c041v]

Kenliles, thank-you for sharing your experience. You may want to add one of the disclaimers in case someone gets a hold of this and tries to incorrectly cite your credentials...