Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Competing technologies to BEV

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Japan wants somebody to burn coal or something to generate electricity, crack water to generate H2, hide CO2 in somewhere else, liquify H2 and send them over to Japan. Some government officials seems to think about using brown coals, which still can be used to generate electricity but hard to move/export.

Brown coal is similar to peat, so similar that sometimes peat is called brown coal, its basically old wood with lots of water in it, perhaps 50% water, that’s a waste to transport, and it reduces thermal efficiency in powerplants, so it a low grade fuel, but since H2 production requires water then brown coal is an appropriate source for H2. Brown coal has a far lower ash content than black coal, in that regard brown coal could be called a clean fuel.

speaking of coal, earlier hydrogen powered vehicles did exist, it was called 'Town Gas' Rolling [Gasified] Coal: Gas Bag Vehicles | The Truth About Cars
China is major user of town gas (modern Synthetic gas is about 60%H2, 40%CO) my guess is that a network of 350bar H2 station would probably cost about 1/10 the price of its equivalent in a developed country with 700bar H2 stations. China already does similar using H2 as a chemical feedstock.
 
Last edited:
Japan has no natural resources thus relying on importing them 100%. Not like the States Japan can't just "not rely on imported oil". That's one of the big reasons to push for H2 infrastructure. We eventually import more LNG and maybe a lot of liquified H2 from non-middle eastern countries.

At least, that's the reason Japanese government tries to push H2 infrastructure in the long term, as a backup to oil and LNG.

That still doesn't justify Japanese global car manufacturers' direction to FCVs though. Maybe big oil as many of you mentioned.

That is true, Japan does need to import energy and Japanese gov might want to push H2 infrastructure.

Toyota might be happy with making FCV for domestic market only and selling ice to global market. In that way they can have their cake and eat it too - it seems to me that Toyota just wants to keep making ice, however they have to present some sort of effort towards green cars. Not to present such effort might be too embarrassing and confronting.
 
Regarding energy density Li-ion cell vs H2 tank

current 18650 Li ion about 680 wh/l, at Honda Fit EV nominal EPA efficiency (82miles from a 20kWh battery) thats is
2.78 miles/litre (model - today's Tesla/Panasonic Li ion if a Honda Fit EV)

current H2 tank, Honda Clarity Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle, interior water volume is given 170 litres, volume for shell is assumed as 20% for 350 bar tank, so that is 204litres
231miles/204 litre is 1.132miles/litre

So todays 350bar H2 tanks have less than half the energy density (expressed in miles - ie after fuel cell conversion efficiency) as todays Li ion tanks

lets model a 700bar H2 tanks, ie double the H2 (and range) but larger shell to hold the same water volume
interior water volume is given 170 litres, volume for shell is assumed as 40% for 700 bar tank, so that is 238litres
462miles/238 litre is 1.941miles/litre

that is, 700bar H2 tanks carry less miles per unit volume than today's Li-ion

and these calculations are conservative, they ignore the space taken up but the necessary secondary storage of a battery or capacitor in a hydrogen vehicle.

this has several implications, one is,

to swap part of battery for H2 storage would reduce, not increase the range of a EV (opposite of common view)
H2 storage would need to be in addition to battery storage, for it to increase the range of a vehicle (obvious, just like adding more battery increases the range of an EV)

there is more to comment, from a costing perspective the carbon in both li ion and H2 tanks can be compared as the fuel tank cost, if the cost of the carbon is higher per mile stored, then its very difficult to have a H2 fuel cell vehicle being cheaper than a BEV in regards to range.......
 
Regarding energy density Li-ion cell vs H2 tank

current 18650 Li ion about 680 wh/l, at Honda Fit EV nominal EPA efficiency (82miles from a 20kWh battery) thats is
2.78 miles/litre (model - today's Tesla/Panasonic Li ion if a Honda Fit EV)

current H2 tank, Honda Clarity Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle, interior water volume is given 170 litres, volume for shell is assumed as 20% for 350 bar tank, so that is 204litres
231miles/204 litre is 1.132miles/litre

So todays 350bar H2 tanks have less than half the energy density (expressed in miles - ie after fuel cell conversion efficiency) as todays Li ion tanks

lets model a 700bar H2 tanks, ie double the H2 (and range) but larger shell to hold the same water volume
interior water volume is given 170 litres, volume for shell is assumed as 40% for 700 bar tank, so that is 238litres
462miles/238 litre is 1.941miles/litre

that is, 700bar H2 tanks carry less miles per unit volume than today's Li-ion

and these calculations are conservative, they ignore the space taken up but the necessary secondary storage of a battery or capacitor in a hydrogen vehicle.

this has several implications, one is,

to swap part of battery for H2 storage would reduce, not increase the range of a EV (opposite of common view)
H2 storage would need to be in addition to battery storage, for it to increase the range of a vehicle (obvious, just like adding more battery increases the range of an EV)

there is more to comment, from a costing perspective the carbon in both li ion and H2 tanks can be compared as the fuel tank cost, if the cost of the carbon is higher per mile stored, then its very difficult to have a H2 fuel cell vehicle being cheaper than a BEV in regards to range.......

Thanks for very interesting calculations. I guess if you did the same calculations for weight, not volume, you'd come up with basically the same result.
 
Thanks for very interesting calculations. I guess if you did the same calculations for weight, not volume, you'd come up with basically the same result.
Not for weight. 5kg of hydrogen is enough for around the same range as the 85kWh Model S. Of course given the batteries deliver electricity directly, for the fuel cell system you have to include the air intake, fuel cell, tanks, exhaust, etc to be fair, but even then you still end up with lower weight for the hydrogen system.

That's why hydrogen might be a good fit for applications where weight matters more than volume (like long haul trucking for example). However, for passenger cars the volume is limited, which is why hydrogen cars do not have drastically more range than the Model S (when measured apples to apples).
 
Hmm, isn't it 170 liter tank inside, not the shell? I thought 70MPa 170l tank would have 119K liter of H2 nominal...??

It is a hydrogen storage volume of 171 litres.
The outside shell is extra

alternatively Hydrogen tank capacity is 171 litres. Honda Worldwide | FCX Clarity
so the outside shell is extra

If the calculations are done in reverse, starting with a Tesla, making a Tesla in a Hydrogen configuration would reduce range.

I suspect Hyundai's pricing is more realistic than Toyota's and Hyundai prices their HFCV in Korea at about US $145k (before a $60k Korean Government subsidy)
Korea's government subsidy makes Japan's Hydrogen subsidy look paltry.

back to the costing approximation, the H2 tank/Li ion anode both supply the 'fuel' for the cathode/fuel cell
if the li ion anode is cheaper than the H2 tank and looks set to remain that way forever (no crossover)
and if the li ion cathode is cheaper than the platinum fuel cell and looks set to remain that way at desirable power levels forever (no crossover)

then the only way for HFCV to be cost competitive is for H2 to be cheaper than electricity to the extent it can subsidise the H2 Fuel Cell and tank. Which is highly unlikely. forever

there is a trend for hydrogen fuel cells to get cheaper, but the end price point is still more expensive than Li ion BEV.

There is also one more key aspect.
Markets are not democracy.
Democracy - one man - one vote. The people without their own parking may expect 'their' subsidy to go to a technology that appears to continue filling up away from home.
The Market, the new car market, the more expensive the car, the greater the occurrence the owner has their own parking.
The market growth will continue to favour BEVs, Hydrogen vehicles will attract massive government subsidy in many jurisdictions, but disappoint in demand.

In a way both hydrogen and brown coal are similar, that is they are low grade fuels compared to their counterparts (H2 vs CH4 and brown coal vs black coal)

- - - Updated - - -

Hmm, isn't it 170 liter tank inside, not the shell? I thought 70MPa 170l tank would have 119K liter of H2 nominal...??

perhaps I misunderstood you.

for volume
the inside an 18650 battery is called a jellyroll (named after a similar looking piece of food). The jellyroll can be compared to the inside volume of a H2 tank.
The outside of a 18650 battery is what is comparable to the outside of a H2 tank.

yes 70MPa 170l tank would have 119K litre H2 atmospheric, but what is modelled is how many miles can a comparable vehicle run per unit of car space taken up by the 'fuel tank'.
 
........for volume........
The outside of a 18650 battery is what is comparable to the outside of a H2 tank.

yes 70MPa 170l tank would have 119K litre H2 atmospheric, but what is modelled is how many miles can a comparable vehicle run per unit of car space taken up by the 'fuel tank'.

In the case of the Tesla you might have to consider the volume of cooling that might add 10% volume to battery pack. Does the shape of th H2 tank have to be round or cylindrical? If so that can present some space challenges compared to the flexible shape of a Tesla battery pack.
 
Last edited:
Hiroshiy

A lookback at Japan's Hydrogen and Fuel Cell demonstration project's vehicles
http://www.jari.or.jp/portals/0/jhfc/data/pdf/fcv.pdf

Toyota - anti EVs, strong support for Hydrogen
Nissan - used the HFCV motor etc for 2010-2012 Nissan LEAF (ie commercialized BEV instead) circa 2017 will have double range Infiniti EV perhaps LEAF 2 also, fuel cell stack provider for Daimler and Ford for 2017. Ie happy for both EVs and HFCVs
Honda - less certain about HFCVs or BEVs, was key HFCV initiator, reused Clarity's motor in Fit EV
Daimler - has a HFCV program and a parallel program for Tesla powered B-class + program for other Smart EV. Outsourced Fuel Cell stack production to Nissan, Ie happy for both EVs and HFCVs
GM - Voltec is now, will have hydrogen for appearance.

Different companies have different ideas about BEV/HFCV but the success of Tesla EVs and Mitsubishi PHEVs has altered the outlook.
 
Of the 4 main asian car makers Toyota, Nissan, Hyundai, Honda who are the natural candidates for battery centric vehicles, only Nissan is willing to sell an EV that has their DNA.

Toyota uses Tesla tech and plans to discontinue as soon as they can, for the arrival of hydrogen fuel cells
Hyundai lets Kia sell the EV, Hyundai is hydrogen fuel cell vehicle brand
Honda leases a Fit EV (no sales, lease to crush) not even Chademo for USA
Nissan - 3 battery factories globally, more than 3 EV factories, etc etc etc, installs Chademo etc etc serious corporate expectation that the future is battery electric, and the future has started now

The industry has noticed how Mitsubishi has success with their Outlander PHEV, and those learnings are assimilated. Tesla competition will be PHEVs (or EREV in marketing speak)
unless a future EPA 150mile range Nissan/Infiniti is the definition of competition, there is no BEV competition for Tesla.

Hyundai/Toyota/Honda seem to authentically consider hydrogen as their response to long range EVs. good for Tesla shareholders, but bad for getting off internal combustion vehicles
 
Nissan's cutting edge manufacturing technology

Some nice pics from Nissan's UK plant in Sunderland, UK.

Highly trained workers paired with finely tuned robots manufacture up to 113 cars per hour.

The Qashqai, Juke, Note and the Leaf are all produced in the plant. The models are built alongside each other.

nissan-factory-tour-32.jpg
1 of 88
 
Toyota announces possible attempts to upscale its brand with new expensive Lexus

Toyota's VP Mark Templin told reporters that Toyota may build successor to Lexus LFA, which had a run of 500 cars in 2 years, at a price of $375K.

LFA was a long term project that motivated Lexus engineers and improved the brand reputation.

The long term plan for a successor model has Toyota's president's backing.

A second LFA isn't imminent, and another generation could be about 30 years in the future.:confused:

To me Toyota attempts to upscale its brand by making expensive cars do not seem that effective. Once brand image takes hold in consumers consciousness, it takes a lot of effort to shift that image, especially upwards. Going down the scale seems to be much easier.
ixt.1J2MrHXQ.jpg
 
Not a competition to Tesla, but great achievement in Oz land

Engineering students at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, built a Sunswift eVe hybrid solar car. The car travelled over 500km at an average speed of more than 100km/hr on a single battery charge.

The eVe seats two people, has a carbon fiber body (661lb), and solar panels. Vehicle claimed range is 800 km on a single charge, top speed 140km/h.

Specifications:

  • Exterior: TeXtreme Carbon fibre constructed by Core Builders.
  • Solar Panels: C60 Sunpower silicon solar cells. High efficiency (22.7%) and lightweight.
  • Encapsulation: Solbian high performance encapsulation.
  • Motor: 2 Maran in-hub motors developed by the CSIRO. Low power high efficiency by electric car standards.
  • Battery: Panasonic NCR 18650 A and B.
  • Suspension: Front Bilstein Ohlins. Rear TTX25 spring damper.
  • Wheels: Front: GH Craft carbon front wheels. Rear: 7075 Aluminium wheels.
  • Tyres: Michelin Radial X tyres specifically designed for solar cars.



sunswift_eVe_fig.jpg
eve.jpg