-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Hydrogen vs. Battery
- Thread starter siry
- Start date
GoBlue88
Member
Pointing out all the obvious holes in Toyota's arguments doesn't mean that people are "upset".
Their slide says that hydrogen: "is easier to transport and store"
On transport that is ridiculously wrong. There is no form of energy easier to transport than electricity. Wires will always beat pipes.
On storage it is only slightly less wrong. To store hydrogen you only need to spend a bunch of energy to compress it and then store it at extremely high pressure. A battery is much easier and safer.
On transport that is ridiculously wrong. There is no form of energy easier to transport than electricity. Wires will always beat pipes.
On storage it is only slightly less wrong. To store hydrogen you only need to spend a bunch of energy to compress it and then store it at extremely high pressure. A battery is much easier and safer.
One way EVs are at a disadvantage in the broad public perception is charging (aka fueling) time. What all EV owners quickly understand is that overnight charging (i.e. home charging) is a huge advantage in that their car is always "topped off" and ready to go. This takes less than 60 seconds total per day.
There should be a line in the chart that says something like home charging/fueling with only the EV getting a yes.
Also, there needs to be some way to capture the zero carbon aspect of EVs using PV, Wind, Hydro or Nuclear generated power. In some places this is a significant component of EV power (Pacific NW, Vermont, Norway, ...) One of the Toyota's charts (efficiency, well to wheels) implies that FCV is equal to EV in this area yet PV -> H2 (via electrolysis) -> FCV is clearly less efficient than PV -> EV. Yet, zero carbon electricity is a reality today. Zero carbon H2 is a dream.
There should be a line in the chart that says something like home charging/fueling with only the EV getting a yes.
Also, there needs to be some way to capture the zero carbon aspect of EVs using PV, Wind, Hydro or Nuclear generated power. In some places this is a significant component of EV power (Pacific NW, Vermont, Norway, ...) One of the Toyota's charts (efficiency, well to wheels) implies that FCV is equal to EV in this area yet PV -> H2 (via electrolysis) -> FCV is clearly less efficient than PV -> EV. Yet, zero carbon electricity is a reality today. Zero carbon H2 is a dream.
Welcome to the forum, Aury!
Let me give you an example: "My Cigarette2 is what you should start using. It has no more dangerous chemicals and additive properties than cigarettes."
Paraphrasing: "Uses no more __ than something bad that we're trying to get rid of." That's a confusing argument.
Let me give you an example: "My Cigarette2 is what you should start using. It has no more dangerous chemicals and additive properties than cigarettes."
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I don't think it's true either. The current fuel cell stacks use less platinum than previously (100 grams), but still uses about $2000 worth (~30 grams). The platinum used in a catalytic converter is still an order of magnitude less less (~3 grams). And platinum cost isn't the main cost driver either (the FCV fuel cell system costs around $50k).
The high pressure tanks also cost a lot of money and also need replacement at the end of their service life (see CNG tanks). And unlike batteries which simply have less capacity at the end of "service life", these tanks pose a huge explosion risk if used past service life.
Well, it's true to some extent. If you think globally, it's easier to transport. We enjoy a reliable grid, but other countries do not. The ability to have refueling hubs makes it much easier to build a comprehensive infrastructure. It's like cellphones v landline. However, I'd guarantee that if you added a quarter of the moeny spent on liquid fuel and moved it to electricity use, without needing to expand capacity, you'd end up with much more reliable grid. And that's ignoring the potential benefits of cheap batteries on use of solar PV.
His name is Elon, not to be confused with Elop from former Nokia.
And yes, Elon is correct. It isn't even a fight. Toyota does not stand a chance and for obvious reasons.
1) They are not comparing in Tesla who will have an affordable long range EV in 2016 or 2017. And Tesla should have most of US and Europe covered by end 2015. When will an affordable FCV come? and when will most of US and Europe be covered? 2030? 2040? By the time FCVs make it to market they will already be obsolete.
2) FCV cars are not fun to drive, remember the fight isn't really EVs vs FCVs, the fight is new technology vs old technology. That means FCVs have to be better than gasoline cars which they aren't. EVs on the other hand are better than gasoline cars. And if you try to make this about the environment, than EVs win hands down as they are much better for the environment than FCVs.
All Toyota is doing is making generic slides about first generation EVs, all that will become useless by the time they bring even their first FCV to market in 2015, Tesla will already have most of the fast charging EV infrastructure built out by then.
This is what Tesla plans to do. Given their track record of over promising, it remains to be seen what the real price is going to be. No question though, Tesla has a big lead.
What do you base that statement on? I think an FCV and an EV with comparable motors and weight would have similar characteristics. Perhaps the tank and FC would make it have a higher CG but I find it hard to believe a blanket statement that the FCV will not be fun to drive. That's up to the designers/engineers.
Not as much as was over promised with fuel cell cars. Overall though Tesla does deliver even if there are a few minor delays here and there.
Even with a similar motor, you won't get there. There is a reason why fuel cells cars need batteries. And with having such small batteries, it is hard to imagine them having any decent performance.
anticitizen13.7
Not posting at TMC after 9/17/2018
How likely is it that a fuel cell vehicle can be made to have the performance characteristics of a Tesla? Generally, the fuel cell passenger vehicles that I've seen in the recent past have powertrain output of less than 150 horsepower. Are modern fuel cell stacks not capable of converting hydrogen gas to electrical power in a sufficient amount for high performance automotive applications?
I suspect it is possible. Probably silly expensive though and the amount of H2 you would burn through would make it pointless.
Right now a $70k FCEV gets you the performance of a Prius. I would hate to see what it would take to get sub 6second 0-60 times.
The key point in their slides is "EVs are most suitable for short-distance commuting". That's true if you've got a <100 mile range EV like a LEAF and if you take that assumption as truth, then you start to look at hydrogen and other options.
But that assumption isn't true if you've got a >200 mile range EV like a Tesla. Longer range is a virtuous circle: in addition to less range anxiety, the car has more power making it more fun to drive and you need less charging infrastructure to support long-distance driving. Less charging infrastructure requirements makes it possible to stand up a viable charging network with far fewer stations and far lower cost. Which makes the >200 mile range EV even more viable.
But Toyota doesn't know how to build a >200 mile EV at an acceptable cost because they don't have the battery pack and battery pack management expertise. And their RAV4 can't use the Tesla supercharger network so it remains a longer-range city car.
So they wind up taking a left turn into the weeds.
But that assumption isn't true if you've got a >200 mile range EV like a Tesla. Longer range is a virtuous circle: in addition to less range anxiety, the car has more power making it more fun to drive and you need less charging infrastructure to support long-distance driving. Less charging infrastructure requirements makes it possible to stand up a viable charging network with far fewer stations and far lower cost. Which makes the >200 mile range EV even more viable.
But Toyota doesn't know how to build a >200 mile EV at an acceptable cost because they don't have the battery pack and battery pack management expertise. And their RAV4 can't use the Tesla supercharger network so it remains a longer-range city car.
So they wind up taking a left turn into the weeds.
It would seem to me that passenger vehicles, especially smaller ones are a poor first fit for hydrogen fuel cell technology. There are still packaging issues not to mention infrastructure. Instead, if hydrogen fuel cells really made sense, it would make more sense to tackle markets where BEVs are unlikely to do well for quite some time. That's long haul trucking, especially between well traveled corridors. Think UPS Ground delivery, between the hubs. Even delivery vans make more sense, where the hydrogen fueling point can be built into the warehouse(s).
As a result, pushing hydrogen fuel cell towards passenger cars first is really just a compliance issue. It seems to me that CARB should, instead, allow Toyota to obtain the necessary ZEV credits from trucking where this technology is far more likely to find a home in the next 10-20 years if it actually works.
As a result, pushing hydrogen fuel cell towards passenger cars first is really just a compliance issue. It seems to me that CARB should, instead, allow Toyota to obtain the necessary ZEV credits from trucking where this technology is far more likely to find a home in the next 10-20 years if it actually works.
omgwtfbyobbq
Active Member
There's one thing I think a lot of people are missing in this thread. Whichever automaker can do for fuel cells what Toyota did for hybrids will have a huge head start in that part of the market. EVs will always have their place in personal transportation and be less expensive, but for anything larger than a delivery truck going more than a few hundred miles per day, there's a good chance fuel cells will work out to be the most viable low/no carbon source of power generation. It's a shame most major automakers feel the need to pit EVs and FCVs against each other, but I think that's more of an internal division/marketing strategy than anything else.
But the Model S is crazy over powered. I seldom come close to the limits of my P85 and I'm an aggressive driver. An FCV with enough battery (or a higher discharge rate one or both) could be made to have significantly higher performance than 150 HP (though that's not that wimpy). The LEAF has a 110 HP motor. The Volt''s is less than 100. There are reports that put the Prius at 134 HP combined motor and engine. So, 150 is not outside the typical power of that class of vehicle. It's probably true you wont see a FCV muscle car though. Not sure power = fun, though.
I disagree, it is completely true.
The first world countries enjoy a reliable grid. That's why those countries are the first world. Electricity = civilization.
They could add a hydrogen infrastructure, but electricity will always be better.
In the 3rd world where the electric grid is unreliable, they don't have the prerequisites to have hydrogen. Hydrogen stored at super high pressure is not a simple endeavour, and it requires electricity in the first place. Building a reliable electric grid is needed, much easier - and much more important.
Before you have electricity, stick to gasoline and diesel - it can be transported with what is just a bucket with a lid. Trying to leapfrog from nothing to hydrogen would be insanity, and saying that you can in theory is just silly.
Your first statement is not supported by your second.
For my tastes, the P85 is crazy overpowered. That, however, does not support your supposition that "...the Model S is crazy over powered.". Just that the P85 is crazy over powered.
It is true that all Model S have much more power than the typical car. In the current market though, performance is expected to be superior in expensive cars with very very few exceptions.
Similar threads
