Hydrogen vs. Battery

[ggr]

This reality makes hydrogen disingenuous for another reason:
Why in the world would you use hydrogen in your FCV rather than a fuel that's easier to work with?
If you use natural gas in your fuel cell, you don't need to reform it, it's readily available in most communities, you don't need to work as hard to compress it, storage is easier, and the fuel cell itself is just as efficient.

The only reason to use hydrogen instead of a hydrocarbon is so that you can claim "no tailpipe emissions" even when you know full well that the total emissions from NG -> H2 -> FCV are bigger than the total emissions from NG -> FCV.

Thanks for bringing that up! My limited knowledge of fuel cells made me think that was the case, but these days you never even hear of fuel cells using anything but Hydrogen, so I concluded that there must be some other technological reason that they couldn't use natural gas directly. Can a fuel cell use methane directly? What about a mixture of methane and Hydrogen? What about impurities?

 

[derekt75]

Thanks for bringing that up! My limited knowledge of fuel cells made me think that was the case, but these days you never even hear of fuel cells using anything but Hydrogen, so I concluded that there must be some other technological reason that they couldn't use natural gas directly. Can a fuel cell use methane directly? What about a mixture of methane and Hydrogen? What about impurities?

I don't think there are any significant technological reasons.
Natural gas fuel cells and [by extension] methane fuel cells certainly exist, but they haven't had the same amount of research investment as hydrogen fuel cells.
You don't need pure methane; natural gas works fine, and you can get them for your home if you're sufficiently motivated. BlueGen Technology

Most of the existing ones seem low power, but I think that's just because all of the FCV R&D money is going into hydrogen instead of natural gas for no reason other than political reasons.

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Table 8 doesn't say traction battery though. Can you show your math?

Which line are you assuming is the traction battery? It seems the traction battery would have to cost $0.09/mile for the whole system to cost less than diesel ($0.19/mi vs $0.10/mi) and the only line that is $0.09/mi or higher is "Electric Motor and Propulsion Repairs", but even if the battery falls under that, I don't think we can safely assume there aren't other parts that is also under this.

That was my assumption, but there's probably a lot more there since the follow up report has the same category and repair costs of $.15/mile.

The way I read it is that the batteries worked as designed for the most part but was too much of a hassle to keep running (keeping it in necessary SOC window).

Given that labor costs were the highest part of FC maintenance costs, I think the labor associated with keeping them running substantially increased operating costs.

Looking at fuel cell only vs diesel probably isn't that fair because the diesel line includes all the propulsion items (including intake, transmission, exhaust, storage, etc), while the fuel cell line only includes the fuel cell and none of the support items necessary for propulsion (or even the hydrogen-only equipment like the air intake and hydrogen fuel tanks).

It's just an observation that the support items (motor, battery pack, inverter, etc...) are already much more reliable in mass market EVs. I could be wrong, but so far most major manufacturers have great reliability with EVs, and I imagine similar mass-market systems in FCVs would exhibit similar reliability.

The report says the Van Hool Buses are that expensive because they are out of warranty and are in the midst of heavy mid-life repairs. Some of the FC buses evaluated in this report went in service very recently (latest one in 2013).

The report indicates that several of the fuel cell stacks have been in operation for ~10k-15k hours (~100k-120k miles given the average speeds mentioned in the report). Unless the diesel VH buses operated at much higher speeds or higher duty cycles, those three fuel cell stacks have been operating w/o problems for longer than the diesel VHs have. I imagine we'll need to wait for the next report to compare the maintenance costs of the Gillig buses versus the costs of the high'ish hour fuel cell stacks, but given the progress so far I think the biggest hurdle is getting FC stack costs down.

 

[gameon]

I will need a new car in few years. Hopefully, battery or fuel cell or any other technology, which can fill up in 3 to 5 minutes (300 miles in range of $25k)

BTW: Model 3 is not in range may be model 5.

 

[Jaff]

Gameon, I would recommend using the next "few years" to examine your driving habits, patterns and needs...I think that you will find that "filling a car up in 3 to 5 minutes" (considering you are leaving your home with a full battery) is way down the list of important factors when deciding which green vehicle to purchase...

 

[stopcrazypp]

It's just an observation that the support items (motor, battery pack, inverter, etc...) are already much more reliable in mass market EVs. I could be wrong, but so far most major manufacturers have great reliability with EVs, and I imagine similar mass-market systems in FCVs would exhibit similar reliability.

What I mean by that comment is the equivalent between the two is the entire FCV propulsion system vs the entire diesel propulsion system. Yes, EV systems tend to be more reliable (although that still doesn't account for the hydrogen tank and air intake/exhaust as I mentioned) but that does not mean absolutely zero failures or need for service, esp. in the more demanding environment of buses. So comparing only the fuel cell stack versus the entire diesel propulsion is inherently unfair/unequal.

The numbers that can illustrate this on Table 12 is that the propulsion MBRC (miles between road calls) is similar between the two with the FCVs slightly worse (5320 for fuel cell, 5607 for VH diesel).

The report indicates that several of the fuel cell stacks have been in operation for ~10k-15k hours (~100k-120k miles given the average speeds mentioned in the report). Unless the diesel VH buses operated at much higher speeds or higher duty cycles, those three fuel cell stacks have been operating w/o problems for longer than the diesel VHs have.

That's the operation life of the stack, not the number of miles without problems (that number would be the MBRC)! Plus in the number on top it says the longest service life for fuel cell buses in this report is 66k miles lifetime (for 15k hours on page viii), so the average speed of those buses is 4.4 mph for this report. There's no doubt there are diesel buses with engines in operation for longer than 100-120k miles!

And the data in this report does not allow us to see the actual diesel engine vs fuel cell stack reliability (because they did not collect data for the diesel engine separately).

 

[gameon]

If I am looking at SUV size vehicle for next purchase ... Model X or usual suspect...

I am trying to figure things out but at 16 miles per gallon and $4.00 a gallon, its $0.25 per mile. you drive 100,000 miles for $25,000 (probably better because highway is better mileage (~25) in an SUV). At 100,000 miles in a Tesla you have burned through a $20,000 battery pack and we have not added the cost of electricity which is close to $5,000. over a 100,000 mile lifetime. And, we won't include the towing costs related to 'running out of juice' or the reduced life expectancy due to 'range anxiety'! Oh, and did I fail to mention that a standard SUV is many 10s of thousands of dollars less off the showroom floor? And no one ever really talks about the carbon footprint required
to 'build' a Tesla or any electric car for that matter.

Few things I am talking to myself to justify green vehicle but looks like I have wait longer for EV or Fool cell SUV (in affordable range)

 

[JRP3]

If you're really planning to run out of charge on a regular basis maybe you should sign up for AAA. Not sure why you think a battery pack only lasts 100K miles either, especially since you've been on this forum for over a year.

 

[Zythryn]

If I am looking at SUV size vehicle for next purchase ... Model X or usual suspect...

I am trying to figure things out but at 16 miles per gallon and $4.00 a gallon, its $0.25 per mile. you drive 100,000 miles for $25,000 (probably better because highway is better mileage (~25) in an SUV). At 100,000 miles in a Tesla you have burned through a $20,000 battery pack and we have not added the cost of electricity which is close to $5,000. over a 100,000 mile lifetime. And, we won't include the towing costs related to 'running out of juice' or the reduced life expectancy due to 'range anxiety'! Oh, and did I fail to mention that a standard SUV is many 10s of thousands of dollars less off the showroom floor? And no one ever really talks about the carbon footprint required
to 'build' a Tesla or any electric car for that matter.

Few things I am talking to myself to justify green vehicle but looks like I have wait longer for EV or Fool cell SUV (in affordable range)

You are basing your decision on incorrect information.
However, if you need more than 200 miles every day and don't have destination charging and don't have a supercharger on your route, an EV may not be for you.

 

[vinnie97]

Owning a Prius (c) now, Toyota's fascination with hydrogen is seriously putting me off. Their next-gen Prius plug-in was on my short list, but their efforts to have CA taxpayers subsidize their hydrogen network buildout with all of its disadvantages has me fiending a Tesla. The S is way beyond my means....*maybe* I could spring for a 3.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

If I am looking at SUV size vehicle for next purchase ... Model X or usual suspect...

I am trying to figure things out but at 16 miles per gallon and $4.00 a gallon, its $0.25 per mile. you drive 100,000 miles for $25,000 (probably better because highway is better mileage (~25) in an SUV). At 100,000 miles in a Tesla you have burned through a $20,000 battery pack and we have not added the cost of electricity which is close to $5,000. over a 100,000 mile lifetime. And, we won't include the towing costs related to 'running out of juice' or the reduced life expectancy due to 'range anxiety'! Oh, and did I fail to mention that a standard SUV is many 10s of thousands of dollars less off the showroom floor? And no one ever really talks about the carbon footprint required
to 'build' a Tesla or any electric car for that matter.

Few things I am talking to myself to justify green vehicle but looks like I have wait longer for EV or Fool cell SUV (in affordable range)

Just a note: if a Model 3X pack is $20k, Tesla is way off target. They're looking under $200/kWh.

 

[Reykjavik]

If I am looking at SUV size vehicle for next purchase ... Model X or usual suspect...

I am trying to figure things out but at 16 miles per gallon and $4.00 a gallon, its $0.25 per mile. you drive 100,000 miles for $25,000 (probably better because highway is better mileage (~25) in an SUV). At 100,000 miles in a Tesla you have burned through a $20,000 battery pack and we have not added the cost of electricity which is close to $5,000. over a 100,000 mile lifetime. And, we won't include the towing costs related to 'running out of juice' or the reduced life expectancy due to 'range anxiety'! Oh, and did I fail to mention that a standard SUV is many 10s of thousands of dollars less off the showroom floor? And no one ever really talks about the carbon footprint required
to 'build' a Tesla or any electric car for that matter.

Few things I am talking to myself to justify green vehicle but looks like I have wait longer for EV or Fool cell SUV (in affordable range)

The top end battery pack has an 8 year, unlimited mile warranty. If the range has decreased significantly, you get a new one free. The data so far shows relatively little battery degradation. You also have to keep in mind that the mileage for internal combustion engines will drop over time as well.

As for towing costs for running out of juice, if you can't plan long trips well enough to avoid that consistently, you have larger issues than running out of power. And most drivers get used to the range fairly quickly, so I think the absence of inhaled gas fumes is probably a more significant health benefit than any range anxiety.

Finally, people do talk about the carbon footprint required to build EVs, and the carbon footprint of producing the electricity. The result is that if you power an EV entirely with coal, and use it for the normal lifespan of a car, the total environmental impact of an EV is about the same as a high efficiency (as in, 40-50 mpg) gas or diesel car. Any cleaner fuels (even natural gas) puts you ahead of combustion.

The thing that doesn't get talked about very often is the embedded carbon footprint of new gas cars, and the energy needed to produce gasoline. Gas cars don't take as much energy to produce as EVs, but the difference is blown away by the impact of using the thing. And oil does not come out of the ground ready to put in the car, in fact, the energy to refine a gallon of gas can drive a Tesla about 12 miles.

The only criticism of EVs that I've found that stands up to any scrutiny is price, and that is questionable. EVs do cost more up front, and whether the savings down the road will make up for it is unclear. If gas prices continue to rise, and if the maintenance costs and battery degradation continue to stay low for EVs, an EV bought today may well cost less over the life of the vehicle than an approximately equivalent gas car.

 

[Johan]

Two of the greatest engineers I know of (Elon and JB Straubel) had this to say in the Q2 earnings conference about FCVs by analyst Adam Jonas (he asked what we are all wondering i.e. why are all those big companies pursuing Fuel Cells?). I think it sums up the arguments very well. I would love to post the discussion as a quote here, for anyone who hasn't listened to the call, but can't seem to find a free version of the transcript on the interwebz. Anyway they both say they that they believe it's a diversion tactic (First they try to explain/analyse the physics behind it and come to the conclusion that for all metrics that mean something there are BEVs today that beat a theoretical, perfect, FCV on many of those and given a few more years on all of those metrics including range and refueling time. JB ends it with: "It doesn't make a lot of sense")

 

[JRP3]

Frankly I thought most of us knew that already, but it's nice to hear them putting it out there to a larger audience.

 

[TonyWilliams]

I would love to post the discussion as a quote here, for anyone who hasn't listened to the call, but can't seem to find a free version of the transcript on the interwebz.

Do you have a link to a record of the call?

 

[JRP3]

http://www.media-server.com/m/p/bbz2caea


Around the 8:30 mark.

 

[Johan]

http://www.media-server.com/m/p/bbz2caea


Around the 8:30 mark.

Thanks JRP! It really is worth listening to.

 

[richkae]

Another point to remember is that after you burn the gasoline - or hydrogen - or natural gas, it is gone.
After driving it til the end of its useful life in the car you still have the battery. Suppose the battery has degraded to the point you want to replace it. Let's say it has lost 30% of its capacity, and now your 85kWh battery is only a 60kWh battery.
It might still have a useful life as a 60kW car battery, or it could be used for another purpose.
Lead acid batteries for RE systems cost around $130 per kWh. A 60kWh lead acid battery is about $7800 and weighs 3500 pounds. The battery still has a lot of value.

 

[TonyWilliams]

http://www.media-server.com/m/p/bbz2caea


Around the 8:30 mark.

“As you know, I am not the biggest proponent of hydrogen…but really if you take a theoretically optimal fuel cell car and compare that to a car in production – a battery electric car; on key metrics of mass, volume complexity, cost and refilling infrastructure, it’s just…it is a loss. So it’s the best case in our opinion, the best case fuel cell car (and obviously the fuel cell cars are far from best case), cannot beat the current case electric car, so well why even try it? That just makes no sense. Success is not one of the possible outcomes.”

Follow up question from the analyst: “Why are they (CARB) doing this? That is why I asked if it’s BS. Is this just kind of a diversionary tactic or do you think they are just not up on what is up?”

“We are quite confused about this.”- Musk

“It does not make a lot of sense. I mean we didn’t even touch on the infrastructure challenges that hydrogen brings, but building out that infrastructure is substantially more expensive than building out any electric vehicle infrastructure. And there’s almost none of it today.” - JB Straubel (Tesla CTO)

“…also another thing - hydrogen is an energy carrier not an energy source. So you have to create the hydrogen which is really inefficient because you would either have to crack a hydrocarbon or electrolyzed water” – Musk

“Yeah – which is super inefficient, and then hydrogen has very low density. So if you are going to pick it as a chemical energy storage mechanism, the hydrogen is a terrible choice. At least you know, methane, CH4 lock up the hydrogen with one carbon atom or something.

 

[ecarfan]

It does appear that Elon and JB genuinely cannot understand why any car company is devoting resources into FCVs. It makes no sense at all.

And they did not take the opportunity to say that FCVs are just a way to get ZEV credits. They are either too polite to say that in public, or they simply cannot believe anyone could be so stupid as to take that path.

My opinion is that the heads of a few major car companies years ago got suckered into the promise of FCVs by engineers who thought it would be fun to explore the idea and now that they have put so much money into their programs they are afraid to stop the development and lose face and they want the ZEV credits. The programs have become self-perpetuating, since the people in charge of FCV development want to keep their jobs so they tell the CEOs what they want to hear.