Are hydrogen tanks superior to batteries?

[Martin Williams]

I see another hydrogen station has opened in the USA, bringing the national total to a massive total of ... 34!

At least the number is going in the right direction!

 

[DonDeeHippy]

On the contrary, the fact that the makers of fool cell cars have to sweeten the deal for consumers by offering (for the Mirai, at least) three years of fuel, just so they can get people to buy even the rather limited number of fool cell cars they make, really underscores the fact that hydrogen-powered cars are very far from being competitive with either gasmobiles or plug-in EVs!

But hey, if you want to buy a fool cell car, then by all means do so. I'd compare that to buying an Edsel back in the day, but that would be unfair to anyone who ever bought an Edsel. For all that model's faults, at least you could fuel them up at the same places as any other gasmobile. And unlike fool cell cars, the Edsel didn't require a special fuel which had an unsubsidized per-mile cost about three times what gasoline costs in the U.S.!

There is a reason why fool cell cars are selling in even lower numbers than auto makers expected. Despite all the propaganda promoting fool cell cars from Toyota and other auto makers, most car buyers are not fools!
-

Umm isn't that what Tesla did with the free supercharger network ?

 

[DonDeeHippy]

ROTFL!!


Trying for revisionist history there, Excoriator? I certainly was not wrong to remain skeptical about EEStor's claims. There were a few Usual Suspects on TheEEStory forum, at the end after third-party test results were finally published, who said sorrowfully "You were right, Lensman." How about you, Excoriator? Not so much, huh?

How about those "clean diesel" cars, hmmm?


Contrariwise, no need for any skepticism at all about using compressed hydrogen fuel for passenger cars. The absurd impracticality and profligately wasteful energy inefficiency are proven beyond any reasonable doubt; proven both theoretically and experimentally.

It's now clear to me that your purpose here is to be a contrarian, and I don't mean that in the sense of stock market contrarian. In other words, your purpose is just to be a slightly more subtle form of troll. You're definitely not interested in honest discussion of the ideas and issues.
-

and your purpose seams to lay down the law and tell people what they r thinking, well done
to the self appointed EV police.

 

[Martin Williams]

I have been trying to establish how much fuel cells cost to produce - per kW output - these days. Its a bit hard to come up with a figure as it varies widely with the size.

The best figure I can come up with in 2018 is about $40. The 2020 cost target is $30 a kW, and there seems to be optimism that this will be achieved or bettered. So a 100kW fuel cell would cost about $3,000.

Hydrogen tanks are another area where quite dramatic progress is being achieved, particularly in the use of plastic and composite materials which will reduce he weight but I can find no figure for the cost.

Toyota, however, has declared its intention of producing FCVs at the same price as a Prius within a few years which, if they can achieve it would be a major game changer.

 

[Martin Williams]

Umm isn't that what Tesla did with the free supercharger network ?

Well, its a bit more than that. Tesla subsidised each car to the tune of $20,000 last year. (!00,000 cars sold at a total loss of $2 billion) I don't know how that compares with three years free hydrogen, but neither is very surprising. New technology quite often requires a bit of encouragement.

 

[DonDeeHippy]

Well, its a bit more than that. Tesla subsidised each car to the tune of $20,000 last year. (!00,000 cars sold at a total loss of $2 billion) I don't know how that compares with three years free hydrogen, but neither is very surprising. New technology quite often requires a bit of encouragement.

That would be true if they where not expanding their manufacturing, they have huge waiting list so they are expanding, I think any right minded business would do the same. I don't think they loose money selling a car like the big3 said they do.
Next u will be on the Tesla going broke old wagon

 

[bwilson4web]

Umm isn't that what Tesla did with the free supercharger network ?

Well Tesla built the Supercharger network and the fuel cell vendors did not build the hydrogen stations. BTW, Model 3 owners pay a fee.

A lot of tax dollars paid for those hydrogen stations.

Bob Wilson

 

[Martin Williams]

I don't wish them ill, and hope they succeed. It's looking a bit dicey at the moment, but it has in the past and they've survived. As long as investors are happy to pour more and more money into the company all will be well.

There may be excellent reasons for the loss, but you can't argue that it was a loss accrued over a production of 100,000 cars. Tesla will be in trouble if they can't churn out their new cars fast enough. Almost a third of the year has gone by now, and they haven't got anywhere near their targets.

 

[DonDeeHippy]

I found this in the energy segment called cheep hydrogen energy
https://www.insideevsforum.com/community/threads/cheap-hydrogen-energy.687/

The bolt on to existing cars looks real and could be a great stop gap, and a great use for hydrogen

Its the next 2 that really interest me ,r they vapour ware or is it possible , hydrogen car running from its own production and storing in a liquid form with no big compression, they say they have a prototype and its a big *** ute as well.
Is it realistic or just like my favourite dream car the redox battery Nanoflow car Santa fee ?

 

[Martin Williams]

Well Tesla built the Supercharger network and the fuel cell vendors did not build the hydrogen stations. BTW, Model 3 owners pay a fee.

A lot of tax dollars paid for those hydrogen stations.

Bob Wilson

I wouldn't worry about it Bob. They will get it back by taxes over time. Indeed they probably collected a lot back before it was even completed! The construction company, the manufacturers of the building materials and other equipment will pay tax, as will their employees, and the shops where they spend their money and so on.

I never worry about government spending after getting my head around J.M.Keynes's theories!

 

[DonDeeHippy]

I don't wish them ill, and hope they succeed. It's looking a bit dicey at the moment, but it has in the past and they've survived. As long as investors are happy to pour more and more money into the company all will be well.

There may be excellent reasons for the loss, but you can't argue that it was a loss accrued over a production of 100,000 cars. Tesla will be in trouble if they can't churn out their new cars fast enough. Almost a third of the year has gone by now, and they haven't got anywhere near their targets.

To true however they still made a lot of cars in the first 3 months, just a little from their report

Q1 production totaled 34,494 vehicles, a 40% increase from Q4 and by far the most productive quarter in Tesla history. 24,728 were Model S and Model X, and 9,766 were Model 3.

so 34000 same production rest of the year is 138000 cars and they did 98000 last year that's 40% increase over last year and they r still ramping up the 3, Yes elon has great announcements but the number they r really doing are impressive as well.

 

[NeilBlanchard]

I don't drive an FCEV. I have a petrol and a diesel car.

Why not, pray tell?

 

[TeslaInvestors]

Well Tesla built the Supercharger network and the fuel cell vendors did not build the hydrogen stations. BTW, Model 3 owners pay a fee.

A lot of tax dollars paid for those hydrogen stations.

Bob Wilson

Huh? You have supporting evidence for such claims?

Here is just a small sample of how much tax dollars are spent just by California air resource board. Add the global tax dollars spent by other US states, Norway, EU. UK and others in promoting the still lame battery powered cars. Also add the money spent by states and others to support companies set up free workplace electric car charging stations. Also add the $7500 federal tax credit. All these quickly add up t a huge tally for the battery cars. If you want to make such claims, please add all these up for fuel cell and electric cars, and we can look at the total spent so far. Thank you.

Then compare the progress it has made vs. Hydrogen cars with much less tax dollar spending.

 

[TeslaInvestors]

T
The fuel cell itself is relatively inefficient - about 50% or so? Fuel cells are expensive to make, and they don't last very long - about 75,000 miles, last I heard. You would have to replace the most expensive component of the car much sooner than you would want to.
..
Fool cells, indeed!

Trying very hard, eh? Try doing some research first. Because with these blatant lies, instead of the fuel cell, you are looking like the fool.
AC Transit Fuel Cell Bus Exceeds 20,000 Hours of Service
http://www.masstransitmag.com/press...-fuel-cell-bus-exceeds-20000-hours-of-service

A fuel cell installed in an Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District’s (AC Transit) bus set a record-breaking milestone — 20,000 hours of continuous operation. The fuel cell, manufactured by UTC Power, was not expected to operate beyond 5,000 hours, or about one year of service for an AC Transit bus.

With 20,000 hours of zero emission service, AC Transit’s quiet-running fuel cell bus has helped to improve the overall air quality, dramatically reducing the amount of noise and pollution in the communities it serves. By itself, the fuel cell bus has removed 1,134,000 pounds of CO2 from the atmosphere-- equivalent to planting 13,189 trees or taking 108 passenger vehicles off the road for one year.

AC Transit currently operates 12 of these zero emission buses that together have logged more than 150,000 hours of service.

PS: I didn't have time to read your long post. But that line stuck out. Else, I will be refuting every sentence possibly.

 

[ekutter]

This whole thread is getting pretty amusing. Only time will tell which technology dominates in the end. There is certainly room for both given each has its advantages. We are talking electric motors regardless. It's just what technology is used to store the energy. For passenger cars, my money is definitely on battery. The main advantage of fuel cells is the quick fill. Given that most trips in most cars are well under 100 miles, quick fill isn't as important as one might think, at least if you have easy access to overnight charging. In the end, there could easily be a hybrid technology combining fuel cell and battery. This would make more sense than today's hybrid's since you wouldn't need to dual engine/motor technology.

The big argument here seems to be which technology has more room to improve. Nobody here really knows. Either way, we get away from ICE. And either way, our environment will get cleaner as renewable energy sources improve as well.

 

[Martin Williams]

Why not, pray tell?

Both cost too much. No way am I going to spend tens of thousands of pounds for the privilege of worrying about charging or battery care, so battery cars are a huge no-no for me.

I would consider a hydrogen car if they cost the same as a Prius, and there were a hydrogen station conveniently on one of my more frequent routes.

 

[Martin Williams]

This whole thread is getting pretty amusing. Only time will tell which technology dominates in the end. There is certainly room for both given each has its advantages. We are talking electric motors regardless. It's just what technology is used to store the energy. For passenger cars, my money is definitely on battery. The main advantage of fuel cells is the quick fill. Given that most trips in most cars are well under 100 miles, quick fill isn't as important as one might think, at least if you have easy access to overnight charging. In the end, there could easily be a hybrid technology combining fuel cell and battery. This would make more sense than today's hybrid's since you wouldn't need to dual engine/motor technology.

The big argument here seems to be which technology has more room to improve. Nobody here really knows. Either way, we get away from ICE. And either way, our environment will get cleaner as renewable energy sources improve as well.

Well, you are forgetting that two-thirds of Europeans and a third of Americans cannot charge a car at home. That is why a 'quick fill' is important. Nobody wants to spend more than a few minutes at a filling station.

I suspect that the new supercapacitors - if they ever appear - would quickly replace the batteries in fuel cell cars. They are far better adapted to the requirement.

To true however they still made a lot of cars in the first 3 months, just a little from their report

Q1 production totaled 34,494 vehicles, a 40% increase from Q4 and by far the most productive quarter in Tesla history. 24,728 were Model S and Model X, and 9,766 were Model 3.

so 34000 same production rest of the year is 138000 cars and they did 98000 last year that's 40% increase over last year and they r still ramping up the 3, Yes elon has great announcements but the number they r really doing are impressive as well.

I take your point, but the company is expected to make an even bigger loss this year than last, too!

 

[bwilson4web]

Huh? You have supporting evidence for such claims?

Google reports in 2013 Jerry Brown signed laws to pay for hydrogen fuel stations:
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2018/01/26/g...ission-vehicles-fund-new-climate-investments/

Today’s action builds on past efforts to boost zero-emission vehicles, including: legislation signed last year and in 2014 and 2013; adopting the 2016 Zero-Emission Vehicle Plan and the Advanced Clean Carsprogram; hosting a Zero-Emission Vehicle Summit; launching a multi-state ZEV Action Plan; co-founding the International ZEV Alliance; and issuing Executive Order B-16-12 in 2012 to help bring 1.5 million zero-emission vehicles to California by 2025.​

Also: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/comes-first-hydrogen-powered-cars-fueling-stations

• SCOTT SHAFER:
  So, in 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed a new law that provides $20 million a year to build at least 100 hydrogen refueling stations in California by 2024. Nineteen new stations are already in development.
  
• CATHERINE DUNWOODY:
  The state funding helps offset the risk to these small and medium-sized businesses to make this investment, to move forward with hydrogen fuel technology.

Sounds like we'll have to agree to disagree about tax money used to build these hydrogen fuel stations.

Bob Wilson

 

[bwilson4web]

This whole thread is getting pretty amusing.

For me, enlightening about fuel cell advocates and their strange assertions. But some patterns emerge:

• Not finding owners - the FCV advocates are by-standers with no skin in the game.
• Using 'future' predictions - even though FCV vehicles and hydrogen stations exist, current facts and data are not used.
• Outdated claims about BEV and plug-in hybrids - in spite of their existence, operation, and sales, there is excessive reliance on failed predictions from a decade ago.

We saw similar patterns with the Prius. The skeptics were 'hammer and tongs' opposed and then I bought a used one and before I got it home, already punctured false claims. Now that BEV and plug-in hybrids are here, two in my hands, we're seeing similar false narratives.

I join forums to share tricks and techniques to maximize return on investment. So sometimes, you just have to 'turn up the squelch' to filter out the noise.

Bob Wilson

 

[Martin Williams]

Well, there is at least one FCV owner who posts here, and his experience seems to be good.

I'm pleased for him, but I'm equally pleased for owners of EVs. Both have every right to choose vehicles they like. This is not a competition but rather a discussion of how best to get rid of ICEs. We are, I believe, united on this (even 101101 I think) so why not simply discuss the pros and cons of different methods of achieving it dispassionately?

I don't believe use of terms like 'fool cell' is at all helpful. It seems designed to annoy rather than to make any sensible contribution. A pity, because the main user of the term does make the occasional point that is worth answering