Whats your opinion on Fuel Cell Vehicles (FCVs)?

[TopherTheME]

I've been very surpised by all the negativity around Hyundai's FCV Tuscan and the upcoming FCV sedan from Toyota. All the comments sections of the "green" car sites are filled with comments about how hydrogen and fuel cells are less efficient than gasoline and are a total scam. And that companies like Toyota are just out to scam people and meet standards for CARB since they don't want to mass produce BEVs and that BEVs are the future of transporation. What are your thoughts? I know all the technologies very well but will reserve stating my opinion (and facts!) but what does that average techy and informed consumer think?

 

[plus 3 golfer]

From what I recall from the mid 1990s, the issues with fuel cells centered around dissipation of heat and durability of materials. I visted the Westinghouse Pittsburgh R&D facility many times for presentations and updates on their FC power test systems. Every time it was 2-3 years before they would have the commercial system ready. That was nearly 20 years ago. I'm not sure whether circle W ever commercialized fuel cell power systems.

 

So, I really doubt this is just around the corner for the auto industry. I would also guess that durability of a FC system in a moving vehicle could present problems. IMO, it will take heavy subsidies before such a vehicle will be able to compete with HEVs and PHEVs. Also, what about the infrastructure to support a FCV.

[kostby]

I like the concept of a fuel cell - Combine hydrogen and oxygen, generate electricity, and leave behind only water as a by-product.

The first problem is building out the infrastructure to support refueling that is convenient for consumers. 

At this point, if an FCV runs out of hydrogen fuel, it has to be hauled on a flatbed to the nearest refueling station. You can't go buy a 5-gallon bottle of hydrogen and fill it yourself.

 

Just like other hybrids from other manufacturers, the proof for me would be in how it drives.

I'm not interested in a hydrogen-fueled Prius with the same limitations on comfort and performance.

 

Hyundai has the Tucson Fuel Cell, a modest SUV-sized vehicle and available only in southern California initially. 

265 mile maximum range, 0-62mph in 12.5 seconds, and a top speed of 100mph.

It will be available for lease only at $499 a month for 36 months with $2999 down, including all maintenance. Details:

https://www.hyundaiusa.com/tucsonfuelcell/

 

Toyota claims a 300 mile range for their (apparently) Prius-sized 2015 Fuel Cell vehicle. Pricing not yet listed on the website:

http://www.toyota.com/fuelcell/

Edited August 29, 2014 by kostby

[wab]

I was looking for this.

"In January (1997), Chrysler announced plans to develop a fuel-cell car with an on-board re-former. It will extract hydrogen from plain gasoline without actually burning it. Not unexpectedly, Atlantic Richfield Co. (ARCO) and Exxon are helping."

 

 

When I found this.

"Hongjie Dai and colleagues have developed a cheap, emissions-free device that uses a 1.5-volt battery to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen gas could be used to power fuel cells in zero-emissions vehicles."

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/august/splitter-clean-fuel-082014.html

 

 

[plus 3 golfer]

The concept has been around for a long while.   

 

$499 is a steep lease price for a Tucson with limited range, poor performance, and virtually no infrastructure.   I wonder what the residual value is.  Also, my guess is that the fuel costs of an FCV might be as or more expensive than the gasoline version of the vehicle.  So, it will likely be a long while before an FCV gains favor of the consumer.   I wonder who foots the flatbed charges when one breaks down runs out of fuel 130+ miles from the dealer. :)

 

Right now its a novelty / discussion item.  Give it another 15 years or so and maybe an FCV will be at least where the PEVs and HEVs are now - under 4 million total sales since 1999 which is a small % of total US auto sales - see attachment.

EVTC-RR-01-14.pdf

Edited August 29, 2014 by Plus 3 Golfer

[fotomoto]

Infrastructure.   Even out in the middle of nowhere, you can find a plug or at the very least build your own solar.  Hydrogen supply in EBF Texas?  LOL Fuggetaboutit.   I haven't seen any plan on who's going to step up and pay for the hydrogen highway.   :shift:

 

I'm intrigued by and very interested in the technology.

[bro1999]

They're not nicknamed "Fool Cells" just for fun. Look at this article about fuel cell/EV charging station grants:

 

http://insideevs.com/california-approves-46-6-million-funding-hydrogen-fueling-stations-2-8-million-ev-charging-stations/

 

$46.6 million for 27 hydrogen fueling stations....compared to $2.8 million for 175 EV charging stations.

 

'nuff said.

[WheNRG]

Today hydrogen generation is expensive due to high electrical costs for standard electrolysis processes.  Or you can generate it from fossil fuels, but those processes still polute.  Fuel cells are also netorious for "poisoning" if the purity levels get too low.  Not sure whether this generally results in cleaning, rebuilding or replacing.

 

Now if these guys really have the goods you could put an efficient hydrogen generator right on board and run your car on water for almost nothing. 

http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com/

[TopherTheME]

From what I recall from the mid 1990s, the issues with fuel cells centered around dissipation of heat and durability of materials. I visted the Westinghouse Pittsburgh R&D facility many times for presentations and updates on their FC power test systems. Every time it was 2-3 years before they would have the commercial system ready. That was nearly 20 years ago. I'm not sure whether circle W ever commercialized fuel cell power systems.

 

So, I really doubt this is just around the corner for the auto industry. I would also guess that durability of a FC system in a moving vehicle could present problems. IMO, it will take heavy subsidies before such a vehicle will be able to compete with HEVs and PHEVs. Also, what about the infrastructure to support a FCV.

 

Lets try and keep the facts straight. The fuel cells being developed by Westinghouse/Siemens are solid oxide fuel cells more suited for stationary applications. Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) fuel cell technology is what is being proposed for transportation.

 

Durability is always a concern, but 100k+ mile fuel cells have already been proven. Your modern car fuel cell exceeds 10k hours of service and has greater life in terms of total energy throughput (which is what really matters) than lithium batteries used for cars.

Edited August 29, 2014 by TopherTheME

[TopherTheME]

I was looking for this.

"In January (1997), Chrysler announced plans to develop a fuel-cell car with an on-board re-former. It will extract hydrogen from plain gasoline without actually burning it. Not unexpectedly, Atlantic Richfield Co. (ARCO) and Exxon are helping."

 

 

When I found this.

"Hongjie Dai and colleagues have developed a cheap, emissions-free device that uses a 1.5-volt battery to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen gas could be used to power fuel cells in zero-emissions vehicles."

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/august/splitter-clean-fuel-082014.html

 

 

This is probably more of a lab experiment than actual technological breakthrough. I can electrolyze water with a 1.5V battery as well as water begins to electrolyze at 1.23V at STP.

[TopherTheME]

Today hydrogen generation is expensive due to high electrical costs for standard electrolysis processes.  Or you can generate it from fossil fuels, but those processes still polute.  Fuel cells are also netorious for "poisoning" if the purity levels get too low.  Not sure whether this generally results in cleaning, rebuilding or replacing.

 

Now if these guys really have the goods you could put an efficient hydrogen generator right on board and run your car on water for almost nothing. 

http://www.solarhydrogentrends.com/

 

95% of H2 produced today is from reforming natural gas. So yes, in this case H2 would come from fossil fuels. But electricity for our NRG's comes from fossil fuels as well (70% of it in the US). :) 

 

I'm assuming you are referring to CO poisoning of the anode, which isn't that big of an issue anymore. CO poisoning isn't something that permanently damages PEMFC and doesn't necessarily require any vehicle service to be fixed.

 

I'll reserve judgement about the link you posted but I'm very skeptical.

[TopherTheME]

They're not nicknamed "Fool Cells" just for fun. Look at this article about fuel cell/EV charging station grants:

 

http://insideevs.com/california-approves-46-6-million-funding-hydrogen-fueling-stations-2-8-million-ev-charging-stations/

 

$46.6 million for 27 hydrogen fueling stations....compared to $2.8 million for 175 EV charging stations.

 

'nuff said.

 

To be fair, those 28 H2 stations are capable of serving thousands of FCVs a day (assuming there is that many) while those 175 charging stations, only around a few hundred BEVs.

[plus 3 golfer]

Lets try and keep the facts straight. The fuel cells being developed by Westinghouse/Siemens are solid oxide fuel cells more suited for stationary applications. Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) fuel cell technology is what is being proposed for transportation.

 

Durability is always a concern, but 100k+ mile fuel cells have already been proven. Your modern car fuel cell exceeds 10k hours of service and has greater life in terms of total energy throughput (which is what really matters) than lithium batteries used for cars.

I understand that it was a solid oxide fuel cell.  But 100 k miles proven? Then, what after 100k miles?  Please provide the study results, so we can make our own assessments.   FCs always "sounds" like a great idea until one has all the facts. ;)

Edited August 29, 2014 by Plus 3 Golfer

[TopherTheME]

Its going to be hard to find that information about vehicles from OEMs in any official manner since its proprietary but you can just google it and find companies that that predict 100k mile lifetime based on ALT.

 

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hydrogen-fuel-cell-thats-as-durable-as-a-conventional-engine-213225731.html

 

The DoE has reports showing lifetimes of 75k miles.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/accomplishments.pdf

 

 

 

"Then, what after 100k miles?"

 

Good question. As of right now its the same answer as what to do with a BEV after 100k miles. You either just deal with the reduced performance or you get a new car.

[hybridbear]

There are a couple issues with fuel cells:

1. pollution - to refine one barrel of oil into approximately 19 gallons of gasoline you also need: electricity, water & another hydrocarbon fuel to burn to create heat, an EV can drive the equivalent distance of a gasoline car with 19 gallons of gas just from the electricity used in refining, meaning that an EV leaves you with: all the water, other hydrocarbon fuel & one barrel of oil, creating much less pollution. Fuel cells have a similar issue. The energy required to make H₂ available as a fuel is very high and an EV can do so much more with so much less energy. The key to reducing GHGs in the atmosphere and addressing climate change is to reduce overall energy consumption, the efficiency of electric motors and battery packs allows this. Reducing energy consumption solves all the other issues (GHGs, pollution, etc).
2. fuel cost - Toyota says that optimistically a fuel cell vehicle will cost the same to operate as a 20 MPG gas car. An EV costs the same to operate as a 100+ MPG gas car. Why in the world would anyone want to have a FCV when you could drive an EV, hybrid or diesel (or even a 2.5L gas Ford Fusion) for less money?
3. infrastructure - EVs can be charged anywhere there is electricity, which is pretty much everywhere in this country, fuel cell vehicles need specialized fuel stations which are very expensive to build due to the equipment needed to store H₂. Another study suggests that a $1 billion investment is needed to bring H₂ costs down to $7/kg. This cost would be equivalent to your average new gas only car sold today. Again, this cost is about 4 times what it would cost to operate a BEV sold today. These projections assume that gasoline vehicles become no more efficient or less expensive and that EVs also become no more efficient or less expensive.
4. vehicle cost - FCVs cost way more than BEVs
5. who sells the fuel - the same companies that currently sell gasoline want to sell you H₂. The companies selling H₂ are also for-profit companies. One expects to be profitable selling H₂ in just a few years. Electricity usually comes from utilities which are regulated and are not allowed to price gouge and are even required to return profits to their customers in some areas. Any landowner can also generate their own electricity by purchasing PV panels or through other methods.

I don't think that BEVs are practical for cross-country travel or as the only car in a one-car household. Even Teslas with SuperChargers aren't practical for road trips in my mind.

 

What I could envision for the future is a world where a multi-car household has at least one BEV and at least one PHEV or diesel depending on their needs. For residents in rural areas who do a lot of high speed driving with minimal traffic, diesels are the most efficient mode of transport. For city dwellers who spend lots of time commuting in traffic, BEVs are the best option as a primary vehicle. Since most households have more than one car, the secondary or tertiary vehicle should be something with "limitless" range - a PHEV or a diesel. For people who need a maximum amount of cargo space a hybrid or diesel vehicle will suit their needs while reducing resource consumption.

 

The key in all of this is to reduce resource consumption. That is the key to addressing the global issues. Any project that doesn't address resource consumption won't help. FCVs don't fix the resource consumption issue, that's why the oil companies like FCVs.

 

I hate to be cynical, but I don't understand how any car company could promote FCVs over BEVs. The only way I can rationalize the position taken by Toyota, Honda and Hyundai is that they're being paid off by big oil. Otherwise how could they justify the R&D dollars for FCVs when it's clear that they'll never work in the real world. All that they manage is to stall the BEV revolution and keep big oil happy and wealthy. The whole system is corrupt.

[MomsHugs]

Hummm... the Hyundai FCV sure looks like a C-Max!

[joe]

The key to the world's energy is the battery.

When an electric powered car has a range of 400 to 500 miles and can be charged up in 5 minutes or less, then all these other alternative fueled vehicles will go away. And I suspect it will take  less research and developent to create a 5 minute rechargeable battery than building a hydrogen system.  Plus, the infrastructure exists today where you can just plug into your home, at gas stations, etc.

 Yes, it takes some dirty manufacturing processes to create electricity (power plants) and to recycle the batteries, but a quick charge battery can be used for heating and cooling homes (using daylight solar power to recharge batteries for night use), etc. without needing a power plant except as a backup.  And with more efficient solar panels on the car's roof, batteries could receive a boost to extend the car's range.

[MomsHugs]

Wab ~ Thank you for the link to the Stanford article. Credit actually goes to a Stanford graduate student, Ming Gong, for discovering an inexpensive process of splitting water to make hydrogen, which is normally energy-intensive... as described in the article (see quote below). Note the Asian names of all but one author. This is exciting news! An amazing discovery with tremendous potential for vehicle & industrial development. 

Thanks again! ~ MomsHugs aka Eve

 

 

Most of these vehicles will run on fuel manufactured at large industrial plants that produce hydrogen by combining very hot steam and natural gas, an energy-intensive process that releases carbon dioxide as a byproduct.

 

Splitting water to make hydrogen requires no fossil fuels and emits no greenhouse gases. But scientists have yet to develop an affordable, active water splitter with catalysts capable of working at industrial scales.

 

"It's been a constant pursuit for decades to make low-cost electrocatalysts with high activity and long durability," Dai said. "When we found out that a nickel-based catalyst is as effective as platinum, it came as a complete surprise."

 

The discovery was made by Stanford graduate student Ming Gong, co-lead author of the study. "Ming discovered a nickel-metal/nickel-oxide structure that turns out to be more active than pure nickel metal or pure nickel oxide alone," Dai said.  "This novel structure favors hydrogen electrocatalysis, but we still don't fully understand the science behind it."

 

The nickel/nickel-oxide catalyst significantly lowers the voltage required to split water, which could eventually save hydrogen producers billions of dollars in electricity costs, according to Gong. His next goal is to improve the durability of the device.

 

"Hydrogen is an ideal fuel for powering vehicles, buildings and storing renewable energy on the grid," said Dai. "We're very glad that we were able to make a catalyst that's very active and low cost. This shows that through nanoscale engineering of materials we can really make a difference in how we make fuels and consume energy."

 

Other authors of the study are Wu Zhou, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (co-lead author); Mingyun Guan, Meng-Chang Lin, Bo Zhang, Di-Yan Wang and Jiang Yang, Stanford; Mon-Che Tsai and Bing-Joe Wang, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology; Jiang Zhou and Yongfeng Hu, Canadian Light Source Inc.; and Stephen J. Pennycook, University of Tennessee.

 

 

 

Edited August 31, 2014 by MomsHugs

[MomsHugs]

The new Battery Fabrication and Characterization User Facility is nearing completion at the U. of Michigan. UM collaborated with Ford Motor Co. to build the facility, which will be available to any firm to use, as well as materials scientists and engineers, suppliers and manufacturers, to ease a bottleneck in battery development & serve as a safe zone for non-competitive collaboration.

 

Ann Marie Sastry, UM Professor of Materials Science, founded Sakti3 to develop new batteries. Using solid state product technology and extensive research and development into materials and processes, Sakti3 has been able to simplify the number of materials used to create highly efficient batteries. Solving the materials problem is the hardest part of any new device physics, and Sakti3 has developed the intellectual property for achieving this goal.

[Adrian_L]

  And with more efficient solar panels on the car's roof, batteries could receive a boost to extend the car's range.

 

A heck of a lot more efficient solar panels! As many on the forum will know, you could cover the Chevy Volt's roof with a solar panel and it would take a very, very long time to replenish a drained battery.

[TopherTheME]

There are a couple issues with fuel cells:

pollution - to refine one barrel of oil into approximately 19 gallons of gasoline you also need: electricity, water & another hydrocarbon fuel to burn to create heat, an EV can drive the equivalent distance of a gasoline car with 19 gallons of gas just from the electricity used in refining, meaning that an EV leaves you with: all the water, other hydrocarbon fuel & one barrel of oil, creating much less pollution. Fuel cells have a similar issue. The energy required to make H₂ available as a fuel is very high and an EV can do so much more with so much less energy. The key to reducing GHGs in the atmosphere and addressing climate change is to reduce overall energy consumption, the efficiency of electric motors and battery packs allows this. Reducing energy consumption solves all the other issues (GHGs, pollution, etc).

 

The well-to-wheels (w2w) efficiency of an ICE vehicle is about 14%. The w2w of an electric vehicle is about 28%. However, because about 70% of the electrical energy in North America is derived from coal, its actually more environmentally friendly is most cases to drive a regular ICE vehicle than a BEV. For example, a Mazda 3 has about the same environmental impact as the Tesla Model S (85kWh) in many parts of the US. (322gCO2/mi and 320gCO2/mi in Michigan, check it out at fueleconomy.gov) The car with the least environmental impact isn’t a BEV at all, its the Toyota Prius at 222gCO2/mi.

The reformation process of nat gas to H2 is about 85% with newer plants, fuel cell efficiency about 60%. After the H2 is delivered and compressed FCVs produced about 300gCO2/mi for a small SUV, depending on which study you prescribe to. With the infrastructure the way it stands, they are actually on par with BEVs and HEVs for GHG emissions.

Heres a neat breakdown (although I think a little bias to FCVs): http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/13005_well_to_wheels_ghg_oil_ldvs.pdf

 

 

fuel cost - Toyota says that optimistically a fuel cell vehicle will cost the same to operate as a 20 MPG gas car. An EV costs the same to operate as a 100+ MPG gas car. Why in the world would anyone want to have a FCV when you could drive an EV, hybrid or diesel (or even a 2.5L gas Ford Fusion) for less money?

 

The average cost of a kWh in the US is around $0.10/kWh meaning it would cost about $8.50 to fully charge a Model S for a range of 265 miles. Toyota (and other organizations) estimate a kg of H2 to be about $8 with minimal infrastructure. A tank of 5kg of hydrogen would take you about 430 miles in a similar sized car (Toyota FCV example) for a cost of around $25 for the same range, or 3x more. Why would you buy one? Well the same reason you would buy an ICE/PHEV over a BEV, for the range. At $40 to fill the tank for 430 miles its on par with petrol for fuel cost.

 

 

infrastructure - EVs can be charged anywhere there is electricity, which is pretty much everywhere in this country, fuel cell vehicles need specialized fuel stations which are very expensive to build due to the equipment needed to store H₂. Another study suggests that a $1 billion investment is needed to bring H₂ costs down to $7/kg. This cost would be equivalent to your average new gas only car sold today. Again, this cost is about 4 times what it would cost to operate a BEV sold today. These projections assume that gasoline vehicles become no more efficient or less expensive and that EVs also become no more efficient or less expensive.

 

Yes, they require a significant investment of infrastructure. But so do BEVs, and on the same scale. Sure a BEV can be charged almost anywhere, but the current electrical grid isn’t capable of supporting BEVs on a large scale.

 

vehicle cost - FCVs cost way more than BEVs

 

This is relative. Cost estimates for the Toyota FCV are $50k for a vehicle with 430 miles of range and that can be refueled. The Model S is about half the range realistically starts at around $80k.

 

 

who sells the fuel - the same companies that currently sell gasoline want to sell you H₂. The companies selling H₂ are also for-profit companies. One expects to be profitable selling H₂ in just a few years. Electricity usually comes from utilities which are regulated and are not allowed to price gouge and are even required to return profits to their customers in some areas. Any landowner can also generate their own electricity by purchasing PV panels or through other methods.

 

This is not correct. The same companies that want to sell you H2 are the chemical companies that have always produced it. For example, Praxair, Airgas, etc. Selling H2 is already profitable, it’s a gas that’s already used on a large industrial scale. But yes, these companies are not immune to price gouging, just like the petrolium companies.

 

I don't think that BEVs are practical for cross-country travel or as the only car in a one-car household. Even Teslas with SuperChargers aren't practical for road trips in my mind.

What I could envision for the future is a world where a multi-car household has at least one BEV and at least one PHEV or diesel depending on their needs. For residents in rural areas who do a lot of high speed driving with minimal traffic, diesels are the most efficient mode of transport. For city dwellers who spend lots of time commuting in traffic, BEVs are the best option as a primary vehicle. Since most households have more than one car, the secondary or tertiary vehicle should be something with "limitless" range - a PHEV or a diesel. For people who need a maximum amount of cargo space a hybrid or diesel vehicle will suit their needs while reducing resource consumption.

 

I agree. However H2 has the ability to be produced in many sustainable ways from solar and nuclear far more efficiently than electricity can. Why not just replace the gasoline with a fuel like H2 that has the potential of being sustainable? We’re going to run out of gasoline eventually anyway.

 

 

The key in all of this is to reduce resource consumption. That is the key to addressing the global issues. Any project that doesn't address resource consumption won't help. FCVs don't fix the resource consumption issue, that's why the oil companies like FCVs.

 

I hate to be cynical, but I don't understand how any car company could promote FCVs over BEVs. The only way I can rationalize the position taken by Toyota, Honda and Hyundai is that they're being paid off by big oil. Otherwise how could they justify the R&D dollars for FCVs when it's clear that they'll never work in the real world. All that they manage is to stall the BEV revolution and keep big oil happy and wealthy. The whole system is corrupt.

 

The oil companies don’t like FCVs, they lobby them just as much as BEVs. The reason major auto companies like Toyota and Daimler are rejecting BEVs are because they see the big picture (and to remain competitive of course), not because they are being paid off by big oil. That’s our government’s job. Batteries are an energy storage device and will never be a replacement for an engine. Eventually we will have to stop using fossil fuels one way or another. The laws of physics and chemistry dictate that hydrogen is the best fuel to do it. Its all about having a closed chemical cycle transportation system and H2 + fuel cells is the only technology that can do it. If that argument doesn’t do it for you, just believe that these auto companies employ some of the best and brightest scientists and engineers in the world in the field of alternative energy so they sure as hell better know what they are doing.

Edited September 2, 2014 by TopherTheME

[TopherTheME]

The key to the world's energy is the battery.

When an electric powered car has a range of 400 to 500 miles and can be charged up in 5 minutes or less, then all these other alternative fueled vehicles will go away. And I suspect it will take  less research and developent to create a 5 minute rechargeable battery than building a hydrogen system.  Plus, the infrastructure exists today where you can just plug into your home, at gas stations, etc.

 Yes, it takes some dirty manufacturing processes to create electricity (power plants) and to recycle the batteries, but a quick charge battery can be used for heating and cooling homes (using daylight solar power to recharge batteries for night use), etc. without needing a power plant except as a backup.  And with more efficient solar panels on the car's roof, batteries could receive a boost to extend the car's range.

 

Unfortunately, I seriously doubt we will ever see a conventional sized car with 500mi range that charges in <5min. About the most energy dense battery we can build is the Li-Air battery and even with that kind of energy density a target of 500miles would be difficult. Charging in under 5min is nearly theoretically impossible for batteries of this scale, not to mentioned the power requirements for it.

[TopherTheME]

The new Battery Fabrication and Characterization User Facility is nearing completion at the U. of Michigan. UM collaborated with Ford Motor Co. to build the facility, which will be available to any firm to use, as well as materials scientists and engineers, suppliers and manufacturers, to ease a bottleneck in battery development & serve as a safe zone for non-competitive collaboration.

 

Ann Marie Sastry, UM Professor of Materials Science, founded Sakti3 to develop new batteries. Using solid state product technology and extensive research and development into materials and processes, Sakti3 has been able to simplify the number of materials used to create highly efficient batteries. Solving the materials problem is the hardest part of any new device physics, and Sakti3 has developed the intellectual property for achieving this goal.

 

I'm not gonna even touch this one its so controversial. I'll just say solid state batteries have their applications, but EV's isn't one of them.

[plus 3 golfer]

Unfortunately, I seriously doubt we will ever see a conventional sized car with 500mi range that charges in <5min. About the most energy dense battery we can build is the Li-Air battery and even with that kind of energy density a target of 500miles would be difficult. Charging in under 5min is nearly theoretically impossible for batteries of this scale, not to mentioned the power requirements for it.

I agree.  IMO, BEV have there place but for the time being PEV and FCV make more sense on a longer time horizon because of the range / charging issues of a BEV.  We could live with one  smaller BEV but not two as we need another vehicle for trips,  I certainly don't want to stop every few hundred miles to waste time for an 80% charge to complete and driver slower to extend range as such additional time could easily add an additional overnight stay and such expenses on longer trips.  

 

But IMO, it will take considerably more time before a FCV will be able to compete with PEVs and also be available to the majority of consumers.  So, the question is what market segment is the FCV to compete with?  Manufacturers seem to be shying away form BEVs.  Are there studies on this?  Is CA wasting consumer $ on FCV infrastructure?  If seems that PEV with a larger battery may be better than an FCV.  Also, wouldn't it make more sense to build FC generating stations as the electrical infrastructure is in place.  Utilities are planning to shut down many older coal fired plant which will result in cleaner air. 

Edited September 2, 2014 by Plus 3 Golfer

[TopherTheME]

  But IMO, it will take considerably more time before a FCV will be able to compete with PEVs and also be available to the majority of consumers.  So, the question is what market segment is the FCV to compete with?  Manufacturers seem to be shying away form BEVs.  Are there studies on this?  Is CA wasting consumer $ on FCV infrastructure?  If seems that PEV with a larger battery may be better than an FCV.  Also, wouldn't it make more sense to build FC generating stations as the electrical infrastructure is in place.  Utilities are planning to shut down many older coal fired plant which will result in cleaner air. 

 

In the short term I don't really think the FCV is to be targeted at any specific segment. There are so few FCVs being sold/leased over the next 5 years their sales will be negligible. There are quite a few studies on FCVs and how they compare to other technologies like BEVs. In summary most of the legitimate ones say BEVs are more cost effective for ranges up to about 150mi, after that FCVs become more economical. The ultimate value is in plug-in FCHVs.

 

 

I don't think California is wasting money. If the US is to compete with other countries already developing an infrastructure we need to at least start from somewhere.