Battery Electric Vehicle News / Enjoying the Transportation Revolution

Martyn1981

Perhaps I'm getting old, or tired, I don't know, but 10yrs ago I could understand some people being taken in by the promise of magical technologies that would solve everything - 'clean coal', or 'CCS for FF's', or 'new nuclear / SMR's', all of which had an interesting side effect, they gave the impression that we didn't need to move away from FF's and over to RE asap, - but not anymore.

Once we started to realise how the FF industry helps to promote these ideas and keeps pushing alternatives to RE (or RE + storage) in order to slow down a transition, then we got wise to the misdirection, or at least we should have. At that point a slight change of policy seems to have been deployed, one of taking a working/viable technology, but suggesting its use in fields where it will act as a diversion / digression / delaying tactic.

Now we have HFCV's being touted alongside or instead of BEV's ...... well, I say now, actually that was more like 15-5yrs ago, since so many companies have done the research and trials, and found it just doesn't add up. And at the same time BEV's have moved from slow charging, <100 mile range vehicles, to big batts, and or ultra fast charging.

So why do HFCV's still seem like a good idea to some, often the same 'some' who will say we can't generate enough RE leccy for our needs, or have enough storage, but then push a product needing vastly more leccy generation, and one that currently relies on FF methane? What happens if we start demanding huge quantities of H2, a decade before we have a cheap excess of leccy for that H2 production (on a large scale)? Well, I guess we have to use steam reforming of nat-gas, or divert away additional RE leccy from FF generation displacement, either way, who wins?

So, my views on what Toyota is doing, that's simple, they already know that hybrids and HFCV's have lost, and are the inferior product going forward, but they've literally bet the farm on them, and so need the transition to BEV's to be as slow as possible, whilst they recoup their losses.

ERNST & YOUNG: ELECTRIC CARS ARE COMING SOONER THAN EXPECTED

A steady stream of news items indicates that the transition to electric vehicles will take place faster than many people think. Plug-in vehicle sales have surpassed a 10% market share in California, and Tesla is now estimated to have an impressive 1.7% share of the total US market. In Norway, the world’s EV capital, 3 out of 4 car buyers are now choosing EVs, and Tesla’s Model 3 is the top-selling vehicle (of any kind). In Switzerland, which formerly lagged behind some other European markets, 40% of the cars sold year-to-date have been EVs or hybrids (and yes, Model 3 is the most popular EV there too).

As EV sales increase in key regions around the world, industry analysts are gradually revising their forecasts, and most are bringing forward their predicted dates for the end of the Oil Age.

Ernst & Young, one of the venerable Big Four accounting firms, now predicts that EV sales in the US, China and Europe will surpass those of fossil-powered vehicles five years sooner than previously expected.

EY’s latest forecast is that fossil fuel-powered vehicles will represent less than 1% of global sales by 2045, taking their place alongside sailboats and horses as nostalgic vestiges of historical technologies.

Europe will be the trendsetter—EY predicts that EV sales there will surpass those of legacy vehicles by 2028. China will follow by 2033 and, sadly, the US will bring up the rear, achieving a majority of EV sales by 2036.

But here's the fun bit:-

Contrary to popular belief, the oil industry is not oblivious to what’s going on—oil giants are responding to the news in ways both positive (investing in EV charging companies) and negative (hyping hydrogen in hopes of derailing or delaying the transition to batteries).

Edit - Just a thought, but if Toyota really believes that HFCV's are the future, then why haven't they rolled out a H2 charging infrastructure across the World, or why didn't they start doing so 10yrs ago, when Tesla started rolling out their BEV charging infrastructure?

Martyn1981

JKenH said:

Perhaps the real issue for the CleanTechnica crowd is that If FCVs work it will be the OEMs and the oil companies making money from it.  

Weird how you keep targeting CleanTechnica, but I suppose they would be classed as green & ethical.

Firstly, I thought the story was broken and published by The New York Times.

Secondly, why would the oil companies be making money from it, if it is using green hydrogen, since that will be derived from green leccy generation, which anyone can make.


Anyways, if you think the future is HFCV's, then fine, seems silly to waste time arguing about it now, time will tell (or perhaps already has).

JKenH

Martyn1981 said:

JKenH said:

Perhaps the real issue for the CleanTechnica crowd is that If FCVs work it will be the OEMs and the oil companies making money from it.  

Weird how you keep targeting CleanTechnica, but I suppose they would be classed as green & ethical.

Firstly, I thought the story was broken and published by The New York Times.

Secondly, why would the oil companies be making money from it, if it is using green hydrogen, since that will be derived from green leccy generation, which anyone can make.


Anyways, if you think the future is HFCV's, then fine, seems silly to waste time arguing about it now, time will tell (or perhaps already has).

Perhaps I “targeted” CleanTechnica because the article you posted was from CleanTechnica. Maybe the story was broken by the NYT but that wasn’t the article you quoted. Some quite strong views were expressed by the CT contributor and it was those (and CT’s declared policy to be negative about HFC road vehicles) I was responding to. 

Oil companies will be making money from hydrogen because they are the companies pushing it. It may be blue or grey at the moment but if they are the ones who put the infrastructure in place they will be the ones to benefit as hydrogen (blue grey or green) becomes more mainstream and will be the ones in a position to benefit from it. 

If, as you say, it is silly to continue arguing about it why post an article about it then continue arguing about it?

I don’t see why it has to be an “either or” with EVs and FCVs. Why do we have to have such a binary discussion? There is room for both just as there was room for petrol and diesel. There were diesel haters and diesel lovers and there are EV lovers and EV haters. Look at CDs and vinyl, we just can’t see the future. Choice is good.

It is only the ardent EV supporters and the oil company haters who feel the need to bash hydrogen and claim every attempt to promote the technology is to derail the transition to batteries. Maybe someone actually sees a commercial opportunity. 

Why not be excited that there is a new technology that might work out or might not. (It isn’t like nuclear fusion. FCVs work as a technology but face an uphill struggle to be commercially viable. Just consider how many people were dismissing  EVs 20 years ago (lack of range, too expensive, no charging infrastructure etc.) and look how that turned out.

Just keep an open mind. There is no need to make a call at this stage, (unless you are invested in one of the technologies); let’s see how it plays out. You may well be proved right (or you may be wrong) but it is too early to write the obituary just yet. 

silverwhistle

JKenH said:

. It seems the EV lobby want to shut down the development of a hydrogen fuel charging network before it gets off the ground.

No, I think you're getting mixed up with the FF companies who have tried to hamper development of EVs..

Actually filling up is no more difficult than fuelling an lpg car once the fuel stations are in place.

Well, they can always invest in infrastructure like Tesla did. I've had my EV almost a year and in that time I haven't needed

to charge out and about, and that's with a car without a particularly long range. Anybody who has got round to an EV is not going to go back to the model of visiting fuel stations. Somebody else has also commented on LPG which I was also going to reference.

I'm sure there is a place for hydrogen as a store of surplus renewable energy, but I think you lose credibility if you think it will extend to private small motor vehicles.

JKenH

silverwhistle said:

JKenH said:

. It seems the EV lobby want to shut down the development of a hydrogen fuel charging network before it gets off the ground.

No, I think you're getting mixed up with the FF companies who have tried to hamper development of EVs..

Actually filling up is no more difficult than fuelling an lpg car once the fuel stations are in place.

Well, they can always invest in infrastructure like Tesla did. I've had my EV almost a year and in that time I haven't needed

to charge out and about, and that's with a car without a particularly long range. Anybody who has got round to an EV is not going to go back to the model of visiting fuel stations. Somebody else has also commented on LPG which I was also going to reference.

I'm sure there is a place for hydrogen as a store of surplus renewable energy, but I think you lose credibility if you think it will extend to private small motor vehicles.

EVs suit your lifestyle very well as they do mine and thousands of others. For others they may not work quite so well. If the argument for EVs is so overwhelming and the tax position so advantageous, why isn’t everyone driving one already? 

I am not knocking EVs. I happen to love driving them, so much so, that despite an intention to hang on to a couple of other ICEvs I got rid of them very quickly. Not everyone is like us though and others may see things differently and because I live in the real world I meet many people who do and see many articles that express alternative views. I perhaps would be less inclined to promote those articles and challenge the ones that are posted by others if there was more of a genuine debate on here. 

I just happen to think it doesn’t have to be “either or,” -  EVs or FCVs. At the moment EVs win hands down but petrol and diesel did a decade ago. Toyota might be wrong to promote HFCs but they obviously think there is a future in it worth pursuing and I imagine a lot of people there have given it a lot of thought. We can’t presume that everyone is an idiot because they don’t see the future the way we do. We are a very small part of the world economy and Toyota may have their eye on other markets than Western Europe. There is going to be an awful lot of hydrogen about in the future just as there is oil today and, while electricity generation may be the primary target, as hydrogen becomes cheaper to produce and store/transport (do we really believe technology in those areas will stand still?) its use in other applications will develop. HFCs are likely to become more efficient and the energy density of hydrogen will always be a strong card unless there are some game changing developments in battery technology. 

BTW I don’t recall mentioning “private small motor vehicles”. Anyway, I am not too worried about losing credibility on this board. Credibility on here is only achieved by saying what people want to hear.  I would be more worried if I lost the conviction to express a view that is at odds with the received “wisdom” of this forum.

JKenH

Solarchaser said:

I think running scared is venturing into hyperbole. 
Hydrogen can work, and it will be useful for storage once the more efficient batteries are full, but batteries are far more efficient,  so Hydrogen has ready lost the car market.
Lpg is in some ways a good comparison since you brought it up, most people know "a person" with lpg on their car 10 years ago.... don't see folks doing it these days

No hyperbole here then (from the CT article quoted) 

“Toyota seems to be doing everything possible to become known as one of the most despicable corporations on the face of the Earth.”

QrizB

JKenH said:

There is going to be an awful lot of hydrogen about in the future just as there is oil today and, while electricity generation may be the primary target, as hydrogen becomes cheaper to produce and store/transport (do we really believe technology in those areas will stand still?) its use in other applications will develop. HFCs are likely to become more efficient and the energy density of hydrogen will always be a strong card unless there are some game changing developments in battery technology.

Hydrogen has an impressive energy density by mass, but a low volumetric energy density. From https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-storage :

On a mass basis, hydrogen has nearly three times the energy content of gasoline—120 MJ/kg for hydrogen versus 44 MJ/kg for gasoline. On a volume basis, however, the situation is reversed; liquid hydrogen has a density of 8 MJ/L whereas gasoline has a density of 32 MJ/L

If you consider that a typical car has a 50-litre fuel tank, the equivalent energy as hydrogen will take up 200 litres. That's the size of a standard oil drum or water butt. A liquid or compressed hydrogen tank needs to be cylindrical like an oil drum for strength. I don't know if you've ever tried carrying an oil drum in a car but one will fill the load area, if it fits at all. (If you remember LPG cars, most of those had tanks of 60-100 litres capacity. Hydrogen needs 2-3x as much to give the same range.)

Lithium batteries are around 1MJ/kg, 2MJ/L which is far worse than hydrogen but you can put them anywhere, including in a slab under the floor of the vehicle where their mass and volume are less of a problem.

JKenH

ABrass said:

Hydrogen fuel cells are a solution looking for a problem.

To be viable they need

To build hundreds of thousands to drive the unit cost down enough for them to build the millions they need to build to get them within shouting distance of BEVs.

Hydrogen filling stations everywhere.

Green hydrogen.

Affordable hydrogen.

Without all four things they will continue to be a novelty item in cars. If someone had sunk a few tens of billions into them a decade ago then maybe they'd be able to compete, but they've missed the boat.

Right now they're the most expensive way to fuel your car, the least convenient way to fuel your car and the most expensive drive train. And there's been negligible change in that for the last five years. Why would anyone think it'll change in the next five years?

One could have said something similar about EVs 10 years ago: 

To be viable they need

To build hundreds of thousands to drive the unit cost down enough for them to build the millions they need to build to get them within shouting distance of ICEs

Charging stations everywhere.

Clean electricity

Decent range



EVs have been around for more than 100 years and the attempts to make a modern mainstream EV in the 1990s didn’t get off to a great start 

One of the most well-known electric cars during this time was GM’s EV1, a car that was heavily featured in the 2006 documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? Instead of modifying an existing vehicle, GM designed and developed the EV1 from the ground up. With a range of 80 miles and the ability to accelerate from 0 to 50 miles per hour in just seven seconds, the EV1 quickly gained a cult following. But because of high production costs, the EV1 was never commercially viable, and GM discontinued it in 2001.

https://www.energy.gov/articles/history-electric-car

It didn’t put GM off.

Solarchaser

JKenH said: Anyway, I am not too worried about losing credibility on this board. Credibility on here is only achieved by saying what people want to hear.  I would be more worried if I lost the conviction to express a view that is at odds with the received “wisdom” of this forum.

I think you are a bit confused between being credible and being liked.

It's an Internet forum, who cares if people don't like what you post, that could be because it's uncomfortable truths, that would still make you credible. 

However when you post hyperbole, you lose credibility not likes.

You posted this
"The EV brigade seems to run scared of FCVs, wanting to shut down the debate and cancel the tech. Fortunately quite a few OEMs and other industrial giants including the oil giants are happy to throw money at it."

You posted it on this forum, I'm not sure what a link to an article from clean teknika has to do with anything as clean technika doesn't post on this forum...

Fuel cells are an interesting technology for sure, but they cannot compete with batteries for efficiency, too many conversions for a start.

JKenH

QrizB said:

JKenH said:

There is going to be an awful lot of hydrogen about in the future just as there is oil today and, while electricity generation may be the primary target, as hydrogen becomes cheaper to produce and store/transport (do we really believe technology in those areas will stand still?) its use in other applications will develop. HFCs are likely to become more efficient and the energy density of hydrogen will always be a strong card unless there are some game changing developments in battery technology.

Hydrogen has an impressive energy density by mass, but a low volumetric energy density. From https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-storage :

On a mass basis, hydrogen has nearly three times the energy content of gasoline—120 MJ/kg for hydrogen versus 44 MJ/kg for gasoline. On a volume basis, however, the situation is reversed; liquid hydrogen has a density of 8 MJ/L whereas gasoline has a density of 32 MJ/L

If you consider that a typical car has a 50-litre fuel tank, the equivalent energy as hydrogen will take up 200 litres. That's the size of a standard oil drum or water butt. A liquid or compressed hydrogen tank needs to be cylindrical like an oil drum for strength. I don't know if you've ever tried carrying an oil drum in a car but one will fill the load area, if it fits at all. (If you remember LPG cars, most of those had tanks of 60-100 litres capacity. Hydrogen needs 2-3x as much to give the same range.)

Lithium batteries are around 1MJ/kg, 2MJ/L which is far worse than hydrogen but you can put them anywhere, including in a slab under the floor of the vehicle where their mass and volume are less of a problem.

You maybe ought to have a read of a real world review of the Toyota Mirai. Despite your comments Toyota seem to have squeezed in enough fuel tank capacity for a 400 mile range. 

This is the fuel-cell car going mainstream. It drives like a big electric car, goes notably further on a tankful than they do on a recharge, fills up in 10 minutes, and costs less to buy than a big 300-mile battery car.

For its manufacturer, this new Mirai is a proper business, not a low-volume proof-of-concept. Toyota expects to sell 30,000 a year, a ten-fold increase on the old one and about the same as BMW sells of the i3.

https://www.topgear.com/car-reviews/toyota/mirai

It was not until 2017 that Tesla sold 30,000 cars per annum.