Yes, many predictions have been made, one of our posters predicted $6 per gallon gasoline 6 years ago, so much for predictions. Envisioning a miles of wireless highways rather than hydrogen fueling stations was another. I like going with things that will actually happen.

Envisioning is not predicting. Prediction is difficult, especially when it is about the future.

'Envisioning is not predicting. Prediction is difficult, especially when it is about the future.'

It is safer in such matters, as in all, to study and conform to the bible.

In this case by making the predictions retrospective, and saying that the prophets predicted just what came to pass a couple of hundred years ago.

The practise has been assiduously taken up and mastered by numerous think tanks.

What sort of spoil sport checks back anyway?

Some posters said it SHOULD not be done, that it was a waste of time and resources. The follow on was that everyone should drop everything and go with THEIR solution. One example of the the argument is it will not solve ALL our problems so forget it.

I like an "all the above" strategy, you get 10% here, 5% there and all total it adds up. I think it is good to keep track of opinion accuracy for credibility. Many people have opinions, but not all of them are valid.

'when EVs reach 200 mile range, H2 will have to be competitive with $1gge electricity.'

What both have to reach competitiveness with first is ICE in total lifetime costs and convenience.

The DOE puts the progress of both at around level pegging, and since I don't happen to know more than the DOE or all the major car manufacturers who are developing both and seeing what happens, I am content to go along with infinitely more expert opinion than mine.

Since it is also extremely easy to design a plug in PHEV should it be more economic for fuel cost reasons to do so, your point would seem to be moot.

I don't know how things will pan out.

Neither do others who post on the subject, although so many imagine that the experts have missed a trick and if they only asked Joe Blogger they could tell them what is what.

I do however have the advantage of knowing that I don't know, which others have not realised! ;-O

Apparently Tesla is purchasing their batteries from Panasonic for $180/kWh. This is much lower than any number I've seen before.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/battery-storage-costs-plunge-below100kwh-19365

If Tesla/Panasonic can create a 30% cost drop with the new giga factory that will mean EV batteries for ~$125/kWh.

If the $180/$125 numbers prove true then we're looking at long range EVs selling at or below the cost of same-model EVs.

H2 FCEVs are going to find it harder and harder to gain a toehold in the market with that sort of purchase price and lower operating cost competition.

Bob:
Those costs are at the cell level.
Tesla still have to make them into a pack, and they use a pretty sophisticated cooling system, as NCA chemistry heats up quickly.

Lithium sulphur batteries, one of the most promising chemistries we have for lower costs and higher specific energy, unfortunately is low on energy density, ie the Wh/Ltr are only as good as, if that, as present chemistries.

So that would be bulky packs to design in.

There are also loads of different possibilities to reduce costs of fuel cells, and costs are dropping far faster than batteries, so like the DOE, I just don't know how they are going to compare in the future.

Davemart- Yes, those are cell prices. The don't include packaging and electronics.

But the $180/kWh is less than the $250/kWh price threshold at which EVs reach ICEV prices.

Perhaps there are ways to lower the cost of fuel cells, but there's still the high operating cost of running on hydrogen. It takes >2x as much electricity and requires extensive infrastructure.

I don't care whether EVs or H2 FCEVs replace petroleum. That leaves me free to look objectively at the math for both.

@Bob said:
'Perhaps there are ways to lower the cost of fuel cells, but there's still the high operating cost of running on hydrogen. It takes >2x as much electricity and requires extensive infrastructure.'

According to the DOE the infrastructure costs of hydrogen and electric vehicles are in fact similar, as it needs a lot less hydrogen stations to refuel cars than charge points.

For a start something would have to be done for the ~50% of cars kept by the road.
Getting them somewhere to plug in would be neither cheap nor easy.

In any case the cost according to the DOE is in any case relatively minor compared to that of the new vehicles, around 5% of the cost.

As for it taking twice as much electricity to produce the hydrogen as to run a BEV, that assumes it comes from electricity in the first place, which is far from always the case.

It also assumes that it is a straight fight between BEVs and FCEVs.

If instead PHEV FCEVs are used, then the hydrogen is simply used to make the extra ~70kwh of batteries needed for decent range unnecessary, and any extra losses from going through the hydrogen stage is minimised.

And the assumption is that the electricity is there when it is needed to charge the car, which is not always true for renewables.

I do have preferences in what I would like to see, although I don't know which will win.

They are in favour of as light a vehicle as possible, as transport is moving mass across distance, so the less the mass the better.

So inductive through the road charging would be the best, with a small battery pack.

Next would be high temperature fuel cells in a PHEV, as they could use any liquid fuel without needing a heavy pressurised container, and would for short journeys have the efficiency of batteries.

Next is a tie between hydrogen fuel cell PHEVs and BEVs, depending on progress in both.

At the moment I like PHEVs, as no away from home charging is needed, and it seems the cost differential can be lowest.

I don't know how costs will compare in thee future though, so I have no idea how things will work out.

@Bob Wallace: If Tesla pays $180 to Panasonic that is a decent premium over commodity pricing for 18650 cells currently around $110-150 depending on chemistry. Since Tesla engineered out a lot of the costly items in a standard latpop cell I doubt they pay that much.

As far as competition between EV's and HFCEV's: Tesla's cost to build a Supercharger station has been reported to be between $100-175k

http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/26/inside-teslas-supercharger-partner-program-the-costs-and-commitments-of-electrifying-road-transport/

For the €20M (~$25M) mentioned here they can roughly build 150 - 250 Supercharger stations. Given that ~90% of charging in an EV happens at home this would serve ten times as many customers as a hydrogen station. Now you divide that by two since a supercharger takes about twice as long to service a car and you get down to 5 times as many customers. So you will have to spend around five times as much on infrastructure to dispense a fuel that is about five times more expensive than electricity.

Good luck trying to compete!

It's the best hydrogen article I read in one year. Im more confident that the germans will succeed at it than California as Germany have better engineers and they seam to have a head-start and be more interested as their fossil gasoline and diesel cost way more than in the u.s.a.

Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one.