Myth #6 Natural gas is more efficiently used providing electricity for a BEV than powering a hydrogen fuel call car.

I have contacted the California fuel cell partnership today with this information:

'Report:
http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0360544214008573/1-s2.0-S0360544214008573-main.pdf?_tid=661af8b4-667b-11e4-9a7a-00000aacb362&acdnat=1415364270_3144968c81eeb9b81d024ac1ba0a1e67

Table 3

Well to pump efficiency is shown as 85.1% for a fuel cell CNG vehicle using an on board reformer, and as 55% for a fuel cell vehicle, so reforming losses and further compression have clearly been accounted for in the hydrogen vehicle.

However the mpgge for both vehicles is then shown as 38.5.

On board reforming takes energy, so there is no way that they will be the same, and for the hydrogen vehicle the losses are taken twice.

They seem to be referring to a hypothetical vehicle, but the error is highlighted by looking at real H2 FCEV, where for instance the Hyundai Tucson which is bigger, heavier and less aerodynamic than the comparison vehicles and available now to lease is shown on the site as 50 mpgge

Applying that correction to table 14 and eyeballing the graph, the ~175g/km GGE comes down to around 135g/km. or around the same as the BEV using electricity from natural gas and substantially better than a BEV at the US grid mix.

This potential error needs to be checked and drawn to the attention of the report authors and the press, as hydrogen fuel cells should not be disadvantaged by claims that their greenhouse gas emissions are higher than they are.

In California the mandate for renewables for hydrogen in transport means that emissions will be lower still, and lower than emissions from a BEV using the US grid but with 25% renewables.

I would be grateful if you can either action this yourselves or give me a more appropriate contact if it is not within your remit'

the Green Car Congress covered this here:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/09/20140924-onrl.html

I love it when Hydrogen apologists trot out the line "Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the Universe" as if that had anything to do with the issue at all. OK, the sun is a big ball of Hydrogen, very slowly turning into helium. The best way to take advantage of that is to stick solar panels on my roof and plug in my car.

The other way, splitting water, costs about 10x as much. Stripping carbon off of methane doesn't solve the fossil fuel or climate change problems.

So why do hydrogen advocates continue to offer this canard?

Pure hokum.

ECI:

Still working nights then?

You usually charge your car using your solar panels?

Pure hokum.

So why do BEV only advocates continue to offer this canard?

FYI, peak IC engine efficiency is not limited by the Carnot efficiency. It is not a reversible heat engine.

Yes, Davemart. I have solar panels on my roof, and they charge my car as it sits in the garage immediately below. Except when I do a trade with the local utility, giving them my sunshine at peak hours when they need it, and getting it back at night when they have plenty of surplus capacity. They give it to me at a very steep discount then, about 1/3 the daytime price. So I get a 3:1 credit if I charge at night instead of during the day.

It doesn't make me feel any better when I charge directly from the panels during the day. Because I know that putting the power out on the grid, where other people need it during peak load, and getting it back at night when most people are sleeping is good business. And good for the environment.

Myth # ECI

EV owners will never have to pay road taxes nor replace expensive battery packs.

The most important raison d'etre for FCEV is the ability to replace petroleum in surface transportation.
It may not seem important now that we are having a surplus of petroleum, but shale oil wells do not last for long and are quick to be depleted. Low-cost oil reserves are dwindling.

Even if FCEV's are selling very well now and taking 1/3 and then 1/2 of the new automotive market share, it will take 30-50 years for H2 to significantly replace 1/3-1/2 of petroleum's market share in order to ease another "oil shock."

Yet, the reality is that it may take another decade for FCEV's to gain that kind of market share if at all, due to the time it will take to ramp up production enough to bring the cost of FCEV's down to be competitive with ICEV's, AND for H2 to come down to 1/2-1/3 the cost per mile in comparison to an ICEV in order for the public to be compelled to buy FCEV's instead of ICEV's.

So, strong incentives and subsidies must be given to boost FCEV's sales and H2 infrastructure as fast as possible to prevent another "oil shock" that will devastate the economies world wide, as previous oil shocks have shown time and time again. Oil shocks will come suddenly, unannounced, and will bring a lot of miseries to the mass of people who are dependent on petroleum to get to work and to have their food and goods supplies daily, and to run farm equipments to produce their food...etc.

Plugged-in vehicles will not be able to replace ICEV's, simply because a lot of people do not want to have to bother with plugging-in their cars day to day. EV enthusiasts, yes, are happy to be able to plug-in their vehicles, but many if not most people do not want that little extra inconvenience of having to plug-in and plug-out in their daily life...especially when FCEV's will be able to reduce their fuel cost per mile to be 1/2 to 1/3 that of ICEV's today.

H2 can power heavy-duty vehicles essential for daily living, while battery are too bulky to power heavy duty vehicles because load capacity and range will be much reduced. That's why industrial fork lifts are powered by H2-FC instead by battery. Farmers can run their tractors off of H2 produced from wind and solar power in their own farms instead of having to depend on petroleum. Fertilizer can be made from solar and wind H2 instead of from Nat Gas that is a finite resource.

Energy security and food security are the two compelling reasons to push ahead for H2-FC NOW instead of waiting until we will be caught with our pants down again, like times and times again in the last and this century. Then, we ended up spending trillion of USD to send troops abroad to protect our oil supplies...producing looming national debts and tens of thousands veterans killed or worse off, maimed for life, and killing and maiming millions of innocent lives in other parts of the world where we sent troops!

WHAT IS A MORE HUMANE THING TO DO?
H2-FC...its not just an environmental issue, not just an economic issue, its a MORAL issue!

Relity says that both BEVs and FCEVs will progressively get to be better and cheaper to buy and to operate.

By 2020 or, they will compete with most ICEVs and may no longer require very large incentives.

However, liquid fuel Federal taxes should be progressively increased by at least one or two extra dollars per US gallon, to make polluters pay for incentives given to non-polluting vehicle buyers and to reduce oïl import and consumption.

Hello, electric_car_insider--

Please check out:

http://www.caiso.com/Pages/TodaysOutlook.aspx#SupplyandDemand

Here in sunny California, on November 7, peak demand is right at 5pm PST. I doubt your solar panels will be producing much at this time. From the above page:

Higher levels of variable electricity generation increases the ISO operational need for resources with the technological flexibility to start and stop quickly, and maintain output for set periods of time, so we can match supply and demand at all times.

This means fast-response, low efficiency gas turbine generators, among others. Giving preferential pricing and grid access to unreliable generators such as wind and solar is skewing the economics of power generation.

BTW, I too have solar panels on my roof and benefit from net metering.

@SJC:

You are in the right of it, the battery pack on a Tesla is likely to continue to offer useful range for the life of the car, with the caveat that we can't truly know calender life until the time has passed, unlike cycle life which is easier to test, so there is a slim but finite possibility that they will go kaput.

However when I had a good look and a think about the costs of the Tesla when the 3rd quarter results came out yesterday, I was staggered at how uneconomic they still are.

They got $63 million of ZEV credits and sold around 4,900 cars in the quarter in the US.
That's ~$13k per car.
Add in the $7,500 of Fed tax credits that almost all Tesla owners will qualify for, and the $2,500 for California, I understand, and you come to a staggering $23,000 cost to the public purse in foregone revenue for every car.

In addition they made a loss for the quarter on a GAAP basis of $75 million, which works out to a loss of $9,000 for the ~8k cars produced for the world.

So total losses and tax rebates amount to $32k per car, which is pretty much like getting them to build a car and offering a free battery pack courtesy of the Government and shareholders.
It is also around the average cost of a brand new conventional car.

No wonder the Tesla S is a sweet car, as the true cost runs at something like $130,000 a throw.

Sure, costs will drop, but at the moment they are wildly, extravagantly, uneconomic.

So are fuel cell cars, but they are not being produced in volume for rich cats, but on a small basis for fleets etc.

I was shocked when I worked out the figures, even though I support public money to encourage a fuel transition.

I think I misconstrued the debate between ECI and SJC and consequently made a comment which was not relevant or correctly attributed to their discussion.
Apologies.

A CHEAP fuel cell might make a good, occasional use battery EV range extender, with stations only needed along interstates.

But SO much taxpayer money has been stolen by FC R&D(the 1970's space program knew the costs/limits) for decades through GM and other bankrupts.