On 21 May 2014, at 17:41, Mark Abramowitz via EV wrote: > See below for a brief reply. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On May 21, 2014, at 3:58 AM, Chris Tromley via EV <ev@lists.evdl.org> wrote: > >> Without wanting to get into a detailed FCV discussion here, I'm puzzled. >> >> 1. Last I heard a practical FCV was not possible until some Brand New >> Stuff was invented, and no one knew if/how/when that would happen. > > What time period was this? If recently, you should consider that the source > was ill-informed.
Mark - if you seriously think that "practical" includes a price of over $100k for a family sized saloon with limited range that you can only fill up at half a dozen locations in the whole of continental USA, then you do yourself a disservice. > > >> 2. Last I heard there was no way to create H2 that was anywhere near as >> efficient as just filling a battery with the same energy. > > Not sure why you want to compare efficiency of filling a battery to anything. *Because* (real) EVs are here and available *now* as is 95% of the recharging infrastructure (ie people's homes) and as such EVs are the only realistic alternative to the ICEV! > > >> 3. Last I heard FCV fueling infrastructure was wildly more expensive than >> EV fueling infrastructure. > > I don't know the cost of EV fueling infrastructure or how best to compare > (cost per car per day of infrastructure?), but H2fueling infrastructure is > mostly very expensive. These have been built as one-off stations. The most > recent bids to CEC show costs coming down, and people thinking in terms of > multiple stations to further bring costs down. > Well I do, and even Toyota say that they cost a cool million bucks a pop. You do the maths. *Or*... we can all just do it home without *any* addition infrastructure expense at all (although it would be very helpful if the government ponied up for 1/100th of the cost of an H2 infrastructure to pay for a proper rapid charge one)! > >> >> I'm trying to understand the business case for pursuing FCVs instead of the >> seemingly more promising path of furthering advanced lithium chemistries. > > There are a number of chemistries being looked at, and IMO you shouldn't > think if this as either/or. Batteries development has come a long way, and > should continue, even if you think that FCEV will be dominant in the future. > Batteries are important in FCEVs, and I would guess that the sizing of > batteries v. fuel cells will change over time based on technology, costs and > the application. Perhaps it would be better to think of FCEVs as hybrids. > > FC development will always be playing catch up with battery technology. Its been that way for ever and, given the complexity of FC technology and its awful comparative efficiency, it probably always will be. >> The only plausible reason to pursue FCVs that I can think of is that it's >> too easy for an upstart manufacturer (like that pesky Tesla) to become an >> EV manufacturer. The fact that FCVs are inherently more complex and >> require far more in-house R&D are barriers to entry for new players. But >> even that would require winning the hearts and minds of the driving public, >> and I don't see how the user experience is significantly better. Heck, I >> don't see how you could make an FCV that would gain more market acceptance >> than Toyota's own hybrids. > > I don't agree with most of the above. I'm thinking you are probably pretty much on your own there, then! > >> >> I'm trying hard to make sense of this. Where's the return for Toyota? Is >> there something new in FCV development that I missed? > > Only Toyota knows why, but given that most OEMs are moving in this direction > either partially or fully seems to point to the need to question your > assumptions. > > But maybe it's as simple as "consumer didn't buy them...end of story." I > don't think it's that simple, but it's possible. I was surprised, too, about > the RAV4-EV, but it's been clear for awhile that Toyota was going into FCEVs > in a big way. > > Toyota and other big auto makers are betting on FCVs to perpetuate the status quo ie controlling the vehicle market by tying car owners to a network of refuelling stations whose products are ruthlessly price controlled... by the car makers themselves (in cahoots with Big Oil, of course... and lets not forget the politicians). Where on Earth is there any money for them with EVs? They are virtually maintenance free and don't use any oil! On the other hand you can sell FCVs which, whilst they don't use oil in the conventional sense, still use a fossil fuel to power (98% of H2 is made from natural gas). It isn't exactly rocket science! MW > >> >> Chris >> >> >> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:44 AM, brucedp5 via EV <ev@lists.evdl.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2014/05/toyota-pulling-plug-on-rav4-ev/ >>> Toyota Pulling Plug on RAV4-EV >>> by Paul A. Eisenstein May 16, 2014 >>> >>> [image >>> >>> http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Toyota-RAV4-EV-front-3-4.jpg >>> Toyota only planned to sell 2,500 RAV4-EVs >>> ] >>> >>> Maker shifting focus from battery-electric to [h2] power. >>> >>> Toyota is pulling the plug on the RAV4-EV, the battery-electric version of >>> the soft-roader it introduced two years ago with the help of electric >>> vehicle start-up Tesla Motors. _______________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
