EV general discussion

[PCM2]

Electric will be mainstream before Hydrogen gets a chance to do the same. Doubt it will be supplanted after that. Everyone else will be conventionally fuelled or hybrid.

Indeed. And there's no escaping the fact hydrogen FCEVs (HFCVs) are simply much less efficient EVs. You have to use electricity to create the hydrogen, you then transport the hydrogen, store it and create electricity from it. The efficiency losses compared to simply using the electricity directly are enormous. Meanwhile EVs and battery technology continues to improve at a remarkable pace and it's obvious why it's where the main focus is for most companies.

Would be nice if the public infrastructure caught up and there are still improvements to be made. But I've lived with EVs for 5 years now and I don't regret it one bit. I look forward to further range increases and charging improvements which will help others jump on board. Forget FCEVs for personal transportation, they're not the answer.

 

[DarrenM343]

You'll find many BEV drivers are just a bit fed up of hearing about how HFCVs are the "next big thing". There are people who have been driving EVs for the best part of a decade, who have been told the entire time that the technology is a "stop gap" while HFCVs mature. Yet in all this time, HFCVs have made minimal progress.

Maybe HFCVs are potentially "better". But BEVs are actually here. And there are observable milestones being passed each year; range is increasing, charging is getting faster, prices are coming down. By comparison, hydrogen development barely moves.

Mind you, BEV's didn't do a great deal for years. They've actually been around for nearly as long as the ICE, since 1890 if I remember correctly. The oldies here will remember the milk floats of the 60's and 70's. This is probably why many see it as a stopgap, it's modernised/evolved old tech but maybe not the best solution longer term. Batteries and motors, the best we can do?
I think nobody should get fed up. We need more than one technology here but seems to be a "must be this or that" situation thinking for many. Next big thing doesn't necessity mean everyone moves away from something else. BEV's and hydrogen/nitrogen etc may have their own use cases. If you live in a flat the infrastructure isn't going to be there for BEV's for a long while, or charging points for on-street parking.
It's easy if you can park right next to your house or in your garage to think yes BEV is the answer. I can do that too but I definatley don't think that's the only technology we now need.
I know Shell are working on many technologies. Hydrogen will be cheaper/greener to generate in the future too. Renewable energy systems will get cheaper, especially solar, and this is what will be needed for hydrogen. The let down with hydrogen is the refilling stations (my nearest one is 130 miles away). 5 mins at a pump for 400 miles is already pretty good and they will improve other aspects of hydrogen (transportation, generation).

 

[PCM2]

Mind you, BEV's didn't do a great deal for years. They've actually been around for nearly as long as the ICE, since 1890 if I remember correctly. The oldies here will remember the milk floats of the 60's and 70's. This is probably why many see it as a stopgap, it's modernised/evolved old tech but maybe not the best solution longer term. Batteries and motors, the best we can do?

That's like comparing a Ford Model T to a BMW M3. Or an old Apple Macintosh to a modern gaming PC. Just because there are fundamental similarities with how they operate and their components doesn't mean they haven't evolved. Even in the 5 years I've driven EVs, I've seen some significant improvements. And as a close follower of the technology I'm rather looking forward to some of the improvements that should be coming in the not too distant future. Especially from the likes of Tesla, who know a thing or two about creating very capable BEVs. You might see them as "just" batteries and motors, but there's really nothing wrong with that combination when you know what you're doing with it.

You talk about hydrogen as a fuel being "greener/cheaper" in the future. That may be the case, but as I said in my previous quote you simply can't escape the fact they are just EVs which are run in a less efficient way. There's simply no way you're going to make generating, transporting, storing then re-converting hydrogen to electricity as efficient as simply using the electricity directly. Luckily for VW, their current CEO now understands this and is shifting their resource allocation accordingly.

 

[Jonnycoupe]

I think the heavy duty field will push towards hydrogen and we will naturally find a balance. Hydrogen for me seems to make sense in domestic use when it’s made in local areas or even at home as per some Honda tech demos. Electrolysis in their power creators. Or steam sequestering of natural gas. Of course that begs the question of just gas but that’s covered by the CNG applications and similar home refuelling models.

 

[McPhee]

Hydrogen has the potential to be great. I wouldn't want to suggest otherwise.

But the problem is, it's still just potential. It isn't much closer to market than it was five years ago. A few breakthroughs and the 2030s could be the decade of hydrogen. Or maybe those breakthroughs never come, or it's rendered irrelevant by something else?

The reason why the hydrogen debate is so tiresome is because it's been discussed as an inevitability for a long, long time, despite meagre progress.

 

[Jonnycoupe]

I’ve been in a Hyundai Nexo and it’s pretty impressive. There’s definitely progress in the cost reduction side. The same cost reduction of course applies to main parts found in either type of EV.

 

[McPhee]

Are they breaking even on manufacture costs with the new generation? If so, that's not bad progress.

 

[DarrenM343]

That's like comparing a Ford Model T to a BMW M3. Or an old Apple Macintosh to a modern gaming PC. Just because there are fundamental similarities with how they operate and their components doesn't mean they haven't evolved. Even in the 5 years I've driven EVs, I've seen some significant improvements. And as a close follower of the technology I'm rather looking forward to some of the improvements that should be coming in the not too distant future. Especially from the likes of Tesla, who know a thing or two about creating very capable BEVs. You might see them as "just" batteries and motors, but there's really nothing wrong with that combination when you know what you're doing with it.

You talk about hydrogen as a fuel being "greener/cheaper" in the future. That may be the case, but as I said in my previous quote you simply can't escape the fact they are just EVs which are run in a less efficient way. There's simply no way you're going to make generating, transporting, storing then re-converting hydrogen to electricity as efficient as simply using the electricity directly. Luckily for VW, their current CEO now understands this and is shifting their resource allocation accordingly.

ICE fuels are not efficient either. The move to electric is one out of necessity it seems. Hydrogen is just an alternative EV but the technology is still a lot different than BEV. As mentioned before, we need more than one option/technology. Petrol stations can be adapted to be hydrogen refilling stations so the infrastructure change is less in that respect (vs trying to get everyone tethered to recharge).

Also seems a bit depressing for the human race to be going back to batteries and motors . Agree the improvements have been significant but it's still batteries and motors. Maybe we can put an electrified slot in every road and "scaletrix" type vehicles could be another option. No need for batteries then. I'm joking but lets think about something. We found a signal recently (from space) coming from a system relatively close to ours. "Relatively" is a key word here. It's half a billion light years away. At current space travel speeds we're capable of it would take 20,000 years to travel just one light year. Meanwhile back on earth the means of powering transport is going back to batteries and motors . We haven't really advanced transportation from the technologies first developed 130-180 years ago (ICE and BEV).

 

[[TW]Fox]

They've actually been around for nearly as long as the ICE, since 1890

Even longer, BEV predates the internal combustion engine powered car. It's not new.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

Petrol stations can be adapted to be hydrogen refilling stations so the infrastructure change is less in that respect (vs trying to get everyone tethered to recharge).

That is another common misnomer, they really can’t. It’s a complete rebuild from scratch, to the point you’ll likely just see them placed elsewhere because most in town filling locations don’t have enough land around them for all of the equipment. There are also safety issues with having them in built up areas (at least one has already gone boom and there isn’t that many of them around). For the same money you could put in a bucket load of 350kw rapid chargers that would actually support more vehicles.

I’m not against hydrogen, it absolutely has it’s place, particularly in marine and heavy vehicles like lorries, cranes and tractors. I can’t see us getting of Kerosene anytime soon though. But the business case for small passenger vehicles makes little sense compared to a BEV, even if the purchase price was less.

 

[Orionaut]

Hydrogen is a stupid fuel for road vehicles, it really is.

Whether as a high pressure gas or a cryogenic liquid it is an utter ballache to handle

It is a good fuel for rockets (though even then, it has issues) but road vehicles...

Nah.

The best thing one can do with Hydrogen is stick it onto carbon to manufacture synthetic LPG.

Edit to add..

For the same money you could put in a bucket load of 350kw rapid chargers that would actually support more vehicles.

Love it how people just roll numbers like "350Kw" off the tongue without really thinking about what it means!

 

[McPhee]

Also seems a bit depressing for the human race to be going back to batteries and motors . Agree the improvements have been significant but it's still batteries and motors.

So let's head back to Hydrogen-powered cars instead? That's the funny thing about the 19th century; it's chocked full of failed experiments. Hydrogen-powered cars among them.

But today's Hydrogen cars are somewhat different, basically being BEVs with a HFC used to charge a (much smaller) battery. I'm not really sure what's so exciting about one means of storing electricity vs another though...

 

[Nasher]

I think hydrogen will be the real petrol replacement eventually. EVs are a bit of a stop gap until something better comes along.

The government told everyone to buy petrol, then diesel, then petrol, now electric. I'm going to wait to see what the ACTUAL solution is

 

[chaparral]

I'm going to wait to see what the ACTUAL solution is

Pedal power

 

[ShiWarrior]

Pedal power

nah. its walking

 

[Domi]

EVs are a bit of a stop gap until something better comes along.

First of all remember a Hydrogen vehicle will still be an EV, semantics I know but lets be clear Electric vehicles are the future.

The Battery electric is a stop gap I would agree with but that depends just how far we go with battery technology.

It might just be in 10 years time that battery's cost half the current price have half the weight and twice the charge while recharging twice as fast.

All of those things may not be completely realistic but I think anybody would be a fool to think at least 2 of the those 4 might not be achieved.

Cars that can do 500+ miles on a charge cost the same or less than an ICE and can pick up a couple of hundred miles of range in a matter of minutes but can be easily fully charged overnight will absolutely make 90% of ICE choices obsolete.

Now if a battery EV fits those criteria what use would most of us have for a more expensive Hydrogen vehicle.

 

[Nasher]

You can adapt existing ICE tech to run on hydrogen though. I think people would prefer that to electric if they had the option. You get a clean burning engine, which sounds like a petrol engine, has the range and can be filled up in minutes. But it means developing entirely new infrastructure.

 

[Journey]

Getting rid of noise pollution is a benefit, not just the toxic fumes.

 

[DarrenM343]

First of all remember a Hydrogen vehicle will still be an EV, semantics I know but lets be clear Electric vehicles are the future.

The Battery electric is a stop gap I would agree with but that depends just how far we go with battery technology.

It might just be in 10 years time that battery's cost half the current price have half the weight and twice the charge while recharging twice as fast.

All of those things may not be completely realistic but I think anybody would be a fool to think at least 2 of the those 4 might not be achieved.

Cars that can do 500+ miles on a charge cost the same or less than an ICE and can pick up a couple of hundred miles of range in a matter of minutes but can be easily fully charged overnight will absolutely make 90% of ICE choices obsolete.

Now if a battery EV fits those criteria what use would most of us have for a more expensive Hydrogen vehicle.

You've still got the issue of not everyone having access to a recharge point easily without huge investment (flats, on-street parking etc and sheer number of recharge points and cables we're gonna need). Alternative would be swappable batteries or something but then you'd need a kind of battery cell that's the same in all cars and a huge storage issue. By this time hydrogen or other methods might have developed a lot more too. Lets say 800 miiles from a 5 minute refill. The new Mirai has improved range by 30% over the old one for example.
Charging batteries will always seem a bit naff IMO.
The best way is what we already have so some way of turning up at a station, spending 5-10 mins there and being good for many days or even weeks without even thinking about it. No need for many to go home and remembering to recharge, cables dangling, potential of failures, people removing charge cables on purpose (drunks leaving the local boozer - on road parkng).
Interesting reading the thoughts and opinions here and seeing how the future of transportation progresses. Motorists will always be robbed in future no matter what tech we use IMO, I'm sure of that.
If we go hell for leather on lithium for batteries, I wonder how long that's gonna last. Maybe we'll eventually end up back at horse and cart .

 

[Domi]

You've still got the issue of not everyone having access to a recharge point easily without huge investment

Honestly that issue goes away as the range of the vehicles goes up and charge speeds go down.

Most of us do a very small daily mileage in fact if the cars did 500+ miles on a charge many of us would need to charge only once or twice a month.

I think of a world where chargers are at cinemas , shopping centres , supermarkets and premium sites in city centres where your expensive parking gets you access to faster chargers.

Ideally those chargers will be wireless or in some way automated but the thing is if MOST of the charging is done at home or workplace chargers the need for public chargers is vastly reduced and when I say vastly I absolutely mean in the 80 to 90% margin.

The convenience factor you mention is a strange one , driving to a petrol station standing in the cold for 5-10 minutes vs 30s plugging your car in at home..... hmmm