How far can your EV go on a three-minute charge?

↓↑report

My EV goes 200 miles on a 20 second charge. It takes me 10 seconds to plug it in at night, and 10 seconds to unplug it in the morning.

Waiting around while you fill up a fuel tank? Having to drive someplace just so you can pay them for fuel? That's a crazy way of doing things!

↓↑report

What do you drive, Blackbird? I appreciate your humor, but seriously, which EV are you driving - a Tesla Roadster?

I'm not anti-EV. I don't even own a car, because I don't need to, living inside a city. But I can understand the benefit that fuel-cells provide by allowing quick refueling. I'm confident that the dominant manufacturers will offer a full range of EVs, whether pure or hybrid (and the many variations thereof), just as they today offer a variety of body styles and configurations.

I just don't get that animosity that exists withing the EV community. There are many solutions, and many customers for each solution.

↓↑report

Wow, I thought the 250kW one they released was already pretty amazing, 800kW is totally mindblowing.

In actuality, 100kW will be more than enough for a decent quick charger. Should provide ~100 miles of range in about 15 minutes.

The whole deal about quick fill is totally overblown given the way people use cars (parked hours at a time and usually at home, at work, or at a business; for city dwellers it's a sidewalk or a parking structure). Just have chargers in those places and it's not a big deal. The only exception are road trips, and even for those, you have to sleep, eat, and rest, so there is a limit to how long you can drive vs being parked (unless you are going to switch drivers and do overnight driving). With rapid chargers to fill in the gaps, I don't see quick fill being that big a deal. (There is also battery swapping but that seems to me even more costly than hydrogen).

Since we are comparing to hydrogen, which pretty much has no infrastructure (even a 3-minute fillup is pretty meaningless given you are currently pretty much limited to Southern California just because of lack of infrastructure), it's not unfair to include rapid chargers and distributed chargers into the comparison.

In the mean time, PHEVs/EREVs are the only choice for people who want zero emissions driving (for most/part of the time) and also the ability to travel on long road trips (without taking too long).

Whether hydrogen, BEV or PHEV, the important first step is getting the cars out there and starting to build up the infrastructure to support them. Hopefully we see more of them for sale in the near future.

↓↑report

Building a charger is easy.

Building a battery that won't be damaged by quick charging is difficult.

↓↑report

@Dave
Yes it is difficult to build a battery that won't be damaged by quick charging, but it is much easier than building a Hydrogen Fuel Cell that is not damaged by normal use. You will have to pay more for a battery that can charge faster, but I am fin with a 20 mile charge in 10 minutes since the only time I would quick charge is when I could not quite make it home without it.

↓↑report

Auto manufacturers can't even come up with a standard tire size for all vehicles, why would we assume one battery would fit all applications? High-performance, heavy-duty for hauling/towing, super-efficient for longer distances between swaps...

A battery swap station would be very quick, but what are the odds they'd have the specific battery you'd need?

Many solutions, for many different customers. Standardization is the biggest obstacle the auto industry faces; it's so much easier to create specific solutions to specific applications.

↓↑report

Dave, I think you're going to be way off on all three of those predictions.

1) Fuel cells will still be more expensive than ICE gensets in 15 years, unless the governments throw a major tax on ICEs and subsidize fuel cells. However, if fuel costs go up enough, fuel cells might eventually be worth the extra cost, due to their higher efficiency. My own prediction is that in 15 years, most fuel cells will be running on something other than that difficult to store and expensive H2 fuel.

2) In 15 years, Hydrogen production will be pretty much the same as now, most will be produced by steam reforming of natural gas as it will still be the cheapest source (more natural gas will come from renewable sources, though). Most renewable energy will be distributed as electricity, supplying various energy needs and charging plug-in vehicles. Making H2 with renewable electricity will still be considered too inefficient to be cost effective.

3) Why should the cost of batteries almost double in 15 years? Is there going to be that much inflation? More likely, new batteries now being researched will come to market, with 5x to 20x improved energy density, they'll be smaller, lighter, and probably cheaper than todays batteries.

Sounds like you're one of those H2 boosters that think H2 fuel cells will improve by leaps and bounds, but batteries will somehow not improve at all...

↓↑report

"3) Why should the cost of batteries almost double in 15 years? Is there going to be that much inflation? More likely, new batteries now being researched will come to market, with 5x to 20x improved energy density, they'll be smaller, lighter, and probably cheaper than todays batteries. "

The price of batteries will have to drop to give a REAL WORLD range of 250 miles in a MIDSIZE car for only $50,000. Aluminum chassis two seat roadsters with carbon fiber body panels and a very small cross-sectional area are not midsized.

I hope there will be a breakthrough in batteries. Batteries will need to be five times more dense and 1/5 as expensive to facilitate battery swapping and to make pure EVs cost effective. Unfortunately, researchers tend to make big claims so they can get grant money (yes - the same as some fuel cell researchers).

↓↑report

4. And knights riding dinosaurs will battle robot zombies with flamethrowers.

Hey, it's just as realistic as the other predictions.

↓↑report

1) Evidence please, and start with how much a fuel cell (one that can power a car) costs today. Also don't forget the carbon fiber tank which makes up a lot the cost. I would also like to know how much a fuel cell car costs today (even just manufacturing only, if it can be found). I know this 15 year frame is estimated by the hydrogen industry and is frequently put out, but I'm not comfortable about the estimates without data on how it is today. This is why I'm always saying for hydrogen to at least get ONE car out there for sale (not lease). It is very frustrating to hear these promises and have no solid example of why I should expect them to be true, while for BEVs, even though they are very expensive, I have at least one example (the Tesla Roadster, Ebox, Tango, etc; also costs for laptop cells, and larger format LFP cells from China is relatively easy to find and gives me a decent estimate of how much a battery pack will cost).

2) In 15 years, I doubt we will see much cheaper prices for hydrogen since it will likely be based on distributed natural gas (the cheapest way to make hydrogen) where there isn't much cost savings you can make. I also doubt we will see much renewable hydrogen since it is too expensive. If the hydrogen infrastructure development stays at the current pace, I doubt we will see many hydrogen stations. They really need to pick up the pace if they want a decent amount of consumers driving hydrogen cars in 15 years (or get some cars out for actual sale to stimulate demand...here we see the chicken and egg problem).

3) Even today, a 250 mile battery won't cost $50k. Also in your 250 mile range quote I hope you realize even this F-Cell is using an optimistic estimate (like most press releases do). A Tesla Roadster in range mode goes ~200 miles (170-180 in standard mode). 250 miles in the Roadster = $45k for a replacement battery ($36k for current Roadster). Also I don't see the reason that there needs to be a 250 mile battery in order to have BEVs be successful. You seem to be in the mindset that only gas stations (or something similar) are a valid way to fuel a car. With a plug, the idea is that you can charge where you are parked; that is its main appeal. This also means the need for a quick fuel is greatly diminished (to the couple of days a year for road-trips and this is where rapid charging can fill in the gaps).

The battery improvement rate (energy density) currently is ~8% annually or 2x every 9 years. In 15 years we should see ~3x improvement in batteries if this rate holds (it's a bit hard to predict out 15 years). The decrease in cost per cell isn't as dramatic as 5-10 years ago (where it was pretty much exponential esp if you count it per Wh since both cell prices and energy density improved dramatically in that period) but energy density is still improving. Of course this is only talking mainly about laptop cells. Also keep in mind these last 2 decades we already had 2 major chemistry changes which yielded huge improvements in density: lead acid/NiCd -> Nimh -> Li-ion. Given the current research, we are likely to change to carbon nanotubes, lithium air or lithium sulfur for the next big bump in density.
http://www.allbusiness.com/media-telecommunications/telecommunications/6304354-1.html

We now have many new chemistries and form factors (esp large format ones for automotive use) which might yield even more cost/weight savings. Remember the battery market we have so far is not designed for automobiles at all, so mass production alone can still yield important savings. According to Nissan, their battery costs less than $500/kWh (or $50k per 100kWh which should be good for more than 300 miles in a decent sized car).
http://green.autoblog.com/2009/08/14/at-witz-end-turning-over-a-new-nissan-leaf/

↓↑report

jake, I researched the topic of HFCEV costs and most sources point out to $1-2M range. Here is but one example http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2009/09/3-days-with-hondas-clarity-helps-bring-hydrogen-debate-into-focus.html

It it obvious why every HFCEV manufacturer refuses to even discuss the topic. If they admit real costs the whole boondoggle will instantly be dead in the water. After decades of research and billions of $s in subsidies we have at best a $1M prototype. How many more billions are needed to bring this tech to the point where a $20K car is possible? Billions more dollars to create new infrastructure for fuel that doesn't exist in free form?

On the other hand, Dave, do you know why methanol fuel cells are not pursued?

↓↑report

1. So called "quick charges" arent. A truly fast charge (lets say 200 miles range in 5 minutes) will damage a battery, especially if repeated often. In order to equal the utility of an ICE automobile, battery swaps are the only option available. (A range extended car is an ICE automobile and I believe it is the only way that "EV"s can succeed without a MAJOR breakthrough in battery tech)

2. Batteries are mass produced by a multitude of companies worldwide. Battery R&D money over the years is orders of magnitude greater than what has been spent on fuel cells. And fuel cells have never benefitted from economies of scale. Please show me evidence of an "exponential" drop in cost of batteries.

3. Hydrogen infrastructure will not be a serious issue. At first, fuel cells will be range extenders for folks who have garages or other places to charge at night. Their GPS will tell them where the nearest one of the few H2 fueling stations are when they travel far from home. As H2 becomes more popular, the number of fueling stations will increase.

4. There are many alternatives besides hydrogen. Personally, I tend to think that natural gas would be an excellent way to decrease our reliance on foreign oil. Even ammonia might be an affordable alternative. But if all of the major automobile companies are putting serious R&D money into hydrogen fuel cells, they are likely to have results.

↓↑report

Suppose we had two gas cylinder tanks, the same size, filled to the same pressure and at the same temperature, one filled with Hydrogen, the other with natural gas. Which cylinder tank contains more hydrogen atoms?

Answer - the Natural Gas (CH4) tank holds twice as many hydrogen atoms as the Hydrogen (H2) tank. And yes, a gallon of methanol or a gallon of gasoline contains more hydrogen atoms than a gallon of liquid H2!

There are several companies that are researching other fuels for fuel cells. VW and BMW are both researching solid oxide fuel cells, which can run directly on various hydrocarbon fuels, though it does require a high operating temperature.

↓↑report

Dave:

So wrong.

1) How stressful charging X miles in Y minutes is depends on the size of the pack, so it's simply incorrect to state that X miles in Y minutes will always be damaging.

2) For many chemistries, the cells are not the limit at all. The limit is cooling. Most H2 nuts refuse to admit to this basic fact because the answer to cooling challenges are quite obviously solvable engineering. Individual AltairNano cells can charge 80% in under a minute. I know you guys don't like to admit that there are *already two production EVs on the market* that can charge to 80% in 15 minutes. Today. And that's just the start of it all.

3) Yes, "batteries" have gotten a lot of R&D money in recent years. If all batteries were the same thing, that might be a reasonable argument. They're not. Research put into, for example, making single-use li-ions for cameras or making AA NiMH cells that don't readily self-discharge so they can be used in more applications, doesn't do a damned thing for EV propulsion. What you need to look at is the particular leading chemistries for EVs -- the manganese spinel li-ions and the phosphate olivine li-ions. And they have not (until very recently) gotten more money than fuel cells. And most of that money was from industry, not leaching taxpayer dollars.

4) You want an exponential drop in the cost of batteries? Compare the price of the original Prius pack to how much it costs today.

5) "Hydrogen infrastructure will not be a serious issue."

Yeah, the stations only cost a few million a pop -- more for the high-pressure stations that can fill in 3 minutes, and more for stations with the sort of throughput of a normal gas station -- and you only need a couple tens of thousands of them. Not a big deal. I've got the $100B+ just sitting around in my other pants.

6) "But if all of the major automobile companies are putting serious R&D money into hydrogen fuel cells, they are likely to have results."

They did. They didn't. Hydrogen died, and its corpse is running around like a chicken with its head cut off.

↓↑report