I am glad to see that other people aren't freaking out about the whole infrastructure thing. Its really nice to know that i am not the only one knows a car can be charged from any electrical outlet...

↓↑report

Thanks for using your BEV the way it was intended to be used. That's my complaint about spending all the $$$ on charging stations - the people who have supported BEVs all along don't really want or need them.

According to Nissan, 90% of the people who have expressed interest in the Leaf drive less than 100 miles a day. They simply don't need to waste all that money on chargers that won't be used. What we're seeing here is eTec reaping a windfall profit from a politically-motivated program.

↓↑report

I'm sure that there will be the occasional time when you *do* need a fast charge, even just driving around the city.

I think it would be pretty interesting though, to see if cab companies ever pick this up - I asked a cabbie once his per-day milage and it turns out to be about 400 Km/day (250 miles/day). They sure like their hybrids around here, I tell you.

↓↑report

"That's my complaint about spending all the $$$ on charging stations - the people who have supported BEVs all along don't really want or need them."

Not everybody who wants an EV will be able to charge at home, so it makes sense to have a wide network of charging stations where-ever these may be parked. The cost to construct them is also significantly cheaper than hydrogen or gas stations, and these day-time fast-charging stations have the added benefit of being able to act as a backbone for the electric grid during peak hours.

"They simply don't need to waste all that money on chargers that won't be used. What we're seeing here is eTec reaping a windfall profit from a politically-motivated program."

You sound like a moron. What makes more sense...requiring every potential EV owner to have their own charging station to qualify for one, or having a network of fast charging stations that people can use whenever convenient. and your reeeeaaaching with the "windfall profits" and "politically motivated program" lines. Its obvious from your spamming here and on autoblog that you have some kind of anti-EV bias and your throwing out whatever misinformation you think will pass.

↓↑report

Yay, a semi-positive fuel-cell comment! Can we be friends now? ER-EVs using fuel cells as range extenders would certainly benefit the grid be flowing power back into the system during peak demand.

It would be really exciting if there were male/female standard charging plugs - that way an ER-EV could actually be used as a charging station for a BEV! Instead of building stand-alone charging stations, the cars in a garage (ER-EVs and BEVs mixed together) could conceivably be linked to maximize the charge among all vehicles...

A new dawn of positive relations between BEVs and fuel cells...

↓↑report

Letstakeawalk: positive Hydrogen comments are becoming few and far between because we're starting to become aware of just how much of a crock the Hydrogen promise is.

The fact is that Hydrogen isn't green, it isn't cheap, and it isn't bloody likely. Burning Propane or Methane directly in an ICE gets *cleaner* results for far less money in the infrastructure, in the car, and in the fuel. Just don't look behind the curtain of limited supplies of these fuels.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax for a complete (and scientific!) analysis.

↓↑report

Ernie

That link is quite outdated in its politics, its price figures, and its support for alcohol-fueled cars. We're into EVs, now.

↓↑report

Actually the link's figures are still pretty valid. Hydrogen is flaming out as the worst alternative to gas based on efficiency, environmental impact, and economics. You, gorr, and greg blencoe, are probably the only 3 posters here who would dispute that...that is unless you're greg. What happened? did your hydrogen company flame out too?

↓↑report

You're right letstakeawalk. I'm sure that the price of hydrogen produced without CO2 has come down a hundred fold in the past 3 years!

The chemistry still applies. Reform natural gas into hydrogen, and you get the same emissions and 20 times the infrastructure aggravation with less net energy. Thus, my claim that you may as well burn the natural gas in an ICE still stands. And it will always stand. You'd have to change the basic structure of the entire universe before *that* changes.

Even if you never, ever touch on the stupendous cost of the fuel cell stack (or even just assume that in the future, they'll be *free*), hydrogen makes no sense as a *fuel*. Even the most expensive electricity is several times less expensive than hydrogen ever could be.

↓↑report

Ernie

But what if that cheap electricity was produced by a fuel cell? Say in the 1 megawatt range? Nah, impossible. It would never happen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZEiQ8-vf1Q

The electricity for BEVs and PHEVs has to come from somewhere...

Fuel cells, just like batteries, will get cheaper and more efficient over time. It's not one or the other, they are both coming.

↓↑report

letstakewalk: ER-EVs with a hydrogen fuel cell, in my mind, have higher potential of seeing commercial reality than pure HFCVs because power requirements for a range extender are significantly lower than for a main powerplant. Fuel cells are priced by KW, so OEMs can instantly cut cost requirements by adopting a range-extender role for a fuel-cell. Storage/infrastructure problems have a potential resolution in adopting methanol as a fuel, instead of pure hydrogen, for either a reformer or Direct Methanol Fuel Cell (DMFC).

Why all hydrogen proponents (OEMs, various pro-hydrogen associations) insist on HFCV concept which is riddled with so many flaws and needs 4 miracles to materialize instead of constructively problem-solving and engaging in disinformation campaigns and attacks on other alternative technologies, which are often ahead in terms of commercialization potential, I do not know. I (and several other people) asked Larry Burns (a former chief GM HFCV booster) in a recent webchat whether DMFCs were looked into while he was VP of GM Research. He ignored the questions and instead chose to advise pro-hydrogen groups on how to sucker the taxpayer into paying for a billion dollar hydrogen infrastructure and fight against mythical "well-funded battery folks."

So, can we be friends? Why not, if we can agree on looking for facts, answers and solutions instead of trying to shape opinions by appealing to cliches, cherry-picking evidence, comparing apples to oranges and, above all, engaging in wishful thinking.

↓↑report

Serge

You are very rational in your appraisal. I agree, ER-EVs with fuel cells are a great option, and bridge the gap until cheaper fuel cells are available. The same thing happened with batteries - Hybrids led the way until batteries gained enough capacity and range to be independent.

I only began pointing out problems batteries, maybe a few days ago. It's much easier to point out flaws and deficiencies than it is to defend potentials, which is why I assume some many presumably intelligent people would mock the real-world progress made in fuel cells.

I'm sorry your question was ignored, I'd be interested to hear the answer as well. DMFCs are already replacing batteries in consumer electronics, and hold great promise.

As far as the "well-funded battery folks", they do exist. $2.4 billion in grants have been given out by the DOE for battery R&D and manufacturing infrastructure.

http://www.ecogeek.org/automobiles/2891-doe-announces-battery-and-ev-grant-winners

http://www.uscar.org/commands/files_download.php?files_id=204

↓↑report

@letstakeawalk
The fuel cells used at powerplants and the fuel cells being used for cars are quite different animals. For those at powerplants you have a centralized fuel source already. Thus the infrastructure problem is pretty much a non-issue. Also those fuel cells also tend to be more efficient (esp the SOFCs, the plant you linked takes advantage of the heat too). However don't forget it still uses natural gas and when you are talking about natural gas we already have very efficient combined cycle plants (60%). A combined heat plant will have even higher efficiency (max 89%). Where a SOFC might supply a big advantage is in coal gasification, but I don't believe there is an example of it working yet. (Coal gasification is also a possible source for a "hydrogen economy" if they can get a decent hydrogen network going, however it seems most proponents of hydrogen have dropped the idea of a centralized network and instead is pushing for local natural gas reformation, probably because of cost/feasibility reasons).

Even DMFCs are different animals. They allow us to use existing infrastructure already put into place for gasoline, given it uses a liquid fuel. I don't think most of the people here are opposed to all fuel cells, just hydrogen PEM fuel cells in the context of cars.

However, personally I'm okay with hydrogen as long as it doesn't get in the way of plug-ins and when it makes sense (for example in the truck situation where you have a centralized fueling location, and also maybe for airplanes, though so far even hydrogen is inadequate in terms of energy density).

Also not all plug-in advocates like the idea of the charging network. Some of the people at the Volt site are very opposed to it, given it might give the idea that plug-ins are useless until there is an extensive public charging network, when it isn't really true (esp with the Volt).

I personally like the idea of the study. Even though it may not necessarily be needed for BEVs to work for people today (esp in this kind of scale), eventually communities will want to offer some kind of public charging (paid or otherwise) as BEVs get more popular. It would make sense to determine what works best and what doesn't, so communities across America don't waste too much resources installing chargers that nobody will use. In that sense, these Leaf drivers are guinea pigs for the rest of the US. Also this is probably the first large plug-in infrastructure development since CARB dropped their support of EVs about a decade ago (most of the chargers in CA are maintained only by enthusiasts).

↓↑report

"The electricity for BEVs and PHEVs has to come from somewhere."

How about from a plug. Using hydrogen as a carrier simply an extremely expensive, highly inefficient go-around that only serves one purpose: more profits for oil companies who control the natural gas reserves.


"Fuel cells, just like batteries, will get cheaper and more efficient over time. It's not one or the other, they are both coming."

Wrong again. The scale is soo lopsided on the batteries versus fuel-cells price comparison thats its pure fantasy to suggest they'll be economical anytime in the next 20 years. You're talking $40K for a top-of-the-line high-end supercar quality battery, versus $1-2million for a "practical" hydrogen car like the Honda Clarity. Its like someone saying the engines for Formula 1 race cars (which actually cost about as much as the Honda Clarity's fuel cell) will get cheaper over time and pretty soon will be competitive with EVs. Not only is it completely implausible, its ridiculous to even suggest. In a few years batteries will go for less than half what they go for now...for fuel cells to even touch the $100K mark their would need to be dramatic and revolutionary advances in to the tech, to the point it'd be almost unrecognizable from what it out now. We'll have cured cancer and AIDS long before you see a mainstream-priced fuel cell out, though I'm sure it will be prophesied by hydrogen/oil profiteers, knuckle-dragging car execs, and the random hydro-loon.

↓↑report

Please. Your state (Virginia, wasn't it?) gets more money back from the federal government than it pays in taxes, like most Southern states. It's those of us in places like New York and New England that actually pay out more than we get back, and you'll notice we voted for the "socialist" in 2008.

↓↑report