VW About-Face: CEO says fuel cell vehicles impossible at "reasonable cost", embraces EVs

[wtmusic]

"The head of Europe's biggest carmaker says the prospects for hydrogen vehicles are vanishing into thin air. Yes, when recently asked about fuel-cell technology, Volkswagen CEO Martin Winterkorn said it's nearly impossible to build those vehicles at a "reasonable cost."

As Automotive News reports, VW will keep on conducting research into fuel cells, but the company's focus recently has been on ramping up a broadened line of hybrid and battery-electric vehicles. Earlier this month, VW unveiled the XL1 diesel plug-in car at the Geneva Motor Show. Volkswagen says that model will get a whopping 261 miles per gallon.

Automakers like Toyota, Honda and Hyundai are preparing to debut their first production hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles (albeit in small numbers) in 2015, and they're not the only ones. In late January, Mercedes-Benz parent Daimler, Ford and Nissan announced a partnership to develop a "common" fuel cell drivetrain for vehicles that will be introduced as soon as 2017. Daimler has long pushed fuel-cell technology and announced last June that it was working with the German Federal Ministry of Transportation and Linde at more than tripling Germany's hydrogen fueling stations to at least 50 in 2015, an increase from the 15 that were installed as of last year. "

http://green.autoblog.com/2013/03/16/volkswagen-chief-fuel-cell-vehicles-not-possible/

[BlueStreak]

1. That is a crock

I have seen other articles citing that VW's argument is that "it costs more to create hydrogen than you get as energy from hydrogen". That is complete BS. Hydrogen is not a fuel. It is an energy storage medium. It ALWAYS wasted some energy when transforming into a storage form, whether that is a battery, pumping uphill into a water reservoir, spinning up a flywheel, or loading a spring. There are always some losses. That is neither here nor there. If VW truly believes that, they are idiots.

I don't think they believe that, and I don't think they are idiots. This is just marketing. And it was probably a story put out by a marketing person who is an idiot. It is all about justifying VW's short term plans. And they have been WAAAAAY behind other manufacturers in innovating for high mileage, so I guess they need some extra marketing BS.

I'm not saying that fuel cells are certain to dominate. That does depend on the costs of the cells. EVs will NEVER be anything more than a small niche. We won't see a magnitude increase in battery energy density from this point for 25 years, and even an order of magnitude is not enough to make EVs viable unless somebody can find a way to recharge them in 10 minutes. EVs have been "right around the corner" for 120 years, and probably will be for at least another 40.

Fuel cells, on the other hand, definitely have enough energy density and fast enough refill time to meet the demands of the average motorist with no big inconvenience. So if the costs come around, fuel cells could take off. And they will definitely be viable for more expensive equipment like municipal buses. They are already in use in data centers and many other applications where rock bottom prices are not the most important factor.

[wtmusic]

2. Fuel cells have no "energy density".

They have canisters of hydrogen pumped up to 800 bars of pressure, and with two of those running the length of a Chevy Equinox SUV you can get about 80 miles of range. So no, hydrogen doesn't have nearly enough energy density when compared to internal combustion cars. It has to be stored at that pressure or cryogenic temperatures, so handling is extremely cumbersome and expensive.

Costs of the tech could come around, but the biggest stumbling block is the proton exchange membrane (PEM), transportation-reliable ones of which have yet to be developed. They're in use by industry because they can sit in one place without being bumped around, are refilled by professionals, and fuel space is not a significant issue.

In his book The Hype About Hydrogen Joe Romm esimates it would take $500 billion to build a hydrogen infrastructure, a classic chicken-egg problem which is the deal-killer. The public won't buy hydrogen without a way to fill them; and neither the government nor petroleum companies (the chief private sector sponsor of fuel cells) are willing to invest the money without cars to fill.

As an owner, I'll heartily disagree with your opinion on EVs. There are 30,000 pure battery electrics on the road in the U.S., up from zero three years ago. Battery technology is predicted to drop precipitously in price in the next five years, making EVs with 200-300 miles of range competitive with internal combustion. Barron's predicts EV sales will grow 130% per year, and research shows that the U.S. will become the largest electric car market in the world by 2020, with annual sales of 1.8 million.

[BlueStreak]

3. Hydrogen has sufficient energy density

And fuel cells don't have to use pure hydrogen. Some can operate off other molecules, such as methane or methanol or even natural gas. In any case, you can easily equip a vehicle to have a 300 mile range. And that would weigh a lot less than the equivalent batteries required for a 300 mile range. You can tank up a fuel cell in approximately the same amount of time it takes to pump a tank of gas.

The simple fact is that there is no EV ever manufactured that can be used for general purpose driving. There is exactly one company worldwide that claims to have figured out how to produce a fast recharge product (Altair) and they seem to be nearly out of business. Based on that, I'd say there are minimal prospects of a 5-to-10-minute recharge cycle for an EV in the next 10 years. Without that, these things are just fancy golf carts -- useful for a trip to the grocery store and back, but not much else.

There is a certain percentage of the population for whom that is all that is required. And if that fits your circumstances, that's great. But I'll stand by a prediction that 10 years from now, pure EVs will still be no more than 4% of the new vehicle production. I'm not claiming that fuel cells will be a larger number. That all depends on the cost coming down enough to justify the considerable infrastructure investment. But fundamentally, I believe pure EVs are bound to be a tiny niche forever and fuel cells have the possibility of serving the majority of the market at some point. That's only my opinion, of course. We'll have to just wait and see.

[BlueStreak]

4. This source projects "eectrified" vehicles at 6+% of the market by 2020

http://green.autoblog.com/2013/03/10/pwc-electrified-vehicle-market-share-will-climb-to-6-3-by-2020/

But they seem to be including hybrids as "electrified cars", and features a photo of a Prius with their article. There are no pure EV Prii.

The only pure EVs sold in the US (other than custom jobs) are the Nissan Leaf, Tesla, and Fisker.

Leafs sold at 12,000 a year, but seem to be DROPPING, not growing as the early adopter base runs out and the broad market wants no part of the range anxiety. Tesla sells a negligible number of units. Fisker seems to be imploding with the founder quitting last week.

Mitsubishi and Ford seem to be offering pure EVs this year, but I don't know that they are shipping yet, and they both have extremely limited range -- if you want to go 75 miles, you'll need a tow truck.

[wtmusic]

6. That number seems to be DROPPING, does it?

If January/February sales rates continue, there will 27,600 battery-electric EVs sold in 2013 alone.

http://www.electricdrive.org/index.php?ht=d/sp/i/20952/pid/20952

Tesla sells a "negligible number of units", do they? (No, they don't. They're currently manufacturing cars at the rate of 20,000/year.)

Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?

[wtmusic]

5. Did you just step out of a time warp, from like, 1998?

In 2013 terms, you really have no idea what you're talking about.

"Fast-recharging" is not required for general purpose driving when your car is charged every morning when you wake up. That is a relic of the internal-combustion mindset, and irrelevant.

Your "simple fact" that "there is no EV ever manufactured that can be used for general purpose driving" is bullshit (the Tesla Model S was voted 2013 Car of the Year by Automobile Magazine).

I've put 8,000 miles on my Nissan Leaf. It goes to the grocery store and pretty much everywhere else I need to go. The price of my car has dropped $6,000 in one year, and in five years they will have 300 miles of range.

I leave you with the photo of a very fancy golf cart.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. They are currently urban and short distance commuters

They are not suitable to drive to the mountains or Las Vegas with.

[wtmusic]

8. If you lived in Henderson, NV you could do both.

Since the average American daily mileage is 29 miles, your LasVegasMountainMobile is now offically your "niche" vehicle.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. Henderson is LV and any EV still won't get you to/from the snow

EVs are great for urban use but less so in rural areas, nothing wrong with that. As the tech evolves, that too will change.

When someone buys a vehicle, they normally look at all missions, not just the daily drive. That leads to over buying in many cases, but renting a van or truck is quite expensive. That also figures into to buying decision.

EVs are the niche vehicle for now. Hopefully that will change over time

[BlueStreak]

12. I don't think my driving is all that unusual

I do about 20,000 miles a year. That's only a little above the average.

As I look at the past week, there is only one day's driving that would have worked with a Leaf, and only 2 days that would have worked with a $100,000 Tesla. In the best case, I would have needed a tow truck 5 of the last 7 days. So I happily use my Prius, and it really doesn't cost that much more than the cost of charging an EV, with none of the drawbacks other than the emissions. And even emissions are debatable when you go back to the source of the electricity. In my part of the country most of it comes from coal plants, although we are bringing significant wind farms online.

I really wish EVs were practical, but they are not for me and never will be. The rate of progress in EVs has not been rapid. As I noted in another post here, they actual utility of EVs is only about double what it was on the EV my dad owned in 1974. Practical speed is about double and actual range is about double. So if you want to call that a four-fold improvement in 40 years, that's OK with me. That is a snail's pace and there are no breakthroughs on the horizon.

Visit the Ford museum in Dearborn and you will find EVs from 1895 that were pretty much on that same progress curve.

[wtmusic]

13. Um, Teslas haven't been "$100,000" since 2009.

You're really making yourself look silly, so I'll let you dig your own hole.

Carry on.

[BlueStreak]

14. The model tested in that NYT article has a base price of $95K

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/2013-model-s-price-increase

[wtmusic]

15. OK now you're making shit up again.

$95K is the most expensive version of the Model S that you can buy.

Now subtract $7,500 for the federal tax credit. Now subtract your state tax credit - up to $7,500, depending on where you live.

Your inability to admit you're just wrong is making you look very silly.

[BlueStreak]

16. Do you know the difference between "base price" and "out the door price"?

[wtmusic]

17. Are you planning to get a $5,000 pinstripe job too?

I know you can eke this out, I just know you can. Never say die.

By the way, did you care to respond about Tesla sales being negligible, or Leaf sales DROPPING?

Still waiting for an answer.

[BlueStreak]

18. Anybody buying the tested model will part with over $100K

even when you consider the tax credit. That tax credit is offset by sales tax and other fees.

And yes, 20,000 is negligible and probably grossly inflated. That is a worldwide sales figure. The number of cars produced annually worldwide is about 6o MILLION cars. 20,000 units is one-third-of-one percent. Yes, that is negligible. Wikipendia begins its definition with "Negligible refers to the quantities so small that they can be ignored (neglected) when studying the larger effect. "

I am glad that Tesla is out there giving it a try. I also applauded Delorean. I think it is cool. But when you look at that "larger effect", it just doesn't add up to much. This is a niche technology. Hybrids are the mainstream technology that will bridge us to the next big technology. Right now, that looks like fuel cells, but maybe it will be flywheels or some other technology.

The reality is that using minor improvements to the Prius technology, for example, we will get to 75 MPG while running the engine, and hybrids are knocking EVs out of their niche with the plug-in systems. If you can get 25 "free" miles off plug-in power and then get 75 MPG after that, there just isn't much room for a pure EV.

[BlueStreak]

10. How about we deal with facts, rather than religion?

Fact: The more vehicles Tesla sells, the more money they lose. At this rate, this could be their last year of production.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=tesla-electric-car-sales-growing-but-so-are-financial-losses&page=2

Fact: The Tesla range claims are grossly inflated. They claim something like 2790 mile range, but in normal driving, actually using the heater and staying up with highway traffic, it is closer to 100 miles for this $100,000 car.
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/the-charges-are-flying-over-a-test-of-teslas-charging-network/

Fact: Even using the so-called "supercharger", it takes well over an hour to get a full charge. My opinion is that most people aren't willing to drive 90 minutes and then wait 90 minutes for a charge. That seems to be the best technology available today and still it is nowhere close to being a road car.

I am not against EVs. My dad had on in the 1970s and 1980s. He was able to make the 15-mile round trip to work as long as he stayed on back streets driving 25 MPH and didn't use a heater. Today's EVs are a little better that today, but fundamentally have only about doubled their utility in 40 years. There have been no breakthroughs and never will be. We are already at the limits of aerodynamics and friction avoidance. We are nearing the limits of energy density in batteries. There might be some improvements in recharge time, but not enough to make this viable for general purpose driving that 90% of the car owners expect. If you can fit an EV into your lifestyle, I applaud you. But it will always be a small niche.

Which gets me back to the original point -- VW claiming that they weren't going to do fuel cells. It turns out that isn't even true. here is an article of just 7 days ago where they have contracted with Ballard to supply fuel cells to them.
http://www.dailytech.com/Ballard+Power+Systems+to+Make+Fuel+Cells+for+Volkswagen/article30083.htm

And here are some of the activities of other car makers:
http://corporate.honda.com/environment/fuel_cells.aspx

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2013/02/03/Auto-Outlook-Toyota-back-on-top-carmakers-cut-fuel-cell-deal/UPI-87221359887400/

They are talking 2017, which is probably aggressive. If you keep your Leaf 10 years, I bet you can replace it with a fuel cell vehicle.

And please notice that the driving range for the Honda, which is already being sold (well leased, to be precise) is 240 miles, and you can fill the hydrogen tank in a minute or two. To get a range of 240 miles from an EV, you would have to pull a trailer full of batteries.

[wtmusic]

11. I agree.

"There have been no breakthroughs and never will be." (apparently you haven't heard about regenerative braking, or Li-Ion batteries).

I don't have the time or patience to try to educate Luddites anymore. You're on your own.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/