BEVs in the cold:

'While vehicles with larger batteries, or with active liquid thermal management systems, such as the Ford Focus, suffered less loss of range during this extreme winter, drivers of the Nissan LEAF and Mitsubishi i-MiEV, had bigger complaints about “extreme” loss of range, especially when the cabin heater was in full use. In some cases, this meant not using an EV, needing to charge at work (where that had not previously been necessary), or bundling up with warm clothes due to the need to cycle the heater on and off to retain as much range as possible.,

http://www.plugincars.com/electric-car-drivers-report-cold-weather-impact-129218.html

One thing which I have heard rumours of, but don't have definitive information on, is that charging the car actually takes more (?) power, and that coupled with the lower range means that the efficiency is way down.

Anyone got better data on that?

Nothing new. That's the nature of batteries.

electric car guy:

You obviously have a crystal ball, as you can predict exactly what 'will' happen in battery tech.

Of course ICE PHEVs are the kludge not fuel cells, as the later is all electric and zero pollution at point of use, whereas the former luggs around a load of ICE gear, a high temperature exhaust and catalyst for a start.

As for the usual innumeracy about where the supply for hydrogen comes from, less than 1% of the US grid is from solar, and unless you are a nightworker you probably aren't charging from solar anyway.

The grid burns copious amounts of fossil fuels, coal as well as gas, so if you get in touch with reality and spent less time fantasising your judgement might be worth something.

Well doesn't that make BEV's even more unreliable and unrealistic? It was 14 below here and I still have to get to work. Started my 20 year old ICE up and drove in, round trip was 78 miles. Average speed about 60mph.
And I am not alone looking around on the expressway.

I dont see BEV as affordable or practical until some kind of HUGE breakthrough is made. I would love a affordable dependable 100 to 150 mile range daily commuter but after over a decade of following this it seems not where to be found.

I am still trying to figure out if Toyota figured out how to reduce the cost and pressure of hydrogen storage.

Reform methanol to run HT PEMS, Mercedes was reforming methanol for fuel cells 20 years ago in the NECAR programs. Methanol is MUCH easier to handle than 10,000 psi hydrogen.

You get methanol from farm/forest waste and non food bio fuel crops. $2 per gallon for 40 MPG, with NO imported oil and no NOX nor carcinogenic/mutagenic products in the air from internal combustion.

"Toyota said there will be 20 hydrogen fueling stations in the U.S. by 2015 and 40 by 2016 — mostly in Southern California, where the FCV will initially debut and where the state is promoting expansion of the stations."
- USA Today, reporting Jan 7 from Toyota's 2014 CES fuel cell vehicle rollout.

40 stations to fill up in the entire US. Two or three years from now. Talk about range anxiety.

For a car that will cost between $50k - $100k. "Toyota has declined to say how much a fuel cell vehicle could cost in 2020. But working from data it has released, that figure could be about 45,000 euro."
- AutoNews

Toyota is confident that fuel cell vehicles will be price competitive against other zero-emission cars before 2030, Soichiro Okudaira, chief officer, R&D Group, told Automotive News Europe in an interview with dateline Dec 11, 2013.

This is from Toyota's crystal ball, not mine. So, how realistic is H2 as a passenger transportation fuel?

With an extended range of 500+ Km, a few hundred FCEVs can operate in California, with an initial basic 40 well located H2 stations. About 20X more could do the same for USA.

Of course, as FCEVs progressively multiply, so will H2 stations.

Building 1000+ new H2 stations a year is a manageable challenge for USA's industries and economy. Europe, China and others could do as much.

Electric car whatever:
Perhaps you imagine that petrol pumps and stations last forever.
They don't, and need replacing.

That used to be cheap, but regulations now make them take reasonable care to avoid leaks and pollution, so they are ball park the same as hydrogen stations.

Fuel cell cars get around 3 times the mileage per gallon equivalent as petrol cars.

That means less pumps, not more, so the net cost is less than simply maintaining the present system.

I'd be interested to see your figures for wiring up every roadside so that the ~50% of cars that are not parked in garages can be charged.
Clue:Its not cheap.

With universal battery electric cars, Labour day should be interesting, as millions try to charge up simultaneously on route for longer drives.

I have never knocked battery electric cars on the grounds of the expense of the infrastructure, but there are much more solid grounds to do so than fuel cell cars.

You sound exactly like the ICE loyalists did about battery electric cars, proclaiming that no change is ever possible, and inventing poorly researched and innumerate rationales against progress.

I support both fuel cells and batteries, and both will have their place, the proportions to be determined on the ground, and not by nuts on blogs with their handy calculations on the backs of envelopes.

But you would know this if you were not arguing from prejudice, and took the trouble to read some of the reams of studies from the likes of the DOE written by properly qualified people who don't have a bee in their bonnets.

Calgarygary:
In that case I have no idea what was the point of your first post.

electric car would be insider:
Neat evasion of any substantive response.

How is hydrogen infrastructure going to cost the fortune you say when it will replace petrol infrastructure which would need replacing anyway?

You alleged worse costs for hydrogen infrastructure than electric, so presumably you are either working from cost estimates, or talking through your hat.

So what is your estimate for wiring up all the cars at the roadside in the US?

Re infra cost. Petrol infra is cheap because of low pressure liquid that is easily transportable. High pressure low energy density gas is much tougher so it translates into higher cost in capital and energy for transport.

Re Toyota spending a billion. This doesn't tell us much. GM spent a billion or so in the EV1 in the 1990s, it was an economic failure even though somewhat reasonable performance was achieved. The time just wasn't ripe yet, and GM lost a lot of money. These things happen, in a commercial environment risks must be taken, there are no guarantees, but no guts no glory, no investment no return.

Re efficiency, natural gas - battery hybrids with ICEs use slightly less natural gas per mile than hydrogen FCV-battery hybrids. Currently it makes no sense, because almost all hydrogen comes from natural gas, and in the future it makes no sense either, as electricity for electrolysis will be in competition with battery electrics.

Batteries suck badly in terms of long trips, fuel cells are good for long trips but suck in all other performance compartments where batteries do better.

This laptop is powered by batteries. Not fuel cells. My cellphone is powered by batteries. Not fuel cells. Electric bicycles are powered by batteries. Not fuel cells. Space sattelites are powered by batteries and solar panels, not fuel cells. The Mars Rovers are powered by nuclear and battery/solar panels, not fuel cells. For both high end (even price isn't an issue there) and low end applications, batteries are used, not fuel cells.

Fuel cells have been around for about 180 years.

Davemart: "That means less pumps, not more, so the net cost is less than simply maintaining the present system."

This is also not true, as it was based on the false 3x mileage argument, plus hydrogen requires a lot of pump power in compressors compared to gasoline stations (more than two orders of magnitude in fact). So you literally need a lot more pump power with hydrogen than with gasoline.

Not saying gasoline is great and we should keep it, but that doesn't justify apples to oranges or even plain out false comparisons.