|Hyundai Tucson Fuel Cell Forum
|Weight of Tuscan drive train & future of fcevs vs Tesla
|Page 1 of 1|
|Author:||cove3 [ Fri Jul 25, 2014 1:48 pm ]|
|Post subject:||Weight of Tuscan drive train & future of fcevs vs Tesla|
The following links provide a very useful framework for evaluating the future of fcevs such as Tuscan ix35/Toyota versus short and long distance bevs such as BMW i3, VW e-Golf, Tesla S/3 and also versus ices
http://www.toyota-global.com/innovation/environmental_technology/fuelcell_vehicle/ (Page 5)
A framework is helpful in one's purchase of the right vehicle at the right point in time and evaluating the future prospects for Tesla's approach. As a major battle is brewing between batteries and fuel cells, and since Tesla is a major determinant, I've included them in some of my observations/questions which are:
1. California, Japan, Toyota, and Hyundai have made fcevs the strategic direction for deploying development resources. The US government is coordinating a world hydrogen partnership and Toyota ended it's Tesla partnership. Their logic is bev range limits and inability to address trucks, buses, trains, construction, home heating/electricity etc. I always pay attention when government and big players make strategic decisions. As the saying goes, don't fight the Fed
2. The hydrogen fueling stations are a non-issue and will come if fcevs are a viable solution. The 12 number everybody loves to quote is a scare tactic. California will have 59 by 10/2015 with 100 afterwards. Japan ditto. Since only the Hyundai and Toyota vehicle will be out by 2015 and in small numbers, there's been no real need. The oil companies won't let their market be taken away by batteries, and they and the governments once they make up their mind will provide the capital. 10000 stations at 20 billion is 9 days of our annual defense budget and 10 days of Fed QE2 money printing. If you build the cars, they will come.
3. Page 5 of the Toyota link 3 shows batteries are more cost effective for short range and fcevs are for longer range. The shape/slope and axis values are crucial. Cars like the BMW i3 and VW E-Golf will always be a better solution if 90% of your driving is 80 miles or less, as the weight/cost of the fcev drive train can't compete with the relatively small battery of the 80 mile bevs
4. What's important to compare is bev battery weight/cost to the fcev drive train: fc stack, battery, tank, and fuel. The inverter, motors etc being common to both bevs and fcevs. (see chart in link 2 and avoid cost of electricity vs hydrogen for now)
5. Hyundai and Toyota haven't published curb weights, drive train or even battery weights or costs, but a clue is a review article that the Hyundai fcev curb weight is 4100 lbs, a whopping 800 lbs over the ICE version, suggesting fcev drive trains are heavy. The 22 kwh/18.8 usable BMW i3 battery is 500 lbs and VW e-golf 24.5 kwh/? usable 700 lbs. The Tesla's are 1100-1400 lbs
6. I found an image of what appears to be the larger of the two Hyundai fuel tanks with a tag saying 85 kg eg 200 lbs. If the 2d tank is 100 lbs, that's 300 lbs of the drive train. The Hyundai battery is 24 kwh indicating 600-700 lbs but I don't know if fcev batteries are the same technology as bev batteries . I've been unable to find the weight of the 100 kwh fuel stack for either the Hyundai or the Toyota but assuming 500+ lbs, the fc drive train could be 1500+ lbs and would explain the 4100 total weight vs the gas version. The important thing is this is equal or more than Tesla's batteries which I believe but am not certain are 1100 lbs for the 65 kwh and 1323 for the 85 kwh. And way over the BMW i3 500 lb and VW e-golf 700 lb batteries
6. Key on the chart in link 2 are the cost/range improvement slopes of the fc and battery lines. A steeper slope for batteries would be helpful for Tesla, but if doable, would also apply to the 80 mile bevs, making them all 160 mile bevs, reducing range anxiety and cutting into Tesla's Model 3.
7. What confidence is there that the slope of the fc line won't match the slope of the bev line? I've read a little about battery technology improvements, but also about radical fc improvements, so getting the slope right vs battery is paramount
8. The VW e-Golf common platform is designed ground up for ice, diesel, bev, and fcev. The huge volumes from ice sales are in effect a subsidy for their bev, and likely fcev vehicles. Both are going to be a problem for Tesla's model 3
9. BMW, VW and several others are well along on aluminum frame/carbon body for weight reduction. i3 already is out, and VW has a concept vehicle, as well as an ownership in the carbon fiber company. Tesla doesn't have the development resource for carbon, and the Model 3 appears to be all steel. By 2017, it's going to be competing with a bunch of aluminum/carbon bevs and fcs with much greater volumes to cut prices
10. I'm skeptical of the mega battery factory being a salvation. There never is one source for anything. Even in semi-conductors requiring billion dollar investments, you have Intel, TSMC, Global Foundries, and Samsung. Tesla borrowed 2 billion dollars, needs partners for the rest and is far in the future. The bonds got an S&P rating of junk, so this huge debt will be a chain around Tesla's neck when the next recession hits or S/X sales slow.
11. Once the millionaires all have their Tesla S/X and demand slows down from saturation or a recession, Tesla will be dependent on the Model 3. I don't feel it will be enough to offer a 200 mile vehicle steel vehicle, even if they could do it for 35K, which is most unlikely. By 2017, competition from bev and fcevs will much greater, and in sharper focus.
12. The Hyundai lease is $499 compared to a BMW i3 around $650. It's almost certainly being subsidized by Hyundai so it's probably not much help for comparing costs. But estimates of evolving fcev costs suggest fcev cars are moving into more affordable territory but face an uphill battle against ices and hybrids
Exciting disruptive times for the ice marketplace. Black swan events eg gas going to $20, technology breakthroughs etc. Anyone who can thread their way through the maze deserves credit.
If replying to the thread, since it's so long, just do a simply reply with no quote to avoid clogging up the thread with repeats
|Author:||hpx [ Fri Jun 12, 2015 8:49 am ]|
|Post subject:||Re: Weight of Tuscan drive train & future of fcevs vs Tesla|
Hello Ron, sorry for my english, but the list you made you forgot one important aspect that exists between EV and FCV. The time to refuel the vehicle. More batteries will be larger and will take time to recharge, with a FCV time is similar to traditional vehicles. In Italy, for example, not everyone has a garage to recharge the vehicle, especially in big cities, then a FCV can be bought by those who do not have a plug where recharging. Alberto Italy
|Page 1 of 1||All times are UTC|
|Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group