BMW looks to Toyota for a fuel-cell powerplant for its i3

[cove3]

Interesting if true. If my analysis of the fc drive train weight of the Hyundai ix35 is correct, it would make the i3 at least 700 lbs heavier due to tanks, fuel, fc stack and the fact you still need a 22kwh battery for regeneration and to help out the fc.

However, it would make the i3 a true road car

Ron
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/bmw-planning-toyota-sourced-fuel-cell-variant-i3/#!btldMm

 

[Bunter]

I know alot is written about hydrogen but I just don't see it happening. It's a nasty gas to have to handle, and store, the molecule is so small that when stored under pressure the metal components of the regulators suffer embrittlement as the hydrogen molecules permeate through the metal.

Maybe I've missed something in how it's proposed to be used?

Bill

 

[noakey]

Interesting if true. If my analysis of the fc drive train weight of the Hyundai ix35 is correct, it would make the i3 at least 700 lbs heavier due to tanks, fuel, fc stack and the fact you still need a 22kwh battery for regeneration and to help out the fc.

However, it would make the i3 a true road car

Ron
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/bmw-planning-toyota-sourced-fuel-cell-variant-i3/#!btldMm

Bit you won't be able to home charge hydrogen and will have to visit the gas station ... and be taxed and rated and then vat on top... I prefer just battery and support its onward development to become more power dense.

 

[mindmachine]

I personally as a retired engineer, based on my engineering knowledge of H2 see the FC approach as not viable. Hydrogen in my opinion is not a good choice as it is too expensive to contain, there is virtually no infrastructure to start out and building infrastructure will be very expensive and slow. Then there is the safety aspects especially over time, oh and home refueling just won't be cost effective at all. Hydrogen molecules are so small and hard to contain, pressures are very high for storage containers and hydrogen embrittlement is a big issue/expensive to deal with.

Just look at the current situation for electric cars, infrastructure for them is progressing very slowly. Now consider how cheap and easily electric recharging capability is to install and how easily it can be done. Now consider the high cost, safety problems and capital intensive nature of building H2 refueling stations and tell me that is going to happen quickly. No add in the high cost of the vehicles and consider how fast the public is going to buy them in any significant numbers to even provide a demand for H2 refueling infrastructure.

Lastly FC cars are going to be more expensive to build, hard to see how much, but I am currently guessing at around 50% to 60% more then EV's or PHEV's.

Just don't see it! :roll:

 

[jackt]

Aside from the vested interests and politics of hydrogen as a fuel - this one fact should be enough to put any sane individual off:

Another concern is that hydrogen flames are nearly invisible. When hydrogen catches fire, the flames are so dim and hard to see that they're both hard to avoid and hard to fight.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/hydrogen-vehicle-danger1.htm

I am pretty convinced battery tech will get better far quicker than hydrogen infrastructure is built.

 

[cove3]

I started a thread on the new Hyundai ix35 fcev forum hoping to get input to make sense out of the direction things will be going:
http://www.mytucsonfuelcell.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=777

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 below shows batteries are more cost effective than fcevs for short range but 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. This is particularly true since fcevs require a 22-24 kwh battery for brake regeneration and to help out fc stack when needed, so right off fcevs have a weight penalty in the short range i3 segment but close or exceed the gap in the long range segment

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 below 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

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. This has helped me arrive at an i3 or e-Golf decision as most of my driving is less than 50 miles

http://cleancaroptions.com/
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2303255-teslas-fuel-cell-threat
http://www.toyota-global.com/innovation/environmental_technology/fuelcell_vehicle/ (Page 5)

My take ice gas, ice diesel, hybrids, plug-in hybrids, short range bevs like the i3, and long range bevs like Tesla, and fuel cell fcevs will coexist for a long time. The question is in what proportion and over what time frame. I've got an Excel spread sheet with 40 parameters eg curb weight, range, drive train weight etc for 14 different vehicle technologies. I'm filling it in as I come across new info, but can't find some, eg kwh usable, some battery weights, etc

If replying to the thread, since it's so long, just do a simply reply with no quote or else a selective quote to avoid clogging up the thread with repeated data

Ron

 

[mindmachine]

Well once the government decides that the high cost most safety fraught approach is best, the tax payers will get fleeced again :!: at the expense of common sense!

 

[jadnashuanh]

There are various ways to strip hydrogen from whatever it's currently combined with, and one of the more common sources is natural gas. So, you still have to deal with the carbon, even though when you 'burn' it in a FC, it only produces water. THen, the energy required to strip it out of whatever, compress it to a viable density, and deliver it to the end user is problematic.

Looking at the whole picture, while a FC sounds great from a point energy source, it has it's problems, too. Whether it's worth the effort is still up in the air as we really haven't come up with an ideal way to store the stuff with long-term reliably.