Hi @MalR,
The topic you posted in was for ‘non technical’ issues (eg government policy, subsidies, taxes, and so on). I have thus relocated your post here where there are discussions about batteries.
A search on the Community will find a few posts here and there relevant to your question, but this topic seems the dominant one.
I believe they are more than that, but will depend on the make and model, and the vehicle’s battery capacity. I recall reading an article of the total costs for a $110k tesla, and they were quoting around 60% of new vehicle price. This did include labour costs which may also be high for some makes and models. It could be less for a cheaper make and model with a smaller battery capacity.
The reported battery life is difficult to be definitive about as it depends on a number of factors. How one drives the vehicle, how one charges the batteries, how often vehicle is used etc.
There seems be to some consensus that battery should last around 12 years or more. For some it could be 12 years, for others less or more. Others may chose not to change batteries.
While the 60% seems steep, one has to compare it with current cheaper energy costs and lower servicing requirements (inc consumables) when compared to a conventional ICE. The running costs are cheaper, but most costs benefit analysis doesn’t include battery replacement costs (when they happen). There seems to be information that it is still a 5+ years or more until they reach parity with conventional vehicles…and some of this parity includes disincentives for ICEs (higher taxes) and subsidies for EVs. Removing these pushes out parity timeframes.
Technically battery replacement isn’t necessary if one is happy with and can work within the ever diminishing range as the batteries age.
Battery replacement is an issue for low to middle income households as they are unlikely to be able to afford, without good budgeting’ replacing the battery in a second hand EV they buy within their budgets. It may mean these income groups are 'mileage disadvantaged in the future as they will be driving EVs with low battery capacities.
Tesla boss says Australia is missing out on big climate opportunities
An interesting alternative to the view that oz should switch to exporting energy from solar and wind. She says miners ought to switch into mining minerals required for new industries such as lithium and nickel. To some degree this is aiming to engage a particular audience (The Minerals Council) and to some extent rational self interest - her industry needs these resources.
Given the great fear that coal miners have that their assets will become worthless before they can exit this is not such a silly suggestion. Companies that move their capital into products supported by and taking advantage of new technology tend to survive better than those who cannot change. The question is to what degree will this kind of switch be possible, how many can actually make the transition and how many Kodaks will be left wondering if they could have done better.
A Toyota Mirai has achieved 1000km on a tank of hydrogen.
What is surprising is a full tank holds 5.6kg of hydrogen. It shows the amount of energy held in a small quantity of gas. Unlike a traditional ICE, due to fuel weight, the economy at full fuel tank is likely to be similar to that when near empty.
An impressive result. 1000km 
It demonstrates the potential, but at what up front purchase cost?
It’s not evident how long they were actually on the road or the average speed achieved. One would suggest the Toyota record run carefully selected the driving conditions to eek out ever last meter of range.
Note:
Does that make a noticeable difference for an ICE?
Aerodynamic drag (Science content) increases with the square of the speed of a vehicle. Which is why ICE fuel economy is significantly better at 70-80kph compared with 100-110kph for an ICE. A 10% increase in speed requires 21% more power with a similar increase in energy consumption. The same has been noted for Highway use of BEVs, with reduced range on the open road.
The 2021 Mirai has a Kerb Weight of 1900kg. In comparison a Camry sedan has a Kerb Weight of approx 1490kg.
The nominal range quoted for the 2021 Mirai is around 640km. YMMV! 
It certainly didn’t when we had our XW GT Falcon with the 160 litre Bathurst tank and a 240KW engine.
Neither the fuel load or the aircon made the slightest difference. It always achieved 14 MPG on the highway.
Not rechargeable, but thousands of kilometres range. Replacing batteries would probably be less time-consuming than recharging, perhaps even quicker than filling a tank. And yes, if it came to pass, batteries would inevitably be standardised. After all, every torch doesn’t have a proprietary battery, does it?https://www.automotivemanufacturingsolutions.com/emobility/aluminium-air-a-better-power-source-for-evs/40578.article
Great stuff.
5.6 kg sounds like a small amount of stuff, but as hydrogen has by far the lightest atomic weight, 4 times lighter than the next lightest, helium, you need a lot of it compressed into a tank at very high pressures, or stored in liquid form in a cryogenic tank at very low temperatures.
I wonder what the weight of the tank used to hold the hydrogen, plus the weight of the fuel cell system, plus the weight of the recharchable battery, is compared to a battery with the same capacity for a straight EV.
Cars sure have changed. Not many would buy a car that got ~ 20 l / 100 km today.
I think it would be accurate to say that it always achieved fuel consumption rate that was indistinguishable from 14 MPG the way you measured it.
The weight of a Toyota Mirai is 1900kg.
An similar sized Tesla model S long range (notional 647km) is 2250kg. Alternative energy isn’t light.
Toyota hydrogen ICE, can’t find weights but expect it will be higher than a traditional corolla, but less than the Mirai
I started to work this out, then realised I can’t afford either.
One is also not readily available and has nowhere to refuel. I could at least recharge a BEV at home from the PV at a cost of 22c per kWh when the sun shines.
The following links may provide some inspiration. Both a Tesla Model 3 Long Range and the new Toyota Mirai weigh about the same in my mind. My take is under normal US highway use the Mirai may just outlast the Tesla.
I’m guessing one day the local motoring experts at the RACQ will road test both a popular BEV and a new model Mirai FCEV side by side. Likely to be declared a draw so as not to offend anyone.
P.S.
Draw your own conclusions.
Rubbery figures?
BEV - 1.5km per kg of added battery weight.
FCEV - 5km per kg of added tank/H2 weight.
ICE - 15km per kg of added tank/fuel weight, (7l/100km +10% approx).
Tesla: 4kg of battery weight might add up to 5-6km of range to a Tesla Model 3. (Pack weight of 250Wh/kg, 171Wh per km)
Toyota: 18kg of tank weight might add 1kg of hydrogen or 80-90km of range to the Mirai.
The rubbery figures illustrate the weight gap battery and hydrogen energy systems have when compared to hydrocarbon fuels used in combustion engines. Current technology.
If you look at HFCE cars to BE cars, there are two issues that stand out.
If you have solar generation, you can ‘refuel’ your BEV for nothing. This may be at home, or at a workplace. Maybe at a commercial station at much lower cost than other fuels.
Hydrogen as a fuel is expensive. Very expensive. The only way these hydrogen cars sell at all is because there are thousands of dollars of free refuelings as part of the purchase. Once those free refuelings end, you will be paying far more per km than any other current form of fuel. If you can find somewhere to refuel.
One has to factor in the costs of the PV system, the inverter, storage and EV charging point.
If one say refuels one a week, one would need about a 3kW PV system for the car alone assuming that the car is plugged in during the day at home when the sun shines…not a reality for almost all the population as most vehicles are used during day hours. One also need a battery system to hold the PV electricity until such time that the car is charged. Assuming it is plugged in every night, one might get away with a 10kW storage battery just for the car if it is recharged each night when the battery is at full capacity.
These components alone will add up to another $20-25K+ for a home system where the electricity to charge the car is ‘free’. These systems will have a live of around 15 years. If one charges twice per week, the cost will be $15-20K per charge to scale the system up (as the recharging unit has already been installed, the incremental cost for its purchase and installation isn’t needed). One also need to have the northerly facing roof space as well.
These costs needs to be added to the purchase price of a EV if one wants to be self sufficient in relation to its recharging.
For renewable hydrogen, the cost is about double that of the current price of electricity (for some reason it is measured $/kW when used for electricity conversion). This makes calculating car efficiencies difficult. I expect the $/kW is used as it is the cost per energy unit of the fuel.
If electricity is used then there is excess generation on the grid, the costs could be seen as almost zero (if one removed the capital costs for the plant). With renewables increasing in the grid, surplus generation is a reality as a diverse number of generation types are needed at different locations to try and smooth the natural variation in renewable energy. When all these are operating at capacity, there will be considerable excess with no home to go to…this is when making hydrogen at the moment becomes attractive.
The Japanese government (along with the Australian and some European countries) have a hydrogen plan which has a target of around $0.23/kW for hydrogen. This target seems to be achievable from many reports. If this target is achieved, it will be comparable to EVs (for energy costs only).
That is a challenge for any system at the moment, but particular HFCVs as these can’t be plugged in anywhere like an EV (if one has time to wait for a slow charge). As hydrogen us used for long haulage, which reports out of Europe indicate that it will be the alternative fuel for such purposes, additional refuelling stations will be installed other than the couple currently in Australia. In Europe, they are building more and more and have indicated that there will be sufficient network when long haulage vehicles start to be used for transportation and freight. The same will happen in Australia (at some point in the future) and this is when HFCVs will become more attractive.
Australia also has a competitive edge when it comes to hydrogen as if the $0.23kW price is achieved, it will be economic to develop solar farms solely for H-production. There may be opportunity for already disturbed marginal farmland in central areas to become H producers. Australia has a low inland density and high sunlight/low cloud hours suited for such farms.
Unfortunately, basic principles prevent hydrogen from ever being as cheap as straight electricity for use in cars.
Energy from the sun is free. Conversion to electricity via various means is operationally free or very close to.
Hydrogen gas does not exist naturally in any meaningful amount on earth except perhaps mixed in with fossile fuel reserves underground. It has to be created using processes that require energy. Like electrolysis of water, which uses more energy to produce the H2 than is released when the gas is oxidised again by burning or fuel cells.
The more steps, and more conversions, take its toll on the end result due to the laws of thermodynamics.
It isn’t the law of thermodynamics when it comes to cost. While the breaking of water molecule to release hydrogen requires a lot more energy than that released when the hydrogen bonds to oxygen to form water (see below)…the cost of the energy input is currently more than the equivalent electricity off the grid, it the $0.23/kW is achieved, which all reports it will occur sometime in the future, then it become cost effective to grid based electricity for EV recharging. This is the economics at play…not thermodynamics.
There is a lot of research being done around the world to look at efficiencies in the process to improve current energy losses and associated production costs. Current energy loss is around 15-35% depending on the method used (or around 65%-85% efficiency and it is aimed to get this to about 10% losses (efficiency of conversion to 90%) at a commercial scale.
The electricity grid also isn’t 100% efficient. Solar efficiency is around 20% and this is also compounded with transformation losses, network losses etc. No system of making energy from the sun is efficient.
Would you care to outline those principles?
14 MPG = 16.8 l/100km.
Google maps lists the distance from our then home in Cairns to the servo we filled up at in Mackay after driving non-stop as 729km but it would gave been aroung 750km some 30 odd years ago, and the vehicle would take 120 litres, so actually 16l/100km including slowing down and stopping in built-up areas, roadworks and behind dwadling idiots.
The look on the console operators’ faces had to be seen to be appreciated.
Only in the US of A
The arrival of photons from the Sun onto the surface of planet Earth might not be billed. One day it might. Governments have many powers.
It’s also more than a little mischevious of those who say as a consequence any energy we derive from the sun must also be free. It’s far from reality.
There are significant environmental costs and adverse sustainability impacts from the creation of the core technologies involved with all our energy systems. Few impacts are captured in the cost of the energy they help to deliver. All we can say is some technologies are less harmful or are harmful in different ways.
Not in our household.
We could recharge a BEV from the household solar PV during the day. Approx 1.1kWh consumed for every 1.0kWh of battery capacity. That would be instead of selling the same back to the grid and earning 20c/kWh from AGL.
I’m ignoring the lifetime capital cost of the PV system, and the 80% of the Sun’s energy not captured as electricity. It’s mostly converted to heat and warms the air. Plants are so much more effective at managing solar radiance.
Would it achieve more to consider the potential and pathways of the alternatives? We can’t keep on mining lithium and rare earths forever. Solar PV panels have a finite life, as does all modern tech.
The choice may become which energy systems and technologies require the least drain on natural resources. IE are genuinely sustainable for many generations to come. The cash cost at the bank is likely irrelevant if the total environmental cost is greater than zero?
