On hydrogen cars, and making and using your own hydrogen.

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

donald

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
917
I'd just like to clarify something, because I felt that the following, from another thread, was an unnecessarily dismissive POV on the viability of domestic hydrogen fuelling:

Flashman said:
You have to agree that compressing the gas takes energy and equipment. For CNG at 3,600 psi it takes 5 stages and about a shipping container worth of equipment for "normal" fueling times. That's with I think 36 psi input. If you don't mind fueling in 8 hours they made a home fueler that cost a few grand and was the size of an air compressor.
Yes indeed! Agreed.

That's only as long as a piece of string. What rate of compressed flow do you think a home-fueler needs?

Yes, there are existing home systems that can deliver the equivalent of a tank's worth of compressed CNG from a domestic feed over a couple of hours. And, yes, the slower ones deliver no faster than a gallon equivalent in an hour.

But a good fuel cell can achieve 55% thermal efficiency, so that's around 20kWh per hour in terms of ultimate traction energy to the road. If you have a 7kW home charger, that'll be 6kWh or so ultimately delivered to making your car go.

So if home charging EVs is considered viable, what's wrong with CNH and hydrogen home fuelers?

But there are two further points, a) you could buy a bigger CNG/H2 fueler, it is easily expandable. That may not be so for a domestic electricity supply, and b) you could have a storage tank system which is recharged over 24 hrs and you fill you car in a minute because if it is already compressed you only need to transfer it from one vessel to the other in its compressed form.

Next point is that if you were using solar-electrolysis to generate the H2 then this would be a slow process anyway. Even a small compressor system would likely keep up with your H2 generation from a domestic solar array. So you'd want a storage tank anyhow. And why not! Storing your excess solar energy in the form of hydrogen could enable several new ways of managing your domestic energy.

The next point is that electrolysis is not the only way to generate H2. You could reform CNG, there are even currently domestic heating systems on trial that perform steam-reformation on domestic CNG suppy. This is exothermic so can double up to heat your house in winter, or could run a Sterling engine generator.

Also to mention, it makes no sense not to have a good sized battery pack on a hydrogen car. This is because it is a huge complication and expense to have a fuel cell fully sized to your maximum power requirement. You'd simply never do this. Instead you'd have, say, a 10kWh battery pack with a 10kW fuel cell.

There will be NO commercially viable hydrogen cars without a substantially sized battery pack, so ultimately there will be no difference between a 'hydrogen PHEV' and a 'BEV hydrogen REx'. And anyone who builds a hydrogen car without adding a charging socket on it to access that battery pack is a dim-wit - though Toyota could still surprise me as they seem to really hate 'plug-in'. But that's Toyota's issue, not the technology's!

I can see a bright future for home fuelling of hydrogen PHEVs if the safety regulations are proportionate and can get it right. There is no need to think 'either-or'. Hydrogen and electron power go hand-in-glove. Be open-minded. There is a world of possibilities opening up for both domestic and EV energy, don't miss it!!

I will mention that in no way am I 'pro-hydrogen'. I have my doubts too, but not over these issues. We will see better battery technology, but not for a long while yet. And even then, range extending 'fuelled' options will still figure, no matter how big a range BEVs get, because it will always be a 'fall-back' to throw some sort of fuel into a car when the journey is too far or to cover for electrical infrastructure failures or over-subscription. However, it is clear that there is still a strong argument for hydrogen, and integrating it with domestic energy management is, IMHO, one of those strong arguments.
 
It is a fascinating subject and I hope it is well researched, unlike what CARB is doing.

From what I understand, electrolysis requires roughly 33kWh/kG hydrogen at 100% efficiency.

Efficiency of modern hydrogen generators is measured by Power consumed per standard volume of hydrogen (MJ/m³ or kWh/m³), assuming standard temperature and pressure of the H2. A 100%-efficient electrolyser would consume then 10.6 MJ/m³ (2.94 kWh/m³); the lower the actual, the higher efficiency.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and converting cubic meters to kG.

The same source lists efficiencies at 50% to 80% for electrolysis.
Assuming home electrolysis will not use the most expensive setup, that means 48kWh to 66kWh for a kG of hydrogen.

I suspect that electricity will move the Leaf a lot further than 1 kG of hydrogen.
 
Zythryn said:
Assuming home electrolysis will not use the most expensive setup, that means 48kWh to 66kWh for a kG of hydrogen

Honda says the Clarity (first gen) gets about 60 miles per kilogram. So 0.9-1.25 miles per kWh :shock:
 
At this juncture it is too expensive, too large and too dangerous on a single use home basis. Emphasis on expensive... Compressing Natural Gas for CNG cars at home was problematic. Hydrogen is magnitudes much more so...

And depending on where you live and your electric rate, and what you drive, it could make gasoline look cheap in comparison...
 
JeremyW said:
Zythryn said:
Assuming home electrolysis will not use the most expensive setup, that means 48kWh to 66kWh for a kG of hydrogen

Honda says the Clarity (first gen) gets about 60 miles per kilogram. So 0.9-1.25 miles per kWh :shock:
Let's not forget storage ... unless you want to discount the electricity used to compress your hydrogen to 10K Lbs. I'm thinking your juice to do that, doesn't come from the laughter of little children. I'm thinking it might be easier to build a long straw ... all the way to the sun - that way I can utilize hydrogen where it occurs naturally. I'll get back with MNL once I get that nailed down.
;)
 
hill said:
JeremyW said:
Zythryn said:
Assuming home electrolysis will not use the most expensive setup, that means 48kWh to 66kWh for a kG of hydrogen

Honda says the Clarity (first gen) gets about 60 miles per kilogram. So 0.9-1.25 miles per kWh :shock:
Let's not forget storage ...

In my quick search I didn't find how much energy the compression would take. I also didn't take into account the charging losses for the Leaf so at this point I just discounted both.

My guess is compressing the hydrogen costs more than the ~15% charging losses.

Even without though, Leaf/EVs appear MUCH more efficient that electrolysis.
 
Zythryn said:
Even without though, Leaf/EVs appear MUCH more efficient that electrolysis.
More efficient than, say, putting your excess solar energy back into the grid for the energy companies to profiteer from, or more efficient than using off-peak nuclear electricity base-load that would otherwise have to go into some other energy storage process (electrolysis, perhaps!)?

There is no doubt that it would be currently more cost effective to either plug in an EV for short journeys, or throw fuel into an ICE if you can't do the trip in the EV. But that's missing the point. EVs 20 years ago were both too expensive and too ineffective to compete with ICE and the price of fuel then... and so what? Tech changes, and I'm just saying 'hydrogen' is an alternative which isn't a good alternative right now but EVs weren't either some time ago.

Just don't forget tech changes, improves and different tech are solutions to different problems. But a tech has to be put into practice to gain learning and iron out the issues to make it truly viable. I believe hydrogen will have its place, and in the future I expect I'll look back and think there was no difference between an ICE luddite from the 1990's who rubbished EVs, and an EV luddite from the 2010's that rubbished hydrogen cars.
 
donald said:
... Just don't forget tech changes, improves and different tech are solutions to different problems. But a tech has to be put into practice to gain learning and iron out the issues to make it truly viable. I believe hydrogen will have its place, and in the future I expect I'll look back and think there was no difference between an ICE luddite from the 1990's who rubbished EVs, and an EV luddite from the 2010's that rubbished hydrogen cars.
It's not nice to call the people you're having a discussion with names. I suggest you stop.

Personally, I don't see hydrogen's place in cars. It will always cost more in energy to produce the hydrogen than to use the electricity directly...unless you're reforming natural gas, which makes it a fossil fuel and a complete nonstarter as far as I'm concerned. This is physics, not tech.

I'm afraid I have to continue to classify HFC cars as nothing more than a shiny object to distract the politicians from EVs.
 
donald said:
Zythryn said:
Even without though, Leaf/EVs appear MUCH more efficient that electrolysis.
More efficient than, say, putting your excess solar energy back into the grid for the energy companies to profiteer from, or more efficient than using off-peak nuclear electricity base-load that would otherwise have to go into some other energy storage process (electrolysis, perhaps!)?

There is no doubt that it would be currently more cost effective to either plug in an EV for short journeys, or throw fuel into an ICE if you can't do the trip in the EV. But that's missing the point. EVs 20 years ago were both too expensive and too ineffective to compete with ICE and the price of fuel then... and so what? Tech changes, and I'm just saying 'hydrogen' is an alternative which isn't a good alternative right now but EVs weren't either some time ago.

Just don't forget tech changes, improves and different tech are solutions to different problems. But a tech has to be put into practice to gain learning and iron out the issues to make it truly viable. I believe hydrogen will have its place, and in the future I expect I'll look back and think there was no difference between an ICE luddite from the 1990's who rubbished EVs, and an EV luddite from the 2010's that rubbished hydrogen cars.

Absolutely! If you have an excess of clean energy that would otherwise go to waste, electrolysis to H2 is wonderful.
However, that requires more electricity than simply charging the EVs off of the same, clean energy.
Fuel cell vehicles are currently less efficient, less convenient to fuel, and have less performance and storage room than EVs.

If those challenges are overcome, great.
But for now, the only sensible place for them is in fleets.
 
davewill said:
It's not nice to call the people you're having a discussion with names. I suggest you stop.
You might consider that the poster you're criticizing isn't from the US and isn't calling anyone names.
davewill said:
Personally, I don't see hydrogen's place in cars. It will always cost more in energy to produce the hydrogen than to use the electricity directly...unless you're reforming natural gas, which makes it a fossil fuel and a complete nonstarter as far as I'm concerned. This is physics, not tech.
I'm with you on fossil fuels but not on H2. There's no free lunch for any fuel 'source' or carrier - nobody's suggesting H2 violates the laws of physics. As a carrier, however, even at today's tech levels, one can drive a FCEV 400+ miles, refuel in 15-20 minutes, and do it again. Can you name a BEV that can do that?
davewill said:
I'm afraid I have to continue to classify HFC cars as nothing more than a shiny object to distract the politicians from EVs.
Fuel cell vehicles are electric vehicles, therefore they are not shiny objects distracting politicians from electric vehicles.
 
Hydrogen under pressure just scares me. It's so explosive, and such a small molecule it's extremely hard to keep it from leaking. Hard enough when maintained by qualified people, but for unmonitored home use, it is an accident waiting to happen.
 
AndyH said:
davewill said:
It's not nice to call the people you're having a discussion with names. I suggest you stop.
You might consider that the poster you're criticizing isn't from the US and isn't calling anyone names.
davewill said:
Personally, I don't see hydrogen's place in cars. It will always cost more in energy to produce the hydrogen than to use the electricity directly...unless you're reforming natural gas, which makes it a fossil fuel and a complete nonstarter as far as I'm concerned. This is physics, not tech.
I'm with you on fossil fuels but not on H2. There's no free lunch for any fuel 'source' or carrier - nobody's suggesting H2 violates the laws of physics. As a carrier, however, even at today's tech levels, one can drive a FCEV 400+ miles, refuel in 15-20 minutes, and do it again. Can you name a BEV that can do that?
davewill said:
I'm afraid I have to continue to classify HFC cars as nothing more than a shiny object to distract the politicians from EVs.
Fuel cell vehicles are electric vehicles, therefore they are not shiny objects distracting politicians from electric vehicles.
Labelling anyone who disagrees a Luddite counts as name calling in my book. It's not on the same level as "nutjob" but it is intended to be characterize the speaker rather than respond to the argument.

The Tesla comes close to the mark you set, and "current tech" can certainly achieve your range and refueling target. Current production BEVs can't but there aren't any production FCEVs that can either.

Since you insist on nitpicking, I'll rephrase:

I continue to classify FCEVs as shiny objects intended to distract politicians and the public from BEVs.
 
davewill said:
Labelling anyone who disagrees a Luddite counts as name calling in my book.
A 'luddite' is someone who resists change simply because it is change. That's not name calling, it is simply use of a word which means exactly that.

Besides, I have not labelled those who disagree, I have commented on luddites who disagree. "A's who do B" does not imply "All who do B are A's". You have reversed the logic.

There are good reasons to put forward to hesitate on hydrogen powered vehicles. However, there are equally good reasons to move forward. Now, whether advancing the tech bolsters the 'pro' arguments or the 'con' arguments is as yet unknown because the tech is not yet advanced and put in to practice as it could be. I can't really see any difference between the prospective viability of FCEVs now compared with that of BEVs some time ago. In fact, there are still many who would say BEVs are not viable, and clearly BEVs are not remotely selling in the numbers they would if people understood them.

So it would indeed seem like a luddite position to seek to comment against hydrogen powered car development simply because it is a change with unknown outcomes. However, if you are expressing an opinion that you think hydrogen powered cars will not ultimately find viability for a whole host of reasons, no-one can yet dispute and I would support your right to express that opinion. I'll presume in the first instance you are in the latter category (although you don't appear to have clarified any reasons you are thinking of), unless, of course, you wish to nominate yourself for the former?
 
davewill said:
The Tesla comes close to the mark you set, and "current tech" can certainly achieve your range and refueling target. Current production BEVs can't but there aren't any production FCEVs that can either.

I regret I highly dispute BEVs could meet all future needs for a whole host of reasons. BEVs have certain strengths and certain weaknesses. If everyone had a BEV, how many charging points would be needed next to a highway carrying 140,000 vehicles an hour? Even if only 25% were undertaking a long distance journey then you'd still need hundreds of charging points within every mile of highway. If dotted along the highway every 30 miles, service points would become huge recharging farms needing to cope with thousands of cars.

I have already heard of Tesla 'races' where people leave one supercharging plaza and try to get to the next one before the other people charging at the same time at the previous one get to the next. Imagine that if everyone had such a car.

And what about the Tesla? It's huge, and it is hugely expensive. To get big BEV range you either need (i) a big car or (ii) a fundamentally new battery technology. (ii) doesn't look anywhere near commercialisation. (i) is the old conundrum Brunel encountered when trying to design a steam ship that could take enough coal to make Australia in one go, you make it bigger and bigger because your volume to accommodate energy storage goes up D^3 while power needed goes up D^2. That's why jumbo jets/container ships/etc. are huge.

Fuel cells are, in effect, simply a different battery technology. A solution to (ii) (to avoiding the inevitable solution (i) otherwise). They happen to be a 'flowing' battery, a solid electrolyte with gaseous electrodes, if you like. If you start on that basis, that they are a substitute battery technology for part of a BEV's battery capacity, perhaps you might begin to think more open-mindedly about it?
 
donald said:
I regret I highly dispute BEVs could meet all future needs for a whole host of reasons. BEVs have certain strengths and certain weaknesses. If everyone had a BEV, how many charging points would be needed next to a highway carrying 140,000 vehicles an hour? Even if only 25% were undertaking a long distance journey then you'd still need hundreds of charging points within every mile of highway. If dotted along the highway every 30 miles, service points would become huge recharging farms needing to cope with thousands of cars.

This seems incorrect.
First, the 25% number seems very high.
Second, the "hundreds of charging points within every mile" seems ridiculously high.
Third, you are making a classic fallacy of projecting 100% adoption on today's infrastructure.

Update--------
I found an interesting study here http://www.solarjourneyusa.com/EVdistanceAnalysis7.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It seems to indicate destination charging is far more important, with ~98% of car trips being less than 60 miles and ~92% of daily distance traveled being less than 60 miles (figures 13 & 15).

donald said:
And what about the Tesla? It's huge, and it is hugely expensive. To get big BEV range you either need (i) a big car or (ii) a fundamentally new battery technology. (ii) doesn't look anywhere near commercialisation. ...

Yes, the Model S is huge. Similar size as an Audi A7/8 or other large sedans.
And yes, it is expensive. However, the fuel cell car prices we have heard of so far are going to be 40% more expensive, have less room, less performance, less convenience.

Sure, that MAY change over time. However, as it changes for FCVs, BEVs will also advance.

A couple of posts back you mentioned that BEVs a few years ago were in the same place FCVs are today.
I would posit that is not true. BEVs had much of the infrastructure needed already built. Sure, it needs improvement as EVs don't work for everyone, but it was in place to meet the needs of many people.

The first time I needed a charger away from home was 3 1/2 years after I stared driving electric (and about 55,000 miles). Hydrogen stations? I doubt they will be available to the public in large numbers anytime soon, if ever.
And again, I got away from the inconvenience of pumping fuel, I'm not about to go back.
 
Zythryn said:
This seems incorrect.
First, the 25% number seems very high.
Second, the "hundreds of charging points within every mile" seems ridiculously high.
Third, you are making a classic fallacy of projecting 100% adoption on today's infrastructure.
On the last point first, not really. The argument above was 'pro-EV' towards showing FCEVs did not provide a useful value. OK, so if that wasn't an argument for 100% EV take up, then we have a different argument now, ICE versus PHEV. Which do you think should trump the other in the future, for that %age that is not EV? If it is not a 100% EV take up in your vision of the future, what is the rest made up from?

On the figures, what would you say are the correct figures, then?

The problem is that some highways will barely carry any long distance traffic in 'commuter' hours, but may carry a huge volume during vacation periods. You have to put in enough charge points for the highest %age the highway may see, not the lowest. Add in some capacity to deal with equipment failures, and some extra capacity so the charging points are not 100% packed (because you know what gridlock you get in a big car park on a busy day once it gets full to capacity) and I think the figure is correct.

Say 20%, then, of 100,000 vehicles needing a 45 min fast charge every 200 miles. 20,000 charges/200miles/45mins = 130 charges/hr/mile. Put up a charging 'plaza' every 30 miles and you have a base need for 4,000 charging points at each plaza. Add in 10% for failure/rolling maintenance and 10% overhead to avoid gridlock, and you end up with 5,000 charge-point charging plazas every 30 miles.

Don't forget also that 200 mile recharges may be a thing of the future, but there will still be old-school cars pottering around that will need 50 to 100 mile recharges too. There will also be vehicles with various levels of battery degradation too. So that's an underestimate if anything.

Those are my figures, what are yours?
 
TickTock said:
Lasareath said:
+1
davewill said:
I'm afraid I have to continue to classify HFC cars as nothing more than a shiny object to distract the politicians from EVs.
+2. With the spotlight being provided by the fossil fuel providers who see it as a way to extend the "buy your fuel from us" model.
If you could clarify why you think this, then it would show you are not objecting to FCEVs just for the sake of objecting to them.

TT, did you actually read the first post of the thread? It is about making hydrogen @home. Where do you see the introduction of buying from fossil fuel suppliers in that discussion?
 
donald said:
...
Those are my figures, what are yours?

Added as an update to my post.

I am not arguing for a 100% EV take up rate.
That would be like arguing for a 100% semi truck take up rate.
The solution will be a variety of cars. Including hydrogen.

When you form your arguments though, keep in mind many cars won't need fueling along the way. Many cars traveling more than their daily range will charge at their trip destinations, be that movie theater, restaurant, hotel, cabin, etc.

As adoption of alternative fuel vehicles grows, the public infrastructure can grow as well. This is much easier in the case of electrics as the daily commuting infrastructure, for most, is already in place.
 
Back
Top