Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

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.
so glad I'm on the right side of history with this non-sense.

BEVs are so much better...and the PROOF is out there contained in the MATH and PHYSICS! Ya can't fake that. Well, govt certainly can skew my tax money, that's for sure.
 
Reg, you seem determined to repeat all the arguments we've had multiple times over the last four years, even though no one has had anything new to say for the last two or three. Just so you know, this is my last reply on these points as I'm not going to bother again, so you can reply or not, as is your choice. What I will do is continue to provide info on developments re H2/FCEVs (positive or negative as the case may be) in this thread, along with the occasional comment giving my opinions on same, just as I do on other threads.

RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
No, Reg, I'm fully aware of the importance of energy efficiency - after all, for off-grid systems it's usually the single most important factor as far as cost goes.
Is that why you "don't think [energy efficiency]'s...even desirable"?
No, it's because concentrating on energy efficiency above all else, when the public simply doesn't rate it that highly, will delay or prevent mass adoption of less efficient but still improved and lower-emission techs. If that weren't the case, everyone would have been buying HEVs from 1999 through 2010, and BEVs since (FTM, BEVs rather than ICEs from 1900 on). Energy efficiency is only of primary importance when energy prices are high enough to drive consumer behavior, and while they were for off-grid systems back when I was doing that and probably still are, they aren't as far as transportation now, or most on-grid applications. If they were, the Tesla Model S/X, the least energy-efficient BEVs, wouldn't be the best sellers, and people wouldn't be replacing ICE sedans with CUVs/SUVs/pickups.

RegGuheert said:
GRA on November 2 said:
FCEVs may not be the best solution from the standpoint of energy efficiency, but I don't think that's necessary or maybe even desirable.
In fact, it is essential for widespread adoption in an energy-constrained world.
See above.

RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
But I'm also aware that whatever choice is selected must be able to do the job, must be affordable (preferably but not necessarily the lowest-cost option), and must be acceptable to the public (unless the government can compel people to adopt whatever the government prefers, which isn't the case in a market economy).
H2 FCVs meet NONE of these criteria since they can only "do the job" for a very small number of people due to their low efficiency. Governments can only distort market conditions, not physics.
FCEVs can do the most of the job that ICEs can do pretty transparently to the user (which makes public acceptance easier), if given the same level of infrastructure that supports ICEs, and ICEs have the lowest energy efficiency of all. The major problems that H2/FCEVs have to overcome are reducing cost and achieving mass producibility (see my previous post for another step in that direction), which is why I'm in favor of continuing R&D and limited deployment for now (I've repeatedly stated that they're not ready for prime time as yet).

RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
Reg, HEVs aren't the standard transportation choice, pure ICEs are, and that's what I'm comparing H2/FCEVs to in the above. And as stated below, if all the H2 is produced renewably, then the GHG emissions swing in H2's favor, which as I've said many times is of more concern to me than total energy use.
No, it wouldn't. The reason why it costs so much more to make renewable hydrogen is because it does MORE damage to the environment.
So you're saying that curtailing i.e. throwing away renewably-generated electricity instead of using it causes less damage to the environment than turning it into H2 and using it in fuel cells instead? Right.

RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
[No, Reg, people like you and I are well aware of the subsidies that fossil-fuels and related techs receive, but most of the general public isn't, and most of those who are simply don't care. As the subsidy isn't direct, to them it doesn't exist, and they don't take it specifically into account when deciding which car to buy, all they do is compare retail price.
I quoted YOU and no one else.
Sure, when I'm speaking with the mindset of the general customer, not myself. After all, I've deliberately refrained from motorized local transport and used electrified regional mass transit for many years, live so as to minimize my other forms of energy usage, and was making the argument about indirect fossil-fuel subsidies (like the cost of Central Command) decades ago. But I don't suffer from the delusion that MY priorities reflect those of the general public
.
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
RegGuheert said:
That's REAL success: In just six short years, BEVs have ALREADY surpassed the fuel savings achieved by HEVs in 17 years on the market.
Uh huh, given large subsidies.
I own a fifteen-year-old HEV and a five-year-old BEV. Both were subsidized. Neither subsidy was "large". They were $2500 and $7500 or 12% and 21%. I would have bought BOTH cars without the subsidies. Now compare that with the massive subsidies which amount to $135,000 for a single H2 FCV. With BEVs, the subsidies ONLY affect the quantity sold (as you have shown with references you provided). With H2 FCVs, the subsidy means the difference between whether the vehicles are sold or not.
Reg, I've stated numerous times that I wish all the subsidies for PEVs and FCEVs would be removed. If you don't think $2,500 and $7,500 were large, please give it back; after all, it's other people's money, and if PEVs don't need them then why in hell are we paying them?

RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
OTOH, If people were to be offered a choice of HEVs that would give them the performance they want as well as good gas mileage, and HEVs became the standard car replacing regular ICEs, which would result in faster, cheaper GHG/fossil-fuel reduction with no need for government to directly bribe buyers?
Many consumers will purchase one of each, as have many on here have done. The HEV runs on gasoline and the BEV runs on electricity which is made on my roof. You, OTOH, chose to purchase an inefficient AWD ICE vehicle because convenience trumps everything in your worldview.
Many consumers? Reg, HEV sales have never exceeded 4% in the U.S. and are now down in the 2% range, and BEV sales have yet to exceed what, 1% annually? As to my own car choice, I chose to purchase the most fuel-efficient AWD CUV available at the time that met my other needs, and use it as little as possible. If an HEV that had met my other requirements had been available at the time, I would have bought that instead. None was.

RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
...just as I have stated the uncertainty of success of battery techs beyond Li-ion which will be needed if BEVs are to become the sole ZEV solution, as Li-ion is closing in on the maximum theoretical specific energy (~ 400Wh/kg depending on the exact chemistry), and is even closer to reaching the max. practical specific energy (likely no more than 325-350 Wh/kg). Neither level will be adequate to replace high-density fossil fuels for those jobs that require same.
Nonsense. Your statement is nothing except FUD designed to try to keep people from realizing that we have the appropriate technologies in place today. We do not need a battery technology beyond Li-ion to almost fully transition ground-based transportation from gasoline/diesel to BEVs. And transportation will continue to improve as Li-ion-based BEVs will improve.
Reg, nonsense yourself. Gasoline has a specific energy of around 12,000Wh/kg. Even allowing for the 4-5 times greater efficiency of a BEV, there are jobs that are simply beyond Li-ion's ultimate capability. Shorter-ranges with limited need for recharging, Li-ion's fine, but not for long ranges which requires multiple rechargings. Model X's have already demonstrated just how much of a time suck they impose when trailer-hauling beyond short ranges.

The typical semi holds 200-300 gallons of diesel, and has a range hauling a trailer of 800-1,500 miles - extreme aero improvements can boost the typical 4.5-6.0 MPG to maybe 8.0-or perhaps 8.5 MPG, assuming driverless vehicles and platooning. Have you calculated how much a battery pack would weigh that provided that kind of range? While the specific pack weight of a Model S85 seems to be in doubt, at the low end it's about 1,200 lb., moving a 4,800 lb. car with driver. Max. CGW for a semi is 80k lbs., and they're a hell of a lot less aerodynamic than a Model S/X. Feel free to calculate just how much a scaled up Li-ion battery pack would weigh to achieve that kind of range, and be sure to subtract that amount from the payload, assuming that you can find room for it and not exceed axle weight limits (yeah, right).

By my calcs it's about 22,000 lb., but lets' round it down and call it 20k if we achieve max. practical specific energy. versus ~1,500 - 2,250 for diesel @ 7.5 lb./gal. It will probably take batteries with at least 1,200-1,500 Wh/kg. to replace diesels in semis. We'll see HEV long-haul tractors first, plus day cab FCHEVs like the ones that will soon enter dem/val at the Port of L.A., and even they currently only have enough room to store about 200 miles of H2, so without unlikely levels of improvement they can't replace long haul sleeper tractors either, and will be slower also (but far faster than a BEV) - HEVs using biofuels are about the only currently viable non-fossil-fueled option for long-hauls. Li-Si batteries won't get us there; Li-S gets close, but it will probably take Li-metal or some other as yet unthought of/undeveloped battery tech to handle such jobs. You may think that that's only a minor niche that remains after 'almost fully transitioning ground-based transportation from gas/diesel', but that's only true provided you don't plan on buying food, clothing or anything else from now on.

Putting more freight on the rails is one workaround, but they'll only be electrified with third rails or overhead wires in areas of relatively high density, and for now only FCHEVs will serve for low-density routes. And again, you're up against weight limitations. Air travel, even more so.

RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
You are entitled to your opinion, Reg, just as I'm entitled to mine, and as neither of us is likely to change each other's absent some major change in the facts it's entirely pointless to keep arguing them, especially since nothing we say here is going to make the slightest difference to the countries and companies who have decided (for now) to pursue multiple pathways to a fossil-fuel free future, including HEVs, PHEVs, BEVs, FCEVs and bio-fuels. I agree with their decision to do so; you do not.
That's right, I do not condone the massive waste and damage done to our environment under the false pretense that deploying H2 FCV technology today will somehow help the environment.
If you feel so strongly about it, instead of continuously repeating the same old arguments with me, a member of the general public with essentially no influence on the decisions that those countries and corporations have made, shouldn't you be directing your energies to trying to convince those entities to change their minds? Seems like a far better use of your time and energy than wasting it here on a forum that has tiny readership and less influence.

RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
I am unwilling to focus on developing just one tech now and eliminate R&D/limited deployment of all others in the hope that I will have made the correct choice, because none of them is as yet capable of the across-the-board replacement of fossil-fuels.
I have never opposed R&D. What I oppose is providing massive subsidies to deploy a technology which causes so much unnecessary damage to our environment. It's unconscionable.
As above.
 
GRA said:
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
No, Reg, I'm fully aware of the importance of energy efficiency - after all, for off-grid systems it's usually the single most important factor as far as cost goes.
Is that why you "don't think [energy efficiency]'s...even desirable"?
No, it's because concentrating on energy efficiency above all else, when the public simply doesn't rate it that highly, will delay or prevent mass adoption of less efficient but still improved and lower-emission techs. If that weren't the case, everyone would have been buying HEVs from 1999 through 2010, and BEVs since (FTM, BEVs rather than ICEs from 1900 on). Energy efficiency is only of primary importance when energy prices are high enough to drive consumer behavior, and while they were for off-grid systems back when I was doing that and probably still are, they aren't as far as transportation now, or most on-grid applications. If they were, the Tesla Model S/X, the least energy-efficient BEVs, wouldn't be the best sellers, and people wouldn't be replacing ICE sedans with CUVs/SUVs/pickups.
You and the rest of general public have very little understanding of energy efficiency and how it relates to resource consumption. That's why you and the rest of the general public choose low-efficiency automobile solutions. The issue with energy efficiency has NOTHING to do with prices. It has everything to do with what will be required if we want to achieve a renewable solution to our transportation and other energy needs. I don't feel the need to wait for price signals before I make the transition to the best technologies available.
GRA said:
FCEVs can do the most of the job that ICEs can do pretty transparently to the user (which makes public acceptance easier), if given the same level of infrastructure that supports ICEs, and ICEs have the lowest energy efficiency of all.
Perhaps you haven't read the article you linked. H2 FCVs pollute significantly MORE than a similar HEV. That means the efficiency is lower. Damaging the environment to the tune of $1 TRILLION to build infrastructure just for the U.S. to enable a new technology that is more polluting than what we current use is ludicrous.
GRA said:
If you feel so strongly about it, instead of continuously repeating the same old arguments with me, a member of the general public with essentially no influence on the decisions that those countries and corporations have made, shouldn't you be directing your energies to trying to convince those entities to change their minds? Seems like a far better use of your time and energy than wasting it here on a forum that has tiny readership and less influence.
Remind me why you are here again. Perhaps you want to try to convince yourself that its O.K. that you have eschewed photovoltaics and BEVs by badmouthing them to those who have embraced them?
 
GCR has updated their article re the story reported upthread about Daimler's pullback from FCEVs:
Mercedes denies CEO said it will turn away from hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles (updated)
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1109713_did-mercedes-turn-its-back-on-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles

. . . Now it appears that Daimler CEO Dieter Zetsche is being more publicly negative about the prospects for future cars powered by hydrogen.

A recent article on the Smart2Zero blog covered reports by German media that Zetsche said at a late-April industry conference that fuel cells would no longer be a part of the company's near-term roadmap for volume vehicles.

“Battery costs are declining rapidly whereas hydrogen production remains very costly,” Zetsche is quoted as saying.

UPDATE: A later article in German on the HZwei blog (zwei is the number 2 in German, and the blog covers hydrogen, or H2) indicates that the Daimler press office later asked that site to correct its reporting.

A rough translation of the Daimler statement would be: "With the previous orientation, nothing changed. [...] We need the hydrogen. [...] Daimler sees a future in the fuel cell. . . ."

EDITOR'S NOTE: We have updated this article, first published on April 4, to reflect later coverage alleging that the original source reporting on the blog Smart2Zero reflected a misunderstanding of Zetsche's actual statement. Our original article left the statement in question, but we have added the later claims by Daimler that its CEO's statements were misinterpreted.
Take it FWIW, either a misinterpretation or the PR office trying to walk things back for some reason. I thought Zetsche's comments were pretty definite that Daimler were de-emphasizing FCEVs, but I don't speak German so was relying on what he was reported to have said like everyone else here. Anyone here who can read colloquial German and give us their own translation of the original source? https://www.hzwei.info/blog/2017/04/27/entwarnung-daimler-bleibt-bei-der-brennstoffzelle/
 
Here's an article in the Australian mainstream media which demonstrates how off-the-rails biased the media can be when talking about the H2 religion. The actual information which is conveyed by this article can be summarized as follows:
RegGuheert summarized the article when he said:
Researchers at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) has developed a metal membrane which allows hydrogen to be stripped from ammonia. This new technology is now being tested in an industrial-scale trial.
That's interesting and useful information, but what we get instead is this headline:
Australian ABC said:
Renewable hydrogen could fuel Australia's next export boom after CSIRO breakthrough
Are you kidding me? Apparently not! They even have a graphic to show how this will happen:

hydrogen-graphic-data.jpg


The article contains plenty of breathless prognostications about how wonderful hydrogen is and how entire industries are lining up to get some. What they DON'T discuss, or even hint at anywhere in the article, are the drawbacks of this approach and the MANY real, physical barriers that are in place and almost certainly will prevent anything remotely resembling the headline from ever coming to pass. Here are a few off the top of my head:

1) Energy efficiency of such a pathway as is shown in this figure is so low that the world cannot possibly adopt such a flow except for trivial amounts of transported ammonia. Roughly speaking, you will get about 10% of the electricity out at the end of the long chain of lossy steps as you started with at the beginning. As a result, ALMOST ANYTHING is better than doing this.
2) Ammonia is a gas at room temperature. The boiling point of ammonia is -33C (-28F). As a result, the longer you store the ammonia as a liquid, the more energy you waste.
3) Australia is a LONG WAY from meeting their own energy needs via renewable resources. South Australia has made a strong push toward this end and has suffered multiple massive power failures as a result. In any case, there is not a massive glut of renewable electricity available on the grid in Australia that they should consider throwing away 90% of it on a venture such as this.
4) The article says the benefit of using ammonia is as follows: "Ammonia is a very nice way of transporting hydrogen from point A to point B - be it from Australia to Japan, for example - because it actually has a higher hydrogen density than liquid hydrogen." That is certainly true. I will add that ammonia is cheaper and easier to liquify than H2, since the boiling point of H2 is -253C (-423F). Let's do the math: The density of liquid H2 is 70.8 kg/m^3 while the density of NH3 is 682 kg/m^3. At 1 g/mol of H, liquid H2 delivers you get 70,800 moles of H per cubic meter. At 17 g/mol of NH3, you get 40,117 moles of NH3 per cubic meter and 120,352 moles of H per cubic meter. In other words, you get 1.7 times as much H2 per cubic meter of liquid NH3 as liquid H2. What they don't tell you is that to get that extra 70% of H2, you need to carry nearly 10X the MASS to move the NH3. On a per-kg basis, you have to carry 5.7X as much mass per H2 molecule. That is because you have to carry all the protons and neutrons contained in the Nitrogen.

So the obvious question becomes this: Does it REALLY make sense to make the process much more complex, throw away another 2/3 of the energy (after already throwing away 2/3 to get and retrieve the H2) and increase the mass of the product per H2 molecule by a factor of 5.7X in to reduce the density of the liquid (and cooling requirements) by a 59%? Maybe, maybe not. It's far more likely that NEITHER liquified H2 NOR liquified NH3 will every be used as a significant carrier of energy in this world.

IMO, it's best to take these breathless proclamations of the virtues of H2 with a very heft grain of salt (and a modicum of engineering sense).
 
Thanks for the post and analysis, Reg. I'd written a post yesterday with GCC articles about both the Australian ammonia project as well as some current R&D, and they seem to have disappeared, so here's goes another try, both via GCC:
CSIRO team working to commercialize membrane separating H2 from NH3; opening up an export market for Australia renewable H2
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/05/20170517-csiro.html

Researchers at Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) . . . have developed a thin metal membrane that can separate high-purity hydrogen from ammonia used as a hydrogen carrier. Ammonia (NH3) has a number of favorable attributes for such an application, the primary one being its high capacity for hydrogen storage—17.6 wt.%, based on its molecular structure.

CSIRO’s vision is to use the membrane technology to open up a new world market for renewable hydrogen produced via electrolysis in Australia. The renewable hydrogen would first be converted to ammonia (in combination with nitrogen produced in a renewables-driven air separation unit), then be exported piggybacking on the existing transport infrastructure for ammonia, and finally be extracted from the ammonia using the membrane system for use in vehicles and other applications.

CSIRO has launched a two-year project to develop and demonstrate a hydrogen production system—incorporating the CSIRO-developed membrane technology—to deliver at least 5 kg/day of hydrogen, directly from ammonia. . . .

The research has also been welcomed by industry and is supported by BOC, Hyundai, Toyota and Renewable Hydrogen Pty Ltd. . . .

The membrane reactor technology be implemented in a modular unit that can be used at, or near, a refueling station.
ISTM the main cost advantage of this approach (aside from energy density) is that you don't need to build special LH2 carriers, and I wouldn't think weight would be an issue given the deadload capacity of the typical bulk tanker. Whether it is cost-effective to do so or can be made so remains to be seen, but Australia certainly has lots of excess solar capacity waiting to be used (they've got about 6 GW of PV-installed at the moment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Australia), and IMO anything's better than them continuing down the coal export path. Found this article from last year discussing why transporting NH3(aq) between Oz and Japan might be a good fit (it appears on the NH3 Fuel Association website 'so 'consider the source' applies): https://nh3fuelassociation.org/2016/09/08/japan-a-future-market-for-australian-solar-ammonia/
. . . If energy is transported as an energy dense liquid in conventional tanker ships, then the effective efficiency of transport over distances of 6000km (Australia to Japan) is greater than 98%. Three options for importing hydrogen fuel into Japan are under serious consideration; cryogenic liquid hydrogen, reversible hydrogenation of toluene, and conversion of hydrogen to ammonia. Ammonia is increasingly considered as the favourable path. It offers higher energy density, leverages an existing global industry and has the potential for direct combustion in combined cycle power plants and heavy transport. Considering Australia’s vast untapped solar resource together with the existing energy trade history plus a history of upstream investments by Japanese companies in Australian Energy developments, suggests the two countries are ideal partners in a future solar fuels trade.

Also GCC, example of current R&D, lab results so as with lab announcements of battery improvements usual caveats apply:
UH team develops new, highly efficient and durable OER catalyst for water splitting
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/05/20170516-uh.html

Researchers at the University of Houston have developed a catalyst—composed of easily available, low-cost materials and operating far more efficiently than previous catalyst—that can split water into hydrogen and oxygen.

The robust oxygen-evolving electrocatalyst consists of ferrous metaphosphate on self-supported conductive nickel foam that is commercially available in large scale. The catalyst yields current densities of 10 mA/cm2 at an overpotential of 177 mV, 500 mA/cm2 at only 265 mV, and 1,705 mA/cm2 at 300 mV, with high durability in alkaline electrolyte of 1 M KOH even after 10,000 cycles. This represents an activity enhancement by a factor of 49 in boosting water oxidation at 300 mV relative to the state-of-the-art IrO2 catalyst. A paper on their work is published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). . . .
 
Via GCC:
11 companies agree to collaborate on large-scale construction of hydrogen stations in Japan
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/05/20170519-11.html
Toyota Motor, Nissan Motor, Honda Motor, JXTG Nippon Oil & Energy, Idemitsu Kosan, Iwatani, Tokyo Gas, Toho Gas, Air Liquide Japan, Toyota Tsusho and Development Bank of Japan have signed a memorandum of understanding on collaboration toward the large-scale construction of hydrogen stations for fuel cell vehicles (FCVs).

The memorandum of understanding is aimed at achieving the acceleration of the construction of hydrogen stations in the current early stage of FCV commercialization using an “all Japan” approach centered on collaboration among the 11 companies. It stems from the Japanese government’s “Strategic Roadmap for Hydrogen and Fuel Cells” (revised on 22 March 2016), which targets a total of 160 operational hydrogen stations and 40,000 in-use FCVs by fiscal 2020. . . .

. . . the 11 companies will consider establishing a new company within 2017. The new company would aim to: 1) achieve steady construction of hydrogen stations by implementing measures to support hydrogen-station construction and operation, and 2) achieve wider use of FCVs and the independence of the hydrogen station business through activities for reducing costs, including governmental review of regulations, and activities for improving operational efficiencies, thus contributing to the realization of a hydrogen society in Japan. . . .

Also GCC:
DOE moving forward with $11.1M in funding for three ARPA-E projects
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/05/20170519-arpae.html
The US Department of Energy (DOE) announced that it is honoring commitments to several previously selected Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) awardees, with funding of a combined $11.1 million. They are among the first awardees to move forward following the Department’s review of all taxpayer funded grants and projects, intended to ensure that each award applied good governance principles consistent with the new Administration’s policy directives.

The projects moving forward are part of ARPA-E’s Next-Generation Energy Technologies for Connected and Autonomous On-Road Vehicles (NEXTCAR) (earlier post) and Renewable Energy to Fuels Through Utilization of Energy-Dense Liquids (REFUEL) (earlier post) programs. . . .

  • REFUEL (DE-AR0000808) FuelCell Energy, Inc. Protonic Ceramics for Energy Storage and Electricity Generation with Ammonia – $3,100,000

    The FuelCell Energy, Inc. team will build a reversible electrochemical cell to produce ammonia from nitrogen and water or consume ammonia to generate electricity. The FuelCell team’s innovation relies on an electrode incorporating a ruthenium catalyst—a material that reduces the energy requirement of the reaction—that has shown to be more active for ammonia production than traditional methods. If successful, the FuelCell team will increase ammonia production rates to 100 times current electrochemical methods—comparable with commercial processes while avoiding the need for separate hydrogen production thanks to its use of water, thus decreasing feedstock costs.

    REFUEL (DE-AR0000813) SAFCell, Inc. Distributed Electrochemical Production and Conversion of Carbon-Neutral Ammonia – $3,000,000

    The SAFCell project team will build a high-pressure stack designed to generate hydrogen from ammonia, purify it, and pressurize it in a single device, greatly simplifying the infrastructure required to get hydrogen fuel to refueling stations and store it there. Solid acid stacks operate at intermediate temperatures of around 250 °C and are highly tolerant of compounds that normally damage anode catalysts like carbon monoxide, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide. If successful, the SAFCell team expects low cost, long-life, on-demand compressed hydrogen production from a distributed system with a quick start-up time. . . .
These two project grants seem to be on the same lines as the Australian ones just upthread.
 
It appears that the DOE is misallocating funds here based on their own definition:
Green Car Congress said:
REFUEL projects will use water, molecules from the air, and electricity from renewable sources to produce high-energy liquid fuels for transportation and other uses.
Both ammonia and hydrogen are gaseous under standard conditions. Am I to understand that EVERY fuel is a LIQUID fuel since it becomes a liquid at some temperature?
 
RegGuheert said:
It appears that the DOE is misallocating funds here based on their own definition:
Green Car Congress said:
REFUEL projects will use water, molecules from the air, and electricity from renewable sources to produce high-energy liquid fuels for transportation and other uses.
Both ammonia and hydrogen are gaseous under standard conditions. Am I to understand that EVERY fuel is a LIQUID fuel since it becomes a liquid at some temperature?
They're presumably getting the N2 from air and the H2 from water, so I don't see a conflict.
 
GRA said:
RegGuheert said:
It appears that the DOE is misallocating funds here based on their own definition:
Green Car Congress said:
REFUEL projects will use water, molecules from the air, and electricity from renewable sources to produce high-energy liquid fuels for transportation and other uses.
Both ammonia and hydrogen are gaseous under standard conditions. Am I to understand that EVERY fuel is a LIQUID fuel since it becomes a liquid at some temperature?
They're presumably getting the N2 from air and the H2 from water, so I don't see a conflict.
Again, neither ammonia nor H2 are liquids under standard conditions. Simply put, ammonia and H2 are gaseous fuels.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
RegGuheert said:
It appears that the DOE is misallocating funds here based on their own definition:Both ammonia and hydrogen are gaseous under standard conditions. Am I to understand that EVERY fuel is a LIQUID fuel since it becomes a liquid at some temperature?
They're presumably getting the N2 from air and the H2 from water, so I don't see a conflict.
Again, neither ammonia nor H2 are liquids under standard conditions. Simply put, ammonia and H2 are gaseous fuels.
Sure, but they didn't claim otherwise. To repeat what you quoted them as saying, with my annotations:
REFUEL projects will use water [to get H2],molecules from the air [N2], and electricity from renewable sources [electrolysis etc.] to produce high-energy liquid fuels for transportation and other uses.
There is nothing in that which says that every step in one or all projects has to involve liquids, only that liquid fuels are the final result. Now, if you want to claim that the REFUEL acronym's meaning is a bit misleading, fine, but that's often what you get when you try and come up with a phrase that will make an easy-to-remember acronym.
 
GRA said:
There is nothing in that which says that every step in one or all projects has to involve liquids, only that liquid fuels are the final result. Now, if you want to claim that the REFUEL acronym's meaning is a bit misleading, fine, but that's often what you get when you try and come up with a phrase that will make an easy-to-remember acronym.
Please. So tell me, how do you make a liquid fuel from ammonia? You cool it.

If there is a pathway that produces a liquid fuel from ammonia, then they should specify what that is. Otherwise, I stand by my criticism: they are using funding targeted at liquid fuels to make gaseous fuels. As I have said previously, we will likely need fuels which are liquid up to about 50C for most aviation applications.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
There is nothing in that which says that every step in one or all projects has to involve liquids, only that liquid fuels are the final result. Now, if you want to claim that the REFUEL acronym's meaning is a bit misleading, fine, but that's often what you get when you try and come up with a phrase that will make an easy-to-remember acronym.
Please. So tell me, how do you make a liquid fuel from ammonia? You cool it.

If there is a pathway that produces a liquid fuel from ammonia, then they should specify what that is. Otherwise, I stand by my criticism: they are using funding targeted at liquid fuels to make gaseous fuels. As I have said previously, we will likely need fuels which are liquid up to about 50C for most aviation applications.
You seem to be the only one in doubt of what they mean or intend to do, but I'm sure if you find the grant applications they will explain exactly what the processes are. Personally I don't care, as I'm clear in my own mind what end result they're aiming at.
 
GRA said:
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
There is nothing in that which says that every step in one or all projects has to involve liquids, only that liquid fuels are the final result. Now, if you want to claim that the REFUEL acronym's meaning is a bit misleading, fine, but that's often what you get when you try and come up with a phrase that will make an easy-to-remember acronym.
Please. So tell me, how do you make a liquid fuel from ammonia? You cool it.

If there is a pathway that produces a liquid fuel from ammonia, then they should specify what that is. Otherwise, I stand by my criticism: they are using funding targeted at liquid fuels to make gaseous fuels. As I have said previously, we will likely need fuels which are liquid up to about 50C for most aviation applications.
You seem to be the only one in doubt of what they mean or intend to do, but I'm sure if you find the grant applications they will explain exactly what the processes are. Personally I don't care, as I'm clear in my own mind what end result they're aiming at.
You seem like the only one going to the nth degree of benefit of doubt, in order to say they aren't contrary to their stated goal.
 
GRA said:
You seem to be the only one in doubt of what they mean or intend to do, but I'm sure if you find the grant applications they will explain exactly what the processes are. Personally I don't care, as I'm clear in my own mind what end result they're aiming at.
So if you are so clear what is intended, why don't you just write it here. Then we'll all know.

Just in case you are not clear on what the Program Description says I will copy it here:
DOE said:
Most liquid fuels used in transportation today are derived from petroleum and burned in internal combustion engines. These energy-dense fuels are currently economical, but they remain partially reliant on imported petroleum and are highly carbon intensive. Alternatives to internal combustion engines, like fuel cells, which convert chemical energy to electricity, have shown promise in vehicle powertrains, but are hindered by inefficiencies in fuel transport and storage. Projects in the Renewable Energy to Fuels Through Utilization of Energy-Dense Liquids (REFUEL) program seek to develop scalable technologies for converting electrical energy from renewable sources into energy-dense carbon-neutral liquid fuels (CNLFs) and back into electricity or hydrogen on demand. REFUEL projects will accelerate the shift to domestically produced transportation fuels, improving American economic and energy security and reducing energy emissions.
Note that the quoted part DIRECTLY excludes hydrogen as an outcome from this project.

Then in the Innovations Needed section:
DOE said:
Carbon-neutral liquid fuels as defined by REFUEL are hydrogen-rich and made by converting molecules in the air (nitrogen or carbon dioxide) and hydrogen from water into an energy-carrying liquid using renewable power. While existing fuel-cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) use pure hydrogen as a fuel, the limitations of hydrogen storage and transportation have made it difficult and expensive to build transmission, distribution, and refueling infrastructure for mass adoption of these vehicles. The CNLFs of REFUEL address these challenges by using the infrastructure already in use by traditional liquid fuels. Once the CNLF arrives at its point of use, it can be used to generate electricity in a fuel cell or produce hydrogen on demand, greatly reducing transportation and storage costs. REFUEL projects will aid in the development of energy sources that are readily produced and easily transported, like ammonia, while reducing production costs and environmental impact. Projects will enable new, efficient, scalable and cost-effective energy delivery when and where it is needed.
In this paragraph, hydrogen is specifically excluded BY NAME, as seen in the first bolded section. Both hydrogen AND ammonia are excluded by the second bolded section.

As I said, DOE is misallocating these funds by applying them to projects which directly contradict the objectives which they, themselves, have established.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
You seem to be the only one in doubt of what they mean or intend to do, but I'm sure if you find the grant applications they will explain exactly what the processes are. Personally I don't care, as I'm clear in my own mind what end result they're aiming at.
So if you are so clear what is intended, why don't you just write it here. Then we'll all know.

Just in case you are not clear on what the Program Description says I will copy it here:
DOE said:
Most liquid fuels used in transportation today are derived from petroleum and burned in internal combustion engines. These energy-dense fuels are currently economical, but they remain partially reliant on imported petroleum and are highly carbon intensive. Alternatives to internal combustion engines, like fuel cells, which convert chemical energy to electricity, have shown promise in vehicle powertrains, but are hindered by inefficiencies in fuel transport and storage. Projects in the Renewable Energy to Fuels Through Utilization of Energy-Dense Liquids (REFUEL) program seek to develop scalable technologies for converting electrical energy from renewable sources into energy-dense carbon-neutral liquid fuels (CNLFs) and back into electricity or hydrogen on demand. REFUEL projects will accelerate the shift to domestically produced transportation fuels, improving American economic and energy security and reducing energy emissions.
Note that the quoted part DIRECTLY excludes hydrogen as an outcome from this project.
Agreed as far as 'transport and storage', but not as final usage, which it seems to directly allow. See below.

RegGuheert said:
Then in the Innovations Needed section:
DOE said:
Carbon-neutral liquid fuels as defined by REFUEL are hydrogen-rich and made by converting molecules in the air (nitrogen or carbon dioxide) and hydrogen from water into an energy-carrying liquid using renewable power. While existing fuel-cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) use pure hydrogen as a fuel, the limitations of hydrogen storage and transportation have made it difficult and expensive to build transmission, distribution, and refueling infrastructure for mass adoption of these vehicles. The CNLFs of REFUEL address these challenges by using the infrastructure already in use by traditional liquid fuels. Once the CNLF arrives at its point of use, it can be used to generate electricity in a fuel cell or produce hydrogen on demand, greatly reducing transportation and storage costs. REFUEL projects will aid in the development of energy sources that are readily produced and easily transported, like ammonia, while reducing production costs and environmental impact. Projects will enable new, efficient, scalable and cost-effective energy delivery when and where it is needed.
In this paragraph, hydrogen is specifically excluded BY NAME, as seen in the first bolded section. Both hydrogen AND ammonia are excluded by the second bolded section.

As I said, DOE is misallocating these funds by applying them to projects which directly contradict the objectives which they, themselves, have established.
Thanks for posting all that, and I see that I did somewhat misunderstand the intent of what they're doing, although I agree with the end result. So, AIUI, the intent here isn't solely to come up with renewable liquid fuels, but also (or entirely) to use ammonia (or other) purely for transport and storage, and then convert back (they appear to leave open the possibility of either stationary or on-board conversion) to electricity or H2. I suppose that again brings up the possibility of methanol or some such, with on-board converters. The issues with that were assessed as problematic some years back, but possibly the state of the art has improved now - I haven't been paying attention to methanol for some time.

BTW, I'm now reading the REFUEL Detailed Program Overview, which can be found here (16 pages, lots of tables showing cost comparisons etc.): https://arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/REFUEL_ProgramOverview_FINAL.pdf

I find this on the first page:
The program's overall goal is a competitive total cost (including production, transportation, storage, and conversion) of delivered (source-to-use) energy (e.g. converted to motive power for transportation) as opposed to the primary energy stored in chemical form below $0.3/kWh, the price needed to be competitive with other carbon-free delivery methods, as will be discussed in Section B. The source-to-use energy cost (SUE) is defined here as the sum of the fuel production cost (CF), the cost of transportation from production to the user (CT), the cost of any storage (CS), divided by the conversion efficiency (n) to account for any losses during the conversion steps, and the capital cost of fuel conversion (CC).

Then page 4:
Hydrogen compression and, especially, liquefaction incur additional energy losses (up to 10 and 35%, respectively). In
contrast to liquid H2, which boils-off with a rate of 1 – 4% per day depending on the tank, 10 hydrogen storage and
transportation as a compressed gas has very low losses. Therefore, the latter is a more attractive option for long-term
storage (from days to seasonal). Average cost of hydrogen transportation via a 750 mile long pipeline is estimated to be $1
– 2/kg H2 or $0.03 – 0.06/kWh,11 which is substantially more expensive than pipeline transportation of gasoline (about
$0.025/gal or $0.001/kWh)12 or ammonia ($34/ton per 1000 miles or $0.004/kWh for 750 miles).13

Opportunities for CNLFs
The use of energy-dense liquids, e.g. liquid ammonia or renewable hydrocarbons, with a similar RTE may be an attractive
alternative to H2, due to the absence of or low compression losses. Storage and transportation costs can be even lower if
the carbon-neutral production cost is higher than that of H2. Such CNLFs could be used in appropriately designed fuel
cells. Alternatively, the costs of compression and storage, which is the major cost of the H2 refueling station,14
can be reduced by using with CNLFs as hydrogen carriers and the existing liquid fuel infrastructure technologies. An ANL/TIAX
analysis of hydrogen delivery. using liquid hydrogen carriers with a hydrogen content of 6 – 7 wt.%, showed that the carrier
hydrogen delivery cost will be lower than liquid or compressed (700 bar) hydrogen.15 CNLFs with higher hydrogen content
will be even less costly. Some examples of potential CNLFs are presented in the following section. . . .

Page 5:
Modern Haber-Bosch plants, using hydrogen generation by SMR, release about 1.6 – 1.8 ton CO2 per ton of NH3 of which
only 0.95 ton comes from the SMR process and the rest from heating and pressurization needs.20 Energy consumption for
NH3 production using SMR varies from 7.8 to 10.5 MWh per ton of NH3
(including feedstock, which accounts for 80% of
energy).21 A potentially greener technology option of using hydrogen from water electrolysis requires 9.5 MWh to make 1
metric ton NH3
22 (of which 8.9 MWh comes from hydrogen production, assuming 50.2 kWh/kg H2). 23 Solid-state
electrochemical ammonia synthesis, a possible alternative to the Haber-Bosch process, has potentially lower energy input
and operational pressure and temperature24 thus simplifying the balance of plant, and could be cost competitive as long as
the reaction rate is significantly increased.

Ammonia is in the liquid state below -33 °C or under 15 bar at ambient temperature and has an energy density of 4.25
kWh/L. This value is 35% higher than the energy density of liquid hydrogen (in reality the difference is even larger due to
large energy requirements for H2 liquefaction) and 2.5 times higher than that of hydrogen compressed to 700 bar. It is widely
used as a fertilizer, a refrigerant, and a feedstock for the chemical industry The use of ammonia as a fuel, energy carrier
and hydrogen storage material has also been widely discussed. . . .25,26,27

Looking about a bit I found this graph of NH3 boiling pt vs. pressure: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ammonia-pressure-temperature-d_361.html

which shows that NH3 boils at 120 degrees F. if pressurized to 286.4 in. psia., using a hell of a lot less energy for pressurization than 5 or 10,000 psia for LH2.

Continuing from page 6:
Another example of a nitrogen-based energy-dense fuel is hydrazine hydrate (N2H4·H2O). It is currently produced by
oxidation of ammonia at a large scale (80,000 ton/year globally) and is therefore more expensive than ammonia. However,
it has a high energy density (3.56 kWh/L), is easy to handle (freezing point -51.7 °C, flash point 74 °C) and, if low-cost
synthetic methods are developed, it may fit the technical targets of this FOA. To accomplish wide-scale implementation of
CNLFs, technological advances in both the production and conversion of this fuel would need to be achieved. An example
of a non-toxic substitute for hydrazine with low carbon footprint is carbohydrazide (CH6N4O). Carbohydrazide has been
used as a fuel in a fuel cell with an OCV 1.65V.28

In terms of carbon containing CNLFs, there are numerous examples that would fit the definition, such as hydrocarbon fuels
such as synthetic gasoline or diesel fuel, alcohols, and dimethyl ether., The requirements are that the carbon is directly
taken from the atmosphere or another sustainable CO2 source and that the fuel is produced in a one-pot chemical or
electrochemical process
. Current processes for production of synthetic fuels such as Fischer-Tropsch process are multistep,
very capital intensive and eventually not economical. Reducing the process complexity may allow increased efficiency
and lower costs. A viable pathway to generate power (e.g. in fuel cells or ICEs as a drop-in fuel) or hydrogen should be
demonstrated or adopted from literature. In addition, carbon containing CNLFs must have the potential to meet the source-to-use
energy cost targets. . . .

Conversion of CNLFs to electricity
CNLFs may be converted into useful work after transportation and/or storage either directly or indirectly. In this FOA, direct
conversion is defined as delivering the fuel to a fuel cell anode without any prior chemical conversion to generate electricity
directly. Indirect conversion includes fuel that is reformed (cracked) such that hydrogen is stored/delivered at the endpoint
of the transportation and distribution system for further use in fuel cells. . . .

Finally, from the summary on page 8:
The technical approach of the REFUEL program is to develop novel cost- and energy-efficient technologies for generation
of energy-dense liquid fuels from renewable energy, water, and air, and their subsequent conversion to deliverable power
for transportation and distributed generation.

This approach will allow use of existing liquid fuel transportation technologies for transferring renewable energy from remote
or stranded locations to the end-use customer instead of using electricity or hydrogen
(schematically represented in Figure
1). Renewable energy such as electricity from solar and wind farms, will be converted to a CNLF (technologies of interest
in Category 1), transported by existing methods, and converted via direct (electrochemical in a fuel cell) or indirect (via
intermediate hydrogen extraction) oxidation at the point of use (technologies of interest in Category 2)
. Conceptually this
program aims to minimize system level carbon emissions, and electrical transmission and storage losses, while remaining
cost competitive.

The target CNLFs can be indefinitely stored in the liquid state under moderate pressure (up to 20 bar) or moderate cooling
(down to -40 °C), can be transported using existing or easily expanded and modified infrastructure, and converted back into
electricity and/or heat
. The conversion products (primarily N2, H2O, and CO2) are not captured and are released to the
atmosphere. Fuels containing carbon are acceptable as long as the carbon is taken directly from air or other sustainable
sources such as biomass fermentation and not from fossil fuels. . . .
 
Via GCC:
DOE FCTO soliciting CRADAs on roll-to-roll manufacturing for hydrogen and fuel cell technologies
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/06/20170601-fcto.html

The US Department of Energy (DOE) Fuel Cell Technologies Office (FCTO) announced a call for cooperative research and development agreements (CRADAs) between national laboratories and industrial partners to address roll-to-roll (R2R) manufacturing challenges that will allow rapid transfer of manufacturing and processing technologies from the lab to the plant floor, resulting in less costly and more energy efficient products entering the marketplace. These efforts will be supported with current and prior year funds. . . .)

The broader solicitation is focused on advanced materials and component development, synthesis and processing methods, and quality control and metrology in the specific areas of:

  • Polymer electrolyte fuel cells and polymer electrolyte membrane electrolyzers
    Advanced batteries
    Flexible electronics and displays
    Energy efficient window films
    Flexible solar photovoltaic (PV) cells
    Water separation and purification membranes

However, only projects that have a strong likelihood of creating jobs domestically and enabling manufacturing of hydrogen and/or fuel cell technologies are of interest for FCTO funding. CRADAs will require industry to provide at least a 50% cost share, which can be monetary funds or in-kind contributions (e.g., facilities, services, and staff time). . . .

Follow-on to previous post, also GCC:
DOE releasing $20M in funding to ARPA-E awardees; NEXTCAR and REFUEL projects
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/06/20170601-arpae.html

he US Department of Energy (DOE) is honoring additional commitments to 10 previously selected Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) awardees for a total of $20 million. This completes the approval process for projects selected in ARPA-E’s Next-Generation Energy Technologies for Connected and Autonomous On-Road Vehicles (NEXTCAR) (earlier post) and Renewable Energy to Fuels Through Utilization of Energy-Dense Liquids (REFUEL) (earlier post)programs.

Four REFUEL projects are also part of DOE’s Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer (SBIR/STTR) programs . . . .

REFUEL

  • Gas Technology Institute: A Novel Catalytic Membrane Reactor for DME Synthesis from Renewable Resources – $2,300,000

    Giner, Inc.: High-Efficiency Ammonia Production from Water and Nitrogen – $1,500,000

    Sustainable Innovations, LLC: Electricity From an Energy-Dense Carbon-Neutral Energy Carrier – $1,200,000

    Wichita State University: Alkaline Membrane-Based Ammonia Electrosynthesis with High Efficiency for Renewable and Scalable Liquid-Fuel Production – $855,000

    University of Minnesota: Small Scale Ammonia Synthesis Using Stranded Wind Energy – $2,900,000

REFUEL SBIR/STTR

  • Bettergy Corporation: Low Temperature Ammonia Cracking Membrane Reactor for Hydrogen Generation – $1,524,607

    Molecule Works, Inc.: Novel Electrochemical Membrane Reactor for Synthesis of NH3 From Air and Water at Low Temperature and Low Pressure – $2,300,000

    Opus 12, Inc.: Renewable Electricity-Powered Carbon Dioxide Conversion to Ethanol for Storage and Transportation – $1,903,268

    Storagenergy Technologies, Inc.: High Rate Ammonia Synthesis by Intermediate Temperature Solid-State Alkaline Electrolyzer (ITSAE) – $2,523,958
 
Via GCC:
DOE to award $15.8M to 30 hydrogen and fuel cell technologies projects
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/06/20170609-doe.html
. . . Selected projects cover the following topics:

  • PGM-free Catalyst and Electrode R&D. 4 projects will leverage the Electrocatalysis Consortium (ElectroCat) to accelerate the development of catalysts made without platinum group metals (PGM-free) for use in fuel cells for transportation.

    Advanced Water Splitting Materials. 19 projects will leverage the HydroGEN Consortium to accelerate the development of advanced water-splitting materials for hydrogen production, with an initial focus on advanced electrolytic, photoelectrochemical, and solar thermochemical pathways.

    Hydrogen Storage Materials Discovery. 4 projects will leverage the Hydrogen Materials—Advanced Research Consortium (HyMARC) to address unsolved scientific challenges in the development of viable solid-state materials for hydrogen storage onboard light-duty vehicles.

    Precursor Development for Low-Cost, High-Strength Carbon Fiber. 3 projects will reduce the cost of onboard hydrogen storage tanks necessary for fuel cell vehicles. These projects will pursue innovative approaches to developing novel precursors for high-strength carbon fiber at half the cost of current materials. . . .
There's a breakdown showing which institutions got awards for what.

Also GCC:
DOE to award $13.5M to advance solid oxide fuel cells to commercialization
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/06/20170607-sofc.html
. . . The funding opportunity announcement (FOA) comprises two topic areas:

  • SOFC Prototype System Testing: Applications are being sought under this topic area for prototype system development and field-testing (at a site other than the developer’s facility) of a nominal 250-500kWe rating (system rating near the high end of the range is encouraged) thermally self-sustaining atmospheric or pressurized SOFC system with an average stack operating temperature greater than 500°C.

    The SOFC systems will undergo testing to be conducted in accordance with a DOE-approved test plan at a facility mutually agreed upon by the selected applicant and DOE . . . System performance and degradation as well as cost estimates will be compared to established SOFC Program performance metrics to assess progress.

    The goal is to test the SOFC technology prototype to the degree necessary for commercial system deployment, for a minimum of 5,000 hours. Proposed concepts should have a TRL of at least 5 at the beginning of the project and TRL 7 at project end. Prototype systems utilizing anode-supported planar cells are not desired under this topic area. Projects will be 24 months in duration.

    Core Technology Development: The SOFC Core Technology research topic area will focus on applied laboratory or bench-scale R&D that improves the cost, robustness, reliability, and endurance of SOFC cell, stack, and or balance of plant technology. Applications in this topic area can focus on any SOFC cell, stack, or Balance of Plant (BOP) components. Partnership with an SOFC manufacturer/developer is encouraged. Projects will be 24 months in duration, during which time concepts will be developed and tested. Proposed concepts should have a beginning TRL of 2-4.
 
All via GCC:
UK National Physical Laboratory identifies measurement challenges in the hydrogen industry
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/06/20170613-npl.html

. . . Hydrogen in the UK is beginning to shift to practical demonstration projects. An ever-growing evidence base has showcased how the costs of hydrogen and its barriers to entry are reducing, such that it now has practical potential to contribute to the decarbonization of the UK’s energy sector.

Despite this, hydrogen has yet to have wide commercial uptake, due in part to a number of barriers where measurement plays a critical role. To accelerate the shift towards the hydrogen economy, these challenges have been identified and prioritized by NPL.

The report “Energy transition: Measurement needs within the hydrogen industry” ranked six challenge areas as high priority:

  • Material development for fuel cells and electrolyzers, to reduce costs and assess critical degradation mechanisms—extending lifetime and durability is key to the commercialisation of these technologies.

    Impact assessment of added odorant to hydrogen to aid leak detection. Measurement of its impact during pipeline transportation and on the end-use application (particularly fuel cell technology) will be important to provide assurance that it will not affect lifetime and durability.

    Determination of the blend ratio when hydrogen is mixed with natural gas in the gas grid. Accurate flow rate measurement and validated metering methods are needed to ensure accurate billing of the consumer.

    Measurement of the combustion properties of hydrogen, including flame detection and propagation, temperature and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions, should it be used for heat applications, to ensure existing and new appliances are suitable for hydrogen.

    Assessment of the suitability of existing gas infrastructure and materials for hydrogen transportation. Building an understanding of what adaptations might need to be made to avoid for example air permeation, metal embrittlement and hydrogen leakage.

    Validated techniques for hydrogen storage, which will require measurement of the efficiency and capacity of each mechanism, through robust metering, leakage detection and purity analysis to ensure they are optimized for the storage of hydrogen gas. . . .
Direct link to report can be found here: http://www.npl.co.uk/news/identifying-measurement-challenges-in-the-hydrogen-industry

DOE to award up $2.4M to four new solid oxide fuel cell projects
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/06/20170614-sofc.html

. . . Four projects have been selected to receive up to $2.4 million for phase 2 research, while an additional $13.5 million is available under a new funding opportunity announcement (FOA) to support SOFC prototype system testing and core technology development (earlier post) [GRA: see upthread].

The four projects advancing to phase 2 were chosen from phase 1 awards made under the FOA Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) Innovative Concepts and Core Technology Research Program, which was issued in fiscal year 2015.

The phase 2 projects will include laboratory- and bench-scale research to improve the reliability, robustness, and endurance of SOFC cell and stack technology. The projects are:

  • Degradation and Reliability Advancements in Tubular SOFC . . . DOE Funding: $606,386

    Processing of SOFC Anodes for Enhanced Intermediate Temperature Catalytic Activity at High Fuel Utilization . . . DOE Funding: $600,000.

    Employing Accelerated Test Protocols to Full-Size Cells and Tuning Microstructures to Improve Robustness, Reliability, and Endurance of SOFC — The University of South Carolina will focus on understanding the effects of accelerated testing protocols on material structure and chemistry on electrochemical properties and durability of SOFCs. Accelerated tests will be performed for approximately 200–3,000 hours on full-size cells with hydrogen and simulated system gas, which will translate to steady-state SOFC operation for approximately 2,000–20,000 hours. DOE Funding: $600,000

    Scalable Nano-Scaffold Architecture on the Internal Surface of SOFC Anode for Direct Hydrocarbon Utilization. . . DOE Funding: $600,000

Finally:
H2 Mobility partners open two new H2 stations in the Rhine-Main Area; linking north to south through Germany
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/06/20170614-h2.html

The joint venture H2 Mobility Deutschland . . . officially opened two new hydrogen refueling stations in Frankfurt and Wiesbaden. The German federal state of Hesse now has a total of five H2 filling stations for fuel cell vehicles. . . .

H2 Mobility commissioned the new hydrogen station in Frankfurt . . . while Daimler AG is the owner of the filling station in Wiesbaden . . . Both stations are located on Shell premises.

With financial support from the German government via its National Innovation Programme for Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology (NIP), Germany now has a total of 30 hydrogen refueling stations. Overall, the German government has invested some €1.6 million (US$1.8 million) in the two new stations. By 2018, there should be 100 stations. . . .

Both stations have the capacity to serve 40 FCEVs every day.

At present, Germany has another 27 hydrogen stations in the pipeline or under construction. This year, for example, H2 Mobility and its partner companies are due to unveil filling stations in Kassel, Bremen and Wendlingen. More are planned for the Stuttgart, Karlsruhe and Munich areas. . . .

H2 Mobility’s shareholders are Air Liquide, Daimler, Linde, OMV, Shell and TOTAL. As associated partners, BMW, Honda, Toyota and Volkswagen advise H2 Mobility.
 
Via GCC:
Ontario studying use of fuel cells to electrify its GO rail network
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/06/20170617-go.html

Ontario is taking a major step forward to electrify the GO rail network. The Canadian province has begun the GO Rail Network Electrification Transit Project Assessment Process. The process builds on public consultations held last year and will assess the environmental impacts of converting core segments of the GO rail network, including the UP Express, from diesel to electric. In tandem with the assessment process, Ontario is also undertaking a feasibility study on the use of hydrogen fuel cells as an alternative technology for electrifying GO rail service and the UP Express. . . .

Ontario is undertaking a $21.3-billion transformation of the GO network, which is the largest commuter rail project in Canada. Ontario is on track to electrify and expand the rail network, and bring more two-way, all-day service to commuters and families by increasing the number of weekly trips from about 1,500 to nearly 6,000 by 2025.

The province has committed $13.5 billion to implement GO RER as part of a $21.3-billion transformation of the GO network from commuter transit to a regional rapid transit system. GO RER involves more than 500 separate projects across 40 municipalities. Improvements to more than 30 GO stations are currently in procurement and planning work is underway with municipal partners on 12 new GO RER stations across the network. . . .

Also GCC:
Ballard’s Protonex subsidiary receives first order for fuel cell system to power commercial UAVs
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/06/20170615-protonex.html

Ballard Power Systems’ subsidiary Protonex has received an initial order for its fuel cell propulsion system, together with design services, from FlyH2 Aerospace, a South African-based developer of hydrogen fuel cell powered unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for commercial applications. . . .

FlyH2 plans to integrate the Protonex fuel cell system into all three of its aircraft currently in the development pipeline, beginning with the UA Plant prototype drone, followed by its UA Alpha flagship aircraft. UA Plant is expected to be a 30 kilogram (66 lb.) fuel cell-powered agricultural utility aircraft with 9-hour flight endurance.

UA Alpha will be a long-range, long-endurance survey and reconnaissance aircraft designed to carry advanced sensors. Specifications include a wingspan of 8.2 meters (27 feet), maximum cruising altitude of 4,250 meters (14,000 feet) and flight distance of more than 600 kilometers (370 miles). Onboard sensors will survey environmental variables used in the management of fires, pollution, erosion, alien vegetation and plant diseases. In a similar development, FlyH2’s third drone, the UA Gecko, is being designed to monitor physical infrastructure, including roads, bridges, pipelines and powerlines. . . .
 
Back
Top