Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[GRA]

Via GCR:

South Korean government trims orders for Hyundai Nexo hydrogen-fuel cars

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1117235_south-korean-government-trims-orders-for-hyundai-nexo-hydrogen-fuel-cars

Nine months after announcing its intention to buy 10,000 Hyundai Nexo hydrogen-fueled cars, the South Korean government has halved its order. That's according to Business Korea, which said Tuesday that a report published by the government earlier this month indicated that the government plans to purchase 5,000 Nexo vehicles over the next two years.

To keep the 378-mile range Nexos moving, the South Korean government has said that it plans to subsidize construction of 130 hydrogen fueling stations by 2020. About a dozen have been built so far.

The article speculates that strong consumer demand for the Nexo may have prompted the government to dial back its plans. About 1,000 Nexo vehicles were sold in Korea during the model's first week on sale, Business Korea said. The Nexo, a small crossover that emits only water from its tailpipe, is expected to go on sale in the U.S. by the end of this year. . . .

[edatoakrun]

HFCV, RIP...

Nissan and Renault shelve fuel cell vehicle plan

Project with Daimler and Ford will now focus on electric vehicles <snip>

Interesting. GM/Honda just recently announced their continuing partnership for FCEVs*, and then there's Toyota/KIa/Hyundai, so we'll see if the abandonment of FCEV development spreads or stops there...

Hydrogen FCVs are dead, save for the few remaining on very expensive government-subsidised-life-support.

FCs that are able to utilize other fuels, both stationary and perhaps in BEVs, do have a future.

Nissan to develop vehicle using ethanol-based Solid Oxide Fuel-Cell technology by 2020

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=22107&start=20

The problem with HFCVs from the start was that it was obvious the technology was going to succeed, as soon as the problem of developing safe, efficient, and competitively-priced Hydrogen infrastructure was solved.

And this vision was so attractive, people just didn't want to notice that that obstacle was almost certainly impossible to overcome.

[SageBrush]

FCs that are able to utilize other fuels, both stationary and perhaps in BEVs, do have a future.

Nissan to develop vehicle using ethanol-based Solid Oxide Fuel-Cell technology by 2020

Meh
The energy cost to convert fossil fuel 'A' into the pet fossil fuel 'B' your preferred fuel cell uses are similar across the board. And while it is true that ethanol infrastructure is cheaper than H2, the much more basic problem is that fuel cell are no where near efficient enough to compete with a battery. And that is before we consider the cost, reliability and longevity problems of the fuel cell stack.


Fuel cell stacks in transport appeared promising on paper in the days when ICE engines ran at 18% efficiency, battery cell costs were $1000 a kWh, and the LEAF was the best offered at 80 miles range and 6 hours to recharge. You are stuck in 2010 and don't realize that long-lived, high performance, reliable and increasingly affordable 300+ mile, under 30 minute recharge EVs are on the road today and further dramatic improvements are around the corner.

Go test drive a Tesla. Then you will understand.

[GRA]

<snip>
Interesting. GM/Honda just recently announced their continuing partnership for FCEVs*, and then there's Toyota/KIa/Hyundai, so we'll see if the abandonment of FCEV development spreads or stops there...

Hydrogen FCVs are dead, save for the few remaining on very expensive government-subsidised-life-support.

FCs that are able to utilize other fuels, both stationary and perhaps in BEVs, do have a future.

Nissan to develop vehicle using ethanol-based Solid Oxide Fuel-Cell technology by 2020

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=22107&start=20
The problem with HFCVs from the start was that it was obvious the technology was going to succeed, as soon as the problem of developing safe, efficient, and competitively-priced Hydrogen infrastructure was solved.

And this vision was so attractive, people just didn't want to notice that that obstacle was almost certainly impossible to overcome.

Actually, everyone involved noticed that it was an obstacle, along with competitively priced fuel cells and sustainable H2 production, and lots of R&D has been put into those areas. Prices for the infrastructure have come down considerably owing to economies of scale and technical development, but as with the other two areas,* not enough yet. Whether it can come down enough is and always has been the question. Whether someone believes its worth finding out the answer is where the division lies.



*H2 electrolysis using excess renewables being a likely exception.

[RegGuheert]

And this vision was so attractive, people just didn't want to notice that that obstacle was almost certainly impossible to overcome.

Actually, everyone involved noticed that it was an obstacle, along with competitively priced fuel cells and sustainable H2 production, and lots of R&D has been put into those areas.

GRA, you quoted Ed's exact words and then responded as if he had said something different. Specifically, Ed did NOT say that people didn't notice that it was an obstacle. What he said was that "people just didn't want to notice that that obstacle was almost certainly impossible to overcome." That is a completely different statement.

[GRA]

And this vision was so attractive, people just didn't want to notice that that obstacle was almost certainly impossible to overcome.

Actually, everyone involved noticed that it was an obstacle, along with competitively priced fuel cells and sustainable H2 production, and lots of R&D has been put into those areas.

GRA, you quoted Ed's exact words and then responded as if he had said something different. Specifically, Ed did NOT say that people didn't notice that it was an obstacle. What he said was that "people just didn't want to notice that that obstacle was almost certainly impossible to overcome." That is a completely different statement.

He said that people were deliberately choosing to ignore the obvious obstacles, which wasn't and isn't the case. Government and industry have both been devoting a lot of money to the R&D necessary to resolve those issues over the years, just as they have with BEVs and other energy tech. Neither FCEVs or BEVs are yet where they need to be to replace fossil-fueled ICEs (BEVs are obviously closer than FCEVs, for some jobs) without continued government and industry support.

[GRA]

Via GCC:

Clariant Catalysts collaborates with Hydrogenious on Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carrier (LOHC) technology

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/06/20180618-lohc.html

. . . Hydrogen’s very low density, high flammability and extreme volatility present significant challenges to both storage and transportation. Conventional storage methods typically involve either physical compression (200–700 bar) or extreme cooling (–253°C) of hydrogen, both of which are energy intensive and can involve safety risks.

Hydrogenious Technologies has developed an innovative means of transporting hydrogen by chemically binding the molecules to Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carriers (LOHC). In the method, hydrogenation of the liquid organic hydrocarbon dibenzyltoluene via Clariant’s EleMax H catalyst allows hydrogen to be “stored”, while its dehydrogenation with EleMax D “releases” hydrogen on demand.

The highly active Clariant catalysts are designed to offer high selectivity for loading and unbinding hydrogen in order to optimize the life-cycle and efficiency of the LOHC.

Non-explosive, non-toxic and of low flammability, the diesel-like hydrogen-bound compound is not classified a hazardous good, and remains in a useable and convenient liquid state through a broad temperature range of -39°C to 390°C at ambient pressure.

These factors allow considerably easier installation at industrial locations as well as commercial and public fueling sites, even in close range of or within residential areas. This furthermore allows for the handling flexibility required to enable a wide spread roll-out of hydrogen production from renewable power sources (Power-to-Gas).

First commercial scale units in operation—for example at United Hydrogen Group (Tennessee)—confirm the expected technical and economic attractiveness. Clariant will continue to further broaden the applicability and efficiency of this technology offered by Hydrogenious via catalyst research and expertise. . . .

Not sure how similar this is to what AHEAD's planning for shipping H2 from Brunei*. As always, price due to energy consumed during the transitions (along with the cost of the catalysts) will determine its commercial viability, but the potential cost, handling and safety advantages for storage and transport seem large. Of course, this is a P.R. release by a company pimping their product, so you should apply whatever B.S. correction factor you think appropriate, until we see some hard, independent numbers.


*http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=14744&hilit=hydrogen+australia&start=3990#p525510

[RegGuheert]

He said that people were deliberately choosing to ignore the obvious obstacles,,,,

No, he didn't. Quit misrepresenting what others say.

[GRA]

He said that people were deliberately choosing to ignore the obvious obstacles,,,,

No, he didn't. Quit misrepresenting what others say.

Ed wrote:

And this vision was so attractive, people just didn't want to notice that that obstacle was almost certainly impossible to overcome.

How does "didn't want to notice" mean anything other than deliberately ignoring? "Didn't want to" is a choice - example: When people just don't want to notice the homeless, they pretend not to see them and ignore their presence, but of course they do see them and know they're there, they just don't acknowledge their existence.

[GetOffYourGas]

He said that people were deliberately choosing to ignore the obvious obstacles,,,,

No, he didn't. Quit misrepresenting what others say.

Ed wrote:

And this vision was so attractive, people just didn't want to notice that that obstacle was almost certainly impossible to overcome.

How does "didn't want to notice" mean anything other than deliberately ignoring? "Didn't want to" is a choice - example: When people just don't want to notice the homeless, they pretend not to see them and ignore their presence, but of course they do see them and know they're there, they just don't acknowledge their existence.

Guy, it's not that people are ignoring the obstacle. It's that they are ignoring the fact that said obstacle is almost certainly impossible to overcome