GRA
Posts: 9234
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Tue Dec 26, 2017 8:01 pm

Via GCC:
Dubai Begins Trial Run Of Hydrogen-Powered Taxis
https://auto.ndtv.com/news/dubai-begins-trial-run-of-hydrogen-powered-taxis-1791884

. . . RTA will start a trial run of the vehicle as part of its limousine service at the Dubai International Airport to assess the economic feasibility and environmental benefits of its operation," he said.

In 2008, Dubai became the first city in the region to begin a trial of hybrid vehicles as taxis and now around 800 hybrid taxis operate in the city.

RTA announced a plan to replace half of the taxi fleet with eco-friendly vehicles by 2021. At present, around 20 per cent of the fleet is hybrid.


Also GCC:
Ballard launches next generation fuel cell system for drones, expands Insitu flight testing
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/12/20171223-ballard.html

. . . Ballard has also received a follow-on contract from Insitu, a Boeing subsidiary, for extended durability testing of the next-generation 1.3 kW fuel cell propulsion system to power test flights of its ScanEagle UAV platform.

Ballard and Insitu have partnered over the past two years to integrate Ballard’s prior generation fuel cell propulsion system—a complete hydrogen power system for small unmanned fixed wing and Vertical Take Off and Landing (VTOL) platforms—into the ScanEagle platform. (Earlier post.) Successful flight testing was announced in mid-2017.

The next generation fuel cell propulsion system delivers a number of important advances: increased power density, resulting from a new membrane electrode assembly (MEA) design; reduced cost, resulting from a combination of new MEA and one-step fuel cell stack sealing process; and extended lifetime. The increase in rated power, without any appreciable increase in size or weight, is a particularly significant development for UAV applications. . . .

Fuel cell propulsion systems offer a number of advantages over ICE-powered drones; in addition, fuel cells offer a 3x increase in mission time compared to battery-powered drones. . . .

ScanEagle is 1.55 meters (5.1 feet) in length, has a wingspan of 3.11 meters (10.2 feet) and maximum takeoff weight of 22 kilograms (48.5 lbs). The UAV can fly at a maximum speed of 41.2 meters per second (80 knots), reach a ceiling of 5,944 meters (19,500 feet). . . .
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6319
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:21 am

GRA wrote:I think you mean that under the current regulatory environment customers don't benefit. What we don't know is whether that will change; negative pricing is certainly passed on to customers in other countries.
Feel free to back up that statement with some evidence. In other words, please show a rate plan for electricity delivered to END CUSTOMERS which includes negative numbers.
GRA wrote:Uh huh, and what effect does a constant duty-cycle versus an intermittent one have on longevity, and does the construction of a fixed versus mobile system differ significantly. Again, we lack data.
Sorry, but a system which gets 20X the runtime is not going to OUTLIVE a system that is runs 24/7 by a significant margine. You really just spreading FUD.
GRA wrote:And the assumptions you use are reasonable for existing systems at an earlier stage of development than those now being installed, or those that will be installed in the future. I've said before that FCs and H2 are still on a much steeper part of the learning curve than batteries,...
You've said it, but the actual evidence that I recently posted shows that the learning curve for FCs is not steep. Rather, it is very flat. Here it is again just in case others might buy into your imaginary statements:

Image

BEVs, OTOH, ARE developing very rapidly. In other words, the situation is just the opposite of what you claim.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K mi. on 041413; 20K mi. (55.7Ah) on 080714; 30K mi. (52.0Ah) on 123015; 40K mi. (49.8Ah) on 020817; 50K mi. (47.2Ah) on 120717; 60K mi. (43.66Ah) on 091918.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

GRA
Posts: 9234
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Wed Dec 27, 2017 7:41 pm

RegGuheert wrote:
GRA wrote:I think you mean that under the current regulatory environment customers don't benefit. What we don't know is whether that will change; negative pricing is certainly passed on to customers in other countries.
Feel free to back up that statement with some evidence. In other words, please show a rate plan for electricity delivered to END CUSTOMERS which includes negative numbers.

Sure. Here's a recent one, from Xmas day:
Power Prices Go Negative in Germany, a Positive for Energy Users
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/25/business/energy-environment/germany-electricity-negative-prices.html

Power prices plunged below zero for much of Sunday and the early hours of Christmas Day on the EPEX Spot, a large European power trading exchange, the result of low demand, unseasonably warm weather and strong breezes that provided an abundance of wind power on the grid.

Such “negative prices” are not the norm in Germany, but they are far from rare, thanks to the country’s effort to encourage investment in greener forms of power generation. Prices for electricity in Germany have dipped below zero — meaning customers are being paid to consume power — more than 100 times this year alone, according to EPEX Spot.

On Sunday, factory owners and other major consumers were at times paid more than 50 euros, about $60, per megawatt-hour, a wholesale measure, to take power. . . .

Negative prices indicate that Germany’s power grid, like most others around the world, has not yet adapted to the increasing amounts of renewable energy being produced. . . .

For now, technological improvements that would help store additional power, and better distribute it across and between countries, are lagging.

But regulatory tweaks could make a difference. Germany, for example, does not do enough to encourage customers to increase their use at times of oversupply.

On a basic level, that could be as simple as providing incentives for people to turn on the washing machine when power is plentiful, and cheap. Companies could make even more use of such guidance, ramping up energy-hungry tasks at times of low-cost electricity. . . .

As I said, the regulatory environment can be changed, just as it was to require fee-in tariffs for renewables in the last decade, or when PURPA was passed in this country in 1978 which is responsible for utilities having to buy power from small grid-tied renewable systems (like yours) with ToU pricing being paid the avoided costs of generation during peak demand, and then being able to buy power cheaply off-peak. Smart meters at home are a coming thing as well, which will make it easier to adjust consumer demand through price signals.

RegGuheert wrote:
GRA wrote:Uh huh, and what effect does a constant duty-cycle versus an intermittent one have on longevity, and does the construction of a fixed versus mobile system differ significantly. Again, we lack data.
Sorry, but a system which gets 20X the runtime is not going to OUTLIVE a system that is runs 24/7 by a significant margine. You really just spreading FUD.

Are you saying that, to take one example, a moderately loaded ICE or steam turbine running continuously and which doesn't experience the thermal and other stresses of frequent starts and stops from intermittent usage won't last longer than one that does?! The reason power producers are willing to pay consumers to take electricity rather than stop and then restart their combustion generating plants is because it's cheaper over the long term.

Similarly, here's what battery university has to say about PEM fuel cells:
Operating a PEM fuel cell in a vehicle, the PEMFC stack has an estimated service life of 2,000–4,000 hours. Wetting and drying caused by short distance driving contributes to membrane stress. Running continuously, the stationary stack is good for about 40,000 hours.[/quote ]
http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/fuel_cell_technology

So, we're talking about 10 - 20x longer life for continuous running versus intermittent use. The question is will there be such an effect with an electrolyzer, and if so, how much?

RegGuheert wrote:
GRA wrote:And the assumptions you use are reasonable for existing systems at an earlier stage of development than those now being installed, or those that will be installed in the future. I've said before that FCs and H2 are still on a much steeper part of the learning curve than batteries,...
You've said it, but the actual evidence that I recently posted shows that the learning curve for FCs is not steep. Rather, it is very flat. Here it is again just in case others might buy into your imaginary statements:

Image

BEVs, OTOH, ARE developing very rapidly. In other words, the situation is just the opposite of what you claim.

As is often the case, we'll just have to agree to disagree. That batteries and FCs improve by steps rather than a constant slope should be of no surprise to anyone. Li-ion is now approaching its theoretical performance limits, and will need a technological step change (companies are cautiously adding silicon to the anodes, while trying to figure out how to add a lot more without causing failures due to expansion and contraction) to significantly advance. It will ultimately be up to the market to determine which is more cost-effective for various jobs, and neither of us is going to effect that.
Last edited by GRA on Wed Dec 27, 2017 8:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 9234
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Wed Dec 27, 2017 8:11 pm

Via GCC, lab results so usual caveats:
Korea-led team develops hybrid solid oxide electrolysis cell for efficient production of H2
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/12/20171227-kim.html

Solid oxide electrolysis cell (SOEC) has the potential to be cost-effective, environmentally friendly, and highly efficient for the production of hydrogen from water. There are two types of SOECs, based on the electrolyte materials: oxygen ion conducting SOECs (oxygen-SOECs) and proton conducting SOECs (proton-SOECs).

Researchers in South Korea, with colleagues at Georgia Tech, have now developed an SOEC based on a mixed-ion conductor that can transport both oxygen ions and protons at the same time; they call it a “Hybrid-SOEC”. In a paper in the journal Nano Energy, the researchers reported that the hydrogen yield from their Hybrid-SOEC was 1.9 L per hour at a cell voltage of 1.5 V at 700 °C—four times higher hydrogen production efficiency of the existing high-efficient water electrolytic cells. . . .
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6319
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Thu Dec 28, 2017 4:14 am

GRA wrote:Sure. Here's a recent one, from Xmas day:
Power Prices Go Negative in Germany, a Positive for Energy Users
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/25/business/energy-environment/germany-electricity-negative-prices.html
O.K. You found an example from Germany. But you and everyone else need to take note that Germany's distorted power policies are resulting in the highest electricity rates in the world for customers as well as failing utilities. That is just the opposite of what you are claiming such a regulator environment can do. Sorry, but governments distorting prices by trying to control physics through taxation is not a solution here.
GRA wrote:Are you saying that, to take one example, a moderately loaded ICE or steam turbine running continuously and which doesn't experience the thermal and other stresses of frequent starts and stops from intermittent usage won't last longer than one that does?! The reason power producers are willing to pay consumers to take electricity rather than stop and then restart their combustion generating plants is because it's cheaper over the long term.

Similarly, here's what battery university has to say about PEM fuel cells:
Operating a PEM fuel cell in a vehicle, the PEMFC stack has an estimated service life of 2,000–4,000 hours. Wetting and drying caused by short distance driving contributes to membrane stress. Running continuously, the stationary stack is good for about 40,000 hours.[/quote ]
http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/fuel_cell_technology

So, we're talking about 10 - 20x longer life for continuous running versus intermittent use. The question is will there be such an effect with an electrolyzer, and if so, how much?
So your evidence that my estimate of fuel cell life of 10 years was pessimistic is based on your finding a reference to stationary fuel cells with a life of 40,000 hours (4.5 years)? I stand by my assumption that these new electrolyzers will not last longer than 10 years. It is a very good estimate.
GRA wrote:As is often the case, we'll just have to agree to disagree. That batteries and FCs improve by steps rather than a constant slope should be of no surprise to anyone. Li-ion is now approaching its theoretical performance limits, and will need a technological step change...
Statements like this one make it clear that you do not believe the part of your signature which says "The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'." You've stated this self-made-up "requirement" for a "technological step change" in the past and I've corrected it before. I'll correct it again. Li-ion batteries DO NOT "need a technological step change". They already operate at near unity round-trip energy efficiency, so there is no step change that can ever be achieved there. The specific energy, energy density, and specific power of Li-ion batteries have already reached extremely-usable levels. Cost is now in a very competitive range. Steady improvements are all that is needed and these are made every day: the results are quite impressive. These improvements in manufacturing cost, durability, operating temperature range, safety, and material content, as well as the basic characteristics of specific energy, energy density, and specific power, are all moving steadily in the direction which is causing the market size for Li-ion batteries to explode. The main area that I think needs further effort is recycling of Li-ion batteries.

It is very important that everyone recognizes that low-energy efficiency energy storage solutions (like H2-based solutions) are ONLY suitable for niche applications, not mainstream applications. Because they avoid chemical reactions, Li-ion batteries are at the pinnacle of what is achievable in terms of energy efficiency. We need to continue to improve them and then apply them far and wide with the exception being in areas where the energy needs to be stored for long periods of time (due to the material inefficiencies which come into play). If we ignore the value of this important characteristic of Li-ion batteries, we will never achieve meaningful penetration rates for renewable solutions.
GRA wrote:It will ultimately be up to the market to determine which is more cost-effective for various jobs, and neither of us is going to effect that.
The "market" is NOT choosing H2 FCVs--rather, government officials who are not aware of the disasterous effects of fielding low-efficiency solutions are passing ill-informed laws to distort the economics so that purveyors of fuel-cell technologies get paid for their environmentally-damaging "solutions". You can see this in nearly every posting of H2 new that GRA has made. We all need to stand up to our representatives in government and help them to understand how misguided their efforts in this area really are.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K mi. on 041413; 20K mi. (55.7Ah) on 080714; 30K mi. (52.0Ah) on 123015; 40K mi. (49.8Ah) on 020817; 50K mi. (47.2Ah) on 120717; 60K mi. (43.66Ah) on 091918.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

GRA
Posts: 9234
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:51 pm

RegGuheert wrote:
GRA wrote:Sure. Here's a recent one, from Xmas day:
Power Prices Go Negative in Germany, a Positive for Energy Users
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/25/business/energy-environment/germany-electricity-negative-prices.html
O.K. You found an example from Germany. But you and everyone else need to take note that Germany's distorted power policies are resulting in the highest electricity rates in the world for customers as well as failing utilities. That is just the opposite of what you are claiming such a regulator environment can do. Sorry, but governments distorting prices by trying to control physics through taxation is not a solution here.

Germany is a member of Nordpool as are Denmark and Estonia, all of them are increasing their share of variable renewables, and Germany is the largest electricity market IN Nordpool, so it's entirely relevant to the discussion. As I noted, some of the high electricity rates are due to feed-in tariffs for renewables, and increasing demand at times of excess power would allow reducing or eliminating those tariffs. I'm all in favor of eliminating subsidies wherever possible, especially as (on-shore) wind is now generally competitive with fossil fuels without subsidies. [Edit] Actually, I see that Germany is moving away from feed-in tariffs and towards auctions, and others are following, which should help lower rates.

One of the problems for negative pricing is that there's an imbalance between prices paid for imported versus exported energy in Nordpool, which is hurting countries like Denmark when they have lots of wind to dump:
For timeshifting trade with Norway, Denmark exports at DKK 157/MWh and imports at DKK 212/MWh.[32] The correlation is low between wind power in Norway and Denmark.[66] Market price sometimes falls to near or below zero, particularly in high winds and low consumption.[67]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark

It's far better to use that energy in the country and get a positive rate for it (but still less than normal retail) than if they exported it at a loss. That would benefit both power producers and consumers.

As to using regulatory mechanisms to control demand, while negative pricing handles supply surpluses, at the other end of the market (in this country at least) utilities cut deals with major power consumers to give them a lower rate as long as they agree to reduce demand when requested. As smart meters and smart appliances proliferate, it will increasingly be easier to institute real-time demand response for individual consumers, i.e. ToU metering on a minute by minute basis vs. fixed hours-long blocks, allowing demand response for both reductions and increases.

RegGuheert wrote:
GRA wrote:Are you saying that, to take one example, a moderately loaded ICE or steam turbine running continuously and which doesn't experience the thermal and other stresses of frequent starts and stops from intermittent usage won't last longer than one that does?! The reason power producers are willing to pay consumers to take electricity rather than stop and then restart their combustion generating plants is because it's cheaper over the long term.

Similarly, here's what battery university has to say about PEM fuel cells:
Operating a PEM fuel cell in a vehicle, the PEMFC stack has an estimated service life of 2,000–4,000 hours. Wetting and drying caused by short distance driving contributes to membrane stress. Running continuously, the stationary stack is good for about 40,000 hours.[/quote ]
http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/fuel_cell_technology

So, we're talking about 10 - 20x longer life for continuous running versus intermittent use. The question is will there be such an effect with an electrolyzer, and if so, how much?
So your evidence that my estimate of fuel cell life of 10 years was pessimistic is based on your finding a reference to stationary fuel cells with a life of 40,000 hours (4.5 years)? I stand by my assumption that these new electrolyzers will not last longer than 10 years. It is a very good estimate.

I came up with 4.6 years, but that's a matter of rounding. As Battery University is a general source, and I don't know how old that particular section may be, we simply don't know what the life of the systems currently being installed is, especially for this particular purpose. Nor, as I pointed out above, do we know what future electricity costs will be. But I was replying specifically to your statement that continuous usage results in shorter lifetimes than intermittent use, and as I've shown that's simply false in many cases.

Mind you, none of that implies that I think current systems are likely to be cost-effective without subsidies - I believe it will take at least one more round of development if not two or three to get there for H2 and FCs. But then public charging is not yet cost effective either, and BEVs while closer are still uncompetitive. They all still require subsidies to succeed.

RegGuheert wrote:
GRA wrote:As is often the case, we'll just have to agree to disagree. That batteries and FCs improve by steps rather than a constant slope should be of no surprise to anyone. Li-ion is now approaching its theoretical performance limits, and will need a technological step change...
Statements like this one make it clear that you do not believe the part of your signature which says "The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'." You've stated this self-made-up "requirement" for a "technological step change" in the past and I've corrected it before. I'll correct it again. Li-ion batteries DO NOT "need a technological step change". They already operate at near unity round-trip energy efficiency, so there is no step change that can ever be achieved there. The specific energy, energy density, and specific power of Li-ion batteries have already reached extremely-usable levels. Cost is now in a very competitive range. Steady improvements are all that is needed and these are made every day: the results are quite impressive. These improvements in manufacturing cost, durability, operating temperature range, safety, and material content, as well as the basic characteristics of specific energy, energy density, and specific power, are all moving steadily in the direction which is causing the market size for Li-ion batteries to explode.

We have no disagreement that Li-ion batteries are making incremental improvements, or that there is a realistic usage niche for them now. But if consumers are simply unwilling to use them for that purpose except when bribed or forced to, or unable to pay for them, then they clearly aren't 'good enough' yet to be the near-universal replacement for ICEs. 'Good enough' to me means comparable price (without subsidies) and comparable performance to the ICEs that still make up about 97% of the market in this country, and most estimates predict that won't happen until around 2025, and will require exactly the sort of step change in energy density and specific energy as well as price reductions to achieve that I'm referring to. The only AFV tech which I consider 'good enough' at the moment in this country is the moderate range PHEV, e.g. the Prime, Ionic and Niro, as they also have moderate prices that aren't too much higher than HEVs as well as an existing fueling infrastructure, and thus can survive expiration of the fed. tax credit.

In the case of fuel cells, I believe the next major step change will come when they can go to limited-rate mass production instead of the current low-rate very hands-on methods currently required, analogous to a shift from low-rate initial Model 3 production with lots of rework required to Model 3s rolling off the line by the thousands with only spot checks needed before being put onto trucks for delivery to dealers.

RegGuheert wrote:The main area that I think needs further effort is recycling of Li-ion batteries.

No argument that's needed.

RegGuheert wrote:It is very important that everyone recognizes that low-energy efficiency energy storage solutions (like H2-based solutions) are ONLY suitable for niche applications, not mainstream applications. Because they avoid chemical reactions, Li-ion batteries are at the pinnacle of what is achievable in terms of energy efficiency. We need to continue to improve them and then apply them far and wide with the exception being in areas where the energy needs to be stored for long periods of time (due to the material inefficiencies which come into play). If we ignore the value of this important characteristic of Li-ion batteries, we will never achieve meaningful penetration rates for renewable solutions.

It seems we agree that at the moment, we are still talking about niche applications for both these techs.

RegGuheert wrote:
GRA wrote:It will ultimately be up to the market to determine which is more cost-effective for various jobs, and neither of us is going to effect that.

The "market" is NOT choosing H2 FCVs--rather, government officials who are not aware of the disasterous effects of fielding low-efficiency solutions are passing ill-informed laws to distort the economics so that purveyors of fuel-cell technologies get paid for their environmentally-damaging "solutions". You can see this in nearly every posting of H2 new that GRA has made. We all need to stand up to our representatives in government and help them to understand how misguided their efforts in this area really are.

The market isn't choosing BEVs either, Reg, and they and their infrastructure remain as dependent on government funding/mandates as H2/FCEVs. They should get to the point of independence sooner than H2 and FCEVs will.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 9234
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Thu Jan 04, 2018 3:58 pm

Via GCC, more autonomous vehicle-related, but I have seen the large energy draw of AVs raised as a potential issue for BEVs in "Driverless: Intelligent Cars and the Road Ahead"; https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/driverless:

Hyundai Motor and Aurora partner to develop Level 4 autonomous vehicles by 2021; new autonomous features on next-gen fuel cell vehicle
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/01/20180104-hyundai.html

. . . Hyundai’s latest new-generation fuel-cell vehicle, which will make its official global debut at CES 2018 next week, will become the first model to be utilized in the test processes starting this year. The fuel-cell powertrain will offer an ideal platform to implement autonomous driving technologies, which requires a massive amount of power to support the large amount of data communication as well as the operation of hardware such as sensors. The hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicle will be able to provide a stable electric power supply without concerns about driving range, Hyundai said.

Obviously, a fossil-fueled ICE would have even more available energy. I forget just what "Driverless" had to say about how much power was required to run everything but it was substantial. OTOH, for a given level of sensors/processing, power requirements tend to decrease as development continues, so maybe by the time we actually get close to L4 it won't be a major issue.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 9234
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:18 pm

Via GCC, R&D so usual caveats:
SoCalGas, partners developing technology to make carbon fiber during hydrogen production from methane; reducing the cost of H2 and cutting GHG
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/01/20180105-socalgas.html

The low-emission process, selected for funding as part of the H2@Scale initiative (earlier post) by the US Department of Energy’s (DOE) Fuel Cell Technologies Office (FCTO), will create both hydrogen that can be used in fuel cell vehicles and industrial processes, as well as carbon fiber used in applications from medical devices and aerospace structures to building products.

The goal of the partnership, led by startup C4-MCP (C4), is to offset the hydrogen production expense with the sales of the carbon fiber and carbon nanotubes, reducing the hydrogen’s net cost to less than $2 per kilogram, thus helping make hydrogen fueled cars and trucks cost-competitive with conventional gasoline and diesel vehicles.

In addition, this technology will virtually eliminate CO2 emissions from the methane-to-hydrogen process. These efforts support FCTO’s focus on early stage research and development to enable innovations to be demonstrated and to help guide further early stage research strategy. .

The technology commercialization team includes SoCalGas, C4, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) and West Virginia University (WVU). As a result of the DOE selection, the team will negotiate a cooperative research and development agreement (CRADA) consisting of $375,000 in prior year DOE funding and a $375,000 co-funding contribution from C4 and SoCalGas. The CRADA will fund PNNL and WVU to develop the technology. . . .
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 9234
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Tue Jan 09, 2018 6:08 pm

Via GCC:
AkzoNobel and Gasunie investigating large-scale production of green hydrogen; 20MW facility for 3000 tons per year
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/01/20180109-akzo.html

AkzoNobel Specialty Chemicals and Gasunie New Energy are partnering to investigate the possible large scale conversion of sustainable electricity into green hydrogen via the electrolysis of water. Intended for Delfzijl in the Netherlands, the installation would use a 20 megawatt water electrolysis unit, the largest in Europe, to convert sustainably produced electricity into 3,000 tons of green hydrogen a year—enough to fuel 300 hydrogen buses. A final decision on the project is expected in 2019.

The planned 20 megawatt facility would be an important step towards scaling up the electrolysis technology. So far, the largest planned electrolysis unit in the Netherlands has a capacity of 1 megawatt. The eventual aim is to be able to build installations that convert and store sustainable energy in the form of hydrogen on an even larger scale (from 100 megawatts). . . .
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 9234
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:40 pm

Via GCC:
DOE analysis suggests rapid convergence of FCEV and BEV TCOs; FCEVs less expensive for majority of LDV fleet by 2040; mass compounding
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/01/20180114-doe.html

In 2020, battery-electric vehicles will be a cheaper vehicle option than fuel cell electric vehicles for the majority of the light duty fleet (79-97%), according to a new study by a team at the US Department of Energy (DOE) Fuel Cell Technologies Office (FCTO). However, the cost of the two powertrains will converge quickly, and by 2040, FCEVs will be less expensive than BEVs per mile in approximately 71-88% of the LDV fleet, according to the analysis. Additionally, FCEVs will offer notable cost advantages within larger vehicle size classes and for long distances.

Accordingly, the authors conclude in their paper, published in Transportation Reseach Part C, there will be a competitive market space for both FCEVs and BEVs to meet the different needs of light-duty vehicle consumers.

    A common notion among automakers is that BEVs will compete among smaller vehicle size classes with shorter driving ranges, and that FCEVs will compete among larger vehicle size classes with longer daily ranges. A key factor that drives this assumed market segmentation is the difference in mass compounding.

    For BEVs, as the capacity of the battery pack increases, an ever-greater fraction of that capacity is used to move the mass of the batteries rather than the mass of vehicle, passengers, and cargo. This results in a nonlinear relationship between vehicle purchase cost and vehicle range. For FCEVs, after adding the basic components of the powertrain—i.e., the compressed gaseous storage tank, fuel cell, balance of plant components, and small battery—an increase in vehicle range requires only slightly larger components, which has a relatively small impact on vehicle mass and cost. Differences in mass compounding between BEVs and FCEVs may also be visible across vehicle size classes as the ratios of mass, stored energy, and range change.

    This paper advances the conceptual framework of mass compounding described above by examining costs of light-duty BEVs and FCEVs across a spectrum of vehicle driving ranges and size classes. Total cost of ownership (TCO)—including the time discounted vehicle purchase, operating, and maintenance cost—is estimated for FCEVs and BEVs for 77 market segments, defined by vehicle size class and vehicle effective range between refueling. Additionally, costs of range-related inconveniences are added to each vehicle segment. This segmentation helps elucidate the relative economic competitiveness of BEVs versus FCEVs into the future.

    —Morrison et al

The team used DOE’s Autonomie model to project vehicle component-level costs for FCEVs and BEV-50s through BEV-300s (50-mile to 300-mile range EVs at 50-mile increments) for the period from 2020-2040.

The paper assumes a 5-year lag between costs from Autonomie and real-world costs, given an assumed (and typical) 5-year lag time from initial vehicle R&D to the showroom. . . .

Unfortunately, the article itself is behind a paywall: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0968090X18300056


Via GCR:
Electric cars will fail, but we'll build them anyway, say global auto execs: KPMG
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1114758_electric-cars-will-fail-but-well-build-them-anyway-say-global-auto-execs-kpmg

Juxtaposed against a growing electric-vehicle market in China and increasingly stringent global carbon-emission limits, a survey by KPMG has revealed a majority of global auto executives believe electric vehicles are a fool's errand. Those executives believe electric cars will eventually be leapfrogged by fuel-cell vehicles, due to the infrastructure challenges of both lower-rate public charging and DC fast-charging for long-distance travel.

The report, based on data collected from 953 senior executives, paints an interesting picture of future automotive trends as predicted by the world's automaking C-suites.

The main takeaway remains that 62 percent of decision-makers at automakers and their suppliers have a dim view of electric cars. But the KPMG report is filled with contradictory data points. As well as the prevailing negative view on EVs, 50 percent of executives believe nonetheless that battery-electric vehicles will be the key automotive trend as we drive forth into 2025—but mostly because a regulatory environment will dictate it.

Muddying the waters further, 76 percent of automotive executives believe internal-combustion engines will continue as the dominant global drivetrain for many years to come. But as we move toward a lower- and zero-emission future, 78 percent of respondents think the breakthrough technology of the future for road vehicles will be hydrogen fuel cells.

"The faith in FCEVs can be explained," the report explains, "by the hope that FCEVs will solve the recharging and infrastructure issue BEVs face today."

The report also used survey data collected from consumers to summarize their thoughts on future trends. Actual car shoppers were asked which drivetrain technology they'd consider for their next car. The option that received the most respondents was conventional hybrid-electric vehicles, coming in at 36 percent, followed by internal-combustion vehicles at 21 percent. . . .

Direct link to report: https://public.tableau.com/views/GAES2017/GAES?:embed=y&:display_count=yes&:toolbar=no&:showVizHome=no
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

Return to “Business / Economy and Politics”