ydnas7
Posts: 587
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 8:57 am

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Wed Apr 26, 2017 6:22 pm

GRA wrote:Might as well feel sad for all the battery and EV starttups that have failed, then. Whether First Element ultimately succeeds or fails remains to be seen, but at the moment they have the largest network of stations in California (building of which was subsidized by Toyota), including the one closest to me. They also have by far the highest-priced H2 in the state ($16.78/kg. locally), but as they have little competition in most areas and Toyota and Honda are paying for the fuel, that will continue for at least another year or two.


Yes I do feel sad for the fallen early PH/EV pioneer companies,
Better Place
Coda
Fisker

but the industry has grown, PHEVs were a life line to Mitsubishi,
not that long ago, GM's H2 fleet was larger than all other manufacturers EVs fleets. Now that thought seems so ludicrous.

H2 has no future as an automotive fuel, at least no 700bar, semi-cryogenic future anyway. We've gone through this before, but batteries are cheaper than H2 infrastructure, and about 3x more efficient on a electric supply route.

I don't know what China's regs are. but Toyota will have to either put up, or shut up.
Who is going to put up the money for H2 infrastructure? seems like its left to California taxpayers and Toyota's goodwill.
That is not sustainable, Age has consequences, even more than elections do.

Japan invents, Korea builds out, China dominates.
The standard is electric, H2 fuel cells are a foot note in the pages of someone else history.

GRA
Posts: 6829
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Wed Apr 26, 2017 6:44 pm

ydnas7 wrote:
GRA wrote:Might as well feel sad for all the battery and EV starttups that have failed, then. Whether First Element ultimately succeeds or fails remains to be seen, but at the moment they have the largest network of stations in California (building of which was subsidized by Toyota), including the one closest to me. They also have by far the highest-priced H2 in the state ($16.78/kg. locally), but as they have little competition in most areas and Toyota and Honda are paying for the fuel, that will continue for at least another year or two.


Yes I do feel sad for the fallen early PH/EV pioneer companies,
Better Place
Coda
Fisker

A123
Envia
Think
Faraday Future (almost certainly), plus any number of others going back over more than a century.

ydnas7 wrote:but the industry has grown, PHEVs were a life line to Mitsubishi,
not that long ago, GM's H2 fleet was larger than all other manufacturers EVs fleets. Now that thought seems so ludicrous.

H2 has no future as an automotive fuel, at least no 700bar, semi-cryogenic future anyway. We've gone through this before, but batteries are cheaper than H2 infrastructure, and about 3x more efficient on a electric supply route.

I don't know what China's regs are. but Toyota will have to either put up, or shut up.
Who is going to put up the money for H2 infrastructure? seems like its left to California taxpayers and Toyota's goodwill.
That is not sustainable, Age has consequences, even more than elections do.

Japan invents, Korea builds out, China dominates.
The standard is electric, H2 fuel cells are a foot note in the pages of someone else history.

Toyota and Honda obviously disagree with you, and I suspect they've put just a bit more time and money into the calcs than anyone here has (not that that guarantees success). BTW, Honda's also putting up money for H2 fueling infrastructure in the U.S., as is Shell. In other countries as here, it's a mix of government and industry support.

China allows FCEVs but currently not Type 4 tanks, apparently owing to lack of quality control/adequate regulatory controls in China (with some amount that can probably be chalked up to keeping out the competition). See: https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f12/cng_h2_workshop_4_zheng.pdf for some examples of failed Type 4 tanks there, although that dates to 2009.

Also see this paper, starting on the 5th page at the paragraph that begins "Ms. Min Lei":
International Hydrogen Fuel and Pressure Vessel Forum 2010
Beijing, China
September 27-29, 2010
https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/201 ... edings.pdf

which goes into much more detail of the testing and results of Type 4 tanks. After describing the test methods and observed results, she summarized as follows:
Ms Min concluded that after the early stage of use, the residual strength of the cylinders decreased in
varying degrees but the cylinders still met service requirements. The main failure factor of the cylinders
was failure of the plastic inner liner due to quality defects that led to cracking and leakage. Other failure
factors included damage to the outer surface of cylinder from road hazards and inadequate joining of the
cylinder body and the boss. Therefore, the main factors affecting the safety of the cylinders were the
reliability of the inner liner, the reliability of cylinder-boss joints, and residual strength of the wrapped
layer around the cylinder
. Unexpected factors in use include external surface damage, vibration, and
impact.
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.

ydnas7
Posts: 587
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 8:57 am

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Wed Apr 26, 2017 7:04 pm

GRA wrote:A123
Envia
Think
Faraday Future (almost certainly), plus any number of others going back over more than a century.


A123 was a battery company
Envia was a corrupt entity that stole IP from others and presented it as its own
Think, those were too small to be cars anyway.
Faraday Future is redundant if Lucid Motors succeeds

Only 2 American car companies still exist as founded over the past century and a bit. Ford and Tesla. All others have gone bankrupt or been acquired by others.

Many people have industrial experience with hydrogen, it will never ever ever be competitive with electricity for turning motors when there is an iota of cost being relevant.

never ever on this planet anyway.

Toyota and BMW don't seem to have much experience with hydrogen on an industrial scale. take USA H2 production, just how much is used by Toyota and BMW, it will be less than 1% of 1%.
Toyota is simply naive in regards to hydrogen. I doubt a single Toyota automotive engineer has ever worked at a fertilizer or explosive factory that consumes vast quantities of hydrogen. Toyota did not know what they did not know. Experience has been very expensive for them to find out this is a dud.

GRA
Posts: 6829
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Thu Apr 27, 2017 4:48 pm

ydnas7 wrote:
GRA wrote:A123
Envia
Think
Faraday Future (almost certainly), plus any number of others going back over more than a century.


A123 was a battery company
Envia was a corrupt entity that stole IP from others and presented it as its own
Think, those were too small to be cars anyway.
Faraday Future is redundant if Lucid Motors succeeds

Sure, just as all other companies that failed (which is most of them) did so for a variety of reasons. If any of this were easy there'd be a lot more successful companies. On that note:
As “Big Boys” Arrive, Bollore Backs Out Of Electric Car Biz
http://insideevs.com/bollore-to-back-ou ... c-car-biz/

ydnas7 wrote:Only 2 American car companies still exist as founded over the past century and a bit. Ford and Tesla. All others have gone bankrupt or been acquired by others.
As above.

ydnas7 wrote:Many people have industrial experience with hydrogen, it will never ever ever be competitive with electricity for turning motors when there is an iota of cost being relevant.

never ever on this planet anyway.
As we've discussed many times before, lowest cost is only relevant if it has the necessary capability. At the moment, BEVs only have necessary capability in some areas but are too expensive in others; FCEVs have the capability in all of them, but are currently too expensive across the board.

ydnas7 wrote:Toyota and BMW don't seem to have much experience with hydrogen on an industrial scale. take USA H2 production, just how much is used by Toyota and BMW, it will be less than 1% of 1%.
Toyota is simply naive in regards to hydrogen. I doubt a single Toyota automotive engineer has ever worked at a fertilizer or explosive factory that consumes vast quantities of hydrogen. Toyota did not know what they did not know. Experience has been very expensive for them to find out this is a dud.

As I said before, you are entitled to your opinion; I'm willing to wait on events.
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: 6829
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Fri Apr 28, 2017 4:37 pm

Via ABG:
BMW, Norway take on the race for cleaner hydrogen
It takes energy to make energy, and renewables are the key to green H2.
http://www.autoblog.com/2017/04/28/bmw- ... gen-power/

. . . BMW is currently proposing its own hydrogen solutions, showcasing solar-powered electrolysis at the Hannover Trade Fair, as The Detroit Bureau reports . . . And the fact that BMW is pursuing clean hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles is interesting, considering that another German automaker, Mercedes-Benz, is pumping the brakes on its fuel cell program. . . .

Japan is one country where hydrogen has a future, and, as Reuters reports, Australia and Norway are competing to be the source of that hydrogen. With Japanese President Shinzo Abe seeking to showcase hydrogen power for the 2020 Olympic Games, Kawasaki Heavy Industries is looking to develop a supply chain. That's where Norway and Australia come in.

Again, the cleanliness of the source is key here. Australia has been working to create H2 from brown coal. That involves separating the carbon from the coal, and sequestering it underground in old wells. Norway, on the other hand, has a greener solution along the lines of what BMW is pursuing. Norway's Nel Hydrogen has launched a pilot project to produce H2 from renewable sources like hydroelectric and wind energy to be shipped to Japan and elsewhere. Norway's timeline could beat Australia's to market, which would mean cleaner fuel for Japan. . . .

Hopefully, the Australian brown coal chain won't develop, as it largely defeats the purpose of transitioning to H2.
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: 5421
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

Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:07 pm

GRA wrote:Hopefully, the Australian brown coal chain won't develop, as it largely defeats the purpose of transitioning to H2.
And what would that "purpose" be? Likely to distract the world from the fact that BEVs are the endgame in transportation. Or perhaps to ensure that people are NOT able to generate their own transportation fuel at home, instead being forced to purchase it from centralized suppliers.

From the article:
Autoblog wrote:Hydrogen's automotive future is unclear right now. With plug-in cars achieving more range at lower costs, and with a lack of a robust hydrogen fueling infrastructure, it feels like battery electric vehicles are pulling out ahead of their fuel cell counterparts.
It feels like that because it IS like that.

Nowhere in the article do they mention the fact that 2/3 of the energy harvested is thrown away by the hydrolysis->transportation->storage->compression->decompression->fuel cell cycle. That's the kind of inconvenient fact which needs to be suppressed to sell technology like using H2 for automotive transportation.

There are applications for H2 where it has value today:
- Indoor round-the-clock fleets of forklifts (though I suspect Li-ion batteries will eventually win this market)
- Seasonal storage of excess renewable energy production (The question is whether it is better to throw away ALL of the renewable excess generation or preserve 1/3 of it at high cost. I suspect the best solution with the current state of technology is to store it in batteries and use 90% of what is produced in the near term. Let's charge BEVs when there is too much generation!)

As I have said in the past, if you want heat, it would be much better and cheaper to run heat pumps from the electricity and reap a 3:1 IMPROVEMENT in the heat that is produced.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
2011 miles at purchase. 10K miles on Apr 14, 2013. 20K miles (55.7Ah) on Aug 7, 2014, 30K miles (52.0Ah) on Dec 30, 2015, 40K miles (49.8Ah) on Feb 8, 2017.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

GRA
Posts: 6829
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Sun Apr 30, 2017 3:32 pm

RegGuheert wrote:
GRA wrote:Hopefully, the Australian brown coal chain won't develop, as it largely defeats the purpose of transitioning to H2.
And what would that "purpose" be? Likely to distract the world from the fact that BEVs are the endgame in transportation. Or perhaps to ensure that people are NOT able to generate their own transportation fuel at home, instead being forced to purchase it from centralized suppliers. <snip>

Reg, I'm not going through this whole argument cycle again. Feel free to repeat every point we've discussed numerous times, but you're on your own. Anyone who wants to see my replies to same can scroll up through the thread and find the ones that apply.
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.

ydnas7
Posts: 587
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 8:57 am

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Mon May 01, 2017 5:14 pm

https://www.arb.ca.gov/lists/com-attach ... 4HbVI3.pdf

Toyota, Honda, Hyundai

So optimistically they are assuming a 5 year delay, on getting opm.

If only Hydrogen wasn't such a zero sum proposition.
They way that letter was CC'd indicates a level of desperation, its now or never, and Toyota, Honda, Hyundai sense that if they lose this round, its RIP for Hydrogen in California.

GRA
Posts: 6829
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Mon May 01, 2017 5:58 pm

ydnas7 wrote:https://www.arb.ca.gov/lists/com-attach/26-vwzevinvestplan-ws-VDVXI1MwUl4HbVI3.pdf

Toyota, Honda, Hyundai

So optimistically they are assuming a 5 year delay, on getting opm.

If only Hydrogen wasn't such a zero sum proposition.
They way that letter was CC'd indicates a level of desperation, its now or never, and Toyota, Honda, Hyundai sense that if they lose this round, its RIP for Hydrogen in California.

I'm curious as to who you think they should CC it to, if not the membership of the Air Resources Board who will make the decision, the Governor and his designated point person?
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.

ydnas7
Posts: 587
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 8:57 am

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Mon May 01, 2017 8:01 pm

GRA wrote:
ydnas7 wrote:https://www.arb.ca.gov/lists/com-attach/26-vwzevinvestplan-ws-VDVXI1MwUl4HbVI3.pdf

Toyota, Honda, Hyundai

So optimistically they are assuming a 5 year delay, on getting opm.

If only Hydrogen wasn't such a zero sum proposition.
They way that letter was CC'd indicates a level of desperation, its now or never, and Toyota, Honda, Hyundai sense that if they lose this round, its RIP for Hydrogen in California.

I'm curious as to who you think they should CC it to, if not the membership of the Air Resources Board who will make the decision, the Governor and his designated point person?


Ford submission did not CC everybody individually
Nissan and Tesla did not make a submission

Return to “Business / Economy and Politics”