finman100
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:42 am
Delivery Date: 06 Jun 2014
Location: Albany, OR

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Tue May 09, 2017 2:54 pm

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.
Albany, Oregon
2014 Silver SV with charge/LED package. June 2014, I'm in the EV game!
40,200 miles
18.5 kWh on 100% charge (54-ish Ah)
4.2 miles/kWh average
Best trip: all of 'em. They're all no-gas!

GRA
Posts: 7367
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Tue May 09, 2017 4:09 pm

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 wrote:
GRA wrote: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 wrote:
GRA on November 2, 2013 wrote: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 wrote:
GRA wrote: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 wrote:
GRA wrote: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 wrote:
GRA wrote:[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 wrote:
GRA wrote:
RegGuheert wrote: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 wrote:
GRA wrote: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 wrote:
GRA wrote:...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 wrote:
GRA wrote: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 wrote:
GRA wrote: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.
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: 5552
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

Tue May 09, 2017 4:58 pm

GRA wrote:
RegGuheert wrote:
GRA wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote: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?
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: 7367
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Wed May 10, 2017 6:20 pm

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/110 ... l-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/
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: 5552
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 May 18, 2017 2:28 pm

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 wrote: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 wrote: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:

Image

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).
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: 7367
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Thu May 18, 2017 5:35 pm

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 ... 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 ... 16-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). . . .
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: 7367
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Sat May 20, 2017 2:17 pm

Via GCC:
11 companies agree to collaborate on large-scale construction of hydrogen stations in Japan
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/05 ... 19-11.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 ... 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.
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: 5552
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 May 21, 2017 6:23 am

It appears that the DOE is misallocating funds here based on their own definition:
Green Car Congress wrote: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
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: 7367
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Sun May 21, 2017 4:16 pm

RegGuheert wrote:It appears that the DOE is misallocating funds here based on their own definition:
Green Car Congress wrote: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.
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: 5552
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

Mon May 22, 2017 4:27 am

GRA wrote:
RegGuheert wrote:It appears that the DOE is misallocating funds here based on their own definition:
Green Car Congress wrote: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
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

Return to “Business / Economy and Politics”