GRA
Posts: 8877
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Wed Apr 18, 2018 7:18 pm

Via GCC:
Anglo American Platinum, Shell invest in HyET for electrochemical hydrogen compression
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/04/20180418-amplats.html

Anglo American Platinum (Amplats), alongside Shell Technology Ventures (STV), has taken a stake in High-Yield Energy Technologies (HyET) (earlier post), a Dutch company that has developed cost-effective electrochemical hydrogen compression (EHC) technology. HyET’s technology is a reliable substitute for mechanical hydrogen compression both in existing industrial applications and in hydrogen refueling stations (HRS).

HyET’s latest compressor, the HCS-100, compresses hydrogen by forcing the gas through a platinum-based membrane to reach pressures of up to 1,000 bar (100 MPa) while ensuring its simultaneous purification. With no moving parts, the HCS-100 operates at a fraction of the cost of, and is more reliable than, current mechanical compressors. . . .

In 2017, the HyET team reported the development of new, fully aromatic hydrocarbon membrane enabling even more efficient compression trough higher throughput and minimied parasitic losses (back diffusion), thus reducing the operation cost significantly for hydrogen compression. Besides its use in the electrochemical compressor, the newly developed membrane may also have merit in other electrochemical applications, such as electrolyzers and fuel cells, the developers noted.

Highly compressed hydrogen can store a large amount of energy, much more than conventional batteries. As a comparison: a car drives approximately 100 km on 1kg of compressed hydrogen, whilst it drives a mere 1km on the energy stored in 1kg of batteries. The ability to cost-effectively and reliably compress hydrogen will play an important part in accelerating the adoption of FCEVs and other vehicles such as fuel cell powered trucks and buses. . . .

Assuming the claims are accurate (always questionable when a company's touting a product) and they can commercialize this, it would be one of the step changes needed to reduce H2 costs to gas/diesel competitive levels. Still needed is a step reduction in H2 production costs, but this would substantially reduce the operating costs of H2 stations. The question is what are the relative capital costs between standard compressors and this equipment?
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: 6252
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 Apr 19, 2018 6:04 am

GRA wrote:Via GCC:
Anglo American Platinum, Shell invest in HyET for electrochemical hydrogen compression
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/04/20180418-amplats.html
Highly compressed hydrogen can store a large amount of energy, much more than conventional batteries. As a comparison: a car drives approximately 100 km on 1kg of compressed hydrogen, whilst it drives a mere 1km on the energy stored in 1kg of batteries.
A commenter in the GCC article addressed this bit of propaganda rather nicely:
Commenter gryf at GCC wrote:Stating: you get "100km on 1kg of compressed hydrogen, whilst it drives a mere 1km on the energy stored in 1kg of batteries" is an incorrect System perspective.
The 1 km on 1 kg of batteries is true if the battery system has an energy density of 160 Watt-Hrs/kg (about right for 2018 EV battery technology today).
For a Fuel Cell EV (FCEV), you must add the weight of the Hydrogen Tank, the Fuel Cell, and the battery to equal a Battery EV.
The Toyota Mirai FCEV has an 88 kg Hydrogen TanK (5.7% storage density), a 57 kg Fuel Cell, and a 29 kg NiMH battery which equals 174 kg for 5 kg of Hydrogen. It has 502 km of range, or 502 km / 174 kg which equals 2.88 km per kg.
When a BEV has an energy density of 460 Watt-Hrs/kg there will be no difference.
GRA wrote:Assuming the claims are accurate (always questionable when a company's touting a product) and they can commercialize this, it would be one of the step changes needed to reduce H2 costs to gas/diesel competitive levels. Still needed is a step reduction in H2 production costs, but this would substantially reduce the operating costs of H2 stations. The question is what are the relative capital costs between standard compressors and this equipment?
Note that this work is being promoted by a platinum company. In this case, it sounds as if platinum is being used as a catalyst in order to improved the reliability of the compressors, thereby potentially reducing the lifecycle costs of that step.

At the compressor company's website, they tout the following tagline: "EHG: accelerating the battery-hydrogen transition". I wonder where that transition is taking place. I am aware that there is movement in the forklift industry, but I'm not aware of other areas where such a transition is happening.

They also claim to reduce capex by up to a factor of 4X and opex up to a factor of 2X, so that is significant. They also claim to improve efficiency by about 40%. They also claim to improve availability to 99+% from about 70% and MTBF is increase to over 20,000 hours versus ??. With specifications like that, they should be able to replace incumbent technologies. Indeed. The company claims that "EHC can outcompete any mechanical compressor in any application.

But note that driving up the platinum content in the H2 FCV chain will inevitably drive up the unit costs of platinum if any attempt is made to ramp up production of these things. That will tend to work against any cost savings that adding the platinum provided in the first place. In other words, this approach may have merit in the H2 production world outside of any application which would require large quantities of the equipment in question, such as the one which is the topic of this thread.

Finally, note that the compression losses of 4 kWh/kg of this new device could instead be used to propel a BEV almost a third of the distance that the compressed H2 can propel the same car. In other words, it represents a loss of about 30%. This compares to a Li-ion battery which only loses about 2% of the energy it stores in the round-trip storage process. And this is one of the smallest losses in the entire H2 FCV energy chain. Overall, this H2 FCV chain throws away about 2/3 of the starting energy. That lost energy means that about for each H2 FCV that is fielded, three BEVs could have been put into service and fueled. (And that completely ignores the massive additional costs of the vehicle and the refueling infrastructure needed for H2 FCVs.)
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K miles: Apr 14, 2013, 20K miles (55.7Ah): Aug 7, 2014, 30K miles (52.0Ah): Dec 30, 2015, 40K miles (49.8Ah): Feb 8, 2017, 50K miles (47.2Ah): Dec 7, 2017.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

GRA
Posts: 8877
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:03 pm

<Snip>

RegGuheert wrote:
GRA wrote:Assuming the claims are accurate (always questionable when a company's touting a product) and they can commercialize this, it would be one of the step changes needed to reduce H2 costs to gas/diesel competitive levels. Still needed is a step reduction in H2 production costs, but this would substantially reduce the operating costs of H2 stations. The question is what are the relative capital costs between standard compressors and this equipment?
Note that this work is being promoted by a platinum company. In this case, it sounds as if platinum is being used as a catalyst in order to improved the reliability of the compressors, thereby potentially reducing the lifecycle costs of that step.

At the compressor company's website, they tout the following tagline: "EHG: accelerating the battery-hydrogen transition". I wonder where that transition is taking place. I am aware that there is movement in the forklift industry, but I'm not aware of other areas where such a transition is happening.

They also claim to reduce capex by up to a factor of 4X and opex up to a factor of 2X, so that is significant. They also claim to improve efficiency by about 40%. They also claim to improve availability to 99+% from about 70% and MTBF is increase to over 20,000 hours versus ??. With specifications like that, they should be able to replace incumbent technologies. Indeed. The company claims that "EHC can outcompete any mechanical compressor in any application.

But note that driving up the platinum content in the H2 FCV chain will inevitably drive up the unit costs of platinum if any attempt is made to ramp up production of these things. That will tend to work against any cost savings that adding the platinum provided in the first place. In other words, this approach may have merit in the H2 production world outside of any application which would require large quantities of the equipment in question, such as the one which is the topic of this thread.

I suspect that it probably uses a lot less Pt at a central location, rather than spreading it out in large numbers of individual fuel cell stacks. The latter have all been reducing (or replacing) Pt, so we'd have to see what the net effect might be.

<snip rest>
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: 8877
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Sat Apr 21, 2018 12:56 pm

See earlier post: https://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=14744&p=512551&hilit=toyota+long+beach#p512551

Via GCC:
Shell and Toyota moving forward with hydrogen facility for freight at Port of Long Beach with $8M award from CEC
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/04/20180420-tmcshell.html

. . . The funding, which is contingent upon the approval of the project at an upcoming CEC meeting, forms part of the CEC’s Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program, which helps develop hydrogen and electric infrastructure at ports, warehousing and distribution centers in California. Shell and Toyota expect the facility to encourage the use of zero-emission hydrogen fuel cell electric trucks in and around Long Beach, one of the world’s largest freight hubs.

If approved, Shell will build, own and operate a hydrogen station at the Toyota Logistics Services location at the Port of Long Beach, fueling Toyota’s Project Portal heavy-duty fuel cell proof-of-concept truck and public fleets. (Earlier post.) Shell will source its hydrogen from Toyota’s adjacent Tri-Gen facility (earlier post), which produces hydrogen from 100% renewable biogas.
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: 8877
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Mon Apr 23, 2018 7:39 pm

Via GCC:
AHEAD to begin supply of hydrogen from Brunei to Japan in January 2020
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/04/20180423-ahead.html

SQL errors, or I'd post some of it. SMR, mix with toluene and turn into MCH and liquify at -253 in Brunei, then ship to Japan and remove 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: 6252
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 Apr 24, 2018 3:14 am

GRA wrote:Via GCC:
AHEAD to begin supply of hydrogen from Brunei to Japan in January 2020
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/04/20180423-ahead.html

SQL errors, or I'd post some of it. SMR, mix with toluene and turn into MCH and liquify at -253 in Brunei, then ship to Japan and remove H2.
If anyone is still under the illusion that H2 is a renewable resource, this should help to shatter that belief.
Greeen Car Congress wrote:The hydrogen in Brunei will be produced by steam reforming.
Lest there be any confusion, what is meant is that they are steam reforming petroleum. I suppose this will be sold to the Japanese people as a demonstration of how their government is moving to a new, clean energy future. In reality, what they are moving is Japanese emissions to Brunei.

I suppose Brunei will (or perhaps already does) experience a much higher rate of cancer than most of the world, just as Singapore does. While it cannot be proven, many in Singapore suspect that their very high rate of cancer is the direct consequence of their massive refinery which is just off the southern shore of the island nation. Oil has long been a major source of the prosperity of Singapore (though they have developed many other businesses to fuel their economy). In short, oil has been a blessing to Singapore, but it has come at a high cost to many who live there.

Let's all give up this nonsensical concept of H2 being a "zero emissions" fuel. In reality, the creation and use of H2 and the devices associated with it results in more emissions than virtually every other fuel on the planet. And I use the term "fuel" very loosely, since hydrogen is nothing more than a very inefficient energy carrier.

MSDS for methylcyclohexane:
Potential Acute Health Effects:
Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of ingestion, of inhalation. Slightly hazardous in case of eye contact (irritant).
Potential Chronic Health Effects:
Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of ingestion, of inhalation. Slightly hazardous in case of eye contact (irritant).
CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. TERATOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available.
DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY: Not available. The substance is toxic to lungs, the nervous system. Repeated or prolonged
exposure to the substance can produce target organs damage.

MSDS for toluene:
Potential Acute Health Effects:
Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of eye contact (irritant), of ingestion, of inhalation. Slightly hazardous in case of
skin contact (permeator).
Potential Chronic Health Effects:
CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: A4 (Not classifiable for human or animal.) by ACGIH, 3 (Not classifiable for human.) by IARC.
MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. TERATOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY: Not
available. The substance may be toxic to blood, kidneys, the nervous system, liver, brain, central nervous system (CNS).
Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target organs damage.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K miles: Apr 14, 2013, 20K miles (55.7Ah): Aug 7, 2014, 30K miles (52.0Ah): Dec 30, 2015, 40K miles (49.8Ah): Feb 8, 2017, 50K miles (47.2Ah): Dec 7, 2017.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

GRA
Posts: 8877
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Tue Apr 24, 2018 4:42 pm

RegGuheert wrote:
GRA wrote:Via GCC:
AHEAD to begin supply of hydrogen from Brunei to Japan in January 2020
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/04/20180423-ahead.html

SQL errors, or I'd post some of it. SMR, mix with toluene and turn into MCH and liquify at -253 in Brunei, then ship to Japan and remove H2.
If anyone is still under the illusion that H2 is a renewable resource, this should help to shatter that belief.
Greeen Car Congress wrote:The hydrogen in Brunei will be produced by steam reforming.
Lest there be any confusion, what is meant is that they are steam reforming petroleum. I suppose this will be sold to the Japanese people as a demonstration of how their government is moving to a new, clean energy future. In reality, what they are moving is Japanese emissions to Brunei.

I suppose Brunei will (or perhaps already does) experience a much higher rate of cancer than most of the world, just as Singapore does. While it cannot be proven, many in Singapore suspect that their very high rate of cancer is the direct consequence of their massive refinery which is just off the southern shore of the island nation. Oil has long been a major source of the prosperity of Singapore (though they have developed many other businesses to fuel their economy). In short, oil has been a blessing to Singapore, but it has come at a high cost to many who live there.

Let's all give up this nonsensical concept of H2 being a "zero emissions" fuel. In reality, the creation and use of H2 and the devices associated with it results in more emissions than virtually every other fuel on the planet. And I use the term "fuel" very loosely, since hydrogen is nothing more than a very inefficient energy carrier.

Uh, Reg, sorry to interrupt your rant, but absolutely no one is claiming that SMR-produced H2 is a zero emission fuel. Only H2 produced from renewables can be (ignoring the emissions involved in producing the equipment required to convert those renewables into a useful form, just as we usually do for renewably-produced electricity equipment like wind turbines and PV modules), or some fossil-fuel tech that can utilize CCS if that ever works. I happen to think this is a bad idea and Japan should be concentrating more on renewably-sourced H2 even though it will slow any transition, but that's their call. This appears to be the roadmap they've laid out for themselves:
Basic Hydrogen Strategy (key points)
http://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/2017/pdf/1226_003a.pdf

Carry on.
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: 6252
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 Apr 24, 2018 5:25 pm

GRA wrote:Uh, Reg, sorry to interrupt your rant, but absolutely no one is claiming that SMR-produced H2 is a zero emission fuel.
No, what you and many others do is talk about "zero-emission vehicles" and pretend that this is a virtue in itself.

That is a massive lie of omission. What I pointed out that you completely glossed over is that fossil fuels are used as the source and toxic petroleum products will be put into ships and sailed on the ocean where those chemicals can pollute the most water possible.

I'm sorry, but this new technology is NOT progress. This is a way for the petroleum industry to green-wash their activities while greenwashing it the entire way. They can probably charge more for their products at the same time by getting gullible politicians to subsidize their activities with OPM.

As I have said many times before, we need to vigorously oppose this type of activity, not promote it as you and many others do.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K miles: Apr 14, 2013, 20K miles (55.7Ah): Aug 7, 2014, 30K miles (52.0Ah): Dec 30, 2015, 40K miles (49.8Ah): Feb 8, 2017, 50K miles (47.2Ah): Dec 7, 2017.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

GRA
Posts: 8877
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Tue Apr 24, 2018 5:36 pm

RegGuheert wrote:
GRA wrote:Uh, Reg, sorry to interrupt your rant, but absolutely no one is claiming that SMR-produced H2 is a zero emission fuel.
No, what you and many others do is talk about "zero-emission vehicles" and pretend that this is a virtue in itself.

Sure, which they are. If you doubt this, go on a walk or bike ride as I often do, and stand behind a ZEV and then an ICE (especially a diesel pickup truck).

RegGuheert wrote:That is a massive lie of omission. What I pointed out that you completely glossed over is that fossil fuels are used as the source and toxic petroleum products will be put into ships and sailed on the ocean where those chemicals can pollute the most water possible.

Reg, if I wanted to gloss over it I wouldn't have posted it in the first place. I post news articles related to H2 and Fuel cells here, regardless of whether or not I agree with the ideas contained therein. Sometimes I state my opinion of them, and sometimes I don't.

RegGuheert wrote:I'm sorry, but this new technology is NOT progress. This is a way for the petroleum industry to green-wash their activities while greenwashing it the entire way. They can probably charge more for their products at the same time by getting gullible politicians to subsidize their activities with OPM.

As I have said many times before, we need to vigorously oppose this type of activity, not promote it as you and many others do.

Where did I promote this? I've said on many occasions that a transition to H2 only makes sense if the goal is to make it 100% renewable at some point in the not-too-distant future. That it won't be initially is obvious, just as most electricity isn't 100% renewable yet, but that is the goal for both. Otherwise it's not worth the attempt.
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: 6252
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 Apr 24, 2018 5:52 pm

GRA wrote:Reg, if I wanted to gloss over it I wouldn't have posted it in the first place. I post news articles related to H2 and Fuel cells here, regardless of whether or not I agree with the ideas contained therein. Sometimes I state my opinion of them, and sometimes I don't.
You come here and do the following:
- Promote H2 vehicles and technology
- Promote PHEV vehicles
- Point out the limitations of BEVs

One thing I don't see you do is:
- Point out the problems and limitations of H2 vehicles and technology.

When you post an article about a very negative development in the H2 arena, I don't recall a single incident when you have condemned what is going on, including this one.

Simply put, there is nothing balanced about your treatment of the H2 issue. It's pure promotion.
GRA wrote:Where did I promote this? I've said on many occasions that a transition to H2 only makes sense if the goal is to make it 100% renewable at some point in the not-too-distant future. That it won't be initially is obvious, just as most electricity isn't 100% renewable yet, but that is the goal for both. Otherwise it's not worth the attempt.
The belief that a so-called "hydrogen economy" will eventually become a zero-emission economy is the highest form of naivete. You have to believe a lot of false things to come to that conclusion, not least of which is that the oil companies who are investing so heavily in converting their operations over to sell hydrogen instead of gasoline and diesel will simply pull out some day. The reality is that they intend to capture and hold the lions share of that market.

The *only* way to prevent that eventuality is to keep H2 where it is today: an also-ran.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K miles: Apr 14, 2013, 20K miles (55.7Ah): Aug 7, 2014, 30K miles (52.0Ah): Dec 30, 2015, 40K miles (49.8Ah): Feb 8, 2017, 50K miles (47.2Ah): Dec 7, 2017.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

Return to “Business / Economy and Politics”