GRA
Posts: 7458
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Fri May 05, 2017 3:34 pm

RegGuheert wrote:
TonyWilliams wrote:So, then folks thought hydrogen might be ok for large scale grid storage, and then Tesla and others provided batteries (and solar) large enough to be useful on a large scale.
While this is certainly true, we need to all understand what "large scale" really means when we are talking about LI-ion batteries. As Jeff Dahn explained in a TED talk last year: <snip> (sorry, I don't know how to stop the forum software from turning my URL into a full-sized YouTube window) It would take the entire output of a Gigafactory for TWO YEARS to build enough batteries to store enough energy to power Newfoundland for 24 hours.

The simple fact is that we have no storage technology on hand which can readily address the problem of grid-scale storage that is needed to support very high penetration levels of renewable energy. Clearly batteries have an important role to play here. Also clearly, ovesizing renewable generation facilities will become a necessity. While those two approaches together *may* eventually prove to be sufficient at or near the equator, they quickly fall apart as a solution as you move away from the equator toward the poles. Even at the modest latitude where I live, batteries are not a sufficient solution. What will be ultimately needed for countries like the United States to move entirely to renewables is seasonal energy storage capabilities: store energy in the summertime for use in the wintertime.

Seasonal energy storage is an application where hydrogen should have a significant role to play. The idea of using "excess" renewable energy generation to hydrolyze water to produce hydrogen which can then be stored in the natural gas pipelines at ratios up to about 15% is something that likely makes very good sense. This is true even if the hydrogen is simply burned along with the natural gas by the end users, since natural gas is currently used to provide both electricity AND heat in the wintertime. The technology exists to also extract pure hydrogen from the mixed-gas pipeline, but that is an expensive undertaking which will limit its application somewhat.

But, frankly, this application of hydrogen is developing at a glacial pace. I did several Google searches on this subject and did not get a single hit from 2017. I only got a couple of hits from 2016. The most significant event I know of is that Germany started pumping hydrogen into their natural gas pipelines in 2015 (which we discussed here at that time). I suppose that pilot project continues to this day, but I haven't seen any coverage of it since that time. <snip>

Reg, did you miss my post linking an article with some current thoughts on this in the U.S. a few pages back? http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=14744&p=490245&hilit=SoCalGas+%26+UC+Irvine#p490245[/quote]

As to other uses, I've posted recent or impending deployment info of FCEVs in the AFV truck and Non-BEV bus thread, which seems to be picking up pace both here, in Europe and China. I don't see BEV trucks working beyond yard goats and short-haul, as the range is too short and the batteries weigh too much (takes away payload given a fixed GVWR of 80k lbs.), even if there's room for them. The Model X has demonstrated just how poor a towing vehicle a BEV is beyond short ranges, given extended recharging times. As mentioned in that other thread, there are now two companies (Toyota and U.S. Hybrid/Navistar) getting ready to deploy FCEV Class 8 tractors in a dem/val project hauling cargo out of the Port of L.A. to warehouses etc. within 70 or so miles (200 mile total range), something well beyond the capability of a BEV tractor for now.
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: 7458
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Fri May 05, 2017 4:04 pm

Speaking of OPM, via GCC:
California has invested $559M* in cap-and-trade funds in ZEVs; state represents more than 40% of US ZEV sales
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/05 ... 4-cci.html

* Typo in original, should be $599m.

The California Air Resources Board (ARB) announced that California Climate Investments in zero-emission vehicles have reached $599 million since 2013, putting hundreds of thousands of ultra-clean cars, and entire fleets of zero-emission trucks and buses on California roads and highways. ARB made the announcement at the annual Advanced Clean Transportation Expo in Long Beach. . . .

    Cars: 115,000 Light-duty ZEVs and PHEVs (plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles), comprising 71,000 BEVs; 43,000 PHEVs and 1,000 FCEVs.

    Heavy-duty trucks: 46 class 7+8 heavy duty zero-emission trucks.

    Delivery, utility and refuse trucks: 950 trucks comprising 107 utility trucks; 732 hybrid delivery and refuse trucks; and 111 battery-electric delivery trucks.

    Transit and light rail: 407 zero-emission transit buses (309), shuttles (68) and light rail cars (30).

    School buses: 29 electric school buses.

    Off-road, cargo-handling: 46 zero-emission yard trucks, fork lifts, cargo-handling equipment.

One major focus of these investments is to accelerate the market for the next generation of clean, heavy-duty trucks and buses, both those that run on electricity and on hydrogen. Several are demonstration projects, such as putting newly built zero-emission trucks to work side-by-side with existing diesel trucks in rail yards or distribution centers to fully determine their benefits and capabilities in those demanding work environments. . . .
Last edited by GRA on Fri May 05, 2017 4:42 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: 7458
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Fri May 05, 2017 4:35 pm

And now, for a negative assessment of the prospects for H2/FCEVs, via GCR (most if not all points have already been made here):
Energy use for hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles: higher than electrics, even hybrids (analysis)
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/111 ... s-analysis
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: 5590
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

Sat May 06, 2017 3:57 am

GRA wrote:And now, for a negative assessment of the prospects for H2/FCEVs, via GCR (most if not all points have already been made here):
Energy use for hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles: higher than electrics, even hybrids (analysis)
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/111 ... s-analysis
Thanks for the article, most of which was written by Victor A. Ettel, Electrochemical Engineer. It is chock-full of gems:
Victor A. Ettel, edited by GCR wrote:The idea that future transportation will be based on hydrogen produced from renewable electricity proves completely unrealistic, as it would require doubling total electricity generation in the U.S.
Victor A. Ettel, edited by GCR wrote:Considering three-quarters of the electrical energy stored as hydrogen is lost, proposals to use hydrogen to store intermittently produced wind or solar energy will likely prove unrealistic as well.

Whatever share renewable generation attains in the future electricity mix, wasting most of it by making hydrogen to power fuel-cell vehicles makes no sense whatsoever.
GRA, you have repeatedly insisted that efficiency does not matter. And I have challenged you to explain how we would meet the massively-greater electricity needs which H2 FCVs will demand. Your answer has been that we will all move to deliberate communities. However, there is nothing that tells us that this will actually happen.
Victor A. Ettel, edited by GCR wrote:Because of their higher energy consumption, fuel-cell cars generate more greenhouse-gas emissions than other powertrain technologies.

The emissions come from the hydrogen-producing facilities that use natural gas, or from power-generating plants—but their effect on the environment is the same.

Greenhouse-gas generation estimates from hydrogen refueling stations in California show that a Clarity Fuel Cell, powered by hydrogen produced from natural gas or from the relatively low-carbon (or ‘clean’) California grid, produces 80 percent more greenhouse-gas emissions than a Toyota Prius or a Honda Accord Hybrid, a hybrid mid-size sedan of a similar size.

Most importantly, the Clarity generates more than three times the greenhouse-gas emissions of an electric car, such as the Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid, when running solely on battery power.
Victor A. Ettel, edited by GCR wrote:Bob Carter, a senior Toyota vice president, has admitted that driving the company's Toyota Mirai sedan will not be cheap.

His estimate of $50 per 300 miles works out to twice that of driving a Prius, or four times the cost of driving an electric car. Carter based his comment on the U.S. Department of Energy’s projection of $10 per kilogram of hydrogen.
Victor A. Ettel, edited by GCR wrote:Suggestions that the price of hydrogen can be brought down to, for example, $1.14 per kg appear outright dishonest.
Victor A. Ettel, edited by GCR wrote:Another serious hurdle is that hydrogen fueling stations are expensive to install, and probably not viable without public financing.

Seven new stations in California, recently announced by Shell and Toyota, will cost $28 million. California will pay 60 percent of that total.

Operating around the clock, each station can fuel up to 300 hydrogen cars a day.

California expects to spend more than $200 million by 2024 to reach its target of 100 hydrogen stations, capable of supporting 30,000 fuel-cell vehicles—which is a mere 0.1 percent of all vehicles on California roads.
Doing a little math: That means $200 BILLION for ONLY CA to provide the refueling infrastructure if all vehicles were converted to H2 FCVs. And remember, that infrastructure has a lifetime on the order of 10 years, so ongoing maintenance costs will be astronomical, as well.
Victor A. Ettel, edited by GCR wrote:In the U.S., plug-in vehicles currently represent 1 percent of all new cars sold—but they already save more gasoline than do conventional hybrids, which have 2 percent of the market.
Victor A. Ettel, edited by GCR wrote:With available new technologies offering more energy-efficient, cleaner, and more economical alternatives than fuel-cell vehicles could possibly provide, even in a far-distant future, development efforts and heroic investments into hydrogen infrastructure no longer make any sense.
Kudos to Victor A. Ettel. Very well researched and written article!
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: 7458
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Sat May 06, 2017 4:20 pm

RegGuheert wrote:
GRA wrote:And now, for a negative assessment of the prospects for H2/FCEVs, via GCR (most if not all points have already been made here):
Energy use for hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles: higher than electrics, even hybrids (analysis)
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/111 ... s-analysis
Thanks for the article, most of which was written by Victor A. Ettel, Electrochemical Engineer. It is chock-full of gems:
Victor A. Ettel, edited by GCR wrote:The idea that future transportation will be based on hydrogen produced from renewable electricity proves completely unrealistic, as it would require doubling total electricity generation in the U.S.
Victor A. Ettel, edited by GCR wrote:Considering three-quarters of the electrical energy stored as hydrogen is lost, proposals to use hydrogen to store intermittently produced wind or solar energy will likely prove unrealistic as well.

Whatever share renewable generation attains in the future electricity mix, wasting most of it by making hydrogen to power fuel-cell vehicles makes no sense whatsoever.
GRA, you have repeatedly insisted that efficiency does not matter. And I have challenged you to explain how we would meet the massively-greater electricity needs which H2 FCVs will demand. Your answer has been that we will all move to deliberate communities. However, there is nothing that tells us that this will actually happen.

No, what I have said is that efficiency alone will not be the determining factor, and it won't outweigh operational capability and possibly some other desirable features. Nor have I ever said that H2/FCEVs alone are the answer - my whole point is that I believe in pursuing multiple ZEV/low to zero carbon pathways, expecting that each tech will find the applications for which it's best suited.

For example, I believe that if urban dwellers continue the trend towards car/ride sharing, that is an ideal niche for the combination of autonomous BEVs with wireless charging. It's the most energy-efficient approach, and it reduces the biggest roadblock to early mass-scale ZEV personal transport, i.e. the large installed base of housing/parking spaces that have no charging available. Autonomous, wirelessly-charged BEVs will reduce the need for charging stations by at least an order of magnitude and probably more (while also reducing the number of cars), and allow them to be built in clusters in central garages/parking lots rather than at individual sites, reducing the cost of each individual charging station, and speeding up the transition.

FCEVs are better suited for those who need/want a car for all trips and for trip rentals for those who use BEVs for local trips, or who don't have access to convenient charging, but obviously prices (for the entire system) must come down significantly for them to be commercially viable. And I think PHFCEVs are the ideal all-around vehicle if the costs can be gotten to where they need to be, but that requires considerable improvement in both batteries and fuel cells.

RegGuheert wrote:
Victor A. Ettel, edited by GCR wrote:Because of their higher energy consumption, fuel-cell cars generate more greenhouse-gas emissions than other powertrain technologies.

The emissions come from the hydrogen-producing facilities that use natural gas, or from power-generating plants—but their effect on the environment is the same.


Greenhouse-gas generation estimates from hydrogen refueling stations in California show that a Clarity Fuel Cell, powered by hydrogen produced from natural gas or from the relatively low-carbon (or ‘clean’) California grid, produces 80 percent more greenhouse-gas emissions than a Toyota Prius or a Honda Accord Hybrid, a hybrid mid-size sedan of a similar size.

Most importantly, the Clarity generates more than three times the greenhouse-gas emissions of an electric car, such as the Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid, when running solely on battery power.

I'm in general agreement with the factual claims in the article, with the exception of this one and one other (see below). He ignores that California and AFAIA all countries supporting H2 transportation fuel have RFS for them, with the ultimate goal being that it all be generated renewably, which obviously reduces GHGs compared to his calcs. Some are planning to achieve 100% renewable H2 from the start.

Victor A. Ettel, edited by GCR wrote:Bob Carter, a senior Toyota vice president, has admitted that driving the company's Toyota Mirai sedan will not be cheap.

His estimate of $50 per 300 miles works out to twice that of driving a Prius, or four times the cost of driving an electric car. Carter based his comment on the U.S. Department of Energy’s projection of $10 per kilogram of hydrogen.
Victor A. Ettel, edited by GCR wrote:Suggestions that the price of hydrogen can be brought down to, for example, $1.14 per kg appear outright dishonest.

The other factual point of disagreement I have is with his statement on price, implying that $10/kg. is an unrealistic projection. As was mentioned upthread, we already have stations in California retailing H2 for that (actually $9.99/kg), and Edmunds used at least one station for their long-term test Mirai last year that was $9.49 or $9.59/kg. IIRR. I have no idea what the ultimate price of H2 may be - DoE has a goal of no more than $4/kg (untaxed) to make it directly competitive with gas even at U.S. prices lower than they are now, and suggested that it needs to cost about twice what gas does to be competitive at any price (assuming conventional ICEs - HEVs would do better, but HEVs aren't fossil-fuel free unless burning sustainable biofuels, and as we both agree we almost certainly can't produce enough of that to replace anything close to all transportation fuels without reducing food production). When/if they can get there remains to be seen. Personally, I think 50 cents a gallon is likely impossible, but if H2 is being produced form renewables that would otherwise have to be curtailed, i.e. thrown away, maybe it is. But it doesn't need to be that low, it only needs to compete with fossil-fuels for whatever jobs that BEVs and bio-fueled ICEs/HEVs/PHEVs aren't best-suited for. In the interim, it's obvious to me that the quickest, cheapest way to seriously reduce fossil-fueled transportation energy is through mass adoption of HEVs and PHEVs.

RegGuheert wrote:
Victor A. Ettel, edited by GCR wrote:Another serious hurdle is that hydrogen fueling stations are expensive to install, and probably not viable without public financing.

Seven new stations in California, recently announced by Shell and Toyota, will cost $28 million. California will pay 60 percent of that total.

Operating around the clock, each station can fuel up to 300 hydrogen cars a day.

California expects to spend more than $200 million by 2024 to reach its target of 100 hydrogen stations, capable of supporting 30,000 fuel-cell vehicles—which is a mere 0.1 percent of all vehicles on California roads.
Doing a little math: That means $200 BILLION for ONLY CA to provide the refueling infrastructure if all vehicles were converted to H2 FCVs. And remember, that infrastructure has a lifetime on the order of 10 years, so ongoing maintenance costs will be astronomical, as well.

I have no disagreement that current stations aren't commercially viable without subsidies, just as BEV charging stations aren't, and as noted above I've never suggested (or thought wise or necessary) that "all vehicles [be] converted to H2 FCVs." - my sig, which I expanded some months ago to make my position clearer, denies any such intent. The point of continuing to support development and limited deployment of H2/FCEVs is to see if we can get them down the cost curve by improving economies of scale and continuing technical improvement, and take advantage of whatever crossover there will be between them and other EVs, with which they share many common components.

The main disagreement I have with his and your conclusions is that I think it's way too premature to try and predict what's ultimately possible re price/performance based on what's currently possible, at a time when no fossil fuel-free AFV tech has yet reached commercial viability (i.e. without direct subsidies to the consumer), except at a price well beyond what most of the world's car-buying public can afford. If we applied that same logic to BEVs (or any other immature tech), there wouldn't be any Li-ion BEVs now, and those powered by L-A batteries would remain in their tiny, established niche.

RegGuheert wrote:
Victor A. Ettel, edited by GCR wrote:In the U.S., plug-in vehicles currently represent 1 percent of all new cars sold—but they already save more gasoline than do conventional hybrids, which have 2 percent of the market.
Victor A. Ettel, edited by GCR wrote:With available new technologies offering more energy-efficient, cleaner, and more economical alternatives than fuel-cell vehicles could possibly provide, even in a far-distant future, development efforts and heroic investments into hydrogen infrastructure no longer make any sense.
Kudos to Victor A. Ettel. Very well researched and written article!

See above for my areas of disagreement.
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: 5590
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

Sat May 06, 2017 7:39 pm

GRA wrote:
RegGuheert wrote:GRA, you have repeatedly insisted that efficiency does not matter.

No, what I have said is that efficiency alone will not be the determining factor, and it won't outweigh operational capability and possibly some other desirable features.
We all know what you have written, but I have no problem quoting you again:
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.
You didn't then and you still do not today grasp the overriding importance of energy efficiency for ANY technology which will be widely adopted, even though it has been explained to you many times. Your myopia in this area also causes you to promote other highly-polluting technologies such as biofuels.

Then, in the same paragraph I quoted above, you make this unfortunate statement:
GRA on November 2, 2013 wrote:But I think we need the option of an AFV that is good enough for mass adoption as a universal car, at a considerable energy advantage over business as usual, and with the option of generating the 'fuel' from renewables. BEVs aren't there yet, not even Tesla, but FCEVs give us that capability now, albeit still too expensively for the mass market.
This was utter nonsense then and is still utter nonsense today:
Victor A. Ettel, edited by GCR wrote:Greenhouse-gas generation estimates from hydrogen refueling stations in California show that a Clarity Fuel Cell, powered by hydrogen produced from natural gas or from the relatively low-carbon (or ‘clean’) California grid, produces 80 percent more greenhouse-gas emissions than a Toyota Prius or a Honda Accord Hybrid, a hybrid mid-size sedan of a similar size.
GRA wrote:FCEVs are better suited for those who need/want a car for all trips and for trip rentals for those who use BEVs for local trips, or who don't have access to convenient charging, but obviously prices (for the entire system) must come down significantly for them to be commercially viable.
No, they aren't. It should be obvious to ALL observers that a Prius is much more convenient, much cheaper and much less damaging to the environment than an H2 FCV.
GRA wrote:The main disagreement I have with his and your conclusions is that I think it's way too premature to try and predict what's ultimately possible re price/performance based on what's currently possible, at a time when no fossil fuel-free AFV tech has yet reached commercial viability (i.e. without direct subsidies to the consumer), except at a price well beyond what most of the world's car-buying public can afford. If we applied that same logic to BEVs (or any other immature tech), there wouldn't be any Li-ion BEVs now, and those powered by L-A batteries would remain in their tiny, established niche.
I see you are still in denial about the commercial success of BEVs. No mention of the massive subsidies that the incumbent technologies enjoy in the marketplace today. And then you act like a wounded puppy when people accuse you of coming here to bash BEVs. This type of misrepresentation is an excellent example of the types of things you post to earn such responses. Again, from the article you quoted:
Victor A. Ettel, edited by GCR wrote:In the U.S., plug-in vehicles currently represent 1 percent of all new cars sold—but they already save more gasoline than do conventional hybrids, which have 2 percent of the market.
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.

But the fact remains that we CAN make predictions on where technologies can go based on what we know of physics and chemistry. We've covered this in detail before. While H2 FCVs are saddled with unfortunate problem of requiring TWO chemical reactions separated in both space and time plus compression and expansion of H2 gas as well as a significant amount of cooling, BEVs have none of these energy-wasting steps. (As an aside, the focus for Li-ion battery technology is eliminating unwanted chemical reactions. The ideal Li-ion battery would not have any chemical reactions beyond intercalation. These unwanted reactions are being systematically eliminated from Li-ion batteries, making them ever more ideal in their characteristics.) The fuel cell in H2 FCV has a THEORETICAL MAXIMUM EFFICIENCY of only 83%. In other words, it CANNOT reach 100% efficiency, ever. The compression and expansion are required to achieve the desired range. And the cooling is necessary to achieve H2 FCV's singular claim to fame: fast refueling. Not one person, including you, has ever responded to my query about chemical reactions achieving near-ideal energy efficiency. So I'll answer my own query: Most known chemical reactions which occur at near-ideal energy efficiency occur in nature. The chemical reactions that men typically do today take one or two steps using simple catalysts and operate at 50%-or-lower efficiency are often done in the cell using sometimes 15 steps catalyzed by advanced machines which cause the reaction to occur in a nearly-lossless manner. But even if humans eventually learn to build nearly-ideal chemical pathways like those found in nature, that will not solve the efficiency problem for H2 FCVs. Why not? Because the two chemical reactions, hydrolysis and the fuel-cell reaction, are separated by space and time, as previously mentioned. As a result, the H2 FCV will waste a minimum of 17% of the energy stored as it drives around, regardless of whether or not there is a need for the heat generated. (Today, that number is 50%.) Alternatively, the hydrolysis reaction will need a source of continuous heat in order to achieve its theoretical efficiency.

You like to imagine that all of the above issues are solvable, but that is extremely unlikely given the hurdles which must be overcome. And even if they are overcome, those imaginary solutions are likely to add more cost and complexity to a machine of which Rube Goldberg himself could already be proud. We have to look no farther than the existing ICE technology to see where this all leads: very complex mechanical systems, which tend to be far inferior to electronic systems when it comes to reliability.

No, the "Hydrogen Economy" is a ruse foisted on the public to detract from the true end-game technology: BEVs. It's too bad that so many have been suckered into believing that H2 FCVs can be more than a niche solution to specialized problems. We need to focus our efforts today on the most efficient solution, BEVs, if we are to ever have ANY hope of transitioning to renewable energy in the foreseeable future. That transition will be challenging enough without diverting our efforts toward pursuing technologies which are significantly more damaging to our environment than even today's incumbents.
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

Stoaty
Gold Member
Posts: 4460
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:50 pm
Delivery Date: 12 Jun 2011
Leaf Number: 3871
Location: West Los Angeles

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Sun May 07, 2017 7:34 am

Reg, thank you for pointing out again that energy efficiency will be paramount in a renewable energy constrained world.
2011 Leaf with 62,000 miles given to Nephew
2013 Tesla Model S85 with 251 miles rated range at full charge
Leaf Spy Manual
Battery Aging Model Spreadsheet

GRA
Posts: 7458
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Mon May 08, 2017 5:08 pm

RegGuheert wrote:
GRA wrote:
RegGuheert wrote:GRA, you have repeatedly insisted that efficiency does not matter.

No, what I have said is that efficiency alone will not be the determining factor, and it won't outweigh operational capability and possibly some other desirable features.
We all know what you have written, but I have no problem quoting you again:
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.
You didn't then and you still do not today grasp the overriding importance of energy efficiency for ANY technology which will be widely adopted, even though it has been explained to you many times. Your myopia in this area also causes you to promote other highly-polluting technologies such as biofuels.

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. 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).

RegGuheert wrote:Then, in the same paragraph I quoted above, you make this unfortunate statement:
GRA on November 2, 2013 wrote:But I think we need the option of an AFV that is good enough for mass adoption as a universal car, at a considerable energy advantage over business as usual, and with the option of generating the 'fuel' from renewables. BEVs aren't there yet, not even Tesla, but FCEVs give us that capability now, albeit still too expensively for the mass market.
This was utter nonsense then and is still utter nonsense today:
Victor A. Ettel, edited by GCR wrote:Greenhouse-gas generation estimates from hydrogen refueling stations in California show that a Clarity Fuel Cell, powered by hydrogen produced from natural gas or from the relatively low-carbon (or ‘clean’) California grid, produces 80 percent more greenhouse-gas emissions than a Toyota Prius or a Honda Accord Hybrid, a hybrid mid-size sedan of a similar size.

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.

RegGuheert wrote:
GRA wrote:FCEVs are better suited for those who need/want a car for all trips and for trip rentals for those who use BEVs for local trips, or who don't have access to convenient charging, but obviously prices (for the entire system) must come down significantly for them to be commercially viable.
No, they aren't. It should be obvious to ALL observers that a Prius is much more convenient, much cheaper and much less damaging to the environment than an H2 FCV.

Re the bolded section, of course they are, now. When have I ever claimed otherwise, and I made that exact same point about HEVs in a sentence in my most recent post that you didn't choose to quote? Re the last claim, see above.

RegGuheert wrote:
GRA wrote:The main disagreement I have with his and your conclusions is that I think it's way too premature to try and predict what's ultimately possible re price/performance based on what's currently possible, at a time when no fossil fuel-free AFV tech has yet reached commercial viability (i.e. without direct subsidies to the consumer), except at a price well beyond what most of the world's car-buying public can afford. If we applied that same logic to BEVs (or any other immature tech), there wouldn't be any Li-ion BEVs now, and those powered by L-A batteries would remain in their tiny, established niche.
I see you are still in denial about the commercial success of BEVs. No mention of the massive subsidies that the incumbent technologies enjoy in the marketplace today.

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.

RegGuheert wrote:And then you act like a wounded puppy when people accuse you of coming here to bash BEVs. This type of misrepresentation is an excellent example of the types of things you post to earn such responses. Again, from the article you quoted:
Victor A. Ettel, edited by GCR wrote:In the U.S., plug-in vehicles currently represent 1 percent of all new cars sold—but they already save more gasoline than do conventional hybrids, which have 2 percent of the market.
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 subisides. 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? Again, Reg, the public gets the ultimate say, and I'd be perfectly happy to see the adoption pattern go HEV -> PHEV -> BEV and/or FCEV, with bio-fuels filling out whatever niches the others can't handle; I think it will probably happen in that order in any case barring government compulsion, but will be happy to skip one or more steps should the public prove amenable.

RegGuheert wrote:But the fact remains that we CAN make predictions on where technologies can go based on what we know of physics and chemistry. <snip much detail extensively discussed before>

You like to imagine that all of the above issues are solvable, but that is extremely unlikely given the hurdles which must be overcome. And even if they are overcome, those imaginary solutions are likely to add more cost and complexity to a machine of which Rube Goldberg himself could already be proud. We have to look no farther than the existing ICE technology to see where this all leads: very complex mechanical systems, which tend to be far inferior to electronic systems when it comes to reliability.

Reg, I don't imagine they're all solvable, I simply don't know if they are or not to the extent necessary to make a commercially successful product; I'm aware of the difficulties and I have stated the uncertainty of success numerous times, 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.

RegGuheert wrote:No, the "Hydrogen Economy" is a ruse foisted on the public to detract from the true end-game technology: BEVs. It's too bad that so many have been suckered into believing that H2 FCVs can be more than a niche solution to specialized problems. We need to focus our efforts today on the most efficient solution, BEVs, if we are to ever have ANY hope of transitioning to renewable energy in the foreseeable future. That transition will be challenging enough without diverting our efforts toward pursuing technologies which are significantly more damaging to our environment than even today's incumbents.

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. You may well be right as to the direction things ultimately take, and they and I wrong. I simply don't know, and given what I believe's at stake 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.
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: 7458
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Mon May 08, 2017 5:28 pm

Via GCC:
Intelligent Energy tech lead in €3.5M EU DIGIMAN program to advance fuel cell stack mass production; Toyota the automotive partner
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/05 ... 08-ie.html

A new European program has launched to provide a blueprint to enable fully automated future mass manufacture of fuel cell stacks for the automotive market. The objective of the €3.5-million DIGIMAN program is to advance (from Manufacturing Readiness Level 4 to MRL 6) the critical steps of the PEM fuel cell assembly processes and associated in-line quality control and end-of-line testing / handover strategies and to demonstrate a route to automated volume process production capability within an automotive best practice context. . . .

DIGIMAN, is receiving funding from the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (FCH JU) under the EU programme Horizon 2020, which will focus on creating a robust platform for future stack production for zero emission vehicles.

    The reduction of the production cost of fuel cell systems to be used in transport applications is one of the five techno-economic objectives of the FCH, and DIGIMAN fully contributes to the overall strategy. The project will indeed improve the manufacturing techniques by reducing the production time and costs, and increase the quality levels of PEMFC stacks. The project, which gathers industry, academia and research centres, is contributing to maintain Europe at the competitive edge on the key technologies for clean transport.

    —Bart Biebuyck, Executive Director of the FCH2 JU. . . .

The program outputs will demonstrate operational and supply chain cost reduction via seamless integration of digital manufacturing techniques and advanced technology optimized for automated production. Once developed, the blueprint design will enable build-to-print machine configurations with ready to scale production capacity to meet future requirements of more than 50,000 fuel cell stacks by 2020.

    Hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles are available now, but to continue to drive customer adoption, we need to ensure future fuel cell stacks are robustly industrialized and remain cost competitive in the future. The program will bring significant opportunity to further develop Intelligent Energy’s proprietary Air Cooled fuel cell architecture. Additionally, as Intelligent Energy’s Air Cooled fuel cell stack technology operates across multiple products and applications, the project will benefit commercialization within multiple market sectors, including stationary power and drones.

    —Intelligent Energy’s Head of Manufacturing, Richard Peart . . . .
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: 5590
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 10:43 am

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"?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 subisides.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”