GRA
Posts: 9113
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:32 pm

Both via GCC:
DOE: global electrolyzer sales reached 100 MW per year in 2017
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/08/20180817-doefotm.html

Global sales of electrolyzers in 2017 were estimated to be 100 megawatts per year, according to the US Department of Energy (DOE).

That is enough to produce approximately 50,000 kilograms of hydrogen per day (assuming 50 kWh/kg, running full time). . . .

So, enough for 1,000 cars/day assuming a 5 kg fill, a bit more with drivers keeping a reasonable reserve. Of course, I imagine most of these aren't being used to produce H2 for transportation.

PowerCell, Siemens to partner on development of marine fuel cell systems; integration into BlueDrive
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/08/20180817-siemens.html

. . . The aim of the collaboration is to develop an energy supply system for vessels which is based on fuel cells. Siemens will supply the SISHIP BlueDrive integrated energy and propulsion system into which PowerCell will install its fuel cell modules.

The SISHIP BlueDrive integrated energy and propulsion system is based on a fully integrated energy distribution in which the main control panel and all drives are contained in a single, compact unit. Various sub-assemblies can be flexibly and easily connected to the energy supply in ships.

The batteries being increasingly used in ferries in recent years have paved the way for this development.

The next stage is to extend the energy supply concept to include fuel cells—which are characterized by high efficiency and pollution-free operation. They are low-noise and are based on the almost unlimited availability of water as a resource. The fuel cells will be supplied by PowerCell Sweden AB.

Possible joint projects could include energy supply systems for ferries, yachts, cruise ships and research vessels.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has set a target to reduce the emissions from commercial shipping with 50% by 2050, which will require a substantial decrease in the use of fossil fuels. In June, a power generating system based on PowerCell’s fuel cell stacks and developed by PowerCell’s Norwegian joint venture Hyon, received the first approval in principle for a fuel cell-based power generating system for marine vessels. . . .
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: 9113
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:37 pm

FWIW (not much here, I'm sure), via GCR:
Commentary: Electric-car and fuel-cell advocates should agree...to agree
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1118284_commentary-electric-car-and-fuel-cell-advocates-should-agree-to-agree

. . . Many our readers argue vociferously that the only green cars run on batteries alone—no, thank you, to range-extending gas engines, either.

Others seem to hold out for the hydrogen economy, with cars that can go more than 300 miles on a five-minute fill-up and use purely renewable energy from water—however far off that future might be.

So when we came across an old study from the University of California, Irvine, that compares the environmental impact of both technologies, it piqued our interest. Unfortunately, the study is no longer available online, but we were able to capture its two key charts to share.

Lots of studies, including this one, show that on a well-to-wheels basis—looking at the energy required and the emissions created to produce the fuel and drive the cars—battery electric cars emit about 50 percent less greenhouse-gas pollution as reflected in their higher MPGe ratings.

Still, many skeptics have expressed concern about the extra energy and pollution required to produce and recycle large, heavy batteries for electric cars.

Electric cars today are still new enough that the footprint of lithium mining is small, and few electric cars with lithium-ion batteries are old enough yet to feed a large battery recycling enterprise, which could provide better insights on the economic and environmental feasibility of battery recycling.

The 2014 UC Irvine study addresses these concerns by looking at the greenhouse-gas emissions of many types of cars, including battery-electric and fuel-cell cars, in two ways. The study examines pollution on a well-to-wheels basis, and on a life-cycle basis—looking from cradle to grave of production of the raw materials to build the car and drive it, then disposing of all of its components.

The study affirms that battery-electric cars are more efficient every mile they drive on a well-to-wheels basis. Looking at emissions on a life-cycle basis, however, it gives the advantage to fuel-cell vehicles.

Part of hydrogen's advantage, the study notes, stems from its inherent storage capabilities. Producing electricity from intermittent renewable energy sources such as wind and solar requires a way to store the energy for later use when a driver may need it to drive the car. (That's why hardly any engineers are working on practical, road-going sailing vessels or pure solar-powered cars without batteries, for example.)

The advantage in life-cycle emissions for fuel-cell cars in the study comes down to the need to produce additional batteries to store renewable energy for the grid or in homes to charge cars when they're parked—and when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. Of course, many of these batteries are helpful in expanding the use of renewable energy for homes and businesses as well as cars.

Whether well-to-wheels or life-cycle analysis is more important, whether one technology is needed to serve as a transition to the other, or whether the two can usefully coexist, are all valid questions. Each technology has its advantages.

So far, the infrastructure to produce and distribute renewably produced hydrogen is embryonic at best. Even some large hydrogen suppliers don't want to get involved in the business of providing transportation fuels. So that clean hydrogen future may still be years or decades in the future, and electric-car supporters may have a valid argument that the world can't wait that long.

In the meantime, maybe we can all just agree—to agree.

As I'm often accused here of being a partisan of this or that AFV tech despite all the evidence to the contrary, just to make it crystal clear, that last bolded section also represents my own opinions. Many here disagree, and I don't ascribe any nefarious motives to their disagreement - reasonable people can arrive at different conclusions from the same evidence. It would be nice if that worked both ways.
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: 9113
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:47 pm

Some more from the CARB 2018 Annual Evaluation of FCEV and H2 fuel station report (see upthread):
Selection of Renewable Hydrogen Production Facility under GFO 17-602

On June 13, 2018, the Energy Commission approved an award for a 100% renewable hydrogen production
facility under GFO 17-602. The selected facility will be developed by Stratos Fuel, the developer of the
hydrogen fueling station in Ontario. While the solicitation required a minimum production capacity of 1 ton
(1,000 kilograms) per day intended primarily for use at light-duty FCEV fueling stations, the awarded funds
will be utilized to add 2 tons/day production capacity to a 3 ton/day facility already under development
. The
full project is expected to be developed in three phases:

    • Phase 1: Development of a 5,000 kg/day electrolyzer-based hydrogen production facility in
    Moreno Valley. The electrolyzers will use grid-tied 100% renewable electricity for the production
    of hydrogen fuel that will be supplied to in-state hydrogen refueling stations
    . Current California
    Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review and Energy Commission grant funds include this phase.

    • Phase 2: Future planned expansion of Phase 1 with an additional 10,000 kg/day of
    electrolyzer capacity on an adjacent parcel
    . Current California Environmental Quality
    Act (CEQA) review includes this phase, but Energy Commission grant funds do not.

    • Phase 3: Long-term planned expansion to include a 15-ton/day biogas steam-methane
    reformation system and a 20-ton liquefaction plant on an adjacent parcel
    . Current
    CEQA review includes this phase, but Energy Commission grant funds do not.

Selection of a Hydrogen-Powered Freight Infrastructure Project under GFO 17-603

On April 5, 2018, the Energy Commission announced the recommendation of award for three projects in
its Advanced Freight Infrastructure solicitation. One of the selected projects was for the development of a
hydrogen fueling facility at the Port of Long Beach. The project is a collaborative effort between Shell (doing
business as Equilon Enterprise, LLC), Toyota, and FuelCell Energy. The refueling facility will be supplied by an
on-site tri-generation facility with the capability to produce hydrogen for transportation fueling, electricity
for on-site facility use, and thermal energy for other local heating uses. These on-site resources are produced
via a Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell operating on directed bio-waste gas produced by agricultural processes
in California’s Central Valley
. The fueling infrastructure in this project will be used to fuel trucks provided by
Toyota (the previously-announced Project Portal Class 8 freight hauling truck), smaller FCEV trucks in drayage
service, and light-duty Mirai FCEVs as they are delivered via cargo ship and then transported to dealerships
throughout California. In total, the facility will be developed to provide fueling capacity of 1,270 kilograms
per day, 1,000 of which is intended for the heavy-duty truck pilot and demonstration
. . . .

CARB Analysis of DMV Registrations and Auto Manufacturer Survey
Reponses

Based on the DMV registration data, as of April 4, 2018, there were 4,411 FCEVs actively registered in the
state of California. The auto manufacturer members of the CaFCP have recently initiated an effort to provide
updated public deployment estimates based on their sales data, and to publish these estimates through
the Partnership website [1]. DMV registration data are in agreement with this industry estimate, which was
reported to be 4,421 through March 2018. Panel A of Figure 3 provides the county-based distribution of the
currently registered vehicles. The majority are registered in Los Angeles (35%) and Orange Counties (24%),
with much of the remainder registered to Santa Clara (14%), Alameda (5%), Contra Costa (3%), Sacramento
(3%), and San Mateo (2%) counties
. It should be noted that there are some registrations reported in counties
with no Open-Retail hydrogen stations within the county or in nearby counties. While the numbers are small,
and CARB does not have a method to verify their source, it is likely these registration records may fall in one
of two categories:

• Erroneous data collection and/or entry in the DMV registration database, or
• FCEV deployments that depend on private and/or research-based
fueling facilities near the registered location. . . .

Current Open and Funded Stations

Compared to the 2017 Annual Evaluation, there have been fewer changes in the set of open and funded
hydrogen fueling stations over the past year. The most impactful changes have been2
:
• The addition of the Beverly Hills, Mission Hills, Redwood City, and Studio City stations to
the hydrogen fueling network through a second round of awards under GFO 15-605

• Three stations that encountered completion difficulties (North Hollywood, Rohnert Park,
and Orange) are not included in this analysis; the removal of these stations from this analysis
results in reduced assessment coverage in the respective nearby neighborhoods.

In addition to these changes, the timing of individual stations’ projected opening dates have been updated,
the Chino station has been added back into projected station counts, and the capacities of the stations
awarded to FirstElement Fuel in GFO 15-605 have been updated to 500 kg/day. . . .


Understanding FCEV First Adopters’ Purchase Decisions

Beyond characterizing FCEV adopters themselves, it is also important to understand the motivations and
decision-making process that led them to the choice to own or lease an FCEV. Figure 21 and Figure 22
show adopters’ level of interest in FCEVs at the time they were shopping for their vehicle and the other
vehicle technologies they considered alongside FCEVs. According to these results, there does appear to be
significant cross-shopping between FCEVs and the other zero- and low-emission technologies available to
consumers, even when consumers are also considering conventional gasoline vehicles
. BEVs are the most common
alternative considered. In addition, FCEV adopters tend to have at least some prior knowledge
and interest developed in the technology before making their purchase decision, with a significant portion
entering the purchase decision with a single vehicle in mind. Still, approximately 15% of FCEV adopters were
not even aware of the technology before they began shopping for a new vehicle.

FCEV adopters may be motivated by a variety of factors when making the decision to purchase their vehicle.
Figure 23 shows the relative importance of several factors investigated through the CVRP survey. The most
influential factor appears to remain the potential to reduce environmental impacts, providing further evidence
that FCEV adopters are motivated by environmental concerns
. Access to HOV lanes (a non-monetary
incentive) was the second-most influential factor. This highlights the need for complementary policies to
help build this new consumer market and may be an indicator of the importance of considering commute
and other travel routes when assessing the need for new station locations in CHIT. Financial factors ranked
approximately equivalently to a desire for new technology and energy independence. However, when asked
9 Respondents were asked to identify up to two vehicle technologies to identify the single most influential
factor in their purchase decision, reduced environmental impacts was the most commonly-selected option but
financial considerations were the second-most influential followed by HOV lane access, as shown in Figure 24.

The CVRP survey also explores the correlation between station network development and FCEV purchase
decisions. Figure 25 shows the relative importance of various categorized station locations (near home, along
their commute, on the way to other frequent destinations, and on the way to or near vacation destinations)
to FCEV adopters’ purchase decisions. As previously reported, the availability of fueling stations near home
appears to be the most strongly influential network-based consideration for purchase decisions
, with fueling
along commute routes having slightly less influence. The need for stations along frequent daily routes (such as
on the way to errands or other daily and weekly-visited destinations) and long-distance or travel destinations
continues to appear to be low-priority for FCEV adopters. These observations are in agreement with
fundamental assumptions of CHIT’s coverage and coverage gap calculations. . . .

Comparison of Hydrogen Fueling to Gasoline Fueling Experience

The ultimate goal of the hydrogen fueling network development in California is to provide a fueling experience
that provides FCEV drivers the same utility for their vehicles as gasoline drivers experience with theirs. One
potential metric for gauging the hydrogen fueling network’s approach to parity with gasoline is a comparison
of the number of hydrogen fueling stations that drivers may routinely rely on for their travels and the number
of gasoline stations they had previously relied on. Figure 30 shows FCEV adopters’ prior experience with
gasoline station fueling and their current experience with hydrogen. Unsurprisingly, the data make it clear that
significant hydrogen fueling station network development remains. A disproportionate amount (~42%) of FCEV
drivers rely on a single station for their daily travels (compared to ~12% of prior reported gasoline experience).
FCEV drivers’ prior experience with the gasoline network tended towards regularly relying on two to four
fueling stations, with a significant number of respondents having previously relied on up to ten stations. FCEV
drivers do not yet rely on more than three stations to any appreciable degree, with the vast majority relying on
only one or two stations. This highlights the need to continue developing the station network with the goal of
providing service and convenience increasingly similar to the gasoline fueling network. . . .
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.

SageBrush
Posts: 2693
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: Colorado

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Sat Aug 18, 2018 3:51 pm

The groups drinking at the CA government teat are celebrating retail leases of 10-15 cars a day.
Pushed by massive subsidy and so far as I know, fuel paid for by the manufacturer.

They must be competing with Nuclear for the absolutely worst, most expensive white elephant.
2013 LEAF 'S' Model with QC & rear-view camera
Bought off-lease Jan 2017 from N. California
Car is now enjoying an easy life in Colorado
3/2018: 58 Ahr, 28k miles
-----
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR, Delivered 6/2018

GRA
Posts: 9113
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Tue Aug 21, 2018 11:46 am

Via GCC:
Bosch entering strategic partnership with SOFC company Ceres Power; to make £9M investment
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/08/20180821-ceres.html

. . . The two companies signed a collaboration and license agreement, for the further development of technology, and establishment of small-volume production operations at Bosch, as well as a share purchase agreement, on 20 August.

Ceres and Bosch have been working together through a joint development agreement (JDA) that Ceres first announced on 10 January 2018. Bosch was not named at the time for confidentiality reasons.

The Collaboration and Licence Agreement includes joint development agreements. These agreements provide very significant staged revenues to Ceres through technology transfer and licensing and longer-term royalties on 5 kW SteelCell stacks, as well as initial engineering services. The initial value to Ceres Power to 2020 will be around £20 million (US$26 million), subject to performance criteria.

Ceres Power, a UK-based spin-out from Imperial College, is the developer of SteelCell low-cost Solid Oxide Fuel Cell technology. (Earlier post.) Five global OEMs have signed joint development agreements to work with the SteelCell including Cummins (earlier post), Honda (earlier post) and Nissan (earlier post).

The properties of the SteelCell enable start-up times and robustness to vibration which make it commercially viable for automotive applications such as range extenders for electric vehicles.

Ceres’ strategy is to commercialize the next-generation SOFC technology through mass production with partners, with a particular focus on using this technology for grid-based and distributed power generation. The intention is that SOFC systems will be used in cities, factories, and data centers, and also as a power supply for charging points for electric vehicles. . . .

    The vision for our partnership with Bosch is to set a new industry standard for solid-oxide fuel cells, leading to widespread adoption in distributed power supplies. By combining Ceres’ unique Steel Cell technology with Bosch’s engineering, manufacturing, and supply chain strength we will establish a strong partnership that can make our technology even more competitive and prepare it for mass production.

    —Phil Caldwell, the CEO of Ceres Power. . . .

Together with Ceres Power, Bosch will work on making SOFC technology available for various applications: the vision is to have small power stations set up throughout cities, as well as in industrial areas. Because these standardized plants are highly flexible, they will be able to cover peak demand better, as well as faster, than conventional plants.

The aim is for one SOFC module to generate 10 kW of electrical power. Where more electricity is needed, any number of modules with the same output can simply be interconnected.
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: 6294
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Wed Aug 22, 2018 7:15 am

GRA on December 27, 2017 wrote:That batteries and FCs improve by steps rather than a constant slope should be of no surprise to anyone. Li-ion is now approaching its theoretical performance limits, and will need a technological step change (companies are cautiously adding silicon to the anodes, while trying to figure out how to add a lot more without causing failures due to expansion and contraction) to significantly advance.
In order to properly address this type of FUD, the best approach is to simply diffuse it with statements of facts.

So, let's address GRA's FUD statements one at a time:
GRA on December 27, 2017 wrote:That batteries and FCs improve by steps rather than a constant slope should be of no surprise to anyone.
GRA likes to repeat statements like this one in order to imply that Li-ion batteries and fuel cells stand on equal footing. Nothing could be further from the truth since Li-ion batteries are currently very affordable, near-unity-efficiency, and manufacturable in very large quantities. These are characteristics which are very far from the state of the art for fuel cells.
GRA on December 27, 2017 wrote:Li-ion is now approaching its theoretical performance limits,...
In fact, unbeknownst to any of us at the time, Li-ion batteries which EXCEED THE CATHODIC THEORETICAL CAPACITY LIMIT were cycling at the time GRA wrote that statement and have now been reported in the scientific literature:
Braga, et al. wrote:The increase of capacity, and therefore of the energy density, with increasing cycle number eventually gives a capacity that is greater than the theoretical capacity of the oxide host cathode particles. This extraordinary observation indicates that there must be a storage of charge in addition to that in the active particles. The additional stored charge can only be electrostatic storage in an EDLC as in a supercapacitor. The cell in Figure 4d-g shows a capacity at 308 cycles of 586 mAh*g-1 (cutoff voltage of 2.5 V). For this cathode, the theoretical capacity is 241 mAh*g-1 (cutoff voltage of 2.5 V), which is very close to the capacity of the first charge 237 mAh*g-1 (as expected for these high voltage cathodes), then Q = 586-237 mAh*g-1 = 349 mAh*g-1 = 1,256 C*g-1 and, therefore, Q = Cequivalent*V = 1,256 = C*(4.8-2.5) => Cequivalent = 546 F*g-1 of the active cathode material or Cequivalent = 137 mF (not accounting for the energy lost in the internal resistance), where Q is the capacity, Cequivalent is the capacitance of the equivalent capacitor, and V is the voltage of the cell.
The point is that the AMOUNT OF INCREASE in capacity of this battery above the theoretical limit IS GREATER THAN THE THEORETICAL CAPACITY OF THE BATTERY ITSELF and it has already been achieved. What we now know is that while those theoretical limits applied to the cathodes of all Li-ion batteries, there are additional storage mechanisms which can be achieved in batteries with solid electrolytes that do not exist in batteries with non-solid electrolytes.

This raises the obvious question: Is the Li-ion portion of this battery actually required for operation? Could you achieve the same, or similar, capacity without the complex cathode structure included? (it's certainly possible, or perhaps likely, that the Li-ion battery structure is required to allow for the necessary surface area to achieve the desired capacitance or that the battery limits the voltages of the structure to prevent catastrophic breakdown of the capacitors.)

Another important question is this: If the achieved capacity increase is due to three capacitors in series, how close were each of those capacitors to their voltage breakdown limits? If they were not close, is it possible that one of those three capacitors could be built which has an equivalent capacity of 3X or more of the 349 mAh*g-1. In other words, does the makings of a CAPACITOR equivalent to a battery with >1000 mAh*g-1 cathodic capacity exist within the structure that was reported by Braga, et al.?

Next:
GRA on December 27, 2017 wrote:... and will need a technological step change...to significantly advance.
While that may be true, it has been pointed out to GRA on many occasions, that, unlike with fuel cells, there is NO NEED for such a significant advance with Li-ion batteries. The Li-ion batteries currently shipping in electric vehicles TODAY (just as when GRA posted this comment) have sufficient capacity to meet the needs of the vast majority of vehicle applications.
GRA on December 27, 2017 wrote:...(companies are cautiously adding silicon to the anodes, while trying to figure out how to add a lot more without causing failures due to expansion and contraction)...
GRA's statement implies that is the only approaches available for addressing the issue of storage of ions at the anode are the graphite structures used today and batteries which use some or all silicon in the anode. That creates a false dichotomy which simply does not exist in the world as it stands. In fact, there are many approaches being pursued for addressing the storage of Li in the anode of a Li-ion battery. The one discussed in the paper above does not use either graphic or silicon for the anode structure. Instead, it uses the original idea for Li-ion batteries in which the lithium ions are plated onto the anode as elemental lithium during periods of charge and are stripped during discharge. In the paper I linked above, the expansion and contraction of the anode due to plating is handled by a plasticizer:
Braga, et al wrote:The plasticity of the plasticizer retains its contact with the cathode particles through the volume changes that occur during a charge/discharge cycle over thousands of cycles to provide a long cycle life.
There are many other benefits of this new technology including increased safety and cycle life versus Li-ion batteries which use non-solid electrolytes.

But there is one large disadvantage: Electroplating and electrostripping of lithium on the anode of the battery are chemical reactions which occur at different potentials, meaning the legendary efficiency of Li-ion batteries is NOT achieved for this new battery. While GRA likes to claim that efficiency is not a primary consideration in transportation, he has never been able to demonstrate how that additional electricity can be generated using renewable sources in a world which is having trouble replacing more than a trivial amount of the energy consumption of today's world. I am not of like mind. IMO, we MUST approach unity efficiency in the use of energy or we will consume proportionately more natural resources than we need to consume, i.e. a 97% efficient solution WASTES 1/10 as many natural resources as a 70% efficient solution.

How bad is this battery in terms of efficiency? Pretty bad:
Braga, et al wrote:The energy efficiency was 86% for cycle 329,
while for the first cycle it was 30%.
This simple fact means that Li-ion batteries which do not use plating approaches at the anode are likely to live on for the forseeable future. The good news is that the currently-popular Li-ion battery solution is near unity efficiency and provides driving ranges as high as 600 miles or even above.

What may be most interesting is if someone can develop a capacitor based on this work which does not suffer the losses associated with the operation of the anode of the battery.

While Li-ion batteries continue to transform our world, fuel cells should remain in the lab and continue to make their long march from where they are today toward a position of viability. While I am OK with taxpayer funding for research in this regard, let's quit wasting massive amounts of money and resources trying to deploy this technology which is nowhere near ready for primetime.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K mi. on 041413; 20K mi. (55.7Ah) on 080714; 30K mi. (52.0Ah) on 123015; 40K mi. (49.8Ah) on 020817; 50K mi. (47.2Ah) on 120717; 60K mi. (43.66Ah) on 091918.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

GRA
Posts: 9113
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Sat Aug 25, 2018 2:25 pm

Via GCC:
CSIRO roadmap finds hydrogen industry set for scale-up in Australia
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/08/20180823-csiro.html

An economically-sustainable hydrogen industry in Australia could soon be on the cards according to a blueprint released by CSIRO, the national science agency, which found that cost-competitiveness is firmly on the horizon.

The National Hydrogen Roadmap sets out a path to develop the action and investment plans required to realise the full benefits of a hydrogen economy. . . .

National Hydrogen Roadmap Roadmap findings include:

    Hydrogen technologies are reaching maturity, with the narrative now shifting from R&D to market activation.

    Hydrogen presents a new export opportunity for Australia and could also play a significant role in enabling the further uptake of renewable energy.

    While the benefits are clear, current barriers to market activation include a lack of supporting infrastructure such as hydrogen refuelling stations for transport, and the cost of hydrogen supply for some applications.

    An appropriate policy framework could create a market pull for hydrogen, with investment in infrastructure then likely to follow.

    In or around 2025, clean hydrogen could be cost-competitive with existing industrial feedstocks such as natural gas, and energy carriers such as batteries in many applications. . . .

There's a direct link to the National Hydrogen Roadmap (pdf file, 12 pages) in the article.
Last edited by GRA on Sat Aug 25, 2018 3:10 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: 9113
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Sat Aug 25, 2018 2:52 pm

RegGuheert wrote:
GRA on December 27, 2017 wrote:That batteries and FCs improve by steps rather than a constant slope should be of no surprise to anyone. Li-ion is now approaching its theoretical performance limits, and will need a technological step change (companies are cautiously adding silicon to the anodes, while trying to figure out how to add a lot more without causing failures due to expansion and contraction) to significantly advance.
In order to properly address this type of FUD, the best approach is to simply diffuse it with statements of facts.

So, let's address GRA's FUD statements one at a time:
GRA on December 27, 2017 wrote:That batteries and FCs improve by steps rather than a constant slope should be of no surprise to anyone.
GRA likes to repeat statements like this one in order to imply that Li-ion batteries and fuel cells stand on equal footing. Nothing could be further from the truth since Li-ion batteries are currently very affordable, near-unity-efficiency, and manufacturable in very large quantities. These are characteristics which are very far from the state of the art for fuel cells.

When have I ever claimed that fuel cells are at the same stage of development as batteries, or are commercially viable now except in very limited niches? I've denied that either is the case, many times. Why you continually claim otherwise is beyond me.

RegGuheert wrote:
GRA on December 27, 2017 wrote:Li-ion is now approaching its theoretical performance limits,...
In fact, unbeknownst to any of us at the time, Li-ion batteries which EXCEED THE CATHODIC THEORETICAL CAPACITY LIMIT were cycling at the time GRA wrote that statement and have now been reported in the scientific literature:
Braga, et al. wrote:The increase of capacity, and therefore of the energy density, with increasing cycle number eventually gives a capacity that is greater than the theoretical capacity of the oxide host cathode particles. This extraordinary observation indicates that there must be a storage of charge in addition to that in the active particles. The additional stored charge can only be electrostatic storage in an EDLC as in a supercapacitor. The cell in Figure 4d-g shows a capacity at 308 cycles of 586 mAh*g-1 (cutoff voltage of 2.5 V). For this cathode, the theoretical capacity is 241 mAh*g-1 (cutoff voltage of 2.5 V), which is very close to the capacity of the first charge 237 mAh*g-1 (as expected for these high voltage cathodes), then Q = 586-237 mAh*g-1 = 349 mAh*g-1 = 1,256 C*g-1 and, therefore, Q = Cequivalent*V = 1,256 = C*(4.8-2.5) => Cequivalent = 546 F*g-1 of the active cathode material or Cequivalent = 137 mF (not accounting for the energy lost in the internal resistance), where Q is the capacity, Cequivalent is the capacitance of the equivalent capacitor, and V is the voltage of the cell.
The point is that the AMOUNT OF INCREASE in capacity of this battery above the theoretical limit IS GREATER THAN THE THEORETICAL CAPACITY OF THE BATTERY ITSELF and it has already been achieved. What we now know is that while those theoretical limits applied to the cathodes of all Li-ion batteries, there are additional storage mechanisms which can be achieved in batteries with solid electrolytes that do not exist in batteries with non-solid electrolytes.

This raises the obvious question: Is the Li-ion portion of this battery actually required for operation? Could you achieve the same, or similar, capacity without the complex cathode structure included? (it's certainly possible, or perhaps likely, that the Li-ion battery structure is required to allow for the necessary surface area to achieve the desired capacitance or that the battery limits the voltages of the structure to prevent catastrophic breakdown of the capacitors.)

Another important question is this: If the achieved capacity increase is due to three capacitors in series, how close were each of those capacitors to their voltage breakdown limits? If they were not close, is it possible that one of those three capacitors could be built which has an equivalent capacity of 3X or more of the 349 mAh*g-1. In other words, does the makings of a CAPACITOR equivalent to a battery with >1000 mAh*g-1 cathodic capacity exist within the structure that was reported by Braga, et al.?

Interesting report, although whether or not it can be commercialized is obviously not yet known, but definitely something to be watched.

RegGuheert wrote:Next:
GRA on December 27, 2017 wrote:... and will need a technological step change...to significantly advance.
While that may be true, it has been pointed out to GRA on many occasions, that, unlike with fuel cells, there is NO NEED for such a significant advance with Li-ion batteries. The Li-ion batteries currently shipping in electric vehicles TODAY (just as when GRA posted this comment) have sufficient capacity to meet the needs of the vast majority of vehicle applications.

Sure, but unless customers are willing to buy them it doesn't matter. We all know that current batteries can handle the routine commuting and local errand needs of most people (who have somewhere to charge them), but most people want to buy cars that can meet ALL their needs which includes road trips, and the batteries for such trips are currently too big, heavy and expensive for the mass market. They're getting better, especially on price, but current estimates show about 2025 as BEV price/performance competitive with ICEs (vs. 2030 for FCEVs).

RegGuheert wrote:
GRA on December 27, 2017 wrote:...(companies are cautiously adding silicon to the anodes, while trying to figure out how to add a lot more without causing failures due to expansion and contraction)...
GRA's statement implies that is the only approaches available for addressing the issue of storage of ions at the anode are the graphite structures used today and batteries which use some or all silicon in the anode. That creates a false dichotomy which simply does not exist in the world as it stands.

No, it implied nothing beyond what companies were contemporaneously doing with their actual production batteries at the time I wrote that. Li-S, Li-metal, solid-state and god knows what other approaches are also underway.

RegGuheert wrote:In fact, there are many approaches being pursued for addressing the storage of Li in the anode of a Li-ion battery. The one discussed in the paper above does not use either graphic or silicon for the anode structure. Instead, it uses the original idea for Li-ion batteries in which the lithium ions are plated onto the anode as elemental lithium during periods of charge and are stripped during discharge. In the paper I linked above, the expansion and contraction of the anode due to plating is handled by a plasticizer:
Braga, et al wrote:The plasticity of the plasticizer retains its contact with the cathode particles through the volume changes that occur during a charge/discharge cycle over thousands of cycles to provide a long cycle life.
There are many other benefits of this new technology including increased safety and cycle life versus Li-ion batteries which use non-solid electrolytes.

See above.

RegGuheert wrote:But there is one large disadvantage: Electroplating and electrostripping of lithium on the anode of the battery are chemical reactions which occur at different potentials, meaning the legendary efficiency of Li-ion batteries is NOT achieved for this new battery. While GRA likes to claim that efficiency is not a primary consideration in transportation, he has never been able to demonstrate how that additional electricity can be generated using renewable sources in a world which is having trouble replacing more than a trivial amount of the energy consumption of today's world. I am not of like mind. IMO, we MUST approach unity efficiency in the use of energy or we will consume proportionately more natural resources than we need to consume, i.e. a 97% efficient solution WASTES 1/10 as many natural resources as a 70% efficient solution.

How bad is this battery in terms of efficiency? Pretty bad:
Braga, et al wrote:The energy efficiency was 86% for cycle 329,
while for the first cycle it was 30%.
This simple fact means that Li-ion batteries which do not use plating approaches at the anode are likely to live on for the forseeable future. The good news is that the currently-popular Li-ion battery solution is near unity efficiency and provides driving ranges as high as 600 miles or even above.

Please do show us how any current in production and affordable by the mass market Li-ion battery can provide 600 miles of range in normal driving conditions. I'm not talking about some guys seeing how long they can stay awake in a Model S or 3LR as they creep along with no use of HVAC systems, or some claimed range for a car (new Roadster) that won't be in production for years yet and will be far too expensive for anyone other than the rich to afford. Let's talk about a Camry/Accord or better yet a Civic/Corolla replacement. Or, since the market is swinging that way, a RAV4/CR-V/Forester replacement.

As to my claiming that efficiency isn't and hasn't been the primary consideration in private and much public transport, that's obviously true. None of that implies that I think it unimportant, or that I believe that we should go over to 100% H2 (or 100% of anything). I've always believed that multiple technologies and approaches will be required, as my sig implies. I've said numerous times that wherever a BEV can meet the operational requirements at the lowest TCO it's the obvious choice, as the most energy-efficient option. Personally, I expect to see a large-scale switch to AV car-shared and wirelessly-charged BEVs in urban areas, as that makes the charging infrastructure problems much easier to deal with in the short and medium term. FCEVs will be primarily bought by people who take more road trips, or those for whom charging infrastructure simply isn't available, assuming that BEV charge rates, ranges and infrastructure don't improve to the point that most people are willing to use them for such trips. If they do, great, I'll always choose the most energy-efficient approach, AOTBE.

RegGuheert wrote:What may be most interesting is if someone can develop a capacitor based on this work which does not suffer the losses associated with the operation of the anode of the battery.

Yes, worth watching.

RegGuheert wrote:While Li-ion batteries continue to transform our world, fuel cells should remain in the lab and continue to make their long march from where they are today toward a position of viability. While I am OK with taxpayer funding for research in this regard, let's quit wasting massive amounts of money and resources trying to deploy this technology which is nowhere near ready for primetime.

Massive amounts is hardly the case. Just as an example, EA is spending $2 billion in the U.S. over 10 years, $800 million of which will be in California, and most of that money will be going to charging infrastructure, not counting all the government funds that are and have already gone to build such infrastructures, and the same situation has occurred in most countries that have introduced PEVs at relatively large scales. Subsidies of the vehicles continue as well.

FCEVs are getting up to $200 million in government-funded infrastructure in California over ten years, or 1/4 the amount that PEVs are getting over the same period just from EA and ignoring other government funding. Although given Governor Brown's exec order back in January that he wants us to get to 5 million ZEVs by 2030, it seems that we're now going to fund 200 rather than 100 H2 stations, along with even more funds for PEV infrastructure, and continued subsidies for all ZEVs.
Last edited by GRA on Sat Aug 25, 2018 3:51 pm, edited 2 times 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.

WetEV
Posts: 2260
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Sat Aug 25, 2018 3:27 pm

GRA wrote:FCEVs are getting up to $200 million in government-funded infrastructure in California over ten years, or 1/4 the amount that PEVs are getting over the same period just from EA and ignoring other government funding.


Compare sales volumes. PEVs are selling almost 30,000 per month in the USA. About 160,000 PEVs sold per month, worldwide.
FCEV sales are less than 300 a month, worldwide. About 640 PEVs for every FCEV.
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red

GRA
Posts: 9113
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Sat Aug 25, 2018 3:31 pm

WetEV wrote:
GRA wrote:FCEVs are getting up to $200 million in government-funded infrastructure in California over ten years, or 1/4 the amount that PEVs are getting over the same period just from EA and ignoring other government funding.


Compare sales volumes. PEVs are selling almost 30,000 per month in the USA. About 160,000 PEVs sold per month, worldwide.
FCEV sales are less than 300 a month, worldwide. About 640 PEVs for every FCEV.

Of course, because FCEVs are dependent on the fueling infrastructure being built simultaneously if not beforehand, while BEVs can use existing infrastructure for local needs (or rather, the people actually buying them have first made sure that they can do so). Add to that that FCEVs are currently expensive due to production limitations (per Toyota production capability is about to change upwards by an order of magnitude) and most of the available models are ugly. Far more detail about the number of FCEVs that can be served by the current and future infrastructure can be found in CARB's 2018 Annual Report referenced upthread.
Last edited by GRA on Sat Aug 25, 2018 3:52 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.

Return to “Business / Economy and Politics”