Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[AndyH]

I'd like to be wrong and see the Boomers NOT skip their turn at building a better world for subsequent generations. But it's getting rather late to start, and I think it'll be up to Europe for now, to prove the model. While we party on with HC a little bit longer thanks to frakking. But that party may end sooner than many think:

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/When-will-the-Shale-Bubble-Burst.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think the vast majority of boomers have missed their chance. Their kids and grand kids, though, are kicking some serious butt - and that's a good thing.

NG... I think you've nailed it. Enjoy the 'weekend wonk'

http://climatecrocks.com/2013/11/03/the-weekend-wonk-david-hughes-on-the-shale-boom/

This is one reason why I don't think that the petroleum industry can get control of a future hydrogen industry and why I'm happy to see so many electrolyzers being fielded. The oil industry won't be able to control distributed hydrogen any more than the music industry can control file sharing on the internet.

 

[AndyH]

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.

Bloody brilliant, that.

It figures. Andy thinks the one statement in Guy's post that I disagree with is "bloody brilliant".

Yes. Because Guy demonstrated the ability to look at the problem from more than one point of view, and he appears to be aware that there is no single metric called 'efficiency' that applies at all scales of a problem. He suggests the mission can be accomplished successfully even if one uses what could be judged to be relatively inefficient devices. Something lost on people that are unable to break away from reductionist thinking.

IMO, if we try to build our society around a transportation system that uses four times as much electricity (or even 50% more) than the alternatives, then we are fools.

This is an unsupported yet quite comical judgement - especially when voiced by one that refuses to recognize that our number one problem on this planet is anthropogenic climate change. It is very difficult indeed to evaluate solutions when one refuses the acknowledge the root problem. The inability to see the real problem forces them to try to find replacement problems to appear to solve.

The European Parliament,

– having regard to Rule 116 of its Rules of Procedure,

A. whereas global warming and costs of fossil fuels are increasing and having regard to the
debate launched by the European Parliament and the Commission on the future of energy
policy and climate change,

B. whereas a post-fossil fuel and post-nuclear energy vision should be the next important
project of the European Union,

C. whereas the five key factors for energy independence are: maximising energy efficiency,
reducing global-warming gas emissions, optimising the commercial introduction of
renewable energies, establishing hydrogen fuel-cell technology to store renewable
energies and creating smart power grids to distribute energy,

And I believe no future technological improvement will move the efficiency of fuel cells above that of EVs. Only political solutions can accomplish such a feat!

This is just one example of facing the wrong target. Nobody but you is suggesting that fuel cell vehicles are being fielded to replace EVs. Fuel cell vehicles ARE EVs after all!

The populations to be replaced are vehicles burning fossil fuels. Vehicles extracting about 20% of the energy from their liquid fuels (and let's not even get into the horrible inefficiencies of oil creation...). Vehicles that are dumping huge amounts of ancient carbon into the atmosphere and many other substances that are directly and indirectly killing humans and many other species on this planet. While a 40% efficient mobile fuel cell is indeed about twice as efficient as a 20% efficient ICE, the other benefits of replacement are much, much more important to achieve than the efficiency improvement.

If we need to find a way to prevent the curtailment of renewables, then let's do that instead of creating the false dichotomy of "we either need to curtail the renewables or create hydrogen with it".

The 'false dichotomy' is indeed false, but it's not being presented by Rifkin or Germany, or the EU, or the City of San Antonio as a dichotomy. It's only being presented that way by people such as yourself that are attempting to justify non-solutions - most likely because they are not yet seeing the problem.

While some of your suggestions are valuable and are being used today, none is capable of solving the overall goal of eliminating 100% of fossil fuel use by 2050. They cannot even allow use of 100% of today's renewable generation - much less the new generation being installed at a geometric rate between now and 2020!

When it comes to storing energy for use across an entire energy grid, hydrogen has proven itself to be if not the single best solution, than at least a 'filibuster proof' super majority - efficiency is a factor, but so must be emissions, price AND cost, and flexibility. The dog - supported by science - is firmly wagging the tail here - not the other way around as you erroneously suggest.

 

[GRA]

I inferred that you disagreed and were being sarcastic, as you presumably were with an earlier statement in which you said "Well, since that guy is clearly "selling" hydrogen, let's see how this comment looks based on what we know today", and then included a different quote from the report. If I misinterpreted your meaning, my apologies, and I will be happy to remove my post.

You don't need to remove anything. I quoted what I thought was obvious (at least to me) some "crazy" talk, at least here in 2013 with Tesla Model S.

Yes, the thrust of the quoted pieces was that the author was basically saying that a Tesla Model S wasn't possible (with 160 gallon volume battery pack!!) and we should all just follow the hydrogen herd to nirvana.

I disagree with that author (with much more hindsight than he had!).

We both agree that he was wrong as to what the future capability was. Tesla is using batteries that have much better energy densities than was the case in 2009, albeit (as I think has now been publicly demontrated) ones with a significantly higher risk of thermal runaway than the chemistries used by mainstream auto manufacturers. They've taken steps to limit the risk, and we'll see if that proves to be enough in the court of public opinion, and the law courts. It's inevitable that sooner or later someone will be rendered unconscious or otherwise immobilized in a Tesla S, and will die in a battery-based fire. Beyond the inevitable lawyer and media feeding frenzy that will ensue, the question is whether or not this happens signficantly more often than in a comparable ICE. Or at least, whether the public perception is that it does.

 

[GRA]

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.

Bloody brilliant, that.

It figures. Andy thinks the one statement in Guy's post that I disagree with is "bloody brilliant".

Simply put, efficiency is key to an energy system if it is proposed to replace the current infrastructure. <snip rest>

Let me be clear. I wrote the above because I'm a firm believer that 'the best is the enemy of the good enough, for now'. Sure, I'd like to see energy efficiency maximized, and whichever AFV system we ultimately settle on needs to be as efficient as possible, within the constraints of available energy and costs. BEVs may ultimately reach a stage (and price) where everyone will be satisfied by them. But we obviously aren't there yet, and I'm willing to take what I can get ASAP as long as it's more efficient than an ICEV and can use renewables for generation, because I think smaller individual improvements on a larger scale sooner will be critical to limiting the effects of climate change, even if it's unlikely that I'll be around for the worst of that.

Hell, if we could get 50% of the population into 40 mpg HEVs and PHEVs in the next 5 years, by momentarily curtailing both BEV and FCEV introduction and instead incentivizing the two gas burning techs, I'd be for it, because it will cause a more rapid reduction in GHGs in the near term. Sub 1% adoption rates of the latter two aren't going to get us far, no matter how much they are individually better than ICEVs.

My opinion of FCEVs and the hydrogen infrastructure has come around considerably in the past year. It had been entirely negative, largely formed by Joe Romm's book "The Hype about Hydrogen." Many of the problematical issues remain unchanged since that book was published in 2004 (and presumably written the year before), but some of the major issues, such as the cost of fuel cells and the amount of renewables have changed a great deal. In particular the amount of natural gas available has altered considerably since then. We were supposed to become a NG importer rather than an exporter; instead, we recently surpassed Russia to become the world's largest producer of oil and natural gas combined, something no one would have predicted in 2004.

FCEVs, despite their energy inefficiency vis-a-vis BEVs, represent an improvement over ICEVs and (I believe) have acceptable operational characteristics _now_ to a mainstream population - what remains to be done is to continue to reduce the price through scale, and to reduce the efficiency disadvantage through improvements in storage and electrolysis.

All of these techs are moving ahead at a relatively rapid pace, and I don't think it's wise to strand a whole lot of capital in infrastructure which may be made rapidly obsolete. OTOH, we need to balance the need to keep costs down with the need for speed, with the inevitable result that some waste is unavoidable. It's trying to strike the right balance with a large quantity of unknowns that's hard.

 

[smkettner]

I have never seen that dip in demand into the 4pm hour yet it says it already exists in average demand.

My take is that the curve doesn't represent total demand, but the portion of demand not being met by solar/wind.

Who was it that said "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics"

 

[AndyH]

The country will be covered with rows of metallic windmills working electric motors which in their turn supply current at a very high voltage to great electric mains. At suitable distances, there will be great power stations where during windy weather the surplus power will be used for the electrolytic decomposition of water into oxygen and hydrogen. These gasses will be liquefied, and stored in vast vacuum jacketed reservoirs, probably sunk in the ground. If these reservoirs are sufficiently large, the loss of liquid due to leakage inwards of heat will not be great; thus the proportion evaporating daily from a reservoir 100 yards square by 60 feet deep would not be 1/1000 of that lost from a tank measuring two feet each way. In times of calm, the gasses will be recombined in explosion motors working dynamos which produce electrical energy once more, or more probably in oxidation cells.

Transcribed from a lecture given at Cambridge University by a 23 year old scientist named John Haldane.

In 1923.

http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Daedalus.html

 

[TonyWilliams]

... It's inevitable that sooner or later someone will be rendered unconscious or otherwise immobilized in a Tesla S, and will die in a battery-based fire. Beyond the inevitable lawyer and media feeding frenzy that will ensue, the question is whether or not this happens signficantly more often than in a comparable ICE. Or at least, whether the public perception is that it does.

And I presume with the same number of hydrogen cars as Tesla Model S, eventually a piece of metal will puncture a 5000 or 10,000 psi tank and won't blow up (and take every car and person nearby with it?)?

 

[TonyWilliams]

... All of these techs are moving ahead at a relatively rapid pace, and I don't think it's wise to strand a whole lot of capital in infrastructure which may be made rapidly obsolete. OTOH, we need to balance the need to keep costs down with the need for speed, with the inevitable result that some waste is unavoidable. It's trying to strike the right balance with a large quantity of unknowns that's hard.

I'm not sure what would be rapidly becoming obsolete. The hydrogen plants that cost millions, benefit few, and one single terrorist can take out in a nanosecond, or ubiquitous electric car infrastructure?

 

[TonyWilliams]

Transcribed from a lecture given at Cambridge University by a 23 year old scientist named John Haldane.

What you quoted was a perfect description of a wonderfully balanced electrical supply system with hydrogen used for storage (of eventually electricity) powered by renewable and clean wind.

What a fantastic use for hydrogen to power electric cars. Thanks for sharing; the future looks bright!

 

[AndyH]

... All of these techs are moving ahead at a relatively rapid pace, and I don't think it's wise to strand a whole lot of capital in infrastructure which may be made rapidly obsolete. OTOH, we need to balance the need to keep costs down with the need for speed, with the inevitable result that some waste is unavoidable. It's trying to strike the right balance with a large quantity of unknowns that's hard.

I'm not sure what would be rapidly becoming obsolete. The hydrogen plants that cost millions, benefit few, and one single terrorist can take out in a nanosecond, or ubiquitous electric car infrastructure?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Someone doesn't understand the price of an electrolyzer, 'distributed production,' 'terrorists' or 'nanoseconds.'

The ignore list is really useful, but sometimes one needs a good laugh. Thanks Tony!

 

[TonyWilliams]

Someone doesn't understand the price of an electrolyzer, 'distributed production,' 'terrorists' or 'nanoseconds.'

The ignore list is really useful, but sometimes one needs a good laugh. Thanks Tony!

So, I'll presume that you have no answer for "a lone terrorist can take out the entire production facility" and maybe half the town that it's in.

Thanks for making that clear.

 

[ydnas7]

for what its worth, due to the risk of terrorism, the hydrogen taxis introduced in London for the Games had to be transported on a 130-mile round trip to Swindon to refuel via a diesel truck.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2182178/Olympic-taxis-transported-130-mile-round-trip-lorry-Swindon.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

it did make a good laugh

 

[AndyH]

I have never seen that dip in demand into the 4pm hour yet it says it already exists in average demand.

My take is that the curve doesn't represent total demand, but the portion of demand not being met by solar/wind.

Who was it that said "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics"

According to the CASIO report, Nubo nailed it.

As shown in Figure 1, the ISO will be managing a very different net load curve (load minus wind and solar output) as soon as 2015 and more dramatic changes in 2017. Figure 1 shows that net load in 2012-2014 remains fairly consistent with historic net load levels. However, ISO forecast show a significant amount of new renewable resources coming on line in 2015 and beyond as the ramp-up towards meeting 33 percent RPS goals accelerates. In fact, after 2017, the probability that the ISO will find itself in over-generation situations could increase substantially. As more renewable resources come on line, not only will the net load curve look substantially different than it does today but so will the need for load regulation and load following.

Figure 1:

Anyone that thinks this is unreasonable can look to real-world grid performance for a country that has surpassed 20% renewables and is growing to 33% in seven years - Germany. This is price, not net load, however...

Germany, 2008, before FITs and their renewables push:

Germany, 2011

Essentially, it means that solar PV is not just licking the cream off the profits of the fossil fuel generators – as happens in Australia with a more modest rollout of PV – it is in fact eating their entire cake.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/why-generators-are-terrified-of-solar-44279

 

[TomT]

+1 :lol:

The ignore list is really useful, but sometimes one needs a good laugh. Thanks Tony!

So, I'll presume that you have no answer for "a lone terrorist can take out the entire production facility" and maybe half the town that it's in. Thanks for making that clear.

 

[AndyH]

for what its worth, due to the risk of terrorism, the hydrogen taxis introduced in London for the Games had to be transported on a 130-mile round trip to Swindon to refuel via a diesel truck.
<snip>
it did make a good laugh

Unfortunately, there's a difference between a real 'risk' and the 'fear of a potential risk.'

It's usually considered better to err on the side of caution when it comes to protecting huge crowds (target) during an Olympic event (target). It's also normal for force protection folks to overreact a bit when they must decide how to plan around things they don't have experience with.

I've worked in this area and will confirm that the mission is not to show how safe anything might be, it's to get past the possible 'threat window' without losing anyone - even if it means excessively limiting those factors that can be without harming mission accomplishment. That's a significantly different problem than day to day safety, or things like UL evaluations.

 

[TonyWilliams]

+1 :lol:

The ignore list is really useful, but sometimes one needs a good laugh. Thanks Tony!

So, I'll presume that you have no answer for "a lone terrorist can take out the entire production facility" and maybe half the town that it's in. Thanks for making that clear.

I think Andy came to the wrong place to espouse the accolades of hydrogen, but can't even gloss over the not-so-good parts.

I do think hydrogen will be fine in energy storage to balance the grid, wind and solar power, and probably for trucks, trains, shipping, and other fleet uses.

Having one of these plants near a population center is a bit nutty, in my opinion, and when somebody like Andy glosses over dangers, you know there's probably REAL danger.

But, battery electrics... probably no more dangerous than oil cars.

 

[AndyH]

Someone doesn't understand the price of an electrolyzer, 'distributed production,' 'terrorists' or 'nanoseconds.'

The ignore list is really useful, but sometimes one needs a good laugh. Thanks Tony!

So, I'll presume that you have no answer for "a lone terrorist can take out the entire production facility" and maybe half the town that it's in.

Thanks for making that clear.

You're welcome to 'presume' what you wish. Do you really want to do this? Ok...

Hydrogen storage at a wind farm.

We'll use the 735.5 MW Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center in north central Texas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_Hollow_Wind_Energy_Center This location has 430 turbines installed on 47,000 acres. This is wide-open ranch land. Most landowners have hundreds of acres and are thus well spread across the land. Strike one: No towns for terrorists to threaten.

Utility-scale electrolyzers might be different types - I've seen both PEM and alkaline hydrolysis units. PEM units can produce compressed hydrogen at more than 350 bar. There is very little hydrogen in the electrolyzer, and it's fitted with H2 sensors that will shut the system down if a leak is detected. This is not a useful target as any explosion would be little larger than the block of say, C4, used to detonate it.

At a small scale, on-site hydrogen generation is replacing helium for gas chromatography work.

Unlike helium, hydrogen can be derived in a lab, via electrolysis. Modern generators using solid electrolyte technology, such as proton exchange membrane (PEM), can produce anywhere from 600cc to 60 liters of gas per minute at high pressure. Because a hydrogen generator contains little or no hydrogen at any one time, it is incapable of creating the 4 percent hydrogen/air mix necessary for a space to become explosive.

http://www.labmanager.com/?articles...e-Hydrogen-Generation-for-Gas-Chromatography/

Strike two: Electrolyzers are not viable targets.

Storage tanks, if above ground, might be steel. If below ground, might be geologic storage like our CAES links earlier. Storage tanks are designed with a burst pressure of about 2.25 the working pressure, and to vent when they overheat. Hydrogen venting, if ignited, makes a flame plume that rises quickly. Pressurized hydrogen in a tank cannot support combustion. If it could be forced to explode, a storage tank containing 6,300 liters of H2 has the explosive force of 35 lbs of TNT. A steel cylinder this size weights considerably more than 35 lbs...

An explosion cannot occur in a tank or any contained location that contains only hydrogen. An oxidizer, such as oxygen must be present in a concentration of at least 10% pure oxygen or 41% air. Hydrogen can be explosive at concentrations of 18.3- 59% and although the range is wide, it is important to remember that gasoline can present a more dangerous potential than hydrogen since the potential for explosion occurs with gasoline at much lower concentrations, 1.1-3.3%. Furthermore, there is very little likelihood that hydrogen will explode in open air, due to its tendency to rise quickly.This is the opposite of what we find for heavier gases such as propane or gasoline fumes, which hover near the ground, creating a greater danger for explosion.

http://www.arhab.org/pdfs/h2_safety_fsheet.pdf

Even the Hindenburg didn't explode and 'take out half a town' - it just burned. If some idiot is hell-bent on detonating something and taking out a town, they'd get more...er...bang for their buck if they targeted a natural gas pumping station or a refinery.

Strike three.

 

[ydnas7]

I do think hydrogen will be fine in energy storage to balance the grid, wind and solar power, and probably for trucks, trains, shipping, and other fleet uses.

Hydrogen does not suceed in energy storage to balance the grid because its inefficencies at generation and consumption are so great that it will never be competitive with hydro or battery storage. As a backup during a blackout, it has some potential, but even there its very difficult.

Hydrogen as a byproduct is a different, China produces an excess of H2 so its good to use it to displace imported natural gas or oil. Perhaps 10%H2 blended with methane and use it for cooking.

 

[TonyWilliams]

I do think hydrogen will be fine in energy storage to balance the grid, wind and solar power, and probably for trucks, trains, shipping, and other fleet uses.

Hydrogen does not suceed in energy storage to balance the grid because its inefficencies at generation and consumption are so great that it will never be competitive with hydro or battery storage. As a backup during a blackout, it has some potential, but even there its very difficult.

Hydrogen as a byproduct is a different, China produces an excess of H2 so its good to use it to displace imported natural gas or oil. Perhaps 10%H2 blended with methane and use it for cooking.

Yes, I do understand the efficiencies argument. As stated elsewhere, even if hydrogen were 100% efficient and the cheapest (and no other product in the universe could pass that), I still would not consider it for universal automobile transportation based on my understanding of the safety risks.

Like oil, wind, solar, et al, efficiency and cost is somewhat below safety.

And vice versa, just being inefficient in comparison to other power sources / storage methods isn't the prime criteria.

 

[AndyH]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-aVrEik7eA[/youtube]