Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I don't really have a dog in this fight, but 15 deaths in five or six years, mostly due to accidents? That might be at the bottom of the list of causes of accidental deaths in China during that period of time! Even the failure rates in the longer period cited above that don't seem that egregious. Or anything that couldn't be improved with a slightly better (enforced) manufacturing or inspection regulations.

Perhaps (and sorry if) I'm misunderstanding something though...
 
Only four deaths... so far (this report is six years old), but this is what makes governments react:

" only 32% of some 12,000 Type 4 cylinders in Beijing was found to meet standard requirements upon inspection"

The number of deaths does seem low for government action, at least in the USA. But, there are always individual acts that get the government machine turning.

To my knowledge, one country out of 190-ish have outlawed the type 4 pressure containers. I'm Ralph Nader on this stuff... "unsafe at any speed".
 
TonyWilliams said:
Only four deaths... so far (this report is six years old), but this is what makes governments react:

" only 32% of some 12,000 Type 4 cylinders in Beijing was found to meet standard requirements upon inspection"

The number of deaths does seem low for government action, at least in the USA. But, there are always individual acts that get the government machine turning.

To my knowledge, one country out of 190-ish have outlawed the type 4 pressure containers. I'm Ralph Nader on this stuff... "unsafe at any speed".
Meanwhile, let's look at the coal mining accident rates in safety-conscious China versus what Tony apparently believes to be the anything goes U.S., just to get a comparative feel for safety standards in the two countries:
On March 10, the director of the State Administration of Work Safety (SAWS) told a Beijing press conference that coal mine accidents claimed 931 lives last year, as the death toll dropped below 1,000 for the first time.

"The situation has been greatly improved," said the SAWS director, Yang Dongliang, according to Agence France-Presse.

Speaking on the sidelines of China's annual legislative sessions, Yang mixed praise for safety advances with a promise that the agency was determined to do more.

The most recent fatality figure represented an 86.7 percent decline from the toll of some 7,000 in 2002, the official Xinhua news agency reported.

"The nation is still confronted with grave and complicated challenges in coal mine work safety, as the authorities aim to achieve a zero-death target," Yang said.

There seems little doubt that China has made major steps forward in lowering the casualty count in an industry that accounts for half the world's coal output.

In 1996-2000, deaths in coal mines averaged 7,619 annually, or over 20 per day, about eight times more than last year, as cited in previous official reports. . . .
By comparison, U.S. coal accidents claimed 16 lives last year, according to the Mine Safety and Health Administration. At that rate, China suffered 58 times more deaths to produce
four times as much coal. . . .

The government seems to be focusing more intently on prevention of methane gas explosions and major accidents to reduce the fatality rate further.

Last month, the National Energy Administration (NEA) said in a statement that 266 people were killed in 47 coal mine gas accidents last year, the official Xinhua news agency reported on Feb. 12.

Methane gas blasts

The number of deaths from methane gas blasts was down 27.5 percent from 2013, the NEA said, without giving the total of number of fatalities from all accidents in coal mines.

"More effort must be made in 2015 to avoid major accidents (those with over 30 deaths), reduce those that kill more than 10 and achieve a year-on-year reduction of casualties by over 10 percent," the NEA said. . . .

The thresholds for defining major accidents may have their drawbacks, as some mine operators try to sidestep the rules that require higher penalties or suspensions for each category of fatalities.

Understated deaths?

In a 2006 article for the Jamestown Foundation research and analysis organization in Washington, China energy expert Jianjun Tu argued that official reports understate the real totals, "as mine owners routinely falsify death counts in order to avoid mine closures or fines."

The highest accident category of 30 or more deaths automatically triggers an investigation led by the State Council, or government cabinet, the Hong Kong-based China Labour Bulletin said.

In what may be the worst recent case involving the accident definitions in 2013, a State Council probe found that mine operators in northeastern Jilin province understated the death toll from a gas explosion to avoid falling into the 30-or-more category.

The Babao Coal Mine Co. in Baishan City reported 28 deaths and 13 injuries from the accident, although the real death toll reached 36, Xinhua reported at the time.

Investigators then found that the mine had concealed six additional deaths in five other accidents during 2012. Seventeen more miners died in another explosion in 2013, when the mine ignored a government-ordered shutdown, Xinhua said.
http://www.rfa.org/english/commentaries/energy_watch/china-coal-deaths-03162015103452.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh, to be living in a safety paradise like China, instead of the third world safety conditions we daily risk here in the U.S. I'm sure that Chinese coal miners feel all warm and fuzzy knowing that their government not only will ban a certain type of H2 cylinder (given the very high inspection standards common to Chinese industry, and their incorruptible government regulators), but will also work to decrease the number of mining accidents involving deaths of 10+ or 30+ miners, and the general safety attitude that has resulted in _less than_ 1,000 miner deaths in a year. After all, if you can't trust the CCP to enforce the highest possible safety standards, well, who can you trust? If only we could send our safety people and regulators over there, so they could learn how to bring our safety standards up to theirs. Let's be sure to get that New York crane inspector who faked inspection records to head the delegation; he's clearly got the right attitude for the job.
 
Via GCC:
GreenGT to present H2 fuel cell racer on Paul Ricard Circuit
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/06/20150623-greengt.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

On 27 June, during the French leg of the FIA WTCC, GreenGT will present the GreenGT H2, a hydrogen fuel cell racing car, on the Paul Ricard circuit.

The GreenGT H2, which runs without a battery, achieves the performance of a GT and has a range comparable with competition cars powered by an internal combustion engine, the company says. GreenGT first built a prototype electric competition car—the GreenGT 300 kW, 100% powered by lithium/ion batteries—in 2009. As range soon proved to be the feature of the 300 kW with most room for improvement, GreenGT next decided to use a 100 kW hydrogen fuel cell to provide the additional energy needed for the electric motors.

This 100kW fuel cell was then tested and the expected results were confirmed. Based on this work, development of a new chassis and a new more powerful, but far more compact fuel cell (with a linear power of 340 kW or 460 Hp) was started by GreenGT in 2012. . . .

The racer that will make its debut on Saturday features the 400 kW stack developed by SymbioFCell for GreenGT. The car is propelled by two 200 kW (400 kW, 544 hp DIN) experimental synchronous three-phase permanent magnet motors, delivering 4000 N·m (2,950 lb-ft) of torque at the rear wheels. Hydrogen is stored at 350 bar in two composite tanks; range is 40 minutes.
Not that I think racing has much to do with the real world, but it's often useful to see what kind of ultimate capability exists.
 
TonyWilliams said:
AndyH said:
TonyWilliams said:
Generic reply:

I'm merely the messenger about China's rules. I honestly don't know if they're better in regard to hydrogen, but it wouldn't be the first time that I was surprised how "behind the US" countries have surprised me.
Will you cite a source please? Thanks.

Google is your friend... this is the very first link that I found:

Death from CNG tanks / type 4 tank outlawed in China

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f11/cng_h2_workshop_notes.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The database includes 26 CNG cylinder failures in the period 2000-2008, and more than 50 failures due to pinhole leaks in steel cylinders (Type 1) and “hundreds” of failures due to leakage in plastic liners in fully wrapped composite cylinders (Type 4).
Thanks. Google might be my friend, but as you declared it, you cite it. ;)

Now - why do you think this is important, why do you think that CNG and H2 tanks should be lumped together, and why do you think that using a type 3 tank is or isn't a fine solution if there actually is a problem with type 4 tanks? (Both are wrapped composite cylinders, according to Google...)

TonyWilliams said:
I'm Ralph Nader on this stuff... "unsafe at any speed".
:lol: :lol: :lol: I actually admire Ralph Nader - especially since he wasn't selling a different kind of car when he spoke on vehicle safety... ;)
 
AndyH" Now - why do you think this is important said:
http://www" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.hydrogenandfuelcellsafety.info/2010/nov/oct10Minutes.asp
'3. DOE/HQ Update – Antonio Ruiz
Antonio provided an update. FY 2011 started on October 1, 2010. Re-evaluation of priorities is in progress. Two meetings were held in China and one meeting in Japan.

Meeting in China – Type 4 tanks have been banned in China for many years. Several presentations were made by the US and Europe. US will try to work more with China in the future.'

I do think a type 3 tank is a fine solution, but that Toyota, Hyundai etc are on validating type 4 tank equipped vehicles which the Chinese consider to be an unsafe decision at this pressure level for those 2 fuels. Tank type is fairly arbitrary before all the safety test are done, but afterwards, its a 'set in concrete' decision. China is a massive user of hydrogen, its foolish to consider their safety decisions to be naive.

I don't expect any type 3 equipped hydrogen powered vehicle to match a Tesla in range. if thats relevant.
 
GRA said:
Oh, to be living in a safety paradise like China, instead of the third world safety conditions we daily risk here in the U.S.

You're kidding me, right? I've ACTUALLY spent years of my life working in SERIOUSLY third world countries.

You have absolutely nothing to preach to me about the subject.
 
AndyH said:
TonyWilliams said:
Google is your friend... this is the very first link that I found:

Death from CNG tanks / type 4 tank outlawed in China

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f11/cng_h2_workshop_notes.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The database includes 26 CNG cylinder failures in the period 2000-2008, and more than 50 failures due to pinhole leaks in steel cylinders (Type 1) and “hundreds” of failures due to leakage in plastic liners in fully wrapped composite cylinders (Type 4).
Thanks. Google might be my friend, but as you declared it, you cite it. ;)

Now - why do you think this is important, why do you think that CNG and H2 tanks should be lumped together, and why do you think that using a type 3 tank is or isn't a fine solution if there actually is a problem with type 4 tanks? (Both are wrapped composite cylinders, according to Google...)


I think both you and GRA might be confusing the message with the messenger. I'm not a proponent of ANY highly pressurized flammable gas in millions of cars. So, it's not an either / or for me.

I don't have specific knowledge of type 4 tanks, but I did work in our family store that sold inert gas, oxygen, acetylene... even compressed air. They were (and are) delivered in steel pressure vessels below 3500 psi.

The danger with those tanks is very real. While I (thankfully) have not have a bad story to tell about them, I've seen the results of when things go bad. It's not pretty.
 
ydnas7 said:
China is a massive user of hydrogen, its foolish to consider their safety decisions to be naive.

I don't expect any type 3 equipped hydrogen powered vehicle to match a Tesla in range. if thats relevant.

Bingo. Safety has to be stretched to the limits of our materials knowledge base to get the range for an energy intensive, normally fossil fuel derived product like hydrogen.

Assuming what I believe to be a very probably end game for batteries, at 5-7% increases in density per year, and the expected price point of $100 - $150 within 5-10 years, PLUS a very efficient delivery system (the various electric grids around the world), with ubiquitous delivery points (already happening in the first world) and finally the very low per mile cost with perhaps 250kW charge rates... sorry, but, I don't see hydrogen competing with that.
 
^^^ Me neither, for passenger vehicles, but it's sinking in more and more how small their contribution is to "the overall problem".

Related to this thread though, hopefully the (generic) state will adjust its priorities and spending allotments accordingly, as this becomes more and more apparent.
 
TonyWilliams said:
GRA said:
Oh, to be living in a safety paradise like China, instead of the third world safety conditions we daily risk here in the U.S.
You're kidding me, right? I've ACTUALLY spent years of my life working in SERIOUSLY third world countries.

You have absolutely nothing to preach to me about the subject.
Then I take it you agree with me that China, despite considerable improvement in some areas over the past 10-15 years, still has a third-world safety regulatory system that produces third-world results, while the U.S. regulatory system, for all its sometimes egregious failures (I'm sure we can all think of numerous examples), is a first-world system that provides first-world levels of safety. Until such time as China's system produces (measurable and independently verifiable) safety results which are better than ours, instead of being worse by one or more orders of magnitude (e.g. coal miner deaths/ton which decreased to only 14.5 times the U.S. rate in 2014), to cite any safety regulations they issue as exemplars of best practices that should be mindlessly followed by the U.S., is ludicrous. The situations in the two countries are too different.
 
Via GCC:
Symbio FCell to deliver 1,000 Kangoo ZE-H2 vehicles in 2016
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/06/20150624-symbio.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

European fuel cell system provider Symbio FCell says it will deliver more than 1,000 Kangoo ZE-H2 vehicles in 2016. The Kangoo ZE-H2 is a Renault Kangoo ZE Light commercial vehicle (LCV) powered by a hydrogen Fuel Cell Range-Extender. (Earlier post.) The company says it has supplied more than 50 units to date, with 200 expected for the full year. . . .

With the financial backing of ADEME (French national energy management), the Rhône-Alpes regional government and the European Funds FEDER, this project establishes a unique and innovative model of simultaneous deployment of hydrogen stations serving multi-customers captive fleets. This deployment model is recommended in the French Hydrogen Mobility study.

This project can be easily replicated across Europe, the company says, and is increasingly well followed with nearly 30 cities in France having already applied. The first deployments have received financial contributions from Regions, ADEME, Europe FCH-JU2, and CEF/Ten-T.

Following the first deployments initiated in 2015, some major operators are planning to extend their deployments to a few hundred vehicles in each of their fleets. The new developments will be based on the simultaneous implementation of commercial vehicle fleets, according to the H2 Mobility France cluster model. In 2016, those vehicles will be equipped with the latest Fuel Cell Stack developed by Michelin, in a more powerful system with extended functionality. To support the deployment at European level, a 700 bar Range Extender version will be available early 2016.
I normally refrain from posting links to articles reporting lab results rather than commercial products, but will occasionally do so as an example of continuing research on H2 issues which we've discussed here, and which need solving before H2/fuel cells can become mass market. Case in point re reducing H2 electrolysis costs:
Stanford team develops new low-voltage single-catalyst water splitter for hydrogen production
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/06/20150623-cui.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/01/honda-hydrogen-fuel_n_7704690.html
TOKYO (AP) — Toyota, Nissan and Honda are working together to get more fuel cell vehicles on roads in what they call Japan's big push toward "a hydrogen society."

Fuel cell vehicles emit no pollution. They run on the power created when hydrogen stored as fuel combines with oxygen in the air to make water.

Hydrogen fueling stations are needed to make the technology a viable option. Only 23 have opened in Japan so far, with hundreds more being planned.

The automakers pledged up to 11 million yen ($90,000) per hydrogen station per year, to build and maintain them.

Officials from Toyota Motor Corp., Nissan Motor Co. and Honda Motor Co. appeared together in a news conference in Tokyo Wednesday.

The stations already get government subsidies, but they are very expensive and are operating in the red. The automakers' financing is designed to alleviate that, and proliferation of the technology is expected to lower costs.
 
If the fueling stations operate in the red, how is this network expandable? Doesn't the cost concern grow with expanded usage and a greater population of FCEVs? How does inherently inefficient hardware get cheaper the further it's deployed?

I don't understand how scaling an unprofitable solution makes it useful. Furthermore the H2 stations are mandatory for the cars; one can't continue to use the FC cars like you could with an EV if all public infrastructure were to suddenly disappear.

I don't understand how this is supposed to work, I guess.
 
mtndrew1 said:
If the fueling stations operate in the red, how is this network expandable? Doesn't the cost concern grow with expanded usage and a greater population of FCEVs? How does inherently inefficient hardware get cheaper the further it's deployed?

I don't understand how scaling an unprofitable solution makes it useful. Furthermore the H2 stations are mandatory for the cars; one can't continue to use the FC cars like you could with an EV if all public infrastructure were to suddenly disappear.

I don't understand how this is supposed to work, I guess.

From the article text:

"The stations already get government subsidies, but they are very expensive and are operating in the red. The automakers' financing is designed to alleviate that, and proliferation of the technology is expected to lower costs."
 
What I'm getting from that text is that the stations are inherently very expensive to operate on an ongoing basis. The auto manufacturers are going to backstop that inherent expense with their cash. This seems to me like a system waiting to fail and one where the fuel will always be very expensive. As a consumer, this doesn't strike me as a financially sound choice when deciding on a new automobile.

Imagine if Toyota needed to pay for Shell station maintenance!
 
mtndrew1 said:
What I'm getting from that text is that the stations are inherently very expensive to operate on an ongoing basis. The auto manufacturers are going to backstop that inherent expense with their cash. This seems to me like a system waiting to fail and one where the fuel will always be very expensive. As a consumer, this doesn't strike me as a financially sound choice when deciding on a new automobile.

Imagine if Toyota needed to pay for Shell station maintenance!
That assumes that there are no economies of scale or efficiency improvements to the tech that lower the cost, and neither is the case. The question will be whether it can lower the cost enough to compete with gas, not whether it will be lowered. The article at GCC:
Toyota, Nissan and Honda agree on details of H2 station support in Japan
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/07/20150701-h2japan.html

provides more details, and the companies only anticipate needing to subsidize until about 2020.

As to operating in the red, I agree with you that that is an issue if nothing can be done, but at the moment that seems to be more likely in the case of for-profit public charging. It seems unlikely that this will be profitable without subsidies, unless utilities are allowed to provide it directly and cut out the middlemen. The Tesla approach won't fly for the mass market.
 
The Tesla approach flies very well with the mass market.

Tesla's SC stations stack the 10kW car chargers that the car uses, - instant scale
and each Tesla sold amortizes the cost of the charges in the SC station, something H2 can't do unless they have on-board electrolysis.

Hydrogen Infrastructure cost = free Teslas
 
http://www.corism.com/blog/34/
Mirai 650km JC08

http://www.corism.com/blog/34/2773.html
Mirai cruising range about 350km if there is steady gradient change (ie fuel cell can't efficiently use small battery)

GOM range 400-440km

flat highway crusing 500km range

highway range can have anxiety because it must be between hydrogen stations, which can be out of the way.

Hydrogen price 108 yen / 100g. about $1 per 100 gram cheaper for Toyota cars
about twice the price per km compared to a BMW320d
 
Back
Top