Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[GRA]

Charging a Rav4EV with CHAdeMO at $0.06/mile is currently an option and we do it. With NRG's pricing ($14.95/mo & .10/min) with the 50kwH ABB units, we get 1mile of range every 28 to 31sec (aka 2miles a min)

My average charge sessions are 20-30min max and equal 80 to 100miles of range. If my last bill was $32 and I went 540 miles on NRG alone..

Avg Charges/Mo 6
Avg Min/Charge 30
Per Month Fee 14.95
Per Minute Fee 0.10
Estimated Monthly Cost $32.95
540 NRG miles driven = 0.0610/mile

Now how is that bad??

P.S. I charge at home (have a very large solar array) but the Rav is used for long 150+ mile long trips and NRG is really kicking in now.

Terrific, now if NRG-eVgo were only installing QCs as a business instead of doing so in California as a result of a legal settlement with the state, we might be able to say that this model is financially viable over the long term. As it is, virtually all QCs here and around the country, and most public L2 FTM, are only here because of government subsidy. I don't know how close eVgo is to reaching the 200 QCs they are required to install in California, but I look forward to seeing if they continue to do so after reaching that total. And it would sure be helpful if they put one in my city within walking distance. Actually, I don't need QC for routine use, just affordable L2 as long as it's close enough. I suspect that unless the utilities are allowed to get directly involved in charging EVs, demand charges will kill any attempt to make public charging profitable.

However, I also expect that once autonomous vehicles demonstrate they have the required capability, safety and reliability, the need for many urban dwellers to own cars, already quite low in medium/high density cities with mixed-use zoning and good public transit including car-sharing, will dwindle to almost nothing, and most people will switch to purchasing mobility service. They might even make high quality public transit in sprawl viable and/or eliminate the need for it, or at least reduce the need for multiple cars per household. In the meantime, I continue using the current version of the ZEV technology I've owned continuously since I was 5 for my local transit needs, as it remains the cheapest, most energy- and space-efficient form of land transportation ever invented.

 

[TonyWilliams]

If you are investing hoping that Tesla will fail (which seems to be a recurrent theme for you and a handful of others who post here), all I can say is, "good luck".

The demise of any EV company is not beneficial to our society and is not what I'm "hoping" for, but it appears
others are hoping/predicting the demise of competing EV technologies to the benefit of companies which forecast
hyperbolic growth 3-5 years henceforth. Some seem to forget recent examples of companies that had the future
to themselves as many thought, e.g. Blackberry, but ignored other technologies to their demise.

Uh... ya, that ^^^^^

I don't predict the demise of hydrogen powered cars. I predict an extremely low volume of heavily government subsidized hydrogen cars for the next 5-10 years, while EVs explode.

Hydrogen can't be compared to Blackberry, because it was never successful.

 

[lorenfb]

If you are investing hoping that Tesla will fail (which seems to be a recurrent theme for you and a handful of others who post here), all I can say is, "good luck".

The demise of any EV company is not beneficial to our society and is not what I'm "hoping" for, but it appears
others are hoping/predicting the demise of competing EV technologies to the benefit of companies which forecast
hyperbolic growth 3-5 years henceforth. Some seem to forget recent examples of companies that had the future
to themselves as many thought, e.g. Blackberry, but ignored other technologies to their demise.

Uh... ya, that ^^^^^

I don't predict the demise of hydrogen powered cars. I predict an extremely low volume of heavily government subsidized hydrogen cars for the next 5-10 years, while EVs explode.

Hydrogen can't be compared to Blackberry, because it was never successful.

You missed the point, i.e. the comparison was not with H2 but with Tesla. In more explicit terms:
To many it appears that the present "disruptor" (Tesla) is in an ideal position to not be disrupted by any
future technology, e.g. H2, as was thought about Blackberry with their dominant position in phone
technology until another "disruptor" (Apple) arrived.

By the way, a FC (H2) vehicle is an EV, i.e. it has a battery but one that's NOT > 1000 lbs like the Tesla.
The Tesla can be compared to early microprocessors with extensive micro-codes to implement complex
higher level instructions that have now been replaced smaller, less complex, and cheaper RISC
microprocessors/controllers. Intel ignored RISC for along time to their demise until now. Will H2
be Tesla's demise, we'll have to see?

 

[TonyWilliams]

Hydrogen can't be compared to Blackberry, because it was never successful.

You missed the point, i.e. the comparison was not with H2 but with Tesla. In more explicit terms:
To many it appears that the present "disruptor" (Tesla) is in an ideal position to not be disrupted by any
future technology, e.g. H2, as was thought about Blackberry with their dominant position in phone
technology until another "disruptor" (Apple) arrived.

By the way, a FC (H2) vehicle is an EV, i.e. it has a battery but one that's NOT > 1000 lbs like the Tesla.
The Tesla can be compared to early microprocessors with extensive micro-codes to implement complex
higher level instructions that have now been replaced smaller, less complex, and cheaper RISC
microprocessors/controllers. Intel ignored RISC for along time to their demise until now. Will H2
be Tesla's demise, we'll have to see?

No, I didn't miss the point... well, not accidently, anyway! You're convinced that Tesla missed the hydrogen wagon, and I thank my luck stars that a company like Tesla exists. Hey, invest accordingly. It's your money.

Yes, I've watched the transformation of FCV to "just like an EV" !!!! to "it *is* an EV!!!!!" Well, except, they don't store much electricity, nor do they recharge / refuel with electricity. Last time I checked, no EV manufacturers were claiming to be "just like hydrogen" or better, "it *is* hydrogen"... just without all the expensive and dangerous bits... oh, and no hydrogen.

My position on hydrogen for surface private vehicles is pretty firm. I've heard all the arguments, and of the dozen or so major reasons why I think hydrogen will fail (and fail big), I'm more excited about how big EVs may actually become in my lifetime.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Charging a Rav4EV with CHAdeMO at $0.06/mile is currently an option and we do it. With NRG's pricing ($14.95/mo & .10/min) with the 50kwH ABB units, we get 1mile of range every 28 to 31sec (aka 2miles a min)

My average charge sessions are 20-30min max and equal 80 to 100miles of range. If my last bill was $32 and I went 540 miles on NRG alone..

Avg Charges/Mo 6
Avg Min/Charge 30
Per Month Fee 14.95
Per Minute Fee 0.10
Estimated Monthly Cost $32.95
540 NRG miles driven = 0.0610/mile

Now how is that bad??

P.S. I charge at home (have a very large solar array) but the Rav is used for long 150+ mile long trips and NRG is really kicking in now.

Terrific, now if NRG-eVgo were only installing QCs as a business instead of doing so in California as a result of a legal settlement with the state, we might be able to say that this model is financially viable over the long term. As it is, virtually all QCs here and around the country, and most public L2 FTM, are only here because of government subsidy. I don't know how close eVgo is to reaching the 200 QCs they are required to install in California, but I look forward to seeing if they continue to do so after reaching that total. And it would sure be helpful if they put one in my city within walking distance. Actually, I don't need QC for routine use, just affordable L2 as long as it's close enough. I suspect that unless the utilities are allowed to get directly involved in charging EVs, demand charges will kill any attempt to make public charging profitable.

However, I also expect that once autonomous vehicles demonstrate they have the required capability, safety and reliability, the need for many urban dwellers to own cars, already quite low in medium/high density cities with mixed-use zoning and good public transit including car-sharing, will dwindle to almost nothing, and most people will switch to purchasing mobility service. They might even make high quality public transit in sprawl viable and/or eliminate the need for it, or at least reduce the need for multiple cars per household. In the meantime, I continue using the current version of the ZEV technology I've owned continuously since I was 5 for my local transit needs, as it remains the cheapest, most energy- and space-efficient form of land transportation ever invented.

Sometime in this decade, Toyota will make a "big splash" about how they can drive their hydrogen car from LA to SF. There will be exactly one place to refuel, and one route to take to get to it. Hopefully, bridges washing out, traffic jams, plant failure, etc, won't happen that day, because it's a LOOOOooooong tow truck ride back to LA.

I drove Toyota's former compliance vehicle, the Rav4 EV, from San Diego (140 miles south of LA) to north of San Francisco in April 2015. 600 miles in one day. I used a multitude of public charging (including NRG / eVgo) and any one of more failures of equipment (it happened) didn't need a tow truck. There was always a plan B. No, my car was not equipped the way Toyota specified, since I have added DC quick charge capability. The fact that openly hostile companies towards EVs would intentionally hamper the ability to quickly recharge their minimum effort CARB-ZEV compliance EV cars speaks volumes.

Total refueling cost for that trip? Less than the cost of two KGs of hydrogen (about 50-100 miles worth of hydrogen). My brother just did a round trip, 2700 miles, in his Rav4 EV. His TOTAL refueling costs for the entire trip were about the cost of two KGs of hydrogen. That's from Washington state to San Diego and return. He covered about 500 miles per day.

With my new Tesla Model S-70D, all the refueling costs are prepaid, and quickly growing. Coast to coast in the US, and all over China, Japan, Europe with sprinklings elsewhere. That fantastic prepaid network will trickle down to the much lower cost Model 3.

Again, how does that awesome-O hydrogen compare in 2020? There's not even PLANS to put hydrogen in places that there are Tesla Superchargers. What decade does a hydrogen peddling operation start in my home state of Montana? (I'm betting not in my lifetime, and probably never... unless the feds demand and pay for it). There are several Superchargers, and I can drive across the state of Montana with nothing but my car, my sack lunch, and a smile.

I won't even mention my solar PV on the roof, making electric power to power my electric cars for pennies per mile (oh, there I go... I just did it).

I get the situation with folks who don't have home or work charging opportunities, and the lure of a hydrogen as a quick fix. But, charging WILL GET FASTER, and even those situations where public charging is the only option, it will be possible to charge up much like you would gas up.

I think I may get a new bike, but it will have electric boost for the hills. Might keep it in the back of the EV for those infrequent public charging events that hydrogen folks don't have to worry about... at least the infrequent part. If you love refueling your oil car, you're gunna love hydrogen.


My weekend trip, 30 April 2015 until 3 May 2015, from San Diego to Santa Rosa, and return:

The capabilities of the 2012-2014 Toyota Rav4 EV compliance car:

 

[GRA]

<snip> Terrific, now if NRG-eVgo were only installing QCs as a business instead of doing so in California as a result of a legal settlement with the state, we might be able to say that this model is financially viable over the long term. As it is, virtually all QCs here and around the country, and most public L2 FTM, are only here because of government subsidy. I don't know how close eVgo is to reaching the 200 QCs they are required to install in California, but I look forward to seeing if they continue to do so after reaching that total. And it would sure be helpful if they put one in my city within walking distance. Actually, I don't need QC for routine use, just affordable L2 as long as it's close enough. I suspect that unless the utilities are allowed to get directly involved in charging EVs, demand charges will kill any attempt to make public charging profitable.

However, I also expect that once autonomous vehicles demonstrate they have the required capability, safety and reliability, the need for many urban dwellers to own cars, already quite low in medium/high density cities with mixed-use zoning and good public transit including car-sharing, will dwindle to almost nothing, and most people will switch to purchasing mobility service. They might even make high quality public transit in sprawl viable and/or eliminate the need for it, or at least reduce the need for multiple cars per household. In the meantime, I continue using the current version of the ZEV technology I've owned continuously since I was 5 for my local transit needs, as it remains the cheapest, most energy- and space-efficient form of land transportation ever invented.

Sometime in this decade, Toyota will make a "big splash" about how they can drive their hydrogen car from LA to SF. There will be exactly one place to refuel, and one route to take to get to it. Hopefully, bridges washing out, traffic jams, plant failure, etc, won't happen that day, because it's a LOOOOooooong tow truck ride back to LA. <snip>

Sometime in this decade? I think you mean this year, as an SC in the San Joaquin Valley, probably Harris Ranch (they can probably see the SC put there for the same reason) specifically to permit those trips is high on the priority list. [Edit: Actually, checking the priority list the coalition companies agreed on, Lebec is in the highest priority category, although that may mean at the bottom of the Grapevine in Wheeler Ridge rather than Lebec, as with the Tesla SC); and Los Banos in secondary priority. Coalinga is still listed on the CAFCP website, but the date has been pushed back, and is now shown as Q4 2015.] As for a big splash, well whether they or Hyundai do it, the thing is it won't be a big splash, because for the I-5 driver it's no different than hundreds of thousands of LA-SF trips that are made every year in ICEs: one short stop and you're on your way again if you choose, or you can stop for a meal. An S60 or 200 mile range Model 3, well, you'll be there for a while, and depending on conditions you may need to make one more stop en route.

As for the rest, I think we've repeated the same arguments in enough other topics not to do so here, so will avoid doing so again. This topic is supposed to be about the Mirai, not FCEVs versus BEVs versus ? We have another topic for that.

 

[GRA]

Via GCC:

DOE selects 16 research projects for more than $19M in funding to advance Solid Oxide Fuel Cell technology

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/07/20150714-doesofc.html

. . . One project was awarded funding for a 400 kWe SOFC Prototype System Test. FuelCell Energy, Inc. and its subsidiary will design, fabricate, and test a state-of-the-art 400 kilowatt thermally self-sustaining atmospheric-pressure SOFC prototype system.

The 400 kilowatt SOFC prototype system represents an important advancement in SOFC technology development and demonstration toward the ultimate goal of deploying SOFCs in highly efficient coal-based central generation systems with carbon capture. Successful achievement of the project goals is expected to enable the commercial deployment of natural gas-fueled Distributed Generation SOFC systems, which is an intermediate step toward viable SOFC technology for large-scale, coal-fueled, central power generation applications.

Cost: DOE: $6,000,000/Non DOE: $4,917,887/Total: $10,917,887 (45% cost share)

The other fifteen projects were awarded funding under two topic areas: Innovative Concepts, geared towards undercutting current SOFC technology costs, and SOFC Core Technology, aimed at laboratory- and bench-scale projects that improve SOFC design.

These projects will move SOFC technology closer to commercial deployment, with some of the small-scale demonstration projects illustrating the potential of SOFC technology to transfer to industry applications within the next 5 to 10 years. . . .

 

[GRA]

Via GCC:

Total hydrogen station in Munich first to feature standard compressed H2 and BMW cryo-compressed H2 technology

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/07/20150716-cch2.html

Total has opened a hydrogen filling station on Munich’s Detmoldstraße. The station, which completes the European HyFIVE project’s South Cluster—comprising Stuttgart, Munich, Innsbruck and Bolsano—is the first public filling station at which the two pumps dispense hydrogen using two different types of refueling technology: industry-standard 700 bar CGH2 hydrogen storage technology (SAE J2601); and cryo-compressed hydrogen storage technology (CCH2).

Cryo-compressed hydrogen storage, being developed by the BMW Group based on its long experience with cryogenic storage, involves storing gaseous hydrogen at low temperature on board the vehicle at a pressure of up to 350 bar. It is currently at the advanced development stage and will only come on stream for general use over the longer time frame. CCH2 tanks offer up to 50% more hydrogen storage capacity than 700 bar tanks and can support a driving range of more than 500 kilometers (310 miles).

BMW recently showcased two hydrogen fuel cell demonstrator models—BMW i8 and BMW 5 Series Gran Turismo. Half of the fuel cell 5 Series GT has 70MPa (700 bar) CGH2 storage and the other half has CryoCompressed at 35MPa (350 bar). The i8 Fuel Cell Vehicle only has 70MPa CGH2 Storage. (Earlier post.)

In order to research and develop both types of tank system and their integration in the vehicle, BMW Group needs to have both systems available for testing in the real world and not just in the laboratory. Much more realistic test scenarios can be achieved if lab tests are supplemented by testing at a public filling station, the company said.

US DOE and CCH2
The DOE Hydrogen Program conducted a technical assessment of cryo-compressed hydrogen storage for vehicular applications during 2006-2008. The term “cryo-compressed” was coined by Salvador Aceves and colleagues at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) and refers to their concept of storing hydrogen at cryogenic temperatures but within a pressure capable vessel, in contrast to liquid (or cryogenic) vessels which store hydrogen at low pressures. Cryo­-compressed hydrogen storage can include liquid hydrogen or cold compressed hydrogen. LLNL designed and fabricated a cryogenic-capable insulated pressure vessel (up to 350 bar) for on-board hydrogen storage applications. BMW worked with LLNL in the development of a proof-of-concept and in the review of the technology.

. . . In the long run, the company said, hydrogen fuel cell drive will become an integral part of BMW’s Efficient Dynamics program, adding to the diversity of the BMW Group’s powertrain portfolio. This portfolio can be flexibly tailored to different vehicle concepts, customer requirements and legal and regulatory requirements in the international automobile markets.

However, a basic requirement for the successful introduction of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles is the development of a hydrogen refuelling infrastructure in the relevant automobile markets. In important initial markets for hydrogen, such as Japan, California/USA and Europe (particularly Germany, the United Kingdom and Scandinavia), it is realistic to assume that the current infrastructure initiatives will lead to the establishment of an initial hydrogen refueling infrastructure by around 2020. Unlike Japan, which as an island has little or no need to make allowances for cross-border traffic, Europe faces much more challenging requirements in terms of ensuring a transnational infrastructure.

The BMW Group is therefore actively contributing its expertise as a partner in important initiatives for the development and planning of a hydrogen infrastructure, such as the H2 Mobility and CEP initiatives in Germany, and also as an active member in the EU’s Fuel Cell Hydrogen Joint Undertaking. The BMW Group is also collaborating intensively with Total Germany and the Linde Group on refueling processes and technology.

Over the long term, moves are afoot to use power-to-gas electrolysis to store surplus renewable electricity in the form of hydrogen. Production of hydrogen from surplus electricity would offer a realistic long-term prospect of ensuring a cost-efficient supply of green hydrogen for use in fuel cell electric vehicles.

 

[DNAinaGoodWay]

Just jumping in to note that NRG eVgo has very quickly installed 12 stations around Boston, all at malls, coinciding with the start of NCTC here. No one made them. Not subsidized. So, purely a business decision. More in VT as well. If anyone puts up even one new H2 station here, I'll report back. Now, back to your regurally scheduled arguments.

 

[GRA]

... Toyota is keeping its goals modest. Total sales are expected to top just 3,000 units by the end of 2017. Even by 2025, there are only predicted to be about 10,800 hydrogen vehicles in general across the Northeast.

Interesting.

So, we don't break into 5 digit numbers for TEN YEARS?

No, you misread it. I did too, the first few read-throughs. The critical phase is "10,800 hydrogen vehicles in general across the Northeast", not only 5 digits total in the U.S. after 10 years.

That's even worse than I expected for them to say. Heck, since California is the epicenter for the hydrogen auto makers, here's what they think:

"In March 2012, Governor Brown issued an Executive Order directing state government to help accelerate the market for ZEVs in California. The order set a goal of establishing an infrastructure to support 1 million ZEVs in California by 2020 and to have 1.5 million ZEVs on California roadways by 2025. Since then, seven other states, comprising more than 30 percent of the total national vehicle fleet, signed an agreement to work together to put 2.2 million ZEVs on the roads of their respective states by 2025."

So, only a teeny, tiny amount of those will be hydrogen? I'm shocked !!!

I suspect that Toyota's statement reflects their corporate culture, which is very conservative compared to most of the EV startups (or even many of their conventional competitors), where overpromising and underdelivering is the norm. Toyota has always been far more restrained in making public predictions than other companies, and I, for one, am happy to see them exercising some restraint instead of promising the moon and only reaching the blue moon cafe'. If we could get more EV companies to dial down their hype and up their performance, EVs would be getting a long way towards maturity. There's nothing wrong with setting high targets internally, but you shouldn't be announcing them to the public as Tesla and others have been doing, leading to a severe erosion in their credibility when they repeatedly fall far short. Instead, we would be praising companies for exceeding their more modest public goals, and let them worry about how well they've done compared to their internal goals.

 

[JasonA]

Mike, you can get the 70 now in SINGLE MOTOR configurations! ($5000 cheaper) And there's going to be a new Tesla showroom and BIG (though yet unconfirmed) 10-12 stall SC stations in Burbank (jobs are already posted).

And also there are plans already in progress for the valley (here) in the 405 near the Bud brewery/ Van nuys area... SC station that is.

 

[lorenfb]

Mike, you can get the 70 now in SINGLE MOTOR configurations! ($5000 cheaper) And there's going to be a new Tesla showroom and BIG (though yet unconfirmed) 10-12 stall SC stations in Burbank (jobs are already posted).

And also there are plans already in progress for the valley (here) in the 405 near the Bud brewery/ Van nuys area... SC station that is.

So exciting! Yawn.

 

[mwalsh]

Mike, you can get the 70 now in SINGLE MOTOR configurations! ($5000 cheaper) And there's going to be a new Tesla showroom and BIG (though yet unconfirmed) 10-12 stall SC stations in Burbank (jobs are already posted).

And also there are plans already in progress for the valley (here) in the 405 near the Bud brewery/ Van nuys area... SC station that is.

I'm just not sure I see the way to a Model S in my future. Priorities would be a second home in the AV and getting my retirement savings back on track (have not been able to contribute anything for almost 7 years). In fact, with the timing, I'm not even sure the Mirai is a safe bet.

 

[GRA]

Just jumping in to note that NRG eVgo has very quickly installed 12 stations around Boston, all at malls, coinciding with the start of NCTC here. No one made them. Not subsidized. So, purely a business decision. More in VT as well. If anyone puts up even one new H2 station here, I'll report back. Now, back to your regurally scheduled arguments.

Good to know. Pricing still higher than gas, comparable or lower?

 

[GRA]

Mike, you can get the 70 now in SINGLE MOTOR configurations! ($5000 cheaper) And there's going to be a new Tesla showroom and BIG (though yet unconfirmed) 10-12 stall SC stations in Burbank (jobs are already posted).

And also there are plans already in progress for the valley (here) in the 405 near the Bud brewery/ Van nuys area... SC station that is.

I'm just not sure I see the way to a Model S in my future. Priorities would be a second home in the AV and getting my retirement savings back on track (have not been able to contribute anything for almost 7 years). In fact, with the timing, I'm not even sure the Mirai is a safe bet.

Looking at the recently changed CA incentives, it looks like the Mirai will get either $5,000 or $6,500 off depending on your income level (higher amount for <= 300 % of Fed. Poverty level for your household size), so $52.5k or $51k plus tax etc. A $70k Model S70 will get $7,500 Fed plus either $2,500 or $4,000 state, so $60k or $58.5k, assuming your income is under $250k. Free fuel for the Mirai up to $15k on a 3 year lease, free SCs (assuming Tesla doesn't consider your weekly use to be abusing the privilege) but paying for electricity at home for the S70. H2 stations in Manhattan Beach and the Torrance/Palos Verdes and Beverly Hills/Westwood areas are in the highest priority category in the list recently agreed to by the OEM Advisory Group, with others in Culver City and the Encino/Sherman Oaks/Van Nuys area as secondary priority, so as long as you take 405 you've got plenty of redundancy for emergencies.

 

[DNAinaGoodWay]

Just jumping in to note that NRG eVgo has very quickly installed 12 stations around Boston, all at malls, coinciding with the start of NCTC here. No one made them. Not subsidized. So, purely a business decision. More in VT as well. If anyone puts up even one new H2 station here, I'll report back. Now, back to your regurally scheduled arguments.

Good to know. Pricing still higher than gas, comparable or lower?

I think they expect to make their initial returns on NCTC and similar with other OEMs. Their L2 rates are about the same as our electric rate all winter, well at 6.6 anyway, the 3.3 folks get hit double. I've suggested to NRG that they could charge by the kWh as our DOE now allows that. The QC is pricey but since they're now the largest and most convenient provider, with little competition, they can ask that. Personally, I'm happy to have more options. Well maintained options. As to gas comparisons, I'm too lazy to care. Don't think about gas much anymore.

 

[GRA]

Just jumping in to note that NRG eVgo has very quickly installed 12 stations around Boston, all at malls, coinciding with the start of NCTC here. No one made them. Not subsidized. So, purely a business decision. More in VT as well. If anyone puts up even one new H2 station here, I'll report back. Now, back to your regurally scheduled arguments.

Good to know. Pricing still higher than gas, comparable or lower?

I think they expect to make their initial returns on NCTC and similar with other OEMs. Their L2 rates are about the same as our electric rate all winter, well at 6.6 anyway, the 3.3 folks get hit double. I've suggested to NRG that they could charge by the kWh as our DOE now allows that. The QC is pricey but since they're now the largest and most convenient provider, with little competition, they can ask that. Personally, I'm happy to have more options. Well maintained options. As to gas comparisons, I'm too lazy to care. Don't think about gas much anymore.

Like most current PEV owner/lessors, I imagine you're in a financial position where you don't have to care about the comparison price of gas, but if AFVs of any type are ever to go mainstream, such comparisons will be critical. For every ideologically motivated driver, there are a hundred motivated by their wallets.

 

[GRA]

Via GCC:

NIST calculates H2 pipeline can cost up to 68% more than nat gas pipeline; proposes code change to reduce cost

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/07/20150720-nist.html

Pipelines to carry hydrogen cost more than other gas pipelines because of the measures required to combat the damage hydrogen does to steel’s mechanical properties (e.g., hydrogen embrittlement, HE) over time. Researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have now calculated that hydrogen-specific steel pipelines can cost as much as 68% more than natural gas pipelines, depending on pipe diameter and operating pressure.[1] By contrast, a widely used cost model[2] suggests a cost penalty of only about 10%.

However, according to the new NIST study, hydrogen transport costs could be reduced for most pipeline sizes and pressures by modifying industry codes[3] to allow the use of a higher-strength grade of steel alloy without requiring thicker pipe walls.

The stronger steel is more expensive, but dropping the requirement for thicker walls would reduce materials use and related welding and labor costs, resulting in a net cost reduction. The code modifications, which NIST has proposed to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), would not lower pipeline performance or safety, the NIST authors say . . . .

The NIST study is part of a federal effort to reduce the overall costs of hydrogen fuel. Much of the cost is for distribution, which likely would be most economical by pipeline. The US contains more than 300,000 miles (483,000 km) of pipelines for natural gas but very little customized for hydrogen.

Existing codes for hydrogen pipelines are based on decades-old data. NIST researchers are studying hydrogen’s effects on steel to find ways to reduce pipeline costs without compromising safety or performance.

As an example, the new code would allow a 24-inch (61 cm) pipe made of high-strength X70 steel to be manufactured with a thickness of 0.375 inches (9.52 mm) for transporting hydrogen gas at 1500 psi (10.3 MPa). (In line with industry practice, ASME pipeline standards are expressed in customary units.)

According to the new NIST study, this would reduce costs by 31% compared to the baseline X52 steel with a thickness of 0.562 inches (14.3 mm), as required by the current code.

In addition, thanks to its higher strength, X70 would make it possible to safely transport hydrogen through bigger pipelines at higher pressure—36-inch (91-centimeter) diameter pipe to transport hydrogen at 1500 psi—than is allowed with X52, enabling transport and storage of greater fuel volumes. This diameter-pressure combination is not possible under the current code.

The proposed code modifications were developed through research into the fatigue properties of high-strength steel at NIST’s Hydrogen Pipeline Material Testing Facility. In actual use, pipelines are subjected to cycles of pressurization at stresses far below the failure point, but high enough to result in fatigue damage. Unfortunately, it is difficult and expensive to determine steel fatigue properties in pressurized hydrogen.

As a result, industry has historically used tension testing data as the basis for pipeline design, and higher-strength steels lose ductility in such tests in pressurized hydrogen. But this type of testing, which involves steadily increasing stress to the failure point, does not predict fatigue performance in hydrogen pipeline materials, Fekete says.

NIST research has shown that under realistic conditions, steel alloys with higher strengths (such as X70) do not have higher fatigue crack growth rates than lower grades (X52). The data have been used to develop a model[4] for hydrogen effects on pipeline steel fatigue crack growth, which can predict pipeline lifetime based on operating conditions.

The studies at NIST’s hydrogen test facility were supported by the Department of Energy and Department of Transportation.

It appears that the U.S. is developing and basing H2 safety rules and regulations on actual scientific data and experiments, as opposed to basing them on the opinions of non-scientists and non-engineers expressed on internet forums. What an eccentric concept!

 

[Zythryn]

Very good, I would hope for more science based decisions.
Perhaps it is the start of a trend??

That said, that is still a lot of pipeline to lay down.

 

[DNAinaGoodWay]

Like most current PEV owner/lessors, I imagine you're in a financial position where you don't have to care about the comparison price of gas, but if AFVs of any type are ever to go mainstream, such comparisons will be critical. For every ideologically motivated driver, there are a hundred motivated by their wallets.

Well, I guess, I am after all, in a good way, but not good enough for a Tesla. And I agree that people making the switch will mostly be motivated by finances. Finances motivate most things. Having made the switch 3 years ago, I have no need to compare to gas prices, I've got no use for the stuff. But I can't see eVgo as a model for main stream adoption, not at their current price points, seemingly aimed a maximizing revenue from NCTC programs, a subsidy for them, perhaps a market builder. At best, for those not in NCTC programs, they're good for occasional destination and opportunity charging. Mainstreaming will come with more home and workplace stations. That will involve more consumer information, education and awareness. Financial incentives lead into that, but it's a slow process, especially with gas still under $3 here. Like Model S owners helping to build out the SCs, the rest of us are supporting station installs, generating lower priced used cars as we turn in leases, creating a presence and answering questions. To really mainstream, we need all vehicle types, advanced batteries, and lower costs, and the market is heading that way, so only a matter of time.