Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[GRA]

Via GCC:

RWE launches power-to-gas plant

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/08/20150818-rwe.html

RWE has officially in Germany its power-to-gas plant in the NRW location of Ibbenbüren. (Earlier post.) Superfluous electricity from renewable sources is converted into hydrogen so it can be stored within the natural gas network. It can then be recalled from there at a later date for use in electricity production. RWE said it sees this power-to-gas process as one of the key technologies for tomorrow’s energy supply.

A central element of the power-to-gas plant is an electrolyzer the size of a shipping container, which was built by the UK firm, ITM Power. The electrolyzer converts any power from renewable sources such as solar panels or wind turbines that is not immediately required into hydrogen.

The hydrogen is then mixed into the natural gas network via a gas pressure regulation station where the waste heat of the electrolyzer is also utilized. In times of low renewable power production, the previously stored natural gas can be siphoned off from the storage facility and used in a co-generation plant within the RWE district heating network in Ibbenbüren to generate power.

The combined heat and power generation system used there also leads to much better power utilization. The power-to-gas plant of RWE in Ibbenbüren has a rated power output of 150 kilowatts and creates hydrogen under 14-bar pressure.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Agreed, workarounds such as you suggest will have to be used for now given BEV buses' current capabilities, and they're really only suitable for transit agencies with large enough fleets that can afford to specialize by route. Once the range doubles (with allowance for heating/cooling, or else using fuel-fired heaters), they can go over entirely to BEVs, if that makes the most sense.

London has already had these BYD buses through the winter. They use something other than electricity for the cabin heater (maybe diesel, alcohol, fuel oil, etc).

The BYD also has a HUGE battery. I physically rode on one, and spoke extensively with the driver (who had been driving just that bus for months).

1) the bus didn't turn as sharp in one direction as the other (important for a bus driving in a huge, complicated city, but probably nothing more than an alignment issue)

2) the bus wasn't quiet. Inside, it was just as noisy as outside (the gearbox, in particular, sounded like every other bus). On the outside, yes, it is a huge difference in noise.

3) the bus EASILY completed its shift without running out of battery power. The maximum speed for a bus in London is apparently 35mph.

4) the bus broke down a lot (there was two of them). Not surprising, as the sort out the details.


Given the above, I just don't foresee at least BYD having much of an issue, even as the batteries degrade. With a route with higher speeds (65mph), there could be a problem... I don't know.

 

[GRA]

Agreed, workarounds such as you suggest will have to be used for now given BEV buses' current capabilities, and they're really only suitable for transit agencies with large enough fleets that can afford to specialize by route. Once the range doubles (with allowance for heating/cooling, or else using fuel-fired heaters), they can go over entirely to BEVs, if that makes the most sense.

London has already had these BYD buses through the winter. They use something other than electricity for the cabin heater (maybe diesel, alcohol, fuel oil, etc).

The BYD also has a HUGE battery. I physically rode on one, and spoke extensively with the driver (who had been driving just that bus for months).

1) the bus didn't turn as sharp in one direction as the other (important for a bus driving in a huge, complicated city, but probably nothing more than an alignment issue)

2) the bus wasn't quiet. Inside, it was just as noisy as outside (the gearbox, in particular, sounded like every other bus). On the outside, yes, it is a huge difference in noise.

3) the bus EASILY completed its shift without running out of battery power. The maximum speed for a bus in London is apparently 35mph.

4) the bus broke down a lot (there was two of them). Not surprising, as the sort out the details.


Given the above, I just don't foresee at least BYD having much of an issue, even as the batteries degrade. With a route with higher speeds (65mph), there could be a problem... I don't know.

BYD is claiming 155 mile (250 km) range when new, presumably under ideal conditions. Assuming the battery really takes 12 years to degrade to 80%, at the end of that time it will have 124 miles (200 km) of range, minus whatever for non-ideal conditions. Is that going to be enough? What I'd like to know is if BYD is warranting that capacity, because I think capacity warranties will be required. If so, and if 124miles/200km is enough to comfortably handle a full bus shift, you'd think it would make the most sense for them to limit the usable capacity ala' Volt.

 

[epirali]

Natural gas will always produce CO2, but hydrogen has a production/use chain that can avoid CO2.

 

[downeykp]

Natural gas will always produce CO2, but hydrogen has a production/use chain that can avoid CO2.

Doesn't making hydrogen for use in vehicles use a lot of CO2?

 

[epirali]

Natural gas will always produce CO2, but hydrogen has a production/use chain that can avoid CO2.

Doesn't making hydrogen for use in vehicles use a lot of CO2?

This has been covered in great depth before. There are multiple ways, and current methods tend to produce CO2. But there are also methods using hydrolysis, which convert water to Hydrogen and Oxygen. Obviously the use of hydrogen simply reverses this and combines hydrogen and oxygen and produces water. If the power used for hydrolysis is not CO2 producing (just like power used to charge batteries) then there is no inherent CO2 production.

The argument offered against this is efficiency. I posted upthread a study about efficiency of hydrolysis techniques. And basically the TL;DR is that there is difference between state of TECHNOLOGY vs inherent PHYSICS. The inherent physics do not prevent a completely closed loop

Water (H2O) -> hydrogen + oxygen -> Water (H2O)

high density energy storage and use cycle.

 

[edatoakrun]

I'd make the same comment as I did on the previous medium- and heavy-duty vehicles analysis, which also showed the inferiority of fuel cells in vehicle applications, that the omission of the natural gas-to-BEV-charge site fuel-cell pathway from these studies, is an unfortunate omission.

I expect most BEV public charge stations will eventually get their energy from a natural gas pipeline, and their stationary fuel cells will exceed the efficiency of grid-connected natural gas generating plants by utilizing their fuel cell's waste heat.

According to a new lifecycle analysis by a team at Carnegie Mellon University, a battery electric vehicle (BEV) powered with natural gas-based electricity achieves around an average 40% lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction when compared to a conventional gasoline vehicle. Plug-in hybrids (PHEVs), either with a 30- or 60-km range, when powered by natural gas electricity, have the second lowest average emissions. Both BEVs and PHEVs provide large (more than 20%) emissions reductions compared to conventional gasoline, but none of them is a dominant strategy when compared to gasoline hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), the team found.

Gaseous hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) and compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles have comparable life cycle emissions with conventional gasoline, offering limited reductions with 100-year global warming potential (GWP) yet leading to increases with 20-year GWP...

The study on light-duty vehicles is a companion piece to a study published earlier this year assessing the GHG implications of the same transition to natural-gas powered medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. (Earlier post.)...

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/08/20150821-cmu.html

Direct link:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.5b01063

 

[GRA]

I'd make the same comment as I did on the previous medium- and heavy-duty vehicles analysis, which also showed the inferiority of fuel cells in vehicle applications, that the omission of the natural gas-to-BEV-charge site fuel-cell pathway from these studies, is an unfortunate omission.

Actually, what it says is that if NG alone is used as the source of the H2, that fuel cells resulted in little to no reduction in GHGs (which we already knew), and which is why there's an RFS for transportation H2, at least in California.

I expect most BEV public charge stations will eventually get their energy from a natural gas pipeline, and their stationary fuel cells will exceed the efficiency of grid-connected natural gas generating plants by utilizing their fuel cell's waste heat. <snip>

I certainly hope they don't, as that would defeat the goal of transitioning to fossil-fuel free transportation. Some will undoubtedly do so during the transition phase, but that's certainly not the intended end point.

 

[GRA]

Ported over from the Mirai thread, as it's general:

So the FC stack becomes less efficient with the same amount of fuel over a given period of time? Or it generates electricity slower with the fuel at the same efficiency?

In any event, if it really is a 10% loss over 150,000 miles it's a non-issue. Even ICE cars might lose 10% of their fuel economy at that age.

From what I remember of the discussion here (the search function failed to find it), the fuel cell drops in power efficiency as it ages. A couple of years back PEM auto fuel cells were reaching around 2,500 hour lifetimes with 10% degradation, with a DoE goal of at least 5,000 hours. ISTR reading somewhere that the Mirai's cell was expected to go for 4,000 hours, but am not certain of that. See the DoE's

Fuel Cell Technical Team Roadmap
June 2013

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/02/f8/fctt_roadmap_june2013.pdf

page 2 et. seq., for some details.

 

[GRA]

Some examples of why PEV infrastrucutre will be an issue in cities for decades, via ievs:

Tesla To Install Chargers At Dozens Of Manhattan Parking Garages

http://insideevs.com/tesla-install-chargers-dozens-manhattan-parking-garages/

The city of Manhattan struggles with lack of charging stations.

In many cases this prevents people from buying EVs, as every owner should have an available parking place with charging capability.

In a story in the New York Times, one of the owners is charging his brand new P85D in a garage 15 blocks away from his apartment from an ordinary wall socket, because he hasn’t found a better solution yet.

Tesla Motors, beside installing Superchargers along main routes, and destination AC charging stations (up to 20 kW) in places like hotels, intends to begin a new campaign in Manhattan with destination charging station in garages.

The project will begin with two dozen garages around Manhattan (from Wall Street up to 94th Street), where Model S owners will be able to charge every day. Those charging points will not necessarily be free, but home charging stations and energy are not free either.

Alexis Georgeson, a Tesla spokeswoman, said:

“We wanted to move to an urban charging network that meets the needs of those who live in apartments or commute into a big city. Naturally, Manhattan was the place to try this for the first time.”

Notice that Tesla is apparently abandoning free charging for these (as they should). Parking garages are the obvious place to start installing charging infrastructure, because you can do installations that have guaranteed users (via monthly/yearly parking). The real problem comes with on-street parking, as without knowing in exactly which space a PEV will wind up, you have to install far more spaces at much higher cost (or else run parking enforcement for a greater number of hours).

Meanwhile, in China (also ievs):

Plug-In Hybrids Preferred Over BEVs In China?

http://insideevs.com/plug-hybrids-preferred-bevs-china/

We used to see pure electric car sales at significantly higher levels than plug-in hybrids in China.

In the first half of this year, BEVs hold nearly 60% of plug-in car sales.

The situation is going to change. According to Chinese sources, plug-in hybrids are more preferred by customers. One of the reasons behind that is that there are not enough available charging stations in China.

“About 14% of respondents would prefer to buy a PHEV for its longer run time and lower reliance on charging facilities, while only 8% prefer BEVs, despite the fact that sales of BEVs almost doubled those of PHEVs in the first half of 2015, according to a report released by the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers (CAAM) and Nielsen." . . . .

While not all of the numbers are fully accounted for July, CAAM and Nielsen could be onto something, as PHEVs held a ~51% advantage over BEVs during the month.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Water (H2O) -> hydrogen + oxygen -> Water (H2O)

You're missing an important ingredient.

 

[epirali]

Water (H2O) -> hydrogen + oxygen -> Water (H2O)

You're missing an important ingredient.

Unless you mean "love" then I am not missing anything. Specially in context of actual post that said in the paragraph before:

"If the power used for hydrolysis is not CO2 producing (just like power used to charge batteries) then there is no inherent CO2 production."

Care to elaborate?

 

[TonyWilliams]

Water (H2O) -> hydrogen + oxygen -> Water (H2O)

You're missing an important ingredient.

Unless you mean "love" then I am not missing anything. Specially in context of actual post that said in the paragraph before:

"If the power used for hydrolysis is not CO2 producing (just like power used to charge batteries) then there is no inherent CO2 production."

Care to elaborate?

Yes, "power"... specifically energy is the missing ingredient. For the price of that green power (maybe $20 per kg that will propel a typical H2 car for 50 miles, or 40 cents per mile), maybe some "love" should be included.

I operate my EVs for about 4 cents per mile.

 

[epirali]

Unless you mean "love" then I am not missing anything. Specially in context of actual post that said in the paragraph before:

"If the power used for hydrolysis is not CO2 producing (just like power used to charge batteries) then there is no inherent CO2 production."

Care to elaborate?

Yes, "power"... specifically energy is the missing ingredient. For the price of that green power (maybe $20 per kg that will propel a typical H2 car for 50 miles, or 40 cents per mile), maybe some "love" should be included.

I operate my EVs for about 4 cents per mile.

My post was in context of a response about CO2 production, NOT efficiency. So I wasn't really missing anything until you quoted an isolated fragment of my response and accidentally made it appear as I was "missing something."

The efficiency has been covered ad nauseam already, so won't repeat the merry go around.

 

[RegGuheert]

The argument offered against this is efficiency. I posted upthread a study about efficiency of hydrolysis techniques.

That is one of the major arguments about using H2 as an energy carrier. You like to ignore the ACTUAL round-trip inefficiency of the water -> hydrolysis -> compression -> cooling -> expansion -> warming -> fuel-cell recombination into water, which is around 35%. Instead, you focus your discussion on the theoretical efficiency of 100%, which likely cannot be approached due to the two chemical reactions involved.

All the while, you deny the ACTUAL round-trip efficiency of the battery in your car, which is measured by NREL to be 97%:

I don't know what you are referring to when you use the 97% efficiency. There is no battery technology in use today that achieves that in charging OR use.

I'm sorry if we don't go along with you on this journey of cognitive dissonance.

 

[epirali]

I'm sorry if we don't go along with you on this journey of cognitive dissonance.

It is not cognitive dissonance as you imply, because that is not the definition of cognitive dissonance. Rather it is the ability to not focus single mindedly on one aspect, specially if it is not the critical path for acceptance. It is a carefully thought out and purposeful DECISION. I will repeat AGAIN. I am happy to trade efficiency for MARKET ACCEPTANCE. If FCEVs can achieve much higher acceptance than BEVs at less efficiency I find that perfectly acceptable. I have never ignored it as you incorrectly imply.

Cognitive dissonance is to ignore the barriers to BEV acceptance and respond by touting their efficiency.

Please do not purposefully or otherwise misstate my positions as you tend to do quite often.

 

[RegGuheert]

It is a carefully thought out and purposeful DECISION.

You cannot DECIDE that the battery in the LEAF does not have 97% round-trip efficiency. It has that efficiency regardless of what you decide.

Cognitive Dissonance: In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.

In short, you have rejected the new information that you have been provided because it does not support your existing beliefs, ideas or values. Don't expect us to disbelieve the facts just because you do.

 

[RegGuheert]

Here's an interesting lie from the CA Fuel Cell Partnership:

Notice how they vilify BEVs as being one of the major wasters of water in this chart. How did they do that? Here is their quote:

Why is electricity so high? Production consume 1.2 gallons per mile, mostly evaporation associated with hydropower.

Evaporation associated with hydropower? You must be kidding! I wonder how much of the area of the hydroelectric lakes is assigned to how many EVs.

In case you haven't caught the lie, yet, note that CA mandates that 1/3 of hydrogen comes from renewable sources. Also note that a FCV powered using hydrolysis consumes about 3X the electricity from the wall as a BEV. In other words, if 1/3 of the FCVs are powered using H2 from hydrolysis, they consume the same amount of water as a BEV. If ALL FCVs are powered by H2 from hydrolysis, then they consume 3X as much water as BEVs. (At least according to this ridiculous calculation.)

CA cannot afford to squander more of their water resources to fuel FCVs. No one has even addressed the question of how we would generate the 50% additional electricity required to power them. (Guy has suggested that everyone live like him and bike to work. In other words, don't drive a FCV.)

 

[epirali]

It is a carefully thought out and purposeful DECISION.

You cannot DECIDE that the battery in the LEAF does not have 97% round-trip efficiency. It has that efficiency regardless of what you decide.

Cognitive Dissonance: In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.

In short, you have rejected the new information that you have been provided because it does not support your existing beliefs, ideas or values. Don't expect us to disbelieve the facts just because you do.

Now I am starting to believe that your distortion of other people's positions are actually on purpose and not an accident. That is a shame, because to me it shows you do not feel your own argument is strong enough to hold up to scrutiny, so you try to distort other people's.

Once more, with feeling: a purposeful decision to trade efficiency for adoption is not rejection of new information. Actually it is not new information at all. Simple logical progression, please try to follow:

IF efficiency can be traded FOR greater adoption THEN it is a worthwhile trade off.

This is a premise. People may agree. People may disagree. Disagreement would require facts that are not covered , so your repetitive, or mantra as it were, is not NEW information. It is covered in the premise.

But because you simply repeat the same distortion then I have to assume you don't have an actual counter argument to offer.

 

[TonyWilliams]

CEQA Presentation for the August 13 & 14, 2015, Staff Workshop on Draft Solicitation Concepts for Hydrogen Refueling Infrastructure


For more information:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/altfuels/notices/index.html#08132015
(If link above doesn't work, please copy entire link into your web browser's URL)