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.
epirali said:
...
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...

In logical discussion, the person making the presumption needs to support it.
I would love to hear how in the world you expect FCVs to be adopted in greater numbers.

From what we currently see, efficiency is being traded for slowing alternate fuel adoption.
 
Zythryn said:
epirali said:
...
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...

In logical discussion, the person making the presumption needs to support it.
I would love to hear how in the world you expect FCVs to be adopted in greater numbers.

From what we currently see, efficiency is being traded for slowing alternate fuel adoption.
That is a very fair request, and I have made my case before, but I'll try to repeat in brief here. But please realize my point there was just to refute the constant attempt to twist and distort my position and statements. Honest mistakes can happen and usually gets clarified but at this point it is very clear it is a purposeful tactic to prevent real discussion. It seems to be used by a few and has apparently been effective on others in the past (or so I gather). Strangely I am familiar with the personality types and am apparently immune... :D

My premise is based on a few things. The first is something I strongly believe: that people tend to be resistant to changing a modality when they have gotten used to it. Although a new modality has very clear advantages (let's say BEV charging at home for daily driving, its high efficiency, and the fact that most of us don't need infinite range) human psychology compares it to the current modality (I am filling my ICE at will at very convenient locations, and if I ever had to drive across the country I could go anywhere easily with 5 minute fueling stop every 300 miles). I can easily counter this modality with rational argument (you don't need more than 200 miles 99% of the time, you can rent an ICE car in the rare occasion), but my experience is it is a tough sell. IF we had a hydrogen infrastructure similar to the gasoline infrastructure it is a very easy sideways move for almost anyone to fill with hydrogen instead of gasoline. There is nothing to change in modality. There is no resistance from the users perspective. There is no "up front" investment in charger at home. And they have been doing it for a while. Now this would become moot if and when BEVs could be charged in 5 minutes from a time perspective, but we are not there yet.

The second part of the premise is this: I can see a business case where traditional energy companies (read gasoline) can shift their business model over to producing and distributing hydrogen. Using the same "network" (gas station) model, and with profit. I personally am finding hard to see how electric charging stations can be funded privately unless the cost per charge went up significantly. Ironically gasoline companies can use their profits to underwrite deploying hydrogen fuel, but I am not sure who (besides Tesla) can underwrite deploying the charging network. Also unfortunately the early adopters (at least a significant portion) like the cost saving aspects of electric cars. So to try to sell to them the idea of a higher cost per charge for public station is hard. And they would be the early users, making the problem even harder. This COULD be solved by a major government based investment (which I am for btw) but I just don't see it happening realistically in the US anytime soon, if ever.

So that is the brief version of my argument. If my assumptions were correct then FCEVs would face much less of a hurdle in adoption (I can just fill up and go!) and there may be a private sector source of funding to developing a robust networl. helping with the transition yet not threatening their existance. And this is where I say I would trade the efficiency of a BEV (which really is more like 80% wall to use) to the FCEV (which is closer to 45%). If both models had no hurdles for adoption then choice is obvious. But this is where the disagreement really is, and I think honest people who disagree without an agenda (a vendor for example) could discuss and illuminate the flaws in the theory. But that seems to be what only some people are interested in.
 
Any society which strives for widespread adoption of inefficient consumption of extremely limited resources is doomed.

CA has significant shortages of water, electricity and money. They cannot afford to squander any of these resources on poorly-considered solutions.

A transition to BEVs will be a major challenge to CA due to the added load to the electricity production and distribution infrastructures. The first phase of this transition can (and will) be offset by homeowners who purchase BEVs installing PV to minimize their fueling cost. This will require net metering benefits to remain substantially in place.

A similar transition to FCVs will consume massively more of the same resources needed for BEVs. As stated many times, every FCV fielded means that the resources for MANY BEVs have just been squandered. It is not just a 3:1 ratio, but likely more like 5:1 due to the costly refueling infrastructure involved.

CA cannot absorb the massive disruption which would come with widespread adoption of FCVs, yet the government there is PAYING corporations to install massively-expensive infrastructure to put these wasteful vehicles on the road. This will not end well. It will be interesting to see this short-lived infrastructure deteriorate while consumers continue to ramp up their adoption of BEVs.
 
RegGuheert said:
Any society which strives for widespread adoption of inefficient consumption of extremely limited resources is doomed.

CA has significant shortages of water, electricity and money. They cannot afford to squander any of these resources on poorly-considered solutions.

A transition to BEVs will be a major challenge to CA due to the added load to the electricity production and distribution infrastructures. The first phase of this transition can (and will) be offset by homeowners who purchase BEVs installing PV to minimize their fueling cost. This will require net metering benefits to remain substantially in place.

A similar transition to FCVs will consume massively more of the same resources needed for BEVs. As stated many times, every FCV fielded means that the resources for MANY BEVs have just been squandered. It is not just a 3:1 ratio, but likely more like 5:1 due to the costly refueling infrastructure involved.

CA cannot absorb the massive disruption which would come with widespread adoption of FCVs, yet the government there is PAYING corporations to install massively-expensive infrastructure to put these wasteful vehicles on the road. This will not end well. It will be interesting to see this short-lived infrastructure deteriorate while consumers continue to ramp up their adoption of BEVs.

I do not believe we are as resource limited as you imply. But even if we were I am not sure where water comes into the equation. If you mean using water for hydrolysis that could easily be achieved by sea water, and is very different that drinking water (which is in short supply). The only major resource needed for both is money, it can be put towards a charging infrastructure or for hydrogen infrastructure.

If you are trying to ONLY solve an electricity shortage in a given area with limited resources then BEVs are definitely a superior solution to FCEVs. But if you are trying to solve a problem of CO2 production by adoption of electric cars, to reduce reliance on fossil fuels for transportations of all types, and potentially capture much denser amounts of clean energy then hydrogen comes into play.
 
epirali said:
The only major resource needed for both is money, it can be put towards a charging infrastructure or for hydrogen infrastructure.
There are many economist who would agree with this.

Money NEVER trumps physics.
 
RegGuheert said:
epirali said:
The only major resource needed for both is money, it can be put towards a charging infrastructure or for hydrogen infrastructure.
There are many economist who would agree with this.

Money NEVER trumps physics.
First part we are in agreement with, second part is either relevant based on which you care about. For me it is irrelevant as I have stated over and over. And BTW you are incorrect in your assertion, there is nothing in physics that says the efficiency problem is permanent. I believe you are again confusing state of technology with physics.
 
RegGuheert said:
<snip> (Guy has suggested that everyone live like him and bike to work. In other words, don't drive a FCV.)
Um, no, I haven't. I've suggested that the best way to reduce energy and resource use overall is to live in smaller, attached spaces, live in a high enough density, mixed-use community close enough to your work and routine errands that you can walk, bike or use transit rather than needing a car for all these, and take fewer unnecessary trips using a car. As far as water use goes, the largest acreage of irrigated crop in the U.S. is lawn grass:
Lawns vs. crops in the continental U.S.
Your grassy lawn comes at the cost of high water use
http://scienceline.org/2011/07/lawns-vs-crops-in-the-continental-u-s/
Homes, golf courses and parks may grow more acres of turf grass than U.S. farmers devote to corn, wheat and fruit trees — combined. In a study published in Environmental Management in 2005, researchers estimated there are 40 million acres of turf grass in the U.S., covering 1.9 percent of the land.

If all that is kept well watered, it could use 60 million acre-feet of water a year (An acre-foot is the amount of water needed to cover an acre to a depth of one foot). Turf grass might be the U.S.’s largest irrigated “crop,” wrote the research team in their paper. Here’s a closer look at how lawns compare to some of the U.S.’s top agriculture and what that means for individual homeowners.

Four times more lawn than corn: Top U.S. crops by land area

There may be more acres of lawn in the U.S. than of the eight largest irrigated crops combined. Here are figures for the top four.

Acres of irrigated land


After orchards, the U.S.’s next four largest irrigated crops are cotton (4 million acres), pastureland (3.6 million acres), wheat (3.3 million acres) and non-alfalfa hay (3.2 million acres).
Four times more water than hay: Top U.S. crops by water use

The turf grass researchers estimated how much water it would take to keep all the lawns in the U.S. well watered using two different watering methods.The more conservative estimate, in which caretakers make sure their lawns receive 2.54 centimeters of water a week through a combination of sprinklers and rain, would use more water than the seven greatest water-using crops combined. Here are figures for the top four.

Acre feet of water

After rice, the U.S.’s next three thirstiest crops are pastureland, which uses 6.2 million acre-feet of water; cotton (5.7 million acre-feet) and non-alfalfa hay (5.5 million acre-feet). An acre-foot is the amount of water needed to cover an acre to the depth of one foot. . . .

From the Wiki for "acre-foot":
As a rule of thumb in U.S. water management, one acre-foot is taken to be the planned water usage of a suburban family household, annually.[2] In some areas of the desert Southwest, where water conservation is followed and often enforced, a typical family uses only about 0.25 acre-feet of water per year.[3] One acre-foot/year is approximately 893 gallons (3.38 m³) per day.

Re evaporation from reservoirs:
More water evaporates from reservoirs than is consumed by humans
http://www.unep.org/dewa/vitalwater/article46.html

You can find plenty of other links showing how much water evaporates from swimming pools, which are seemingly de rigueur in suburban sprawl houses in warm climates, even if most of them see only a few hours of use per year.
 
epirali said:
My premise is based on a few things. The first is something I strongly believe: that people tend to be resistant to changing a modality when they have gotten used to it. <snip>
I often use this version, on a different subject but making the same point, written by some very intelligent people with a considerable knowledge of human behavior: ". . . all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
 
From Google, one acre- foot is 326k gallons. I buy about 45-50k gallons from my utility per year. Am I really only using 15% of the typical suburban home? Or is their number way off? I am confident that my utility bill is fairly accurate, if not overestimated.
 
TonyWilliams said:
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)
The meat's here, in the Draft Solicitation Concepts: http://www.energy.ca.gov/altfuels/notices/2015-08-13-14_workshop/draft_solicitation_concepts.pdf
Since Tony expressed concerns about impure fuel, this section should be of interest:
10. Minimum Technical Requirements
To be eligible for funding under this solicitation, proposed hydrogen refueling stations must, at
a minimum, meet each of the following minimum technical requirements. Projects exceeding
minimum technical requirements may score higher in accordance with the scoring criteria.

A. Hydrogen Quality Requirements: The station developer and hydrogen supplier shall
ensure, through best practices, that any hydrogen delivered to and dispensed at the
station shall meet the requirements of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)
International J2719: 2011 Hydrogen Fuel Quality for Fuel Cell Vehicles (http://www.sae.org).
The delivery vehicle/vessel shall include a “sticker” or chart on the outside of the
vehicle/vessel that communicates the hydrogen purity readings for the hydrogen
contained in the vehicle/vessel, i.e., the date the reading(s) is taken, the reading(s), and
any special condition(s) that were used while the reading(s) were taken. Additionally,
the name of the company and / or organization that took the reading(s) shall also be
included.

The station developer shall be cognizant of, prepared for, and communicate their plan
to accommodate potential random visits to the station to evaluate the purity of
hydrogen by the California Department of Food and Agriculture/Division of
Measurement Standards (CDFA/DMS) and other governmental bodies. The station
developer and/or operator shall allow and cooperate with these bodies to obtain and
provide samples from the station.

Stations shall provide a method of continuously monitoring the gas stream such as an
in-line analyzer to ensure that hydrogen quality meets SAE J2719 standards at the
dispenser output. If an analyzer is used, it should be placed immediately downstream
and as close as possible to the hydrogen generation/purification equipment.
I can't find it now, but found a link somewhere that said the minimum standard for H2 purity for vehicles under the J2719 standard was 99.7%.
 
epirali said:
My premise is based on a few things. The first is something I strongly believe: that people tend to be resistant to changing a modality when they have gotten used to it


agree

and that is why people will use BEVs but not H2 Fuel Cells

how do you think Americans would react to paying $10/kg for low grade fuel and $13.99/kg for high grade fuel?

seriously, quick mental exercise, mentally apply realistic H2 prices to a gas station.
 
ydnas7 said:
epirali said:
My premise is based on a few things. The first is something I strongly believe: that people tend to be resistant to changing a modality when they have gotten used to it


agree

and that is why people will use BEVs but not H2 Fuel Cells

how do you think Americans would react to paying $10/kg for low grade fuel and $13.99/kg for high grade fuel?

seriously, quick mental exercise, mentally apply realistic H2 prices to a gas station.
The already completed mental exercise is that everyone involved knows that H2 has to cost equal or less than gas to succeed commercially as an alternate fuel, and in the meantime the fuel is being subsidized by the auto companies building FCEVs, so no consumer is going to pay current prices. It remains to be seen how soon, if ever, H2 can be reduced in cost to meet that point, but it will undoubtedly happen sooner in countries with higher gas prices (owing to higher tax rates) than is the case in the U.S.
 
epirali said:
RegGuheert said:
epirali said:
The only major resource needed for both is money, it can be put towards a charging infrastructure or for hydrogen infrastructure.
There are many economist who would agree with this.

Money NEVER trumps physics.
First part we are in agreement with, second part is either relevant based on which you care about. For me it is irrelevant as I have stated over and over. And BTW you are incorrect in your assertion, there is nothing in physics that says the efficiency problem is permanent. I believe you are again confusing state of technology with physics.
I am not confusing anything. Discussing theoretical efficiencies is a useless endeavor when discussing deployment.

I can point out that the theoretical net energy required to travel from the East Coast to the West Coast of the U.S. is 0. While that point is useful for engineers and scientists to keep in mind, it has ABSOLUTELY NO bearing on policy decisions.

It is the belief that "the only major resource for both is money" is exactly the type of attitude that is squandering our planet's valuable resources.

Again, deploying low-efficiency transportation instead of the high-efficiency solution which exists today is a foolhardy endeavor which will not end well.
 
RegGuheert said:
<snip>Discussing theoretical efficiencies is a useless endeavor when discussing deployment.

I can point out that the theoretical net energy required to travel from the East Coast to the West Coast of the U.S. is 0. While that point is useful for engineers and scientists to keep in mind, it has ABSOLUTELY NO bearing on policy decisions.

It is the belief that "the only major resource for both is money" is exactly the type of attitude that is squandering our planet's valuable resources.

Again, deploying low-efficiency transportation instead of the high-efficiency solution which exists today is a foolhardy endeavor which will not end well.
Low efficiency compared to what? High efficiency compared to what? These are relative, not absolute values. FCEV cars are higher efficiency than ICE cars, and lower efficiency than BEV cars, which are both in turn lower efficiency than mass transit using the same technology, or walking, or biking.
 
GetOffYourGas said:
From Google, one acre- foot is 326k gallons. I buy about 45-50k gallons from my utility per year. Am I really only using 15% of the typical suburban home? Or is their number way off? I am confident that my utility bill is fairly accurate, if not overestimated.
If you're confident, then I guess you're really only using 15%. Good for you.
 
OT: While we're at it, here's energy use from backyard pools [my emphasis]:
Homes with pools use 49% more electricity per year, but it’s not just because of the pool
http://blog.opower.com/2012/07/homes-with-pools-use-49-more-electricity-but-its-not-just-because-of-the-pool/
As the nation’s 5.1 million in-ground residential swimming pools do their part in keeping us cool, we began to get curious about how much energy they use.

It’s been estimated that 9-14 billion kilowatt hours of electricity are consumed each year just to maintain these 5.1 million swimming pools. That’s more electricity than is used each year in 11 individual US states and Washington DC. It’s as if all the retail electricity consumption in New Hampshire could grind to a halt, and then be routed to power the nation’s swimming pools.

SO WE WONDERED: HOW MUCH MORE ENERGY DOES A HOME WITH A POOL USE EACH YEAR, RELATIVE TO A HOME WITHOUT A POOL?

To investigate, we examined energy consumption data from 2 million homes (all with gas space-heating) in a climate-moderate part of the Western US, representing a mix of pool homes and non-pool homes. We were able to identify homes with pools by cross-referencing anonymous, publicly available property records. Then we looked to see if any patterns emerged related to pool ownership and energy use.

A pattern emerged: pool homes annually consume 49% more electricity and 19% more natural gas than their non-pool neighbors. The result for a pool owner is approximately $500 per year in higher energy bills — and nearly double that in states with higher electric and gas prices.

But the question remained: is this ~$500 difference in energy consumption strictly due to the energy requirements of maintaining pool? Or are there additional factors at play? Let’s dive into the analysis.

EXPLORING REASONS WHY POOL HOMES USE 49% MORE ELECTRICITY PER YEAR THAN NON-POOL HOMES

Let’s consider three key factors that contribute to pool owners’ high energy bills: 1) the pool itself, 2) large home size, and, 3) lifestyle.

1. PUMPING AND FILTERING 20,000 GALLONS OF WATER IS EXTREMELY ENERGY-INTENSIVE

The strongest driver of pool homes’ high energy use is…the pool! Let’s take a look.

It takes a lot of electricity to continually pump and filter the ~20,000 gallons of water that typically fills a US in-ground residential pool. It’s an astonishing amount of water: the average human being drinks only about 15,000 gallons of H2O in their lifetime. A pool pump uses more electricity than any other appliance in the house except the air-conditioner.

Motivated by regulatory requirements, new pool pumps are becoming increasingly energy-efficient, but existing pumps’ electricity consumption has been estimated at a whopping 2,000-2,500 kilowatt-hours per year. At the national average electricity price of 11.8 cents/kWh, a pool pump can add upwards of $250-$300 to a family’s annual electricity costs.

Heating the pool can also be a major driver of pool-related energy use, especially when the pool is left uncovered. Pool heating is almost always done by natural-gas heaters (or in some regions by solar water heaters), rather than by an electric heater, and can be costly: even occasional heating can add $100-$250 to one’s yearly gas bill. However, very few pools—by one credible estimate, only about 10% of them nationwide—are heated. Likewise, our data reveals minimal difference in swimming-season natural gas usage between pool homes and non-pool homes. This suggests that residential pool heating is indeed rare, and therefore has minimal significance for our analysis.

So if pool pumping represents a little over half of the energy consumption difference between pool homes and non-pool homes, then what other factors may account for the rest of difference?

2. HOMES WITH POOLS ARE BIGGER

As you might predict, homes with pools tend to be larger than homes without pools. Bigger homes mean higher energy usage. The average pool home in our dataset was 2,052 square feet. That’s 21% larger than the average non-pool home (1,693 square feet).

We saw above that the average pool home uses 49% more electricity and 19% more natural gas per year than the average home without a pool. But would we still see this big of a difference if we only compare homes of similar size?

Confining our analysis to 40,000 homes of similar size (2,500-2,600 square feet), we found that the energy consumption gap between pool homes and non-pool homes becomes only somewhat smaller: pool homes of ~2500 square feet still consume 42% more electricity and 14% more natural gas than equivalent-size homes that don’t have a pool.

The bottom line: homes with pools are larger, and the larger home size itself does appear to account for greater energy consumption. But only by a little bit.

3. ACROSS THE (DIVING) BOARD, POOL OWNERS ARE LIKELY TO CARRY ON A HIGH ENERGY CONSUMPTION LIFESTYLE

Our data suggests that pool owners systematically use more energy for reasons beyond their energy-intensive pool pump or their large home size.

We found that pool homes use significantly more electricity and natural gas than similarly sized non-pool homes in all 4 seasons, rather than just during the peak-swimming summer months. Even considering that some pool owners are likely to run their pool pump periodically in non-swim months to keep the water clean and pretty, the fact that pool homes use significantly more energy in every season (see the electricity usage pattern for similar-sized homes below) points to behavioral differences that may go beyond maintaining a pool.

A couple of lifestyle-related explanations for pool homes’ higher energy usage throughout the year may include:

• Pool homes have more occupants. Our demographic data from the Western US shows that homes with pools have on average 9% more children (1.18 compared to 1.08 children) than non-pool homes. It seems reasonable that a family with kids would be interested in a yard with a backyard pool. At the same time: more kids = more humans using energy around the house.

• Pool homes have a higher income. Data from the Association of Pool and Spa Professionals indicates that the median income for households with in-ground pools is $104,000 per year (double the national median income). Higher income implies a greater likelihood to own additional TVs, a second refrigerator, and other discretionary appliances.

In other words, a swimming pool may be a canary in a coal mine of high household energy consumption.

SOME FRIENDLY COST-SAVING ADVICE TO NEIGHBORS WITH POOLS

We’ve seen that the pool itself is the largest driver of pool homes’ high energy usage. Fortunately, there are some simple steps that a homeowner can take to save hundreds of dollars each year on pool-related energy costs…

• Use a pool cover. First, a cover keeps the pool water clean, which means that the energy-intensive filter pump doesn’t need to run as much. In addition, a cover can reduce evaporation from the pool by more than 90%, which saves a lot of water (and keeps the water warmer). Without a cover, the entire 20,000 gallons in the pool can evaporate each year, and refills aren’t free. Replacing all that water can easily add more than $100 to a pool owner’s annual water bill in water-scarce regions.

• Install a variable-speed pump. A “variable-speed” pool pump is critical to maximizing pool energy efficiency. In contrast to a standard “single-speed” pump, a variable-speed model alternates between slow and fast modes to optimize energy use throughout the day, reducing pump electricity consumption by up to 75%. Many utility companies offer a significant rebate upon purchase of an efficient pool pump.

• Reduce pool pump run-time. Many pool owners simply run their pool pump longer than is necessary to keep their pool clean. It’s best to determine the minimum required run-time and stick with that. In one study, pool owners in Florida who reduced their pumping time to less than 3 hours per day were still happy with their pool’s water quality.
 
I think we can officially say that "back yard pools" is not on topic!

Here's something I hope you'll really like:

http://www.hybridcars.com/interview-running-the-first-us-retail-hydrogen-station-is-an-epic-effort/
 
TonyWilliams said:
I think we can officially say that "back yard pools" is not on topic!

Here's something I hope you'll really like:

http://www.hybridcars.com/interview-running-the-first-us-retail-hydrogen-station-is-an-epic-effort/

This really puts the infrastructure challenge into perspective. I know there is a learning curve, and this is the first of its kind, but boy is it complex to handle hydrogen. It makes the idea of a battery-backed-up supercharging station look like child's play!
 
TonyWilliams said:
I think we can officially say that "back yard pools" is not on topic!
Certainly (and I said so), but since water and energy use to create H2 was raised as an issue (as was the sustainability of the suburban lifestyle), I thought it important to provide some perspective.

TonyWilliams said:
Here's something I hope you'll really like:

http://www.hybridcars.com/interview-running-the-first-us-retail-hydrogen-station-is-an-epic-effort/
Thanks, good find. Sounds like they're working through the expected teething issues, and passing the knowledge along.
 
Further on fuel purity, from the 2015 ARB annual report:
Quality

The successful rollout of fuel cell electric vehicles is dependent upon the successful rollout
and consistent reliability of the hydrogen fueling stations. One area of great concern is the
assurance that fuel cell quality hydrogen is dispensed at all times at every station. Automotive
fuel cells are sensitive to a number of contaminants that can be inadvertently introduced into the
storage, compression, and dispensing system. Quality assurance and quality control methods
are employed by the industry to ensure hydrogen product quality, but are not completely
comprehensive and can fail at various points in the hydrogen pathway, from production to
dispensing. This leaves open the possibility of a station unknowingly dispensing harmful
contaminants including particulates to a FCEV that, depending on the contaminant, may affect
performance or durability of the fuel cell stack and has the potential to cause permanent damage.
Currently, California requires hydrogen dispensed at stations to meet hydrogen purity standards
detailed in SAE J2719. Hydrogen quality testing must take place at commissioning, at six month
intervals thereafter, and when such maintenance is performed that could introduce contaminants
into the fueling path. Still, with these requirements in place, in the last year contaminated
hydrogen was dispensed at delivered gas, pipeline and onsite Steam Methane Reformer (SMR)
stations. More work is clearly needed in this area.


To adequately protect the consumer and the FCEV, an in-line, real time hydrogen contaminant
detector is needed. Ideally, such a device would sample and analyze every fill, and provide
immediate warning to the station operator. The device would signal a fuel quality abnormality,
and if serious enough, shut down fuel dispensing to prevent damage to vehicles
. Particulate
filters should be checked and replaced regularly; California is in discussions with DOE and its
National Laboratories in partnering on potential projects that may lead to bringing pilot onsite gas
analysis devices to stations in the state. The H2FIRST Hydrogen Contaminant Detector Project,
deliverable 1 – requirements Document and market Survey conducted research and presented
a gap analysis of available and needed analyzers [20]. Progress continues on development
of a detector device, and staff at ARB anticipate an active role for the State of California in
collaborating on the design, specifications, and field testing of this much needed tool.

For 2016, it is suggested that the frequency of full suite J2719 testing be increased to a quarterly
basis. Staff at ARB have also been in discussions with state and local government labs who
are investigating conducting increased random or spot check sampling as budget, laboratory
availability, and personnel allow
. Currently available resources (laboratory equipment and space
and trained personnel) to complete spot checks and perform full spectrum quality analyses
will also need to be augmented in order to provide sufficient service while in-line detectors are
developed and vetted. To help speed the integration of in-line hydrogen detectors into future
stations, future stations featuring onsite generation, or onsite clean up systems should include
hydrogen sample, power, and data ports in their process plans at two locations: as physically
near the dispenser as feasible and just downstream of the hydrogen generation/delivery point.
Technical specifications of the additional equipment will be available to station developers as the
H2FIRST effort proceeds.
It should be noted that the next round of funding applications (detailed in my previous post) includes a requirement for in-line, real-time H2 contaminant detectors, as described above.
 
Back
Top