Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[GRA]

It appears Dudenhoeffer missed the latest sales figures from Europe, where PHEVs are swiftly overhauling BEVs and likely to become the majority of PEV sales soon, and the Outlander PHEV is now the top-selling PEV: http://left-lane.com/european-sales-2015-first-half-ev-and-phev-segments/

There's no question that ICE PHEVs are a transition technology to BEVs, FCEVs, PHFCEVs or maybe biofuels, but they will be viable for quite some time. As to the rest, we'll see how the BMW/Mercedes/Audi high-end PHEV sales do - the Golf GTE seems to be doing pretty well, and is outselling the e-Golf.

Actually PHEVs are more likely to be a transition to FCEVs that plain EVs. They are probably popular due to range issues, and I don't see the range issue just going away. So unless battery charging becomes much faster it's more likely they will use FC for long range use as regulations get stricter and hydrogen/FC pricing goes down.

Which is why I included PHFCEV in the list, although I'll take whichever works.

 

[GRA]

="GRA"... a universal car needs to be able to do everything that an ICE can do...

Well then, BEVs are indeed doomed to failure.

The cost of equipping my leaf with a device spewing 30 or 40 gallons of CO2 laced with trace poisonous gasses, for every mile I drove, would of course be prohibitively expensive...

="GRA"...I assume we're both California taxpayers, and consider $200m from the state spread over 10 years to be chicken feed...

I have no Idea where you got that figure, implying that the total cost to California taxpayers for FCEV support will be limited to $200 million over the next decade, if a substantial number of FCEVs ever actually are to see the road.

Care to explain?

On the other hand, I don't think there is any doubt that if California decided to spend ~$200 million, collected from any user base (ratepayers, taxpayers, or drivers) over ~ten years, that expenditure could result in ~500 DC charge stations, each capable of refueling ~ten to twenty BEVs simultaneously, located at suitable business locations located along California's highways.

This initially subsidized DC network would be largely sufficient to support the first ~million BEVs on California's roads, after which, I have little doubt we could depend on free-market developments to supply the next twenty to thirty million California BEVs.

There is no doubt in my mind that many of those promoting FCVs, both in both the ICEV and petroleum industries, are well aware of this reality.

And it largely explains those corporations enthusiasm in spending other peoples money to subsidize the development and sales of, and supporting infrastructure for, what can only be accurately described as POS vehicles, such as the Mirai.

The state has committed to spend $20 m/year over a maximum of 10 years for H2 fueling stations,
Once again we've drifted into general H2/FCEV discussion, so my reply can be found in that topic.

 

[GRA]

="GRA"... a universal car needs to be able to do everything that an ICE can do...

Well then, BEVs are indeed doomed to failure.

The cost of equipping my leaf with a device spewing 30 or 40 gallons of CO2 laced with trace poisonous gasses, for every mile I drove, would of course be prohibitively expensive...

="GRA"...I assume we're both California taxpayers, and consider $200m from the state spread over 10 years to be chicken feed...

I have no Idea where you got that figure, implying that the total cost to California taxpayers for FCEV support will be limited to $200 million over the next decade, if a substantial number of FCEVs ever actually are to see the road.

Care to explain?

Sure, California agreed to spend $20m/year for up to 10 years to build seed H2 stations. We're also spending money in other areas like R&D plus subsidies for the cars, but those are separate issues.

On the other hand, I don't think there is any doubt that if California decided to spend ~$200 million, collected from any user base (ratepayers, taxpayers, or drivers) over ~ten years, that expenditure could result in ~500 DC charge stations, each capable of refueling ~ten to twenty BEVs simultaneously, located at suitable business locations located along California's highways.

This initially subsidized DC network would be largely sufficient to support the first ~million BEVs on California's roads, after which, I have little doubt we could depend on free-market developments to supply the next twenty to thirty million California BEVs.

There is no doubt in my mind that many of those promoting FCVs, both in both the ICEV and petroleum industries, are well aware of this reality.

And it largely explains those corporations enthusiasm in spending other peoples money to subsidize the development and sales of, and supporting infrastructure for, what can only be accurately described as POS vehicles, such as the Mirai.

I forget just how much the state has already spent on subsidizing QC as well as L2 charging stations, but it's certainly in the hundreds of millions already, and so far there's no sign that anyone's found a commercially viable (i.e. profitable) business model, and that's a technology that should be much simpler than H2. H2 isn't commercially viable yet either, and until one or the other public charging/fueling system can achieve that, they will remain niche technologies dependent on government support. Neither will achieve that anytime soon, given current gas prices.

If we want to talk about wasting money, I could point out how each dollar spent on BEVs and infrastructure would have much greater bang for the buck if spent instead on mass transit, pedestrian and bicycling improvements. But the fact is, I'm willing to continue to spend money in all these areas, knowing that much of it is likely to be ultimately wasted, just to make sure that we have the best chance of getting a variety of technologies that work - I don't believe in silver bullets.

 

[epirali]

It appears Dudenhoeffer missed the latest sales figures from Europe, where PHEVs are swiftly overhauling BEVs and likely to become the majority of PEV sales soon, and the Outlander PHEV is now the top-selling PEV: http://left-lane.com/european-sales-2015-first-half-ev-and-phev-segments/

There's no question that ICE PHEVs are a transition technology to BEVs, FCEVs, PHFCEVs or maybe biofuels, but they will be viable for quite some time. As to the rest, we'll see how the BMW/Mercedes/Audi high-end PHEV sales do - the Golf GTE seems to be doing pretty well, and is outselling the e-Golf.

Actually PHEVs are more likely to be a transition to FCEVs that plain EVs. They are probably popular due to range issues, and I don't see the range issue just going away. So unless battery charging becomes much faster it's more likely they will use FC for long range use as regulations get stricter and hydrogen/FC pricing goes down.

Which is why I included PHFCEV in the list, although I'll take whichever works.

Yes, apparently I am now failing in basic reading skills, completely missed that one in the list, sorry! Sigh....

 

[TonyWilliams]

I thought this would be good for the H2 folks to explain away as a non issue for H2. Check out the safety required to work with H2:

http://www.hydrogenprize.org/wp-content/uploads/Safety-Planning-for-the-2014-2016-H-Prize-Competition.pdf

 

[epirali]

I thought this would be good for the H2 folks to explain away as a non issue for H2. Check out the safety required to work with H2:

http://www.hydrogenprize.org/wp-content/uploads/Safety-Planning-for-the-2014-2016-H-Prize-Competition.pdf

I don't think there is anything to "explain away," that phrase implies there is something to explain. It seems like a very prudent list of safety planning. What is the exact thing you find needs to be explained?

I don't think there is any more need to explain that than there is to explain this:

http://www.ncdoi.com/OSFM/RPD/PT/Documents/Coursework/EV_SafetyTraining/EV%20EFG%20Classroom%20Edition.pdf

Or this:

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/28/us/electric-car-safety/

Have you seen the steps needed before anyone can touch a Tesla Roadster for basic towing, much less repair?

 

[GRA]

Actually PHEVs are more likely to be a transition to FCEVs that plain EVs. They are probably popular due to range issues, and I don't see the range issue just going away. So unless battery charging becomes much faster it's more likely they will use FC for long range use as regulations get stricter and hydrogen/FC pricing goes down.

Which is why I included PHFCEV in the list, although I'll take whichever works.

Yes, apparently I am now failing in basic reading skills, completely missed that one in the list, sorry! Sigh....

No worries, it happens to all of us We usually read in phrases or by the sounds of words (which is why I sometimes write one homophone even though I know and mean another: their/there; to/too/two), not by words or individual letters. There was an example of this a while back where Tony (and me too until I'd read it multiple times) misread a statement about the number of FCVs forecast to be deployed in the northeast by a certain date, as referring to the number in the country as a whole, even though the sentence clearly stated 'in the northeast' immediately following the number. I used to have a girlfriend whose master's was in Human Factors Engineering, and she loved perceptual stuff like how our brains parse words, phrases and sentences.

 

[GRA]

Via GCC:

Port of Honolulu testing hydrogen fuel cell generator; Sandia-led Maritime Hydrogen Fuel Cell project

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/08/20150828-sandia.html

Fuel cells rather than diesel gensets powering reefer containers in ports.


Also, lab development, so years away if ever:

JCAP team reports first complete “artificial leaf”; >10% solar-to-hydrogen conversion efficiency

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/08/20150828-jcap.html

This is the sort of thing that will likely be necessary to get renewable H2 costs down below gasoline. Not only is the energy cheaper than PV, but they are able to use less expensive materials than Pt for the catalyst. SQL error, or I'd quote more details.

 

[GRA]

I thought this would be good for the H2 folks to explain away as a non issue for H2. Check out the safety required to work with H2:

http://www.hydrogenprize.org/wp-content/uploads/Safety-Planning-for-the-2014-2016-H-Prize-Competition.pdf

I don't think there is anything to "explain away," that phrase implies there is something to explain. It seems like a very prudent list of safety planning. What is the exact thing you find needs to be explained?

I don't think there is any more need to explain that than there is to explain this:

http://www.ncdoi.com/OSFM/RPD/PT/Documents/Coursework/EV_SafetyTraining/EV%20EFG%20Classroom%20Edition.pdf

Or this:

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/28/us/electric-car-safety/

Have you seen the steps needed before anyone can touch a Tesla Roadster for basic towing, much less repair?

Yeah, looks pretty standard for an experimental contest. ISTR reading something much the same for some of the solar car races in Australia.

 

[epirali]

Here is a more "explosive" article (pardon the pun) about work on artificial leaf which can use solar energy and water to generate hydrogen. Quite a bit off but does show the potential of hydrogen as a method of storing solar energy. Essentially trying to create artificial photosynthesis.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/540886/a-practical-artificial-leaf-begins-to-unfold/

Early days but exciting stuff. Not sure why people want to discount the potential of hydrogen so fast.

 

[Zythryn]

Here is a more "explosive" article (pardon the pun) about work on artificial leaf which can use solar energy and water to generate hydrogen. Quite a bit off but does show the potential of hydrogen as a method of storing solar energy. Essentially trying to create artificial photosynthesis.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/540886/a-practical-artificial-leaf-begins-to-unfold/

Early days but exciting stuff. Not sure why people want to discount the potential of hydrogen so fast.

You misstate people's position.
I don't think anyone discounts the potential of hydrogen.
What people discount is that FCVs are ready to go beyond the experimental stage.
Many people also feel FCV cars are a foolish use of resources, especially before these miraculous break through so happen.

Continue the research, by all means.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Not sure why people want to discount the potential of hydrogen so fast.

The reasons for not supporting hydrogen for personal transport have been repeatedly expressed. Very sound, logical reasons.

It seems odd that you would even say this... has your account been hacked?

;-)

 

[epirali]

Here is a more "explosive" article (pardon the pun) about work on artificial leaf which can use solar energy and water to generate hydrogen. Quite a bit off but does show the potential of hydrogen as a method of storing solar energy. Essentially trying to create artificial photosynthesis.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/540886/a-practical-artificial-leaf-begins-to-unfold/

Early days but exciting stuff. Not sure why people want to discount the potential of hydrogen so fast.

You misstate people's position.
I don't think anyone discounts the potential of hydrogen.
What people discount is that FCVs are ready to go beyond the experimental stage.
Many people also feel FCV cars are a foolish use of resources, especially before these miraculous break through so happen.

Continue the research, by all means.

I find it interesting that you are pointing out a perceived misstatement by me about others position, but if my positions are constantly and purposefully misstated by others that doesn't seem to bother you enough to point it out. Oh well. I do not believe I am misstating certain peoples positions here when I say they want to discount the potential of hydrogen. I should have clarified that was not a global statement about everyone.

I think you are not reading the same posts I am. There has been arguments made about efficiency and very clear implications that hydrogen can only be produced while producing CO2. There has also been statements made about how hydrogen has been in use for "hundred" years, implying there is no point. I think my observation is pretty accurate in light of those statements. Misinformation and FUD seems to replace actual argument for some people. And the statements are made not in the short term as you are saying, rather as a permanent condition.

BTW no one here that I have seen has ever argued FCEVs are ready for mass deployment today, and that includes Toyota who is the major company producing them. But most responses opposing the idea clearly state that there is no reason to try and all references to research and breakthroughs are just dismissed. Obviously a lot of interesting developments are happening both in production and in size/cost/efficiency of fuel cells. Resources must be put in exactly in order to go beyond the experimental stage. I don't agree that we should do NOTHING until FCEVs miracoulsy develop themselves. Same argument applied to BEVs would have killed them. Regulation, tax breaks and infrastructure money all went into BEVs before they were widely available as commercial products. And there were many early adopters who used BEVs that were nowhere near ready for prime time.

Finally the more I read about and research state of hydrogen/FC use, production and research the more convinced I become that it is the right way to go for a lot of uses, including FCEVs. I think BEVs are good for limited range use and will retain a market, but the real possibility of mass adoption is with FCEVs. But then again I try to take position based on facts and reason, not emotional bias.

 

[epirali]

Not sure why people want to discount the potential of hydrogen so fast.

The reasons for not supporting hydrogen for personal transport have been repeatedly expressed. Very sound, logical reasons.

It seems odd that you would even say this... has your account been hacked?

;-)

No my account is fine, thanks for the concern.

Sound and logical is a malleable term around here. I don't share your personal definition of those terms. Nor do I share your conclusions.

 

[epirali]

Just found this interesting tidbit about not needing platinum for the artificial leaf hydrogen generation.

"Another key advance is the use of active, inexpensive catalysts for fuel production. The photoanode requires a catalyst to drive the essential water-splitting reaction. Rare and expensive metals such as platinum can serve as effective catalysts, but in its work the team discovered that it could create a much cheaper, active catalyst by adding a 2-nanometer-thick layer of nickel to the surface of the TiO2. This catalyst is among the most active known catalysts for splitting water molecules into oxygen, protons, and electrons and is a key to the high efficiency displayed by the device."

 

[RegGuheert]

Also, lab development, so years away if ever:

JCAP team reports first complete “artificial leaf”; >10% solar-to-hydrogen conversion efficiency

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/08/20150828-jcap.html

This is the sort of thing that will likely be necessary to get renewable H2 costs down below gasoline. Not only is the energy cheaper than PV, but they are able to use less expensive materials than Pt for the catalyst.

There is nothing cheaper about this technology than PV. Here is what the article actually said:

Peak system efficiencies of 12.6% and 24.6%, respectively, could be obtained by use of an electrolyzer in conjunction with a high-efficiency (21%) Si PV module or a high-efficiency (41%) III-V triple junction PV operated under optical concentration.

Such systems have been demonstrated at commercial, laboratory and research scales, the team said. However, at the commercial level, the high balance of systems cost and low capacity factor results in high levelized hydrogen costs relative to hydrogen produced by steam reforming or grid electrolysis using fossil or low-carbon electricity. Thus, a lower-cost “artificial leaf” technology could offer significant advantages as an alternative.

In other words, hydrogen production through PV-driven hydrolysis is not cost-effective when compared with steam reforming. The researchers are painting a picture for the media of a magical "artificial leaf" which would be cheaper than PV-driven hydrolysis.

We are very far from that point today.

Here is what is learned by reading the research materials instead of the just the hype:

Planar III-V layers were grown epitaxially by metal-organic chemical vapour deposition (MOCVD) on an n+-GaAs wafer with a (100)-oriented polished surface (Si-doped, acceptor concentration of 1×10^19 cm^-3 6” diameter).

While there are many semiconductor materials which are superior to Si in many different ways, Si still rules them all because it is cheapest. So while researchers have substituted Ni for Pt as the catalyst, they have also substituted GaAs for Si as the substrate, which far more than nullifies any cost benefits achieved by moving to Ni. (Besides, you have already pointed out the very small amount of Pt needed by current-generation fuel cells.)

Finally, the real cost issue is that this device only lived for 6.5 hours before catastrophic failure:

Figure S1 (a) SEM image of device failure after 6.5 hours of operation, showing cracking of ALD-TiO2 protection layer and corrosion of underlying III-V semiconductors.

Note that according to the Green Car Congress article, the TiO2 layer had to be very thin to allow the light to flow through it:

A major advance that allowed the integrated system to be developed was previous work in Lewis’s laboratory, which showed that adding a nanometers-thick layer of titanium dioxide (TiO2) onto the electrodes could prevent them from corroding while still allowing light and electrons to pass through.

In other words, they cannot simply plate that layer thicker.

This technology has a lifetime of a quarter of a DAY while I have PV modules (along with their associated inverters) on my roof which the manufacturers GUARANTEE to last for a quarter of a CENTURY. PV modules are generally expected to last 50 years or more, but no one really knows how long they last. The 24 PV modules I have in the field have been there for over sixteen years and each and every one of them still produces nearly the same amount of electricity as they did when they were new. So this new technology currently has a deficit of over 35,000X in terms of lifetime and likely 3X - 5X in terms of cost.

As you said, this technology exists only in the lab. It is FAR from having any real use to society.

 

[epirali]

More interesting work on the fuel cell end of the spectrum. Again still early days, but definitely incredibly promising alternatives to use of platinum, which has been pointed out as being a limiting and cost factor. It seems there is a lot more progress on all front of the hydrogen fuel cell cycle, a lot more than one would think is going on reading the forum here. They are still years away from commercial use but it doesn't seem like there are any insurmountable obstacles to the current problems.

I am on GRA on this one: I don't see any reason why we should put all our eggs in any one basket.

Maybe Japan and Toyota are on to something, except unlike the US they are looking long term while we are just trying to solve yesterdays problem today. The argument that it is in the lab and has no use today can be used essentially to wipe out all technology of the past 100 years. Not sure how that is a logical premise.

Metal-free catalyst outperforms platinum in fuel cell
CSE's Liming Dai teams with researchers from South Korea and the University of North Texas to optimize cheap, easy-to-make alternative

http://engineering.case.edu/metal-free-catalyst

And a much more recent one:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/ipdf/10.1021/acscentsci.5b00163

 

[TonyWilliams]

Not sure why people want to discount the potential of hydrogen so fast.

The reasons for not supporting hydrogen for personal transport have been repeatedly expressed. Very sound, logical reasons.

It seems odd that you would even say this... has your account been hacked?

;-)

No my account is fine, thanks for the concern.

Sound and logical is a malleable term around here. I don't share your personal definition of those terms. Nor do I share your conclusions.

Well, we agree on the latter, that's for sure!!!

Let me lay it out a little more simply for you; every time you casually proclaim that there are NOT logical reasons for aversion to hydrogen for personal transport, and that it's all FUD (your term), you really put yourself into the "fanboy" corner with your "head in the sand".

Having disagreements on the merits of issues, however, are a different situation altogether.

I had to do this with Andy, and since you seem to be on the Andy path (granted, with a far better bedside manner), let's just once again post what we ALL seem to agree on:

1) The world needs less CO2 in the atmosphere, but that fact isn't solved with hydrogen from fossil fuels ( I think even you get this)

2) Hydrogen is great to research (nobody argues against that)

3) Hydrogen might be superior for heavy, long haul transport (trucks, ships, maybe rail?)

4) Hydrogen might be superior for grid level storage

 

[epirali]

Well, we agree on the latter, that's for sure!!!

Let me lay it out a little more simply for you; every time you casually proclaim that there are NOT logical reasons for aversion to hydrogen for personal transport, and that it's all FUD (your term), you really put yourself into the "fanboy" corner with your "head in the sand".

Having disagreements on the merits of issues, however, are a different situation altogether.

Ok let's stick to simple: every time you use name calling, personal attacks and don't engage in discussion without reverting to attacks on people you show your position to be weak, and in my eyes you disqualify yourself from rational and useful conversation.

Try sticking to your own last sentence: please limit yourself to the merit of the discussion at hand, if you can.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Well, we agree on the latter, that's for sure!!!

Let me lay it out a little more simply for you; every time you casually proclaim that there are NOT logical reasons for aversion to hydrogen for personal transport, and that it's all FUD (your term), you really put yourself into the "fanboy" corner with your "head in the sand".

Having disagreements on the merits of issues, however, are a different situation altogether.

Ok let's stick to simple: every time you use name calling, personal attacks and don't engage in discussion without reverting to attacks on people you show your position to be weak, and in my eyes you disqualify yourself from rational and useful conversation.

Try sticking to your own last sentence: please limit yourself to the merit of the discussion at hand, if you can.

Yes, Andy, we will all try...

:ugeek: