Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[SageBrush]

^^ fancy speech. Too bad it lacks substance, rather like the fossil fuel company's spouting of nonsensical hydrogen fairy tales in the hopes of collecting federal money.

Even casual observation should show you that science and academic analysis is on the side of EV while vested interest industry and politicians push hydrogen BS.

But nooooo ... you bring the GCR trash here in the same vein that Faux news brings its readership a balanced plate of baloney. Both are propaganda. How much are you paid to shill ?

 

[Oils4AsphaultOnly]

Because that's only my opinion based on minimal information and very limited knowledge of the subject matter, and I don't consider it my job to censor information from credible sources. I don't only post links to articles where the conclusions agree with my own, I post articles so other people can inform themselves; they are free to arrive at their own conclusions, and can state and discuss them as they choose just as I do.
If I have a strong opinion on the subject whether pro or con, I'll make my own comment.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave! You're not an expert on the tech you say? so you'll just post up a puff piece for others to decide (even though you claim that you thought it was greenwashing), you say? Yet somehow you found the expertise to be able to tell how others SHOULD be designing their electric cars not too long ago.

Oh that's right, but you've denied being a proponent of Hydrogen and FCEV's. You've even stated that you support whichever tech made the most sense. Yet you have no strong opinion on a tech that you think is greenwashing? .... yeah, ok.

I have far more personal knowledge and experience of what capabilities personal and commercial vehicles need to be capable of, as I've been driving for well over four decades and also had a couple of decades of experience in the trucking industry (and through that, the requirements of freight transport in general), as well as (noted in my Sig) extensive knowledge and experience of off-grid systems and the foibles of storage batteries. Li-ion are different chemistry from what I was working with, but they're still batteries with the same types of advantages and disadvantages; only the specific details of those have changed.

OTOH, when it comes to the details of blue or green H2, CCS, the costs and techniques of same, I'm dependent on others with far more knowledge and experience of the subject than I have. I want to read information and arguments from multiple sides of a subject and decide which I find more credible, not just live in another internet echo chamber. A press release from a company is likely to be one-sided, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate the information in it. I post the info so that others can, if they disagree with the info, comment on it and advance their own arguments against it, and I will form my opinion based on which arguments and data I find most persuasive.

My opinions about the greater usefulness of H2 for long-range ZEV transport are based on its capabilities, just as my opinions on the greater usefulness of batteries for short-range transport are based on theirs. The issues with each are infrastructure as well as future developments. as to cost, capability, as well as any potential limitations on basic resources and supply. My opinions on the financial aspects of each and their likely (but by no means certain) future development are based on decades of reading on the patterns of technical improvement and replacement, as well as my own experiences seeing how what was then still an immature tech (PV and related) has developed, what government support was needed to bring it to the mainstream, and the numerous false starts and blind allies along the way as competing techs were abandoned or limited.

What I am a proponent of is reducing and ultimately getting off fossil fuels as rapidly as possible. I am far less concerned with which tech(s) we use to do that in each niche, but I state my opinions for various niches based on what seems to me the best match for a given use. One thing I am certain of is that governments have a very poor track record at picking winners in the technical and commercial spheres, especially decades in advance, so given the dire situation I believe we find ourselves in (the latest IPCC report reinforcing that belief) I believe we must push ahead with multiple techs until such time as one or more of the ZE or net-zero carbon techs in transportation, electricity production, heating and industrial processes prove commercially viable and have replaced GHG-producing methods to the maximum extent possible, as quickly as possible. Reductions in local air pollution are a secondary but also very important goal of this. This requires government subsidies for basic research, dem/val, probably some early production facilities and some early deployment. Inevitably it also means that much government money will be wasted as we find that this or that tech fails to develop as hoped, but IMO the ultimate cost of not pursuing multiple pathways is almost certain to be far higher, not just in money but in the livability of this planet.

Oh, I see. So "governments must do this" and "this infrastructure is needed first" and "this should be a secondary goal", all because you've had 40 years of driving experience, and not because you've actually used nor lived with any of the tech that you've given your "expert" opinion on. If you're too blind to see your own hypocrisy, then it can't be helped. This thread should be closed, since it's nothing more than GRA's soapbox (yet demurs when called out for it).

 

[SageBrush]

I agree -- kill this thread.

It stinks to high heaven

 

[WetEV]

One thing I am certain of is that governments have a very poor track record at picking winners in the technical and commercial spheres, especially decades in advance,

He says on the Internet, a winner picked by government decades in advance. Without a trace of irony or humility.

 

[GRA]

Oh, I see. So "governments must do this" and "this infrastructure is needed first" and "this should be a secondary goal", all because you've had 40 years of driving experience, and not because you've actually used nor lived with any of the tech that you've given your "expert" opinion on. If you're too blind to see your own hypocrisy, then it can't be helped. This thread should be closed, since it's nothing more than GRA's soapbox (yet demurs when called out for it).

Of course I've lived with and used much of the tech. Many of the articles I link to are statements of fact, or a combination of facts and claims with varying degrees of verification (press releases such as the one this particular thread started with being an example of the latter). The purpose of these is to provide information to people, which they may discuss if they choose. My 'expert' or well-informed opinions are in those areas where I have lots of experience, as indicated in my Sig. All my other opinions, just as everyone else's are, are based on various levels of understanding, and everyone is free to accept, reject or discuss/argue with those opinions, whether mine, yours or anyone else's, while expressing their own.

 

[GRA]

One thing I am certain of is that governments have a very poor track record at picking winners in the technical and commercial spheres, especially decades in advance,

He says on the Internet, a winner picked by government decades in advance. Without a trace of irony or humility.

Sure, sometimes they get it right, but how many competing failures did the government also support along the way? You can't ignore those. Look how many they're supporting now just in the area of alternative energy - some will succeed, some (probably most) will fail. Are you going to ignore all the latter and say the government picked only the one(s) that ultimately succeed?

 

[WetEV]

One thing I am certain of is that governments have a very poor track record at picking winners in the technical and commercial spheres, especially decades in advance,

He says on the Internet, a winner picked by government decades in advance. Without a trace of irony or humility.

Sure, sometimes they get it right, but how many competing failures did the government also support along the way? You can't ignore those. Look how many they're supporting now just in the area of alternative energy - some will succeed, some (probably most) will fail. Are you going to ignore all the latter and say the government picked only the one(s) that ultimately succeed?

Still not a trace.

Do tell me about the "competing failures" to the internet that the government supported.

 

[jlv]

Do tell me about the "competing failures" to the internet that the government supported.

Well, there was the whole GOSIP fiasco -- where some in the U.S. Federal govt decided they needed the OSI protocols for wide-adopted computer networking, simply because it was designed by a bunch of committees paid for by the (mostly European) government(s). Except that the OSI protocol suite was a pipe dream that wasn't implemented at the time (1990). This happened totally ignoring the existing working Internet based upon TCP/IP that was growing leaps and bounds.

A reference: https://www.inetdaemon.com/tutorials/basic_concepts/network_models/osi_model/osi-gosip.shtml

This was all before the general public knew what the Internet was (I used to say I work on this thing that nobody ever heard of). I was a member of several IETF working groups at the time (late 80s and early 90s). PPP was the work I was most involved in; you may not have heard of it, but if you used a dial-up Internet connection from 1995 onward (through today) you used PPP over the link level and under IP.

 

[jlv]

What I am a proponent of is reducing and ultimately getting off fossil fuels as rapidly as possible.

Many of us here are. That's why we drive electric cars and post on this electric car forum.

Then there are those here who don't drive electric cars and make excuses to explain why.

 

[GRA]

He says on the Internet, a winner picked by government decades in advance. Without a trace of irony or humility.

Sure, sometimes they get it right, but how many competing failures did the government also support along the way? You can't ignore those. Look how many they're supporting now just in the area of alternative energy - some will succeed, some (probably most) will fail. Are you going to ignore all the latter and say the government picked only the one(s) that ultimately succeed?

Still not a trace.

Do tell me about the "competing failures" to the internet that the government supported.

No idea (before my time), but I'm willing to bet that there were some, just as there have been in most advanced techs that have gotten government support. I have read that Arpanet started with just four or maybe it was five locations, all universities or government research facilities, and (per the link below) was decommissioned 1990, presumably as something better came along. Based on that you could argue that ARPANET was ultimately a failure, a blind alley on the way to what we have now. [Note, I'm not making that argument, but what we have now is definitely not ARPANET]. I read the list of initial ARPANET locations recently, IIRR in Moore's "Crossing the Chasm, 3rd Edition: Marketing and Selling Disruptive Products to Mainstream Customers". An online history of the net here: https://online.jefferson.edu/busine...t as we know,Research Projects Agency (ARPA). shows how various techs were developed and added or succeeded previous ones; these were undoubtedly just the ones that succeeded.


Getting back on topic, via IEVS: https://online.jefferson.edu/busine...t as we know,Research Projects Agency (ARPA).

https://insideevs.com/news/582164/power-plug-hydrogen-deal-walmart-20-tons/

Walmart has been running hydrogen fuel cell forklifts since 2012, when it signed a deal with Plug Power, and now it has some 9,500 of them operational across many of its facilities. Now the two companies have signed a new agreement through which Plug Power will supply green hydrogen to keep powering these FCV lift trucks.

The deal will see the fuel cell and hydrogen specialist provide up to 20 tons of liquid green hydrogen per day. They call it green hydrogen because it is produced with no carbon emissions - Plug Power wants to fully switch to water electrolysis powered by electricity from renewable sources. . . .

Back in December of 2021, it signed a similar deal for 10 tons of green hydrogen per day with Certarus, a Canadian compressed natural gas (CNG) supply company.

Plug Power says it wants 50 percent of the hydrogen it produces and uses to come from green sources by 2024. . . .

Walmart is not Plug Power’s only large, high profile client. It is even working directly with an automaker, Stellantis, but also with Amazon and HomeDepot. Its next move is to expand from just offering FCV forklifts to a wider assortment of vehicles, including some for heavy duty applications.

For instance, last year it entered a $1.6-billion joint venture deal with South Korea’s SK Group to provide its ProGen fuel cell technology to power city buses in the country. The first ones are scheduled to enter service by the middle of 2023.

Plug Power is also looking at expanding more in the US, as well as in Europe, where it it is part of another 50/50 joint venture with Spain’s Acciona Energia. It also wants to make FCV vans based on the Renault Master (through another joint venture with Renault called Hyvia) and wants to work towards expanding the hydrogen fuel station infrastructure on the continent. . . .

On a related issue, many of us are cautious about or skeptical of CCS, so I wonder if it's worth starting a topic dedicated to that, or just keep it here? Here's the kind of thing (eek!, government support!) that would be posted there, via GCC:

AirCapture, OCOchem and partners win $2.93M DOE grant for direct air capture of CO2 and conversion to formic acid

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2022/04/20220426-dacus.html

Carbon dioxide capture company AirCapture and carbon dioxide conversion company OCOchem, along with other partners, have won a $2.93-million grant from the US Department of Energy to design and engineer an integrated carbon dioxide capture and conversion plant co-located at Nutrien’s Kennewick Fertilizer Operations plant in Kennewick, Wash.

AirCapture develops on-site, modular technology that captures CO2 from the air using waste heat from manufacturing plants, enabling customer operations to go carbon neutral and even negative. OCOchem transforms recycled CO2, water and zero-carbon electricity to produce formic acid, a globally traded commodity chemical and emerging electro-fuel.

Almost every manufacturing plant in the world emits waste heat or CO2 or both, notes Todd Brix, Co-Founder and CEO of OCOchem, based in Richland, Wash. . . .

The goal is to use both companies’ technology to design an integrated carbon capture and conversion plant that uses waste steam from Nutrien’s fertilizer facility to extract CO2 from the air and then convert it, with water and electricity, to make formic acid. The formic acid can then be stored, transported, and used directly in many industrial, consumer, transportation, and agricultural industries. Additionally, it can be used to transport green hydrogen safely and cost-effectively in an energy-dense liquid carrier form to a customer site where the hydrogen can be released for industrial use or as a transportation fuel, replacing fossil fuels.

Nutrien, one of the world’s largest fertilizer manufacturers, has committed to achieve at least a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions per ton of Nutrien’s products by 2030. The proposed CO2 capture and conversion plant will be instrumental in helping the company meet these goals.

Results from the Direct Air Capture and Utilization System (DACUS) design will also be used to quantify how deployment of the proposed technology will increase the number of local clean energy and manufacturing jobs, payroll, and taxes. In addition, the project will assess the impact on members of the local community. Additional partners participating in the project include the Benton Public Utility District, and the University of Alabama, Sacre-Davey Engineering, and TRI-DEC (Tri-Cities Development Council).

 

[WetEV]

Do tell me about the "competing failures" to the internet that the government supported.

Well, there was the whole GOSIP fiasco -- where some in the U.S. Federal govt decided they needed the OSI protocols for wide-adopted computer networking, simply because it was designed by a bunch of committees paid for by the (mostly European) government(s). Except that the OSI protocol suite was a pipe dream that wasn't implemented at the time (1990). This happened totally ignoring the existing working Internet based upon TCP/IP that was growing leaps and bounds.

A reference: https://www.inetdaemon.com/tutorials/basic_concepts/network_models/osi_model/osi-gosip.shtml

This was all before the general public knew what the Internet was (I used to say I work on this thing that nobody ever heard of). I was a member of several IETF working groups at the time (late 80s and early 90s). PPP was the work I was most involved in; you may not have heard of it, but if you used a dial-up Internet connection from 1995 onward (through today) you used PPP over the link level and under IP.

Amusing. I was working for Digital Equipment, and they were briefly all in for supporting OSI. Classes that all the software people had to take and so on. Then it disappeared, completely. RIP, DECnet/OSI.

 

[WetEV]

No idea (before my time), but I'm willing to bet that there were some, just as there have been in most advanced techs that have gotten government support. I have read that Arpanet started with just four or maybe it was five locations, all universities or government research facilities, and (per the link below) was decommissioned 1990, presumably as something better came along. Based on that you could argue that ARPANET was ultimately a failure, a blind alley on the way to what we have now. [Note, I'm not making that argument, but what we have now is definitely not ARPANET]. I read the list of initial ARPANET locations recently, IIRR in Moore's "Crossing the Chasm, 3rd Edition: Marketing and Selling Disruptive Products to Mainstream Customers". An online history of the net here: https://online.jefferson.edu/busine...t as we know,Research Projects Agency (ARPA). shows how various techs were developed and added or succeeded previous ones; these were undoubtedly just the ones that succeeded.

Without a trace of irony or humility.

Getting back on topic,

Yes. Consider how OSI was like hydrogen cars.

 

[jlv]

I have read that Arpanet started with just four or maybe it was five locations, all universities or government research facilities, and (per the link below) was decommissioned 1990, presumably as something better came along. Based on that you could argue that ARPANET was ultimately a failure, a blind alley on the way to what we have now.

The ARPAnet (and its original NCP) was the breeder reactor that birthed TCP/IP, which in turn grew into a vibrant non-government Internet. To use the words ARPAnet and failure in the same sentence is ridiculous. If the ARPAnet had failed, there would be no Internet today as we know it.

Do you really write opinions like this for things you know nothing about (other than "I read about it on the Internet")? Sheesh.

 

[LeftieBiker]

It's a fairly common phenomenon - especially on the Internet - for people to go a ways past the point of being reasonable in defending their position. It's often out of stubbornness, but can also be due to a strong desire to Not Be Wrong. I've done it myself, back in my Usenet days, and I see it here today. It's human nature.

 

[SageBrush]

I have read that Arpanet started with just four or maybe it was five locations, all universities or government research facilities, and (per the link below) was decommissioned 1990, presumably as something better came along. Based on that you could argue that ARPANET was ultimately a failure, a blind alley on the way to what we have now.

The ARPAnet (and its original NCP) was the breeder reactor that birthed TCP/IP, which in turn grew into a vibrant non-government Internet. To use the words ARPAnet and failure in the same sentence is ridiculous. If the ARPAnet had failed, there would be no Internet today as we know it.

Do you really write opinions like this for things you know nothing about (other than "I read about it on the Internet")? Sheesh.

This is a very good example of how GRA "thinks." He reads that ARPAnet was decommissioned but does not know why so he makes something up. Then he runs with his baseless conjecture off a cliff.

 

[GRA]

I have read that Arpanet started with just four or maybe it was five locations, all universities or government research facilities, and (per the link below) was decommissioned 1990, presumably as something better came along. Based on that you could argue that ARPANET was ultimately a failure, a blind alley on the way to what we have now.

The ARPAnet (and its original NCP) was the breeder reactor that birthed TCP/IP, which in turn grew into a vibrant non-government Internet. To use the words ARPAnet and failure in the same sentence is ridiculous. If the ARPAnet had failed, there would be no Internet today as we know it.

Do you really write opinions like this for things you know nothing about (other than "I read about it on the Internet")? Sheesh.

Sure, better stuff grew out of it, that's my point. ARPANET itself was abandoned. Do you think the government foresaw in the sixties everything the net would become and consciously guided it without any missteps, subsidizing only those developments that would prove successful in the long-run? Sheesh yourself - The above doesn't describe the path of any major technical advance. No doubt it was the usual combination of luck (good and bad), economics, multiple innovations and improvements, and numerous failures/blind allies along the way.


Back to H2, both via GCC:

Aviation H2 selects liquid ammonia as carbon-free fuel of choice

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2022/04/20220428-aviationh2.html

Following a three-month feasibility study, Aviation H2—an Australian-owned company seeking to achieve net-zero emissions in the aerospace sector through green hydrogen—has selected the use of liquid ammonia to turbofan combustion as the best route to carbon-free flight and will soon start modifying turbofan engines to test and prove the concept.

The company, which is launching a $500,000 capital raise via the online platform VCEX to fund the construction of its first modification prototype, says the results from their studies were very positive. Their research shows that converting a Falcon 50 to Liquid Ammonia Turbofan Combustion is the most efficient and commercially viable avenue to building a hydrogen-powered plane.

The company’s team of engineers say they now have a clear pathway to having Australia’s first hydrogen-fuelled aircraft in the skies by the middle of 2023.

By implementing this power path, Aviation H2 can fly aircraft with hydrogen fuel using significantly less weight than alternative power paths while generating the same amount of power.

There are multiple reasons why liquid ammonia was selected. Chiefly its advantages include high gravimetric and volumetric hydrogen density that makes it lighter and easier to transport while providing a greater energy conversion rate. In fact, the stored weight of liquid ammonia energy is substantially lighter than gaseous hydrogen and can be kept at a much lower tank pressure.

—Aviation H2 Director, Dr Helmut Mayer

Dr Mayer says this is supported by anhydrous ammonia reaching liquification point quicker, which makes it a lot simpler to store when compared to liquid or gasified hydrogen. Additionally, worldwide transportation and handling of liquid ammonia has been around for many years, making ammonia as a carbon-free fuel even more appealing.

The company has selected the Dassault Falcon 50 business jet—a long-ranged international business charter jet aircraft—for the flight test.

The jet has three engines, of which only two are required for flight, allowing the third engine to be used to test a smaller engine modified to use liquid ammonia before moving on to modify the main engines.

Falcon 50s also have a larger weight capacity, reducing the risk posed by weight challenges. The costs for the test program are no larger than when using a smaller and newer type of jet.

They are also relatively common in Australia, meaning there is a time-saving in getting the aircraft ready for testing. . . .

Once the test flight is successful in the middle of 2023, Aviation H2 will have a patentable method for modifying aircraft so they operate on carbon-free fuel. They will quickly seek to certify and commercialise this product via a planned public listing on a major exchange in Q4 of 2023.

I'm only quoting the relevant part of the article here, with the rest in the "AFV Trucks" topic.

Nikola launches serial production of Nikola Tre BEV in Arizona; fuel-cell trucks next year

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2022/04/20220428-nikola.html

. . . Alberta hydrogen hub. Separately, Canada-based Nikola partner TC Energy Corporation, is eyeing Crossfield, Alberta as the site for a hydrogen production hub. TC Energy operates a natural gas storage facility on the 140-acre site.

Nikola will be the hub’s anchor customer for its long-haul fuel cell electric vehicles. The southern portion of Alberta is a key transportation corridor for long-haul trucks. TC Energy and Nikola previously announced a joint development agreement with the aim to locate and build hydrogen production hubs in North America.

The proposed hub would produce an estimated 60 tonnes of hydrogen per day, with the capacity to increase to 150 tonnes per day in the future. To produce hydrogen, natural gas is reacted in a chemical plant to separate hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The CO2 generated during this process is then captured and sequestered, lowering the emissions to meet clean-energy standards (blue hydrogen).

TC Energy’s Crossfield Gas Storage facility, 50 km (31 miles) north of Calgary, holds 68 billion cubic feet of natural gas.

 

[WetEV]

Sure, better stuff grew out of it, that's my point. ARPANET itself was abandoned. Do you think the government foresaw in the sixties everything the net would become and consciously guided it without any missteps, subsidizing only those developments that would prove successful in the long-run? Sheesh yourself - The above doesn't describe the path of any major technical advance. No doubt it was the usual combination of luck (good and bad), economics, multiple innovations and improvements, and numerous failures/blind allies along the way.

Some advances generate a tidal wave of other advances.

Some don't.

Hydrogen and FCEVs are the OSI of cars.. Tesla is the DECNET. The rest are the Internet.

 

[GRA]

Sure, better stuff grew out of it, that's my point. ARPANET itself was abandoned. Do you think the government foresaw in the sixties everything the net would become and consciously guided it without any missteps, subsidizing only those developments that would prove successful in the long-run? Sheesh yourself - The above doesn't describe the path of any major technical advance. No doubt it was the usual combination of luck (good and bad), economics, multiple innovations and improvements, and numerous failures/blind allies along the way.

Some advances generate a tidal wave of other advances.

Some don't.

Hydrogen and FCEVs are the OSI of cars.. Tesla is the DECNET. The rest are the Internet.

Seeing as how we're still in the very early stages of H2 and FCEVs, it's way too early to say, although at the moment there's rapid buildup for green and blue H2 production, with usage increases following slightly later.

 

[WetEV]

Seeing as how we're still in the very early stages of H2 and FCEVs, it's way too early to say, although at the moment there's rapid buildup for green and blue H2 production, with usage increases following slightly later.

Rapid as in might be significant in a decade or two... is an odd use of the word rapid.

I'll ask the Red Queen.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/12608-when-i-use-a-word-humpty-dumpty-said-in-rather

 

[GRA]

Seeing as how we're still in the very early stages of H2 and FCEVs, it's way too early to say, although at the moment there's rapid buildup for green and blue H2 production, with usage increases following slightly later.

Rapid as in might be significant in a decade or two... is an odd use of the word rapid.

I'll ask the Red Queen.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/12608-when-i-use-a-word-humpty-dumpty-said-in-rather

Considering the amount of time which energy transitions take (60 - 100 years), a decade or two would be exceptionally rapid historically. However, some projections of such use being 'significant' are sooner than that, depending on the particular definition (or particular niche) of same.

Just for comparison, mass-production PEVs have already been around for over a decade and are seeing rapid increases, yet we're still a long way away from them making up a majority of sales let alone a majority of the fleet. Are they 'significant' yet by your definition?