Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[LTLFTcomposite]

They're in operation hauling freight in the port of San Diego, for just one. It's a plug-in fuel cell 'hybrid' class-8 tractor.

Good, next time I'm looking for a bankrupt company to hook me up with something to move shipping containers around I'll keep that in mind. Meanwhile, the world's second largest automaker showing what could be the most compelling zero emission concept to date is certainly no less interesting.

 

[AndyH]

Yep, I've read a lot of them, which is why I am confused by your position.

I'm sorry. I really tried to make things clear and pull the loose-ends together. All too often, though, to cover the bases it becomes a TLR fest...and too many people won't even explore the thread, much less read 500 word posts.

The CA CARB board is slowing the adoption of alternative fuel vehicles.
By spending $46 Million on the H2 infrastructure instead of on additional BEV infrastructure it basically slows the number of people buying BEVs.
My position is the slowdown in BEVs will be greater than the gain in FCEVs.

Thanks, that's very clear. This view has been on the table since the top of this forum thread. What's also been on the table, and has so far been unanswered, is my request for ANY links or documentation that supports that belief. Based on reading the plan and the sources and amounts of money allocated to this H2 infrastructure project, it seems clear that the money was specifically allocated for alternative fuel infrastructure, that work continues on both H2 and BEV infrastructure, and that no money allocated to BEVs and no EVSE infrastructure projects were lost in order to plant the initial H2 stations. If you've got sources please post them. Thanks in advance.

In addition, I also hold that the only reason Toyota has compleatly pulled out of the BEV market in the US is that the CA CARB credits so overwhelmingly favor FCEVs.

I guess that in order for me to agree with you I would have to believe that Toyota and the other automakers with FCEV projects are being driven by CARB credits. I think it's very clear that FCEV were being deployed in the world well before they hit CA a month or two back. For the quickest summary of why that is, hit this page and scan the places and dates:
http://www.thethirdindustrialrevolution.com/masterPlan.cfm
Even China and Kazakhstan are ahead of the US on meaningfully transitioning away from fossil fuel.

If you want potentially zero emission vehicles on the road, you don't pull the rug out from the ones getting established to favor the new guy which will have less than 1% of the impact in the light vehicle fleet.

Nobody's pulling the rug out. I certainly do understand that too many Americans (Californians, actually...) THINK that! But that is NOT what's happening because the transition - ALL of the transition plans - require both BEV and FCEV.

Look at the entire vehicle fleet in the US today - a full 45% cannot be served by BEV. Simply cannot. Remember - we've had FCEV buses and trucks on North American roads for decades - well before a test car and a production 'SUV-lite' arrived on the scene. I think that's important.

Please - if you're not already up on them, get comfortable with TIR, Reinventing Fire, and the Solutions Project. These are the transition plans being implemented around the world. They contain the math, the peer-reviewed science, and examples of how they're being deployed today. Understanding the plans will completely erase any fear that anyone's trying to slow BEV deployment.

http://www.amazon.com/Reinventing-Fire-Business-Solutions-Energy/dp/1603583718
http://www.amazon.com/Third-Industrial-Revolution-Lateral-Transforming/dp/0230341977
http://thesolutionsproject.org/

Don't take my word for anything - I'm not 'debating' here. Hit the sources. Or believe Nubo.
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=335545#p335545

edit..fixed typo; added clarifying words.

 

[AndyH]

They're in operation hauling freight in the port of San Diego, for just one. It's a plug-in fuel cell 'hybrid' class-8 tractor.

Good, next time I'm looking for a bankrupt company to hook me up with something to move shipping containers around I'll keep that in mind. Meanwhile, the world's second largest automaker showing what could be the most compelling zero emission concept to date is certainly no less interesting.

Yeah, I hear you. A123 and Evergreen Solar went bankrupt, too. I figure we're 2-3 months away from losing all batteries and PV panels on the planet as a result.

:roll: :lol:

Care to provide a source that supports your bankruptcy thoughts? Thanks.

http://www.visionmotorcorp.com/
http://fleetowner.com/green/archive/hyrdogen-fuel-cell-electric-class-truck-0726
http://www.tts-i.com/sustainability/

 

[GRA]

I did notice, however, that in spite of the availability of numbers for similarly-performing vehicles, you chose to compare the price of a FCEV with greater than Model S range with the battery price of a Leaf. Do you think that's a reasonable comparison

the Hyundai has same EPA range as single motored S-85, what EPA ranges the dual motor Tesla have is still to be shown.

Yet the Hyundai drove more than 400 miles in real traffic in California. Hmmm...

Andy, I think you're thinking of the Toyota FCHV-ADV rather than the Tucson:

"The maximum range of the FCHV-ADV vehicles was calculated to be 431 miles under these driving conditions. This distance was calculated from the actual range of 331.5 miles during over 11 hours of driving, plus 99.5 miles of additional range calculated from the average fuel economy from the day times the remaining usable hydrogen."

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f9/toyota_fchv-adv_range_verification.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't know how the Tucson's fuel cells stack up , but as they're a somewhat later tech (2012 vs. 2009 IIRR) they should be the same or slightly better. The current Toyota (and Honda) cell stacks have about twice the power density as the one in the FCHV-ADV, something like 3- 3.1 kW/l versus around 1.4 or 1.6 before. That's the main reason why Toyota and Honda can now fit everything into a much smaller vehicle, albeit with (probably) somewhat less real-world range than the Highlander-based FCHV-ADV as they carry less fuel, 5 kg (Mirai) vs. 6.31 kg (FCHV-ADV). The Mirai's far better aero compared to the Highlander would play a part at highway speeds, but not as much in the heavy traffic they had to drive in in the above test, as the two vehicles weigh much the same.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

Care to provide a source that supports your bankruptcy thoughts? Thanks.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/vision-industries-files-voluntary-chapter-210000055.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[GRA]

They're in operation hauling freight in the port of San Diego, for just one. It's a plug-in fuel cell 'hybrid' class-8 tractor.

Good, next time I'm looking for a bankrupt company to hook me up with something to move shipping containers around I'll keep that in mind. Meanwhile, the world's second largest automaker showing what could be the most compelling zero emission concept to date is certainly no less interesting.

Yeah, I hear you. A123 and Evergreen Solar went bankrupt, too. I figure we're 2-3 months away from losing all batteries and PV panels on the planet as a result.

:roll: :lol:

Care to provide a source that supports your bankruptcy thoughts? Thanks.

http://www.visionmotorcorp.com/
http://fleetowner.com/green/archive/hyrdogen-fuel-cell-electric-class-truck-0726
http://www.tts-i.com/sustainability/

Well, here's one: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/vision-industries-files-voluntary-chapter-210000055.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not that I think the bankruptcy of a single start-up company means doom for a particular new tech; if so, Coda, Fisker, Think, Bright, etc. etc. would have doomed BEVs and PHEVs. Smith's almost went down too, and they're dependent now on a single investor plus govt. subsidies: http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/transportation/blogs/smith-electric-keeps-on-truckin" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[GregH]

Looks like they heard me

http://news.yahoo.com/audi-announces-mastered-hydrogen-unveils-first-fuel-cell-202346713.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ha! Good timing..
Any mention of how big the fuel cell stack is?

 

[TonyWilliams]

Looks like they heard me

http://news.yahoo.com/audi-announces-mastered-hydrogen-unveils-first-fuel-cell-202346713.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ha! Good timing..
Any mention of how big the fuel cell stack is?

"...can do 0-62 m.p.h. in 7.9 seconds... "

"launch the production process as soon as the market and infrastructure are ready."

It sounds very logical, and Audi has been on-and-off again with these kind of projects for years.

The key, of course, is the the last sentence. By the way, this can't outrun my existing RAV4 EV (the type of car that nobody asked Toyota to build, according to them).

I will be interested to see the math on power produced, battery range, and what happens at that refueling point with a depleted battery.

 

[GRA]

Via GCR:

Honda To Loan First Element $14 Million For Hydrogen Fueling Stations

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1095563_honda-to-loan-first-element-14-million-for-hydrogen-fueling-stations" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As mentioned up thread, Toyota is loaning First Element money for 19 stations, and this money from Honda will help fund an additional 12. California is also kicking in.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Via GCR:

Honda To Loan First Element $14 Million For Hydrogen Fueling Stations

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1095563_honda-to-loan-first-element-14-million-for-hydrogen-fueling-stations" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As mentioned up thread, Toyota is loaning First Element money for 19 stations, and this money from Honda will help fund an additional 12. California is also kicking in.

Neither Honda, nor Toyota spent a PENNY on public EV charging infrastructure. Yes, Virginia, it is most definitely a contest.

 

[GRA]

Via GCR:

Honda To Loan First Element $14 Million For Hydrogen Fueling Stations

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1095563_honda-to-loan-first-element-14-million-for-hydrogen-fueling-stations" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As mentioned up thread, Toyota is loaning First Element money for 19 stations, and this money from Honda will help fund an additional 12. California is also kicking in.

Neither Honda, nor Toyota spent a PENNY on public EV charging infrastructure. Yes, Virginia, it is most definitely a contest.

That's bad? Of course, it's also an inaccurate statement, much too broad. It would be accurate to say that Toyota and Honda haven't spent a penny (AFAIK) on public charging stations in the U.S. As mentioned up thread in a reply to the "Toyota says batteries are bad" erroneous statement, I pointed out that they are, in fact, subsidizing public chargers in Japan, and have done so in the past, viz:

http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/publish/pressrelease_en/corporate/2013/news/detaildb12.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[TonyWilliams]

That's bad? Of course, it's also an inaccurate statement, much too broad. It would be accurate to say that Toyota and Honda haven't spent a penny (AFAIK) on public charging stations in the U.S. As mentioned up thread in a reply to the "Toyota says batteries are bad" erroneous statement, I pointed out that they are, in fact, subsidizing public chargers in Japan, and have done so in the past, viz:

http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/publish/pressrelease_en/corporate/2013/news/detaildb12.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I suspect you missed the sarcasm... and my interpretation of the Toyota message. Not my message, Toyota's message from the highest levels of the company.

There are entire threads devoted to Toyota's slamming EV's on the RAV4 forum. Sorry, it obviously isn't a known quantity here.

Yes, I'm well aware of their EV related activites elsewhere in the world, OUTSIDE THE USA.

 

[GRA]

That's bad? Of course, it's also an inaccurate statement, much too broad. It would be accurate to say that Toyota and Honda haven't spent a penny (AFAIK) on public charging stations in the U.S. As mentioned up thread in a reply to the "Toyota says batteries are bad" erroneous statement, I pointed out that they are, in fact, subsidizing public chargers in Japan, and have done so in the past, viz:

http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/publish/pressrelease_en/corporate/2013/news/detaildb12.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I suspect you missed the sarcasm... and my interpretation of the Toyota message. Not my message, Toyota's message from the highest levels of the company.

There are entire threads devoted to Toyota's slamming EV's on the RAV4 forum. Sorry, it obviously isn't a known quantity here.

Yes, I'm well aware of their EV related activites elsewhere in the world, OUTSIDE THE USA.

Tony, we've discussed and linked to Toyota's public comments re BEVs here. Although I only trawl the RAV4EV forum occasionally, I've never seen them 'diss' (as you described their behavior upthread) BEVs, just say that they don't think they are appropriate to the market here given current capabilities and prices. Which is not to say that some Toyota execs may not feel that way privately, but we're talking about the difference between personal opinions and company policy, and Toyota's continuing work on batteries, both Li-S in the near term and solid-state for the longer term, as has also been mentioned previously upthread, as well as their establishing a new BEV sub-brand in China recently (also mentioned) doesn't indicate any disrespect of batteries or BEVs that I can see.

You may believe that their evaluation of the current marketability of BEVs here is wrong, and they may be, but they have never stopped working on batteries any more than Nissan has stopped working on FCVs. One doesn't have to look far to find real examples of auto company execs 'dissing' an AFV technology, e.g. Elon Musk ("fool cells"), Sergio Marchionne ("please don't buy the 500e") or Johan de Nysschen ("you'd have to be an idiot to buy a Volt"), from memory so maybe not exact quotes, but close enough. Can you point to any current Toyota executive who's said anything publicly about BEVs so disrepectful?

 

[AndyH]

I did notice, however, that in spite of the availability of numbers for similarly-performing vehicles, you chose to compare the price of a FCEV with greater than Model S range with the battery price of a Leaf. Do you think that's a reasonable comparison

the Hyundai has same EPA range as single motored S-85, what EPA ranges the dual motor Tesla have is still to be shown.

Yet the Hyundai drove more than 400 miles in real traffic in California. Hmmm...

Andy, I think you're thinking of the Toyota FCHV-ADV rather than the Tucson:

"The maximum range of the FCHV-ADV vehicles was calculated to be 431 miles under these driving conditions. This distance was calculated from the actual range of 331.5 miles during over 11 hours of driving, plus 99.5 miles of additional range calculated from the average fuel economy from the day times the remaining usable hydrogen."

<snip>

I'm remembering these, Guy:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=333615#p333615
Oct 24, 2013

Hyundai Tucson FCEV development and fuel economy

http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/htac_may2012_hyundai.pdf

2008 drive from San Francisco to LA using a 2nd gen system
- 396 miles traveled
- 6.65 kg H2 consumed
- 60.7 mpg (gasoline equivalent)
- 471 mile est max range

2012 Tucson iX FCEV
- 100 kW fuel cell
- 34 kW battery
- 100 kW AC induction motor
- 73 mpg gas equivalent
- 406 mile range

Think of these as BEVs with a fuel cell range extender. These will take market share from GM and others' petro cars, not from BEVs - especially since the price of BEV city cars will fall much faster than FCEVs will, if for no other reason than the BEV's head start.

 

[AndyH]

Care to provide a source that supports your bankruptcy thoughts? Thanks.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/vision-industries-files-voluntary-chapter-210000055.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks. That looks like a reorganization though, not doors closing.

 

[AndyH]

Along with the 'get off fossil fuel plans' (TIR, Reinvent Fire, Solutions), I've been recommending this series of videos (or the resulting book) since mid-2012 when I discovered it. The Crash Course is a result of research conducted by a gent that spent time on Wall St analyzing energy and raw materials. From his website:

Chris Martenson, PhD (Duke), MBA (Cornell) is an economic researcher and futurist specializing in energy and resource depletion, and co-founder of PeakProsperity.com (along with Adam Taggart).

First of all, I am not an economist. I am trained as a scientist, having completed both a PhD and a post-doctoral program at Duke University, where I specialized in neurotoxicology. I tell you this because my extensive training as a scientist informs and guides how I think. I gather data, I develop hypotheses, and I continually seek to accept or reject my hypotheses based on the evidence at hand. I let the data tell me the story.

It is also important for you to know that I entered the profession of science with the intention of teaching at the college level. I love teaching, and I especially enjoy the challenge of explaining difficult or complicated subjects to people with limited or no background in those subjects. Over the years I’ve gotten pretty good at it.

Once I figured out that most of the (so-called) better colleges place "effective teacher" pretty much near the bottom of their list of characteristics that factor into tenure review, I switched gears, obtained an MBA from Cornell (in Finance), and spent the next ten years working my way through positions in both corporate finance and strategic consulting. From these experiences I gather my comfort with numbers and finance.

The original reference on the forum: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=208160#p208160

The 2014 revised Crash Course is still being released to the public one chapter per week. I think that chapters 19 and 21 provide useful info for this thread (actually the entire presentation is more than useful, but...) Chapter 19 talks about energy returned on energy invested (EROEI). Yes, H2 has no EROEI - it is and always will be an energy sink. It's not an 'energy source' - and nobody is calling it a source. What is important from Chapter 19 is that the EROEI of fracked gas is very, very low. Same for shale oil and tar sands oil. The days of 100:1 returns on oil and gas are over. In Chapter 21, the author delves in the details and returns on fracked gas. At current oil prices, returns from fracked gas are negative - truly negative, not "worst case bioethanol could be negative in some instances and positive in others". That's why more than 80% of gas produced on the Eagle Ford shale is flared - it isn't even delivered to a pipeline to be used.

Natural gas as a resource is not going to be a viable transportation option (either when used directly or reformed to H2). It's a non-starter. Therefore, nobody needs fear the 1995-era belief that H2=an easy outlet for natural gas, or that FCEV/FCHV is an enemy to electrification.



There is really good news in Chapter 19 - back to the EROEI of wind and solar. Even with the energy losses incurred when storing energy as H2, the energy returns are still well above the other options.





Yes - yet again - using electricity at it's point of generation (and thus retaining most of the energy lost in transmission) and in a BEV is more efficient than using those same electrons to make H2 (with the thermodynamic loss). But both are significantly better than even the 'mythical' EROEI of gasoline or diesel, and both can continue to function in a future without fossil fuel. And also yet again - they provide complementary functionality - one is better for short ranges and lighter loads, while one excels with heavier loads and long distances - even if one does not live in North Dakota or Buffalo...

Chapter 19:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvqEi7XRKY8[/youtube]

Transcript (and Vimeo version):
http://www.peakprosperity.com/video/85855/crash-course-chapter-19-energy-economics


Chapter 21:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xliyZMPJvjk[/youtube]

Transcript (and Vimeo version): http://www.peakprosperity.com/video/85825/crash-course-chapter-21-shale-oil


I'll close with this quote from chapter 21:

In closing, the shale plays are really a feat of engineering, and they have bought us some time. We can either use the temporary boost in energy supplies, expensive though they are, to build towards a future when these too eventually run out, or we can use them as an excuse to carry on with business as usual.

If we do choose business as usual as our operating strategy - I use that word very loosely – then we will just march straight into the shale oil peak around the year 2020 and be very disappointed with ourselves and our utterly inappropriate transportation infrastructure.

edit...spelling...thanks mbender.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Yes, H2 has no EROEI - it is and always will be an energy sink. It's not an 'energy source' - and nobody is calling it a source.

Just when i wrote you off as nothing but a pure shill for H2, you start spewing facts that aren't so rosy for your favored energy medium !!!

Now, we are getting somewhere. Given that H2 has this physical BRICK WALL limitation, doesn't it make sense for mankind... and this planet... to move towards those sources and mediums of energy that are net "positive" (more efficient), CO2 neutral, and work today?

Namely, batteries or other CO2 neutral and cost effective (must have both) storage of ELECTRIC power that is generated by perpetual, clean, non-polluting sources.

Just so you don't slide off on another tirade on one of our frequent posters who don't agree with you, I think I'll list the things we likely ALL agree with?

My top 10:

1) CO2 released from fossil fuels into the atmosphere - bad
2) H2 is not an 'energy source'
3) H2 will ALWAYS cost more to produce than just electrical power. ALWAYS.
4) H2 appears to be universally accepted as today's answer for grid storage, heavy equipment, etc, until such time that battery storage is CHEAPER in the future. If that never happens, H2 "wins"
5) H2 is NOT cost effective TODAY versus a battery electric car
6) Toyota claims H2 won't be cost effective until 2030
7) H2 "extended range" hybrid cars that use EV batteries for 20-100 miles is a wonderful near term solution at an unrealistic price. Singularly, either H2 or EV is expensive... together, they are a non-starter without HUGE government handouts and industry support
8) H2 (or anything) stored in a 10,000 / 700mb pressure vessel is MORE dangerous than a battery that will only burn.
9) Electricity is ubiquitous; H2 is not.
10) EV's have a HUGE head start; H2 cars, for well into the future, are still limited science experiments that are not close to the cost structure required of public acceptance


Edit: had to add 11) H2 cars will ONLY be offered in CARB-ZEV states, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, for the foreseeable future.

 

[AndyH]

Nice synchronicity today. This piece from the Rocky Mountain Institute's newsletter is on VW's XL1. The piece compares/contrasts the goals and results of VW's work with the goals of RMI's hypercar project.

https://medium.com/solutions-journal-summer-2014/the-hypercar-lives-meet-vws-xl1-97603e97612f

This is on-target and gives a bit of insight into the focus of RMI's Reinventing Fire project (which is being worked in the US, while the TIR is being deployed outside the USA):

RMI senior associate Jonathan Walker explains: “VW had a different goal than we do. Their goal was to make a 235-mpg car. In my opinion, you don’t need that,” he says. “RMI’s goal is get off carbon and oil. A 100 mpg car gets you there.” RMI’s Reinventing Fire analysis, he notes, can fuel its efficient vehicles, some at just half XL1’s efficiency, with any mixture of electricity, hydrogen, and advanced biofuels but no oil.

"Any mixture" means 100% electric, or 100% H2 or 100% advanced biofuels (no food!) or ANY combination of these.

edit....
I also want to comment on 'efficiency' here. First, a step 'back' or 'up' for a moment. There are two terms or concepts that are important for this. One is "context" and one is "content". Context is the cup, content is the coffee. Context is "provide 100% of transportation without fossil fuel" and content is a fuel or a technology, or a combination of tech that provides part or all of the goal of the context. Content conforms to the shape, volume, location, and function allowed by the context. Content doesn't drive the boat - context does.

This paper from 1991 is where RMI's hypercar project begins: http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/Library/T91_20_AdvancedLightVehicleConcepts

This outlines the context of their super efficient mini-van sized vehicle that is propelled by the same amounts of power and energy that an F150 air conditioning compressor uses. This paper also resulted in the activation (if not the birth) of using carbon fiber in consumer vehicles - and this evolved to both the VW XL1 and the carbon fibre used in the BMW I3. Context is at least as important as content. Before we get into a urinary Olympiad about the relative efficiency of components (content), let's define the context and look at overall systems efficiency first... Top-down design, not bottom up.

 

[donald]

My top 10:

1) CO2 released from fossil fuels into the atmosphere - bad
At the very least, unnecessary.

2) H2 is not an 'energy source'
It's only ever been described as 'an energy vector' by anyone serious.

3) H2 will ALWAYS cost more to produce than just electrical power. ALWAYS.
With current technologies, however evolved, maybe. But there has been no need to implement industrial scale thermolysis, which would be more efficient because you're missing out on the thermal-to-electric stage of the energy flow. I think high temperature catalysed thermolysis would be more efficient in terms of delivering MJ-equivalent, but not necessarily more MJ of electricity once the H2 has gone through a FC. It could be a tight thing when you factor in all the network losses of getting leccy from one place to the other, rather than piping H2 around.

4) H2 appears to be universally accepted as today's answer for grid storage, heavy equipment, etc, until such time that battery storage is CHEAPER in the future. If that never happens, H2 "wins"
I've not heard that said. The serious current contenders are gravity reservoirs, flowing electrolyte batteries, and rechargeable batteries on the grid, all of which exist in practice.

 

[AndyH]

4) H2 appears to be universally accepted as today's answer for grid storage, heavy equipment, etc, until such time that battery storage is CHEAPER in the future. If that never happens, H2 "wins"
I've not heard that said. The serious current contenders are gravity reservoirs, flowing electrolyte batteries, and rechargeable batteries on the grid, all of which exist in practice.

"I've not heard that said..." is a very important qualifier.

Should you read through this thread and/or become familiar with the Third Industrial Revolution plan being implemented throughout Europe (and much of the rest of the world), you'd find that while the plan is storage agnostic, and that all capability (including pumped water storage, CAES, and various types of battery storage) is being used when/where it's available or the best option, that H2 storage is in the lead because it improves CAES by more than 100x, there are precious few areas to expand pumped storage, batteries are still damn expensive, and H2 is the only fluid that allows easy and yes efficient conversion of electricity into heat, or electricity into heavy vehicles, or that allows 7 days of vehicle to grid support rather than ~8 hours.