Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[AndyH]

Andy; showing us over capacity potential means nothing unless you can show that hydrogen has made improvements in containment, transportation and storage. THAT is the holy grail. it is that which puts hydrogen in the same ballpark as gasoline and its prime advantage over electricity.

I realize this thread has wiggled through a number of domains that include transportation and power grid storage. I also realize I've asked everyone to see relationships between energy sectors that most don't see today.

This is very important Dave and it's the reason that I've been beating on the proverbial podium about the Third Industrial Revolution plan. The people - researchers, planners, utilities, and politicians - involved in our energy transition are no longer looking at power generation, transportation, and buildings as separate 'stove pipes' or 'silos' the way most see them today. They understand that this isolated reductionist thinking is a primary reason for many of the problems we have on the planet today. It's more expensive in time, money, and materials to 'fix' three broken systems singly - and the 'repair' results in less efficient solutions if there are solutions to be had. The TIR view, the Reinventing Fire view, and others are 'whole systems' approaches to solving our energy problem. Using a whole-systems approach costs less money, uses fewer materials, takes less time to upgrade, and results in a more robust and reliable system.

Here's an example from a talk I've already linked. The speaker, Daryl Wilson, is the CEO of Hydrogenics. He was formerly CEO of two solar companies, and a former head of manufacturing at Toyota Canada. The talk was recorded in Sep, 2012. The numbers in the quote tag are the time hack in the video.
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxidO4F8an4

Our energy world today you see is highly siloed. We have transport fuel representing about 36%, electricity about 20% and natural gas for heating and industrial purposes about 35%, and these three silos have very little to do with each other in the energy systems of today. By introducing hydrogen as an energy carrier, we have the ability to migrate energy through these various sectors and most importantly use the storage and distribution assets of the natural gas system as a way to carry away the surpluses of renewable energy generation from wind and solar.

After reading this, and recalling that the architect of the plan, Jeremy Rifkin, makes clear that the goal is for locally produced energy to be used locally first, and exported/shared second, one can see that we simply do not need to waste energy moving hydrogen across the country. We have all the tech available today to do what we need. Industry's been using H2 for more than 100 years - how much more development do we need? It works.

until you can show us that, I prefer molten salt, pumped water, etc. as a way to store over capacity. neither is a great option (although molten salt does seem to have enough merit to warrant futher investment into the tech) now neither of these options are portable. they only store power onsite which greatly limits its usability.

There's another important difference with hydrogen and this has been well recognized in Germany where a number of storage solutions have already been tried. On this chart which you see on the backdrop with the fluctuating line the output of the wind generation for E.On in the northern part of Germany fluctuating in just a matter of hours from zero to eight GW output. This problem continues to worsen in Germany and is the reason why there's a great deal of focus on the need for energy storage. On the right hand side of the slide is a compressed air storage plant which actually exists in Germany and is operated today. ... The conclusion of E.On is that they will never build enough compressed air storage plants to come anywhere close to meeting the needs of the problem. There's also pumped hydro facilities in Germany - this is the 'lake on the mountain trick' where you pump water up the hill at night and then recover the energy back through a turbine during the day when the energy it's required. ... The same problem of scale exists. If I take the volume of that compressed air storage plant...and instead of compressing air into the ground compress the same volume of hydrogen, I end up with 111 times more stored energy. You now see the compelling attraction of hydrogen storage in the German energy market - it simply has the scale to do the job. And it's for this reason now we have the announcement of 18 energy storage projects in Germany as their levels of renewables penetration have well exceeded 20% and in fact in the north-east of the country is rivaling 30 and 50% of the generation coming from wind and solar today.

when we can create the hydrogen by hydrolysis, pipe it 300 miles to major refueling station to put into big trucks and do it without losing half of it in the process, then we got something. so are we at that point?

Hopefully Dave you can see that this isn't actually a point at all. The end state for the transition results in local production of electricity and hydrogen. The primary long-haul mode is still electrons, though on a more efficient grid. The centralized production model is dead - distributed production eliminates long-distance transport and trucks.

keep in mind; the piping system must be robust enough to last long enough to justify its initial costs.

must be cheap enough to be able to calculate a reasonable rate of return and by reasonable; I think 25-30% is reasonable considering the massive health and ecological benefits involved.

I've already shown you examples of four business models that work today and are being rolled-out in Germany that not only work but provide an 11-15% ROI in the real world. Distributed production eliminates the need for long-haul pipelines. Shorter distribution in the existing NG pipeline system is working in the EU.

but we dont have any of that. not one single point. current containment still leaks. it is VERY expensive and uses materials that is currently in a worldwide shortage which means any significant additional demand will cause an already expensive item to sky rocket.

keep in mind; hydrogen is a great idea towards a partial solution to our transportaion needs and it will have to work in concert with plain old battery EVs so with that mind; if any of the above had been solved, seems to me that would have made just as much news as a 200 mile battery pack weighing 300 lbs would have

Hopefully you can see from what I've already presented that none of this is a factor for today's transition. Our electric grid leaks 20% at a minimum. Our ICE vehicles 'leak' more than 70% of the energy they import into their fuel tanks. Our lack of storage leaks about 75% of renewable power we're paying to generate.

Keep in mind that California's hydrogen refueling points are only a tiny piece of the puzzle and while most of the US is using a fragmented piecemeal approach, that the EU is not - and that changes both the problems and the solutions.

 

[RegGuheert]

Our lack of storage leaks about 75% of renewable power we're paying to generate.

I doubt that the off-grid PV installation you have even manages to produce 25% of its potential. But many of us have grid-tied PV installations which likely waste less than 10% of the DC energy produced. This energy is produced and consumed locally. But more importantly, it is produced by private citizens for our own use. Big corporations do not like that, since they aren't able to profit from it. Yes, there is a limit to how much can be added to the network. But with a few exceptions, we have a very long way to go before we get into difficulties in the U.S. as Germany sees today.

The hydrogen corporations know that they cannot compete with BEVs in terms of energy efficiency, so they MUST attack the problem from multiple directions in order to have a business. That's why they talk about silos. But they have a problem: Who will purchase a hydrogen-powered car when they can purchase an EV for less money that will have a lower fuel cost and can be refueled at home? Unless these corporations can either take this option away from consumers or get the government to distort the economics with taxation to the point that the less-attractive option becomes the more-attractive option.

IMO, if hydrogen wants to be successful in transportation, they need to enter the market in areas where BEVs cannot compete. This is likely to include the military, fleets and long-haul transportation such as trucking and rail. There are likely some automotive applications where they can compete, but I don't think they can compete with BEV on either cost or efficiency for the lion's share of commuter applications.

I do find the idea of hydrogen energy storage very interesting. I think we are pretty tapped out for pumped storage and that sounds like an interesting approach. Hopefully the big hydrogen tanks will be NIMBY!

As always, time will tell.

 

[AndyH]

Our lack of storage leaks about 75% of renewable power we're paying to generate.

I doubt that the off-grid PV installation you have even manages to produce 25% of its potential. But many of us have grid-tied PV installations which likely waste less than 10% of the DC energy produced. This energy is produced and consumed locally.

I read this message, Reg, and I'm sorry I did. You're either not understanding the topic or you don't care to stay on it. I'm not talking about anyone's off-grid PV system, or anyone's roof-top grid-tied system. And I'm certainly not talking about any conspiracy theories.

The 75% renewables losses come from actual numbers seen in the German power grid where they sometimes have to curtail 75% of their renewables because the current out of date power grid cannot use the energy. You comment about what's happening in the USA today - no disagreement. But that's not the point. The point is that we've turned the corner with renewables and are heading to where Germany is today. We, too, are on a path to 20% renewables by 2020, except we don't have nearly as robust a plan as the EU.

Look again at Germany. Not one hydrogen project is connected with an oil company. Not one. And that's the primary source of the traditional hydrogen supply. One of Germany's 18 wind to gas projects belongs to a power utility.

Tesla makes some nice cars, but they're out of reach for most people. Look at battery supplies in the world - Tesla's working hard and cannot get enough of their commodity cells to grow as they plan. Daimler had to delay the 50-state roll-out of the Smart Electric nine months because they cannot make batteries fast enough. We simply cannot make BEVs quickly enough or at a price point that will make a meaningful difference in emissions between now and 2050. And even if we do, that doesn't address needed change in our power grid or heating needs (the electricity and heating/gas stove pipes). A reductionist piecemeal approach will fail because it's already failing.

Again - Read Rifkin's work, or read about Germany's grid as they implement their transition. Look at the ENTIRE energy picture. Or not. You're staying on the ignore list.

 

[RegGuheert]

The 75% renewables losses come from actual numbers seen in the German power grid where they sometimes have to curtain 75% of their renewables because the current out of date power grid cannot use the energy.

That explains why you used the word "power" instead of energy:

Our lack of storage leaks about 75% of renewable power we're paying to generate.

So, you are claiming that Germany has had to curtail as much as 75% of the power that their renewables were capable of producing. But that's a peak and that's only temporary. So, how much of the energy that they paid for does not get used. Likely not more than 25%.

Let's not use hyperbole to sell your position. Hydrogen for transportation is costly and inefficient. That is not likely to change. Ever. As a result, it will be a tough sell to consumers. Forever. That's likely why they are forcing it onto consumers through taxation.

As was stated upthread: If they need to use hydrogen for grid storage, they should do that. But let the utility's rate base foot the bill, not the taxpayer.

 

[AndyH]

So, you are claiming that Germany has had to curtail as much as 75% of the power that their renewables were capable of producing. But that's a peak and that's only temporary. So, how much of the energy that they paid for does not get used. Likely not more than 25%.

I'm not claiming anything - I'm simply reporting what's been documented.

If you want to know more, go to the information that's already been linked.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=330885#p330885
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/publications/doc/2011_energy2020_en.pdf
http://www.nacubo.org/Business_Offi...The_EU’s_Five-Pillar_Sustainability_Plan.html

Amazon: Third Industrial Revolution: http://www.amazon.com/Third-Industr...1&sr=1-1&keywords=third+industrial+revolution
http://www.foet.org/JeremyRifkin.htm


http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=333790#p333790

We understood this in Europe. We had the five pillars, but we moved pillar 1 quickly, and not the other four. So we put in a huge amount of green electricity because we have feed-in tariffs. That is, you're paid premium for sending your green electricity back to the grid beyond what the price of the market is to encourage early adoption. So we have millions of people putting in a little green electricity. Pillar 1! We didn't move pillar 4 quick enough - the energy internet. So we got millions of little players trying to get green electricity into a grid that's 60 years old, servo-mechanical, centralized, leaks 20% of its electricity and it's overwhelmed by all these little players - it can't handle it. Then Pillar 1 has been so successful we have so much green electricity because of the feed-in tariffs - we didn't move Pillar 3 storage fast enough. We've got regions that are 30, 40, 50, and 60% green electricity and we are losing 3 out of 4 kiloWatts because we're not storing the energy. So the electricity is at night because of the wind - we don't need it at night! Sometimes at high-noon there's so much solar going into the grid that we have negative price - meaning the utility pays you to not put the energy on. Then at midnight it goes back up again because we haven't put in Pillar 3 storage. And now our car companies are petrified because they spent billions on electric and fuel cell vehicles, they're sending them to market but if they don't have an infrastructure to plug them into, it's all lost. So we've got to build this out as an infrastructure revolution. And when we do, this third industrial revolution, this is power to the people - I mean this literally and figuratively.

If you believe that using vehicle tax revenue to plant refueling stations for zero-emission vehicles is not the right thing to do, then I cannot help you further.

 

[RegGuheert]

Let's not put the cart squarely before the horse. Where is the huge excess of renewable energy in the U.S. that we need to deal with? We currently have HUGE untapped renewable resources all over the country and our best move today is to tap those as soon as possible.

I don't disagree that electrolyzing water into hydrogen with excess renewable energy, when we get there, is a good idea. But, guess what? If our governments start subsidizing hydrogen generation and FCEVs in order to create a demand for hydrogen today while we have no excess of renewables available, guess what will happen? We will drill more natural gas wells and flatten more of West Virginia and do even more damage to the environment than we otherwise would.

So, let's get the renewables in place and let the utilities develop their conception of hydrogen generation together with the auto manufacturers working on transportation. If they can really create an affordable fuel and an affordable vehicle that allows for more renewable generation, then the market will embrace it, but only for the applications where it makes sense versus alternatives.

 

[GRA]

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/education/pdfs/thomas_fcev_vs_battery_evs.pdf

Well, since that guy is clearly "selling" hydrogen, let's see how this comment looks based on what we know today:

"An EV with an advanced Li­Ion battery could in principle achieve 250 to 300 miles range, but these batteries would take up 400 to 600 liters of space (equivalent to a 100 to 160 gallon gasoline tank!). The fuel cell plus hydrogen storage tanks would take up less than half this space, and, if the DOE hydrogen storage goals are achieved, then the hydrogen tanks would occupy only 100 liters (26 gallons) volume for 300 miles range."

yeah, thats a great work of fiction, Tesla has a frunk, a cabin for 5, and a boot that fits 2 kids
the shorter range Honda Fuel cell vehicle, its got a cabin for 4, and a boot

next thing is that they would imagine that H2 fuel cell efficiency is comparable to Battery EV!

Well, let's see.

The Tesla Model S is 86.2" wide over the mirrors (77.3" just for the body), 56.5" high, has a Cd of 0.24, (the S-85) weighs 4,647 lb and has an EPA range of 265 miles, if you're willing to run the battery to empty. I dont' have the exact dimensions of the battery pack, but I've seen it loosely described as 8' x 5' x .5', or about 94L, far better than the paper posits.

AFAIK Tesla hasn't released official dimensions for the Model X yet, but someone on the Tesla Forum scaled a photo of an X with the S alongside, and came up with around 82" wide and 64?" high; for the sake of argument let's say that they manage to get the Cd down to 0.30. Tesla has said that the X will weigh about 10% more than the S, so figure somewhere in the region of 5,000-5,100 lb. If they use the same powertrain as the S, the range will clearly be less - for the sake of argument let's assume 230 miles EPA for an 85kWh battery, which may be generous. 230 miles / 94L = 2.45 miles/L.

The Highlander used for the FCHV-ADV has an overall (? I suspect this may be body only) width of 70.5", a height of 59.4" (seems suspiciously low), a Cd of .326 and weighs 4,145 lb.

The Highlander has a range with four tanks totaling 156L and about 6.3kg of H2, using the worst mileage observed during any segment of the test trip, 61.2 m/kg, of 386 miles or 2.47 miles/L, AFAIK all of which is usable without damaging the fuel cell. Using the average m/kg. of 68.3 throughout the test gives a range of 431 miles or 2.76 m/L. Assuming that the tanks are all the same capacity, removing the one in the rear and all else remaining equal would give a new capacity of 117L/4.725 kg. and 289 miles at 61.2 m/kg, or 322 miles at 68.3 m/kg. A smaller, lighter Toyota sedan with 3 tanks and a better Cd should easily exceed 300 miles of range, especially with the new higher density fuel cell.

To get the Model X from my guesstimate of 230 EPA miles up to the FCHV's worst observed 289 miles would require a battery pack of 118L [(289/230 x 94); getting it up to 322 miles would require 131.6L. Of course, this assumes that the battery pack weighs exactly the same as it does now; if it's heavier then range will go down and weight up.

 

[GRA]

Here's some more:

"All­ electric battery ­powered electric vehicles will probably find niche applications as city cars and limited range commuter cars. A major breakthrough in battery technology, well beyond the US ABC battery goals, would be required before a battery EV could satisfy customer’s needs for conventional passenger cars, particularly with respect to battery recharging times. Most drivers would not accept more than 15 to 20 minutes charging time on long distance travel for EVs, while FCEVs can be refueled in the 5 to 10 minutes expected by consumers."

Sounds about right, or did I dream that Elon Musk and/or JB Straubel were talking about the need to make charging faster, and/or provide battery swapping? Faster refueling buys flexibility, regardless of the range. I don't see too many consumers saying "I really like to have to sit in one spot and find something to do for a half hour or so while I wait for the car to get refueled, even if I'm not hungry and don't want to shop." If faster refueling time isn't an issue, why on earth are you involved with EVOasis?

 

[RegGuheert]

I don't see too many consumers saying "I really like to have to sit in one spot and find something to do for a half hour or so while I wait for the car to get refueled, even if I'm not hungry and don't want to shop."

Including me. I'm not a fan of public charging.

That's why we maintain our gasoline-powered cars for the trips that the LEAF does not suit. So we agree that there is a need for another vehicle with long range and fast refueling. So I'm hopeful that either BEVs or hydrogen vehicles can eventually fill the role that my gasoline cars currently fill. The question now really is which one will get there first AND, in the end, which one will do the job with the least damage to the environment. Likely, there will be different answers for different applications.

 

[GRA]

I don't see too many consumers saying "I really like to have to sit in one spot and find something to do for a half hour or so while I wait for the car to get refueled, even if I'm not hungry and don't want to shop."

Including me. I'm not a fan of public charging.

That's why we maintain our gasoline-powered cars for the trips that the LEAF does not suit. So we agree that there is a need for another vehicle with long range and fast refueling. So I'm hopeful that either BEVs or hydrogen vehicles can eventually fill the role that my gasoline cars currently fill. The question now really is which one will get there first AND, in the end, which one will do the job with the least damage to the environment. Likely, there will be different answers for different applications.

That's my take. However, I expect that whenever push comes to shove, Americans will opt for more convenience over best energy efficiency. I expect wireless charging will become universal here (I believe it's a sine qua non for autonomous cars), even if magnetic resonance charging is less efficient (we know inductive charging is), just as Americans buy self-defrosting refrigerators instead of manual ones, and automatic transmissions instead of sticks (the rate for manual sales had been running at about 4%, but there was a jump up to 7% last year). Hell, on the way over to the library today I stopped by the Blink L2s in the public garage - out of ten, six either had their connectors lying on the ground or on top of the reel - apparently it's just too much effort for people to re-coil the cable around the reel and then replace the connector in its holder. To be fair, the cable is often dusty or dirty so I understand why people wouldn't want to handle it, but how much extra effort does it take to click the connector back into place?

Generating H2, especially by electrolysis, is and will almost certainly remain less energy efficient on a wells-to-wheel basis than charging batteries. However, the operational capabilities and characteristics of FCEVs are essentially identical to what people are used to with ICEVs, and people are likely to stick with what they know unless the advantages of changing are perceived to be overwhelming. Or, as some pretty smart people put it awhile back, albeit on a different subject, ". . . 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."

FCEVs may not be the best solution from the standpoint of energy efficiency, but I don't think that's necessary or maybe even desirable. I have no idea whether we ultimately opt for a single fuel type universal car (the prevailing paradigm), or adopt AFV (incl. battery) technologies for specific large niches, e.g. daily drivers versus road-trip capable. But I think we need the option of an AFV that is good enough for mass adoption as a universal car, at a considerable energy advantage over business as usual, and with the option of generating the 'fuel' from renewables. BEVs aren't there yet, not even Tesla, but FCEVs give us that capability now, albeit still too expensively for the mass market. And then we'll see how things ultimately shake out.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Here's some more:

If faster refueling time isn't an issue, why on earth are you involved with EVOasis?

Is there something in the water? I quickly skimmed through my previous posts for something that suggested that faster refueling was "not an issue". Sorry, didn't find it.

 

[GRA]

Here's some more:

If faster refueling time isn't an issue, why on earth are you involved with EVOasis?

Is there something in the water? I quickly skimmed through my previous posts for something that suggested that faster refueling was "not an issue". Sorry, didn't find it.

Tony, you posted the following:

"Here's some more:

"All­ electric battery ­powered electric vehicles will probably find niche applications as city cars and limited range commuter cars. A major breakthrough in battery technology, well beyond the US ABC battery goals, would be required before a battery EV could satisfy customer’s needs for conventional passenger cars, particularly with respect to battery recharging times. Most drivers would not accept more than 15 to 20 minutes charging time on long distance travel for EVs, while FCEVs can be refueled in the 5 to 10 minutes expected by consumers"

I inferred that you disagreed and were being sarcastic, as you presumably were with an earlier statement in which you said "Well, since that guy is clearly "selling" hydrogen, let's see how this comment looks based on what we know today", and then included a different quote from the report. If I misinterpreted your meaning, my apologies, and I will be happy to remove my post.

 

[GRA]

Let's not put the cart squarely before the horse. Where is the huge excess of renewable energy in the U.S. that we need to deal with? We currently have HUGE untapped renewable resources all over the country and our best move today is to tap those as soon as possible.

I don't disagree that electrolyzing water into hydrogen with excess renewable energy, when we get there, is a good idea. But, guess what? If our governments start subsidizing hydrogen generation and FCEVs in order to create a demand for hydrogen today while we have no excess of renewables available, guess what will happen? We will drill more natural gas wells and flatten more of West Virginia and do even more damage to the environment than we otherwise would.

So, let's get the renewables in place and let the utilities develop their conception of hydrogen generation together with the auto manufacturers working on transportation. If they can really create an affordable fuel and an affordable vehicle that allows for more renewable generation, then the market will embrace it, but only for the applications where it makes sense versus alternatives.

Reg, here's an article from the EIA showing the incidence of negative pricing in the PNW in 2011. They not only have lots of hydro, but they also have a great deal of wind power along the Columbia River Gorge.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=5110" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And here's a chart showing the extent of some of the daily wind power curtailments:

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=1810" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Looks like about 2 GW for prolonged periods of time on some days.

Instances of negative pricing will obviously vary from region to region depending on their energy mix and how well their production matches their demand curve, but there will increasingly be excess production from renewables. That will need to be stored or used somehow, whether in batteries or other storage. Renwables now make up about 14% of U.S. electricity production, with hydro producing a bit over half. Solar is still below 1%, but wind is over 4% and biomass is about 1.4%.

 

[AndyH]

Here's a copy of the EU declaration and goals for their adoption of the Third Industrial Revolution.

http://hyfleetcute.com/data/MEP Green H2 Declaration.pdf

WRITTEN DECLARATION

pursuant to Rule 116 of the Rules of Procedure

by Zita Gurmai, Anders Wijkman, Vittorio Prodi, Umberto Guidoni and
Claude Turmes

on establishing a green hydrogen economy and a third industrial revolution in
Europe through a partnership with committed regions and cities, SMEs and
civil society organisations

Click the link - it's two pages with a LOT of white space. I've yet to see even a bill from the US that was this straightforward.

 

[AndyH]

FCEVs may not be the best solution from the standpoint of energy efficiency, but I don't think that's necessary or maybe even desirable.

Bloody brilliant, that.

Here's a somewhat tiny yet complete example of how a seriously inefficient selection of equipment more than meets the design goals of eliminating emissions, eliminating a fossil-fuel generator, and reducing the size of a lead acid battery bank.

http://siei.org/mainpage.html

It appears this project is circa 2004 - equipment evolution has been somewhat dramatic since then.

In conclusion, our efficiency is about 7%, which is very low but works in our case because of our remote operation mode. A full-time residence would need a larger system. A larger electrolyzer raises overall efficiency to 14%. While 14% is a lower figure than traditional generators offer (again not counting "well to wheel" losses), sunlight costs nothing and is pollution-free. However, these advantages do not count in competition with batteries. Telecoms choose fuel cells over batteries because they find that for large-scale energy storage hydrogen is, in the long run, cheaper and more reliable.

 

[TonyWilliams]

I inferred that you disagreed and were being sarcastic, as you presumably were with an earlier statement in which you said "Well, since that guy is clearly "selling" hydrogen, let's see how this comment looks based on what we know today", and then included a different quote from the report. If I misinterpreted your meaning, my apologies, and I will be happy to remove my post.

You don't need to remove anything. I quoted what I thought was obvious (at least to me) some "crazy" talk, at least here in 2013 with Tesla Model S.

Yes, the thrust of the quoted pieces was that the author was basically saying that a Tesla Model S wasn't possible (with 160 gallon volume battery pack!!) and we should all just follow the hydrogen herd to nirvana.

I disagree with that author (with much more hindsight than he had!).

 

[RegGuheert]

FCEVs may not be the best solution from the standpoint of energy efficiency, but I don't think that's necessary or maybe even desirable.

Bloody brilliant, that.

It figures. Andy thinks the one statement in Guy's post that I disagree with is "bloody brilliant".

Simply put, efficiency is key to an energy system if it is proposed to replace the current infrastructure. Sure, you can cite an example of a tiny system with a low efficiency that works and say, "See, here's one!", but low efficiency is a huge burden for the overall infrastructure. IMO, if we try to build our society around a transportation system that uses four times as much electricity (or even 50% more) than the alternatives, then we are fools. Unfortunately, we seem to often elect fools to run our govenments and they make mandates about topics about which they have very little knowledge.

Truly, the FCEV are a solution looking for a problem to solve. While I'm sure there are important problems that it can solve, I think commuting is an unlikely candidate. As I have mentioned several times, fleet applications and heavy transportations may well be where it fits.

If you want to capture the electricity from renewable sources that would otherwise be curtailed, why would you capture just 16% of that (40% x 40%) to produce hydrogen for transportation when you could instead charge batteries that can preserve over 95% of it? The answer is that you wouldn't. And I believe no future technological improvement will move the efficiency of fuel cells above that of EVs. Only political solutions can accomplish such a feat!

If we need to find a way to prevent the curtailment of renewables, then let's do that instead of creating the false dichotomy of "we either need to curtail the renewables or create hydrogen with it". Here are a couple of simple solutions that we could start with today without the 84% efficiency hit of hydrogen:

1) Heat water: As curtailments become imminent, raise the lower threshold at which electric water heaters turn on in the vicinity. Such an approach will not increase the overall energy load, but will increase the instantaneous power load.

2) Heat or cool building spaces: Like the water heater example, the thresholds for heating or cooling buildings could be tightened so that they are more likely to operate during the desired curtailment period than at othe times.

3) Charge electric vehicles: Electric vehicles connected to the grid could each have a "not to exceed" charge level. They could be commanded with increasing levels of load and could charge from the grid at increasing power levels as the required demand increased.

All of the above can be implemented today with very high efficiency and all of them will improve the availablilty of the renewables and reduce the overall cost of providing both electricity and transportation miles. And without the need to waste most of the energy by electrolysing hydrogen.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

ok; so if the Consumer Herd decides to migrate to Hydrogen what about the limited conversion capability of hydrogen. is it not limited by capability of the converter? its not like when the tank is down to ¼ full, you call someone to come refill it.

so is it not a stretch to imagine a slow rollout of stations (where have we heard that one before?) and lineups to get filled at the few stations we do have (where have we heard that one before?) and people running out of fuel before getting to the station 10 miles away due to poor planning on their part?

Sorry but what I see is spending Billions on a technology that is simply not ready. They want to push it to the Consumers and I think Toyota, Honda and whoever will spend Billions on something that a few hundred million would cover in the EV arena.

I think Hydrogen should be developed in the Business Sector. set up some Hydrogen Highways on the major trucking routes North/South here. It wouldn't be too tough I think to get OR and WA on board. If that is too much, set it up within the state. this allows first hand experiences with any issues that may arise and issues will arise since they always do. Figure it out on that end then come back in 5 years and we see where its at

 

[Nubo]

Well, I've started reading The Third Industrial Revolution, and it does make a lot of good points and also addresses some of my misgivings and others presented here. Well worth a read.

Whether such a program will soon come together in the U.S. is doubtful, since it depends on people of differing ideologies working together for the common good. The U.S. has drifted so far from that mindset that I fear only a period of severe deprivation will move us away from the sport of political bickering, to the real work of building a sustainable future.

I'd like to be wrong and see the Boomers NOT skip their turn at building a better world for subsequent generations. But it's getting rather late to start, and I think it'll be up to Europe for now, to prove the model. While we party on with HC a little bit longer thanks to frakking. But that party may end sooner than many think:

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/When-will-the-Shale-Bubble-Burst.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[AndyH]

ok; so if the Consumer Herd decides to migrate to Hydrogen what about the limited conversion capability of hydrogen. is it not limited by capability of the converter? its not like when the tank is down to ¼ full, you call someone to come refill it.

Dave, it appears that research on proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cells and electrolyzers has included two important focus points - reducing or eliminating the use of platinum or other high-cost catalysts, and in producing high-pressure electrolyzers so that pressurization pumps can be eliminated. I've found a number of companies shipping high-pressure electrolyzers, including Avalence LLC in Milford, CT, that will electrolyze hydrogen and push it directly into a storage tank at up to 440 bar. I'm not suggesting that's the upper limit of current tech, I'm only reporting what I've found so far.
http://www.avalence.com/technology/default.htm

Let's suppose a consumer has a modern 700 bar FCEV with a 400 mile range. They can refuel daily from a home or neighborhood unit with no high-pressure pumps that will give them at least 200 miles range. When they need more range, they stop at a high-pressure filling station for a top-up from 350 bar to 700 bar - which would take about 2 minutes.

We don't have a hydrogen highway anywhere in this country, yet today I can buy all the equipment I need to electrolyze hydrogen at rates from 1 standard cubic foot (SCF) per day through 10 kg (175 scf per hour), push it into 350 bar storage with no pumps, and either fill vehicle tanks or a stationary fuel cell to power a house. Off the shelf.

so is it not a stretch to imagine a slow rollout of stations (where have we heard that one before?) and lineups to get filled at the few stations we do have (where have we heard that one before?) and people running out of fuel before getting to the station 10 miles away due to poor planning on their part?

Déjà vu, Dave - is any of this different from fears expressed on this forum while we were waiting for our LEAFs to be shipped? How many of those fears are playing out in the real world three years later? Any of them?

Sorry but what I see is spending Billions on a technology that is simply not ready. They want to push it to the Consumers and I think Toyota, Honda and whoever will spend Billions on something that a few hundred million would cover in the EV arena.

We've been using hydrogen in industry since about 1920. One example: Every single quart of engine oil you use today has been 'hydrotreated' - after long carbon chains are cracked to provide lubricants with the proper viscosity, the oil is put into 'pressure cookers' with hydrogen so that hydrogen atoms are bonded onto the 'dangly bits' of the carbon chains broken during cracking. This 'saturates' the hydrocarbon molecules and is one of the factors that allowed us to move from 3000 to 10000 mile oil changes using non-synthetic oil. That's about 400 million gallons of engine oil each year just for passenger cars. That's plenty of real-world experience generating, storing, piping, pumping, and using hydrogen. Then there are the world's space programs, which have been using fuel cells since the 1960s...

First fuel cell (FC): 1839.
First PEM FC: 1950s
Hydrogen as fuel: 1950s
First 5 KW stack demonstrated: 1959
NASA sends FCs to space: 1960s
US Navy uses FCs in submarines: 1980s
Large stationary FCs fielded: 1990s (mainly US military bases)
Commercial deployment follows - aux power units, communications backup, then motive power in cars and buses...
http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/about-fuel-cells/history
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4404/ch8-1.htm

http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/about-fuel-cells/history

I think Hydrogen should be developed in the Business Sector. set up some Hydrogen Highways on the major trucking routes North/South here. It wouldn't be too tough I think to get OR and WA on board. If that is too much, set it up within the state. this allows first hand experiences with any issues that may arise and issues will arise since they always do. Figure it out on that end then come back in 5 years and we see where its at

I think you have a great plan here. Let's do it! No need to start today, though, because your recommended 5 year test period was successfully completed in 2010.

Commercial fuel cells buses have been on roads since at least 1998 and in commercial service since at least 2005. There are third-generation FC buses on the road in SF, CA today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell_bus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell_bus_trial
http://goldengate.org/news/transit/zeb2013.php

edit...fixed mangled quote; finished truncated sentence...