Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[TonyWilliams]

Someone doesn't understand the price of an electrolyzer, 'distributed production,' 'terrorists' or 'nanoseconds.'

The ignore list is really useful....


If some idiot is hell-bent on detonating something and taking out a town, they'd get more...er...bang for their buck if they targeted a natural gas pumping station or a refinery.

Strike three.

I thought I was on the ignore list? You're obviously passionate about the subject, and I'm confident that you know far more about hydrogen than I do (and maybe ever will), however you don't do your advocacy any justice without answering the the "tough questions".

Plus, telling we battery EV advocates and enthusiast that we're basically dumb if we don't agree with you isn't a good debate tactic in an somewhat educated audience.

So, having said that, I'll try to make my points one at a time so that you can answer each one without being sidetracked or drifting over to ad hominems.

Is the hydrogen pressurized anyway in the manufacture above ambient?

If so, what is the highest pressure?

 

[AndyH]

I thought I was on the ignore list?

You are.

You're obviously passionate about the subject, and I'm confident that you know far more about hydrogen than I do (and maybe ever will), however you don't do your advocacy any justice without answer the the "tough questions".

I'm passionate about moving beyond fossil fuels so that my son has at least as stable a world as I've enjoyed. "Tough questions" is a meaningless term and thus not a useful rabbit hole to explore.

Plus, telling we battery EV advocates and enthusiast that we're basically dumb if we don't agree with you isn't a good debate tactic in an somewhat educated audience.

Feel free to cite a source for your belief if you want a response.

So, having said that, I'll try to make my points one at a time so that you can answer each one without being sidetracked or drifting over to ad hominems.

Ditto.

Is the hydrogen pressurized anyway in the manufacture above ambient?

Ambient meaning the conditions of the room in which the electrolyzer is operating, or ambient meaning the conditions inside the electrolyzer at the proton exchange membrane where water is being hydrolized? I've already provide links to a company manufacturing electrolyzers that are capable of producing hydrogen at more than 440 bar.

If so, what is the highest pressure?

I've already provide links to a company manufacturing electrolyzers that are capable of producing hydrogen and pushing it into a storage tank at more than 440 bar. I also stated that I'm only reporting what I've found, not suggesting that's the max available pressure or state of the art.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Is the hydrogen pressurized anyway in the manufacture above ambient?

Ambient meaning the conditions of the room in which the electrolyzer is operating, or ambient meaning the conditions inside the electrolyzer at the proton exchange membrane where water is being hydrolized? I've already provide links to a company manufacturing electrolyzers that are capable of producing hydrogen at more than 440 bar.

Ok, so based on your previous statements of hydrogen plants essentially being no more dangerous than an oil refinery, are you aware of any 440 bar oil products in a refinery? Your comments regarding hydrogen being safe because there is no oxygen is moot if a high pressure (and 440 bar is pretty darn high) is compromised, potentially via a lone terrorist, allowing the high pressure hydrogen to be exposed to atmosphere (hence oxygen). Any simple explosive device can cause, in my opinion, a FAR greater "bang for the buck" at the local hydrogen plant.

Edit: replacied "mute" with "moot"

 

[AndyH]

Is the hydrogen pressurized anyway in the manufacture above ambient?

Ambient meaning the conditions of the room in which the electrolyzer is operating, or ambient meaning the conditions inside the electrolyzer at the proton exchange membrane where water is being hydrolized? I've already provide links to a company manufacturing electrolyzers that are capable of producing hydrogen at more than 440 bar.

Ok, so based on your previous statements of hydrogen plants essentially being no more dangerous than an oil refinery, are you aware of any 440 bar oil products in a refinery? Your comments regarding hydrogen being safe because there is no oxygen is mute if a high pressure (and 440 bar is pretty darn high) is compromised, potentially via a lone terrorist, allowing the high pressure hydrogen to be exposed to atmosphere (hence oxygen). Any simple explosive device can cause, in my opinion, a FAR greater "bang for the buck" at the local hydrogen plant.

According to various industry sources, the US produces about 11 million tons of hydrogen each year. About 5 million tons of that is used in oil refineries. As has already been presented, storage pressure is irrelevant as pressurized hydrogen cannot support combustion. One of the processes used to produce Group III petroleum lubricating oils is called 'hydrocracking' - it's conducted in a reactor vessel containing a 2000 PSI hydrogen atmosphere. The vessel and crude oil being processed are heated to 500°C.
One of many sources:
http://web.anl.gov/PCS/acsfuel/preprint archive/Files/13_1_MINNEAPOLIS_04-69_0087.pdf

I have training and experience in operating around compressed gasses (MIG, TIG, oxy-acetylene), nuclear/chemical/biological warfare training, and force protection/anti-terrorism experience. Some of this came from being the son of a journeyman welder (and welding off and on since I was about 10), the rest came from a military career. In my somewhat informed opinion, the information you seek on whether H2 storage is a potential target was provided above - straight from people that teach how to operate in both 'normal' and 'seriously compromised' hydrogen environments. In other words - it's not.

If links aren't to your liking, here's a view of what happens when a large quantity of hydrogen is released into the atmosphere in the vicinity of fire. Please note that since H2 is about 14 times less dense than air, the fireball was carried up and away from people - very, very quickly. If there wasn't already a fire, it's most likely the hydrogen would have vented and escaped without burning. The people that died from burns were affected by the coatings on the skin of the airship and engine fuel primarily, not from hydrogen.

http://www.seas.ucla.edu/hsseas/releases/blimp.htm

Here's a high-pressure tank related hydrogen explosion. The hydrogen explosion did not rupture the tank, which became a projectile that went through the roof on the way up and the way back down. The over-pressurization broke windows in the building and in cars in the parking lot. In spite of it being the middle of a work day, there was one minor injury. There was no fire. Throwing Molotov cocktails at the building would have been more useful to a terrorist.

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/09/manassas-hydrogen-tank-explodes-94374.html


By way of comparison, do you recall the San Bruno natural gas explosion? As I said, there's a target for you...

Worried about terrorists? If you have natural gas service to your house, you should be concerned about remodeling...
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/07/22/old-bridge-family-loses-home-when-work-crew-hits-gas-line/

A New Jersey family was homeless Monday following a devastating mistake that caused an explosion in their Old Bridge Home.

South Old Bridge firefighters spent nearly an hour fighting a fire at the home, which was partially destroyed following the accidental explosion.

"Well [the work crew] were working on the sewer line and they hit the gas lines," homeowner Brian Donahue told CBS 2's Tracee Carrasco.

Hydrogen is safer than acetylene, gasoline or natural gas - and that's neither a mute nor moot point.

 

[ydnas7]

Hydrogen is safer than acetylene, gasoline or natural gas - and that's neither a mute nor moot point.

safer than acetylene yes, but not as safe as gasoline or natural gas.

I'll explain how men die in underground coal mines, for some reason the manager on duty keep the men underground while the air/methane mixture in the goaf transitions though the LEL to the UEL, if something happens then bang.

LEL is lower explosive limit
UEL is upper explosive limit

Methane is 5% to 15%
Hydrogen is 4% to 75%

http://www.mathesongas.com/pdfs/products/Lower-%28LEL%29-&-Upper-%28UEL%29-Explosive-Limits-.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

literally, if coal mines produced hydrogen, then they would not be able to be mined by underground longwall methods. Fortunately coal mines produce methane, which is far safer than hydrogen. example fatality report http://mines.industry.qld.gov.au/assets/inspectorate/moura2.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Hydrogen has been a process gas since the age of alchemy, but tell a moden process engineer that you plan to use hydrogen and it will get their attention compared to hydrocarbons due to hydrogen's safety issues. Issues like hydrogen embrittlement, and detonation cell size. Seriously, if 350 bar or 700 bar H2 does not get your attention, then it should.
look at page 16, note that it is a log scale http://www.hysafe.org/science/eAcademy/docs/1stesshs/presentations/DDTintubes.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[DaveEV]

Hydrogen is safer than acetylene, gasoline or natural gas.

Hydrogen is so much more difficult to handle safely, I just don't see how you can make that generalization.

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oce/appel/ask/issues/41/41s_explosive.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_safety" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[TomT]

Maybe we could combine vehicles with this...

"Using fuel cells to power server racks instead of hooking data centres up to the electricity grid could potentially realise significant opex and capex savings, but would require a radical rethink of data centre design."

"A group of Microsoft researchers believe that using fuel cells to power data centres could potentially result in an "over 20% reduction in costs using conservative projections", cutting infrastructure and power input costs. Fuel cells could also cut the carbon dioxide emissions by using hydrogen or natural gas to generate power."

"In addition, gas grid reliability, at least in the US, eclipses the electricity grid and could eliminate the need for diesel generators and UPSes, which could instead be replaced with on-site gas tanks."

http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/530836/fuel_cell-powered_data_centres_could_cut_costs_carbon/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[RegGuheert]

Let me be clear. I wrote the above because I'm a firm believer that 'the best is the enemy of the good enough, for now'. Sure, I'd like to see energy efficiency maximized, and whichever AFV system we ultimately settle on needs to be as efficient as possible, within the constraints of available energy and costs. BEVs may ultimately reach a stage (and price) where everyone will be satisfied by them. But we obviously aren't there yet, and I'm willing to take what I can get ASAP as long as it's more efficient than an ICEV and can use renewables for generation, because I think smaller individual improvements on a larger scale sooner will be critical to limiting the effects of climate change, even if it's unlikely that I'll be around for the worst of that.

I think we can agree on that. I'm not opposed to a horse race nor am I opposed to continued investment in research on hydrogen technologies. As I have said, I expect it will come out ahead in some transportation applications. Unfortunately, I see the automobile manufacturers applying it in areas where I seriously doubt that it can top BEVs. As you said, both are advancing at a rapid pace, but I don't think the theoretical capabilities of FCEVs can exceed those of BEVs of the generation being developed with existing technologies. Time will tell.

I will say that I sometimes wonder about this statement, though:

I wrote the above because I'm a firm believer that 'the best is the enemy of the good enough, for now'.

I will submit that even the humble LEAF is "good enough" for many people's applications. Many here, including me, attest to the fact that this car handles over 90% of our trips. But, frankly, the media has convinced many that they need to wait for FCEVs before they move off ICEVs. But my expectation is that FCEVs will NEVER achieve a level where they are better than BEVs for 99% of consumer applications (government meddling aside).

Hell, if we could get 50% of the population into 40 mpg HEVs and PHEVs in the next 5 years, by momentarily curtailing both BEV and FCEV introduction and instead incentivizing the two gas burning techs, I'd be for it, because it will cause a more rapid reduction in GHGs in the near term. Sub 1% adoption rates of the latter two aren't going to get us far, no matter how much they are individually better than ICEVs.

Are there any concerns about water vapor pouring from the tailpipes of FCEVs? It's yet another non-poisonous greenhouse gas.

My opinion of FCEVs and the hydrogen infrastructure has come around considerably in the past year. It had been entirely negative, largely formed by Joe Romm's book "The Hype about Hydrogen." Many of the problematical issues remain unchanged since that book was published in 2004 (and presumably written the year before), but some of the major issues, such as the cost of fuel cells and the amount of renewables have changed a great deal. In particular the amount of natural gas available has altered considerably since then. We were supposed to become a NG importer rather than an exporter; instead, we recently surpassed Russia to become the world's largest producer of oil and natural gas combined, something no one would have predicted in 2004.

I think I'm in Andy's camp on this one. Any effort we expend now trying to get more-and-more oil and gas from the ground is only polluting our world at a faster rate and taking away from effort that could be put toward moving away from oil and nuclear energy sources.

Or perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say here...

FCEVs, despite their energy inefficiency vis-a-vis BEVs, represent an improvement over ICEVs and (I believe) have acceptable operational characteristics _now_ to a mainstream population - what remains to be done is to continue to reduce the price through scale, and to reduce the efficiency disadvantage through improvements in storage and electrolysis.

Operationally, perhaps. But can they stack up against a BEV that has similar lifetime costs? And if we project five or ten years into the future? Will there ever be a crossover?

All of these techs are moving ahead at a relatively rapid pace, and I don't think it's wise to strand a whole lot of capital in infrastructure which may be made rapidly obsolete. OTOH, we need to balance the need to keep costs down with the need for speed, with the inevitable result that some waste is unavoidable. It's trying to strike the right balance with a large quantity of unknowns that's hard.

No argument.

 

[DaveEV]

Hell, if we could get 50% of the population into 40 mpg HEVs and PHEVs in the next 5 years, by momentarily curtailing both BEV and FCEV introduction and instead incentivizing the two gas burning techs, I'd be for it, because it will cause a more rapid reduction in GHGs in the near term. Sub 1% adoption rates of the latter two aren't going to get us far, no matter how much they are individually better than ICEVs.

Are there any concerns about water vapor pouring from the tailpipes of FCEVs? It's yet another non-poisonous greenhouse gas.

I'm no fan of hydrogen fuel cells, but please read up on the carbon cycle if you think this is an issue. (hint: it's not an issue at all)

 

[RegGuheert]

I'm no fan of hydrogen fuel cells, but please read up on the carbon cycle if you think this is an issue. (hint: it's not an issue at all)

I know it's not. It was a tongue-in-cheek dig. But water vapor IS the primary greenhouse gas of consequence when it comes to global temperatures. Whatever controls the clouds, controls the global temperatures. As of today, we know it is not CO2, since the TOTAL net amount of heat measured to be entering the oceans is less than half the amount of heat that CO2, by itself, would add if it were acting alone. In other words, the feedback effects of CO2 in the atmosphere are strongly negative. (And that is based solely on the numbers provided in the IPCC 2013 report.)

Cosmic rays have been clearly shown to produce clouds, we can expect that our climate will continue to follow the sun, as it always has. As our sun goes to sleep, expect 1998 to continue to be the hottest year in recent records and look for decades of cooling as we go forward.

 

[Smidge204]

Whatever controls the clouds, controls the global temperatures.

Probably not the way you imagine, though;

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

=Smidge=

 

[RegGuheert]

Here's a link you may want to read to see that the measured value of forcing is much lower than the calculated value: (Unfortunately, the calculation of the forcings the IPCC comes up with is 0.7 W/m^2 + or - 17!! In other words, the calculation is not useful for making any conclusions.):

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/21/radiative-forcing-radiative-feedbacks-and-radiative-imbalance-the-2013-wg1-ipcc-report-failed-to-properly-report-on-this-issue/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's a picture of what the IPCC is reporting versus the measurements:

 

[AndyH]

Hydrogen is safer than acetylene, gasoline or natural gas.

Hydrogen is so much more difficult to handle safely, I just don't see how you can make that generalization.

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oce/appel/ask/issues/41/41s_explosive.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_safety" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hydrogen was discovered in 1776 and we've been using it industrially since the 1920s. The oil industry alone uses about 5 million tons of the stuff each year. We know how to handle hydrogen.

Of COURSE it can be explosive in the right environment. News flash: So is natural gas, gasoline, acetylene, and TNT. Yet we've been using those for a very long time as well without blowing our hands off.

I've given you examples of the results of an unplanned 2000PSI hydrogen cylinder 'explosion' along with an accidental low-pressure natural gas line rupture. One of them resulted in a fire, one did not. That's a clue...

No more of this. Further questions? Contact a pressurized gas distributor and/or the Department of Homeland Security and report back. Thanks.

http://www.gasworld.com/directory/C...gory=Hydrogen-Distributor&categorycode=101213
http://www.dhs.gov/

 

[AndyH]

Hydrogen is safer than acetylene, gasoline or natural gas - and that's neither a mute nor moot point.

safer than acetylene yes, but not as safe as gasoline or natural gas.

I'll explain how men die in underground coal mines,

Thanks for this, but we're not talking about working in coal mines. I have talked with engineers that use hydrogen - petroleum engineers that work with the hydroprocessing I've already referenced.

Earlier in this thread we've talked about generation, storage, and use equipment for hydrogen. The PowerPoint slides are linked, the papers from PNNL and the DOE are linked, as are papers from NASA. If you don't believe that this is a viable energy carrier, that's up to you, but science and real-world experience do not support that position.

 

[AndyH]

Whatever controls the clouds, controls the global temperatures.

Probably not the way you imagine, though;

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

=Smidge=

I think we and this forum should join the LA Times and other organizations that refuse to print lies.
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/09/the_la_times_wont_publish_letters_from_climate_deniers/

By publishing letters stating that there’s no evidence humans caused climate change, Thorton wrote, the Times wouldn’t be letting readers express their opinions — they would be publishing factual inaccuracies. And that’s usually something newspapers try to avoid doing.

We don't have time for factual inaccuracies, either.

 

[RegGuheert]

I think we and this forum should join the LA Times and other organizations that refuse to print lies.
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/09/the_la_times_wont_publish_letters_from_climate_deniers/

By publishing letters stating that there’s no evidence humans caused climate change, Thorton wrote, the Times wouldn’t be letting readers express their opinions — they would be publishing factual inaccuracies. And that’s usually something newspapers try to avoid doing.

We don't have time for factual inaccuracies, either.

Here's a better quote from your link:

Yesterday, Paul Thorton, the Times’ letters editor, posted a longer explanation in response to the attacks:

"I’ll concede that, aside from my easily passing the Advanced Placement biology exam in high school, my science credentials are lacking. I’m no expert when it comes to our planet’s complex climate processes or any scientific field. Consequently, when deciding which letters should run among hundreds on such weighty matters as climate change, I must rely on the experts — in other words, those scientists with advanced degrees who undertake tedious research and rigorous peer review."

Just another fallacy from those promoting AGW: Argument from authority. It's Andy's favorite fallacy to fall for, too!

All you get by only looking at one side of any argument is indoctrination.

 

[AndyH]

All you get by only looking at one side of any argument is indoctrination.

As with most denialist spin, this is an example of a mis-applied factual statement. It's sad that too many Americans cannot discern which are 'sides' and which is intentional disinformation. It's more sad that some would sell their children's futures for a few pieces of gold today.

 

[Smidge204]

Just another fallacy from those promoting AGW: Argument from authority. It's Andy's favorite fallacy to fall for, too!

So the next time you or someone you love gets seriously ill/injured and end up in the hospital, I think you should get a second opinion from that grizzled homeless guy out by the highway off-ramp. You know, for a balanced perspective. :roll:
=Smidge=

 

[AndyH]

Here's a list of Master Plans for some areas that have adopted the Third Industrial Revolution plan. I'm still looking for more details on exactly what Germany and the EU adopted, though the EU rule linked earlier gets straight to the point.

Main page:
http://www.thethirdindustrialrevolution.com/masterPlan.cfm

Monaco:
http://www.thethirdindustrialrevolution.com/MasterPlan/index_MonacoMasterPlan_book.html

Rome, Italy:
http://www.thethirdindustrialrevolution.com/MasterPlan/index_RomeMasterPlan_book.html

San Antonio, TX
http://www.thethirdindustrialrevolution.com/MasterPlan/index_SanAntonioMasterPlan_book.html

Utrecht, Netherlands
http://www.thethirdindustrialrevolution.com/MasterPlan/index_UtrechtMasterPlan_book.html

European Union Declaration:
http://hyfleetcute.com/data/MEP Green H2 Declaration.pdf
http://www.ueapme.com/IMG/pdf/EU_PARLIAMENT_DECLARATION_ON_ENERGY_AND_THE_ECONOMY_final.pdf

Germany Moving Forward with TIR
http://blogs.agu.org/terracentral/2...forward-with-the-third-industrial-revolution/

 

[RegGuheert]

It's sad that too many Americans cannot discern which are 'sides' and which is intentional disinformation.

Here's a hint: It's NOT the side which makes predictions and then reality quickly moves outside of their 95% confidence band.

Another hint: It's NOT the side which had to change their name from "global warming" to "global climate change" when they discover that warming is not what is happening.

As the temperatures continue to cool and the number of severe storms continues to plummet, I suspect it will be difficult to change the name to "global cooling", but I won't be surprised when they try it!

It's more sad that some would sell their children's futures for a few pieces of gold today.

What's sad is those who claim they are going to assure their children's future by burning one gallon of diesel fuel and a bushel of corn to produce corn ethanol equivalent to 0.95 gallons of diesel fuel. And your support of hydrogen for transportation is more of the same due to very low efficiencies. You are intent on bankrupting your children's future.

The LA Times hired a "science editor" who is too dumb to think for himself and therefore chooses to indoctrinate their readership with the state-supported side of the story. Clearly this is what the LA Times wants the science editor to do.

If you cannot understand that total MEASURED forcings being signficantly lower than predicted CO2 forcings means that either the predictions are wrong or the feedbacks are negative, or both, then I cannot help you.

Why anyone would want to indoctrinate themself on only one side of an issue is beyond me. But please don't expect me to stand up and vote to prepare for warming when the science clearly indicates that global cooling will be the theme of the rest of our lives. I wonder how long it will take for this dogma to capitulate. Clearly it is much longer than seventeen years, which is the current period over which there has been no warming.