Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[AndyH]

We have 40 years at most to get rid of ALL fossil-fueled transportation and electricity generation and building heating. How many LEAF batteries will it take to haul 40,000 lbs of toilets from San Diego to our local Home Depot?

AndyH, I don't understand what you are arguing.

With absolutely zero snark, cBeam, I get that. I'm really not sure why this message is so difficult for many to understand. I keep trying to shine the light on it from different directions but so far I'm failing miserably. Mea culpa.

There is no doubt in my mind that we need to get off the oil burning habit. Or the fossil fuel habit overall, for many reasons (we run out of it, climate change, real costs of burning C (not only the cost we pay today, but also the cost of repairing the damage that we do burning it)).
There are many challenges to get off fossil: how fast, which changes are needed, who pays, what gets subsidized, etc, etc. Many vested interests to overcome.

I understand that this thread is about Hydrogen and FCEVs.

- Like others I think that batteries will be the better storage devices for passenger cars. I do not see fuel cells competitive for this application.

If you read this thread, you will find much agreement on the first part of your statement - the key words being 'passenger cars' - actually a subset of them - the relatively small pax vehicles used for commuting. Yes, Tesla has longer-range cars but they're neither priced nor built in quantities to reach the middle class much less the working class.

- I can see that for stationary storage hydrogen as energy storage medium might have a chance. I doubt it, but I do not rule it out yet. Most likely candidates are large scale (utility sized) facilities to decouple energy production and energy consumption. Still, this technology will need to compete with batteries.

Actually, H2 storage is being installed and it is more capable and less expensive/more profitable than batteries. That's really important. In addition to storing renewable energy that would otherwise be curtailed and returning most of that energy to the grid at a later date via fuel cells, it can be directly burned in a gas turbine and can provide process heat for making steel. Electricity is the least efficient way to heat anything on the planet. Even if not used in a fuel cell, H2 will support the BEV fleet by supplying electricity.

- Then there is the middle segment, i.e. trucks and very large vehicles. Maybe batteries will be too heavy /too large for them to be really usable, maybe not. But let's assume we'd need to build a hydrogen infrastructure just for them, building filling stations in a density that enables them to operate countrywide or even globally. I have a very hard time to see that this can be cost effective, the unsubsidized price of hydrogen as fuel will be much much higher than the cost of filling up batteries with electrons.

So, are you arguing that hydrogen fuel cells for Leaf or Tesla sized cars have a future? Or are you just arguing that we need a good solution for trucks and large vehicles and batteries will have to have competition?

Again - if you become familiar with the five pillars of the Third Industrial Revolution all of this will click into place. It's more than 'just' the very important need to electrify transportation. There's a ton of synergy and multiple benefits to using H2 over a battery. Needing a bit of grid stabilization in a region and solving it with a battery is a 1+1=2 linear solution. Using H2 to provide the same benefit, while also enabling a fueling station and replacing natural gas is a 1+1=4 situation. (Grid storage, temporal energy shifting, transportation, process heat, eliminating fossil fuels in multiple categories...)

Just limiting it to cars/light vehicles, though - today's fuel cell vehicles are priced in Model S territory but have the same range and sub-3 minute 'recharging'. That's one plus for FCEV over BEV. In addition, the folks in the middle of the country that are shoveling snow today benefit from being able to use the heat and defrost at full speed without losing range - that's another plus for FCEV over BEV. There is at least as much R&D in the fuel cell world as the battery world today - and while the lithium battery is a fairly mature tech and is very low on the cost curve, the fuel cell is still young and still much higher on the cost curve. It's pretty clear that there is plenty of room for fuel cell prices to fall, but there is very little room for lithium battery prices to fall. This suggests very, very strongly that the Hyundai Tucson fuel cell vehicle will fall in price much faster than a BEV with similar range/power. So yes - in addition to large trucks, medium trucks, and F150-ish work trucks that will benefit from lighter and less expensive power packages, it should also translate to less expensive FCEV commuter vehicles as well.

For one example - here's a group in the UK that's taken the Rocky Mountain Institute's hypercar tenets to heart and have FCEV commuter vehicles on the road: http://www.riversimple.com/ The fuel cell stack is smaller, lighter, less expensive, and faster to 'recharge' than a lithium battery. In addition, their business model is more along the car sharing/short-term car rental model that's more in tune with Gen-x and Millennials. Personal transportation desires are changing - the future is already looking to be less about 'three cars in every garage' to 'I want a car when I need one and I want my bicycle the other 48 weeks of the year'.

We need ALL forms of electric transportation and we need them as quickly as we can turn them out. We have about 40 years of highly-condensed solar energy we can use for a transition. Or we can continue to argue about solutions, keep burning oil for 40 years, and have no replacement capability in 2040. I hope we do the former and not the latter.

 

[cBeam]

- I can see that for stationary storage hydrogen as energy storage medium might have a chance. I doubt it, but I do not rule it out yet. Most likely candidates are large scale (utility sized) facilities to decouple energy production and energy consumption. Still, this technology will need to compete with batteries.

Actually, H2 storage is being installed and it is more capable and less expensive/more profitable than batteries. That's really important. In addition to storing renewable energy that would otherwise be curtailed and returning most of that energy to the grid at a later date via fuel cells, it can be directly burned in a gas turbine and can provide process heat for making steel. Electricity is the least efficient way to heat anything on the planet. Even if not used in a fuel cell, H2 will support the BEV fleet by supplying electricity.

AndyH, also without snark: I'd be interested to see a "less expensive / more profitable" hydrogen application that is not based on burning fossils in some way. In any case I know that battery development is not going to slow down any time soon, so hydrogen will continue to have competition. Don't get me wrong, I am not at all against renewable - hydrogen applications, I still see no convincing argument why it should be more cost effective than renewable - battery applications. However, I can see that fossil - hydrogen can be cheaper, which does not help to get us off our fossil addiction, but could potentially lead us down a path we will regret in a few years.

For one example - here's a group in the UK that's taken the Rocky Mountain Institute's hypercar tenets to heart and have FCEV commuter vehicles on the road: http://www.riversimple.com/ The fuel cell stack is smaller, lighter, less expensive, and faster to 'recharge' than a lithium battery. In addition, their business model is more along the car sharing/short-term car rental model that's more in tune with Gen-x and Millennials. Personal transportation desires are changing - the future is already looking to be less about 'three cars in every garage' to 'I want a car when I need one and I want my bicycle the other 48 weeks of the year'.

I like this concept, especially the following:
"- Low powered hydrogen fuel cells (although other primary energy devices could be used)"
My take reading this is that they reserve the right to put a battery in in case it makes more sense than the fuel cell.
What bothers me is that I could not find where they plan to get the hydrogen from. Maybe it is stated on their website, maybe not. But again. if they are not going for the renewable - hydrogen cycle but use the cheaper fossil - hydrogen cycle then their solution does not excite me at all. In any case they will have to resolve the hydrogen infrastructure problem somehow, a problem that is solved for BEVs already (at least in the U.S.and in Europe).

We need ALL forms of electric transportation and we need them as quickly as we can turn them out. We have about 40 years of highly-condensed solar energy we can use for a transition. Or we can continue to argue about solutions, keep burning oil for 40 years, and have no replacement capability in 2040. I hope we do the former and not the latter.

Agreed.

 

[DaveEV]

Yes, Tesla has longer-range cars but they're neither priced nor built in quantities to reach the middle class much less the working class.

And Hydrogen beats the BEVs exactly how here? At least you can plunk down $71k right now and get a very nice 200+ mi range EV that seats 5 very comfortable and up to 7 if two are small. Right now the only hydrogen vehicle you can get is a Tuscon lease.

Electricity is the least efficient way to heat anything on the planet.

How exactly is taking clean renewable electricity, tossing half of it away using electrolysis and then burning it any better than using electricity? It's very easy to get nearly 100% of the energy from electricity back out of it, but you'd be far better off using that renewable electricity and using it to drive a heat pump where you get 2-4x more heat out of it.

 

[AndyH]

- I can see that for stationary storage hydrogen as energy storage medium might have a chance. I doubt it, but I do not rule it out yet. Most likely candidates are large scale (utility sized) facilities to decouple energy production and energy consumption. Still, this technology will need to compete with batteries.

Actually, H2 storage is being installed and it is more capable and less expensive/more profitable than batteries. That's really important. In addition to storing renewable energy that would otherwise be curtailed and returning most of that energy to the grid at a later date via fuel cells, it can be directly burned in a gas turbine and can provide process heat for making steel. Electricity is the least efficient way to heat anything on the planet. Even if not used in a fuel cell, H2 will support the BEV fleet by supplying electricity.

AndyH, also without snark: I'd be interested to see a "less expensive / more profitable" hydrogen application that is not based on burning fossils in some way. In any case I know that battery development is not going to slow down any time soon, so hydrogen will continue to have competition. Don't get me wrong, I am not at all against renewable - hydrogen applications, I still see no convincing argument why it should be more cost effective than renewable - battery applications. However, I can see that fossil - hydrogen can be cheaper, which does not help to get us off our fossil addiction, but could potentially lead us down a path we will regret in a few years.

With regards to the power grid and the Third Industrial Revolution, you can look to Germany and the Canadian contractors for examples of 'less expensive / more profitable" H2 generation and use. The wind to H2 systems operating and under construction today are returning an industry standard ~12% rate of return for the operator. Germany has a number of large-scale battery systems on-line as well, but while they perform very well functionally they underperform wind to H2 financially. That's the one that's most applicable to this topic. In addition: Even if we use fossil gas to generate H2, reforming methane emits about half the carbon per mile as burning the CNG/LPG directly. That's a real bridge fuel that's a bridge to somewhere, rather than the bridge to nowhere that CNG converted buses bring...

Another point - FCEVs aren't hitting the road today because of the USA or CARB, and they aren't being built because of Tesla. They're being built today because it's almost too late to create a replacement for gasoline and diesel that can be fielded in large enough numbers to meet the 2040/2050 date we should be off fossil fuel. They're being built because of the Third Industrial Revolution.

For one example - here's a group in the UK that's taken the Rocky Mountain Institute's hypercar tenets to heart and have FCEV commuter vehicles on the road: http://www.riversimple.com/ The fuel cell stack is smaller, lighter, less expensive, and faster to 'recharge' than a lithium battery. In addition, their business model is more along the car sharing/short-term car rental model that's more in tune with Gen-x and Millennials. Personal transportation desires are changing - the future is already looking to be less about 'three cars in every garage' to 'I want a car when I need one and I want my bicycle the other 48 weeks of the year'.

I like this concept, especially the following:
"- Low powered hydrogen fuel cells (although other primary energy devices could be used)"
My take reading this is that they reserve the right to put a battery in in case it makes more sense than the fuel cell.
What bothers me is that I could not find where they plan to get the hydrogen from. Maybe it is stated on their website, maybe not. But again. if they are not going for the renewable - hydrogen cycle but use the cheaper fossil - hydrogen cycle then their solution does not excite me at all. In any case they will have to resolve the hydrogen infrastructure problem somehow, a problem that is solved for BEVs already (at least in the U.S.and in Europe).

In the UK, grocery giant Sainsburys is converting waste food into biogas to power their stores. This biomethane works perfectly in 'natural gas' reformers for H2. I believe Guy has already linked a report that shows they're also making H2. In the near term, H2 fueling infrastructure can look a lot like Tesla's SC network as FCEVs have much longer range than a typical BEV.


If you're interested, here's some info from up thread that I think hits your questions (and most of Neil's as well) and does it much better than I can.

Profitability of wind to H2:
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=335083#p335083

Storage comparison - why H2 over other methods:
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=335266#p335266

Audi renewables to H2 and fuel program (from ASPO):
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=332980#p332980

How Germany's deployed the TIR so far; what worked, what didn't and why; and synergy of combining energy silos:
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=14744&start=160

Concise overview of our current situation on the planet and why we're running out of time...
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ2fjSTgecg[/youtube]

 

[AndyH]

Yes, Tesla has longer-range cars but they're neither priced nor built in quantities to reach the middle class much less the working class.

And Hydrogen beats the BEVs exactly how here? At least you can plunk down $71k right now and get a very nice 200+ mi range EV that seats 5 very comfortable and up to 7 if two are small. Right now the only hydrogen vehicle you can get is a Tuscon lease.

Of course, because Today == Tomorrow, and The USA == The World. :lol:

Electricity is the least efficient way to heat anything on the planet.

How exactly is taking clean renewable electricity, tossing half of it away using electrolysis and then burning it any better than using electricity? It's very easy to get nearly 100% of the energy from electricity back out of it, but you'd be far better off using that renewable electricity and using it to drive a heat pump where you get 2-4x more heat out of it.

- Your first statement is erroneous. It's not a case of taking renewable energy (not all is 'clean' but we'll ignore that for now...), "tossing half of it away" and burning it. It's a case today of storing energy that would otherwise NOT BE GENERATED and storing it for use later when needed. That's a NEW CAPABILITY that H2 provides better, more cheaply, and with a wider range of customers/silos than batteries or any other storage can provide.

Or maybe you think that the ~6% of energy generated that is delivered to an outlet by our current power grid is the pinnacle of efficiency? You are free to squeeze-out ~72% of 6% with your BEV if you want to. :lol:

- You are free to suggest that the steel industry heat their cauldrons with a heat pump. I'm not gonna touch that one. ROFL How about process heat for melting silicon for solar panels? Gonna do that with a heat pump and a solar panel?

It appears you've still got your circle drawn around your BEV and are having trouble expanding it to include the full picture. This thread has the cure for that but in the words of my HS band director: "ya gotta wanna!"

 

[cBeam]

I'm really not sure why this message is so difficult for many to understand.

AndyH, <timeout> here. Please reflect for one moment on your posts on this page and the one before. It is very hard to follow what you want to say because you are all over the map and it is not clear to what you refer to in a particular thought.

This thread is titled "Hydrogen and FCEV", yet in your last few posts you were able to mention:
- Process heat for melting silicon
- Steel industry and heat pumps
- 3rd industrial revolution
- Challenges of transporting 40,000lbs of toilets from San Diego to Home Depot
- A UK company converting waste food into biogas

Each of these issues could be its own topic. But throwing it in a thread about FCEVs just means there goes another attempt down the drain to discuss an issue seriously and critically.

As I strongly believe that you care about the issues that come with our fossil fuel addiction, I would like to ask you respectfully to stay focused on one issue at a time. In this case "Hydrogen and FCEVs".

<end of time out>

I am open to change my opinion, but nothing I heard so far does convince me that Hydrogen Fuel Cell powered cars will be a cost effective alternative to BEVs. The major reason being the massive investment needs into a dense hydrogen infrastructure which needs to compete with the existing infrastructure of the electric grid.

And the fact that something is technically doable does not mean it makes economical sense.

 

[Zythryn]

Andy, very few people are saying Hydrogen is bad for all applications.
I think it is a darned good one for many.

For the light vehicle fleet, it sucks.

Infrastructure is basically non existent and expensive.
Refueling is far less convenient for most.
Refueling is far more expensive for most, once they start charging for it rather than folding it into the leases.

Should the option of fuel cell vehicles exist? Certainly it should.
Should government money be taken away from EVs to give to FCEVs. Not in my book.

Use hydrogen for what it is good at, why try to hammer a square peg into a round hole?

 

[AndyH]

I'm really not sure why this message is so difficult for many to understand.

AndyH, <timeout> here. Please reflect for one moment on your posts on this page and the one before. It is very hard to follow what you want to say because you are all over the map and it is not clear to what you refer to in a particular thought.

This thread is titled "Hydrogen and FCEV", yet in your last few posts you were able to mention:
- Process heat for melting silicon
- Steel industry and heat pumps
- 3rd industrial revolution
- Challenges of transporting 40,000lbs of toilets from San Diego to Home Depot
- A UK company converting waste food into biogas

Each of these issues could be its own topic. But throwing it in a thread about FCEVs just means there goes another attempt down the drain to discuss an issue seriously and critically.

As I strongly believe that you care about the issues that come with our fossil fuel addiction, I would like to ask you respectfully to stay focused on one issue at a time. In this case "Hydrogen and FCEVs".

<end of time out>

I am open to change my opinion, but nothing I heard so far does convince me that Hydrogen Fuel Cell powered cars will be a cost effective alternative to BEVs. The major reason being the massive investment needs into a dense hydrogen infrastructure which needs to compete with the existing infrastructure of the electric grid.

And the fact that something is technically doable does not mean it makes economical sense.

See, that's the real problem - people want to focus on only a single factor. Doing that guarantees that they miss the bulk of the picture and thus make poor decisions! You can read through this thread - this is why I came here to begin with - because the 'give me batteries or give me death' crowd have their blinders on and cannot or will not see or understand why H2, why FCEV, or who/what is driving this change. And yes - it is REALLY important that folks understand that background.

I appreciate your criticism about steel, etc, but that was aimed at drees and was a reply to his suggestion that all we need is electric heat pumps and we can quit fossil fuel for good.

The TIR is the BACKGROUND! It is the reason why there are FCEV cars in CA today. Seriously - that's the main point! That's not a side issue or a tangent or the blathering of someone that's slipped a few gears in the belfrey. :lol: If one will not take the time to review the prereqs, they will not be able to understand the thread.

And for God's sake do not get into the pseudo-science of economics. That's the reason we're IN this problem (yes - all of them!). Again - watch Martenson's talk at the Gund institute. It's the single best overview/intro to the problem.

We don't need a 'dense' infrastructure to 'compete with the grid' because we don't need a H2 station on every street corner and we're not competing with the grid or BEVs. The vehicles to remove from the streets are ICE.

Look at commercial trucking fleets today. Many have regular runs - like the company in Dallas that runs the 'NAFTA' corridor from Mexico to Canada. They have their own fuel and maintenance depots spaced up I-35 from border to border - they don't buy commercial fuel, don't stop at truck stops. Fleets work that way as it's less expensive for them. They will install their own infrastructure as they do now. In order to get some of that business, truck stops will install H2 on their dime - that's what they do. Larger fuel stations will do the same (as some are now in CA - check the existing H2 fueling stations on both coasts). We don't have to worry about the 'infrastructure'. This CA project is just for the 'chicken-egg' thing. Once there are more vehicles on the streets in 2015 and 2016 capitalism will take care of the rest.

And no - the comment about Sainsburys making biogas, electricity, and H2 is a direct answer to YOUR question about RiverSimple's refueling plans. That type of info is in the RiverSimple docs, but it takes some effort to tease that out as well. For a parallel on this side of the pond, look up thread for the SoCal Tri-gen H2/electricity/biogas facility - that's one of the renewable H2 fueling stations that's already in operation and not only provides 100% renewable H2, but also provides electricity and heat. One station - three benefits (four, if you recall that landfill methane is a greenhouse gas - keeping it out of the atmosphere is a good thing...). Again - 1+1=4 here.

The big picture is much more important than blinders here...

 

[AndyH]

Andy, very few people are saying Hydrogen is bad for all applications.
I think it is a darned good one for many.

For the light vehicle fleet, it sucks.

Infrastructure is basically non existent and expensive.
Refueling is far less convenient for most.
Refueling is far more expensive for most, once they start charging for it rather than folding it into the leases.

Should the option of fuel cell vehicles exist? Certainly it should.
Should government money be taken away from EVs to give to FCEVs. Not in my book.

Use hydrogen for what it is good at, why try to hammer a square peg into a round hole?

Check H2 prices at current CA fuel stations, Zythryn - we did earlier - I telephoned a couple myself. The price was similar to a gallon of gas, yet a FCHV can go 150% on that same 'gallon'. That makes a mile on H2 less expensive than gasoline today. I'ts less convenient? For the general public that has been going to fuel stations since before they were weaned? Ummm...no.

For light vehicles? You mean the light vehicles that can drive 400 miles on a charge even with the heat and defrost on high? Or can operate in Phoenix without losing 20% range each year? Yeah...that's gotta suck... :roll: :lol:

As for public money... Using public money collected specifically for renewable fuel transition projects on renewable fuel transition projects is the poster child of what public money SHOULD be used for! If you want to rail against public spending, join me in pushing back against our hard-core corporate-socialism! That's the garbage that should be stopped...

 

[TonyWilliams]

In addition, the folks in the middle of the country that are shoveling snow today benefit from being able to use the heat and defrost at full speed without losing range - that's another plus for FCEV over BEV.

There is only heat available because the fuel cell is wasting energy at a greater rate than any battery powered car. Guess what? If a heater is a "benefit" to a $70,000 fuel cell, I'll be happy with a $100 heater that burns methanol, methane, etc, all of which are produced today for cheap. Before somebody tells me that concept isn't carbon neutral, you're right. Neither is hydrogen that is produced from fossil fuel sources. Plus, with the extreme excess electricity required (compared to the same car with battery energy storage) that comes from today's carbon spewing grid, the carbon from electricity production per mile of transport is many multiples greater with hydrogen.

So, your "heater" issue is solved, cheaply. Strike one, next...

There is at least as much R&D in the fuel cell world as the battery world today - and while the lithium battery is a fairly mature tech and is very low on the cost curve, the fuel cell is still young and still much higher on the cost curve. It's pretty clear that there is plenty of room for fuel cell prices to fall, but there is very little room for lithium battery prices to fall.

Toyota must be paying you a handsome royalty. With that logic, we should be going straight to mega expensive nuclear power!!! There certainly is a lot of room for the costs to fall. Strike two, next...

This suggests very, very strongly that the Hyundai Tucson fuel cell vehicle will fall in price much faster than a BEV with similar range/power. So yes - in addition to large trucks, medium trucks, and F150-ish work trucks that will benefit from lighter and less expensive power packages, it should also translate to less expensive FCEV commuter vehicles as well.

Total BS. The Hyundai Tucson H2 car is grossly subsidized. The COST to produce it can certainly fall, but the sales price has little to do with that in a grossly subsidized product. I think if the price point were reasonable today, H2 might make a reasonable truck energy storage, until I think past the end of my nose. Then, I realize that it's far more cost effective to use that cheap natural gas that you are turning into H2 and instead put it straight in an existing Ford F-150. Another problem solved. Strike three...

Or we can continue to argue about solutions, keep burning oil for 40 years, and have no replacement capability in 2040. I hope we do the former and not the latter.

Yawn... like somebody here (anybody?) wants oil. Non sequitur, as is so frequently the case. This would be strike four, but you've been "out" for a while.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Andy, very few people are saying Hydrogen is bad for all applications.

Andy doesn't seem to be able to hear that. The mantra is the same, over and over. Hydrogen or you're an "oil guy". There no logical middle ground of what the rest of us see as obvious. Hydrogen will be awesome for grid scale energy storage TODAY. Not so awesome for cars. The trucks, eh, I think cost will win out for straight natural gas in the USA, instead of converting the natural gas to hydrogen first.

Use hydrogen for what it is good at, why try to hammer a square peg into a round hole?

Excellent summary!

Check H2 prices at current CA fuel stations, Zythryn - we did earlier - I telephoned a couple myself. The price was similar to a gallon of gas, yet a FCHV can go 150% on that same 'gallon'. That makes a mile on H2 less expensive than gasoline today. I'ts less convenient? For the general public that has been going to fuel stations since before they were weaned? Ummm...no..

It might be any subsidized price the state of California will pay for. Our state is firmly convinced that hydrogen is the "end game", and have done their best to hamper electric vehicles to facilitate that end game.

Toyota, who is frothing at the mouth to meet their ZEV mandate with only H2 cars (and offer no battery electric car) says hydrogen is $10-$11 "per gallon".

 

[WetEV]

There is at least as much R&D in the fuel cell world as the battery world today - and while the lithium battery is a fairly mature tech and is very low on the cost curve, the fuel cell is still young and still much higher on the cost curve. It's pretty clear that there is plenty of room for fuel cell prices to fall, but there is very little room for lithium battery prices to fall.

There is very little of the active metal, lithium, in a lithium battery. Lots of other things, many of which are far more expensive than the lithium. A battery with less of the other things, or with different other things, and the same amount of lithium would likely store a very similar amount of energy, perhaps with lower cost and/or a smaller mass and/or a longer lifetime.

I'm not sure what fraction of uses (grid storage, cars, trucks, etc.) hydrogen energy storage will be used for in the future. Could be lots, could be hardly any.

 

[NeilBlanchard]

In Japan, they had a $30,000 rebate on FCEV's. Didn't work.

They are now giving away the cars. Still isn't working.

Which comes first? FCEV's or hydrogen filling stations? How many hydrogen filling stations have been built in the US?

 

[mtndrew1]

I can't for the life of me figure out how Toyota is gonna sell these things.

Let's say it's about 18 months from today and I walk into Longo Toyota/Lexus here in Southern California. I have $60,000 burning a hole in my pocket.

There are three cars parked in the showroom, a Toyota FCV, a loaded Prius, and a Lexus GS Hybrid.

If I'm a cheapskate I get the Prius and pocket $25,000 for incidentals. The car's fuel cost is the same as the FCV, but fueling is far more convenient. Anyone can work on it. There are no oddities to deal with and I know its resale situation.

If I want lux-u-ry and coddling service, I pick up the GS. I get to be a snob at the valet and I get cappuccino and a car wash with my 5,000 mile services. Fuel costs are similar to the FCV, maybe a touch more, but I don't have to worry about finding a fueling point. Nobody will question my choice. Resale is a slam dunk.

Which leaves the FCV. Who is this car for? In Longo's own showroom I have two better choices from the same manufacturer. Why would I, you know, want this car? It won't save me any fueling money, but it will add inconvenience. It (likely) won't perform any better dynamically than the other Toyota products. It's, you know, not cute. I don't get it.

An electric I get, obviously. If I'm at a Nissan dealer and comparing a Leaf to an Altima, I get at-home refueling convenience and lower fuel costs in exchange for the relative lack of public fueling points by choosing the Leaf. I can make a business case for it, in addition to the warm/fuzzy business of driving an EV. I can't seem to make the same connection for an FCV, even if it's the exact same cost as a Prius.

 

[AndyH]

In addition, the folks in the middle of the country that are shoveling snow today benefit from being able to use the heat and defrost at full speed without losing range - that's another plus for FCEV over BEV.

There is only heat available because the fuel cell is wasting energy at a greater rate than any battery powered car. Guess what? If a heater is a "benefit" to a $70,000 fuel cell, I'll be happy with a $100 heater that burns methanol, methane, etc, all of which are produced today for cheap. Before somebody tells me that concept isn't carbon neutral, you're right. Neither is hydrogen that is produced from fossil fuel sources. Plus, with the extreme excess electricity required (compared to the same car with battery energy storage) that comes from today's carbon spewing grid, the carbon from electricity production per mile of transport is many multiples greater with hydrogen.

So, your "heater" issue is solved, cheaply. Strike one, next...

The carbon footprint of today's H2 electrolyzed from the current power grid is EXACTLY THE SAME as the carbon footprint of charging a BEV from that same grid. And H2 production, along with BEV charging, gets better as the grid improves. H2 storage is used to green the grid and replace fossil fuels in other sectors as well, which translates directly into making it better for ALL carbon-free transportation goals. Since the entire point of transitioning away from fossil fuel is to get rid of the fossil carbon, your combustion heater (regardless of cost) is a non-starter unless the fuel is renewable (which is could be, especially with a diesel heater burning biodiesel).

There is at least as much R&D in the fuel cell world as the battery world today - and while the lithium battery is a fairly mature tech and is very low on the cost curve, the fuel cell is still young and still much higher on the cost curve. It's pretty clear that there is plenty of room for fuel cell prices to fall, but there is very little room for lithium battery prices to fall.

Toyota must be paying you a handsome royalty. With that logic, we should be going straight to mega expensive nuclear power!!! There certainly is a lot of room for the costs to fall. Strike two, next...

Right, Tony - attack me when you don't like the message. :lol: The data that supports my statement is in this thread and comes from national labs and folks in industry doing the work - for both batteries and fuel cells. None of it comes from Toyota and nobody's paying me except the USAF and VA.

This suggests very, very strongly that the Hyundai Tucson fuel cell vehicle will fall in price much faster than a BEV with similar range/power. So yes - in addition to large trucks, medium trucks, and F150-ish work trucks that will benefit from lighter and less expensive power packages, it should also translate to less expensive FCEV commuter vehicles as well.

Total BS. The Hyundai Tucson H2 car is grossly subsidized. The COST to produce it can certainly fall, but the sales price has little to do with that in a grossly subsidized product. I think if the price point were reasonable today, H2 might make a reasonable truck energy storage, until I think past the end of my nose. Then, I realize that it's far more cost effective to use that cheap natural gas that you are turning into H2 and instead put it straight in an existing Ford F-150. Another problem solved. Strike three...

Nobody's talking about the 'price' of the Tucson or the subsidies - I'm talking about the 'actual' price of fuel cell equipment today and the projections as it slides down the cost curve. Lithium cells are already down near the bottom - fuel cell stacks are still up on the geometric curve. Had you read the thread, you'd remember that the point of transitioning away from fossil fuel is to stop emitting fossil carbon. Using natural gas to make H2 for use in a fuel cell emits less than half the fossil carbon per mile than your 'solution' of burning the gas directly.

Or we can continue to argue about solutions, keep burning oil for 40 years, and have no replacement capability in 2040. I hope we do the former and not the latter.

Yawn... like somebody here (anybody?) wants oil. Non sequitur, as is so frequently the case. This would be strike four, but you've been "out" for a while.

Dearest Tony - it's not all about you, Amigo. It's not even about this forum. Nor is is about California or the rest of the 'left coast'. It's about everyone. Oddly enough, the majority of the planet actually DOES want oil. Your blinders are keeping you from seeing the problem - and that makes your amusing 'solutions' little more than, well, amusing.

Sorry 'bout that.

 

[ydnas7]

...
The carbon footprint of today's H2 electrolyzed from the current power grid is EXACTLY THE SAME as the carbon footprint of charging a BEV from that same grid....

Using the same grid, an EV goes 3x further than an HFC vehicle if using the same motor.
think about it, slowly
think about it in terms of size of PV array to power your car.

In my country, H2 is to come from brown coal. 1 tonne of H2 produces 17 tonnes of CO2
think about it, slowly

 

[aarond12]

...
The carbon footprint of today's H2 electrolyzed from the current power grid is EXACTLY THE SAME as the carbon footprint of charging a BEV from that same grid....

It takes about 72 hours of using 1kW (1000W) of power (at 25°C) to create 1kg of hydrogen gas from water. It also uses 9 liters of water. Fuel cells are roughly 50-60% efficient at extracting power from hydrogen, meaning of those 72kW of power, ~40kW will be available for use. This doesn't include the compression of the gas for use in a FCV.

Even the slowest of chargers doesn't take 36 hours to charge ~20kW of battery. Sorry, but the math doesn't work.

Source: http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/h2homesystem.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (1994)

 

[AndyH]

...
The carbon footprint of today's H2 electrolyzed from the current power grid is EXACTLY THE SAME as the carbon footprint of charging a BEV from that same grid....

Using the same grid, an EV goes 3x further than an HFC vehicle if using the same motor.
think about it, slowly
think about it in terms of size of PV array to power your car.

Here's our problem. We keep coming to this in this thread - we keep going in circles. Again - yes - we all agree 100% that when we draw a circle around a BEV, exclude everything leading up to the EVSE, and only count the electrons that flow into the charger then calculate the distance traveled on those electrons, that one can show a fairly high efficiency in terms of miles per joule.

Another problem is that a ~70% efficient vehicle that can take me and three passengers 90 miles is COMPLETELY USELESS when I need to carry a pallet of solar panels 250 miles. Or when I need to carry three passengers 400 miles (or 200 miles out and back in the winter). It doesn't matter how efficient one's favorite tech might be when it cannot do the necessary job.

The problem is that in the real world we cannot exclude everything from the EVSE 'out', and we also cannot continue to produce electricity tomorrow the same way we do today. And that leads us to:

In my country, H2 is to come from brown coal. 1 tonne of H2 produces 17 tonnes of CO2
think about it, slowly

Is brown coal-fueled electrolysis the only way to produce H2 in your country? Do you expect your current power grid to be the dominant system in 2050? Do you understand that the Third Industrial Revolution, H2 storage, and electric transportation is in its infancy today? Do you understand that if we don't start fielding the replacements today, that we'll still be stuck in the ICE age in 2050?

Yet again - this is NOT a BEV VS FCEV battle. This is a clean electricity VS fossil fuel battle. The problem I see ydnas7 is that we are in completely different meeting rooms discussing completely different subjects.

 

[AndyH]

...
The carbon footprint of today's H2 electrolyzed from the current power grid is EXACTLY THE SAME as the carbon footprint of charging a BEV from that same grid....

It takes about 72 hours of using 1kW (1000W) of power (at 25°C) to create 1kg of hydrogen gas from water. It also uses 9 liters of water. Fuel cells are roughly 50-60% efficient at extracting power from hydrogen, meaning of those 72kW of power, ~40kW will be available for use. This doesn't include the compression of the gas for use in a FCV.

Even the slowest of chargers doesn't take 36 hours to charge ~20kW of battery. Sorry, but the math doesn't work.

Source: http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/h2homesystem.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (1994)

You might have noticed, aarond12, that it's no longer 1994. Had you read this thread, you'd have learned that electrolysis is more efficient, fuel cells are more efficient, and that today's electrolyzers can produce h2 at high pressure.

I agree that last century's numbers don't work. But we don't live there any longer.

(Thanks for that Home Power article - I'd been looking for that. )

 

[AndyH]

If we install PV over every parking lot in the US we can provide the energy needed for 100% of this nation's transportation.

Three times over.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2tYC8PlbVc[/youtube]


If we work rapidly to transition our transportation system off fossil fuel, then we'll likely have plenty of time to wring the last parts of a percent out of the efficiency curves. If we spend all our time complaining about the 4th decimal place today, we won't have to worry about changing anything. Neither will our grand kids.