Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[aarond12]

You might have noticed, aarond12, that it's no longer 1994.

The power quotations are current. The article, however, is old.

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.

What are the power requirements for high-pressure hydrogen creation from water? I still can't imagine it is cost-competitive with cracking methane, the way a vast majority of hydrogen is created.

We are still talking about small quantities of hydrogen, too. Such as generation at the home level. I have yet to find any resources saying this scales well (and cost-effectively). Large-scale generation of hydrogen requires storage, and that is best done at cryogenic temperatures. That also requires a lot of energy. I'm just seeing a LOT of energy expended for not a lot of energy returned.

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

No problem.

 

[AndyH]

You might have noticed, aarond12, that it's no longer 1994.

The power quotations are current. The article, however, is old.

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.

What are the power requirements for high-pressure hydrogen creation from water? I still can't imagine it is cost-competitive with cracking methane, the way a vast majority of hydrogen is created.

We are still talking about small quantities of hydrogen, too. Such as generation at the home level. I have yet to find any resources saying this scales well (and cost-effectively). Large-scale generation of hydrogen requires storage, and that is best done at cryogenic temperatures. That also requires a lot of energy. I'm just seeing a LOT of energy expended for not a lot of energy returned.

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

No problem.

There's info up thread about high-pressure alkaline electrolysis. It's much more energy efficient than low-pressure generation plus compressing and can output at near 700 bar/10K PSI. There are a number of "H2 fueling stations in a box" deployed - basically all the equipment in a 40' container. Drop it on the ground, connect to grid and solar, and hang an 'open' sign. Avalence makes the hydrolyzer for those units. There are at least five companies (and one might have purchased Avalence) making high-pressure electrolysis equipment.

Catch up with the Third Industrial Revolution and Reinventing Fire. Both show that the paradigm for H2 isn't as an 'add-on' to the current system to run along-side gasoline and only used for fueling a couple thousand Hyundai SUVs. It's about high-volume generation from renewable generation that would otherwise be curtailed (in the near term) transitioning to a complete cross-function energy transfer fluid that can feed vehicles, the power grid (via fuel cells and gas turbines), and process heat (industry). It's much more efficient for the overall system to use H2 across multiple 'stove pipes' than the 'power grid to electrolyzer to fuel tank' efficiency calc can communicate.

A lot has happened for H2 since about 2005 - and that's a good thing.

 

[aarond12]

Catch up with the Third Industrial Revolution and Reinventing Fire.

You know, I have no problem discussing this with you, but the snarky remarks aren't winning you any friends. You made a great comment then followed it up with that. C'mon. We're adults here.

Back on topic: Sorry I haven't read all 131 pages of this topic. :lol: It's interesting to me that they may have solved the hydrogen creation problem. I'll look into it.

As long as it's cost efficient and still green, I have no problem with hydrogen cars. In fact, I thought they would be the future in the not-so-distant past. Then I learned about the cracking of methane and the huge amount of greenhouse gasses produced during that process and it soured me to FCVs. If this high-pressure alkaline electrolysis works as well as you say it does, then I'm all for it.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Yet again - this is NOT a BEV VS FCEV battle. This is a clean electricity VS fossil fuel battle.

Most of the US isn't going to have hydrogen infrastructure for refueling H2 cars in my lifetime (if ever). Every place has electricity.

In California, it very much is a battle between H2 and EV. Tax money is being allocated right now to build and support hydrogen infrastructure that won't be spent to build a California West Coast Electric Highway.

The very fact that hydrogen exists at all has hampered the planning for EV's in California. They have been pigeon holed as the "80 mile" urban and metro solution (until Tesla showed up) and hydrogen is the end game in personal transport. Guess what we got? 80 mile cars and urban and metro area infrastructure.

Here, now 4 years into the Nissan LEAF, I still can't drive through the state of California in any reasonable amount of time. I can't drive between major metro areas like LA and San Francisco.

None of this is because of fossil fuels... quite the opposite, it is because of the looming hydrogen "solution" that has been sold by you and your similar thinking folks at Toyota, CEC, CARB, et al.

 

[AndyH]

Catch up with the Third Industrial Revolution and Reinventing Fire.

You know, I have no problem discussing this with you, but the snarky remarks aren't winning you any friends. You made a great comment then followed it up with that. C'mon. We're adults here.

Back on topic: Sorry I haven't read all 131 pages of this topic. :lol: It's interesting to me that they may have solved the hydrogen creation problem. I'll look into it.

As long as it's cost efficient and still green, I have no problem with hydrogen cars. In fact, I thought they would be the future in the not-so-distant past. Then I learned about the cracking of methane and the huge amount of greenhouse gasses produced during that process and it soured me to FCVs. If this high-pressure alkaline electrolysis works as well as you say it does, then I'm all for it.

There are times when I use snark, absolutely - that wasn't one of them. Sorry it came across that way. It's just that I've pointed a number of new folks to this thread to the earlier info and it's apparently been ignored.

As you can see when you read the rest of your post, not knowing the earlier info means you have to 'trust' what I said - and that's not what this is about. While I don't come in to mislead, and make sure to provide sources, I don't come in to either make friends or demand trust. Trust the data.

 

[AndyH]

Bringing this forward for the new folks...

Quick intro to the Third Industrial Revolution - the reason manufacturers are making FCEV to begin with...

10 Oct 13
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=330885#p330885

This was absolutely fantastic.

I'm sitting here listening to Jeremy Rifkin for the 4th time as he outlines what the European Union's doing to get off fossil fuel and nuclear power. Their five pillars are:

1. Twenty percent renewable energy by 2020. Germany started after 2005 - they achieved 25% early and have reset the goal to 35% by 2020.
2. Collect energy everywhere there's human infrastructure. Every building in EU will be energy positive. More than 1000000 buildings are now and it's created 250K net jobs.
3. Storage - compressed air, battery, pumped water, and hydrogen. There are two companies with hydrogen storage in place now.
4. A smart grid (the energy internet). Not a 'smart grid' where centralized power companies install proprietary meters that only feeds info to them, but a distributed 'internet' of a smart grid where demand and supply is matched house to house, village to village, and region to region. Most of the PV installed belongs to energy co-ops that trade power, not corporations or centralized power companies. Germany and Denmark are in the lead at the moment.
5. Establish transportation logistics, because electric vehicles are here to stay - EV and FCEV.

They're working on a 30 year infrastructure build-out/transition and they're ahead of schedule.

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

The UN has adopted this system as well for the developing world. They have much less 'inertia' and will have distributed microgrids before the developed world, just as they jumped over copper and went straight to cell phones.

People criticize China's emissions, yet their current premier hired Rifkin's firm to help them transition. This led to an amendment to the party's 'constitution' that REQUIRES that they transition to an 'Ecological Civilization' where all construction - all future development - uses the best scientific principles and is in harmony with the planet's ecosystems.

Another brilliant talk was given by the head of the architectural firm that is responsible for the LEED building efficiency plan. He and the following speaker show how LEED, and the follow-on Living Building and restorative/regenerative building plans are being used today across the US - included in the rebuilding of Greensburg, Kansas. This was the town leveled by the EF5 tornado in 2007 - and is the first town in the US being completely rebuilt to a LEED platinum level and with 100% green power (including at least 50% supplied by the force that destroyed the town - wind).

If you've been feeling kind of depressed about what's happening on the planet and really could use a solid dose of good news, these talks will be well worth your time. They're available to stream through early December.

Andy

From 25 Oct 2013:
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=333790#p333790

...This, most of all, gentlemen, is why we should be fighting for the wholesale revolution in energy and transportation. Hybrids are good, except for the tail pipe part. This fixes that problem - clean range. Even if it's temporarily fueled by reformed natural gas or with H2 generated from industrial processes until we get more wind and solar storage and hydrolysis units fielded.

I love you guys, but this is really painful to watch.

Because if we put the cart before the horse, it will be difficult to get to the "until". Because the interests will have become entrenched. H2 as a storage medium does hold promise. Let's use that to build the clean energy production first. Solar and wind plants that store H2 to fill in the valleys and then we can shut up the "what happens when it's dark" people. Once a robust H2 production is in place from renewables, then is the time to encourage H2 for personal transport (if it's even needed by then).

With a lot of respect, Nubo, I think I do understand what you're saying here. I know that it's much easier for me to 'divide and conquer' rather than try to juggle all the airborne parts of a complex and intertwined system of systems. But we have two examples of how a piecemeal approach is inferior to taking on all the pieces at once.

Firstly, look at how President Obama supported renewables and EVs with stimulus funding: Some money over here for battery research, some money over there for this project, some cash over here for that project, etc.

Then, look at how Germany and the EU have been pushing toward revamping their energy supply. Yes, it's been much better planned, focused, and funded. In 2005, Angela Merkel became Chancellor of Germany. In 2006 she started Germany's energy transition. How's that working? These comments are from the architect of the plan:

(I'm really sorry - too many words. Most is required background and some is directly on-topic. But head to the 2nd quote (which immediately follows the flow of the main quote) for the 'punch line' of sorts...thanks.)

And lest we think this is a lot of academic patter, Germany, since the Chancellor's come in, Pillar 1: they're at 25% green electricity already and they're heading to 35% by 2020. Pillar 2: Germany's converted one million buildings in the last seven years - they're producing small amounts of [excess] green electricity and a third of a million net jobs. They've just begun. Denmark's doing just as well. So when people say: "It can't be done" it can be done. And when people say: "Well, show me!" let's take the number one economic power per capita in the world Germany and you'll see it being done right there - at near zero marginal cost for energy. Pillar 3: Storage. The sun's not always shining...the wind blows at night and you've got to have the electricity during the day... The water tables can be down for hydroelectricity due to climate change drought... These are intermittent energies and we've got to store them. We at the EU level are in favor of ALL storage: batteries, flywheels, capacitors, air compression, water pumping, we like them all! But I must say we put most of our focus at the center of all these storage networks on hydrogen [using electrolysis and fuel cells]. Engineers, this is a tiny thermodynamic loss compared to bringing oil, coal, gas, and uranium every step of conversion and loss to the end user. Pillar 4 - this is where the internet revolution combines with the new distributed renewable energies to create a nervous system for the new general purpose technology platform. We're using off the shelf internet technology and IT technology and we're transforming the power grid in Europe into an energy internet - a distributed smart grid. If you hear political and business leaders saying: "Oh, we like that smart grid" ask them what kind - centralized or distributed? Centralized means they put an advanced meter on your home and you get all the information only going to them at headquarters and it's all proprietary. That has nothing to do with this. This is an energy internet - a distributed smart grid. It'll connect everything to everything so that when millions of buildings are producing just small amounts of electricity and storing it as hydrogen... Then if you don't need some of that green electricity during the day or week or month, you can program your software right there with your own killer app from home and send that green electricity across an energy internet that in our case extends from the Irish Sea to the doorstep of Russia. Just like we create information, store it in digital, and share it on-line. Deutsche Telekom has tested successfully the smart grid across Germany. Storage is now in with E.ON and Hydrogenics as well - they're just putting it on-line. Pillar 5 - logistics. Electric vehicles are here; fuel cell cars, trucks, and buses between 2015 and 2017 by the six major auto companies - this is a done deal - these are fuel cell vehicles. We'll be able to plug-in our vehicles anywhere, wherever we park across the country there'll will be a parking [spot] plug right there...plug it back into the main grid which is distributed and get green electricity. Let's say you're at work - keep that computer on. So if that electricity price goes up on the grid the computer will tell your car to send your electricity back to the grid. We're already beginning to do that in Europe [on a small scale].

These five pillars are nothing - they're components. It's only when we connect them that we have what we call the general purpose technology platform. It's an infrastructure technology platform. Do not make the mistake that President Obama made...he got bad advice. He wanted a green economy, he still wants a green economy, he spent billions and billions of dollars of tax money for a green economy - it isn't here. Because he spent it on isolated, siloed, pilot projects. So they'd invest in a solar factory in one state, an electric car factory in another state - unconnected! This is an infrastructure revolution.

The second industrial revolution all the industries had to come together - it wasn't enough to have the internal combustion engine. Then it required centralized electricity so that Henry Ford could have mobile electric power tools so the work could come to the worker so that he could build cheap cars and get everyone on wheels. Then we had to have the roads put in at the same time so people had somewhere to travel. But then they needed the gasoline and oil pipelines set in so they could propel the engines. And then they needed centralized phones to come in so they could move the wires to rural areas to create suburbs and take advantage of the interstates... And the biggest prosperity in history was between 1956 and 1988 when we matured the system, put in the interstate highways, did the suburban roll-out, put electricity to the rural areas, and then we peaked in the late 1980s, went into a housing recession. And then after that we lived off our family savings and personal debt. ...our housing and mortgage fiasco, and then we ended up with 14 trillion in debt in 2008 when it all collapsed when oil hit $147 a barrel. A short history.

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.

edit...I transcribed this from a webcast talk and it's full of typos. I fixed some, no doubt there are plenty more. Sorry.
Source: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=14559

edit 2... Found a story about E.ON and Hydrogenics' first storage project. For this first plant, hydrogen created by excess wind is being put into the natural gas grid.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/photo-release-e-swissgas-begin-103000912.html

 

[AndyH]

And this, from Nov 2013. The video that the quotes are pulled from is at the bottom.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=335266#p335266

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.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxidO4F8an4[/youtube]

 

[TonyWilliams]

http://autoreview.info/batteries-vs-hydrogen-fuel-cells-replaces-gasoline" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Neither battery-electric nor fuel-cell vehicles (BEVs and FCVs) produce tailpipe emissions. But which is cleaner and more energy efficient? Argonne National Laboratory has studied the energy consumption and emissions produced by conventional and advanced-tech vehicles since 1996. Their Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transpor¬tation (GREET)| model, last updated in 2013, looks at energy production, distribution, and consumption during driving and all of the emissions associated with these activities. It is a so-called well-to-wheel analysis, and a thorough one at that."

"GREET reveals that what matters most is how the electricity and hydrogen needed to power advanced vehicles are sourced. Using today’s electrical infrastructure, BEVs generate only 39 percent of the emissions produced by FCVs when hydrogen is separated from water using home electrolysis. Using the cleaner electrical grids already in place in California, BEVs win again by producing only 27 percent of the FCV’s areenhouse-gas emissions. Centralized mass production of hydrogen by steam reformation of natural gas helps FCVs, but they would still produce nearly twice the BEV’s emissions and consume about 50 percent more energy."

"To achieve parity, major infrastructure improvements are required. The hope is that by 2050, renewable energy sources will provide the electricity to recharge BEVs and to produce FCV hydrogen via electrolysis for less environmental impact"

 

[AndyH]

None of this is because of fossil fuels... quite the opposite, it is because of the looming hydrogen "solution" that has been sold by you and your similar thinking folks at Toyota, CEC, CARB, et al.

No, Tony. The reason you cannot drive across the state of California today in your Leaf is because 1. the electric transportation revolution has just begin - therefore this is NOT the 'end state' yet and 2. because if your goal is to drive across the state in a timely manner you selected the wrong vehicle for your mission.

Look around the country. You are not a typical Californian, and California is not the USA. I own a BEV. I cannot leave my local area as my vehicle didn't have enough range even before the battery degraded to ~50% capacity. My range would expand with a Smart as there's enough L2 infrastucture to get me around the 7th largest city in the country provided I have enough time to wait to recharge. A Leaf gives me more range, but I cannot travel far from this city in that car. When new, I can drive to Austin if I have 8 hours to wait to recharge for the return trip, but I cannot travel to Dallas or Houston as there's no L2 or L3 infrastructure between cities. And a 3 year old Leaf no longer has the range to make it to Austin.

Funny thing is, if I had a FCEV today, I could refuel in San Antonio and could drive to Austin, Dallas, and Houston, and could refuel to return home. And that's with private infrastructure. I could do the same when I owned my Ranger and burned ethanol.

Don't even try to paint me as an enemy of BEVs, Tony - don't you dare. :evil: I've been here promoting BEVs from the beginning of this forum, have been part of a number of other groups, have helped keep S10 and Ranger EVs on the road, and had a small business making custom lithium battery packs for light-weight transportation. I'm 2million percent behind the electrification of transportation and have devoted the rest of my life to helping make this a planet worth inheriting. I'm not in this for profit as some here are - I'm in this for a much larger reason.

Enjoy the rest of your week.

 

[cBeam]

http://autoreview.info/batteries-vs-hydrogen-fuel-cells-replaces-gasoline

"Neither battery-electric nor fuel-cell vehicles (BEVs and FCVs) produce tailpipe emissions. But which is cleaner and more energy efficient? Argonne National Laboratory has studied the energy consumption and emissions produced by conventional and advanced-tech vehicles since 1996. Their Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transpor¬tation (GREET)| model, last updated in 2013, looks at energy production, distribution, and consumption during driving and all of the emissions associated with these activities. It is a so-called well-to-wheel analysis, and a thorough one at that."

"GREET reveals that what matters most is how the electricity and hydrogen needed to power advanced vehicles are sourced. Using today’s electrical infrastructure, BEVs generate only 39 percent of the emissions produced by FCVs when hydrogen is separated from water using home electrolysis. Using the cleaner electrical grids already in place in California, BEVs win again by producing only 27 percent of the FCV’s areenhouse-gas emissions. Centralized mass production of hydrogen by steam reformation of natural gas helps FCVs, but they would still produce nearly twice the BEV’s emissions and consume about 50 percent more energy."

"To achieve parity, major infrastructure improvements are required. The hope is that by 2050, renewable energy sources will provide the electricity to recharge BEVs and to produce FCV hydrogen via electrolysis for less environmental impact"

Thanks Tony, this is very interesting and provides good numbers.

As many of us stated BEVs look way better in terms of overall GHG emissions ("well to wheel") than electric cars with fuel cells.
To wait until 2050 to get parity between BEVs and FCEVs is so far out that predictions are absurd. I guess the "flux capacitor" could be available then too (see "return to the future" for the uninitiated).

Hydrogen for fuel cells for cars is a costly investment, the public money could be better spent elsewhere.

 

[AndyH]

<snip>

Thanks Tony, this is very interesting and provides good numbers.

As many of us stated BEVs look way better in terms of overall GHG emissions ("well to wheel") than electric cars with fuel cells.
To wait until 2050 to get parity between BEVs and FCEVs is so far out that predictions are absurd. I guess the "flux capacitor" could be available then too (see "return to the future" for the uninitiated).

Hydrogen for fuel cells for cars is a costly investment, the public money could be better spent elsewhere.

Earlier in the thread, we decided that peer-reviewed numbers from experts trumped normally wrong auto bloggers.

http://hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/10001_well_to_wheels_gge_petroleum_use.pdf

in the real world, even ignoring minor things like cabin heat, driving range, battery degradation, and fueling/charging time, BEV and FCEV filled from the power grid have similar carbon footprints.
Note that a BEV charged from the current electric grid emits more greenhouse gasses than a FCEV filled with H2 derived from natural gas...

 

[cBeam]

Earlier in the thread, we decided that peer-reviewed numbers from experts trumped normally wrong auto bloggers.

"We decided"? Pluralis Maiestatis? - I am sorry, I was not aware that this is your private thread. [And yes, I am being snarky here].

"Quotes from normally wrong autobloggers?" - Better read the source before you belittle what other people write:

http://hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/10001_well_to_wheels_gge_petroleum_use.pdf

in the real world, even ignoring minor things like cabin heat, driving range, battery degradation, and fueling/charging time, BEV and FCEV filled from the power grid have similar carbon footprints.
Note that a BEV charged from the current electric grid emits more greenhouse gasses than a FCEV filled with H2 derived from natural gas...

As you stated this table compares a BEV "powered" by US grid mix with FCEV "powered" by a range of technologies, but not with the same US grid mix. I am not sure why they did not list FCEV "powered" by US grid, but here is a simple test for you:

A) Assume electricity is derived from the same mix of power sources, let's say renewables. We have 2 almost identical cars with only the following difference: System car 1 has a battery to store electricity for propulsion. System car 2 has an H2 tank and a fuel cell to generate electricity for propulsion.

Which system is more efficient:
(1) System car 1 (Renewable --> Battery --> e-motor)
(2) System car 2 (Renewable --> H2 production --> H2 storage tank --> fuel cell --> e-motor)

So, what is your honest answer? The efficiency numbers for each stage are for sure somewhere buried in this 120+ page thread.

In reality System car 2 will most likely have the following configuration, which reduces efficiency further:
(3) System car 2 (Renewable --> H2 production --> H2 storage tank --> fuel cell --> battery or super capacitor --> e-motor)

AndyH, you post a huge amount of links. Sometimes stepping back and thinking things through using your own brain and an open mind helps one to see a few things that are otherwise obscured.

[And no, I don't like your snarkiness at all, why don't you do a pm-exchange with your buddy donald and keep the noise out of these boards. And yes, this was snarky too]

 

[DaveEV]

if your goal is to drive across the state in a timely manner you selected the wrong vehicle for your mission.
...
A Leaf gives me more range, but I cannot travel far from this city in that car. When new, I can drive to Austin if I have 8 hours to wait to recharge for the return trip, but I cannot travel to Dallas or Houston as there's no L2 or L3 infrastructure between cities. And a 3 year old Leaf no longer has the range to make it to Austin.

If you're trying to travel to Austin/Dallas/Houston from San Antonio (80/275/200 miles respectively) in a LEAF, you've also picked the wrong tool for the job. Get a Model S today and you'll have no issues.

BTW - there's no need to wait 8 hours to recharge your LEAF if you do take it Austin. Austin has two Nissan dealers with QC stations and today you can buy a LEAF that charges at 6.6 kW, so realistically you can make the trip with perhaps a QC and perhaps a couple hours of L2 depending on how fast you want to drive. A couple QC stations along the San Antonio / Austin route (say New Braunfels and San Marcos next to the Tesla Supercharger) would make the trip easy and worry free. Houston/Dallas are more problematic in a 80 mile max EV - those trips will require cars with 130+ mile range and more QC stations to make it usable for regular trips.

http://hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/10001_well_to_wheels_gge_petroleum_use.pdf

in the real world, even ignoring minor things like cabin heat, driving range, battery degradation, and fueling/charging time, BEV and FCEV filled from the power grid have similar carbon footprints.
Note that a BEV charged from the current electric grid emits more greenhouse gasses than a FCEV filled with H2 derived from natural gas...

Correction, that is 2010's grid. Not necessarily 2014's grid. By "more", it's up to 20% worse. But it's also up to 50% better. And tomorrow's grid continues to get cleaner. Also note that in an "Ultra-low Carbon Renewable" scenario EVs are claimed to have 0 (ZERO) emissions. But hydrogen vehicles emit around 42 grams / mile.

Choice seems clear to me.

 

[WetEV]

Hydrogen for fuel cells for cars is a costly investment, the public money could be better spent elsewhere.

I'm mostly a hydrogen skeptic, but I disagree.

Not because I know the answer, but because I don't know the answer.

 

[AndyH]

Earlier in the thread, we decided that peer-reviewed numbers from experts trumped normally wrong auto bloggers.

"We decided"? Pluralis Maiestatis? - I am sorry, I was not aware that this is your private thread. [And yes, I am being snarky here].

"Quotes from normally wrong autobloggers?" - Better read the source before you belittle what other people write:

Feel free to read the thread. There are multiple sources from various national labs that show that Tom's auto blogger is incorrect. Additionally, once one remembers that FCEV have been on the road in Europe and Asia well before they arrived in California, it will be very clear that FCEV have absolutely zero to do with CARB, California, or as a plot to destroy Tom's level 3 charger business plans.

Enjoy your time on the forum, cBeam.

 

[AndyH]

If you're trying to travel to Austin/Dallas/Houston from San Antonio (80/275/200 miles respectively) in a LEAF, you've also picked the wrong tool for the job. Get a Model S today and you'll have no issues.

Actually, no. Since my needs involved hauling solar equipment and tools to a remote job site, I selected the best low-carbon transportation method that would do the job - a pickup truck burning ethanol. Now that the need no longer exists, I've sold the truck and am enjoying the 40 miles of range from my electric motorcycle and the exercise from my bicycle. They are the transportation options with the absolute lowest emissions that meet my current needs.

Choice seems clear to me.

Of course the choice seems clear to you, drees, But you also allowed for a clean grid to refuel BEVs but did not allow that same clean grid to refuel FCEV. At least you're not biased. :lol:

Cheers.

 

[DaveEV]

Of course the choice seems clear to you, drees, But you also allowed for a clean grid to refuel BEVs but did not allow that same clean grid to refuel FCEV.

Please look a little closer:

At least you're not biased. :lol:

Hahah, so funny.

Cheers.

Perhaps you'd be a lot more effective in communicating if you didn't call people names, belittle them, and then finish off each post with obviously fake sincerity. Get's old very quick.

 

[TonyWilliams]

... it will be very clear that FCEV have absolutely zero to do with CARB, California, or as a plot to destroy Tom's level 3 charger business plans.

I don't know who is developing L3 charger plans (I can tell you from first hand experience, it's a "challenging" business model), but your assertion, as is frequently the case, is patently wrong:

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/interview_bill_reinert_bullish_on_hybrids_skeptical_about_electric_cars/2810/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bill Reinert (who recently retired as national manager of Toyota Motor Corporation’s advanced technology group): "From a scientific side I see a better engineering maturity for them than I do for batteries. Fuel cell cars and their necessary infrastructure are very expensive, although we can get those costs down. But the real problem with both of these technologies [fuel cell and electric] is that they can’t compete with the technology advances we’ve seen in the gasoline cars. I drove fuel cell cars for a long time, for about 30,000 miles, and I liked them. But there was nothing in them that is so compelling that would make me want to spend the extra money. What’s the advantage of restraining your mobility at a higher cost?"

[Andy, have YOU driven a hydrogen car, even for a single second? Have you been the head of the largest auto makers advanced technology? Tony]

"The auto companies need to make zero-emission vehicles for Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and other regulations, such as the California Air Resources Board's zero emissions mandate, so they need to decide which pathway, EVs or FCVs, will lose the least amount of money. When most [manufacturers] investigate the two technologies, they see that FVCs offer more room for performance improvement and cost reduction potential. And that is why you will be seeing more fuel cells in the future."

********

John Bozella of Global Automakers gave a presentation where he went over in detail how much more attractive hydrogen is compared to BEV with regards to CARB compliance. Toyota looked for the best path to maximum profits within CARBS guidelines and decided that it can make all the ZEVs it needs to comply with far fewer H cars.

Global Alliance, by the way, are the kindly folks who spearhead stuff like this for Toyota, et al:

Auto manufacturer's Oct 19, 2012 request to EPA for waiver from CARB:

http://www.globalautomakers.org/sites/default/files/document/attachments/JointCommentsCAWaiverRequest10-19-12.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"It is highly unlikely that the required infrastructure and the level of consumer demand for ZEVs will be sufficient by MY2018 in either California or in the individual Section 177 States to support the ZEV sales requirements mandated by CARB. EPA should therefore deny, at the present time, California’s waiver request for the ZEV program for these model years. During the interim, Global Automakers and the Alliance believe that California and EPA, with full auto industry participation, should implement a review for the ZEV program similar to the mid-term review process adopted under the federal GHG and CAFE regulations for MYs2017 through 2025."

That's a whole lot of gobbledy goop to say, "keep the traveling provision so we can only sell cars in California at the minimum number, and not sell any in the other CARB states."

*********

Heres a riddle for you, Andy. Many of the major manufacturers WILL likely have hydrogen cars by 2018, so I guess you win, and they will likely drop their battery cars (Toyota, Honda) or not make a battery car at all (Hyundai). It just seems odd that they are all required to meet CARB regulations, and they are doing just that... but hydrogen played no role in the compliance or decision making, according to you. It's all a big coincidence, eh?

Here another coincidence. Auto manufacturers that are exempt from CARB-ZEV are neither interested in hydrogen, nor have they announced any plans for hydrogen. It sure seems odd, these "coincidences":

Tesla
Mitsubishi
Fuji Heavy Industry (Subaru)
Jaguar Land Rover
Volvo

 

[hill]

if your goal is to drive across the state in a timely manner you selected the wrong vehicle for your mission.
...
A Leaf gives me more range, but I cannot travel far from this city in that car. When new, I can drive to Austin if I have 8 hours to wait to recharge for the return trip, but I cannot travel to Dallas or Houston as there's no L2 or L3 infrastructure between cities. And a 3 year old Leaf no longer has the range to make it to Austin.

If you're trying to travel to Austin/Dallas/Houston from San Antonio (80/275/200 miles respectively) in a LEAF, you've also picked the wrong tool for the job. Get a Model S today and you'll have no issues.

BTW - there's no need to wait 8 hours to recharge your LEAF if you do take it Austin. Austin has two Nissan dealers with QC stations and today you can buy a LEAF that charges at 6.6 kW, so realistically you can make the trip with perhaps a QC and perhaps a couple hours of L2 depending on how fast you want to drive. A couple QC stations along the San Antonio / Austin route (say New Braunfels and San Marcos next to the Tesla Supercharger) would make the trip easy and worry free. Houston/Dallas are more problematic in a 80 mile max EV - those trips will require cars with 130+ mile range and more QC stations to make it usable for regular trips.

http://hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/10001_well_to_wheels_gge_petroleum_use.pdf

in the real world, even ignoring minor things like cabin heat, driving range, battery degradation, and fueling/charging time, BEV and FCEV filled from the power grid have similar carbon footprints.
Note that a BEV charged from the current electric grid emits more greenhouse gasses than a FCEV filled with H2 derived from natural gas...

Correction, that is 2010's grid. Not necessarily 2014's grid. By "more", it's up to 20% worse. But it's also up to 50% better. And tomorrow's grid continues to get cleaner. Also note that in an "Ultra-low Carbon Renewable" scenario EVs are claimed to have 0 (ZERO) emissions. But hydrogen vehicles emit around 42 grams / mile.

Choice seems clear to me.

Perhaps some folks aren't aware of all the data. Not only is the grid getting cleaner - MOST EV (in particular, Calif.) & plug in owners have, or plan on having PV systems. Having PV, they charge at home for the most part. And since the lion's share of EV/plugin's are in CA - the 'dirty grid' notion is inapplicable to the majority of plug in owners.
.

 

[AndyH]

Of course the choice seems clear to you, drees, But you also allowed for a clean grid to refuel BEVs but did not allow that same clean grid to refuel FCEV.

Please look a little closer:

I did look closer, drees. I've also noted on a number of occasions that this is not the only source of information. This thread already contains direct side-by-side comparisons from all directions. We've talked about efficiency (with supporting data), we've talked about input energy sources (with supporting data), we've talked about well to wheels and complete lifecycle embodied energy (with supporting data), and we've talked about functional capability (with...you guessed it...supporting data). When I reply to folks that have been involved in the thread for the past year, I expect they've done their part by keeping up with the conversation. That's my error and I have no problem owning it. Bottom line for H2 - when a BEV and FCEV are both recharged from OFF-GRID renewables, they have the same carbon footprint for that refueling. Anyone that suggests otherwise might be missing something important.

You, for example - when you look at that chart, you'll notice that one of the 'low carbon' energy sources for H2 that was not considered for recharging a BEV is municiple biogas (like the SoCal tri-gen facility that's in operation). Yes, biogas, consisting mostly of methane (CH4) contains carbon - and that carbon should be tracked. It should also be remembered that this is NOT fossil carbon. Considering that this planet has a vibrant and essential carbon cycle, and remembering that nobody is suggesting that the entire carbon cycle should be stopped in its tracks, I think it's critical that even armchair analysts remember that the problem child here is fossil carbon.

I realize that a decent number of EVers have PV on their roof. If they're honest (most are) they will acknowledge that they have to include the carbon content of the power grid to which they're connected as electrons are fungible. That's the reminder I received from this group when I subscribed to a "100% wind" plan. Of COURSE that doesn't mean that every single electron that flows into my house was generated in the West Texas wind fields by turbines only used by a little old lady to drive to church on Sundays... Yes, it's BETTER than just a simple grid connection; yes it's a step in the right direction - but it does NOT give anyone that is still on-grid any more pseudosmug than driving a Prius.

TLR - complaining about a grid-connected PV-supported H2 electrolyzer while suggesting a grid-tied rooftop PV-charged BEV is somehow superior with regards to carbon is disingenuous.

...if you didn't call people names, belittle them, and then finish off each post with obviously fake sincerity. Get's old very quick.

I guess you're missing the fact that you're the one calling people names and trying to pin me with your erroneous judgment? Look drees - it's no secret that you and I disagree on how facts should be conveyed. I think facts should be first and foremost and I also think that the paradigm should match (in other words, facts out of context are very likely to be lies). I'm not concerned that you judge true sincerity to be fake, or if you judge facts to be false, or if you don't agree with any speaker. That's on you, not me.

Enjoy your weekend.