WetEV
Posts: 4624
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Wed Nov 24, 2021 7:59 am

GRA wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:47 pm
WetEV wrote:
Mon Nov 08, 2021 3:00 pm
Yet a different path might have been followed. Might have been the end of GM, much as the CCDs that Kodak developed were used in all sorts of digital cameras that doomed Kodak's business and thus Kodak itself. Or maybe GM would have survived on the new business. Or even thrived. GM was first, GM could have innovated, lowered cost, spread out the market, and picked up on newer battery technologies.

Sad, isn't it?
Not to me. BEVs were hobbyist cars at the time of the EV1, and had minimal growth potential. GM got in to PHEVs at the right time, and BEVs likewise, and I consider the current Bolt the first BEV to almost combine the necessary price/performance to be mass-marketable. What was sad was GM's failure to offer an Voltec AWD CUV in 2016 along/instead of the Gen 2 Volt, not their abandonment of the EV1.
After EV1's (with the Ovonics NiMH battery) release, BEVs moved from hobbyist to a niche. Someone with a realistic commute could enjoy a smooth, quiet responsive electric ride. Sure, only 20,000 a year at first.

Hydrogen cars don't even have a niche. Fuel cell cars are only sold because of subsidies. At a discount. In the tightest car market in memory.

Many BEVs sell today without any subsidies.
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red
2019 eTron Blue

WetEV
Posts: 4624
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:01 am

GRA wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:47 pm
WetEV wrote:
Mon Nov 08, 2021 3:00 pm
Now you point out that a mandate was needed to get the initial development. Sure. Consider this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude_rewards

Advances often need a push from government. The time for government to push EVs is almost over.

I've said repeatedly that I have no problem with governments pushing new tech via doing and disseminating basic research, providing R&D support, dem/val programs, loans to manufacturers, building early infrastructure etc. I have a problem with them providing direct to consumer subsidies to bribe customers to buy that tech, because new tech is invariably immature and expensive, and government shouldn't be in the business of trying to pick winners - they're terrible at that.
Unless, of course, it is hydrogen. Hydrogen without subsidies is dead. Let it die, stop flogging it.
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red
2019 eTron Blue

WetEV
Posts: 4624
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:03 am

SageBrush wrote:
Wed Nov 24, 2021 2:20 am
LeftieBiker wrote:
Wed Nov 24, 2021 1:20 am
Have you folks ever considered saving this, er, discussion for the Underworld...? You're using up all that Interminableness now, when you could be smelling the roses...
STICKY !

I was actually thinking today that nothing says 2005 like arguing about the prospects of CHAdeMO and hydrogen

CHAdeMO had a chance in 2005. Hydrogen didn't.
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red
2019 eTron Blue

SageBrush
Forum Supporter
Posts: 6723
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: NM

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:54 am

WetEV wrote:
Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:03 am
CHAdeMO had a chance in 2005. Hydrogen didn't.
Sure, but that didn't prevent GRA from arguing about it, and there were a couple other deluded people back then.
2013 LEAF 'S' Model with QC & rear-view camera
Bought Jan 2017 from N. Cal
Two years in Colorado, now in NM
03/18: 58 Ahr @28k miles. 10/21: 53.4 Ahr @ 40k miles
-----
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR, Delivered 6/2018. Sold 11/2021, awaiting Tesla Model Y

lebikerboy
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 7:03 pm
Delivery Date: 03 Jan 2019
Location: North Vancouver, BC, Canada

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Sun Nov 28, 2021 7:50 pm

Hydrogen will never make it a mainstream alternative to BEV's. No infrastructure, mainly a product of Natural Gas refraction as Electrolysis is too expensive, energy efficiency half or less of BEV, and the list goes on...
2019 Leaf SV

"If a situation requires your undivided attention, it
will occur simultaneously with a compelling distraction."
:roll:

oxothuk
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue May 04, 2021 2:35 pm
Delivery Date: 05 May 2021
Leaf Number: 550377
Location: Colorado Front Range

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Mon Nov 29, 2021 2:45 am

lebikerboy wrote:
Sun Nov 28, 2021 7:50 pm
Hydrogen will never make it a mainstream alternative to BEV's. No infrastructure, mainly a product of Natural Gas refraction as Electrolysis is too expensive, energy efficiency half or less of BEV, and the list goes on...
The infrastructure issue is a red herring - such infrastructure will be built when and if the technical and cost issues with HFCEVs get solved.

BEVs do not scale well with vehicle carrying capacity. Heaver vehicles are where HFCEVs will find an opening first, if they find one at all.
May 2021 - 2021 SL+ , 4K miles, 96.6% SOH

GRA
Posts: 13387
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Mon Nov 29, 2021 6:50 pm

WetEV wrote:
Wed Nov 24, 2021 7:23 am
GRA wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:47 pm
WetEV wrote:
Mon Nov 08, 2021 3:00 pm


That's a path not traveled.

People that drove the GM EV1 loved the car. Most would have been willing to pay the extra cost involved in buying out the lease. Many people (including me) would have bought one if we could. But GM recalled and crushed almost all the EV1s and crippled the rest, and sold the patents to an oil company which never licensed them.

Sure, took a mandate to get the EV1 made to begin with. Yet it was a hit with drivers. Rather than killing it, GM could have sold the business. A product that customers love and are willing to pay a premium price for? GM didn't try. GM tried to kill the electric car. It was clear to anyone that thought about it that electric cars were the future.

The EV1 was a weirdmobile, and GM leased a grand total of 5,000 of them. I don't blame them for recalling and crushing all of them. Sure, the people who leased them were happy with them, but so what? The car had no mass market development potential; the batteries just weren't there, and it cost $35k for a 2 pax city car.
Ah yes, but it was a valued weirdmobile. GM recalled and crushed them as planned. GM's plan was for the EV1 to be a market failure, and GM had a problem. People wanted EV1s.

The Ovonics NiMH battery was viable. Good life and safety. Sure, would have been niche, but Li ion batteries were coming.

The EV1 was the success that GM didn't want.

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/11 ... ow-through

Some success :roll: . Its sales were to the usual crowd, and probably totaled fewer than the number of DIY and/or commercial conversion BEVs extant in the U.S. at the time. It made no sense for GM to have to maintain a stock of parts for fewer than 5,000 cars, while also bearing the potential liability for them, when the car had no growth potential. BEVs for the US needed Li-ion batteries, and even the far more practical LEAF sold in very limited numbers, and that driven largely by subsidies. There just isn't much demand for limited-range city cars in the U.S. The Smart ED or the Think Citi prototype I drove back in the late '90s were both far more practical 2 pax. city cars than the EV1, being respectively 64" and 46" shorter than the EV1, and the iMiEV (25" shorter than the EV1) was an example of a practical 4 seater. None sold well, because they simply lacked the range customers demanded (among other issues). See https://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic. ... 09#p613827 for some survey data and other info re Toyota's BEV plans, which discuss price, range, and durability requirements.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 13387
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Mon Nov 29, 2021 7:03 pm

GCC:
Wärtsila, RINA, others partner on hydrogen fuel solution for shipping via on-board LNG reforming with carbon capture
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/1 ... tsila.html

The technology group Wärtsilä, together with class society RINA, ABB, Helbio (a subsidiary of Metacon AB), the Liberian Registry, and an energy major have joined forces in an effort to deliver a solution with hydrogen as fuel. The aim is to have a scalable and sustainable solution that will exceed the IMO 2050 target for a 70% reduction in carbon intensity without the need for an extensive infrastructure investment. This offers the shipping industry a pathway to low-carbon operations within a reasonable time frame.

Current difficulties and cost considerations regarding the production, distribution, and onboard storage of hydrogen have so far limited the sector’s interest in its direct use as a marine fuel. However, by producing hydrogen onboard, and using readily available LNG, the solution becomes far more viable and in a much faster time than would otherwise be possible. . . .

The concept is based on combining LNG with steam to produce hydrogen and CO2. The hydrogen produced will be used directly in a mix with natural gas in internal combustion engines or in fuel cells, thus eliminating the need for hydrogen to be stored onboard. The CO2 will be liquefied using the cryogenic stream of LNG that would be used as fuel anyway, and later disposed ashore for carbon storage. Tankers can use the stored CO2 as inert gas during discharge.

The necessary equipment can easily be fitted on the deck of a commercial vessel. This innovative concept will support the marine sector’s gradual transition from LNG to hydrogen, without any major adjustments to a vessel’s onboard technologies.

Only LNG bunkering will be required and, by progressively increasing the production of hydrogen, the consumption of fossil methane and associated methane slip will be reduced at the same rate.

Wärtsilä and ABB will support the application of hydrogen in powering internal combustion engines and fuel cells respectively, while Helbio will provide the technology and manufacturing of gas reformers. RINA and the Liberian Registry will provide advice and guidance on the application of rules and regulations for novel concept alternative designs, based on Hazid/Hazop analyses, as well as specific rules for this kind of arrangement.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 13387
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Mon Nov 29, 2021 7:06 pm

Both GCC:
NNL and DNV partner to explore large-scale nuclear production of hydrogen for UK gas network
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/1 ... 8-nnl.html

The UK’s National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL) and DNV are partnering to explore the potential of nuclear-derived hydrogen to support the conversion of UK gas networks to hydrogen.

The ‘Nuclear Derived Hydrogen to Gas Networks’ collaboration is set to provide deeper evidence to support key up-coming government policy decisions on the role of hydrogen in buildings and for heating, scheduled for 2026.

Part of the Advanced Nuclear Skills and Innovation Campus (ANSIC) pilot, located at NNL’s Preston Laboratory on the Springfield’s nuclear-licensed site, the scheme is funded by the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), to promote academic and industrial innovation in Advanced Nuclear Technologies (ANTs).

Converting national and regional natural gas networks to hydrogen could be a powerful decarbonization solution by distributing the gas to millions of individual users across the country, where it can be burnt without releasing carbon dioxide. This will enable consumers to continue using gas in homes, businesses and industry, in an effective way that is net-zero compliant.

However, to achieve this transition, large quantities of hydrogen would be needed; the ability of nuclear to drive production at gigawatt scale could be of great value. This project is a key step in bringing nuclear-derived hydrogen into the public domain, demonstrating that a UK hydrogen network could have a wider range of options for hydrogen supply. . . .

As part of the ANSIC pilot’s ongoing commitment to help reach net zero, NNL is running three hydrogen workshops, with the first commencing on 30 November 2021. This will develop a common understanding of the subject matter, with the second and final workshops taking place in January and March 2022. . . .


Nel ASA receives purchase order for 20MW alkaline electrolyzer from steelmaker Ovako
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/1 ... 8-nel.html

. . . The electrolyzer will be installed at Ovako’s existing plant in Hofors, Sweden. The fossil-free hydrogen will replace the use of fossil propane gas currently used in the heating furnaces.

The purchase order has a contract value of approximately €11 million with equipment delivery in late 2022. The electrolyzer will produce oxygen and hydrogen for Ovako’s steel-heating process and is a major step towards zero-carbon emission steel production.

The conversion to hydrogen will enable Ovako to reduce its CO2 emissions for steel production in Hofors by 50%. . . .

Ovako is a leading European manufacturer of engineering steel for customers in the bearing, transportation and manufacturing industries, and is a subsidiary of Sanyo Special Steel and part of the Nippon Steel Corporation Group. The company has geographical presence in Europe, North America and Asia, and a steel product line that includes niche products and customized solutions.

Ovako’s production is fully scrap-based, with more than 97% of all iron and alloys used as input material being recycled. The electricity used comes entirely from fossil-free sources. Taken together with efficient processes and many other actions, such as the conversion of heat treatment, these factors mean that Ovako’s carbon footprint from crude steel production is 95% below the global average.

At present, global emissions for the industry are estimated at 1700 kg of CO2 per tonne of crude steel. By contrast, the Ovako figure is on average around 90 kg of CO2 per tonne – vastly lower.

When reviewing these figures in greater detail, Ovako found that the heating of steel offered a very important step towards the carbon neutrality of finished steel products—not just the crude steel. Therefore, Ovako embarked on the hydrogen project together with support from the Swedish Energy Agency, Volvo Group, Hitachi ABB Power Grids Sweden, H2 Green Steel and Nel Hydrogen. Ovako sees this as an opportunity to reduce its core emissions by 50% or more, and at the same time create synergies that benefit society on a broader level.

To support its climate initiatives and new technology investments, Ovako will add a climate surcharge on its steel from January 2022.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 13387
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Mon Nov 29, 2021 7:07 pm

WetEV wrote:
Wed Nov 24, 2021 8:01 am
GRA wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:47 pm
WetEV wrote:
Mon Nov 08, 2021 3:00 pm
Now you point out that a mandate was needed to get the initial development. Sure. Consider this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude_rewards

Advances often need a push from government. The time for government to push EVs is almost over.

I've said repeatedly that I have no problem with governments pushing new tech via doing and disseminating basic research, providing R&D support, dem/val programs, loans to manufacturers, building early infrastructure etc. I have a problem with them providing direct to consumer subsidies to bribe customers to buy that tech, because new tech is invariably immature and expensive, and government shouldn't be in the business of trying to pick winners - they're terrible at that.
Unless, of course, it is hydrogen. Hydrogen without subsidies is dead. Let it die, stop flogging it.

That's your opinion. My opinion is different, as is that of numerous countries and companies. We'll see who's correct in a a few years. I don't flog any tech, I believe that they should advance together until one or more prove acceptable to consumers for the full range of uses on the necessary scale, without subsidies or mandates.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

Return to “Business / Economy and Politics”