Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
GRA said:
GCC:
MAN gas engines enable hydrogen use in power plants at up to 25% by volume

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/11/20211105-man.html


MAN Energy Solutions a{announced} that its gas-powered, four-stroke engines are “H2-ready” and operable in stationary mode with a hydrogen content of up to 25% by volume in a gas-fuel mix. As such, within the power-plant segment, the company’s MAN 35/44G TS, 51/60G and 51/60G TS gas engines are now designated as H2-ready and capable of exploiting hydrogen to further reduce CO2 emissions. . . .

The adaptive combustion control (ACC) of the MAN engines reacts fully automatically to varying hydrogen contents in the natural gas and enables operation without loss of efficiency, even with fluctuating hydrogen content. Gas engines already in operation can be retrofitted for hydrogen blend-in by upgrading the automation and adding additional ACC sensors.

We are focusing our R&D efforts on offering our customers maximum operational flexibility and future-proofness. The development of a hydrogen economy will take several years, during which time the infrastructure will be upgraded and the production of green hydrogen ramped up. In the German natural-gas grid, for example, a maximum admixture of up to 10% is currently possible; in the future, 20% will be feasible. With our engines, power-plant operators are optimally positioned for this situation.

—Dr Gunnar Stiesch

This is a combustion engine that can accept some H2 in it. Much like how E15 is essentially gasoline with some ethanol in it. You're a shill for the fossil fuel industry.


I'm a shill for the fossil fuel industry??? Seeing as how I've been commuting by bike for the past 21 years and avoid using my car for almost all local and most regional uses, my soon-to-be 19 y.o. car just passed 71,500 miles (had to put some gas in it, the first time since July, owing to fires and Nat. forest closures that kept me local all summer), I was selling off-grid PV/wind/hydro systems 30 years ago, and have been a member here and on other EV forums trying to speed up the transition away from fossil fuels for more than a decade, it takes a QAnon level of consipiracy theory to call me a shill for the fossil fuel industry.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Oil price might drop rather than rise if consumption falls faster than supply.

BEVs are just better cars than ICEs.


If BEVs were 'better' in ways most consumers valued over other attributes, no subsidies, perks or mandates would be needed to get people to adopt them. That's clearly not yet the case.

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.



WetEV said:
So GM went on to push hydrogen fuel cells. They were "green", even though hydrogen was dirtier than coal, they were "science cool", and the hydrogen fuel cell was exactly precisely zero threat to gasoline engines.


Once again you make the claim that H2 is dirtier than coal, as if saying it will make it true. H2 derived from fossil-fuels is unsustainable, and it needs to come from green sources else it's not worth doing.

WetEV said:
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.


WetEV said:
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. I want us to get off fossil-fueled transport, but I'm not too concerned with which tech(s) are used to do it. Put the competing techs out there at whatever price the manufacturers need to charge, and let them compete head to head.

BTW, currently reading the 3rd ed. of "Crossing the Chasm" (I'd read the 2nd edition before). As he did in previous editions, Moore starts the book by giving PEVs as examples of disruptive techs that need to make the jump from the early adopters across the sales chasm to the early majority (the latter group is where I fall): specifically for this (2013) edition, the Model S.
 
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
GRA said:
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
No. Because that would mean that Porsche was lazy and didn't optimize their regen braking as best they could. At city speeds, a Porsche is effectively a single-speed EV anyway. Their range being poor is due to the inefficiencies of the 2-speed transmission and their EPA numbers attest to that.


Or it could mean that Porsche uses very aggressive tire treads with high rolling resistance, so that they can provide Porsche-level handling as demanded by their buyers. Of course, Porsche has also apparently chosen to understate their EPA numbers, as reflected in the fact that they easily exceed them in the real-world, while Tesla's EPA numbers are overstated and they, along with almost all other BEV manufacturers fall short of theirs in the real world. Tesla's numbers are especially optimistic because they use 5- versus the 2-cycle testing everyone else uses.

If using a two-speed transmission is such a bad idea, then why did Tesla opt for the one for the exact same reasons Porsche did (except they couldn't make one last)?

Of course, that doesn't explain why HEVs get better City than Hwy mpg. Are you claiming that regen is unrelated to that? After all, AFAIA every conventional ICE gets better Hwy than City mpg. yet AFAIA every HEV and PHEV gets the opposite, despite being heavier than a conventional ICE which should penalize them around town, where rolling resistance is a larger factor than drag. Serial vs. parallel vs. serial/parallel can shift the numbers around a bit.

"Or it could mean that Porsche uses very aggressive tire treads with high rolling resistance"

Give it up. High rolling resistance tires affects efficiency equally at ALL speeds.


Of course it does but as we know, at higher speeds drag overtakes rolling resistance as the major power requirement.


Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
The two-speed transmission isn't the answer you were hoping for.


It's an answer given the requirements Porsche (and Tesla) wanted to meet. As for me, since I don't need to have great 0-30 accel, nor do I need to cruise at 250kph, I'd probably be fine in a PEV with a single speed tranny transmission ratio (and/or motor power matched for efficiency) designed for maximum efficiency in the 50-80 mph speed range. Which is exactly the trade-off I suggested for the Bolt: 3 seconds slower 0-60 for a substantial (minimum 10 miles but preferably more; 5% of 259 is ~13 miles) range boost.


Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
As for HEV's getting better city than hway mpg - DING DING DING!! If even a combustion engine based vehicle gets better city mileage (due to regen) than Porsche, then that 2-speed transmission must REALLY SUCK!! Although Porsche could've sandbagged their numbers, that's neither here nor there for your case about 2-speed transmissions.

And you're misunderstanding the reason for why PHEV's get better city mileage than hway, despite "rolling resistance being a larger factor". It's NOT because rolling resistance increases (it stays constant), it's because drag decreases significantly (plot an exponential curve with speed). The city mpg for PHEV/HEV being better than ICE city mpg is ENTIRELY due to regen braking, but that's a comparison between different powertrains, not a comparison between city & hway mpg from within the same powertrain. You are mis-using data without any comprehension of what they mean.

The bolded section was exactly my point. Else, why would ICEs get better Hwy than city mpg? Efficiency and transmission ratios, with no help from regen.


Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
GRA said:
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
Here you go again, proffering your unqualified "solutions". Armchair quarterbacking is fine for sports, but is dumb in engineering.


How is Porsche actually designing and building a two-speed transmission than can handle the torque when Tesla couldn't, and achieving what they set out to do, an 'unqualified' solution? It works. Or are you claiming that Porsche engineers are incompetent, and don't know how to design cars to meet their customers' demands?

Because the 2-speed transmission reduces the overall powertrain efficiency to the point of yielding less range instead of more


Do you have any actual data backign your claim? Porsche undoubtedly has the data, but AFAIA hasn't shown it to anyone.


Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
And Porsche didn't prioritize range, but priorized speed. Porsche's engineers designed their car to perform within the trade-offs that they were after. It's too bad that less than 2 years later, Tesla showed them how to get BOTH good performance AND range ... by using a single gear transmission.

Tesla in 2010 was less than 400 employees and didn't have the resources to solve ZF's 2-speed transmission issues. They're a much larger company now and they've determined that a 2-speed is still not worth the trade-off.


It's amusing that you would compare Tesla's engineering development skills to Porsche's. We agree that Tesla lacked the personnel to develop a two-speed tranny themselves back in Roadster days, but considering that they employ members of the public to perform beta testing of safety of life critical systems on public roads to this day, there's simply no comparison between the two companies capabilities in this area. Then there's the seemingly non-existent Production QC.

Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
GRA said:
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
The bolded part shows that you finally get it. And LFP packs are generally known for being able to discharge more power (and safer) than the other chemistries, so power wouldn't be an issue. So although an increase in kwh is likely, whether or not it got increased to the LR's size is not. The increased weight of the vehicle leading to slower 0-60 times is also more likely (specs of the china SR+ shows it being 120kg heavier than the Fremont SR+).


I got it a long time ago. I'm a fan of LFP for a variety of reasons (safety, no cobalt, tolerance to high SoC, cost, cycle life being some), but primarily for city cars, as I don't think they can meet range needs for all-around cars. So, up to about 40kWh/150 miles I'm all for them. Whether or not LFP can provide the needed power in this case despite a high specific power remains to be seen, as we need full specs for the car, esp. the motor, transmission, and pack.

Of course you'd think that. And it's not "we need full specs", it's just you. The mental gymnastics that you had to perform to write that (despite what you wrote previously) must be amazing.


Just because LFP has a high specific power for a given capacity doesn't tell us whether it has enough power to meet a given requirement.


Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
GRA said:
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
EA is a government-subsidized network?! No. Full stop. You can play word games all you want, but you won't deceive anyone. California had no choice in VW's settlement with the EPA, and it wasn't my tax dollars that went into building those EA stations. The more you write, the more you come across as an industry shill.


Actually, California has the final say (through CEC and/or CARB, I forget which) in how EA spends the $800 million they are forced to spend here by the settlement, just as the federal government has final say in the $1.2 billion EA has to spend in the rest of the country. If the government got the $2 billion in fines and then decided to spend it on building chargers, I assume you'd agree that was government-subsidized?

Now, if the only difference between the two situations is that in one case the government gets the money in fines from VW and then awards contracts to build chargers; in the other VW instead has to give the same money in lieu of fines to EA and then EA spends it how the government directs to build chargers, that's a government-subsidized operation for all intents and purposes in my book.

You have a very twisted mindset. I won't argue this further. FCEV's will die due to its own demerits anyway.


Fne by me - I want to see all the contestants compete on a level playing field without subsidies or mandates (for a given tech; the requirement should just specify ZEV), and let the public decide.
 
jlv said:
GRA said:
If using a two-speed transmission is such a bad idea, then why did Tesla opt for the one for the exact same reasons Porsche did (except they couldn't make one last)?
Because they *thought* they needed it (in the original Roadster) for the exact same reasons Porsche did, and then realized they didn't need it at all.

https://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/23/breaking-tesla-has-a-solution-for-their-transmission-woes-get/

Tesla from the Model S production onwards is vastly different than the Tesla that put together the original 2500 Roadsters.


See comments above re Tesla's engineering development capacity. Maybe they don't need it given the performance spectrum they want, and maybe they still couldn't do it so chose second best. The only way to know for certain for a given car is to have otherwise identical ones except for the transmissions tested side by side.
 
GRA said:
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
GRA said:
Or it could mean that Porsche uses very aggressive tire treads with high rolling resistance, so that they can provide Porsche-level handling as demanded by their buyers. Of course, Porsche has also apparently chosen to understate their EPA numbers, as reflected in the fact that they easily exceed them in the real-world, while Tesla's EPA numbers are overstated and they, along with almost all other BEV manufacturers fall short of theirs in the real world. Tesla's numbers are especially optimistic because they use 5- versus the 2-cycle testing everyone else uses.

If using a two-speed transmission is such a bad idea, then why did Tesla opt for the one for the exact same reasons Porsche did (except they couldn't make one last)?

Of course, that doesn't explain why HEVs get better City than Hwy mpg. Are you claiming that regen is unrelated to that? After all, AFAIA every conventional ICE gets better Hwy than City mpg. yet AFAIA every HEV and PHEV gets the opposite, despite being heavier than a conventional ICE which should penalize them around town, where rolling resistance is a larger factor than drag. Serial vs. parallel vs. serial/parallel can shift the numbers around a bit.

"Or it could mean that Porsche uses very aggressive tire treads with high rolling resistance"

Give it up. High rolling resistance tires affects efficiency equally at ALL speeds.


Of course it does but as we know, at higher speeds drag overtakes rolling resistance as the major power requirement.


Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
The two-speed transmission isn't the answer you were hoping for.


It's an answer given the requirements Porsche (and Tesla) wanted to meet. As for me, since I don't need to have great 0-30 accel, nor do I need to cruise at 250kph, I'd probably be fine in a PEV with a single speed tranny transmission ratio (and/or motor power matched for efficiency) designed for maximum efficiency in the 50-80 mph speed range. Which is exactly the trade-off I suggested for the Bolt: 3 seconds slower 0-60 for a substantial (minimum 10 miles but preferably more; 5% of 259 is ~13 miles) range boost.


Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
As for HEV's getting better city than hway mpg - DING DING DING!! If even a combustion engine based vehicle gets better city mileage (due to regen) than Porsche, then that 2-speed transmission must REALLY SUCK!! Although Porsche could've sandbagged their numbers, that's neither here nor there for your case about 2-speed transmissions.

And you're misunderstanding the reason for why PHEV's get better city mileage than hway, despite "rolling resistance being a larger factor". It's NOT because rolling resistance increases (it stays constant), it's because drag decreases significantly (plot an exponential curve with speed). The city mpg for PHEV/HEV being better than ICE city mpg is ENTIRELY due to regen braking, but that's a comparison between different powertrains, not a comparison between city & hway mpg from within the same powertrain. You are mis-using data without any comprehension of what they mean.

The bolded section was exactly my point. Else, why would ICEs get better Hwy than city mpg? Efficiency and transmission ratios, with no help from regen.


Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
GRA said:
How is Porsche actually designing and building a two-speed transmission than can handle the torque when Tesla couldn't, and achieving what they set out to do, an 'unqualified' solution? It works. Or are you claiming that Porsche engineers are incompetent, and don't know how to design cars to meet their customers' demands?

Because the 2-speed transmission reduces the overall powertrain efficiency to the point of yielding less range instead of more


Do you have any actual data backign your claim? Porsche undoubtedly has the data, but AFAIA hasn't shown it to anyone.


Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
And Porsche didn't prioritize range, but priorized speed. Porsche's engineers designed their car to perform within the trade-offs that they were after. It's too bad that less than 2 years later, Tesla showed them how to get BOTH good performance AND range ... by using a single gear transmission.

Tesla in 2010 was less than 400 employees and didn't have the resources to solve ZF's 2-speed transmission issues. They're a much larger company now and they've determined that a 2-speed is still not worth the trade-off.


It's amusing that you would compare Tesla's engineering development skills to Porsche's. We agree that Tesla lacked the personnel to develop a two-speed tranny themselves back in Roadster days, but considering that they employ members of the public to perform beta testing of safety of life critical systems on public roads to this day, there's simply no comparison between the two companies capabilities in this area. Then there's the seemingly non-existent Production QC.

Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
GRA said:
I got it a long time ago. I'm a fan of LFP for a variety of reasons (safety, no cobalt, tolerance to high SoC, cost, cycle life being some), but primarily for city cars, as I don't think they can meet range needs for all-around cars. So, up to about 40kWh/150 miles I'm all for them. Whether or not LFP can provide the needed power in this case despite a high specific power remains to be seen, as we need full specs for the car, esp. the motor, transmission, and pack.

Of course you'd think that. And it's not "we need full specs", it's just you. The mental gymnastics that you had to perform to write that (despite what you wrote previously) must be amazing.


Just because LFP has a high specific power for a given capacity doesn't tell us whether it has enough power to meet a given requirement.


Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
GRA said:
Actually, California has the final say (through CEC and/or CARB, I forget which) in how EA spends the $800 million they are forced to spend here by the settlement, just as the federal government has final say in the $1.2 billion EA has to spend in the rest of the country. If the government got the $2 billion in fines and then decided to spend it on building chargers, I assume you'd agree that was government-subsidized?

Now, if the only difference between the two situations is that in one case the government gets the money in fines from VW and then awards contracts to build chargers; in the other VW instead has to give the same money in lieu of fines to EA and then EA spends it how the government directs to build chargers, that's a government-subsidized operation for all intents and purposes in my book.

You have a very twisted mindset. I won't argue this further. FCEV's will die due to its own demerits anyway.


Fne by me - I want to see all the contestants compete on a level playing field without subsidies or mandates (for a given tech; the requirement should just specify ZEV), and let the public decide.

context matters. re-read the chain of replies prior to your replies. You're going around in a circular argument loop and re-hashing without recognizing the self-contradictions in your line of reasoning. My point has always been that you don't understand the engineering involved enough to realize that you're asking for things that are unnecessary to meeting your needs. What are your needs? A 200+ mile hatchback BEV with a decent charging infrastructure. Every other condition you've stated is superfluous.

On a different point, my accusation that you're a shill. Regardless of what you've done in your personal life (kudos to you for that), your way of living isn't scalable to _most_ of the american consumers and is actually self-contradictory. I'm glad to hear that you're willing to make personal sacrifices to bike and take mass transit on a daily basis, but to then turn around and demand that BEV's be fast to recharge for the few trips you take that's outside of the range of the typical 200-mile BEV, otherwise it just can't do the job?! You really do NOT practice what you preach with that byline in your signature. Simply keeping that 19y.o car has environmental costs as well. That 19y.o car could've been recycled to produce new steel products with less energy than what's needed to refine new steel. It doesn't all go into a landfill. In the meantime, that 19y.o car requires a supply chain to make new motor oil (which you're supposed to change every 6 months), transmission oil, fuses, light bulbs, brake fluid, coolant, and various other items to keep it in good shape and running efficiently. And the gasoline at your local station was most likely trucked in from a distant refinery.

When you spend money getting gas or an oil change or other maintenance on your 19y.o car, you're supporting the fossil fuel industry - every penny counts. The ICE supply chain is a huge polluting behemoth that needs to die, and going BEV's is the fastest route to getting there. If you can afford it, switch to a BEV ASAP.
 
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...
 
LeftieBiker said:
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
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
If BEVs were 'better' in ways most consumers valued over other attributes, no subsidies, perks or mandates would be needed to get people to adopt them. That's clearly not yet the case.

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/1131994_report-with-ev1-gm-sparked-the-era-of-the-electric-car-but-didn-t-follow-through
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
So GM went on to push hydrogen fuel cells. They were "green", even though hydrogen was dirtier than coal, they were "science cool", and the hydrogen fuel cell was exactly precisely zero threat to gasoline engines.
Once again you make the claim that H2 is dirtier than coal, as if saying it will make it true. H2 derived from fossil-fuels is unsustainable, and it needs to come from green sources else it's not worth doing.

Hydrogen fuel cell cars are selling (leasing) at a discount in the tightest car market in memory. Hydrogen cars are a failure.

Green hydrogen production will not cover existing hydrogen uses for more than a decade, perhaps two decades. Any new hydrogen use is coming from fossil fuels. Which we agree isn't worth doing. So perhaps restart this topic when it get meaningful, in 2040 or so.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
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.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
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.
 
SageBrush said:
LeftieBiker said:
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.
 
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...
 
lebikerboy said:
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.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
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/1131994_report-with-ev1-gm-sparked-the-era-of-the-electric-car-but-didn-t-follow-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.php?f=10&t=32809#p613827 for some survey data and other info re Toyota's BEV plans, which discuss price, range, and durability requirements.
 
GCC:
Wärtsila, RINA, others partner on hydrogen fuel solution for shipping via on-board LNG reforming with carbon capture

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/11/20211126-wartsila.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.
 
Both GCC:
NNL and DNV partner to explore large-scale nuclear production of hydrogen for UK gas network

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/11/20211128-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/2021/11/20211128-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.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
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.
 
oxothuk said:
lebikerboy said:
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.


Uh huh, and as numerous posts providing links in this topic have shown, that infrastructure is increasing. It's still mostly subsidized, but then so's DCFC, and the cost of the H2 station subsidies is dropping rapidly. Charging stations not so much, as that's essentially a mature tech; only the usage is new.


oxothuk said:
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.


Indeed, and that's what's happening. See the AFV truck and commercial vehicles topic for numerous examples of trains, long-haul trucks and buses, ships and aircraft either in DemVal or early commercialization phases.
 
Back
Top