Page 416 of 433

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:27 pm
by GRA
There's some interesting info re the relative capital costs of H2 refueling per event versus QC/event as well as BEV versus FCEV breakeven per trip distance for trucks, in a McKinsey report on mobility transitions (see https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/aut ... 21787ac6d6):
Hydrogen cars or battery electric vehicles—why not both?

Battery-powered electric vehicles (EVs) are not the only alternative to cars with internal-combustion engines. Vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cells have already begun trickling into select markets across Asia, Europe, and North America. While significant technical and infrastructure challenges remain, hydrogen offers several advantages over batteries. For starters, hydrogen vehicles fuel up relatively quickly—about 15 times faster than battery-powered EVs that use so-called fast-charging technology. Hydrogen refueling is also half as capital intensive as EV fast charging and requires about ten times less space (exhibit). In addition, EV fast-charger stations next to highways can easily require several power lines carrying multiple megawatts of electricity to cover peak load, but more flexible sources of renewable energy can power hydrogen fuel cells. And while battery-powered vehicles have significant consequences for natural resources—particularly cobalt, nickel, and lithium—hydrogen is the most common element in the universe.

Producing hydrogen, however, is costly, and at present fuel-cell vehicles are less commercially viable than EVs in most use cases. But heavier vehicles require heavier batteries; and the heavier the payload and the longer the range, the greater the opportunity for hydrogen power. A hydrogen-powered 40-ton semitruck, for example, when produced at scale, draws even with a battery-powered truck in system costs at slightly more than 100 kilometers of operation and allows for approximately three tons more payload as well. All this suggests that hydrogen vehicles and EVs could become complements in an increasingly decarbonized future. . . .

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:54 pm
by GRA
GCC:
JAXA and Toyota may partner further on space exploration; making future lunar mobility a reality; fuel cell vehicles
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/0 ... xatmc.html
. . . As a first step, JAXA and Toyota have reached agreement to further cooperate on and to accelerate their ongoing joint study of a manned, pressurized rover that employs fuel cell electric vehicle technologies.

Such a form of mobility is deemed necessary for human exploration activities on the lunar surface. Even with the limited amount of energy that can be transported to the moon, the pressurized rover would have a total lunar-surface cruising range of more than 10,000 km (6,214 miles). . . .

Manned, pressurized rovers will be an important element supporting human lunar exploration, which JAXA envisions will take place in the 2030s; it aim is launching such a rover into space in 2029, said JAXA Vice President Koichi Wakata.
  • Lunar gravity is one-sixth of that on Earth. Meanwhile, the moon has a complex terrain with craters, cliffs, and hills. Moreover, it is exposed to radiation and temperature conditions that are much harsher than those on Earth, as well as an ultra-high vacuum environment. For wide ranging human exploration of the moon, a pressurized rover that can travel more than 10,000 km in such environments is a necessity. . . .
Back on Earth, also GCC:
Faurecia and Michelin to consolidate hydrogen fuel cell efforts in new joint venture Symbio
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/0 ... ymbio.html
. . . Symbio, a Faurecia Michelin Hydrogen Company will be owned equally by Faurecia and Michelin. This French joint venture will develop, produce and market hydrogen fuel cell systems for light vehicles, utility vehicles, trucks and other applications. . . .

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:00 pm
by LeftieBiker
Even with the limited amount of energy that can be transported to the moon
Until we start exploring the darker regions of the Moon, there is plenty of energy already available there.

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:41 pm
by GRA
LeftieBiker wrote:
Even with the limited amount of energy that can be transported to the moon
Until we start exploring the darker regions of the Moon, there is plenty of energy already available there.
The photo of the model does include a roll-out solar shade which could provide power when parked, but I suspect lifting the weight of batteries as well as the long recharge times would make a BEV a non-starter given the range requirements. NASA's Lunar Rover was a far cry from this in range, weight and capability:
On Apollo 15 the LRV was driven a total of 27.8 km in 3 hours, 2 minutes of driving time. The longest single traverse was 12.5 km and the maximum range from the LM was 5.0 km. On Apollo 16 the vehicle traversed 26.7 km in 3 hours 26 minutes of driving. The longest traverse was 11.6 km and the LRV reached a distance of 4.5 km from the LM. On Apollo 17 the rover went 35.9 km in 4 hours 26 minutes total drive time. The longest traverse was 20.1 km and the greatest range from the LM was 7.6 km.

The Lunar Roving Vehicle had a mass of 210 kg and was designed to hold a payload of an additional 490 kg on the lunar surface. The frame was 3.1 meters long with a wheelbase of 2.3 meters. The maximum height was 1.14 meters. . . .

Power was provided by two 36-volt silver-zinc potassium hydroxide non-rechargeable batteries with a capacity of 121 amp-hr.
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/l ... o_lrv.html

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:11 pm
by RegGuheert
GRA wrote:There's some interesting info re the relative capital costs of H2 refueling per event versus QC/event as well as BEV versus FCEV breakeven per trip distance for trucks, in a McKinsey report on mobility transitions (see https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/aut ... 21787ac6d6):
Hydrogen cars or battery electric vehicles—why not both?

Battery-powered electric vehicles (EVs) are not the only alternative to cars with internal-combustion engines. Vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cells have already begun trickling into select markets across Asia, Europe, and North America. While significant technical and infrastructure challenges remain, hydrogen offers several advantages over batteries. For starters, hydrogen vehicles fuel up relatively quickly—about 15 times faster than battery-powered EVs that use so-called fast-charging technology. Hydrogen refueling is also half as capital intensive as EV fast charging and requires about ten times less space (exhibit). In addition, EV fast-charger stations next to highways can easily require several power lines carrying multiple megawatts of electricity to cover peak load, but more flexible sources of renewable energy can power hydrogen fuel cells. And while battery-powered vehicles have significant consequences for natural resources—particularly cobalt, nickel, and lithium—hydrogen is the most common element in the universe.
The word "(exhibit)" above refers to a chart which indicates that QC infrastructure for BEVs costs about 7.6 Euros per refueling and H2 refueling infrastructure only costs about 3.6 Euros per refueling. I won't bother to question these numbers, as I suspect they can be supported reasonably well.

That said, I WILL point out that McKinsey's analysts are either being extremely deceptive with the bolded statements or they are idiots or both. I hope everyone here (except perhaps for GRA who posted and bolded that statement) can see why: An H2 FCV can ONLY be charged by an H2 refueling station, while the typical BEV is charged using QC infrastructure for only about 1% of its refueling, if that. For the other 99% of the time, a BEV is recharged using infrastructure using an extremely low cost L2 home charger. In my personal case, the BEV L2 charging infrastructure in my home cost about $1000 to install and it has fully refueled the vehicle about 650 times (using 100 miles per recharge as the standard to try to match to what might be used for an H2 FCV). In other words, the REAL per-refueling capital costs for BEVs are much lower than those of H2 FCVs, even using the 3.6 Euros per refueling number.

A more direct comparison indicates that my capital cost for refueling my vehicle compares directly against about $12,000 per vehicle that it costs to provide H2 infrastructure, as I have calculated several times much earlier in this thread.

And that is just the capital cost comparison. The cost of the fuel is also drastically lower for the BEV.

Simply put, comparing the per-refueling costs of FC infrastructure with per-refueling costs of H2 infrastructure is a fools game, intended to deceive rather than to educate the public.
GRA wrote:
Producing hydrogen, however, is costly, and at present fuel-cell vehicles are less commercially viable than EVs in most use cases. But heavier vehicles require heavier batteries; and the heavier the payload and the longer the range, the greater the opportunity for hydrogen power. A hydrogen-powered 40-ton semitruck, for example, when produced at scale, draws even with a battery-powered truck in system costs at slightly more than 100 kilometers of operation and allows for approximately three tons more payload as well. All this suggests that hydrogen vehicles and EVs could become complements in an increasingly decarbonized future. . . .
There is a wholly-unsupported statement by the authors. In actuality, the H2 FCV truck will cost much more to build, much more to fuel and much more to maintain than the BEV truck. Given that, there is not any crossover mileage at which point the H2 truck will ever have comparable costs. Instead, the H2 truck will cost more to purchase and that drawback will compound itself as the vehicle is used.

All in all, it seems McKinsey & Company are in the business of producing BS in support of H2 as a transportation fuel.

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:17 am
by Titanium48
LeftieBiker wrote:
Even with the limited amount of energy that can be transported to the moon
Until we start exploring the darker regions of the Moon, there is plenty of energy already available there.
For two weeks at a time, anyways. A permanent base or vehicle used for excursions longer than 2 weeks would need a way of being powered through the night. A fuel cell + electrolyser setup would be a sort of hydrogen - oxygen flow battery.

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 6:43 pm
by Oilpan4
The magic hydrogen fueling station that costs almost nothing and seems to create energy almost out of thin air must use natural gas.

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Posted: Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:57 pm
by GRA
Oilpan4 wrote:The magic hydrogen fueling station that costs almost nothing and seems to create energy almost out of thin air must use natural gas.
As the numbers are in Euros and the distances in km, more likely it's excess wind. but what do you find hard to believe that the capital cost per fueling would be lower for an H2 station? After all, each hose can service more vehicles in a given period of time than any single QC can, and costs are coming down as the number of sites has increased, the number of filling points per station has increased allowing BoS costs to be spread more widely, companies gain more experience, and the equipment improves. As for overall costs, given the choice of Euros I suspect they're comparing European prices for fuel and electricity, which are much higher than here in the U.S. owing to taxes and subsidies (especially for renewable feed-in tariffs, although those are coming down now).

In the U.S., the relative fuel costs are far different, although total costs for commercial use will also be calculated based on the lifetime of the system. Fuel cells are already achieving the DoE's target of 25,000 hour lifetimes, and if a comparable BEV needs to have its pack replaced one or more times during the vehicle lifetime, that alters the economics considerably. H2 prices here still need to come down a lot. But, as I've said before, arguing about the economics here is silly, because the companies who will choose one type of vehicle over the other will calculate LCC very closely before making a decision.

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:27 pm
by Oilpan4
What is the efficiency of electricity to hydrogen conversion?
I'm assuming that's where this is going.

Ultimately what is the cost per mile going to be with hydrogen?

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2019 4:09 pm
by RegGuheert
A little over two years ago I spoke with a friend about his experience with H2 forklift refueling and I posted about what he told me. I concluded with the following:
RegGuheert on February 20, 2017 wrote:It looks like there are real applications in the forklift industry (inside a freezer, for instance), but it seems to me that there is lots of room in that market for Li-ion batteries that has not yet been addressed.
It seems I was not alone in that assessment. A CA company named Flux Power was founded to address the space in the forklift market which is not well addressed by lead-acid batteries. It seems they are experiencing triple-digit YOY growth on their first-generation Li-ion battery offerings.

It will be interesting to see if their success continues. Given that both H2 and Li-ion each only have a small portion of the forklift market and both offer benefits over lead-acid batteries, I expect both technologies will continue to grow rapidly in this space for the next few years. But they will soon be competing for the same customers. I suspect each will have clear benefits over the other depending on the customer situation. Here are a few thoughts about what will weigh heavily in customers' decisions:

Benefits of H2 fuel cells in forklifts:
- Faster refueling: 3 minutes per shift versus 1 hour per shift (could be significant for two- or three-shift operations)
- No loss of power as fuel is used like is experienced with batteries (Li-ion is better than lead-acid, but H2 wins here)
- Available in 48V version for forklifts (both are available in 36V versions)

Benefits of Li-ion batteries in forklifts:
- Cheaper refueling infrastructure (In fact, these batteries are compatible with existing lead-acid recharging equipment)
- Cheaper fuel: In most cases, MUCH cheaper fuel.
- Likely higher reliability (H2 systems are simply much more complicated)
- Available in 24V versions for hand trucks (perhaps Plug Power has a similar offering?)
- Wider operating temperature range (both on the low and high ends, though I suspect you would not want to operation Li-ion batteries on the high end of the range given)

Specifications which are comparable:
- Runtime with a single refueling (using 75% DOD for the Li-ion batteries and 40% efficiency on the fuel cells gives about the same electrical energy output for similar-size products)

Characteristics which I cannot compare:
- Unit cost (though only the Li-ion battery says they provide lower lifetime costs than lead-acid batteries)
- Unit lifetime (Li-ion batteries are specified for 2000 cycles at 80% DOD and 3000 cycles at 70% DOD)

For reference, here are datasheets for the products which I am comparing:
- Datasheet for the Plug Power GenDrive 1000
- Datasheet for the Flux Power X-Series Li-ion Forklift Batteries