GRA
Posts: 11907
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:06 pm

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:30 pm
GRA wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 6:14 pm
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 7:01 pm


That's not what your referenced study concluded.

Oh didn't it? Pages127-128 of Kirsch, summing up commercial BEV use:
Numerous reports proved that under appropriate conditions the electric truck was more economical to operate than its gasoline-powered cousin. But with the gradual demise of horse-based transport, the approval of more fundamental changes within delivery systems, the standardization of the ton-mile, the acceptance of speed and range as necessary components of long-haul trucking and the inability of proponents of separate spheres to practically define the economic boundaries between supposedly distinct fields of action, the appropriate sphere of the electric truck grew smaller and smaller. Local merchants, faced with the choice of either internal combustion or electricity - but not both - almost invariably opted for internal combustion because only gasoline trucks could provide universal service. Had a hybrid market for passenger vehicles emerged or had battery service* been introduced a decade earlier, perhaps the situation would have developed differently. As it was, however, the electric vehicle was slowly relegated to increasingly narrow fields of action - industrial trucks (moving freight inside warehouses and factories) and personal mobility (motorized wheelchairs and golf carts) - until its rediscovery in the early 1960s. <snip>

Ha! The best you could do was to cite that "under certain conditions", the "operating expense" was lower. What about the other conditions? Just give it up. Or better yet, find a study in the 1930's showing that BEV's still had a cost/mile advantage over combustion vehicles? You won't find any, because this situation literally ONLY came about in this past decade with the invention of the NiMH and Li-Ion batteries.
Amazing, I provide a single quote from a book I've read multiple times and have handy and you have never read, and yet you can infer from that single quote all the details I've left out (because I'm not going to type the entire book, or even the relevant chapter on commercial vehicles) and tell me what the book says. Tell you what, once you've actually read the book, or some of the others I've mentioned (also "Taking Charge: The Electric Automobile in America" by Michael Brian Schiffer, and although it covers a wider field, "Bottled Energy: Electrical Engineering and The Evolution of Chemical Energy Storage" by Rich H. Schallenberg), if you want to argue with me about the data or the author's conclusions, I'll be happy to oblige. Until then, you're arguing from a position of ignorance, and it's not worth my time to provide you with all of the info you're missing; you'll have to read them for yourself.
Last edited by GRA on Tue Feb 11, 2020 8:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: 11907
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:40 pm

GCC:
Hyundai Motor expands partnership with US Government to support further exploration of hydrogen fuel cell technologies
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2020/0 ... 1-hmg.html

Hyundai Motor Company is expanding its partnership with the US Department of Energy (DOE) and its support of the DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program. Hyundai’s commitment aims to increase technical collaboration to better understand challenges and to collect and publish independently validated data from demonstrating fuel cell technologies and hydrogen infrastructure under real world operating conditions. . . .

As part of the partnership, Hyundai will provide the DOE with five NEXO fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV) for use in various regions of the country including Washington, DC, to help advance research and development of fuel cell technologies. Data from the vehicles and infrastructure will be collected, analyzed and published to identify additional research needs in key areas such as durability, performance and reliability. Activities will also help support training and workforce development programs.

In addition to supporting the US Federal Government’s advancement of fuel cell technologies, Hyundai will contribute funding to install a small-scale hydrogen fueling station in the Washington, DC area this fall, previously developed through the Department of Energy’s H-Prize H2Refuel competition.

Hyundai provided its first NEXO SUV to the DOE in 2019. The additional five vehicles will support the Department of Energy through the work to accelerate the progress of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies across a diverse range of applications. This will include work with the Department of Energy’s partners such as the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, as well as other agencies and stakeholders. . . .

A separate memorandum of understanding was inked between the US Fuel Cell & Hydrogen Energy Association (FCHEA) and H2Korea—a South Korean private-government body promoting hydrogen convergence—at the FCHEA office in Washington, D.C. to strengthen cooperation between the two countries to vitalize the global hydrogen economy. . . .
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.

Oils4AsphaultOnly
Posts: 735
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:09 pm
Delivery Date: 20 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 313890
Location: Arcadia, CA

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Wed Feb 12, 2020 11:02 am

GRA wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:06 pm
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:30 pm
GRA wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 6:14 pm


Oh didn't it? Pages127-128 of Kirsch, summing up commercial BEV use:


Ha! The best you could do was to cite that "under certain conditions", the "operating expense" was lower. What about the other conditions? Just give it up. Or better yet, find a study in the 1930's showing that BEV's still had a cost/mile advantage over combustion vehicles? You won't find any, because this situation literally ONLY came about in this past decade with the invention of the NiMH and Li-Ion batteries.
Amazing, I provide a single quote from a book I've read multiple times and have handy and you have never read, and yet you can infer from that single quote all the details I've left out (because I'm not going to type the entire book, or even the relevant chapter on commercial vehicles) and tell me what the book says. Tell you what, once you've actually read the book, or some of the others I've mentioned (also "Taking Charge: The Electric Automobile in America" by Michael Brian Schiffer, and although it covers a wider field, "Bottled Energy: Electrical Engineering and The Evolution of Chemical Energy Storage" by Rich H. Schallenberg), if you want to argue with me about the data or the author's conclusions, I'll be happy to oblige. Until then, you're arguing from a position of ignorance, and it's not worth my time to provide you with all of the info you're missing; you'll have to read them for yourself.
Well you caught me there. I did NOT read the book, because it seems rather obvious that owning multiple vehicles will always be more expensive. And those were the options back then. Renting a gas vehicle only for the times you needed it wasn't an option.

This was what you originally cited (which doesn't require me to read the book):
"As noted above, David Kirsch's "The Electric Vehicle and the Burden of History" has comparable costs of BEV delivery vehicles vs. horses and ICEs. Within their best radius (in between the other two), BEVs were cheaper/mile. But ICEs could cover all three radius rings, so even though they were more expensive at shorter ranges, companies with only a small fleet came out ahead because they only needed one type of delivery vehicle instead of two or three"

Just from the wording alone, it's clear that the capital costs of the vehicles was factored in by the businesses making the purchasing decisions. And that shows a higher cost/mile as opposed to a lower _operating cost_ / mile (implied by the first line of the quote). Anyone with any clue about what was available can see that without relying on "studies".

Speaking of studies. It's been billions of miles since the last AP mis-use fatality. Isn't it becoming clearer that the roads are actually safer with Tesla's rapid iteration path versus waiting for the perfect level 5 autonomous vehicle?
:: Model 3 LR :: acquired 9 May '18
:: Leaf S30 :: build date: Sep '16 :: purchased: Nov '16
100% Zero transportation emissions (except when I walk) and loving it!

Oilpan4
Posts: 1449
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:51 pm
Delivery Date: 10 May 2018
Leaf Number: 004270

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Wed Feb 12, 2020 1:59 pm

And that's exactly why I like electric vehicles.
They can ride around inside their little circle and cost almost nothing compared to gasoline or hydrogen.
trumpvirus
Is going to get you.

GRA
Posts: 11907
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:41 pm

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 11:02 am
GRA wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 7:06 pm
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:30 pm
Amazing, I provide a single quote from a book I've read multiple times and have handy and you have never read, and yet you can infer from that single quote all the details I've left out (because I'm not going to type the entire book, or even the relevant chapter on commercial vehicles) and tell me what the book says. Tell you what, once you've actually read the book, or some of the others I've mentioned (also "Taking Charge: The Electric Automobile in America" by Michael Brian Schiffer, and although it covers a wider field, "Bottled Energy: Electrical Engineering and The Evolution of Chemical Energy Storage" by Rich H. Schallenberg), if you want to argue with me about the data or the author's conclusions, I'll be happy to oblige. Until then, you're arguing from a position of ignorance, and it's not worth my time to provide you with all of the info you're missing; you'll have to read them for yourself.
Well you caught me there. I did NOT read the book, because it seems rather obvious that owning multiple vehicles will always be more expensive. And those were the options back then. Renting a gas vehicle only for the times you needed it wasn't an option.

No, you're ignoring (because you haven't read it) the changing use patterns and other factors that also affected the transportation system as a whole. In a horse-drawn age, cities were more compact. All long-distance trips were done by rail (or water), with the horses just taking care of the last mile or two of delivery, and the whole system was matched to the requirements of horses. BEVs were well-matched to those, but allowed an expansion of the area that could be covered. Simultaneously, though, as people bought more cars and roads were built to allow them to drive them, cities spread out more (i.e. the beginnings of car-based sprawl, which streetcars had already started), and BEVs couldn't cover the now even larger delivery areas in the same time, while ICEs could; ICEs were faster, because of their greater range and multiple gears, but also because they were lighter and were able to switch to pneumatic tires earlier than BEVs could. Also, as more and more people bought cars, the need for home delivery dropped, as people just drove to the stores themselves and the need for delivery trucks for small businesses waned. Until DoorDash and the like, who'd heard of a grocery store making deliveries? It was common over a century ago, before fading away until reappearing recently. With the exception of autonomy and connectivity, every single variety and usage of BEVs was tried back then. It's amazing - every time some company announces a whole new way to use BEVs, invariably someone did it 100-120 years ago. Battery leasing, MaaS including subscription services, quick charging stations, swapping, and on and on.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 11:02 am
This was what you originally cited (which doesn't require me to read the book):
"As noted above, David Kirsch's "The Electric Vehicle and the Burden of History" has comparable costs of BEV delivery vehicles vs. horses and ICEs. Within their best radius (in between the other two), BEVs were cheaper/mile. But ICEs could cover all three radius rings, so even though they were more expensive at shorter ranges, companies with only a small fleet came out ahead because they only needed one type of delivery vehicle instead of two or three"

Just from the wording alone, it's clear that the capital costs of the vehicles was factored in by the businesses making the purchasing decisions. And that shows a higher cost/mile as opposed to a lower _operating cost_ / mile (implied by the first line of the quote). Anyone with any clue about what was available can see that without relying on "studies".

Except that battery service, which often included battery leasing, then as now reduced the capital costs of BEVs, since you weren't paying up front for the battery. You also outsourced battery maintenance to specialists. You have to realize that the typical business only had 1-3 delivery wagons or trucks. If one of your trucks is down, a BEV can't cover an ICE's route, but the reverse isn't true.

Now that they were delivering over a larger area, range, time and flexibility, i.e. operational capabilities rather than cost, were the critical factors, and the market for BEV trucks shrank further, even though they remained less expensive to operate within their capabilities. This is much the same situation we have with rail (and water) versus truck transport now; trucks are more expensive per mile than either, especially for bulk commodities, but they're also a hell of a lot faster and more flexible and can provide door-to-door service, so they're widely used. It's notable that it's companies like UPS, with huge vehicle fleets, that can afford to experiment with AFVs of all types and specialize. Same goes for bus fleets - sheer size makes specialization practical.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 11:02 am
Speaking of studies. It's been billions of miles since the last AP mis-use fatality. Isn't it becoming clearer that the roads are actually safer with Tesla's rapid iteration path versus waiting for the perfect level 5 autonomous vehicle?
Billions of miles? Did you miss this post in that topic: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=22213&start=590#p576858

Maybe Tesla has enough cars on the road now that they can rack up billions of miles in the past 6 weeks - IDK. As soon as Tesla is willing to turn all their data over to an independent agency for verification and that claim is confirmed, I'll be the first to say so. For now, any such claim remains so much PR fluff, and I don't put any more faith in it than I would any other company making such claims.

BTW, I've never said that we have to wait for L5. What I've said is that we have to have acceptable risk, and as I recently read somewhere, historically acceptable risk has been defined as consent. There's no practical way to get the consent of every single driver, passenger, pedestrian, cyclist or whoever else may be put at risk by AVs, so we have to do it as a society, i.e. via government monitoring and regulation, rather than having a company make that decision. IMO, NHTSA has fallen lamentably short in that.
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: 11907
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:41 pm

Both GCC:
UK awards £28M for 5 demonstration-phase low-carbon hydrogen production projects
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2020/0 ... jects.html

As part of a larger £90 million (US$117 million) package of awards to cut carbon emissions in industry and homes, the UK is awarding £28 million (US$36.5 million) to five demonstration phase projects for low-carbon hydrogen production.

The hydrogen projects receiving funding are:

Dolphyn. Led by Environmental Resources Management Limited (ERM).
The project concerns the production of hydrogen at scale from offshore floating wind in deep water locations. It combines abundant UK offshore wind power with seawater to produce green hydrogen which can be piped directly to shore. The concept consists of a large-scale floating wind turbine (nominally 10 MW) with an integrated water treatment unit and electrolyzers for localized hydrogen production. This funding will enable the detailed design of a 2 MW prototype system.

Contract value: £3.12 million (US$4.1 million)

HyNet – low carbon hydrogen plant. Led by Progressive Energy Ltd.
A consortium of Progressive Energy, Essar, Johnson Matthey, and SNC-Lavalin will deliver the project comprising the development of a 100,000 Nm3 per hour clean hydrogen production facility for deployment as part of the HyNet Cluster, using Johnson Matthey’s low-carbon hydrogen technology which enables carbon capture and storage.

This technology could lower the cost of low carbon hydrogen by over 20% and has become the basis for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and the Committee on Climate Change’s (CCC) analysis. This funding will permit further project development including engineering design to deliver a ‘shovel ready’ project.

Contract value: £7.48 million (US$9.7 million)

Gigastack. Led by ITM Power Trading Ltd.
Gigastack will demonstrate the delivery of bulk, low-cost and zero-carbon hydrogen through ITM Power’s gigawatt-scale polymer-electrolyte membrane (PEM) electrolyzers, manufactured in the UK. The project aims to reduce the cost of electrolytic hydrogen significantly. This funding will enable ITM Power to work towards developing a system that uses electricity from Orsted’s Hornsea Two offshore wind farm to generate renewable hydrogen for the Phillips 66 Humber Refinery. The company will also develop further plans for large scale production of electrolyzers.

Contract value: £7.5 million (US$9.8 million)

Acorn Hydrogen Project. Led by Pale Blue Dot Energy (PBDE).
The Acorn Hydrogen Project will evaluate and develop an advanced reformation process, including assessment of Johnson Matthey’s low-carbon hydrogen technology. This will deliver an energy and cost-efficient process for hydrogen production from North Sea Gas, while capturing and sequestering the associated CO2 emissions to prevent climate change. This funding will enable further engineering studies.

Contract value: £2.7 million (US$3.6 million)

Bulk Hydrogen Production by Sorbent Enhanced Steam Reforming (HyPER). Led by Cranfield University.
The project proposes to develop a low-carbon bulk hydrogen supply through pilot scale demonstration of the sorption enhanced steam reforming process . . . This phase of the funding will enable the detailed design and build of the system at Cranfield University.

Contract value: £7.44 million (US$9.7 million). . . .


Plug Power introduces new fuel-cell system for heavy-duty on-road applications
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2020/0 ... power.html

Plug Power Inc. has launched its heavy-duty 125 kW ProGen zero emission hydrogen fuel-cell system. ProGen fuel cell systems include the fuel-cell stack and all required subsystems for humidification, air delivery, fuel regulation and cooling.

The new ProGen product expands Plug Power’s market reach into heavy-duty on and off-road applications that include Class 6, 7 and 8 trucks, transit buses and various port applications. . . .

Production shipments of the heavy-duty systems are to begin in the third quarter of 2020.

The high performance compact 125 kW ProGen systems are available in a variety of output voltages, are equipped with cold start capability, and offer an intelligent can bus interface for seamless OEM integration. The modular ProGen engines are designed for use in series and parallel configurations to meet a variety of power needs including large scale stationary back-up systems.

The product launch follows the successful launch of the 30kW ProGen hydrogen system in April 2019. The 30 kW engine, suited for delivery vans or light/medium-duty cargo trucks, is being used in StreetScooter fuel cell-powered trucks for on-road in use by DHL.
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: 11907
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Wed Feb 19, 2020 5:33 pm

GCC:
Gigastack renewable hydrogen from offshore wind project advances to next phase; 100MW electrolyzer system
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2020/0 ... stack.html

The UK has awarded £7.5 million for the next phase of Gigastack, a new renewable hydrogen project, as part of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) Hydrogen Supply Competition. . . .

As part of the initial feasibility phase of the Gigastack project, which finished in 2019, ITM Power developed designs for a low-cost modular 5 megawatt (MW) electrolyzer stack, collaborating with Ørsted to understand the potential synergies with offshore wind farms and with Element Energy to undertake a market analysis and explore business models for the first industrial-scale 100MW electrolyzers.

For the second phase of the project, which has now received funding from the department for BEIS, the consortium will conduct a Front-End Engineering Design (FEED) study on a 100MW electrolyzer system. The 100MW will be made up of 20MW electrolyzer module systems, including all aspects of dynamics and integration of renewable hydrogen supply based on power from offshore wind.

The FEED study will detail the actual design of a hydrogen production system connected to a wind farm and industrial off-taker using ITM Power’s new generation of electrolyzer stack technology, renewable energy directly from Ørsted’s Hornsea Two offshore wind farm, and with the resulting renewable hydrogen supplied to an industrial off-taker: Phillips 66 Limited’s Humber Refinery.

A key objective of the Gigastack project is to identify and to highlight regulatory, commercial and technical challenges for real applications of industrial-scale renewable hydrogen systems.

As part of the second phase, ITM Power will also install and trial both their next-generation electrolyzer stack and the semi-automated manufacturing machines required for large-scale and high-volume manufacture of these new large low-cost stacks. This will help validate a complete production system capable of delivering hundreds of megawatts of electrolyzers per year (initial target 300MW/year, ramping to 1GW/year). . . .
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.

Oilpan4
Posts: 1449
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:51 pm
Delivery Date: 10 May 2018
Leaf Number: 004270

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Thu Feb 20, 2020 2:42 pm

One may wonder why no one has bothered to built a 20mw electrolysis rig....
trumpvirus
Is going to get you.

smkettner
Posts: 7451
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:13 pm
Delivery Date: 26 Feb 2014
Location: Orange County, CA

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Fri Feb 21, 2020 10:15 pm

Oilpan4 wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 2:42 pm
One may wonder why no one has bothered to built a 20mw electrolysis rig....
Hydrogen runs on OPM. Even this has limits.
1 bar lost at 21,451 miles, 16 months.
2 bar lost at 35,339 miles, 25 months.
LEAF traded at 45,400 miles for a RAV4-EV
RAV4 traded in for I-Pace Dec 2018

Oilpan4
Posts: 1449
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:51 pm
Delivery Date: 10 May 2018
Leaf Number: 004270

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Sat Feb 22, 2020 12:07 am

smkettner wrote:
Fri Feb 21, 2020 10:15 pm
Oilpan4 wrote:
Thu Feb 20, 2020 2:42 pm
One may wonder why no one has bothered to built a 20mw electrolysis rig....
Hydrogen runs on OPM. Even this has limits.
That too.
Factor in we will be lucky to hit 50% efficiency with large scale electrolysis, then burn it in a roughly 50% efficient fuel cell....
The efficiency is disastrous even compared to 2011 nissan leaf tech.

If battery tech was maxed out now hydrogen might be viable. But battery tech advances will likely at least double batt energy density.
Mean while hydrogen tech might get a little bit better.
trumpvirus
Is going to get you.

Return to “Business / Economy and Politics”