GRA
Posts: 12403
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Sun Oct 25, 2020 5:26 pm

WetEV wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 8:44 pm
Moved from https://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic. ... 20#p592530
GRA wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 5:08 pm
WetEV wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 4:52 am


BS and off topic. Bicycle has better "transportation value per dollar", how many people are cycling to work?
In places where they can't afford cars or public transport, and walking takes too long, lots of them. As the U. S. has a high median income, more people can afford to drive (and we can afford the roads and other support infrastructure to make driving quick and convenient).
Yet cycling gives reasonable range and speed for the average 10 mile drive. Why don't more people cycle? Maybe perhaps "value in transportation" is more subjective than objective. Both cycling and walking when reasonable distance is both cheaper and has health benefits. But many people don't do it, even in nice weather. I don't know why. Do you?

Sure. One of the transportation values that most Americans rate highly is lack of physical effort required. Even if the average person were able to peddle a bike at 70 mph, this would still apply. Which is one of the major reasons we have an obesity epidemic in this country. This is cultural, as it doesn't apply to all countries, e g. the Netherlands or Denmark:

https://images.app.goo.gl/uJYn8QiVgyCddkNW7

https://images.app.goo.gl/8vc9dauFUgLREmK1A

https://images.app.goo.gl/ZfdWKe4WGnoiE61b7

Even if we were to build bike and pedestrian infrastructure comparable to theirs, it would take a cultural shift before it was fully used.

Another transportation value is weather protection, as a factor in comfort - we're used to being able to choose our own climate, regardless of what the natural weather is. That too is somewhat cultural. We know that large numbers of people are willing to ride in inclement weather, provided they ride routinely.

Another critical factor is the safety issue, both actual and perceived. I've been involved in my own city's updating of our bike and pedestrian plan, and one of the things every survey of the large demographic group of potential riders referred to as "interested but concerned" shows is that absent completely separate bike paths, they will not ride in or next to fast moving car traffic unless there is physical protection between it and them. Which is why cities like mine have begun to copy measures that countries with high bike ridership such as those above have long had, either at-grade bike lanes protected by a line of parked cars or concrete islands, or else above-grade lanes akin but next to sidewalks. Some riders are also willing to ride in a bike lane with a buffer zone protected by no more than flexible posts, but if you want to get a mass increase in riders you need physical instead of mainly psychological barriers.

It's been 52 years since I was first allowed to ride in fast-moving street traffic; I do it all the time and I've long since internalized the risk. I'm a member of the demographic group most willing to ride in traffic, adolescent males and people like me who started to ride in traffic as adolescent males, and have never stopped. Even so, I've noticed that when I ride in the small but growing number of protected bike lanes that are appearing around here I'm much more relaxed, not needing to maintain my usual hyper vigilance to avoid the next idiot who tries to kill me because they think looking at their cell phone or some other distraction is more important than watching the road and avoiding an accident. I also find the lanes just protected by buffer zones with or without posts somewhat more relaxing, as it at least provides more space for someone to notice they're drifting out of their lane before they hit me.

Give the other potential rider demographic groups the infrastructure that allows them to be safe and feel that way, and bike ridership goes way up.

BTW, as a result of Covid and related measures (closure of streets to car traffic), need to replace other forms of exercise and get outdoors, U.S. bike sales went through the roof. No doubt the majority of new riders have reverted or will revert to their cars as restrictions have eased, but some of them will continue to ride.

WetEV wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 8:44 pm
GRA wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 5:08 pm
WetEV wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 4:52 am
Transportation is more than getting from A to B. iMiev was probably the cheapest car new car to own for many in the PNW in 2011, and did many sell? No.
What you're really saying is that people who can afford to buy cars do so for more than one reason, many of them unrelated to utilitarian transportation. I've never disputed that. OTOH, I suspect a lot of Corollas were bought in the PNW in 2011. Do you suppose that people didn't buy iMiEVs because they imposed too many limitations on the vehicle's flexibility? At the time, if I had needed a car just for commuting, an iMiEV might have been fine, provided I had somewhere to charge it. But I'd need another car for every trip beyond its capabilities, which is virtually all of them in my case. And given the dearth of public charging in 2011, an iMiEV would be inadequate for most trips for most people.
Let me clue you in on something. Most people live in households larger than one driver. Median drivers per house hold is 1.89.
Average cars per driver is almost exactly one.

https://nhts.ornl.gov/assets/2017_nhts_ ... trends.pdf

With two drivers and two cars, one a iMiEV and one something else, the household would have a lower cost and more convenient commuting car, and a car for the other trips beyond the iMiEV's capabilities.

I'm well aware of household demographics. Yet the second car was far more likely to be a Civic or Corolla than an iMiEV or even more appropriately a Smart (whether ICE or BEV). Few people buy cars for their typical use; they buy cars based on what's been called the "Occasional Use Imperative", the maximum foreseeable use case. In the case of short range BEVs there's almost no difference between routine use and the maximum capability cases, and most people spending tens of thousands on a car find that unacceptable, or "inadequate transportation value for their dollar". You can argue with them until you're blue in the face, but as long as they're spending their money you're unlikely to convince them otherwise. Which is why soccer moms are rumbling around in 4WD Yukons instead of far cheaper and more efficient minivans.

WetEV wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 8:44 pm
GRA wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 5:08 pm
WetEV wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 4:52 am


Almost the reverse of the average American usage. 85% trip miles under 100 miles.

Image

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformat ... fig4_5.cfm

GRA should drive an ICE.
Yup, or a low-AER (~25 mile) PHEV, or (given adequate fueling infrastructure) an FCEV. At the moment a BEV represents a colossal time suck and route restriction on my trips, even if the charging infrastructure were 100% reliable as gas stations essentially are. I went 3 for 11 in my attempts to activate QCs on my recent Bolt trip, and would have been stranded 200+ miles from home if I hadn't had access to L2s that didn't require activation.
You don't drive the short trips to make a PHEV worthwhile. You should drive an ICE. You are likely one of the last people to convert to BEVs due to your very unusual driving pattern, and you will switch mostly because you must.

On a strict money basis you're correct re PHEVs. There are other reasons to drive a PHEV, though. In my case it would allow me to control local emissions when I choose, and I would use the battery tactically to eliminate emissions while driving the 2-3 miles to and from the local freeways, in small towns I pass through, in large concentrations of people, near those who are exposed to idling ICEs at close proximity for hours every day e.g. park rangers at entrance stations, areas where pollution concentrates (the Yosemite Valley Loop is 14 miles), and so on. If something like the RAV4 Prime or even better a slightly smaller Voltec AWD CUV with less AER (20-30 mi.) and a lower price in consequence had been available in 2016, buying one would have been justifiable because I'd get enough years of use out of it. If the Niro PHEV were AWD I might have accepted it despite its smaller than desired seats-up cargo space. Now, I figure I'm <= 5 years to having a ZEV option that can meet many if not most of my requirements, so a PHEV no longer meets my value for money test. If I were sure that ZEV wouldn't arrive until say 2030, my judgement would be different.

WetEV wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 8:44 pm
Hydrogen is never going to have adequate fueling infrastructure in more remote places. It is just too expensive, when compared with liquid fuels. Hydrogen => liquid fuel is your best bet long term.

I know that's your opinion, and we'll see. I'm cool with either.

WetEV wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 8:44 pm
GRA wrote:
Fri Oct 23, 2020 5:08 pm


With the exception of limiting H2 to trucking, we agree.
Yes, trucking might not be hydrogen. There is a chance of it, as trucking infrastructure can have fairly definable routes, get high and predictable usage needed to pay it off, and hand off to BEV truck for local delivery into areas with no hydrogen infrastructure. But that might not happen. Trains make take over these routes. Or even BEV trucks. And other than "main line trucking", infrastructure is too expensive and likely will always be so, and BEVs are just more convenient for local deliveries and 99% of the trips of the average driver.

Nah, long range trucking isn't going away. While we'll shift some freight to trains, especially as decreases in coal and oil shipments free up capacity, trains are just too slow for some freight, and current BEV trucks impose unacceptable weight limits and time penalties for long haul.
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: 12403
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Tue Oct 27, 2020 5:17 pm

GCC:
Groundbreaking in Frankfurt for hydrogen refueling station for trains
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2020/1 ... kfurt.html

Representatives from the State of Hesse, RMV (Rhein-Main-Verkehrsverbund), Alstom and Infraserv broke ground for a hydrogen filling station on the site of the Höchst industrial park in Frankfurt that will supply a fleet of 27 passenger fuel cell trains—currently, the world’s largest such.

Alstom is supplying the iLint hydrogen trains (earlier post) for the Taunusbahn, Infraserv Höchst will operate the future hydrogen filling station and the State of Hesse and RMV are setting the course for the future and financing them.

The implementation is on schedule; the total order volume is €500 million.

The Alstom Coradia iLint fuel cell trains, which have a range of up to 1,000 kilometers and can run for a whole day, will be used to replace diesel-powered locomotives on the RB 11 (Frankfurt-Höchst - Bad Soden), RB12 ( Frankfurt - Königstein), RB15 (Frankfurt - Bad Homburg - Brandoberndorf) and RB16 (Friedrichsdorf - Friedberg). . . .

Two hydrogen trains in the Elbe-Weser network in Lower Saxony have been in regular passenger use since September 2018. From 2021, the Lower Saxony regional transport company (LNVG) will be using 14 Coradia iLints on the route. The RMV is thus the second responsible authority to rely on hydrogen technology.
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: 12403
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Fri Oct 30, 2020 12:48 pm

GCC:
Ballard and Audi sign definitive agreements regarding use of high-power density fuel cell stack for vehicle propulsion
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2020/1 ... llard.html

. . . The FCgen-HPS fuel cell stack provides propulsion for a range of light-, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles with an industry-leading volumetric high-power density of 4.3 kilowatts per liter (4.3 kW/L). . . .

In addition to its leading high-power density, the FCgen-HPS delivers:

High power output: up to 140kW maximum power level, with scalability to multiple power blocks;

High operating temperature: up to 95 deg. C maximum operating temperature, which allows for more efficient and smaller cooling systems; and

Rugged cold weather capabilities: -28 deg. C freeze start capability with fast power ramp.
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: 12403
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Wed Nov 04, 2020 9:06 pm

GCC:
Volvo Group and Daimler Truck AG sign binding agreement for new fuel-cell joint venture
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2020/1 ... imler.html

The Volvo Group and Daimler Truck AG have now a signed binding agreement for a joint venture to develop, produce and commercialize fuel-cell systems for use in heavy-duty trucks as the primary focus, as well as other applications. (Earlier post.)

The joint venture will develop a system with several power stages, including a twin system with 300 kW continuous power for heavy-duty long-haul trucks. Based on the demanding conditions in heavy-duty truck applications, the joint venture’s products are also suited for other use cases such as stationary power generation. . . .

Both companies’ goal is to start with customer tests of trucks with fuel-cells in about three years and to be in series production during the second half of this decade. . . .
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: 1772
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:51 pm
Delivery Date: 10 May 2018
Leaf Number: 004270

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Thu Nov 05, 2020 7:28 pm

Best part about that is it sounds like they're not spending other people's money to go down that rabbit hole.
"THE ABOVE POST CONTAINS MISLEADING AND INACCURATE INFORMATION. PLEASE CONSIDER IT OPINION, NOT FACT". -someone who I offended and is unable to produce the facts in question.

GRA
Posts: 12403
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Mon Nov 09, 2020 6:50 pm

GCC:
FirstElement Fuel files three new LCFS pathway applications for hydrogen
FirstElement Fuel has filed three new applications for LCFS pathways for liquid and gaseous hydrogen fuel produced from fossil natural gas and landfill gas sources with the California Air Resources Board (ARB). The carbon intensities (CI) of the pathways range from 73.14 to 153.91 gCO2e/MJ.

Hydrogen produced by steam methane reforming at Air Products & Chemicals Sacramento facility using North American Natural Gas (NA NG). Hydrogen is liquefied and transported by liquid tanker truck to hydrogen fueling stations for dispensing into fuel cell vehicles at stations in both Northern and Southern California resulting in a CI of 153.91 gCO2e/MJ.

Renewable hydrogen produced by steam methane reforming of biomethane at Air Products & Chemicals Sacramento facility. The environmental attributes of landfill gas-derived RNG are procured from BlueRidge Landfill Gas, with Element Markets Renewable Energy (EMRE) registered as a joint applicant for the pathway.

Hydrogen is liquefied and transported by liquid tanker truck to hydrogen fueling stations for dispensing into fuel cell vehicles at stations in both Northern and Southern California resulting in a CI of 109.68 gCO2e/MJ.

Renewable hydrogen pathway produced by steam methane reforming of biomethane at Air Products & Chemicals Wilmington facility. Environmental attributes of landfill gas-derived RNG are procured from BlueRidge Landfill Gas in Fresno, Texas, with Element Markets Renewable Energy (EMRE) registered as a joint applicant for the pathway.

The gaseous hydrogen is produced in a SMR in Wilmington, California and transported as gaseous hydrogen to refueling stations Southern California, where it is compressed, for dispensing into fuel cell vehicles at stations in Southern California. The CI is 73.14 gCO2e/MJ.

Iwatani. In October, Iwatani Corporation of America filed a pathway application for liquefied Hydrogen produced from biomethane of North American landfill gas at Linde-Praxair in Ontario, California and delivered to stations in Northern California by heavy-duty diesel truck. The hydrogen is re-gasified at the applicant-owned stations in California (San Juan Capistrano, San Ramon, Mountain View, and West Sacramento), and dispensed for use in hydrogen-fueled vehicles. The CI is 131.51 gCO2e/MJ.
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: 12403
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Fri Nov 13, 2020 8:57 pm

GCC:
DOE releases Hydrogen Program Plan
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2020/1 ... doeh2.html

. . . Examples of the Program’s overarching technical targets are:

$2/kg for hydrogen production and $2/kg for delivery and dispensing for transportation applications

$1/kg hydrogen for industrial and stationary power generation applications

Fuel cell system cost of $80/kW with 25,000-hour durability for long-haul heavy-duty trucks

On-board vehicular hydrogen storage at $8/kWh, 2.2 kWh/kg and 1.7 kWh/l.

Electrolyzer capital cost of of $300/kW, 80,000-hour durability and 65% system efficiency.

Fuel cell system cost of $900/kW and 40,000-hour durability for fuel-flexible stationary high-temperature fuel cells. . . .
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: 12403
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Sun Nov 15, 2020 5:49 pm

GCC:
bp & Oersted to produce green H2 at Lingen refinery; industrial-scale electrolyzer powered by offshore wind
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2020/1 ... ingen.html
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: 779
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

Mon Nov 16, 2020 12:52 pm

:: 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!

GRA
Posts: 12403
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Mon Nov 16, 2020 3:22 pm

GCC:
Cummins to open new fuel cell systems production facility in Germany; Alstom’s hydrogen trains
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2020/1 ... mmins.html

Cummins Inc. will open a new facility in Herten, Germany, which will initially focus on the assembly of fuel cell systems for global transportation leader Alstom’s hydrogen trains.

With capacity of 10 megawatts per year, the Herten facility will manufacture one megawatt of fuel cell systems a month for Alstom’s Coradia iLint hydrogen-powered trains as well as provide aftermarket support. Each fuel cell system will include six power modules (fuel cell stacks), a cooling system, piping, air blowers and air filters. Power modules take air from outside and hydrogen from the hydrogen storage tank to produce power.

The new facility will include space for both manufacturing and research and development, with plans to expand in the future to support fuel cell stack refurbishment. Four testing stations will supplement existing global fuel cell and hydrogen production research and development capabilities. . . .
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”