Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote: GRA wrote:
That's a HUGELY flawed assumption you've made there. Compressed H2 and [high pressure] CNG death totals are only "rare", because they aren't as widely deployed as gasoline. You've taken the total death toll of a low-utilization fuel and compared it with a high-utilization fuel and have incorrectly drawn safety comparisons off of that. Increasing the deployment frequency will have a corresponding increase in death toll.
Why do you think I arbitrarily boosted the total to 100k, a number that's an order of magnitude higher than the total that's occurred with CNG and H2 for over a century
? But let's put that up against the number of car fires every year in the U.S. involving gas and diesel, which is over 200k (number of deaths is far less). That sort of risk is judged acceptable now, so unless compressed H2 proves to be more dangerous it will be too - after all, no one died or was even injured in Diamond Bar, so it's not as if it's guaranteed that hydrogen leaks will prove any more dangerous than admittedly dangerous fossil-fuel fires. Unlike the liquid fuels, H2 will rise instead of pool and will be quickly dispersed below flammable or explosive concentrations. We simply don't have adequate numbers of deployed FCEVs yet, but as of now FCEVs aren't bursting into flame at the slightest provocation, so we'll just have to wait and see.
Of course, if they can develop and commercialize adsorption (metal hydride) or nanotube H2 storage at much lower pressures that would be preferable from a safety standpoint and maybe for cost and energy as well (depending on how expensive such storage is, and the currently much greater weight about 60 lb. of material per lb. of H2 stored, that has to be hauled around), but there's no guarantee that will happen any more than there's a guarantee that H2 and FCEV prices will be brought down enough to be profitable.
Firstly, considering that CNG & compressed H2 isn't even 0.1% of ICE vehicle deployment, your order of magnitude increase might still be 100x's too low.
Actually, it's about 2% worldwide for CNG (world total of ground vehicles ca. 1.2 billion), with some countries well above that. See http://www.iangv.org/current-ngv-stats/
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:But more importantly, an arbitrary increase is statistically garbage. Switching to H2 does NOT solve the thousands of auto deaths due to DUI and other forms of distracted driving. You've been citing death statistics only and conflating the potential reduction of that as a benefit of H2, when it does NOT.
I've done nothing of the sort. What I have done is show the difference between rare but spectacular risks, and massive but diffuse ones, and pointed out that we should be worrying far more about the latter than the former.
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:In the same breadth, you've acknowledged that high-pressure systems are inherently MORE dangerous than low pressure ones. From that inherent increase of risk alone, one CAN CONCLUDE that there will be more explosive-decompression related deaths than there are now.
Good, we agree on that, we disagree that the increase is likely to be significant, or will be anywhere near the decrease in deaths due to air pollution.
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:I have made ZERO claims about the combustibility of H2 as one of the risk factors. I even pointed out how steam at 10,000 psi is equally dangerous.
IF a low pressure means of H2 becomes production-ready, then obviously my objections won't apply.
And I've never said that high pressure is less risky than low pressure - as you state, I've said just the opposite, and have long pointed out that low pressure H2 storage is the desired alternative, and that lots of entities are working on R&D in that area. What I have also said is that the level of additional risk of high-pressure H2 compared to currently available liquid fossil-fuel options is almost certainly minimal if not negative, and in any case orders of magnitude less than the everyday, non-rare and non-spectacular health risks from air and water pollution due to burning fossil fuels, especially but not limited to coal. You apparently disagree.
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:There will be more collateral damage in an H2 accidents (excluding car crashes) from things like bad pressure valves, CF tanks that weren't inspected, human error servicing the filling stations, human error seating the filling nozzles, etc. These are increases that are NOT present with current fueling tech.
And yet, it appears that much of the world has adopted CNG vehicles in a big way despite the risks, so why would H2 be any different? But you claim that I'm conflating risks, so let's talk about a real world weighing of rare but spectacular risks vs. massive but diffuse ones. We both seem to agree that coal is about as bad as it comes as far as fossil fuels. How do you feel about nuclear fission?
The latter's risks fall into the rare but spectacular category, while the former are massive but diffuse. The number of people who die every year from coal pollution (even ignoring annual coal miner deaths) is at least an order of magnitude higher than the total number of people who have died from radiation exposure from all nuclear accidents, and you could probably throw in all A and H bomb tests and more importantly the two wartime A-bombs and not add more than a couple of years to breakeven. After all, more people died in the March '45 Tokyo firebombing using conventional weapons than died in either the Hiroshima or Nagasaki bombings, and probably both combined depending on whose numbers you accept, so it's not as if the level of destruction was unheard of, only that it was new and spectacular. Obviously, mass use of A- or H-bombs would be a whole other matter.
Anyway, given the choice between these two energy sources for generating electricity, which would you choose? Or to bring things into the real world, do you believe that Germany's decision to phase out nukes while increasing the use of coal (especially brown coal) until they could increase their share of renewables and phase out the coal plants was a rational weighing of relative risks, or a decision based on worrying about rare but spectacular risks rather than massive but diffuse ones that are far more dangerous? Which option would you have recommended, and why?
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote: GRA wrote:
Then you haven't been paying attention. BYD already has long-range buses, port drayage tractors, AND short haul tractors ON the market NOW. Those markets have already been won by BEV. I only brought up Tesla and Nikola motors for long-haul trucking, as that's not set yet. Believe me, the benefits of H2 are miniscule compared to their risks.
I've been paying plenty of attention, and as noted in the AFV Truck thread, both Toyota: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.p ... 60#p508184
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.p ... 515861%20)
have FCEV trucks intended for for Port Drayage, and at least the Toyotas will be going into service at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the busiest container port complex in the U.S., this year; other ports are also looking at this. Ballard's also got a deal to have 500 FCEV straight trucks in P&D service in Shanghai this year: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.p ... 90#p519299
They're also testing overhead wires with pantographs mounted on top of the tractors along highways in and out of ports as well as BEVs, so there's little that's been 'won' yet - at the moment everyone's in dem/val, gathering cost and performance data. Same goes for buses: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.p ... 80#p518520
although we all know there's lots of BEV busses currently running around, with FCEV versions starting from way behind. The same thread also includes links to articles about FCEV trains and materials handling equipment.
There were 40,000 BEV trucks delivered in 2017 already: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/1812 ... na-battery
Terrific, and we both agree that for short range P&D/short range distribution in urban areas when tare weight isn't an issue, BEVs are the likely technology of choice (if they have the lowest TCO). But we're just starting to see competitive FCEVs in the same roles, and until we get long term operating and cost data we won't know just where the break will be given each type's operating advantages and disadvantages. Here's an example of such testing now getting underway in Germany for Mercedes BEV trucks: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.p ... 61#p519761
If the FCEVs can be used for a wider variety of jobs, then even if they cost more to operate on those jobs best suited for BEVs they may still be preferable, at least for smaller fleets.
This has happened in the past, when horses, BEV and ICE trucks were all used by single companies for delivery, from shortest to longest distance. They each had the lowest costs within their useful range, but unless the fleet was large enough it didn't pay to specialize, and ICEs replaced both of the other two. If you're UPS or a similar-sized company, then great, you can use the vehicle best suited for each job and it will be worth it to you to maintain two separate maintenance and parts pathways. If you're a furniture store with three to five trucks, it probably won't be, and you'll opt for the tech that gives you the greatest flexibility and capability, even if much of that is wasted much of the time.
That's exactly why most people own cars that can carry five or more people and travel hundreds of miles between refuelings, even though most of the time there's only one person in them (76% of U.S. commuters drive in SOV) and they travel less than 40 miles a day. That will be one of the major advantages of mobility services, that you can specialize your vehicle choice every day without having to own them, and thus not be hauling around a lot of vehicle all the time when you don't need it. Depending on how much extra people are willing to pay to ride by themselves, we may see a major shift to small single-person vehicles for commuting and errands, which will allow us to add lanes to existing road infrastructure simply by repainting lane lines with narrower spacing. Or maybe we'll see narrow 2-4 person commute vehicles with seats in tandem.