Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[Oilpan4]

Why hydrogen isn't a clear winner?
Fuel cells have been around since the 1960s and haven't really done anything in 60 years for the automotive industry.
Lithium tech only really hit most the automotive industry maybe 14 years ago and has done more to change the auto industry since then than fuel cells did in 60 years.

[GRA]

A very detailed look at hydrogen and where it Is, and isn’t a clear winner.

https://about.bnef.com/blog/liebreich-s ... 1LzOnWk67M

As you look at role of clean hydrogen in this future net-zero energy system, you should notice something striking. None of the compelling use cases for hydrogen are widely distributed. No massive demand for hydrogen filling stations, nor hydrogen boilers, no hydrogen-based heat in most industries. The overwhelming bulk of its use will be in the chemicals industry and the power system.

A good article, and I'm in general agreement with most of it. I do have some disagreement in a few places, e.g.:

However, as an energy storage medium, it has only a 50% round-trip efficiency – far worse than batteries. As a source of work, fuel cells, turbines and engines are only 60% efficient – far worse than electric motors – and far more complex.

True, but efficiency alone isn't enough, and he ignores capability differences, although he alludes to them here:

What this means is that hydrogen’s role in the final energy mix of a future net-zero emissions world will be to do things that cannot be done more simply, cheaply and efficiently by the direct use of clean electricity and batteries

Indeed. The efficiency of the typical car ICE is around 20%, with Toyota claiming the Atkinson cycle ICE in the current Prius to be a world leader at 40 or 41%, yet that hasn't stopped ICEs from dominating BEVs. H2/FC efficiency should be compared with ICEs and fossil fuels as well as batteries.

Re transport, he goes way over the top in the following:

There are three commercial hydrogen models on the market: the Toyota Mirai, the Hyundai Nexo and the Honda Clarity. They have no more range than comparable sized battery electric vehicles (BEVs).

Only true for the Mirai, which is the oldest of the three, and not true for the others.

They are no lighter. They have less luggage space (those pressurized hydrogen tanks).

Luggage space is true for the sedans, esp. the Clarity, but not the Nexo. And all three use the previous gen. of stack with about 3kW/l power density rather than the current gen which is about 4 kW/l. I suspect they're all lighter by a few hundred lb , but haven't checked.

They have half the acceleration and a lower top speed. And they have more moving parts, meaning higher maintenance costs. If none of that has not dissuaded you from buying one, there’s the price: up to 20% higher than an equivalent BEV; if you want a funny-looking two-seater for the same monthly lease cost as a Tesla 3, there’s always the Riversimple Rasa.

While the accel comment is currently true, that's a design decision. As for price, please compare the costs of BEVs with 366 or 380 miles of range.

When it comes to refueling, most BEV drivers do it at home or work, eliminating regular trips to the gas station. On the odd longer trip, rapid-chargers can add 200 miles of range – about as far as most people want to drive between bathroom breaks – in 20 minutes. Concerns about lack of on-street and motorway charging are like turn-of-the-millennium concerns about internet bandwidth: would video-on-demand ever work? Short answer, yes.

Here he's really losing his objectivity. Precisely how many models of BEV can add 200 miles of range in 20 minutes? "Most" people only want to drive 200 miles between stops? That's less than 3 hours at 70, 2.5 at 80. I guess that's why virtually every ICE in the market has over 300 miles of range. And if 200/20 is good, then 366-380/5 or even 312/5 is far better.

I guess the lack of local on-street and motorway charging in my area and on the trips I take (see the Bolt topic this week) are figments of my imagination, and that apartment dwellers have nothing to be concerned about. 'Eventually' the problem will be solved, eventually meaning multiple decades.

From a public policy perspective, the real killer for H2FC cars is their wind-to-wheel (or solar-to-wheel) inefficiency. Driving a small family car 100km, whether H2FC or BEV, uses 15kWh of motive energy at the wheels. For the BEV, taking into account losses on the grid and in the battery cycle and drive train, that translates into a need to generate 25kWh at the plant where the electricity is generated. The equivalent for the H2FC car, given losses in electrolysis, compression, transport, storage and reconversion of hydrogen, is at least 50kWh. Put simply, hydrogen cars are half as efficient as BEVs – and there is no reason in physics to think that will change.

Again, what's the well-to wheel efficiency of fossil-fueled ICEs? Again, where possible the best all-around mix given current capabilities is a PHFCEV.

It’s not just cars, either. The underlying physics and economics are no different when it comes to urban buses, delivery vans, commercial vehicles, service and industrial vehicles. In fact, pretty much anything that does not regularly drive over 300 miles without stopping is better as a BEV than as an H2FC.

You can quibble about the exact breakpoint range and I'd put it lower, but no argument that for the commercial BEV types above, they are, within their operating range if weight isn't an issue the way to go, assuming LCC are equal or better.

Surely, when it comes to longer distances, hydrogen finally comes into its own? . . . .

Not necessarily, says Auke Hoekstra, a researcher at Eindhoven Technical University. First, he found that 90% of 40-ton trucks entering and leaving the Port of Rotterdam drive less than 750km per day. After optimizing the truck’s drag, that means a 1MWh battery – weighing 6 tons based on today’s technology, but on track to decrease to 3 or 4 tons within the decade. What he also found was that replacing the internal combustion drive train with electric motors would save up to 3 tons, meaning that in terms of payload, between BEVs and traditional trucks, it’s almost a wash. As for fueling, as long as trucks have drivers, they need to stop for breaks – 45 minutes per 4.5 hours in the EU.

Golly, we only need to move U.S. ports to Rotterdam, shrink the of the U.S. and Canada to fit, and legislate and enforce European driver rest periods in these countries, then BEVs break even. Oh, plus another decade of likely but not certain battery improvements. If they do, great. You can read what he has to say about electrifying highways and see if you think that would be cheaper here, given the much greater size of the country.

[WetEV]

A good article, and I'm in general agreement with most of it. I do have some disagreement in a few places, e.g.:

However, as an energy storage medium, it has only a 50% round-trip efficiency – far worse than batteries. As a source of work, fuel cells, turbines and engines are only 60% efficient – far worse than electric motors – and far more complex.

True, but efficiency alone isn't enough, and he ignores capability differences, although he alludes to them here:

What this means is that hydrogen’s role in the final energy mix of a future net-zero emissions world will be to do things that cannot be done more simply, cheaply and efficiently by the direct use of clean electricity and batteries

Indeed. The efficiency of the typical car ICE is around 20%, with Toyota claiming the Atkinson cycle ICE in the current Prius to be a world leader at 40 or 41%, yet that hasn't stopped ICEs from dominating BEVs. H2/FC efficiency should be compared with ICEs and fossil fuels as well as batteries.

There is also the cost of infrastructure. Hydrogen fueling stations are expensive, far more expensive than DCQCs, which are more expensive than liquid fuel pumps, and L1/L2 at home is probably the cheapest.

So consider this as an equilibrium problem:

If all vehicles were hydrogen, other than the higher cost, things would pretty much work. Oh, and rural areas wouldn't have enough fueling stations, as the expense for a rarely used station just wouldn't make sense. But OK for a city guy like you going to a mountain, as you would have the range, but not as good as liquid fuels. Total cost would be higher than alternatives, but with the network in place, hydrogen would be locked in.

If all vehicles were BEVs, again, things would mostly work. Sure, long distance trucking would be somewhat slower due to recharging stops. Sure, some remote areas would be harder to get into than with liquid fuels.

Currently all vehicles are liquid fueled powered, so we can see how that works. And doesn't. Perhaps a future option would be hydrogen => liquid fuel, which aircraft manufactures are working on already. Take carbon from the air (CO2), add hydrogen and produce methanol or perhaps something else. Now either burn it or use it in a fuel cell.

Perhaps the answer is all of the above. Hydrogen for long distance trucking and a few cars, limited to major roads to keep the infrastructure cost down. BEVS for almost everything else. A few cars and trucks for rural and remote use burning synthetic liquid fuels.

[GRA]

<Snip>

There is also the cost of infrastructure. Hydrogen fueling stations are expensive, far more expensive than DCQCs, which are more expensive than liquid fuel pumps, and L1/L2 at home is probably the cheapest.

<Snip>

We're really starting to see economy of scale effects kick in with H2 stations. Improved tech undoubtedly plays a part as well. IIRR, the first round of CA grants averaged about $2.2 million per station, but it was at least $1.7 mil. Those stations had a typical capacity of 180 kg. and 1 dispenser. The just previous round of grants required 300? kg. and I think also 2 dispensers, but the awardees, mainly Shell and First Element both went big. The stations Shell has/is building have 513 kg. capacity and 2 dispensers. First Element went even further, and has 16 stations under development with 1,200 kg. capacity. The first is already open in Fountain Valley with four dispensers, and I imagine most if not all of their others will have the same. Grant size per station came down considerably despite the larger capacity and # of dispensers, and as a result cost per vehicle fueled dropped even more. Then this award was announced last month for the current round of grants:

On 4 September 2020, the California Energy Commission (CEC) posted a Notice of Proposed Award outlining subsidies to support hydrogen refueling infrastructure in California. Equilon Enterprises LLC (d/b/a Shell Oil Products US), hereafter referred to as Shell Hydrogen, participated as an applicant in the related Grant Funding Opportunity (GFO) and was awarded $40.8 million, subject to formal approval at a future CEC Business Meeting. (Earlier post.)

If successful, Shell Hydrogen will install hydrogen refueling equipment at 48 existing Shell retail stations, upgrade two current Shell Hydrogen stations and add light-duty fueling dispensers and positions at one existing Shell Hydrogen heavy-duty truck station.

(https://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic. ... ll#p590376)


That's $0.8 mil./station. The more the oil majors get involved the lower the cost, because they've already got the land and the business model.

Of course, there's still a ways to go until they can be self-sufficient, but then the same is true for QCs; they aren't profitable on their own yet either. One of the clauses of AB8 is that the state identify and monitor progress on the path to self-sufficiency for H2 stations.

As I've said before, it's the cost of H2 that will determine success or failure, not the cost of the infrastructure or the vehicles, which are both significantly improving due to technical improvements but especially economies of scale effects.

[GRA]

GCC:

MAN presents hydrogen roadmap; use in fuel cells and combustion engines

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2020/1 ... 0-man.html

. . . For public transport and distribution applications, the decision seems to have been made: battery electric vehicles are the means of choice. Accordingly, MAN Truck & Bus already offers series production of the MAN Lion’s City E and eTGE as well as the eTGM electric distribution truck. The all-electric truck of the new truck generation will hit the road from 2023.

Apart from the rapid development of battery technology, hydrogen is a good complementary option as an alternative fuel for long-distance transport. MAN plans to build prototype vehicles as early as next year in line with the currently ongoing development projects. MAN is testing both the use of a fuel cell and an H2 combustion engine.

When in use, fuel cells do not cause any climate-damaging emissions, as they only emit water vapor. In addition, thanks to the on-board power generation, their range of approximately 800 km is large enough for long-distance truck transport with a high payload.

The hydrogen combustion engine, on the other hand, offers a more readily available and robust solution thanks to the well-known basic technology and could thus serve as a bridging technology.

Practical trials in cooperation with selected customers are planned for 2023/24. The aim is to test the entire hydrogen ecosystem in transport logistics. As part of a so-called Bavarian fleet, MAN would like to test hydrogen for use in long-distance road freight transport in a consortium project together with Bavarian infrastructure operators and freight forwarding partners. Initial talks on this are already underway with the Bavarian state government. Cooperation with universities is also planned. . . .

[WetEV]

Yet I agree with his point. BEVs are not yet for everyone, and may never be. Very remote areas are unlikely to be covered by DCQC stations, the cost is just too high. Range of 1,200 miles isn't likely. Much less to match the crazy neighbor's pickup with a transcontinental range.
So something else, with low and low tech infrastructure cost, is needed. Short term gasoline, longer term perhaps biofuels or synfuels.

[Removed statement I misattributed to WetEV rather than SageBrush]

Re your last point , while the infrastructure costs are still somewhat high, FCEVs provide the same capability as ICEs now (given the infrastructure, which thanks to their longer real-world range can be less dense and likely more reliable than the necessary QC network), and PHFCEVs provide a full ZEV replacement for PHEVs. Barring some major scientific breakthrough, biofuels are unlikely to be able to meet demand beyond critical aviation requirements, as we all have to eat too.

Hydrogen infrastructure will never be anything close to as low cost as liquid fuels. Want a remote fueling station?



https://www.walmart.com/ip/U-S-Spec-Mil ... 5fac6fb9f6

[Oilpan4]

Compressed natural gas makes way more sense than hydrogen.

[GRA]

Yet I agree with his point. BEVs are not yet for everyone, and may never be. Very remote areas are unlikely to be covered by DCQC stations, the cost is just too high. Range of 1,200 miles isn't likely. Much less to match the crazy neighbor's pickup with a transcontinental range.
So something else, with low and low tech infrastructure cost, is needed. Short term gasoline, longer term perhaps biofuels or synfuels.

[Removed statement I misattributed to WetEV rather than SageBrush]

Re your last point , while the infrastructure costs are still somewhat high, FCEVs provide the same capability as ICEs now (given the infrastructure, which thanks to their longer real-world range can be less dense and likely more reliable than the necessary QC network), and PHFCEVs provide a full ZEV replacement for PHEVs. Barring some major scientific breakthrough, biofuels are unlikely to be able to meet demand beyond critical aviation requirements, as we all have to eat too.

Hydrogen infrastructure will never be anything close to as low cost as liquid fuels. Want a remote fueling station?



https://www.walmart.com/ip/U-S-Spec-Mil ... 5fac6fb9f6

Sure, it's not as portable and likely not as low cost (depends on whether it uses excess energy that would otherwise be wasted), although 1st Element switched to LH2 for delivery to cut down on the number of tanker trips/day. That obviously adds some energy cost, but less than extra truck trips.

OTOH, if you've got a source of water and electricity (PV/Wind/Hydro) you can make it on site and store it, which is ideal for remoter sites that see big surges on the weekends and next to no use during the week. The question is whether that or battery storage is cheaper.

As the scale of storage required increases the costs tilt more in favor of H2. It remains to be seen whether the costs will be comparable at some point, but then my argument has always been that H2 only has to compete with liquid fossil fuels for the jobs that batteries are poorly suited at least for now, such as road trips, aviation etc.

[GRA]

GCC:

HHI, Hyundai Glovis, Liberian Registry and KR develop 20,000 m3 liquefied hydrogen carrier

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2020/1 ... 3-hhi.html

Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI) Group, Hyundai Glovis, the Liberian Registry, the Korean Register and their partners have successfully developed the world’s first Large Size and commercially viable liquified hydrogen carrier.

HHI Group’s Korea Shipbuilding & Offshore Engineering (KSOE) and Hyundai Mipo Dockyard (HMD) have received the necessary Approval in Principle (AIP) for a 20,000 m3 class liquefied hydrogen carrier from the Liberian Registry as flag State and Korean Register as Class Society. This ship design is the world’s first large size liquefied hydrogen carrier.

The key elements of this joint industry project (JIP) are the KSOE-developed liquefied hydrogen cargo treatment system and a hydrogen boil-off gas (BOG) treatment system using fuel cells. HMD advanced the basic design of the ship. Hyundai Glovis and G-Marine Service analyzed the economics and safety of liquefied hydrogen during storage and transportation. . . .

This ship design is characterized by the use of a double-structured vacuum insulated tank to improve insulation and minimize hydrogen BOG generated during operation. In addition, by adopting an electric propulsion system, hydrogen BOG can be used as fuel for fuel cells in the future.

In order to transport a large amount of hydrogen by ship, a liquefaction process that reduces the volume to 1/800 and increases stability is essential. Since hydrogen liquefies at a cryogenic temperature of -253°C, which is lower than LNG that liquefies at -163°C, a liquefied hydrogen carrier needs advanced cryogenic technology to stably preserve it.

[WetEV]

Moved from https://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic. ... 20#p592530

Re subsidies, without them, perks like SO HOV stickers, free parking and no tills, and government mandates or ZEV zones, BEV sales would similarly dry up. All AFV sales remain dependent on one or more of the above, except those sold to people for whom transportation value for the dollar is of little or no concern.

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?

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.

trips, which constitute 90-95% of my usage.

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



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 collosal 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.

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.

So back to PHEVs. They make sense if you have long trips beyond easy BEV infrastructure AND have lots of short trips in battery range. Your four yearly trips to Sleeping Buffalo, Montana will be just as easy as if you had an ICE, and you daily trips will be just as nice as if you had a BEV.

A BEV would be better if you have lots of short trips and few trips beyond range into places with reasonable BEV infrastructure.

Hydrogen might make sense for long distance trucking.

The cheapest way of getting there is likely walking, bicycle or bus.

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.