Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread
- Thread starter TomT
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
GRA
Well-known member
GCC:
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2020/09/20200922-airbus.html
Turbofan, turboprop, and BWB turbofan. LH2.
ABG:
https://www.autoblog.com/2020/09/21/china-hydrogen-vehicle-policies/
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2020/09/20200922-airbus.html
Turbofan, turboprop, and BWB turbofan. LH2.
ABG:
https://www.autoblog.com/2020/09/21/china-hydrogen-vehicle-policies/
GRA
Well-known member
GRA
Well-known member
GRA
Well-known member
GRA
Well-known member
A very detailed look at hydrogen and where it Is, and isn’t a clear winner.
https://about.bnef.com/blog/liebreich-separating-hype-from-hydrogen-part-two-the-demand-side/?fbclid=IwAR0ZkcxAcc9u9WFRc6TyUkh3qfU_VkfsP_z9bq5ptw3-KwhfZ1LzOnWk67M
https://about.bnef.com/blog/liebreich-separating-hype-from-hydrogen-part-two-the-demand-side/?fbclid=IwAR0ZkcxAcc9u9WFRc6TyUkh3qfU_VkfsP_z9bq5ptw3-KwhfZ1LzOnWk67M
Thanks -- excellent article. This line made me chuckle even though I know it to be trueZythryn said:
And by the way, I think Frank stole the idea from Einstein. The latter said (paraphrased) 'the only 2 substances known that are infinite in quantity are the universe and stupidity. And I'm not positive about the universe.'
WetEV
Well-known member
SageBrush said:
Probably not a valid Einstein quote.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/04/universe-einstein/
https://freakonomics.com/2009/05/14/quotes-uncovered-the-universe-and-stupidity/
Doesn't mean it's not a valid statement, but no good evidence that Albert Einstein said this.
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.
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
Well-known member
Zythryn said:
A good article, and I'm in general agreement with most of it. I do have some disagreement in a few places, e.g.:
True, but efficiency alone isn't enough, and he ignores capability differences, although he alludes to them here:
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:
Only true for the Mirai, which is the oldest of the three, and not true for the others.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Well-known member
GRA said:
GRA
Well-known member
WetEV said:
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:
(https://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=21315&p=590376&hilit=Shell#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
Well-known member
WetEV
Well-known member
GRA said:
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-Military-Style-Jerry-Fuel-Can-20L-OD-Green/520158763?wmlspartner=wmtlabs&adid=22222222222125029102&wmlspartner=wmtlabs&wl0=e&wl1=s&wl2=c&wl3=74491983775267&wl4=pla-4578091553900391&wl5=&wl6=&wl7=&%20wl10=Walmart&wl12=520158763_10000001468&wl14=jerry%20can&veh=sem&msclkid=217f4eced43a1e079698115fac6fb9f6
GRA
Well-known member
WetEV said:GRA said:
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-Military-Style-Jerry-Fuel-Can-20L-OD-Green/520158763?wmlspartner=wmtlabs&adid=22222222222125029102&wmlspartner=wmtlabs&wl0=e&wl1=s&wl2=c&wl3=74491983775267&wl4=pla-4578091553900391&wl5=&wl6=&wl7=&%20wl10=Walmart&wl12=520158763_10000001468&wl14=jerry%20can&veh=sem&msclkid=217f4eced43a1e079698115fac6fb9f6
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
Well-known member
WetEV
Well-known member
Moved from https://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=30446&start=120#p592530
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?
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_summary_travel_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.
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.
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.
GRA said:
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?
GRA said:
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_summary_travel_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.
GRA said:WetEV said:GRA said:
Almost the reverse of the average American usage. 85% trip miles under 100 miles.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/pubs/pl08021/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.
GRA said:
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.
GRA
Well-known member
WetEV said:
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 said:
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 said:GRA said:WetEV said:Almost the reverse of the average American usage. 85% trip miles under 100 miles.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/pubs/pl08021/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 said:
I know that's your opinion, and we'll see. I'm cool with either.
WetEV said:
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.
Similar threads
