3 fuel types, Diesel, Hydrogen, Electric - Mercedes

[ydnas7]

7.1 Vehicle Fuel Economy
'..Vehicle fuel economy is a primary parameter for these analyses because it has an inversely proportional effect on cost per mile as well as energy use..'

To get relevant comparative WTW energy use, Vehicle Fuel Economy must be correctly comparative. This is where hydrogen peer review repeatably fail because they pretend to to compare like vs like, but they don't.
Like vs like must be calibrated against real like vs like. such as Mercedes B class

consider 3 neighbours in Utopia

1st neighbour drives B Class diesel 3.6 l/100km NEDC
2nd neighbour drive B Class hydrogen 0.97 l/100km NEDC
3rd neighbour drives B class Electric 16.6 kWh/100km NEDC

Using California H2 energy mix, the Hydrogen neighbour uses 2/3 more fossil fuel to travel the same distance as their diesel/electric neighbours.

Hydrogen fuel is a step towards greater fossil fuel dependency

 

[AndyH]

Hey ydnas - which of these vehicles will be the most useful in the post-oil world of 2040+?

 

[TonyWilliams]

Hey ydnas - which of these vehicles will be the most useful in the post-oil world of 2040+?

Wow, great question!!!

1) diesel - none economically available
2) hydrogen - no cheap natural gas to crack
3) electric - sub $100 per kWh batteries powered by clean, renewable sources like the sun, wind, waves, water, et al.


The correct answer is "3".

 

[AndyH]

The 'correct' answer is one that's possible. To help us survive on the planet, we should stress 'plausible' as well, I guess.

Musk's giga factory isn't even built yet and already Musk has oversold the production capacity. Maybe you guys can tell me who's going to make the batteries, how long it will take to build all the factories, and from which planet we'll source the copper and other raw materials we'll need.

 

[ydnas7]

Is this clear enough? Does it clearly explain how 100km in Mercedes Hydrogen Fuel Cell B Class represents the same energy use as 168km in a combined Mercedes EV + Mercedes Diesel?

 

[AndyH]

There are at least two major problems with the position outlined here. The first is the selection of arbitrary bounds, and the second is your assessment of the source of the problem.

You attempt to evaluate the energy required to prepare H2 and then to use it to turn wheels but you don't include the energy to make the other energy carriers.

And then, when deciding that one energy source is more or less 'efficient' than another, you ascribe to the liquid or gas what is better hung around the engineer's neck.

A fuel cell, a battery, and an ICE are capable of turning a wheel but they do it using different processes.

A BEV doesn't produce much usable heat, so that 'forces' the engineers to tap some (up to 20%!) of the energy in the battery that is better used to turn the wheels to condition the cabin, clear the windows, and do the other functions required of a TOTAL vehicle (not just the parts used to make the wheels go around).

An ICE isn't very efficient converting chemical energy to wheel rotation (20-40% give or take) but has plenty of spare heat that is used to perform other required tasks. One could convert some of the heat to electricity, then add a motor, battery, electronics, etc. to use that to support the ICE but the added mass counters the small "efficiency of converting chemical energy to wheel rotation" gains that might be made.

A fuel cell produces both electricity and heat natively. The electricity can be used in an electric drive system to turn the wheels at higher efficiency than an ICE (the ICE after more than 100 years of development and the PEM with much less development time). The heat is usable without conversion or loss to provide required climate control functions without significant drain on the electrical output. And...unlike BEV and ICE, some of the thermal energy can be converted to electricity and directly used in the drive system if desired.

Don't blame the energy carrier if engineers choose not to make the best use of the available energy. And don't disregard the energy required to produce an ENTIRE FUEL CYCLE, or that some transportation modes have more than 100 years of engineering behind them when defining the bounds for the problem. Doing so is likely to anger the gods of GIGO.

 

[ydnas7]

The graph clearly states

CA mandates, subsidized H2 must be 1/3 renewable ie 100km total is 67km fossil, 33km renewable electric.

this is a reflection of
California requires that publicly subsidized Hydrogen infrastructure must be 33% renewable.
typically that is 1/3 from electrolysis and 2/3 from fossils fuel reformation.
How does that compare to its equivalent in diesel and electricity?

Using like per like (Mercedes B Class) its possible to understand an objective comparison between 3 fuel types Diesel, Hydrogen and electricity. Because global and American H2 production is overwhelming fossil based, it a reasonable comparison to see compare how fossil derived H2 and fossil derived diesel compare. Furthermore its a reasonable comparison to see how renewable obtained H2 compared with renewable obtained electricity.

It neatly describes the scenario of 3 neighbours who drive the comparative but unrealistic NEDC cycle.
The neighbours who drives 100km in a H2 vehicle using California vehicle H2 blend mix uses as much upstream energy resources as his 2 other neighbours who combined drive 168km. (ie 2/3rds more)

Repeatably the H2 peer reviewed literature does not and cannot offer an objective comparison using the same vehicle (ie Mercedes B class diesel, H2 and electric) because the results demonstrate that the pursuit of Hydrogen leads to both lower efficiency and greater dependency on fossil fuels.

A more though analysis would be to result in Julian Cox type article, I've provided a simple graph, and explained the calculations. Perhaps if people who seek to understand 3 fuel types, Diesel, Hydrogen, Electric made their own graph, then that increase their clarity of the comparison. I made this graph for myself, to provide a visual for my own understanding, and then thought it was relevant for others on this forum.

There are 2 sources of H2, 96% of hydrogen is from a fossil feedstock, chemical reformation process, (perhaps with added steam). The other 4% of hydrogen is from electrolysis (from grid electricity).
H2 from renewable feedstock is so rare that Toyota just made a video that transported methane from California to Boston just to create an illusion.

real cars, real fuel, Mercedes B class

diesel

Hydrogen

electric

 

[AndyH]

... its possible to understand an objective comparison between 3 fuel types ...

You proved you're not interested in objective fuel comparison when you disregarded standardized testing by experts trained and skilled in conducting such comparisons in favour of a home-made 'chart' using 'data' provided by a single auto manufacturer's marketing team.

That's not science - that's religion. And it's certainly not 'objective'.

 

[TonyWilliams]

... its possible to understand an objective comparison between 3 fuel types ...

You proved you're not interested in objective fuel comparison when you disregarded standardized testing by experts trained and skilled in conducting such comparisons in favour of a home-made 'chart' using 'data' provided by a single auto manufacturer's marketing team.

That's not science - that's religion. And it's certainly not 'objective'.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"***

***quotation from the 1602 play Hamlet by William Shakespeare.

 

[AndyH]

... its possible to understand an objective comparison between 3 fuel types ...

You proved you're not interested in objective fuel comparison when you disregarded standardized testing by experts trained and skilled in conducting such comparisons in favour of a home-made 'chart' using 'data' provided by a single auto manufacturer's marketing team.

That's not science - that's religion. And it's certainly not 'objective'.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"***

***quotation from the 1602 play Hamlet by William Shakespeare.

Yes, I agree that you and ydnas do protetheth in excess from time to time (though I have no reason to believe either of you is a lady so wouldn't suggest that, even obliquely)...

Look gents - anyone that gives the H2 thread even a cursory look understands that not a single post or paper suggests that a fuel cell's electrical efficiency is higher than the raw electrical efficiency of a fresh lithium-ion cell. In addition, there's no campaign on this forum (or elsewhere that I've yet seen) that is trying to suggest that to be the case. So - the suggestion that there's some attempt to mask the truth or rework the laws of physics to favor hydrogen is a delusion.

By the same token, however, we would be wise to understand that today's BEV is not perfect, and cannot replace fossil fueled transport yet.

I keep hoping - apparently in vain - that a few folks will zoom-out to look at a wider section of the problem and will have their own "ah ha!" moment. From time to time I can hear faint clicking from someone zooming out - then the BAM as they slam against the "Musk Fanboi Wall" or the "Don't Crush Me" historics or the "If It Works for my Bay-Area Commute It'll Work Just As Well in Fargo" cognitive dissonance or the "BEV is all we need because we have an infinite amount of money and raw materials and production capacity and therefore in about 15 years we'll even have cross-country trains powered with battery packs" b..er..insanity.

Beware of propaganda and delusions...they lead to mission failure every time...

 

[RegGuheert]

Look gents - anyone that gives the H2 thread even a cursory look understands that not a single post or paper suggests that a fuel cell's electrical efficiency is higher than the raw electrical efficiency of a fresh lithium-ion cell. In addition, there's no campaign on this forum (or elsewhere that I've yet seen) that is trying to suggest that to be the case. So - the suggestion that there's some attempt to mask the truth or rework the laws of physics to favor hydrogen is a delusion.

That's good to hear!

By the same token, however, we would be wise to understand that today's BEV is not perfect, and cannot replace fossil fueled transport yet.

Agreed.

"BEV is all we need because we have an infinite amount of money and raw materials and production capacity and therefore in about 15 years we'll even have cross-country trains powered with battery packs"

In the same light as what you wrote above: "anyone that gives the H2 thread even a cursory look understands that not a single post or paper suggests" that there is no role for H2 in our future world. From the very beginning of that thread there has been rather universal agreement that currently the needs of fleets would be better-served by fuel cells than by BEVs.

More generally, I have come to the following conclusions:
- For short-term storage needs (~<2 weeks) Li-ion batteries offer the best long-term solution for those applications whose needs can be met by that solution. In the applications which battery-based solutions can address, H2 suffers from BOTH lower resource efficiency AND lower energy efficiency (the latter of which drives up resource consumption elsewhere in the area of generation).
- H2 has the potential to replace fossil fuels for transportation applications which are not properly addressed by BEVs, but due to the benefits of BEVs and the ongoing improvements in battery technology, this almost-certainly will be an ever-shrinking set of applications.
- Li-ion batteries have the main drawback of being very resource-intensive when energy must be stored long-term. For applications such as handling the seasonal differences between renewable generation and consumption, H2 has the potential to win out over batteries since the storage portion is relatively inexpensive and separable portion of the overall process. This may allow it to overcome the major shortcomings of H2: low efficiency.

The point is that overall efficiency (including BOTH resource AND energy efficiency) as well as suitability-for-purpose must be considered in these comparisons between batteries and H2. Low efficiency necessarily means higher resource consumption elsewhere. At the end of the day, any successful movement to renewable energy will mean the selection of whatever technology consumes the fewest resources for each given purpose.

 

[ydnas7]

...
- H2 has the potential to replace fossil fuels for transportation applications which are not properly addressed by BEVs, but due to the benefits of BEVs and the ongoing improvements in battery technology, this almost-certainly will be an ever-shrinking set of applications....... At the end of the day, any successful movement to renewable energy will mean the selection of whatever technology consumes the fewest resources for each given purpose.

I'll try to keep this specific to Mercedes B - Diesel, Hydrogen, Electric
Hydrogen based transportation consumes slightly more energy resources per mile than its Diesel equivalent.
33% renewable Hydrogen based transportation consumes more than 2/3s more energy resources than its combined Electric/Diesel equivalent.

Any acceptance of automotive electrolysis Hydrogen must start with the acceptance of a roundcycle 3:1 energy loss. 3 units of energy in give 1 unit of energy out. EVs with 1/3 of their energy efficiency would be DOA

http://www.mbusa.com/vcm/MB/DigitalAssets/pdfmb/fcell/248x168_b-klasse_f-cell_NP11_EN_DS_low2.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Fuel consumption (NEDC) 0.97 kg H2 /100 km

 

[AndyH]

Care to cite a source for the data used to create this pretty picture?

As to the myth of a quantum leap in battery tech - check out the periodic table. Lithium is already the most reactive metal. Only hydrogen is more easily used as an energy carrier.

Batteries absolutely do have a sweet spot for which they're the best tech. Expanding out from there, there's a fairly wide window where they perform well enough to do the job, provided the operator accepts some small compromises.*** Continuing to expand, however, and we find that there are plenty of transportation applications where no battery is up to the task - where it's painfully obvious that even if we disregard raw materials, production capacity, and battery price that the simple task of adding enough battery to provide the needed range and performance makes the vehicle incapable of performing it's primary function - carrying a load. For applications like this we need something better than a battery - regardless of where one chooses to artificially draw an 'efficiency' box.

But...again...this has been covered in gory detail in the real hydrogen thread - with sources cited and all assumptions defined.

***I have two BEVs. One is down right now because yet another cell has failed in the 4kWh battery (heat related). So far I've replaced four cells - including the one that exploded. In spite of the efficiency of a single lithium cell, or the slightly lower efficiency of a complete battery pack with BMS, and in spite of cooler weather this year thanks to El Nino, it's still in the high 90s many days and my car's efficiency - expressed in terms of range the installed battery can provide - drops by more than 20% when the air conditioner is used. While folks in parts of CA and St Paul can enjoy an early summer drive without AC, things are not the same everywhere.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/11/man-dies-trapped-in-car_n_7561456.html

A 72-year-old Texas man died alongside his dog on Monday after he reportedly became trapped in his car. [a 2007 Chevy Corvette with electric door locks and latches]
...
Police believe a battery cable came loose, disabling the car's electric locks and other systems and leaving Rogers unable to exit the vehicle, according to KBMT. Authorities believe Rogers struggled to escape and he and the dog eventually succumbed to heat exhaustion.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Since you didn't name the car with all these issues, I'll guess it's not a common mass produced one like the LEAF or Tesla. Maybe a "Think"? Or, some now antiquated EV bike? Ford Ranger EV?

For the sake of disclosure, I consider any EV before the 2008 Tesla Roadster and 2010 Nissan LEAF and Mitsubishi iMiev to be an antique for the purposes of discussion here.

Gasoline, petrol, and even hydrogen vehicles all are affected by cold and heat. Obviously, less efficient vehicles like petroleum and hydrogen produce waste heat energy, and are somewhat less affected by cold than something like a battery which generates very little heat under normal use.

The EV car solution is somewhat straight forward. If an 80 mile summer car meets your requirements, and the same car with a winter 40 mile range does not, buy a 160 mile range car... with 80 mile winter range. Those cars will be here within three years (the 2012-2014 Toyota RAV4 EV is very nearly that car now).

Over 200 mile range cars already exist, obviously.

In the future, I can imagine a role for (maybe even hydrogen) a tiny amount of combustible fuel used to aid in battery and cabin heating. Another extremely simple solution, and it doesn't require 10,000 psi, a fuel cell, or anything but a very simple heat exchanger.

Isn't it amazing how the answers are right here?

 

[RegGuheert]

Care to cite a source for the data used to create this pretty picture?

That image is found on slide 9 of the presentation in the first link you provided in this post you made in the hydrogen fuel cell thread on November 27, 2013.

 

[AndyH]

Since you didn't name the car with all these issues, I'll guess it's not a common mass produced one like the LEAF or Tesla. Maybe a "Think"? Or, some now antiquated EV bike? Ford Ranger EV?

For the sake of disclosure, I consider any EV before the 2008 Tesla Roadster and 2010 Nissan LEAF and Mitsubishi iMiev to be an antique for the purposes of discussion here.

I suspect that guess is somewhat self-serving, yes? The car of which I speak is actually a 2015 vehicle using some of the best lithium cells on the current market. It's my car in my climate, both of which I have intimate knowledge of. Care to restate your response?

Gasoline, petrol, and even hydrogen vehicles all are affected by cold and heat. Obviously, less efficient vehicles like petroleum and hydrogen produce waste heat energy, and are somewhat less affected by cold than something like a battery which generates very little heat under normal use.

Two points here. First, your use of the word 'waste' is telling. Conventional 'wisdom' (the type of thinking that got us into the problems we're in) use the word 'waste' to send things they don't want to think about 'away'. People looking to use all inputs don't see 'waste' they see 'currently underused resource'. The fact remains that dollar for dollar, a ~300 mile range BEV has to trade range for cabin heat and a FCEV does not. Additionally, that BEV must also trade range for cabin cooling - and the FCEV can use the heat resource to cool the cabin. One longer-range vehicle has a range sweet-spot in parts of the world that don't get hot or cold but loses range when the seasons change and one has the same range regardless of the outside temperature.

The EV car solution is somewhat straight forward. If an 80 mile summer car meets your requirements, and the same car with a winter 40 mile range does not, buy a 160 mile range car... with 80 mile winter range. Those cars will be here within three years (the 2012-2014 Toyota RAV4 EV is very nearly that car now).

Sure - what you're saying is that today BEVs only work for short-range travel and that one has to be earning well more than $15/hour to have 80 miles of range in the winter (or summer!). So - is this about 'wealth hath its privileges' or is it about 'we have about 15 years to replace fossil fuel in transportation'?

Over 200 mile range cars already exist, obviously.

Yes they do..obviously. Also obviously, as GRA pointed out in another related thread, today one can gain access to a FCEV that has longer range than a BEV and no range penalty in the winter or summer for less money each month. Not in the future - today.

 

[AndyH]

Care to cite a source for the data used to create this pretty picture?

That image is found on slide 9 of the presentation in the first link you provided in this post you made in the hydrogen fuel cell thread on November 27, 2013.

Thanks Reg. I was hoping ydnas7 would reply in a way that showed he understood the context, and also understood that things have changed a fair bit since the info cut-off date for that document...

 

[RegGuheert]

Thanks Reg. I was hoping ydnas7 would reply in a way that showed he understood the context, and also understood that things have changed a fair bit since the info cut-off date for that document...

If you have any information to contradict what is shown in that chart, then provide it. Otherwise, your words are all bluster.

 

[AndyH]

Thanks Reg. I was hoping ydnas7 would reply in a way that showed he understood the context, and also understood that things have changed a fair bit since the info cut-off date for that document...

If you have any information to contradict what is shown in that chart, then provide it. Otherwise, your words are all bluster.

Bluster? I certainly agree that there's plenty of that in this thread! :lol:

There's no need to contradict the chart - the chart likely accurately reflects the state of the specific late 1990s/early 2000's tech alkaline electrolyzer. Since then, the efficiency of that specific company's high-pressure alkaline electrolyzer has improved and the generation pressure has reduced or eliminated the energy needed for compression. In addition, efficiency of PEM electrolyzers has increased as well, also shifting the pretty colors around. As it's already been fully documented in the H2 thread, I'll direct you there if you desire more.

 

[RegGuheert]

There's no need to contradict the chart - the chart likely accurately reflects the state of the specific late 1990s/early 2000's tech alkaline electrolyzer. Since then, the efficiency of that specific company's high-pressure alkaline electrolyzer has improved and the generation pressure has reduced or eliminated the energy needed for compression. In addition, efficiency of PEM electrolyzers has increased as well, also shifting the pretty colors around. As it's already been fully documented in the H2 thread, I'll direct you there if you desire more.

More bluster?

That chart was presented in May 2013 to reflect the state-of-the-art at that time. Likely not much has changed since then. If you have the hard data to contradict what is there, by all means, put it in this thread.