Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[AndyH]

Hydrogen fire / explosion danger

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/2048-Hydrogen-vs-Battery/page138?p=727981&viewfull=1#post727981" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sorry Tony - no. This was already covered in the industry safety item I linked. Hydrogen cannot burn when pressurized. Hydrogen cannot burn when at atmospheric pressure without oxygen. Once hydrogen is released from a tank it will mix and at the right combination will burn - but since it's not contained it will not explode. Once the H2 is released from containment, it's heading for the sky at 45 MPH.

Yes, a H2 and oxygen mixture can explode if contained - and I've linked examples of a damaged 2KPSI bottle (no fire), a truck full of H2 tanks that completely burned out with no explosion, and frankly the Hindenburg that also vented the H2. There was an explosion near an airport - I recall seeing a video here - but have not yet found it in the thread. And again - that made a loud 'thud' and a vertical tongue of flame and it was all over in seconds with no crater, no shrapnel, no injury.

That is not going to happen with an H2 car because the tanks are on the outside of the vehicle with the rest of the systems - no containment and thus no explosion. A fireball can form if a car is damaged and gas vents into the cabin, but as the systems are designed to shut down in a crash, and as there are multiple layers of H2 sensors inside and outside that will also close valves, the chances of this happening are lower than being struck by lightning. We have a full set of static and crash test reports here along with a number of side-by-side comparisons between gasoline and H2 and CNG and H2. H2 wins.

Industry's been using H2 since the 1800s. Most engine oil sold in the US is hydrocracked - it's treated in pressure vessels at high temperatures in very high H2 concentrations. When's the last time you heard of a hydrogen explosion at a refinery?

Much ado about nothing man.

 

[AndyH]

Hesitant as I may be to dip my fingertips back in here ;-), I'm guessing that some of Professor Dahn's publications are peer-reviewed, even if that particular lecture wasn't!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxP0Cu00sZs

And Youtube started doing peer review when, again? Sorry, I missed that...

Thanks. I'll keep watching. So far I'm underwhelmed and think ydnas sent me on a snipe hunt.

"for a perfect cell"...yeah, ok...good luck with that. :lol:

 

[smkettner]

When's the last time you heard of a hydrogen explosion at a refinery?

I don't think the direct cause always makes the paper.

http://www.csb.gov/-csb-releases-an...o-corrosion-that-went-uninspected-for-years-/

 

[GRA]

The advantages of FCVs that epirali is talking about for the mass market should be obvious, but just to list why FCVs make more sense for me at the moment:


1. I rent, do not live in a detached, single family home and have no practical way to charge at home, just like 44% of U.S. households and the vast majority of the world's urban population; providing charging at all multi-unit housing, on-street spaces and public parking lots will take many decades.

2. The nearest public chargers are 0.4 miles from me, and cost considerably more than gas on a $/mile basis.

3. I am a single-car household, so one car needs to be able to handle all of my car needs, both local and trips (the majority of my car usage).

4. I take long trips in winter, so need heat/defrost without losing range.

5. I am unwilling to sit around waiting 1/2 hour or more every 150 miles or so for longer trips; one such charge is my limit, but much prefer 10 minutes or less and 300 miles or more of freeway range.

6. If I move or change jobs, with centrally-located, universally-accessible rapid-fueling H2 stations I don't have to limit my housing/work options to only those that provide charging, currently a very limited number.

7. An FCV is likely to provide me with about the same utility range for a decade or more, which is unlikely to be the case with BEVs at the moment.

8. Because of #7 above, the car is more likely to retain value as a used car.

9. Given my trip/temperature distance needs, a car like the Mirai would cost me $57,500 - $5,000 state rebate = $52,500 (I'm assuming that the federal $8k credit won't be reinstated), with free fuel for 3 years. The only currently available BEV with a comparable range (which I need), a Tesla S85, starts at $80k - $10k = $70k, or $17,500 more. Naturally, the Tesla is a much nicer, higher performance car, but if I can't afford it that's of no importance whatsoever. The Mirai's 0-60 time is a bit faster than my current car, which has been adequate for my needs.

10. There will be an H2 station in my city about 1.7 miles from me, and while the initial fueling network will be limited, it will allow me to get to many of the places I like to go, with minimal need to spend time twiddling my thumbs being forced to repeatedly refuel owing to limited range.

11. Free fuel is nice for three years, while they get the price down to parity or less than gas. Naturally, free fuel isn't sustainable over the long term.

12. Energy efficiency is nice, but for me and most people, capability is more important. If energy efficiency were most people's sole or even primary transportation concern, they'd all be riding bicycles rather than using 3-8,000 lb. vehicles (regardless of how powered) to haul them to and from work.

As it happens, I consider the Mirai still too expensive for a car (even though Toyota is undoubtedly subsidizing each one for tens of thousands), so will wait for the next gen. I'm not a partisan of any technology, and will happily use whichever one provides me the capabilities I need using a fossil-fuel free (or at least decreasing) energy-source at a price I can afford. I imagine that's the attitude of the mainstream consumer, even if I don't much resemble one.

 

[RegGuheert]

Thanks. I'll keep watching. So far I'm underwhelmed and think ydnas sent me on a snipe hunt.

If you can get past the BORING, that is one of the best presentations on Li-ion battery work I have ever seen.

Add five chemicals to the electrolyte, increase cycle life by 20X!

 

[AndyH]

When's the last time you heard of a hydrogen explosion at a refinery?

I don't think the direct cause always makes the paper.

http://www.csb.gov/-csb-releases-an...o-corrosion-that-went-uninspected-for-years-/

Thank you! I found a building explosion in CA via Google where some idiot...er..folks had high pressure tanks of H2 and O2. The fire department blew all the tanks because they were deemed too dangerous to move. We've got the hydrogen explosions from Fukushima as well.

Nearly every quart of motor oil sold in the USA has been hydrocracked. Many cooking oils are hydrogenated as well. People are working with high pressure H2 in high-heat environments 24/7 and have been for more than 100 years. I'm much more concerned about the nuke plants 200 miles away than the refinery in downtown San Antonio, but that's just me...

 

[RegGuheert]

Fair enough, Guy.

Just a couple of nits:

4. I take long trips in winter, so need heat/defrost without losing range.

While I understand exactly where you are coming from, I will point out that this is equivalent to saying "I don't want my range to increase in the summertime."

Case-in-point: Airlines have been purchasing ever-more-efficient airplanes from Airbus and Boeing even though it means the range of those new planes are becoming more and more affected by the environment in which they operate.

12. Energy efficiency is nice, but for me and most people, capability is more important.

Energy efficiency is a nice-to-have when you can easily pump fuel out of the ground or there are only a few people wasting it. When you need to produce 2X as much energy using renewable techniques on a worldwide scale, it becomes a must-have. This point will become abundantly clear as we move forward with this transition.

 

[DaveEV]

MODERATORS NOTE:

Moved all the general hydrogen fuel cell related discussion in the Toyota Mirai thread here.

Let's keep the Mirai specific discussion there and the hydrogen fuel cell general discussion here.

 

[epirali]

Ok then what the heck is this if its not a chemical reaction:

Overall reaction on a Li-ion cell:
C + LiCoO2 <-> LiC6 + Li0.5CoO2
At the cathode:
LiCoO2 – Li+ – e- <-> Li0.5CoO2 -> 143 mAh/g
At the anode:
6C + Li+ + e- <-> LiC6 -> 372 mAh/g

And LiIon batteries suffer from aging effects, losing capacity and requiring replacement. And considering they are pretty environmentally damaging to make/dispose this is a weak point. I personally will trade the efficiency loss in hydrogen to the fact that it is a near infinite chemical cycle.

Please respond to this point.

>Epirali
I agree it is a chemical reaction in the strict sense of the word.

>RegGuheert
I agree it is a not chemical reaction in the popular sense of the word because it does not result result in any changes to the placement of host atoms, unlike the chemical reaction in the vast majority of chemistry. Generally I would describe it as a reversible insertion of an atom/molecule into a structure that does not re-organise itself. Kinda like a sponge accepting water.

>Both
A li ion cell has extremely high Coulombic efficiency, near unity. A li ion battery has lower efficiency particularly due to battery balancing losses, but still far higher than conventional chemical batteries. Both Li ion and H2 fuel cells degrade due to impurities cancelling out useful atoms, the effect is analogous, impurities ie CO (from the air) block the Pt slowly rendering it useless just as impurities in the li ion electrolyte build up and decay the cathode/anode. In general Li ion has significantly better longevity than Pt based H2 cells because the batteries are not air breathing. The longevity of a li ion battery can be drastically improved due to experience with electrolyte production - Fortunately for H2 fuel cells, H2 purity also improves but unfortunately for H2 fuel cells, air does not.

The effect on H2 fuel cells is that the degradation reduces efficiency, which directly degrades its fuel economy with an equivalent range degradation. (since the H2 tank now holds less miles). This contrasts to EV's Li ion where the efficiency is not noticeably affected (but would still be measurable) but the range is reduced.

(nb edited a cell for a battery)

Thank you for the clarity. I guess one of the issues I am raising is this: I do not believe we are not facing a shortage of energy problem (we are good at destroying the environment in producing and burning fossil fuels, there is no gas shortage). What we are facing is an ADOPTION problem. In my opinion this involves both the cost of ownership and the CONVENIENCE. Yes I know this issue is way too important. And that convenience is a stupid reason to destroy the earth. But face it: human nature is just that stupid.

I don't care how much everyone says they enjoy "taking a break" to fill up their cars. That is said by people who have that time luxury, not everyone does.

I don't care how much everyone says "charging at home is the answer." That assumes you have a home/infrastructure that supports that and that you have an extra $500 to put into the EVSE.

If we can make no polluting cars as easy and cheap as gasoline cars then its a start.

 

[epirali]

I don't think we will fill up at home with hydrogen, I actually think it is better to replace the entire gasoline chain with hydrogen. Public fueling is much more economical/earth friendly that redundantly duplicating the same thing in each home that gets used maybe 5% of the time.

Good thing that the plugs are already built into homes, then.

Why would I want to go to a public station to fuel up? Doing it at home in my EV is so much nicer than wasting 10 minutes of my life at a gas station every week, especially when it's cold and below zero outside.

I do not disagree that 200 mile range EVs will be economical, I maintain we can not build enough infrastructure for public charging and there is not enough business in such a model to make it take off. And if we keep ignoring this we are just heading into a wall.

Again, the infrastructure is already there for local trips and commutes which is suitable for probably 90% of trips. Lvl1 charging is suitable for most people with big batteries. People often don't understand this, but you only need to charge slightly more than your average commute on a lvl1 charger with a larger battery pack. If you commute 40 miles a day (much more than the average American), a lvl1 charger will be more than enough to cover your needs. If you do a random 150 mile local trip, you still can get by just fine on that lvl1 charger because you just need to recharge slightly more than your normal daily commute. Lvl2 chargers are pretty cheap anyways, so for the few that need that option they can do that for $500 plus installation.

Taxes and government support is a non-issue. Tesla receives a big fat zero dollars from any government for their charging network, and theirs is by far the best out there and it will arguably be the only network that'll matter in the future with how other companies are handling EVs. Tesla is the one subsidizing free destination lvl2 chargers to business, not the government. I don't even comprehend how the two are comparable here--charging stations range from a few thousand dollars (destination lvl2s) to maybe $150k for a self-sustaining solar and battery supercharger with multiple stalls; hydrogen refueling stations start at 1.5 million a piece for handling a few dozen cars a day, and they have continued operating costs for things like fuel and maintenance whereas a supercharger requires no personnel to man.

Tesla paid back all of its government loans, with interest, and there's no more government money involved with Tesla. Consumers still get EV subsidies, but those are equally available for hydrogen and BEV, and they'll phase out far sooner than hydrogen credits will based on how the law works. Not to mention the fact that it's impossible for a private company to set up a hydrogen fuel network (like Tesla has done with the superchargers and destination charger network), nor is it profitable for private companies to take on the charge like gas stations work now--hydrogen FCV by far relies on the government for its continued existence while Tesla has long passed that point.

Actually here are a few problems with this off hand dismissal of the issue:

1) Tesla does depend on a "fat" discount for cars ($10K+ in most states) from the government. I think removal of this will impact sales, specially for Model 3

2) Again charging at home is not a universal solution. And solar charging, from what I have seen, requires rather large solar panels PER CAR and charge times are long.

3) I think you could get the energy industry to adopt hydrogen because it fits their existing business model. The barrier to entry and resistance from the infrastructure is much much lower. I strongly believe you have to align the economic forces with green energy if you want this to work outside of a small niche.

 

[epirali]

There is nothing common in "both" when one is charging from electricity to fill up, and the other fills up. And you yourself previously wrote:

"No, 97% is the round trip efficiency of the battery, including both charging and discharging."

Which is factually incorrect, it does NOT include charging. Care to correct yourself?

That statement is exactly correct, as I wrote it.

Come on, either admit you made an error in statement or in fact. This is silly. Including charging clearly does NOT reflect the number you say. Ultimately it is not a big deal, but creditability is important. Charging batteries is NOT 97% efficient.

 

[lorenfb]

Come on, either admit you made an error in statement or in fact.

Some on this forum do have that problem.

 

[AndyH]

I don't think we will fill up at home with hydrogen, I actually think it is better to replace the entire gasoline chain with hydrogen. Public fueling is much more economical/earth friendly that redundantly duplicating the same thing in each home that gets used maybe 5% of the time.

My electric oven is used maybe 2 hours per week... do I get rid of that too? More efficient to go to a centralized restaurant?
My EV draws power minimum 2 hrs per day.

Actually I could argue communal living, which actually is somewhat common in parts of europe, does just that. There are building with people owning their own apartments, but common kitchen/food areas where food preparation and eating is shared. It is much more efficient in terms of space and usage of equipment, and I am guessing has much higher quality appliances than in any individual typical house.

I mean if we are truly worried about carbon footprint and ecology why do we stop just at the electric car? Production of various things we barely use all use resources and require energy. Most homes have multiple televisions which are not constantly in use.

But this is getting off topic. Something like an EVSE makes sense to have at home, but a hydrogen fuel charger would not (like gasoline does not).

Ultimately I'm not certain it IS off topic as it works to the root cause of the problems we're speeding toward. While people with their reductionist focus level set on "ludicrously tiny" tie up a MySQL database deploying FUD about whether a chemical cell uses a chemical reaction, the younger folks that should be able to look to us for guidance are shaking their heads, writing us off as being the whack jobs we're demonstrating ourselves to be, and are building communities with shared resources - from kitchens to cars. They understand "efficiency" on a level that just may be a bridge too far for MNL.

http://www.ic.org/directory/ecovillages/

As I see it, BEVs are absolutely required if we're going to get past the looming peak-oil crisis. But turning it into a religion and demanding that the converts take up spears guarantees failure. Friendly fire isn't.

 

[mbender]

Come on, either admit you made an error in statement or in fact.

Some on this forum do have that problem.

"I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong." :lol:

 

[mbender]

Part of the problem is that many "facts" are disputable. To pick a 'random' example, is this a fact?

• 1) Tesla does depend on a "fat" discount for cars ($10K+ in most states) from the government.

It's declarative, and even sounds "authoritative", and thus factual, but it is really speculative. I personally don't think Tesla depends on the buyers' tax credits or rebates for sales at all, and that they'd still be production-constrained without them.

It's hard to assert (let alone prove) otherwise, and is "philosophically" impossible to know, so shouldn't be asserted as a fact!

My opinion/educated guess (and admittedly hope) is that sales of the Model 3 will similarly not depend on discounts, even if they might be 'affected' by them.


Now, sales of FCEVs and the broad scale installation of fueling stations? What are the facts regarding dependence on subsidies for them?! If $10K+ is considered "fat" for BEVs, FCEV subsidies might have be called morbidly obese!

 

[AndyH]

Hydrogen fire / explosion danger

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/2048-Hydrogen-vs-Battery/page138?p=727981&viewfull=1#post727981" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sorry Tony - no. This was already covered in the industry safety item I linked. Hydrogen cannot burn when pressurized. Hydrogen cannot burn when at atmospheric pressure without oxygen. Once hydrogen is released from a tank it will mix and at the right combination will burn - but since it's not contained it will not explode. Once the H2 is released from containment, it's heading for the sky at 45 MPH.

Yes, a H2 and oxygen mixture can explode if contained - and I've linked examples of a damaged 2KPSI bottle (no fire), a truck full of H2 tanks that completely burned out with no explosion, and frankly the Hindenburg that also vented the H2. There was an explosion near an airport - I recall seeing a video here - but have not yet found it in the thread. And again - that made a loud 'thud' and a vertical tongue of flame and it was all over in seconds with no crater, no shrapnel, no injury.

That is not going to happen with an H2 car because the tanks are on the outside of the vehicle with the rest of the systems - no containment and thus no explosion. A fireball can form if a car is damaged and gas vents into the cabin, but as the systems are designed to shut down in a crash, and as there are multiple layers of H2 sensors inside and outside that will also close valves, the chances of this happening are lower than being struck by lightning. We have a full set of static and crash test reports here along with a number of side-by-side comparisons between gasoline and H2 and CNG and H2. H2 wins.

Industry's been using H2 since the 1800s. Most engine oil sold in the US is hydrocracked - it's treated in pressure vessels at high temperatures in very high H2 concentrations. When's the last time you heard of a hydrogen explosion at a refinery?

Much ado about nothing man.

Found it, Tony. It wasn't from CA, it was Rochester, NY. Apparently a tanker transporting liquid H2 was transferring fuel to above-ground tanks. Apparently there were two injuries.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NSvWRZVBNE[/youtube]
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-hydro...but-fuel-cell-cars-have-a-good-safety-record/

By way of comparison, here's a bit of video from a gasoline station, also during transfer of fuel from a tanker.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m-VgWwfh0c[/youtube]

And a fuel station without a tanker.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsJLL21_Wl0[/youtube]

And from problems with various compressed gasses and fluids...
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VOwkvTh-Go[/youtube]

Batteries are much safer, aren't they?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pizFsY0yjss[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gisdMQbtJqk[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiRR3GbbR8k[/youtube]

Sorry...even a Tesla Model S
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCn1CufaCYc[/youtube]

 

[AndyH]

Now, sales of FCEVs and the broad scale installation of fueling stations? What are the facts regarding dependence on subsidies for them?! If $10K+ is considered "fat" for BEVs, FCEV subsidies might have be called morbidly obese!

If FCEV subsidies are 'morbidly obese' then I think we have to re-work the labels once we bring in the fossils.


http://priceofoil.org/2014/07/09/ca...fossil-fuel-production-subsidies-under-obama/

In 2013, the U.S. federal and state governments gave away $21.6 billion in subsidies for oil, gas, and coal exploration and production.

http://www.misi-net.com/publications/NEI-1011.pdf

Maybe we can borrow some R&D money from Coal? :roll: (And "Government Services" - seriously?!)

To hitch a ride on a thread meme, just think of how many DCQC we could install with 20% of the oil industry's 'tax policy' money? We could probably cover the country in chargers that most BEVs could actually use like CHAdeMo...or even some with bride of Frankenplug. It wouldn't work for me, of course, since smart doesn't fit the cars with DCQC...

 

[AndyH]

ydnas - care to show your sources for this 'near unity' lithium formerly-known-as-ION-until-MNL cell?!

Is there a physicist in the house please?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxP0Cu00sZs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks for the video. Thanks for the nudge, Reg, to finish watching it.

It didn't appear to confirm that these aren't actually chemical cells, or support the thoughts on near unity.

The ability to perform accelerated testing is fantastic and it looks like it's already allowing much, much more rapid cell development - great news!

 

[AndyH]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrTkT7OpcpI[/youtube]

 

[GRA]

Fair enough, Guy.

Just a couple of nits:

4. I take long trips in winter, so need heat/defrost without losing range.

While I understand exactly where you are coming from, I will point out that this is equivalent to saying "I don't want my range to increase in the summertime."

Beyond about 4 hours of freeway range, everything's gravy. Hell, my dad had a 25 gal. reserve tank added to the trunk of his '76 Peugeot diesel, which with the 15 gal. standard tank meant that we had a freeway range of 1200 miles. We could just about have done Oakland-Portland-Oakland non-stop when visiting relatives, but we always made at least one stop for food during the 640 mile leg each way.

My current car can go 5 or 6 hours at freeway speeds year round (furthest I ever went before the low fuel light [2.4 gal remaining] went on was 468 miles), but as long as I can go 4 hours with a reserve on the freeway year-round, my car range needs are satisfied.

Case-in-point: Airlines have been purchasing ever-more-efficient airplanes from Airbus and Boeing even though it means the range of those new planes are becoming more and more affected by the environment in which they operate.

12. Energy efficiency is nice, but for me and most people, capability is more important.

Energy efficiency is a nice-to-have when you can easily pump fuel out of the ground or there are only a few people wasting it. When you need to produce 2X as much energy using renewable techniques on a worldwide scale, it becomes a must-have. This point will become abundantly clear as we move forward with this transition.

Seeing as how H2 provides storage and dispatchability that we're going to need in any case to transition to variable renewables, much of the output of which is now being curtailed owing to lack of load or storage, I don't see this as a problem. Sure, AOTBE I'll opt for the most energy-efficient solution, but at the moment, and for some time to come, AOT aren't equal.

The average consumer is non-ideological, and all they care about in an AFV is that it gives them about the same capabilities as an ICE for the same or lower price while requiring no major changes in their lifestyle, plus something extra that they value. Neither BEVs or FCEVs provide that at the moment, except at prices relatively few can afford, but FCVs are a lot closer given their general characteristics. The U.S. hasn't been the tail wagging the world auto industry's dog since 2010, when China became the largest auto market, and China's and most of the developing urban world's car needs at the moment are better met by FCVs, given that both electric charging and H2 infrastructure are lacking in these places. Furthermore, we know that the for-profit gas station business model works, but as yet no one has demonstrated that for-profit, universally available EV charging does. We also know exactly where to put H2 stations, and the real estate, at least in developed countries, is already in use for re-fueling purposes and can often have H2 added on in many cases, as studies referenced upthread have shown. What remains to be done before H2 can go mainstream is to get H2 re-fueling down to the price of gas or less, and reduce the cars' price ditto.

BEVs are unquestionably more energy-efficient, and likely to stay that way even given improvements in the energy efficiency of FCVs; most agree that where convenient electric charging stations are available, they make sense for multi-car households for local use, or in car-sharing type situations. But they are not capable of being full ICE replacements at the moment, and barring a huge improvement in either charging time (with all the infrastructure implications that implies), battery swapping (ditto) or on-board range for the price, _will not be_ for many years yet, although they can be suitable for many shorter-range trips in the next generation (assuming that all the claims for range @ price don't prove to be too optimistic; at the moment, all we have is vaporware).

FCEVs _can be_ full ICE replacements in the not too distant future, provided that the costs can be got down to gas-equivalent or less. Nothing guarantees that this will happen, but then nothing guarantees that batteries will see the improvements they need either. ISTM no more than prudent to proceed with developing any tech which has a reasonable chance of getting us to a fossil-fuel free future, until such time as we know one can do the whole job, or that we need two or more to do so; I'm a big fan of PHFCEVs for those who can benefit from them, as a follow on to PHEVs.

That's probably the fourth, fifth or sixth time I've made these points in the course of this thread, but since this whole thread is one long argument cycle I suppose it was my turn again.