Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[GRA]

Via the CAFCP website: http://cafcp.org/sites/files/Open_Letter_H2_Infrastructure_June_2014.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Part:

In support of the efforts by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to incorporate
automobile original equipment manufacturers (OEM) input into the forthcoming June 2015 AB-
8 report, the CaFCP OEM Advisory Group (OEM AG) members—American Honda, General
Motors, Hyundai, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Toyota and Volkswagen—have developed a
consensus list of recommended station priority locations for the next 19 hydrogen stations to be
built in California.

In preparing our recommendations, the undersigned OEMs have worked individually to ascertain
station deployment for their own market needs. The data was shared independently in a doubleblind
process, and then compiled into an aggregate list. The OEM AG then collaboratively
reviewed the data in order to refine the cluster and regional infrastructure needs. With these
recommendations, the OEM AG worked to satisfy initial fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV)
customer expectations in key deployment regions by optimizing the number and location of
stations such that they ensure (a) customer travel-time to the nearest hydrogen station is
minimized within a regional market, (b) network coverage is sufficiently robust for inter-market
travel, (c) increased network capacity, and (d) creation of redundancy in the network. The
recommendations focus on building hydrogen fueling network coverage and redundant capacity
throughout the Northern California, Southern California and Central Valley regions. In addition,
some recommended priority locations are being fostered as replacements for early
“demonstration/research project” hydrogen stations that we anticipate will not be upgraded to
full retail operational status.

Primary Priority

Berkeley/Richmond/Oakland
Beverly Hills/Westwood
Fremont
Lebec
Manhattan Beach
Sacramento
San Diego #2
San Diego #3
San Francisco
Thousand Oaks/Agoura Hills
Torrance/Palos Verdes

Secondary Priority

Culver City
Dublin/Pleasanton
Encino/Sherman Oaks/ Van Nuys
Granada Hills
Irvine South
Los Banos
Palm Springs
Ventura/Oxnard

 

[TonyWilliams]

Compare and contrast two 1MW(h?) storage facilities:


1) TESLA battery storage in Ireland

http://insideevs.com/tesla-gaelectric-announce-2016-deployment-1-mw-battery-energy-storage-system-ireland/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


2) Hydrogen in Hamburg, Germany

http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/news-archive/2013/april/hydrogenics-to-install-worlds-first-megawatt-pem-electrolyser-for-eon-power-to-gas-facility" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[AndyH]

Compare and contrast two 1MW(h?) storage facilities:


1) TESLA battery storage in Ireland

http://insideevs.com/tesla-gaelectric-announce-2016-deployment-1-mw-battery-energy-storage-system-ireland/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


2) Hydrogen in Hamburg, Germany

http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/news-archive/2013/april/hydrogenics-to-install-worlds-first-megawatt-pem-electrolyser-for-eon-power-to-gas-facility" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You realize those two are not even similar in capability, right? One is capable of storing a TOTAL of 1MW, while the other is capable of converting 1MW of excess electricity and feeding H2 into the nation's natural gas grid 24/7/365. The battery is a 1MW container while the alkaline fuel cell is like a feed pipe connected to a much, much larger container.

The hydrogen project - one of eight already in operation or in the queue in Germany - can store 200,000,000 times more energy than the battery.

(Also cool to note, the H2 system is already in operation (as of 2014) as are others in Germany, while the Tesla battery, according to the article, won't be on the grid until 2016...)

http://www.hydrogenics.com/about-th...ility-in-germany-using-hydrogenics-technology
http://www.eon.com/en/media/news/pr.../eon-power-to-gas-pilot-unit-falkenhagen.html

E.ON power-to-gas pilot unit injects more than two million kilowatt-hours of hydrogen into natural gas pipeline system in first year of operation

The company's other power-to-gas center, a 2-MW pilot plant in Falkenhagen with Swissgas has shown 66 percent efficiency at first phase, though when converting back to power one must multiply by the generation source's turbine/cell's efficiency (typically <40 percent). But that 66 percent efficiency number is actually conservative since it was built using off-the-shelf components that weren't optimized, and the company thinks its Reitbrook project "can go up much higher," explained René Schoof, head of energy storage technology at E.ON Gas Storage. Here its targets are a 1-MW stack and 80 percent efficiency at the stack level, with hydrogen production of 265 m³ — and no need for a compressor as the the gas is injected at 25 bar directly into Hamburg's distribution grid.

http://www.now-gmbh.de/en/presse-ak...nology-sectors-starts-innovation-project.html

Because of the dynamic development in renewable energies over the next ten years experts expect an annual storage demand of up to 40 TWh of energy. Only one thousandth of the necessary capacity (40GWh) is available today in the form of pump storage. As it has high storage capabilities of more than 200 TWh, the national gas grid provides a solution. Up to now the economical technology was lacking to convert electric energy into gas.

Yup...Germany already has 200 TWh of storage capacity in place that doesn't need any more mining, refining, smelting, manufacturing, or earth moving to tap into.

 

[TonyWilliams]

So, I guess the simple question then is why would ANY electric utility use batteries?

 

[RegGuheert]

You realize those two are not even similar in capability, right? One is capable of storing a TOTAL of 1MW, while the other is capable of converting 1MW of excess electricity and feeding H2 into the nation's natural gas grid 24/7/365. The battery is a 1MW container while the alkaline fuel cell is like a feed pipe connected to a much, much larger container.

It is not possible to store 1 MW of anything. A MW is a unit of power (energy rate), not energy. You can store energy, but not power.

So either we don't know the amount of energy to be stored by the Tesla batteries OR the reporter also got the units wrong and it actually stores 1 MWh. In the latter case, we do not know the power of the system. I suspect it is the former. But based on the Powerwall specs, a Tesla 1 MW solution might store 5 MWh of energy. So your point is still a valid one.

The hydrogen project - one of eight already in operation or in the queue in Germany - can store 200,000,000 times more energy than the battery.

(Also cool to note, the H2 system is already in operation (as of 2014) as are others in Germany, while the Tesla battery, according to the article, won't be on the grid until 2016...)

http://www.hydrogenics.com/about-th...ility-in-germany-using-hydrogenics-technology
http://www.eon.com/en/media/news/pr.../eon-power-to-gas-pilot-unit-falkenhagen.html

E.ON power-to-gas pilot unit injects more than two million kilowatt-hours of hydrogen into natural gas pipeline system in first year of operation

The company's other power-to-gas center, a 2-MW pilot plant in Falkenhagen with Swissgas has shown 66 percent efficiency at first phase, though when converting back to power one must multiply by the generation source's turbine/cell's efficiency (typically <40 percent). But that 66 percent efficiency number is actually conservative since it was built using off-the-shelf components that weren't optimized, and the company thinks its Reitbrook project "can go up much higher," explained René Schoof, head of energy storage technology at E.ON Gas Storage. Here its targets are a 1-MW stack and 80 percent efficiency at the stack level, with hydrogen production of 265 m³ — and no need for a compressor as the the gas is injected at 25 bar directly into Hamburg's distribution grid.

http://www.now-gmbh.de/en/presse-ak...nology-sectors-starts-innovation-project.html

Because of the dynamic development in renewable energies over the next ten years experts expect an annual storage demand of up to 40 TWh of energy. Only one thousandth of the necessary capacity (40GWh) is available today in the form of pump storage. As it has high storage capabilities of more than 200 TWh, the national gas grid provides a solution. Up to now the economical technology was lacking to convert electric energy into gas.

Yup...Germany already has 200 TWh of storage capacity in place that doesn't need any more mining, refining, smelting, manufacturing, or earth moving to tap into.

Point taken. The real value in hydrogen seems to be in seasonal energy storage since the storage portion should be relatively inexpensive and is separable from the H2 generation and consumption equipment.

OTOH, if you store your energy as hydrogen, you need a LOT more generation capability than if you store your energy in batteries. In other words, you will need to do more mining, refining and smelting for electricity generators for each kWh delivered by H2 storage. So, to answer Tony's question:

So, I guess the simple question then is why would ANY electric utility use batteries?

The answer depends on how long you need to store the energy. If you only need to store it for a few seconds, hours or days, batteries make more sense than hydrogen since they minimize the amount of energy that is converted into heat. If you need to store the energy for a month or more, then it seems likely that H2 will be more resource efficient than batteries.

 

[smkettner]

So, I guess the simple question then is why would ANY electric utility use batteries?

Note the hydrogen station puts hydrogen into the NG pipeline. I suppose to regenerate electricity the hydrogen gets burned in a power plant. 60% efficient?

Battery would produce immediate electricity through an inverter. 85% efficient?

I do wonder how well the NG and H2 get along in the same pipe.

 

[AndyH]

So, I guess the simple question then is why would ANY electric utility use batteries?

There are a number of reasons - and I think most have been covered here in one way or another. But the 'why' has to be matched to a 'when' I think - and everything should be examined in context.

It seems to me (maybe I'm missing something?) that most discussion here is about taking the current US grid and complete business model and simply adding a bunch of renewable generation. As that progresses, utilities need fewer coal- and more peaker-plants (already happening). As this system sees renewables 'added' to it, most seem to think that a wind turbine and some solar panels need batteries to be added to the 'module' because we all know "the wind don't always blow and the sun don't always shine"... This is the type of view that Musk is using to sell his batteries, and is the view used by GE when they sell turbines with batteries in the tower. In this system, we need a LOT of batteries to store winter wind in S Dakota and feed it to 'Vegas for the summer...and more to feed BEVs...and more to make hydrogen (at least to make ammonia to feed the industrial ag system's demand for nitrogen fertilizer).

Germany's building a system designed to completely replace the current system. The generation business models are different, the purpose of the grid is different, and the views of storage (a number of different types) are different. And that means the way the pieces are used can be different. Storage is being broken into major functions. Big storage is being done with hydrogen in the natural gas grid - the capability is there to generate all the nation's energy in six months and run the country from the hydrogen 'battery' for the other six. That's some serious 'battery'! The plan also has BEV and FCEV with V2G capability. That is expected to provide all the frequency stabilization and other short-duration needs (something like 20 or 25% of the vehicles can perform that function).

Why use batteries? Can't answer that unless one defines the system in which they'll be used.

 

[AndyH]

You realize those two are not even similar in capability, right? One is capable of storing a TOTAL of 1MW, while the other is capable of converting 1MW of excess electricity and feeding H2 into the nation's natural gas grid 24/7/365. The battery is a 1MW container while the alkaline fuel cell is like a feed pipe connected to a much, much larger container.

It is not possible to store 1 MW of anything. A MW is a unit of power (energy rate), not energy. You can store energy, but not power.

Of course. Doesn't matter though - an 8-orders of magnitude difference in capacity plus the difference in purpose or function is the important part here as you recognize.

OTOH, if you store your energy as hydrogen, you need a LOT more generation capability than if you store your energy in batteries. In other words, you will need to do more mining, refining and smelting for electricity generators for each kWh delivered by H2 storage.

The system that uses H2 for storage allows the reduction, combining, or elimination of other systems throughout the transportation, building, and industrial sectors that more than makes up for the number of wind turbine blades and other bits that need to be built. A revolutionary move is saving much, much, much more than it costs.

 

[GRA]

Via GCR:

Hyundai Tucson Fuel Cell Global Sales Below Target, Company Admits

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1098721_hyundai-tucson-fuel-cell-global-sales-below-target-company-admits" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Part:

Roughly two years later, though, Hyundai isn't pleased with sales of its zero-emission crossover utility vehicle. The Korean carmaker originally said it was planning to sell 1,000 Tucson Fuel Cell vehicles by the end of 2015--but so far it's only managed to move about a quarter of that total. Global Tucson Fuel Cell sales stood at just 273 units as of May, the company said today, according to the Yonhap news service. That includes 76 units delivered in 2013, 128 units in 2014, and 69 units for the first five months of this year. Just 29 of the crossovers were sold in Hyundai's home market of South Korea, with the rest going to the U.S. and Europe. . . .

Slow sales could be a result of both the car's relatively high price, and the lack of hydrogen fueling infrastructure in all major markets. There are just 11 public hydrogen fueling stations in South Korea, including only two in the capital of Seoul, which has a population of more than 10 million. There are presently 12 stations in the U.S., clustered in southern California--the only region of the country where the Tucson Fuel Cell is available. About 70 vehicles have been delivered in that region to date. The state of California has committed $100 million to establish a network of 100 hydrogen fueling stations by 2020, and carmakers are kicking in funds too. . . .

 

[TonyWilliams]

Tesla today is talking about selling 500,000 All-Electric cars by 2020, and have the wheels in motion to make that happen (Giga-Factory "1", rapidly aquiring facilities, rapdily building their own recharging network). They are quickly approaching 100,000 sold in the past 3 years.

I suspect these "hydrogen" companies will be into personal vehicle hydrogen cars as long as the gravy train is flowing (huge government funded infrastructure and government subsidies, no Giga-anything, hydrogen cars at minimum numbers that just coincidently meets CARB and EPA compliance, and above all... not very many cars).

Even Toyota seems to agree with me.

 

[GRA]

Tesla today is talking about selling 500,000 All-Electric cars by 2020, and have the wheels in motion to make that happen (Giga-Factory "1", rapidly aquiring facilities, rapdily building their own recharging network). They are quickly approaching 100,000 sold in the past 3 years.

I suspect these "hydrogen" companies will be into personal vehicle hydrogen cars as long as the gravy train is flowing (huge government funded infrastructure and government subsidies, no Giga-anything, hydrogen cars at minimum numbers that just coincidently meets CARB and EPA compliance, and above all... not very many cars).

Even Toyota seems to agree with me.

Tesla talks about about a lot of things, but often does them late or not at all. But BEVs certainly are ahead on the development curve at the moment, as we've said. I'd love to see them sell 500k cars in 2020, most of which would presumably be Model 3s (including the CUV they've just announced).

 

[TonyWilliams]

Tesla talks about about a lot of things, but often does them late or not at all.

Well, the hydrogen camp talks about a lot of things, too. What has Tesla announced, but not offered at all?

It looks like Honda is bringing back EVs, so Toyota will be the Lone Ranger in the all-hydrogen ZEV camp.

 

[RegGuheert]

Battery would produce immediate electricity through an inverter. 85% efficient?

That's probably a little low, even for the ROUND-TRIP efficiency. Large, 3-phase inverters producing 480VAC are 98+% efficient. Even at lower power levels this is achievable today. Here is an 8 kW, 480VAC inverter with 98+% efficiency. A bidirectional inverter functioning as a charger should be able to achieve about the same efficiency in the opposite direction.

Li-ion round-trip efficiency is about 97% today.

In addition, Tesla adds a DC-DC converter to their PowerWall to provide flexibility, to prevent high overload currents and to allow the separate units to share the load evenly. This likely also has a 98% one-way efficiency.

The overall, round-trip efficiency for a Li-ion battery-based system with both bidirectional DC-DC converters and a bidirectional inverter should be:

0.98*0.98*0.97*0.98*0.98=~90%

This compares with a round-trip efficiency of approximately 30% (probably generous) for hydrogen, not including leakage from whatever storage medium is used.

Put another way, the hydrogen approach produces about 6X as much waste heat as battery storage.

Put a third way, you have to OVER 3X the electricity generation (3X the windmills, PV, etc.) in order to have a "hydrogen economy" versus a "battery economy". Alternatively, you could produce 2.3X the amount of electricity and the same amount of heat.

The conclusion is that you need to store the energy A LONG TIME between production and use before a "hydrogen economy" consumes fewer overall resources than a "battery economy".

(And, no, waste heat is not a benefit, except in a car in very cold climates where a heat-pump does not help. Getting heat at a COP of 1.0 is much less attractive than getting it at a COP of 3.0.)

 

[TonyWilliams]

Perhaps we should call "waste" heat with the term the U.S. government has used in studies... "Rejected" heat? One less thing for Andy to get distracted by, and therefore we can keep the discussion to REAL formative issues, and not sidelines, as is so frequently the case.

 

[AndyH]

Tesla today is talking about selling 500,000 All-Electric cars by 2020, and have the wheels in motion to make that happen (Giga-Factory "1", rapidly aquiring facilities, rapdily building their own recharging network). They are quickly approaching 100,000 sold in the past 3 years.

I suspect these "hydrogen" companies will be into personal vehicle hydrogen cars as long as the gravy train is flowing (huge government funded infrastructure and government subsidies, no Giga-anything, hydrogen cars at minimum numbers that just coincidently meets CARB and EPA compliance, and above all... not very many cars).

Even Toyota seems to agree with me.

Tesla talks about about a lot of things, but often does them late or not at all. But BEVs certainly are ahead on the development curve at the moment, as we've said. I'd love to see them sell 500k cars in 2020, most of which would presumably be Model 3s (including the CUV they've just announced).

According to various sources, 7.9 million cars were sold in 2014. Tesla's mythical 500K would be just over 6.3% of current annual sales.

While that current vaporware would be a fantastic feat, how will we electrify the other 93+% of just the NEW cars sold? And how will we replace all of the rest of the ICE on the road purchased in prior years?

 

[AndyH]

Perhaps we should call "waste" heat with the term the U.S. government has used in studies... "Rejected" heat? One less thing for Andy to get distracted by, and therefore we can keep the discussion to REAL formative issues, and not sidelines, as is so frequently the case.

The label matters not when the way the resource is judged doesn't change. Maybe compare/contrast "sight" and "vision"?

 

[TonyWilliams]

Perhaps we should call "waste" heat with the term the U.S. government has used in studies... "Rejected" heat? One less thing for Andy to get distracted by, and therefore we can keep the discussion to REAL formative issues, and not sidelines, as is so frequently the case.

The label matters not when the way the resource is judged doesn't change. Maybe compare/contrast "sight" and "vision"?

The resource is changed from captured energy to not captured (released heat to the atmosphere).

Big difference.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Andy has confirmed that this can't happen with hydrogen leaks and a 10,000psi pressure vessel, so I know that I'll sleep better with a couple hydrogen cars in my garage... parked next to the pilot light on the water heater.

Natural gas house explosion - Feb 2015, New Jersey, USA.

http://youtu.be/9LuGUBPl5z8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[epirali]

Battery would produce immediate electricity through an inverter. 85% efficient?

That's probably a little low, even for the ROUND-TRIP efficiency. Large, 3-phase inverters producing 480VAC are 98+% efficient. Even at lower power levels this is achievable today. Here is an 8 kW, 480VAC inverter with 98+% efficiency. A bidirectional inverter functioning as a charger should be able to achieve about the same efficiency in the opposite direction.

Li-ion round-trip efficiency is about 97% today.

In addition, Tesla adds a DC-DC converter to their PowerWall to provide flexibility, to prevent high overload currents and to allow the separate units to share the load evenly. This likely also has a 98% one-way efficiency.

The overall, round-trip efficiency for a Li-ion battery-based system with both bidirectional DC-DC converters and a bidirectional inverter should be:

0.98*0.98*0.97*0.98*0.98=~90%

This compares with a round-trip efficiency of approximately 30% (probably generous) for hydrogen, not including leakage from whatever storage medium is used.

Put another way, the hydrogen approach produces about 6X as much waste heat as battery storage.

Put a third way, you have to OVER 3X the electricity generation (3X the windmills, PV, etc.) in order to have a "hydrogen economy" versus a "battery economy". Alternatively, you could produce 2.3X the amount of electricity and the same amount of heat.

The conclusion is that you need to store the energy A LONG TIME between production and use before a "hydrogen economy" consumes fewer overall resources than a "battery economy".

(And, no, waste heat is not a benefit, except in a car in very cold climates where a heat-pump does not help. Getting heat at a COP of 1.0 is much less attractive than getting it at a COP of 3.0.)

Not this again. That is PEAK under full load. And round trip efficiency is NOT 97% if you count charging.

Btw what is the waveform of that inverter, don't see it anywhere in data sheet.

 

[epirali]

Andy has confirmed that this can't happen with hydrogen leaks and a 10,000psi pressure vessel, so I know that I'll sleep better with a couple hydrogen cars in my garage... parked next to the pilot light on the water heater.

Natural gas house explosion - Feb 2015, New Jersey, USA.

http://youtu.be/9LuGUBPl5z8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well I was sleeping well and I have three giant LiIon batteries next to my blowtorch in the garage.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ8IsMRFM5o" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sorry same faulty logic.