Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[TonyWilliams]

A typical start-up support problem that usually occurs with a new technology product that's less than six
months old from introduction. It appears, though, that the consumer is happy with the product itself.

Hydrogen fueling stations have been around for a lot longer than 6 months.

Ya, no kidding. All over the first world globe, for quite some time. Long before the first public DC quick charger:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_station

 

[GRA]

This disaster was inevitable.

It seems that many government employees, judging the competence of their efforts by the extreme reliability of their own paychecks, just assume that they can replace markets with command and control structures to deliver goods and services, just as reliably.

At least the failure of CARB (and other California government agencies) to do anything to promote the growth of market-based public DC charging in California has done only limited the damage to BEV deliveries, since you can always slow charge a BEV on AC somewhere, even if that is after riding the flatbed of shame back to your own garage.

But if there are no functional H stations within towing distance, I guess you just have the AAA truck driver roll your FCV into your garage, and then you wait...
<snip>

How many times do we need to post the exact same article?

 

[GRA]

Since there's been some discussion of the Torrance station, here's the description of it from the status report I linked to uptopic:

Station Overview

This is a dedicated hydrogen-only refueling station that was opened to the public in
May 2011 and is owned and operated by Shell. It is located adjacent to Interstate 405 at
Western Avenue. The station uses pipeline-fed hydrogen from the Air Products
Wilmington and Carson hydrogen production facilities. Air Products designed, built,
and maintains this station.

The Air Products pipeline supplies the station with hydrogen at 60 bar, which contains
carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and methane levels up to 15 parts per million. These
contaminants are removed using membrane purifiers upstream of the compressors. A 50
kg/day PDC Machines diaphragm compressor increases the hydrogen pressure to 448
bar, and a Hydropac hydraulic booster compressor further raises the pressure to 1,000
bar. Hydrogen is stored in two banks, with 120 kg at 448 bar and 32 kg at 1,000 bar.
There are two dispensers, each equipped with two nozzles; one nozzle for 350 bar and
the other for 700 bar fills. A mechanical chiller precools the hydrogen to -20° C at the
dispenser to enable fast fills. With a capacity of 50 kg/day, the station can fill 10 to 12
vehicles per day. A refueling agreement is required to refuel at this site and is equipped
with a hydrogen vehicle authorization system, which is a wireless vehicle recognition
system that allows station-to-vehicle recognition for quick refueling. In addition, the
station has a community learning center onsite for users to learn about hydrogen and
fuel cell vehicles.

Operating Experience

The Torrance station averages 368 fills/month, ranging from 256 to 426 fills/month. The
average amount of hydrogen dispensed is 1,000 kg/month, ranging from 688 to 1,293
kg/month.

Preventive, scheduled maintenance includes twice weekly inspections and monthly
maintenance. The site averages four unscheduled service events per month, with
compressors being the primary source of the unscheduled events.

At the time of this report [Note: Jan. 2015], this station suffered an extended shutdown as a result of the
failure of membrane purifiers required to scrub the pipeline hydrogen to meet fuel cell
vehicle requirements.

Potential Future Upgrades

Although this is relatively new station, some upgrades may be warranted, specifically
upgrading the dispensers with a certified POS [Note: Point of Sale] system and increasing the capacity of the
station with a new compressor. Should the station be selected for upgrades, paid for
with public funding, it would be made publicly accessible

 

[DaveEV]

Although this is relatively new station, some upgrades may be warranted, specifically
upgrading the dispensers with a certified POS [Note: Point of Sale] system and increasing the capacity of the
station with a new compressor. Should the station be selected for upgrades, paid for
with public funding, it would be made publicly accessible

Given that this station is already filling an average of 12 vehicles/day and 33 kG/day, it sure does seem like an upgrade is in order.

Though hydrogen stations face the same issue that QC stations face except even more critical: If a single station can be brought down by a single compressor failure, more than one station should be built and not too far away, just the same way multiple charging stations should be located at a single location and preferably with additional stations near by.

At 33 kG/day and FCEVs driving 50-60 miles / kG, that's the equivalent of providing for about 1800 miles of driving / day.

A 30A L2 can provide 60 kWh / day if used 10 hours/day, good for about 200 miles / day. So about 10 L2 stations would could fuel the same number of miles as this H2 station.

A CHAdeMO station will typically dispense about 15 kWh in 30 minutes. If used 10 times / day, this would provide 500 miles / day of driving. So 3-4 CHAdeMO stations would be similar to this H2 station in terms of miles fueled.

A Tesla SuperCharger will typically dispense about 50 kWh in 45 minutes. If used 7 times / day, this would provide over 1000 miles / day of driving. So a pair of SuperCharger plugs would be similar to this H2 station in terms of miles fueled.

It's pretty clear that Tesla SuperCharger stations with a typical 8 stalls even if only lightly used is probably enabling a lot more miles than your typical hydrogen station and with far greater reliability and even a location with 5 CHAdeMO stations would do great and all at a far lower cost than a hydrogen station.

Also of note is that the ability to charge at home overnight greatly reduces the amount of public charging required.

 

[downeykp]

The failure of hydrogen seems pretty certain to me. Unless of course tons more money is thrown at it. A million dollars a station has a huge ROI. Will it ever even meet an ROI?

 

[GRA]

Although this is relatively new station, some upgrades may be warranted, specifically
upgrading the dispensers with a certified POS [Note: Point of Sale] system and increasing the capacity of the
station with a new compressor. Should the station be selected for upgrades, paid for
with public funding, it would be made publicly accessible

Given that this station is already filling an average of 12 vehicles/day and 33 kG/day, it sure does seem like an upgrade is in order <snip rest>.

Assuming that they plan to keep it, at least doubling daily capacity to 100kg and installing POS metering would be in order. OTOH, there are a lot of new, higher capacity fast fill stations planned for the general area, so maybe they won't bother. Torrance does have one distinction; it's the only station I'm aware of that gets its H2 via pipeline, so it may be valuable to keep it in operation for continued development of that mode. Most of the rest of the stations have gaseous H2 delivered via tube trailer, although several of the new ones and at least one of the existing ones use on-site electrolysis. One existing station (OCSD) is a waste/CHP/H2 site, one uses onsite SMR, and one uses liquid H2 delivered by trailer. Keeping at least some of the oddballs in service for further development/test strikes me as a good idea.

 

[GRA]

CARB responded to GCR's article (upthread), which has now been updated to include it:

UPDATE: This story was published on the morning of Friday, July 24, 2015. Late that afternoon, Green Car Reports received the statement below from the California Air Resources Board.

California’s hydrogen infrastructure is clearly at a transitional phase, and we recognize this presents challenges for today’s customers. Our current hydrogen station network is poised to grow significantly in the coming months as station developers build out projects co-funded by State investments.

Statewide, 48 stations are in various stages of development, which includes 10 stations in active construction and three in final commissioning. Even as we await the new stations, several current stations are being upgraded to increase their capacity and improve performance, which makes them unavailable to customers. This is a challenging transition time for customers, but we are confident it will improve.

California has much experience with development and deployment of new technology. The California Energy Commission and the Air Resources Board have taken the lead on this project. We are also relying on project developers to use their experience and expertise to improve reliability and the refueling process.

Just as the rollout of plug-in electric vehicle technology took time, so will this. Even as we continue to learn from that experience, California has become a world leader in development, sales and deployment of battery electric and plug-in electric vehicles and infrastructure. It is important to provide as many affordable, clean driving options as possible for the sake of Californians’ health, quality of life and expanded economic opportunity.

Green Car Reports followed up by asking what CARB would say to Tucson Fuel Cell drivers now unable to use the cars they're paying to lease, and to interested Mirai shoppers concerned over whether an adequate fueling network would be available if they took the plunge and became an early hydrogen adopter.

We received the following response form Linda Rapattoni, information officer at the California Energy Commission: "I don’t think we need a back and forth conversation about this. I believe our response suffices."

 

[Valdemar]

The failure of hydrogen seems pretty certain to me.

Wait, there hasn't been an explosion yet.

 

[TonyWilliams]

The failure of hydrogen seems pretty certain to me.

Wait, there hasn't been an explosion yet.

From a real live engineer who actually works in this field, not slaves to their keyboards trumpeting what they want to hear:

Hydrogen fire / explosion danger

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/2048-Hydrogen-vs-Battery/page138?p=727981&viewfull=1#post727981

CalDreamin - In my opinion, the most significant argument against hydrogen fuel cell vehicles involves the safety risks from hydrogen explosions. This is far beyond the potential consequences of gasoline, diesel, or battery fires in personal vehicles.

I work with industrial high pressure hydrogen processes as a chemical engineer. A significant part of my job is preventing Loss of Primary Containment (LOPC) accidents involving high pressure hydrogen and other flammable gases.

During discussions of hydrogen risks, one often sees comparisons made to the Hindenburg airship disaster. I think that's a poor comparison. The hydrogen in the Hindenburg was not at high pressure.

Fuel cell vehicles such as the Toyota FCV car store hydrogen at very high pressure -- 6 kg of H2 is stored in the car at up to 10,000 psig. This pressure is so high that the decompression force upon catastrophic LOPC could produce a large damage radius even if the compressed gas was merely air. But it's not just air, hydrogen is a flammable gas that has a very wide range between the lower and upper explosive limits when released into air, and has a very low energy for detonation.

The evidence from accidents involving rapid decompression of high pressure hydrogen demonstrates that these events often result in detonation of hydrogen-air mixtures.

Proponents of hydrogen FCVs point to photos showing the controlled release of a vehicle's H2 tank through the tank's pressure relief device (PRD), a very small orifice that is sized to produce the flame shown in the photos. A well-designed PRD in this service will produce a large vertical jet of flame, the least bad direction to aim the flamethrower (assuming the vehicle stays upright). What they don't tell you is that the PRD specified for FCV H2 tanks would not be legal for use to protect industrial vessels used in high pressure H2 service, where we are required to use pressure relief devices to protect against any feasible overpressure scenario.

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicle PRDs and CNG vehicle PRDs protect only against specific fire impingement scenarios -- the PRD has to reach a sufficient temperature to melt the plug before it will activate. The idea is that the PRD will activate before the high temperature from an external fire increases the vehicle tank pressure to the catastrophic rupture point. Unfortunately these PRDs don't work in all overpressure scenarios, including all fire scenarios. The PRD did not protect a Honda's CNG tank in this fire. The CNG tank heated up, overpressured, and ruptured before the PRD activated, blowing open the doors and blowing off the roof, and propelling parts of the Honda as much as 100' across a wide radius.

View attachment 56266

In all likelihood, H2 FCV and CNG PRDs don't provide broader overpressure protection because the consequences of a false-positive activation could be pretty severe -- the vertical flamethrower anywhere the car might be located.

Proponents of hydrogen FCVs also point to the DOT bullet test, which pierces the FCV H2 tank with a rifle bullet. However this is misleading. The bullet-sized hole produces a high speed flame jet. It does not illustrate the much more rapid LOPC and explosion that could result if the tank catastrophically ruptured.

The H2 tank in a FCV is undoubtedly very strong. It has to be strong to contain 10,000 psig. In a bad accident, such as the FCV car being rear ended by a large truck or a fire started by some external source, the FCV H2 tank is probably less likely to rupture than a gasoline tank in an ICE vehicle. But in the event of a FCV H2 tank rupture, the consequences could be far worse than an ICE gasoline fire. High pressure vessels also have other failure scenarios, such a brittle fracture, or the failure of associated valves, fittings, or piping.

There was an industrial accident that demonstrates the magnitude of the consequences from an explosion involving 3.5 - 7 kg of hydrogen -- which is coincidentally the amount of H2 in one FCV tank. The amount of H2 that exploded in this accident was calculated by the blast damage:
- prefabricated sections of concrete walls weighing over 1 ton each were blown out along a long length of the building during the explosion
- windows in an adjacent building were shattered, and large shards of glass were embedded in the opposite wall
- all ordinary window glass within 100m and some as far as 700m away was shattered
- the 700 kg/m2 roof of the building was lifted 1.5m from the overpressure of the explosion
- large metal structures were bent, twisted, and some were propelled tens of meters
- two workers were killed, and causalities would have been far higher had it not been a Saturday

View attachment 56268
View attachment 56269


Try to imagine this blast damage -- one of the worst industrial hydrogen explosions in history -- in a residential neighborhood, a parking garage, a busy highway, or in a dense commercial district at a filling station.

It's one thing to deal with these amounts of high pressure H2 in industrial settings, far away from the public. It's quite another thing to deal with it in thousands or millions of personal vehicles in homes, cities, or on our public roads. This is an unnecessary risk, there are a number of means of personal vehicle transport that do not involve the high consequences of a 6 kg hydrogen explosion.

A fire in a gasoline or diesel ICE car does not cause explosive blast damage of this magnitude. Only the small percentage of the fuel that has vaporized can explode.

A fire in a BEV car cannot cause damage of this magnitude. The stored energy is simply not there.

Authorities at the San Francisco International Airport didn't have any problem imagining the blast damage from H2 FCVs, because they apparently would not allow a FCV H2 fueling station to be located near their airport.



This airport handles over 2 million gallons of jet fuel a day, but a nearby H2 filling station for fuel cell vehicles was deemed to be an excessive risk. The H2 supplier Linde -- who has vast experience producing and handling hydrogen on a huge industrial scale -- refused to assume the liability for the FCV H2 fueling station near the airport. If the vicinity of an airport can be deemed an excessive risk for siting a FCV H2 station, imagine the NIMBY fights over locating H2 fueling stations in many of the other places gas stations get located.

 

[GRA]

The failure of hydrogen seems pretty certain to me.

Wait, there hasn't been an explosion yet.

From a real live engineer who actually works in this field, not slaves to their keyboards trumpeting what they want to hear:<snip previously posted material>

Tony, what you or anyone else who believes that H2 is too unsafe for public use need to do is contact the relevant government agencies charged with protecting public safety, in this case I'd say NHTSA, OSHA and the Department of Homeland Security for starters (don't know what the relevant agencies in the U.K., Germany and Japan, the other countries that are all pushing H2/FCVs in a big way would be), and raise your concerns with them, rather than wasting your time posting on forums that can't possibly have any effect on H2 deployment. Feel free to provide them with any scientific data that contradicts the conclusions they've reached based on the analyses of scientific data that they've done. After all, we all want to have an acceptably safe* transportation system, and I suspect no one here is qualified to argue the science, or what level of risk will be incurred.

* 'Acceptably safe' being an elastic term based more on social decisions than objective science. So, gas-fueled cars are judged 'acceptably safe' by virtually everyone due to familiarity and capability, even though gas-fueled vehicle fires kills hundreds and injure thousands of Americans every year.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Tony, what you or anyone else who believes that H2 is too unsafe for public use need to do is contact the relevant government agencies... rather than wasting your time posting on forums that can't possibly have any effect on H2 deployment.

*' Acceptably safe' being an elastic term based more on social decisions than objective science. So, gas-fueled cars are judged 'acceptably safe' by virtually everyone due to familiarity and capability, even though gas-fueled vehicle fires kills hundreds and injure thousands of Americans every year.

Well, I don't "need" to do any such thing. Our own US government gave Toyota a waiver over a safety issue related to the hydrogen car. They felt it unsafe enough to make a rule, but apparently Toyota has enough clout to bypass rules that don't work for them.

I'm not wasting my time on the forum. When I started posting on this thread, I honestly had NO IDEA how many pitfalls hydrogen had. I've learned, and I share that with others who come here to learn about hydrogen.

You, and just a tiny few others, can make snide remarks "insinuating that there can't be engineers here if they don't agree with hydrogen" and trumpet whatever you think furthers your self proclaimed agnostic view (that favors hydrogen) and let the reader decide. It's easy.

It's odd that you would attempt to "educate" me on safety, when I spent my entire life with safety, measured in life and death, as the focal point of every day. Clearly, lives have far less value on the roads than in the air. Those are value decisions, not a "safety" ones. HUGE DIFFERENCES.

As to the larger picture of hydrogen for transport, I'm comforted to know that even in the areas that I presumed hydrogen to have much of a chance, like metro busses, electricity is taking over.

Economics will always be in favor of EVs, therefore I have little concern (beyond governments throwing cash at hydrogen) that the correct outcome is largely assured.

The rest is just entertainment.

 

[downeykp]

Well said Tony. +1

 

[GRA]

Tony, what you or anyone else who believes that H2 is too unsafe for public use need to do is contact the relevant government agencies... rather than wasting your time posting on forums that can't possibly have any effect on H2 deployment.

*' Acceptably safe' being an elastic term based more on social decisions than objective science. So, gas-fueled cars are judged 'acceptably safe' by virtually everyone due to familiarity and capability, even though gas-fueled vehicle fires kills hundreds and injure thousands of Americans every year.

Well, I don't "need" to do any such thing. Our own US government gave Toyota a waiver over a safety issue related to the hydrogen car. They felt it unsafe enough to make a rule, but apparently Toyota has enough clout to bypass rules that don't work for them.

I'm not wasting my time on the forum. When I started posting on this thread, I honestly had NO IDEA how many pitfalls hydrogen had. I've learned, and I share that with others who come here to learn about hydrogen.

You, and just a tiny few others, can make snide remarks "insinuating that there can't be engineers here if they don't agree with hydrogen" and trumpet whatever you think furthers your self proclaimed agnostic view (that favors hydrogen) and let the reader decide. It's easy.

It's odd that you would attempt to "educate" me on safety, when I spent my entire life with safety, measured in life and death, as the focal point of every day. Clearly, lives have far less value on the roads than in the air. Those are value decisions, not a "safety" ones. HUGE DIFFERENCES.

As to the larger picture of hydrogen for transport, I'm comforted to know that even in the areas that I presumed hydrogen to have much of a chance, like metro busses, electricity is taking over.

Economics will always be in favor of EVs, therefore I have little concern (beyond governments throwing cash at hydrogen) that the correct outcome is largely assured.

The rest is just entertainment.

No, Tony, you don't "need" to do anything that could actually lead to better safety for the public, but if you really believe that H2 is not safe enough, why wouldn't you try to do everything you reasonably could to improve it or get it banned? I mean, look at the amount of time and effort you put into proving that the LEAF's batteries were suffering rapid degradation, and that was just a matter of people getting screwed out of some money, not risking their and other's lives. BTW, safety decisions are almost always value decisions - you don't see commercial airliners equipped with emergency escape pods or ejection seats for all passengers and crew even though that would undoubtedly be safer, because it would raise ticket prices out of reach of almost everyone even if it were technically feasible to do.

I never made any such remarks as you attribute to me re engineers - I said that the U.S. and other government's engineers and scientists involved in giving the okay to FCVs and H2 had based their decisions on scientific research and experiment, and I implied that the people in this thread stating their opinions of H2/FCEV safety were almost certainly not themselves qualified to comment, because they were not scientists/engineers with the appropriate backgrounds. I'm assuming that you aren't claiming such background - I certainly am not. That there will be some scientists/engineers with contrary views I've never doubted, and I am supremely unqualified to say which side is right on a scientific basis. But one thing's for sure, who's _right_ is a 'value' judgement, i.e. what's an 'acceptable' level of safety.

As to my self proclaimed agnostic view which favors hydrogen, as I've stressed it currently favors hydrogen/FCVs for my needs and the needs of people in similar situations to mine. I've also said that there are situations/tasks where BEVs are clearly superior now, some where PHFCEVs would be the best solution of all for those that can benefit from them, that it's too soon to tell the ultimate winner, and that I'm comfortable with either tech as soon as it can do the job I require at a price I can afford.

As to Toyota's waiver, it seems that the governments of some of the most scientifically and technically advanced societies on the planet all feel that H2 is acceptably safe, and that waivers of rules which may be inapplicable or outdated (like the article I posted upthread re outdated pipe thickness standards) are appropriate. Does that mean that I believe the cars and fuel are inherently safe? No, but I'm willing to take the chance and see if they're acceptably safe, until H2 and FCVs prove themselves to be significantly less safe than say gasoline. We won't know the answer to that until a reasonably large number of them are out in the real world. Of course, if they start barbequeing their occupants or exploding at regular intervals soon after release, we can stop the experiment sooner, even though that may represent a knee-jerk response to unusual events (see post-Fukushima nuke shutdowns or Volt battery fire media frenzy).

[Edited to add some minor clarifications, plus correcting the usual typos etc.]

 

[ydnas7]

I implied that the people in this thread stating their opinions of H2/FCEV safety were almost certainly not themselves qualified to comment, because they were not scientists/engineers with the appropriate backgrounds. I'm assuming that you aren't claiming such background - I certainly am not.

I have 2 engineering degrees but I'm not qualified to sign off drawings related to H2.
However I sat next to engineers who were, and when I raised the subject of H2 with them, their eyebrows raised, and they went off about detonation cell size for hydrogen and how it needs to be respected like acetylene. you can look at page 5 http://www.hysafe.org/science/eAcademy/docs/JESSFCH2011CourseworkPrimer/DahoeAE_TutorialOnDeflagrationsAndDetonations.pdf and get some idea of the challenge.

We had a project that probably included the largest use of H2 (and other more dangerous gases) in my state, personally I don't think the engineers at Toyota or gov labs ever had to work at site where 1 gas related mishap (primarily ammonia or H2) could kill the entire workforce.
Yes it is possible to make vehicles operate with H2, no it is not cheap, and the safety implications are that it will never be cheap unless you are in China.

H2 infrastructure is not new, the standards were developed over the past 60 years, presumably in response to accidents.
When automotive companies call for a relaxation of H2 standards because it too expensive, I cringe
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brookecrothers/2015/07/27/taking-on-tesla-toyota-mirai-fuel-cell-vehicle-infrastructure-hurdles-interview/

Scott: There [is] more funding available in Japan than in the U.S. as a rule. The government has taken a very active role in helping to propagate stations across the country whereas in the U.S. that hasn’t happened yet. There is no federal policy towards a hydrogen infrastructure [in the U.S.]. And there’s a big push right now in Japan to deregulate a lot of chemical standards that get in the way, [like those for] compressed gases. That will lead to a much more simplified and standardized approval process for permitting, which is something we’re sorely lacking in the U.S

Wishing that H2 will be a well behaved fuel like methane or gasoline blend is fantasy. Toyota is in a fantasy regarding Hydrogen. Governments may wish Hydrogen would behave like a common hydrocarbon, but hydrogen doesn't.

Go back 5 years and hydrogen infrastructure was probably cheaper than free Teslas, but no more. Real on world hydrogen infrastructure is now more expensive than free Teslas. EVs get cheaper, but H2 infrastructure seems to magically keep getting more expensive, why?
(answer = scope creep . safety reality)

 

[GRA]

I implied that the people in this thread stating their opinions of H2/FCEV safety were almost certainly not themselves qualified to comment, because they were not scientists/engineers with the appropriate backgrounds. I'm assuming that you aren't claiming such background - I certainly am not.

I have 2 engineering degrees but I'm not qualified to sign off drawings related to H2.
However I sat next to engineers who were, and when I raised the subject of H2 with them, their eyebrows raised, and they went off about detonation cell size for hydrogen and how it needs to be respected like acetylene. you can look at page 5 http://www.hysafe.org/science/eAcademy/docs/JESSFCH2011CourseworkPrimer/DahoeAE_TutorialOnDeflagrationsAndDetonations.pdf and get some idea of the challenge.

We had a project that probably included the largest use of H2 (and other more dangerous gases) in my state, personally I don't think the engineers at Toyota or gov labs ever had to work at site where 1 gas related mishap (primarily ammonia or H2) could kill the entire workforce.
Yes it is possible to make vehicles operate with H2, no it is not cheap, and the safety implications are that it will never be cheap unless you are in China.

H2 infrastructure is not new, the standards were developed over the past 60 years, presumably in response to accidents.
When automotive companies call for a relaxation of H2 standards because it too expensive, I cringe
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brookecrothers/2015/07/27/taking-on-tesla-toyota-mirai-fuel-cell-vehicle-infrastructure-hurdles-interview/

Scott: There [is] more funding available in Japan than in the U.S. as a rule. The government has taken a very active role in helping to propagate stations across the country whereas in the U.S. that hasn’t happened yet. There is no federal policy towards a hydrogen infrastructure [in the U.S.]. And there’s a big push right now in Japan to deregulate a lot of chemical standards that get in the way, [like those for] compressed gases. That will lead to a much more simplified and standardized approval process for permitting, which is something we’re sorely lacking in the U.S

Wishing that H2 will be a well behaved fuel like methane or gasoline blend is fantasy. Toyota is in a fantasy regarding Hydrogen. Governments may wish Hydrogen would behave like a common hydrocarbon, but hydrogen doesn't.

Go back 5 years and hydrogen infrastructure was probably cheaper than free Teslas, but no more. Real on world hydrogen infrastructure is now more expensive than free Teslas. EVs get cheaper, but H2 infrastructure seems to magically keep getting more expensive, why?
(answer = scope creep . safety reality)

Thanks for the link to the Forbes article. We will certainly see which view of the future is the correct one over the next few years. I'm good either way.

Edit: Can you confirm or correct me on this; I had a look at the detonation and flammability chart in the hydrogen safety link, and if I understand it correctly, methane (CH4), ethane (C2H6?), propane (C3H8?) and butane (C4H10?), if my dim memory of which hydrocarbons are which is correct, all seem to have lower detonation and/or flammability % limits than H2. Gasoline too. Yes, or have I got it bass-ackwards? Let's just say that chemistry was a long time ago, and pretty rudimentary at that.

 

[GRA]

Via GCC [my emphasis]:

Sandia Labs partnering with Red and White Fleet to develop high-speed H2 fuel cell passenger ferry and world’s largest H2 refueling station

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/07/20150728-sandia.html

Sandia National Laboratories and San Francisco’s Red and White Fleet are partnering in a project—SF-BREEZE (San Francisco Bay Renewable Energy Electric vessel with Zero Emissions)—to develop a high-speed, hydrogen-fuel-cell-powered passenger ferry and refueling station. The hydrogen refueling station is planned to be the largest in the world and serve fuel cell electric cars, buses and fleet vehicles in addition to the ferry and other maritime vehicles.

The US Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration (MARAD) is funding a feasibility study to examine the technical, regulatory and economic aspects of the project. The outcome of the feasibility study will be a “Go/No-Go” recommendation to proceed with the actual design and build of the ferry and hydrogen station. . . .

Sandia is leading the study in partnership with Red and White Fleet, the American Bureau of Shipping, the US Coast Guard and naval architect Elliott Bay Design Group. Other contributors include the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Air Resources Board (ARB) and the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development.

"We are involving so many stakeholders up front because if the feasibility study shows a ‘go’ we want to make sure the next phase has a rock-solid foundation. We hope that the feasibility study, regardless of the outcome, can be useful to others nationally and around the world who are looking at hydrogen fuel cell vessels as clean energy alternatives."

—Joe Pratt, the Sandia project lead

Economic viability is essential to the success of SF-BREEZE. To compete with existing transportation methods—cars, buses, Bay Area Rapid Transit and other ferries—the ferry must be fast. But speed adds complexity.

"Rather than a tour boat that would primarily be a demonstration project, Red and White Fleet believes a high-speed passenger ferry makes economic sense. If you are trying to achieve speed, boat weight is important. Fuel cells and hydrogen are heavier than existing diesel engines and fuel, so the question becomes can you build a boat powered by hydrogen fuel cells that is both large and fast enough? The feasibility study will provide that answer."

—Joe Pratt

A preliminary conceptual study shows the answer is probably yes, but it will require a boat specially designed to accommodate hydrogen fuel and the fuel cell technology. A traditional passenger ferry can’t easily be retrofitted with a hydrogen fuel cell, so it was essential to include a naval architect in the feasibility study. The ferry design will include collaboration with the American Bureau of Shipping and the Coast Guard to ensure the final design conforms to safety and reliability rules and regulations.

The world’s largest hydrogen refueling station. The high-speed passenger ferry would use about 1,000 kilograms of hydrogen per day. To put this in perspective, an average hydrogen fuel cell car might use less than 5 kilograms of hydrogen per week.

To support the ferry and other potential users, the refueling station would have a capacity of 1,500 kilograms a day—about twice the size of the largest hydrogen refueling station in the world. It would also be the first hydrogen refueling station to simultaneously serve land and marine uses.

The economy of scale could boost the local hydrogen fuel cell marketplace—a larger station reduces the cost per kilogram of hydrogen, said Pratt. “Higher use will drive down that cost even more.”

Reducing the cost of hydrogen refueling could stimulate the market for hydrogen fuel cell cars and accelerate wider adoption of the technology in other vehicle markets, such as heavy-duty trucks and buses.

Feasibility study will address regulations. SF-BREEZE will enter new regulatory space, both for the high-speed ferry and refueling station. The feasibility study will examine those regulations and their impact on the project.

For the refueling station, Sandia can draw on its technical expertise in developing and optimizing safe, cost-effective vehicular hydrogen fueling stations. The US Department of Energy Fuel Cell Technologies Office funds most of Sandia’s efforts in this area.

Sandia is a leading partner in two nationwide infrastructure initiatives: H2USA, a private-public partnership focused on advancing hydrogen infrastructure (earlier post), and the Hydrogen Fueling Infrastructure Research and Station Technology (H2FIRST), a US Department of Energy project established to support H2USA. (Earlier post.)

Sandia also leads the Maritime Fuel Cell (MarFC) project, which is piloting the use of a hydrogen fuel cell to power refrigerated containers on land and on transport barges at the Port of Honolulu.

"Working with the Bureau of Shipping and the Coast Guard, we’ve explored some of the unique issues related to using a hydrogen fuel cell on a vessel and in the marine environment. But there is more at stake when the fuel cell is powering the boat, not an auxiliary system, and the boat is carrying passengers."

—Joe Pratt. . . .

For anyone who is seriously worried that the safety issues of H2/fuel cells make them too dangerous to be used by the public and/or a boon to terrorists, this would seem to be a critical opportunity to register those concerns with agencies in a position to do something about them. Several hundred human passengers per ferry, combined with the world's largest H2 fueling station (presumably located at the Ferry building at the foot of Market St. in S.F. with Justin Herman Plaza adjacent, or else at Fishermen's Wharf - both areas are often packed with tourists) could result in a massive casualty count if H2 is as unsafe as some opponents think. Sandia, the ABS and Coast Guard are all involved, so there's no better time for opponents to make their case re safety by providing the scientific evidence on which they base their beliefs. Sandia is certainly capable of evaluating this evidence, and has been working in the H2 safety field helping to develop regulations and, as mentioned in the article, design H2 fueling stations for years.

 

[Stoaty]

I am mystified by this fascination with hydrogen for noncommercial passenger vehicles considering the risks, cost, inefficiency, lack of infrastructure, etc. With BEV developing so quickly, why consider going with a fuel that may be as dangerous as gasoline, especially since it will produce significant carbon emissions for the foreseeable future (comes from a fossil fuel)?

 

[lorenfb]

With BEV developing so quickly,

Really? And what data do you have to support that view? Hopefully other than the ongoing hyperbole that's
expressed by Elon and the "progress"? of Giga.

 

[Zythryn]

With BEV developing so quickly,

Really? And what data do you have to support that view? Hopefully other than the ongoing hyperbole that's
expressed by Elon and the "progress"? of Giga.

Look around you.
The next generation of EVs is arriving in the next 1-3 years, company have been improving the range, cost and manufacturing costs of their cars during the current generation.
Sales of plugin vehicles have been doing better than sales of hybrids during their first five years.

If you do take into account plans for the near future, BEVs are about to take a big leap forward.
If you aren't looking at near future plans, well... I hear Hyundai sold 73 of their FCV so far.

 

[Stoaty]

With BEV developing so quickly,

Really? And what data do you have to support that view? Hopefully other than the ongoing hyperbole that's
expressed by Elon and the "progress"? of Giga.

Don't get out much, do you?

Leaf 1.5 (30 kwh battery pack, coming soon to a theater near you)
Leaf 2.0 - 2017-2018
Chevy Bolt - 2017