Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[GRA]

I am happy to engage in a business discussion of the actual costs of running charging stations. Do you really think that this model works when most people do not want to pay more than say 20c/KWHr? Because a full fast DC charge of 30 minutes would only bring in $4.00 max.

Why would you think that I'd need or want to engage you in a debate about DC charger financials? I don't.

Most people (that excludes the "Just-Drive-The-Prius(TM)" crowd) only have a vague idea how much they currently pay per kWh. The same goes for the metric frequently used in the past with early adopters who kept a Prius around so they could drive any trip where public charging the LEAF might cost one penny more per mile than the cost of a Prius (not counting depreciation, oil changes, maintenance, etc).

So, $0.20 per kWh is just another made up metric by you. As you'll see below, electricity per kWh would have to equal $0.60 to $0.84 per kWh to match a hydrogen car.

Comparing costs that car owners do care about, cost per mile / km to operate equivalent cars, then we find:

Gasoline Car Equivilent

2015 Toyota Camry V6 combined EPA - 25mpg @ $3.45 per gallon in California = $0.138 per mile in energy cost

Hydrogen Car Equivilent

2014 Honda FCX Clarity EPA 59 mpge @ $13.99 per kg = $0.236 per mile in energy cost
2016 Hyundai Tucson Fuel Cell EPA 50 mpge @ $13.99 per kg = $0.238 per mile in energy cost
2016 Toyota Mirai EPA 66 mpge @ $13.99 per kg = $0.212 per mile in energy cost
Notes: One kg of hydrogen is roughly equivalent to one U.S. gallon of gasoline.

Electric Car Equivilent

2015 Nissan LEAF EPA 4 miles per kWh @ $0.12 per kWh = $0.03 per mile in energy cost
2015 Tesla Model S-70D EPA 3.3 miles per kWh @ $0.12 per kWh = $0.04 per mile in energy cost

The cost per kWh for an Electric Car to match the average cost per mile of a Hydrogen Car ($0.22) would have to be 500% to 700% higher to match.

Came back about day and a half early from Yosemite, as the smoke from various fires was getting bad; I did get in a nice morning hike yesterday, before the wind shifted.

Back on topic, to reiterate one point which has been repeatedly made (and just as repeatedly ignored by those who believe H2 will never be viable) is that NO customer is paying $13.99/kg. Not one. The auto manufacturers are paying it because they know that H2 FCEVs can't compete against gas (at the moment, neither can public charging) until the price of H2 comes down or gas prices go up (a lot in the U.S., less so in Europe). The forecast price curve and what needs to happen to bring that about has been discussed previously, in various links; probably "The Hydrogen Transition" is the most on point: http://steps.ucdavis.edu/files/08-13-2014-08-13-2014-NextSTEPS-White-Paper-Hydrogen-Transition-7.29.2014.pdf

In particular pgs. 23-29. Also see "Hydrogen Fueling Stations Infrastructure": http://evtc.fsec.ucf.edu/reports/EVTC-RR-02-14.pdf

In short, the fact that H2 isn't competitive now is recognized by all stakeholders, and steps are being taken to change that by the time that FCEVs are ready to go mainstream, assuming they ever are.

 

[finman100]

...so, 10 years out?

 

[GRA]

...so, 10 years out?

Read the reports and place your bet.

 

[GRA]

Via GCC:

Toyota and public and private partners in Japan to trial renewable CO2-free hydrogen supply chain

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/09/20150908-tmch2.html

Major corporate and public sector partners in Japan are launching an effort to test a full carbon-neutral hydrogen supply chain powered by renewable wind energy. The trials are planned to take place near the cities of Yokohama and Kawasaki in the Keihin coastal region.

On the public sector side, the project is being implemented by the Kanagawa Prefectural Government, Yokohama City, and Kawasaki City. The four private sector participants are Iwatani Corporation, Toshiba Corporation, Toyota Motor Corporation, and Toyota Turbine and Systems Inc. In addition, the project will be supported by Japan’s Ministry of the Environment. . . .

Since the overall environmental benefit of hydrogen is only as strong as the method used to produce it, global research initiatives around the world are dedicated to developing large-scale carbon-neutral projects that use renewable energy to power hydrogen production.

Under this trial project, wind power will be used to turn water into oxygen and hydrogen, with the latter stored for use locally. Grid power will only be used for backup when absolutely necessary and excess renewable energy produced may even be sold to utility companies.

As plans currently stand, the project will involve:

A system to produce hydrogen by electrolysis using wind power
A system to optimize storage and transportation of hydrogen produced
Use of fuel cell forklifts
A hydrogen supply chain feasibility study (hydrogen price, CO2 reduction, etc.)

The total project duration is expected to take place over four years. At this stage, the project partners are still discussing specifics. Implementation is set to begin from April 2016 onward. . . .

 

[TonyWilliams]

Hydrogen Car Equivilent

2014 Honda FCX Clarity EPA 59 mpge @ $13.99 per kg = $0.236 per mile in energy cost
2016 Hyundai Tucson Fuel Cell EPA 50 mpge @ $13.99 per kg = $0.238 per mile in energy cost
2016 Toyota Mirai EPA 66 mpge @ $13.99 per kg = $0.212 per mile in energy cost
Notes: One kg of hydrogen is roughly equivalent to one U.S. gallon of gasoline.

Electric Car Equivilent

2015 Nissan LEAF EPA 4 miles per kWh @ $0.12 per kWh = $0.03 per mile in energy cost
2015 Tesla Model S-70D EPA 3.3 miles per kWh @ $0.12 per kWh = $0.04 per mile in energy cost

The cost per kWh for an Electric Car to match the average cost per mile of a Hydrogen Car ($0.22) would have to be 500% to 700% higher to match.

...NO customer is paying $13.99/kg. Not one. The auto manufacturers are paying it because they know that H2 FCEVs can't compete against gas (at the moment, neither can public charging) until the price of H2 comes down or gas prices go up (a lot in the U.S., less so in Europe).

Well, somebody is paying for the hydrogen. In the future, it will be the consumer. If in the future, Tesla decides to charge folks the market price for electricity, I would consider that a bargain. For the same to be true for hydrogen, we all have to believe that for over 100 years, a commodity like hydrogen will magically get cheaper... and not just a little cheaper, massively cheaper.

Of course, that's completely discounting the trillion dollars investment to install the hydrogen infrastructure.

Gasoline is established and stable. Almost too stable to uproot. Electricity is the same dynamic.

I fully get the motivation for a California University that is paid a grant from the state of California to make a report on the cost of hydrogen. Obviously, as you can clearly see, they can't say "hydrogen is a dead end... stop sending us grants to study it".

So, magic happens...

You mentioned how Europe will somehow be easier, because gasoline is more expensive there (and apparently EVs pose no threat at a far, far lower cost to operate). What you overlook is that oil is a world commodity, and therefore a similar COST anywhere in the world. But, the PRICE of petrol in Europe is grossly more expensive than the USA. Why? Taxes... all the Euro taxes will magically disappear with hydrogen. With all the road taxes, hydrogen would be about $20 per kg. Not cheaper, more expensive.

 

[GRA]

Hydrogen Car Equivilent

2014 Honda FCX Clarity EPA 59 mpge @ $13.99 per kg = $0.236 per mile in energy cost
2016 Hyundai Tucson Fuel Cell EPA 50 mpge @ $13.99 per kg = $0.238 per mile in energy cost
2016 Toyota Mirai EPA 66 mpge @ $13.99 per kg = $0.212 per mile in energy cost
Notes: One kg of hydrogen is roughly equivalent to one U.S. gallon of gasoline.

Electric Car Equivilent

2015 Nissan LEAF EPA 4 miles per kWh @ $0.12 per kWh = $0.03 per mile in energy cost
2015 Tesla Model S-70D EPA 3.3 miles per kWh @ $0.12 per kWh = $0.04 per mile in energy cost

The cost per kWh for an Electric Car to match the average cost per mile of a Hydrogen Car ($0.22) would have to be 500% to 700% higher to match.

...NO customer is paying $13.99/kg. Not one. The auto manufacturers are paying it because they know that H2 FCEVs can't compete against gas (at the moment, neither can public charging) until the price of H2 comes down or gas prices go up (a lot in the U.S., less so in Europe).

Well, somebody is paying for the hydrogen. In the future, it will be the consumer. If in the future, Tesla decides to charge folks the market price for electricity, I would consider that a bargain. For the same to be true for hydrogen, we all have to believe that for over 100 years, a commodity like hydrogen will magically get cheaper... and not just a little cheaper, massively cheaper.

Of course, that's completely discounting the trillion dollars investment to install the hydrogen infrastructure.

Gasoline is established and stable. Almost too stable to uproot. Electricity is the same dynamic.

I fully get the motivation for a California University that is paid a grant from the state of California to make a report on the cost of hydrogen. Obviously, as you can clearly see, they can't say "hydrogen is a dead end... stop sending us grants to study it".

So, magic happens...

You mentioned how Europe will somehow be easier, because gasoline is more expensive there (and apparently EVs pose no threat at a far, far lower cost to operate). What you overlook is that oil is a world commodity, and therefore a similar COST anywhere in the world. But, the PRICE of petrol in Europe is grossly more expensive than the USA. Why? Taxes... all the Euro taxes will magically disappear with hydrogen. With all the road taxes, hydrogen would be about $20 per kg. Not cheaper, more expensive.

Hydrogen may be a commodity, but renewable Hydrogen isn't yet. And just in the period from when I was selling PV back in the early '90s, PV retail price/Wp has dropped from $7.50 to at or below $1.00, with wind seeing comparable drops. Fuel cells have seen ever greater % drops in cost over just the past decade, approx. 1/20th of what they were. As demand increases and the effects of R&D kick in, H2 prices will come down as well, the only question is whether they'll come down enough in relation to petroleum to be competitive.

Trillion dollars for an H2 infrastructure? Maybe, but then that hasn't stopped us building an internet infrastructure, now has it? It's certainly true that fossil fuels are more heavily taxed in Europe than here, but then electricity is also more expensive there, limiting the price differential between BEVs and FCEVs. If the intent is to get off fossil fuels and into renewables, then higher taxes on fossil fuels is surely a good thing. I have no doubt that H2 will be taxed eventually, but assuming that some sort of carbon tax will be imposed, that can only help the shift to renewable H2 (and BEVs, and PHFCEVs and biofuels).

 

[GRA]

Via GCC:

Intelligent Energy showcasing fuel cell range-extended light commercial vehicle at LCV2015

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/09/20150909-ie.html

Fuel cell technology provider Intelligent Energy is displaying and demonstrating a fuel-cell range-extended electric light commercial development vehicle at LCV2015 in the UK. The prototype ZERE (Zero Emissions Range Extender) van is the first stage in an on-going UK consortium project that is supported by funding from the Advanced Propulsion Centre (APC) to develop a new class of range-extended commercial vehicle.

The range extension capability provided by the fuel cell allows the vehicle to double the range of conventional urban electric driving without re-fueling. . . .

Taking advantage of direct input from fleet operators, the consortium will investigate the most effective routes to commercialization, including the possibilities for installation during first manufacture and retro-fitment. This is a next step in maturing the technology featured in the prototype on display at LCV2015, which is largely the result of research and development activities carried out by Intelligent Energy prior to the APC-backed project being confirmed in March of this year. . . .

 

[TonyWilliams]

I can't imagine the plug-in hybrid hydrogen car catching on. By the time the dust settles on building the expensive infrastructure for expensive fuel (compared to batteries and electricity), batteries will be $100-$150 per kWh, negating the need for hydrogen.

It will be cheap enough to load the car up with the required batteries.

Plus, far cheaper to install a DC charger on every street corner, like Japan.

 

[GRA]

Via GCC:

ITM Power to site three Hydrogen Refueling Stations on Shell retail forecourts in UK

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/09/20150910-itmpower.html

ITM Power has signed a strategic siting partnership with Shell for the delivery of Hydrogen Refueling Stations (HRS) on three Shell retail forecourts in the UK. These three HRS deployments will be the first to be integrated onto forecourts in the UK.

ITM Power announced on 28 March 2015 that it had been awarded £1.89 million (US$2.9 million) by OLEV (Office for Low Emission Vehicles) to invest in two new HRS in London at strategic locations suitable for use by Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEV). Both HRS will incorporate on-site hydrogen generation using the Company’s PEM HGas electrolyzer platform.

HGas electrolyzer systems range from 60 kW to 1+ MW and can produce hydrogen at pressures up to 20 bar or 80 bar depending on options chosen.

Additional financial support of £1.7 million (US$2.6 million) is being contributed by the FCH JU (Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking) to provide support for the operation of these stations in the early years. Following the agreement with Shell, at least one, possibly two, of these HRS will be built under the OLEV scheme.

 

[GRA]

I can't imagine the plug-in hybrid hydrogen car catching on. By the time the dust settles on building the expensive infrastructure for expensive fuel (compared to batteries and electricity), batteries will be $100-$150 per kWh, negating the need for hydrogen.

It will be cheap enough to load the car up with the required batteries.

Plus, far cheaper to install a DC charger on every street corner, like Japan.

Japan is also installing extensive H2 fueling infrastructure, so that won't be a handicap. As to the relative cost of batteries and fuel cells, we'll just have to wait and see which wins the race. Both have been predicted several times in the past to be the inevitable winner, but neither has yet crossed the finish line; indeed, they've just left the blocks.

 

[GRA]

Via ABG/Norway Today [my emphasis]:

Prime Minister opens hydrogen filling station at Oslo Airport

http://www.norwaytoday.info/home_view.php?id=128669

The first piece of the new infrastructure for filling hydrogen fuel in Eastern Norway is now in place and it is located at Oslo Airport. Prime Minister Erna Solberg attended today's opening together with representatives from Oslo Airport, Akershus County Authority and HYOP.

After several years of testing hydrogen as a fuel, HYOP has now taken on the task of establishing a robust hydrogen infrastructure that will make it possible to start the introduction of hydrogen cars in Eastern Norway. The opening of the station at Oslo Airport is a collaboration between Akershus County Council, Avinor and Lillestrøm Centre of Expertise. A preliminary study has considered further possibilities for the use of hydrogen as fuel at the airport.

“The opening of the hydrogen station at Oslo Airport is the first piece of the infrastructure that will make it possible to launch the introduction of hydrogen cars in Norway,” says Ulf Hafseld, general manager of HYOP.

“We are now working under a schedule which calls for four robust stations to open in the greater Oslo region over the next two to three years. Together with the station we have in Porsgrunn, this infrastructure will accommodate the first 2-3,000 hydrogen cars.

Hydrogen vehicles in place at Oslo Airport

Oslo Airport bought its first hydrogen vehicle in 2014, and it is used daily by Airport Patrol officers.

“This is a very happy day for the entire region. We want to facilitate zero-emission vehicles locally, in ground transport and for external users,” says Ole Jørgen H. Hanssen, head of the safety and environment staff at Oslo Airport, adding:

“We want to phase out the use of fossil fuels in our own vehicles, and that means we need to test various technological solutions such as biofuels, electricity and hydrogen.”

The first module to be established at Oslo Airport will later be expanded to serve the expected increase in traffic.

“It will be important to offer future users sufficient capacity and a station that is always open. Particularly now as we introduce hydrogen to taxi companies, it is essential that the cars can run around the clock like today's diesel-powered taxis,” says Hafseld.

Norway leads the way

Akershus County Authority has provided financial support for the project at the airport, and is an active participant in efforts to establish the early network of hydrogen stations, which will ensure that Norway will continue to be a world leader in the introduction of hydrogen fuel.

 

[ydnas7]

Japan is also installing extensive H2 fueling infrastructure, so that won't be a handicap. As to the relative cost of batteries and fuel cells, we'll just have to wait and see which wins the race. Both have been predicted several times in the past to be the inevitable winner, but neither has yet crossed the finish line; indeed, they've just left the blocks.

even in japan the H2 stations need $100,000 pa subsidy, in addition to starting costs, H2 is still DOA in Japan, although local governments can buy some just to demonstrate their nationalism.

H2 is more energy intensive than diesel, renewable H2 is about 3x more energy intensive than just batteries. well to wheel

 

[GRA]

Semi-OT, but I think this ABG article by an Angeleno who isn't car-obsessed on why she likes her Prius, and why she can't/won't buy a Tesla is a pretty fair reflection of mainstream consumer 'need a car to drive from A to B with minimum hassle' attitudes, even if she does stray outside that in not caring what her car looks like (and she's in the film industry), and is an example of why I see a future for FCEVs as well as BEVs:

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/09/10/why-toyota-prius-la-best-car/

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/09/10/why-toyota-prius-la-best-car/

 

[GRA]

Japan is also installing extensive H2 fueling infrastructure, so that won't be a handicap. As to the relative cost of batteries and fuel cells, we'll just have to wait and see which wins the race. Both have been predicted several times in the past to be the inevitable winner, but neither has yet crossed the finish line; indeed, they've just left the blocks.

even in japan the H2 stations need $100,000 pa subsidy, in addition to starting costs, H2 is still DOA in Japan, although local governments can buy some just to demonstrate their nationalism.

H2 is more energy intensive than diesel, renewable H2 is about 3x more energy intensive than just batteries. well to wheel

As all agree they need subsidies now, just as public charging stations do. The issue is whether that can be changed. As to relative energy use, that's been discussed ad nauseum, so no need to repeat that. Some people think that's critical and others don't.

 

[RegGuheert]

As to relative energy use, that's been discussed ad nauseum, so no need to repeat that. Some people think that's critical and others don't.

But what you have done is to simply dismiss efficiency off-hand. But energy efficiency is critically important for the world's energy systems. It may not have been in the historical references that you have provided, but times have changed. We no longer have significantly more cheap energy on hand than we can use.

There seems to be a very common fallacy that renewable == unlimited. While that MAY be true (its certainly not a given) in terms of total energy available over a very long time, it is absolutely NOT true for energy flows (AKA power). Contrary to popular belief, the deployment of renewable infrastructure is sometimes (often?) more damaging to the environment than the deployment of fossil-fuel-based infrastructure (think Ivanpah).

And, BTW, the low efficiency of the production of renewable hydrogen means that the deployment of hydrogen infrastructure is really the deployment of expensive fossil-fuel infrastructure, since we do not have the resources to power such a wasteful hydrogen fleet from renewable sources. Instead, we need to adopt technologies which use our limited resources wisely.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Semi-OT, but I think this ABG article by an Angeleno who isn't car-obsessed on why she likes her Prius, and why she can't/won't buy a Tesla is a pretty fair reflection of mainstream consumer 'need a car to drive from A to B with minimum hassle' attitudes, even if she does stray outside that in not caring what her car looks like (and she's in the film industry), and is an example of why I see a future for FCEVs as well as BEVs:

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/09/10/why-toyota-prius-la-best-car/

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/09/10/why-toyota-prius-la-best-car/

That person is a total cheap skate, and certainly a core demographic for the Prius. Hydrogen cars will NOT appeal to cheapskates, unless the government is funding it, in which case they'll lap them up only if it's cheaper than everything else, and that includes at least some convenience (yes, cheap skates will endure a remarkable amount of inconvenience to save a penny). Hydrogen won't offer that unless the hydrogen station is right around the corner and never breaks down / is crowded, and remains government subsidized stations with auto manufacturer subsidized fuel and vehicles.

Toyota will likely do hydrogen car/fuel subsidizes for a VERY long time, since they have no announced plans for an EV to handle regulatory compliance, except in China (they are required to have ZEV's, and hydrogen is outlawed in a type 4 tank). Plus, as they keep telling us, they don't plan on building very many anyway, so the overall cost is not too bad and meets regulatory compliance around the world (except China).

Toyota gets the added benefit of constantly deriding EVs, and hopefully slowing the adoption of non-petroleum cars (the ones that they make BILLIONS of yen selling). The hydrogen fuel of the future has many benefits for Toyota, especially the "fuel of the future" part.

 

[TonyWilliams]

As all agree they need subsidies now, just as public charging stations do. The issue is whether that can be changed. As to relative energy use, that's been discussed ad nauseum, so no need to repeat that. Some people think that's critical and others don't.

You spew this out a lot, but let's see the data. Blink is almost non-existent in the overall scheme of things (I think they have about 60 active DC chargers out of 2,000 in the USA, and 8,000 in the world. So, that ship sailed, after they bilked the tax payer and investors out of $200 million.

So, let's talk about today, in the real world. Please indicate what government subsidizes that I get for DC chargers (any and all).

How about NRG / eVgo ?

Greenlots?

ChargePoint?

SemaConnect?

Any others?

 

[mbender]

I can't imagine the plug-in hybrid hydrogen car catching on.

Yes, but can you imagine them catching on fire? ;-) :lol:

 

[RegGuheert]

I can't imagine the plug-in hybrid hydrogen car catching on.

Yes, but can you imagine them catching on fire? ;-) :lol:

It's O.K. You can't see it! :lol:

 

[GRA]

As to relative energy use, that's been discussed ad nauseum, so no need to repeat that. Some people think that's critical and others don't.

But what you have done is to simply dismiss efficiency off-hand. But energy efficiency is critically important for the world's energy systems. It may not have been in the historical references that you have provided, but times have changed. We no longer have significantly more cheap energy on hand than we can use.

There seems to be a very common fallacy that renewable == unlimited. While that MAY be true (its certainly not a given) in terms of total energy available over a very long time, it is absolutely NOT true for energy flows (AKA power). Contrary to popular belief, the deployment of renewable infrastructure is sometimes (often?) more damaging to the environment than the deployment of fossil-fuel-based infrastructure (think Ivanpah).

And, BTW, the low efficiency of the production of renewable hydrogen means that the deployment of hydrogen infrastructure is really the deployment of expensive fossil-fuel infrastructure, since we do not have the resources to power such a wasteful hydrogen fleet from renewable sources. Instead, we need to adopt technologies which use our limited resources wisely.

No, Reg, I haven't dismissed efficiency offhand, I've said that I don't believe that we can continue to live like the majority of Americans do now, because it's massively inefficient. I have said, repeatedly, that we need to reduce the need to use cars for most of our transportation needs, precisely because detached single family homes in low-density. single-use zoned, car-dependent sprawl is so inefficient of resources and energy. Only having done that, can we use AFVs (of whatever type most suitable for the particular job) for those remaining uses for which cars are the best choice,

What most people (most americans, anyway) want is for there to be some technological fix that will allow them to keep living exactly as they have, just substituting renewables, electric cars etc. for fossil-fuels. I don't believe that it will be possible for ~4% of the world's human population to continue to use ~25% of its resources/energy - the rest of the world will increasingly demand their share.

I believe that only by increasing the energy efficiency of the entire built environment, i.e. the infrastructure that supports us, can we get to where we need to be - tinkering around the edges won't do it.