Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[WetEV]

Via GCR:

Early Mercedes fuel-cell driver's 'sobering assessment' to industry

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1104842_early-mercedes-fuel-cell-drivers-sobering-assessment-to-industry

Pretty much the standard issues faced by early adopters of an immature tech with limited infrastructure - BEV owners trying to find/use working QCs/public chargers read much the same, especially in the 2011-2013 timeframe. Unfortunately, most of the more detailed article which GCR based this on is behind a paywall.

A FCEV must find a hydrogen fueling station. A BEV only needs an outlet. How many outlets are there in the USA? Even if you limit to 240V, there still are a lot of them. Unlike outlets, hydrogen fueling stations are expensive. Unlike electric power, hydrogen is expensive.

 

[RegGuheert]

Via GCR:

Early Mercedes fuel-cell driver's 'sobering assessment' to industry

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1104842_early-mercedes-fuel-cell-drivers-sobering-assessment-to-industry

Pretty much the standard issues faced by early adopters of an immature tech with limited infrastructure - BEV owners trying to find/use working QCs/public chargers read much the same, especially in the 2011-2013 timeframe.

The GCR article worded the issue quite a bit more accurately:

Still, the costs and operational challenges of establishing a hydrogen infrastructure continue to be substantial—and mass-market users will likely expect no less than parity with gasoline fueling, one of the main arguments used by hydrogen proponents.

The mentality that says that alternative fuel vehicles cannot succeed unless and until they mimick the capabilities of gasoline-fueled vehicles is clearly flawed. The proof of this statement is in the successes to date:

- H2 forklifts are winning in round-the-clock warehouse applications because they provide a higher-availability solution than quick-charged lead-acid-battery-based solutions.
- BEVs are winning over commuters who have a charging solution either at home or at work by offering a different, yet superior, solution to commuting. BEVs nearly eliminate the need to refuel away from home for commuting, so this solution has legs and will continue to grow.

What's common about these two applications is that these alternative solutions offered an actual BENEFIT to the users over ALL incumbent solutions. H2 FCVs offer no such benefit for commuters for any of the stakeholders. The ONLY benefits are those created through taxation and redistribution of monies to the vendors of H2 equipment.

 

[WetEV]

What's common about these two applications is that these alternative solutions offered an actual BENEFIT to the users over ALL incumbent solutions. H2 FCVs offer no such benefit for any of the stakeholders. The ONLY benefits are those created through taxation and redistribution of monies to the vendors of H2 equipment.

Directly and today, yes. Fuel cell technology may well be usable for things other than cars, and cars may well be a good development platform.

My father once derided lasers as "a solution in search of a problem". When he said this, lasers were low power, expensive, inefficient, mostly bulky, and had no real practical use. Sure, there were tiny laser diodes, but they operated at liquid nitrogen temperatures and in pulse mode only. Cheap room temperature contiguous mode laser diodes now power the internet, DVD players, and much more.

I wouldn't entirely count out fuel cell technology. On one hand, I don't see how cars with fuel cells will be more than a small fraction of cars at best. Light aircraft powered with fuel cells, on the other hand, might be better than gasoline piston aircraft, with similar range, much lower maintenance costs and much higher reliability. Cars are an ideal test bed for developing fuel cells for aircraft usage, developing new aircraft power isn't as cheap and easy as new power for cars. Technologies can end up doing things we didn't even imagine while they were being developed. So there may be a benefit, even if FCEVs never work out.

 

[RegGuheert]

Generally agreed. Note that I added the words "for commuters" to the quote you grabbed sometime after you grabbed it but before you posted.

As I noted, fuel cells are already finding application in some forklift applications.

Regarding ground vehicles as test beds for aircraft, I will point out that propulsion solutions for aircraft have very little overlap with those for ground vehicles. This is because the requirements are significantly different.

 

[GRA]

Via GCR:

Early Mercedes fuel-cell driver's 'sobering assessment' to industry

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1104842_early-mercedes-fuel-cell-drivers-sobering-assessment-to-industry

Pretty much the standard issues faced by early adopters of an immature tech with limited infrastructure - BEV owners trying to find/use working QCs/public chargers read much the same, especially in the 2011-2013 timeframe.

The GCR article worded the issue quite a bit more accurately:

Still, the costs and operational challenges of establishing a hydrogen infrastructure continue to be substantial—and mass-market users will likely expect no less than parity with gasoline fueling, one of the main arguments used by hydrogen proponents.

The mentality that says that alternative fuel vehicles cannot succeed unless and until they mimick the capabilities of gasoline-fueled vehicles is clearly flawed. The proof of this statement is in the successes to date:

- H2 forklifts are winning in round-the-clock warehouse applications because they provide a higher-availability solution than quick-charged lead-acid-battery-based solutions.
- BEVs are winning over commuters who have a charging solution either at home or at work by offering a different, yet superior, solution to commuting. BEVs nearly eliminate the need to refuel away from home for commuting, so this solution has legs and will continue to grow.

What's common about these two applications is that these alternative solutions offered an actual BENEFIT to the users over ALL incumbent solutions. H2 FCVs offer no such benefit for commuters for any of the stakeholders. The ONLY benefits are those created through taxation and redistribution of monies to the vendors of H2 equipment.

Of course, we disagree that FCEVs offer no benefit - they offer the benefit of a ZEV for all those who can't charge at home or work. At far too high a cost for now and the near future, to be sure, and most people don't care, but the same's true for PEVs in general.

Re material handling equipment, in that situation FCEVs offer much the same operational and health BENEFITS over ICEs and BEVs as would be the case for LDVs. Having operated forklifts powered by gas, diesel, propane and batteries in warehouses over a period of years in an earlier lifetime, BEVs and FCEVs both possess a major health/local environmental advantage over the fossil-fueled options - believe me, you don't want to spend any more time in a trailer with a diesel forklift with its engine running than you can help, and the constant need to start and stop engines adds to maintenance costs and reduces lifetimes. Banning first diesels and then gas forklifts in enclosed warehouses was a huge health improvement, as is switching from propane to FCEV, even though the cost of H2 fuel is currently much higher than any of the fossil fuels.

Among ZEV forklifts, BEVs are undoubtedly cheaper than FCEVs per hour of runtime, but the operational advantages of fast refueling, less space dedicated to same, and longer periods between refueling/recharging are the reasons why FCEV forklifts are more successful in many operations compared to BEV ones. In other words, FCEV forklifts succeed over BEV forklifts because "they mimick [Sic.] the capabilities of gasoline-fueled vehicles", while also providing health benefits. In some cases, the advantages provided by mimicking the capabilities of fossil-fueled vehicles aren't needed, in which case BEVs are the ZEV tech of choice.

The same holds true with BEV/FCEV cars: the local health BENEFITS are the same (assuming fuel/electricity produced by renewables/nukes). For those who have the option of home/work charging and whose needs are met by BEV capabilities, they're' the best option, and for all of us whose situation doesn't fit that profile* FCEVs are a better (and currently only other potential) ZEV option. And both still need to get their costs down to be viable without subsidies in the mass market.

*An example: https://www.wired.com/2014/12/ev-charging-infrastructure-2/

 

[GRA]

Via GCC:

DOE awarding $13M to advance fuel cell performance and durability and H2 storage technologies

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/07/20160707-h2.html

. . . Led by Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Fuel Cell Consortium for Performance and Durability (FC-PAD) focuses on improving fuel cell performance and durability. Projects selected through this consortium will work to decrease the amount of platinum required and increase the performance and durability of transportation fuel cells, thereby decreasing cost and improving the life of fuel cell electric vehicles. The selected projects under this consortium are: [list of four projects]. . . .

The Hydrogen Materials—Advanced Research Consortium (HyMARC) is the newest consortium within DOE’s Energy Materials Network, a national lab-led initiative that is leveraging $40 million in federal funding to tackle one of the major barriers to widespread commercialization of clean energy technologies: the design, testing, and production of advanced materials. . . .

The projects selected under this consortium will work to improve onboard automotive hydrogen storage systems by lowering the cost and increasing the storage capacity to enable hydrogen infrastructure. The resulting fundamental understanding, when combined with materials data, will embody the approach described in the Materials Genome Initiative Strategic Plan for accelerated materials development. The selected projects are: [list of four projects]. . . .

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

Look up "remorse" in the dictionary, there will be a picture of Mark Mobley of Garden Grove, California.

http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/mark-phelan/2016/07/09/hydrogen-powered-car-toyota-mirai/86841540/

The Mirai costs $57,500. Most drivers lease their vehicles for $499 a month, but Mobley went all in: he financed the Mirai and bought it outright.

 

[GRA]

http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/mark-phelan/2016/07/09/hydrogen-powered-car-toyota-mirai/86841540/

The Mirai costs $57,500. Most drivers lease their vehicles for $499 a month, but Mobley went all in: he financed the Mirai and bought it outright.

Look up "remorse" in the dictionary, there will be a picture of Mark Mobley of Garden Grove, California.

It will be right next to pictures of those early adopters who bought their 2011 LEAFs so that Nissan couldn't take them back and crush them. Yeah, he'd better hope that H2 comes way down in price or else that Toyota continues to subsidize it, perhaps at a lower rate, after he's used up his $15k fuel allowance. Buying makes no sense when he doesn't have any idea what H2 will be selling for in a few years, or what more advanced FCEVs may show up.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

...or if they even catch on. Basically he took a loan to buy a Camry bludgeoned with an ugly stick at triple the price. I can easily see H2 fading away, and the sources he has to refuel along with it.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

Of course, we disagree that FCEVs offer no benefit - they offer the benefit of a ZEV for all those who can't charge at home or work.

Therein lies the problem. Unfortunately, most consumers don't seem to care about this benefit. I don't know if it's because they don't believe emissions are a problem or because they don't believe their own actions are large enough to matter. Either way, again, the bottom line is that most consumers do not seem to count "ZEV" as a benefit.

 

[RegGuheert]

Of course, we disagree that FCEVs offer no benefit - they offer the benefit of a ZEV for all those who can't charge at home or work.

Therein lies the problem. Unfortunately, most consumers don't seem to care about this benefit. I don't know if it's because they don't believe emissions are a problem or because they don't believe their own actions are large enough to matter. Either way, again, the bottom line is that most consumers do not seem to count "ZEV" as a benefit.

Vehicle emissions matter AND my own actions matter. That is why I would NEVER drive one of the most polluting vehicles ever created: the H2 FCV. Claiming that H2 FCVs are ZEV is disingenuous, at the very least. The exact opposite is closer to the truth.

Put another way, H2 FCVs offer negative benefits to the environment versus the alternatives.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

Of course, we disagree that FCEVs offer no benefit - they offer the benefit of a ZEV for all those who can't charge at home or work.

Therein lies the problem. Unfortunately, most consumers don't seem to care about this benefit. I don't know if it's because they don't believe emissions are a problem or because they don't believe their own actions are large enough to matter. Either way, again, the bottom line is that most consumers do not seem to count "ZEV" as a benefit.

Vehicle emissions matter AND my own actions matter. That is why I would NEVER drive one of the most polluting vehicles ever created: the H2 FCV. Claiming that H2 FCVs are ZEV is disingenuous, at the very least. The exact opposite is closer to the truth.

Put another way, H2 FCVs offer negative benefits to the environment versus the alternatives.

I suspect that attitude (emphasis added) is held by a large majority of the contributors on this forum, myself included. My point was that it doesn't seem to matter to most people. Think about your friends and family. The people in line ahead of you at the grocery store. Your neighbor (mine is very proud of his new Dodge Challenger, and can't wait to replace the exhaust to make it even louder). I don't know, maybe your experience is different from mine. But in my slice of experience, very few people feel the way you and I do about the issue of ZEV.

So if the only real benefit of HFCEVs is that they are ZEVs, I don't see most people caring. We all know that BEVs have many other benefits already, and get better with every generation.

 

[RegGuheert]

My point was that it doesn't seem to matter to most people.

Absolutely no argument there.

Think about your friends and family.

It's certainly true for most of my family and friends, as well. I'm happy to report that my son has put a deposit on a Tesla Model 3 even though he has no available charging either at work or at home. I suspect it will be people like him who will push for charging points to be installed in apartments and condominiums. That will provide the lowest-impact automotive commuting option available, just as we see with BEVs today for homeowners.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

I'm happy to report that my son has put a deposit on a Tesla Model 3 even though he has no available charging either at work or at home.

Good for him! I applaud him for going out on a limb like that.

There's a good chance that my son's first car will be whatever BEV I buy next, be it a Model III, Bolt, or the next Leaf. Let's see, he'll get his license in ~2026. So a 8-9 year-old EV would be perfect for him. And a brand new EV for his old man

If your son is successful, then he will have resolved (for himself at least) one of the major hurdles for BEVs that GRA has pointed out. Specifically, the regular availability of a place to charge. I'd be interested to hear what he (and others in situations like his) is doing to make a BEV work.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

because they don't believe their own actions are large enough to matter

Boy that's me. It became quite apparent to me that EVs are either going to happen or not, or happen when they happen regardless of whatever actions I took. My little EVangelism activities were silly, the idea that other people's actions would be influenced by what I said or did. Almost everyone in the world around me is going to keep doing exactly what they've been doing, buying whatever is in fashion that suits their needs and desires the marketing messages or salesman talked them into at whatever price point they find acceptable.

It won't be until the products appeal to people on the most selfish of merits that the adoption rate of alternative fuel vehicles will increase, and even then EVs, PHEVs, FCEVs, what-have-you actually need to exceed the value proposition of ICE to overcome the inertia of consumer familiarity.

Or an executive order, that would do it too.

 

[GRA]

Of course, we disagree that FCEVs offer no benefit - they offer the benefit of a ZEV for all those who can't charge at home or work.

Therein lies the problem. Unfortunately, most consumers don't seem to care about this benefit. I don't know if it's because they don't believe emissions are a problem or because they don't believe their own actions are large enough to matter. Either way, again, the bottom line is that most consumers do not seem to count "ZEV" as a benefit.

Quite so, which is why I've always been against trying to sell AFVs based on their environmental credentials. Tesla got it right; they started at the high end rather than the middle of the market, as all new high-tech is expensive, and built a car that could compete on performance with comparably-priced cars and could at least approach their overall utility (given the necessary QC infrastructure). It's more efficient than its fossil-fueled competitors, but not terribly efficient compared to smaller BEVs with lower performance/capability, or other transportation options. Any environmental benefit it has is sort of lumped in with 'other'. Very few people want to buy a multi-thousand dollar hair shirt, and that's what Gen 1 affordable BEVs are to most people.

 

[GRA]

Of course, we disagree that FCEVs offer no benefit - they offer the benefit of a ZEV for all those who can't charge at home or work.

Therein lies the problem. Unfortunately, most consumers don't seem to care about this benefit. I don't know if it's because they don't believe emissions are a problem or because they don't believe their own actions are large enough to matter. Either way, again, the bottom line is that most consumers do not seem to count "ZEV" as a benefit.

Vehicle emissions matter AND my own actions matter. That is why I would NEVER drive one of the most polluting vehicles ever created: the H2 FCV. Claiming that H2 FCVs are ZEV is disingenuous, at the very least. The exact opposite is closer to the truth.

Put another way, H2 FCVs offer negative benefits to the environment versus the alternatives.

Well, gee, Reg, seeing as how Denmark and Norway are both going to produce all their vehicle H2 from excess renewables, and all PEM fuel cells emit nothing other than water vapor, how exactly aren't they ZEVs?

 

[GRA]

Via GCC:

Hyundai and US DOE extend fuel cell vehicle loan partnership in concert with new DC-based hydrogen fueling station

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/07/20160711-tucson.html

Hyundai and the US Department of Energy (DOE) are extending their fuel cell vehicle confirmation program, originally from 2013 through 2015, to a second phase, from 2016 through 2017.

The program involves Hyundai providing a number of Tucson Fuel Cell CUVs (earlier post) for daily use and confirmation by the DOE using existing hydrogen infrastructure. This phase of the program will make significant use of a newly-opened hydrogen refueling station in the Washington DC region. . . .

Phase two [Note: Phase one was restricted to SoCal] further expands the program’s reach to Northern California, Washington D.C., Michigan and Denver. Phase two starts in July 2016 in conjunction with the opening of the newest DC-based hydrogen station. Tucson fuel cell vehicles will use this newest DOE-developed hydrogen station extensively. . . .

 

[GRA]

Via GCC:

DOE awards $14M to advance hydrogen fuel technologies

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/07/20160712-doeh2.html

The US Department of Energy (DOE) announced up to $14 million in funding for the advancement of hydrogen fuel technologies. Specifically, these selections include advanced high-temperature water splitting; advanced compression; and thermal insulation technologies.

For cost-competitive transportation, hydrogen must be comparable to conventional fuels and technologies on a per-mile basis in order to succeed in the commercial marketplace. DOE’s current target is to reduce the cost of producing and delivering hydrogen to less than $4 per gallon of gas equivalent (gge) by 2020 and $7/gge for early markets. . . . [details of projects receiving funding follow]

Also GCC:

Ballard signs $2.5M technology solutions deal for hydrogen backup power systems in China

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/07/20160712-ballard.html

Ballard Power Systems signed a definitive agreement with Guangdong Nation Synergy Hydrogen Power Technology Co. Ltd. to enable Synergy to manufacture exclusively and sell Ballard’s direct hydrogen FCgen-H2PM fuel cell backup power systems in China.

Under the agreement, Ballard will license the designs of its 1.7 and 5 kilowatt FCgen H2PM systems to Synergy for manufacture in the City of Yunfu in Guangdong Province and exclusive sales in China. Synergy has paid Ballard an upfront Technology Solutions fee of $2.5 million for the license and related technology services and will make additional recurring payments to Ballard for each unit sold, subject to annual minimums. Ballard will also be the exclusive supplier of air-cooled fuel cell stacks to Synergy for use in the FCgen-H2PM systems that it produces and sells. . . .

 

[ydnas7]

>Tony

Can anyone see the company submissions about the current chatter regarding limiting ZEV credit sales?

Normally somewhere on ARB's website these should be available.

In-particular, submissions posted after Tesla M3 launch and the high numbers of pre-orders.

IMHO, the arrival of Tesla 3, Bolt and LEAF 2 will effectively kill off much of the ZEV credit desirability of H2 cars, which obviously cost much much more than what the manufacturers are currently 'selling' them at. (Obvious, because of Toyota's decision in Europe)