Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
ydnas7 said:
>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)

I don't agree that H2 is less desirable for Toyota. They will absolutely be locked in through 2025, since CARB has granted them:

1) exemption from traveling provision (sell only in California if they want to, even though they may sell a few in the several northeast CARB-ZEV states)

2) 9 credits per car, versus 4 credits for a Tesla or other 200 mile EV. This is supposed to drop to 7 credits in 2018, but I have my doubts.

3) the state of California is locked into $200 million ($20 million per year) for hydrogen infrastructure

4) the strong hydrogen lobby will get far more than their fair share from the VW scandal, where VW will pay our state $200 million every 30 months for 10 years ($800 million total)
 
TonyWilliams said:
...

2) 9 credits per car, versus 4 credits for a Tesla or other 200 mile EV. This is supposed to drop to 7 credits in 2018, but I have my doubts.

....

4) the strong hydrogen lobby will get far more than their fair share from the VW scandal, where VW will pay our state $200 million every 30 months for 10 years ($800 million total)....

It really seems to me that traveling provisions remain, but that fast refuelling provisions stop for both Electric and Hydrogen cars, for 2018 Model Year onwards. http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/zevtutorial/zev_tutorial_webcast.pdf for instance, the Hyundai Hydrogen Tucson will be 4 credits, the Honda Clarity looks to be 4 credits...

Travelling provision itself is a multiplying factor, so 4 credits can become 7-8 credits using the traveling provision....


California hydrogen network maintenance is starting to be a drain on CARB.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/contracts/PON-13-607_NOPA_6th_Revision_OM.pdf
http://www.energy.ca.gov/contracts/PON-13-607_NOPA_5th_Revised_OM.pdf
http://www.energy.ca.gov/contracts/PON-13-607_NOPA_4th_Rev.pdf
http://www.energy.ca.gov/contracts/PON-13-607_NOPA_Third_Revision_OM.pdf
http://www.energy.ca.gov/contracts/PON-13-607_Second_Revised_NOPA_6-11-15.pdf
http://www.energy.ca.gov/contracts/PON-13-607_Revised_NOPA_Operation_and_Maintenance.pdf

CARB seems to have entered a scared phase, I'm curious to see how scared they are, but they are seems very motivated to try to force more Hydrogen cars onto the market even at the expense of zero emission cars like Teslas. The proposal to limit ZEV sales from successful manufacturers of ZEVs seem primarily aimed to stop long range ZEVs from killing the Hydrogen car.

In light of Tesla 3, Bolt and LEAF 2, the 'sales' forecast's of H2 cars seem more and more unrealistic, surely CARB understands this is attempting to counter it.
 
Marktm said:
Is there a comprehensive and accurate study on the complete lifecycle cost/benefits of H2 fuel cell based technologies compared to "make it bigger/better" battery technology - and/or light hydrocarbon based fuels?

This links to such a report , including what appears to be a summary of alternative paths to (successful???) implementation:

http://www.c2es.org/technology/factsheet/HydrogenFuelCellVehicles

The report does not detail a direct comparison of "hybrid" (or extended range EV's) powered by a LNGs/propane/LPGs. This is certainly attainable in the near term as the infrastructure already (partially) exists. Economics/availability of light hydrocarbons, ease and proven safety of transport, reduced GHG emissions (both production and combustion compared to gasoline) would seem be a near term (next several decades) alternative. It is possible that with improvements in EVX's, and the use of such available technologies, that could achieve the same GHG levels that FCEVs can realistically achieve - at least for generic "transportation".
 
GRA said:
RegGuheert said:
GetOffYourGas said:
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?


The question is will H2 FCVs be ZEVs here in the states?!? Sure some of the H2 made here is from renewable sources but the majority isn't. It's more economical in the U.S. to make it from methane and no one is going to spend more money to make it from renewable sources just for the sake of the environment.
 
rcm4453 said:
GRA said:
RegGuheert said:
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?
The question is will H2 FCVs be ZEVs here in the states?!? Sure some of the H2 made here is from renewable sources but the majority isn't. It's more economical in the U.S. to make it from methane and no one is going to spend more money to make it from renewable sources just for the sake of the environment.
They'll do so in California because they're required to by law, 33% now, a % which will increase with time. I expect other CARB states that are installing H2 stations and where manufacturers are planning to introduce FCEVs will impose similar RFS requirements. The national government, which will presumably remain divided at least until 2019 and maybe longer, obviously isn't going to do so anytime soon, but since most AFVs get sold on the coasts now, that's not critical.

Perhaps we'll see more tri-gen plants like this one appearing, in addition to renewably-powered electrolysis and (perhaps) the ultimate goal of thermochemical and/or photochemical H2: https://transportevolved.com/2016/01/25/hope-for-hydrogen-carb-conditionally-certifies-tri-generation-fuel-cell-plants-as-renewable-h2-power-source/
 
GRA said:
....They'll do so in California because they're required to by law, 33% now, a % which will increase with time....

Its also one the key lessons learnt of what California doing wrong with hydrogen.
700bar H2 can be $10 a kg, 700 bar renewable H2 is about $25 a kg.

2 parts $10/kg + 1 part $25/kg = 3 parts for $45 or 1 kg H2 for $15


Its been a great way to unintentionaly sabotage H2 deployment. Almost as effective as the 700 bar requirement.


anyone want to calculate what renewable H2 costs a Mirai per mile, compared to a electricity for a Prius Prime per EV mile?
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
 
ydnas7 said:
GRA said:
....They'll do so in California because they're required to by law, 33% now, a % which will increase with time....

Its also one the key lessons learnt of what California doing wrong with hydrogen.
700bar H2 can be $10 a kg, 700 bar renewable H2 is about $25 a kg.

2 parts $10/kg + 1 part $25/kg = 3 parts for $45 or 1 kg H2 for $15


Its been a great way to unintentionaly sabotage H2 deployment. Almost as effective as the 700 bar requirement.


anyone want to calculate what renewable H2 costs a Mirai per mile, compared to a electricity for a Prius Prime per EV mile?
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Seeing as how renewable H2 is the only reason going to H2 makes any sense (otherwise, why bother?), the fact that it's now more expensive is neither here or there, and certainly not sabotage. It's essential, and every stakeholder as well as the various levels of government recognize the need to reduce the cost, and are sponsoring R&D to achieve that. If it can be achieved, terrific, and if not, then we've (hopefully) got other options acceptable to the public.
 
GRA said:
They'll do so [build renewable stations] in California because they're required to by law, 33% now, a % which will increase with time. ...

When does this law kick in?
Last I heard, there was one renewable H2 station in CA (that was near the beginning of the year though).
 
Zythryn said:
GRA said:
They'll do so [build renewable stations] in California because they're required to by law, 33% now, a % which will increase with time. ...

When does this law kick in?
Last I heard, there was one renewable H2 station in CA (that was near the beginning of the year though).

It was a requirement of the grant applications, any Californian tax payer funded H2 station must use 33% renewable H2. Since all publicly accessible h2 stations in CA are taxpayer funded, they all must use 33% renewable H2.

It also is achieved as an accounting exercise via credit trading between the stations, so consumers don't see $10/kg for frackogen or $25/kg for windogen. Similar to how a electricity provider may have both wind and gas power, locationally, consumers may get vastly different origins for their electricity, but market wide, its all the same.

I also think that the loop hole for the hypothetical non government funded H2 station to sell 100% frackogen might be closed, if H2 market actually existed, it would be a compelling advantage not to pay a 50% penalty just to get 33% renewable status.
 
Zythryn said:
GRA said:
They'll do so [build renewable stations] in California because they're required to by law, 33% now, a % which will increase with time. ...
When does this law kick in?
Last I heard, there was one renewable H2 station in CA (that was near the beginning of the year though).
That's right. I've done the calcs based on data provided by ydnas7 and the actual percentage is only 7.7%. Of course GRA knows this, but he will repeat the 33% nonsense anyway.

Here are the numbers again:
RegGuheert said:
Thanks for the data! Let's run some numbers:
ydnas7 said:
how does this affect California's 33% renewable H2 dictate?
710 kg H2/day from electrolysis/9250 kg H2 total = 7.7% H2 from electrolysis, which is less than 1/4 of the 33% dictate.

On top of that, the fuel cost for H2 from electrolysis appears to start at $24.00/kg (!) and goes up from there. And that is the COST, not the PRICE! :eek:
 
RegGuheert said:
Zythryn said:
GRA said:
They'll do so [build renewable stations] in California because they're required to by law, 33% now, a % which will increase with time. ...
When does this law kick in?
Last I heard, there was one renewable H2 station in CA (that was near the beginning of the year though).
That's right. I've done the calcs based on data provided by ydnas7 and the actual percentage is only 7.7%. Of course GRA knows this, but he will repeat the 33% nonsense anyway.

Here are the numbers again:
RegGuheert said:
Thanks for the data! Let's run some numbers:
ydnas7 said:
how does this affect California's 33% renewable H2 dictate?
710 kg H2/day from electrolysis/9250 kg H2 total = 7.7% H2 from electrolysis, which is less than 1/4 of the 33% dictate.

On top of that, the fuel cost for H2 from electrolysis appears to start at $24.00/kg (!) and goes up from there. And that is the COST, not the PRICE! :eek:
Reg, you seem to be ignoring the renewable H2 in California made from biomass. That all counts too, not just H2 via electrolysis. I know that the current round of station funding requires that the source of the H2 and its proportion be identified for each and every proposed station. The details are in a link upthread somewhere. I don't remember if this requirement was spelled out in PON 13-607 or not, but it definitely is in the current round. I'll try and find it. [Edit: Got lucky on the first try] From http://www.energy.ca.gov/altfuels/notices/2015-08-13-14_workshop/draft_solicitation_concepts.pdf pages 13 et. seq.:
Renewable Hydrogen Requirements

Applicants must provide a plan for dispensing at least 33% renewable hydrogen through direct
physical pathways for all station proposals. Proposals shall specify the percentage of renewable
hydrogen to be dispensed at each location and describe in adequate detail how each station or
portfolio of awarded stations (including stations previously awarded by the Energy Commission)
expect to dispense at least 33% of renewable hydrogen on a per kilogram basis over the
applicant’s entire portfolio of Energy Commission funded stations through direct physical
pathways from “well to wheel.”


Proposals must include information about the source of the feedstock(s) and/or process
electricity; how the feedstocks will be processed into fuel; and how the fuel will be transported,
stored, and ultimately dispensed at the proposed station(s).

Eligible renewable feedstocks include:

  • • Biomethane or biogas such as: biomass, digester gas, landfill gas, sewer gas, or
    municipal solid waste gas.
    • Other feedstocks may be eligible if the Application demonstrates that the proposed
    feedstock is sustainably produced, reduces greenhouse gas emissions compared to the
    petroleum baseline, and achieves the ARFVTP sustainability goals contained in 20 CCR
    3101.5.

If the primary process energy for hydrogen production is electricity (e.g., for electrolysis),
Applicants must describe a direct source of eligible renewable electricity or source of renewable
energy certificates (RECs) that are registered and verifiable through Western Renewable Energy
Generation Information System (WREGIS) or an equivalent tracking and verification system.
Further information about WREGIS can be found at: http://www.wecc.biz/WREGIS.

Eligible renewable electricity sources include facilities that use the following:

  • • Fuel cells using renewable fuels
    • Geothermal
    • Small hydroelectric (30 megawatts or less)
    • Ocean wave
    • Ocean thermal
    • Tidal current
    • Photovoltaic (PV)
    • Solar Thermal
    • Wind
    • Biomass digester gas
    • Municipal solid waste conversion (non-combustion thermal process)
    • Landfill gas
    • Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs)

Applications must include information about the source of the feedstock(s) and/or process
electricity (i.e., electrical power used to run a system); how the feedstocks will be processed
into fuel; and how the fuel will be transported, stored, and ultimately dispensed at the
proposed station(s).

For each station, Applicants must submit the following information: Year, name of pathway,
amount of hydrogen dispensed annually per station (in kilograms), biogas/renewable feedstock
(in standard cubic feet), and renewable electricity (in kilowatt hours), assumptions and
calculations on an energy equivalent basis that demonstrate that on a “well to wheel”
evaluation that the required percent of the energy used to produce, deliver, dispense and use
hydrogen was from renewable feedstock
. Applicants should use the energy economy ratio
(EER) value of 2.5 (relative to gasoline) from the LCFS regulation to account for the fuel cell
vehicle efficiency. For further information, see: http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/lcfs.htm.
Applicants planning to use renewable electricity for system power must describe how they
intend to use new renewable electricity capacity with the electricity either going directly to the
hydrogen production system or connected to the grid (within the Western Electricity
Coordinating Council - WECC). Applicants planning to use renewable electricity for system
power must describe how the electricity will be dedicated and used for the hydrogen
production in the sustainability section of their application. Alternatively, applicants
purchasing and utilizing eligible renewable electricity credits must describe how the credits will
be dedicated and used for the hydrogen production.

Applicants planning to use biogas for system power must describe how they will either produce
or purchase biogas (certified as renewable) that will be delivered directly to their hydrogen
production facility or injected into a pipeline system. If the purchased biogas will be injected
into a natural gas pipeline distribution system, applicants must show that a physical pathway
exists by providing documentation that proves that the purchased biogas could be transported
from the injection point to the hydrogen plant (that supplies the hydrogen for the applicant’s
stations).


For each station, Applicants must submit the following information: Year, name of pathway,
amount of hydrogen dispensed annually per station (in kilograms), biogas/renewable feedstock
(in standard cubic feet), and renewable electricity (in kilowatt hours).
Applicants must account for the possibility that not every station they submit will be
recommended for funding. Therefore, Applicants must describe whether and how their
renewable hydrogen plan would change depending on the number and location of stations
ultimately awarded.
Please also include information about whether and how costs might
change depending on the portfolio of stations ultimately awarded grant funding. For example,
the Applicant shall specify whether different technologies or more expensive equipment would
be used depending on the combination of stations awarded.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
Reg, you seem to be ignoring the renewable H2 in California made from biomass.
I am. Thanks for pointing that out.

Is it possible to quantify that?
I'm sure it is, but I don't know where the data might be located. I take it that you no longer classify my mentioning the 33% RFS as 'nonsense'? I imagine the individual station applications have it, but haven't found a source that lists the totals. Haven't looked that hard, though. IIRR there was some kind of breakdown in maybe the 2014 Annual Report, as there were then or were due to be six 100% renewable stations in the first round of grants, and I know at least some of those used biomass, the existing Orange County Sanitation District tri-gen plant (heat/electricity/H2) dem/val project being one of them. They've apparently now approved similar systems as meeting full retail requirements, as I linked back a page.
 
Via GCC:
Hydrogen refueling station in Ulm opens; 21 HRS now in Germany
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/07/20160715-ulm.html

. . . To date, 21 hydrogen refueling stations (HRS) have been completed in Germany. They are funded as research and development projects by the German federal government through the National Innovation Program for Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology (NIP). The existing filling stations already reach some six million people in the metropolitan regions of Berlin, Hamburg, the Rhine/Ruhr, Stuttgart and Munich. Seven stations are located in Baden-Württemberg alone, with five more planned in the region.

Within the NIP expansion program, Daimler and Linde are participating in a total of 20 new H2 stations with a total investment of around €20 million (US$22.2 million). Total operates the hydrogen pump in Ulm and paid for its construction. . . .
 
GRA said:
I take it that you no longer classify my mentioning the 33% RFS as 'nonsense'?
Not until we have SOME evidence that we are currently at or above 33%. Note this additional information from GCR:
Green Car Reports said:
There are, however, exceptions to the requirement. Among them are the following:

If the state board determines that there is insufficient availability of hydrogen fuel from eligible renewable resources to meet the 33.3 percent requirement of this paragraph, the state board may, after at least one public workshop and on a one-time basis, reduce the requirement by an amount, not to exceed 10 percentage points, that the state board determines is necessary to result in a renewable percentage requirement for hydrogen fuel that is achievable.

and

If the executive officer of the state board determines that it is not feasible for a public transit operator to use hydrogen fuel made from eligible renewable resources, the executive officer may exempt the operator from the requirements of this paragraph for a period of not more than five years and may extend the exemption for up to five additional years.
Simply put, CA gave themselves an out on this issue.

Governments can mandate anything they damn well please. That does not mean it will ever come to pass.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
I take it that you no longer classify my mentioning the 33% RFS as 'nonsense'?
Not until we have SOME evidence that we are currently at or above 33%. Note this additional information from GCR:
Green Car Reports said:
There are, however, exceptions to the requirement. Among them are the following:

If the state board determines that there is insufficient availability of hydrogen fuel from eligible renewable resources to meet the 33.3 percent requirement of this paragraph, the state board may, after at least one public workshop and on a one-time basis, reduce the requirement by an amount, not to exceed 10 percentage points, that the state board determines is necessary to result in a renewable percentage requirement for hydrogen fuel that is achievable.

and

If the executive officer of the state board determines that it is not feasible for a public transit operator to use hydrogen fuel made from eligible renewable resources, the executive officer may exempt the operator from the requirements of this paragraph for a period of not more than five years and may extend the exemption for up to five additional years.
Simply put, CA gave themselves an out on this issue.

Governments can mandate anything they damn well please. That does not mean it will ever come to pass.
IIRR,if all the stations scheduled to open by the end of 2015 had done so (and they fell far short, see next post), the renewable H2 fraction achieved would have been 46% rather than 33.3%, so I think it's fair to say there is considerable cushion. And at least as long as Jerry Brown stays in office (another 2.5 years), there isn't going to be any backdown on environmental regs. Even a future governor and his/her appointees would still be facing a democratic-dominated legislature which isn't inclined to soften such regs, given the massive public support for them.
 
Found this which was just released, while searching for something else:
2016 Annual Evaluation of
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric
Vehicle Deployment and
Hydrogen Fuel Station
Network Development
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/ab8/ab8_report_2016.pdf

This is the third Annual Report. In answer to the question Reg posed, from pgs. 63-65:
Carbon Intensities and Resource Consumption

Although the number of stations has changed slightly since the last Annual Evaluation, there has
not been a significant shift in the projected renewable fueling proportion of the funded hydrogen
fueling network. Assuming business-as-usual based on the funded network, the hydrogen fuel
dispensed in California is expected to contain on average 45% renewably-sourced hydrogen.
This is substantially greater than SB 1505’s requirement of 33% for all stations receiving State
funding
. Additionally, the projected throughput of the 50 currently funded stations is less than 3.5
million kilograms per year. If the capacity were above this threshold
, SB 1505 would require that
any privately-funded hydrogen fueling stations also comply with the 33% renewable hydrogen
requirement
. Figure 29 shows the updated evaluation of the State’s projected renewable
hydrogen content, which is nearly identical to the same analysis in the 2015 Annual Evaluation. . . .

While the analysis of the expected renewable hydrogen dispensed in the State has not changed,
there have been important advancements for renewable hydrogen programs in the last year.
The first milestone came in November of 2015, when ARB’s LCFS staff provisionally certified
the renewable hydrogen pathway currently in use at the Emeryville station as compliant for
participation in the credit generating and trading program. LCFS staff determined that the
Emeryville station’s use of an on-site, dedicated solar power resource for generating hydrogen
via an electrolyzer qualified for a carbon intensity value of 0.00 gCO2/MJ
. With this certification,
the Emeryville station has become the first opt-in participant in the LCFS program utilizing a
hydrogen fuel pathway in order to generate credits.

In addition, in December of 2015, the LCFS program certified four fuel pathway applications
submitted by LyTen, LLC
. The various fuel pathways utilize a hydrocarbon cracking process to
convert renewable biogas feedstocks into compressed hydrogen. Certified carbon intensity
factors ranged from a maximum of 29.84 gCO2/MJ to a minimum -46.91 gCO2/MJ. The two
pathways with a certified negative carbon intensity therefore act as a net reduction in carbon
emissions, offsetting carbon emissions from other uses of the same feedstock. In fact, LyTen’s
two pathways with a negative carbon intensity are the second and third lowest in the entire
LCFS program. Finally, in January of 2016, Fuel Cell Energy’s trigeneration system, which was
demonstrated at the now decommissioned Fountain Valley station, also received a negative
carbon intensity of -0.82 gCO2/MJ.


Development of certified hydrogen pathways, and participation by hydrogen providers, in the
LCFS program is currently viewed as a substantial opportunity for an additional revenue stream
tied to hydrogen fueling stations. This can decrease the operating costs significantly and make
the business case for fueling stations more attractive to private investors. It can also help ensure
the long-term viability of stations that have been co-funded by the State
. . . .
The Emeryville site referred to above is operated by AC Transit, which AFAIA is the largest user of FCEV buses in the state. Now, about your classification of my mentioning the 33% H2 RFS as 'repeating nonsense'. . . ? Oh, the Appendix lists the stations which use or are intended to use 100% renewable H2, for those who might be interested. There are 8 so far, not counting the dem/val site at OCSD in Fountain Valley that decommissioned.
 
anyone want to calculate what renewable H2 costs a Mirai per mile, compared to a electricity for a Prius Prime per EV mile?

mirai 67 mpge vs prius prime 120 mpge
 
ydnas7 said:
anyone want to calculate what renewable H2 costs a Mirai per mile, compared to a electricity for a Prius Prime per EV mile?

mirai 67 mpge vs prius prime 120 mpge

Here's some data points:

*******

Just-Drive-The-Prius(tm)

$0.0625 per mile = $2.50 per gal / 40mpg

*******

2012 Toyota RAV4 EV

$0.06236 per mile for NRG /eVgo public DC charging

*******

Here's what NRG really costs for that average 1250 mile per month / 15,000 per year traveler:

$0.06236 per mile

Assume 3 miles per kWh consumption (very generous for a LEAF):

Assume 40kW average charge rate.

Therefore:

1250 / 3 = 417 kWh burned per month

417 / 40 = 10.5 hours charging per month

$6 per hour (10 cents per minute NRG rate) * 10.5 hours = $63

$77.95 = $14.95 monthly charge + $63 billing

$0.06236 per mile for NRG /eVgo use only
 
TonyWilliams said:
*******

Just-Drive-The-Prius(tm)

$0.0625 per mile = $2.50 per gal / 40mpg

*******

2012 Toyota RAV4 EV

$0.06236 per mile for NRG /eVgo public DC charging

*******

{Leaf}

$0.06236 per mile for NRG /eVgo use only

Leaf charged at home.

1/(3 miles/kWh) * $0.12/kW (national average)

$0.04 per mile for home charging.

While I sleep, most of the time.
 
Back
Top