Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[TonyWilliams]

According to the DoE, there's only a 4% efficiency gain hybridizing a fuel cell vehicle - not sure a parallel hybrid's worth it. A true serial hybrid, however, with the fuel cell charging the battery, seems to like a good plan

If putting a plug on the thing means I only have to chase down obscure h2 stations on rare occasion it might be a more acceptable consumer product. You aren't going to save any carbon emissions with a car nobody buys.

Yep. Put a plug on it.

 

[RegGuheert]

According to the DoE, there's only a 4% efficiency gain hybridizing a fuel cell vehicle - not sure a parallel hybrid's worth it. A true serial hybrid, however, with the fuel cell charging the battery, seems to like a good plan.

With no link it's hard to tell, but it sounds like someone at the DOE must not have done their homework. A battery has a 97% (round-trip) efficiency and a fuel cell has a 40% discharge efficiency, so the efficiency of driving off the battery should provide a 150% gain over driving from the fuel cell. Since a battery adds weight, let's be generous and say that cuts the efficiency enough that you only get a 100% gain by using a PHFCEV arrangement. (OTOH, you will likely gain all of this back since you will be refueling at home and avoiding some extra trips driving to the refueling station.) If you use a battery with a 40-mile range, then the average commute (and shorter) can be accomplished using less than 50% of the energy consumed as would be required using the fuel cell alone.

 

[AndyH]

According to the DoE, there's only a 4% efficiency gain hybridizing a fuel cell vehicle - not sure a parallel hybrid's worth it. A true serial hybrid, however, with the fuel cell charging the battery, seems to like a good plan

If putting a plug on the thing means I only have to chase down obscure h2 stations on rare occasion it might be a more acceptable consumer product. You aren't going to save any carbon emissions with a car nobody buys.

In general I agree - yet considering the US power grid, it's better to fuel the car entirely from reformed natural gas rather than plug-in at home.

I know I do the 'what if' thing plenty as both a reminder of what we can do and what a very small number of folks are doing, but when I zoom out to a macro view, this is an example of where a plug might be a step backward when it comes to CO2 emissions. I don't like it at all - but it's where we are today. More wind, please!

http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/10001_well_to_wheels_gge_petroleum_use.pdf

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

Andy, if carbon is your bag, and it seems quite clear that it is, I think you have to address power generation first and foremost. At our house running the cars is only about 10% of the load. While that chart is an interesting statement for the here and now realities of power generation, it shows EVs emit no carbon and PHEVs emit none for the first 40 miles each day (it doesn't seem to completely convey that, not sure you could)

Whenever someone razzes me for transferring my emissions to the power plant, I simply tell them I did my part, now the electric company needs to do theirs. They are paying people to work on the problem, maybe those people need to up their game, but I'm not in a position to take over that assignment.

 

[GRA]

According to the DoE, there's only a 4% efficiency gain hybridizing a fuel cell vehicle - not sure a parallel hybrid's worth it. A true serial hybrid, however, with the fuel cell charging the battery, seems to like a good plan.

More important, I think, that you can plug in and use lower cost and more widely available electricity for local use (assuming you're not getting your H2 for 'free', that is). And remember, we're talking about Ca., not the national grid, so even if a lessee doesn't have PV on their roof they're still getting far cleaner electrons than the national average.

Seems Hyundai's taking a page out of Tesla's playbook for it's FCEV Tucson: Free fuel.

http://autos.jdpower.com/content/bl...-tucson-fuel-cell-expands-hydrogen-market.htm

Interested buyers will be able to lease one for 36 months at a monthly payment of $499. A down payment of $2,995 is required, but the lease includes an unlimited amount of free hydrogen fuel and an At Your Service Valet Maintenance program.

Aha! That certainly makes the economic argument a lot better and goes one step beyond Tesla (all fuel, not just that on road trips), even if that is unsustainable for a mass-market commercial product (which these aren't, yet). But it's a better lease deal than some which were offered on the RAV4EV early on - I found this in a post from back in February of this year:

"3999 down and 469 plus tax a month."

Still too rich for me given how few miles I put on a car, otherwise sign me up (CAFCP Roadmap shows a planned H2 station in my hometown)! Assuming, that is, they'll lease them in Norcal as well as SoCal. But I sure hope Enterprise has one for rent in the Bay Area, because I'd definitely like to try one for a weekend. There is only a single public H2 station here currently and it's about 20 miles from me, but it's on the way to Tahoe or Marin so I could design a trip to use it without inconvenience.

 

[GRA]

I doubt anyone reading this thread harbors that misapprehension, at least when considering DoC only.

It's already been expressed in this thread.

If I were shopping for a AFV CUV of about that size, I'd certainly be comparing the ICE Tucson and other brands to the PHEV Outlander to the FCEV (or FCHV) Tucson, to see what I get for my much larger upfront payment.

Not if you were shopping for a ZEV.

When I signed up for the Leaf, I didn't look at specs from gas cars, or hybrids, or the Versa or anything else. Many others on this forum and in other EV forums have expressed the same view. When one wants to cut the fossil fuel pipe they understand that the requirements are 'no plug=no sale' and 'EVs don't have tailpipes'. Something you'll understand better when you join us in EV land.

Sorry, but I look at well to wheels as well as utility and LCO. Any vehicle that I buy, while being as green as possible, has to make economic and practical sense for me. I am not in a position to treat a car as a hobby or a toy, and even if I were I wouldn't do so, as that would be a flagrant waste of resources. As long as my current car keeps working for me at an affordable price I'll keep it, until I can make the change to the best compromise vehicle for me available at the time. Ideally that would be to a BEV/FCEV/FCHV, but I'm not a purist. And my first, albeit only weeklong experience in EV land was in 1998 in a Think City. It's first and foremost a car, and it needs to do what I need a car to do or it's a waste of space, energy and money.

Right now, if I were to match my needs with a car, since I'm only concerned with highway mpg I'd probably go for a stick Jetta TDI Sportwagen, hoping that I could find an affordable source of biodiesel close by but not losing any sleep if I couldn't. My W2W GHGs would be down, other emissions would probably be about the same or a bit better than the 2003 Forester I currently drive. It only lacks AWD (and cloth seats), but my mix of winter trips has shifted away from less skiing to more diving for the last several years, so I could live with installing and removing chains again.

 

[RegGuheert]

Chelsea tipped me off to this new article by John Voelcker on the debate about FCEVs: Can Hydrogen Fuel-Cell Vehicles Compete With Electric Cars?. Pretty decent article with some insight from our favorite LEAF Advisory Board Chairperson!

 

[smkettner]

Chelsea tipped me off to this new article by John Voelcker on the debate about FCEVs: Can Hydrogen Fuel-Cell Vehicles Compete With Electric Cars?. Pretty decent article with some insight from our favorite LEAF Advisory Board Chairperson!

This quote says it a to me

"Today, the only such car is the Honda FCX Clarity, and Honda has leased only 40 of them since 2008, solely in Southern California."

That is eight per year. Less than one per month. That is the full market at this point. I don't see it growing much even with subsidized leases and fuel.

 

[GRA]

Chelsea tipped me off to this new article by John Voelcker on the debate about FCEVs: Can Hydrogen Fuel-Cell Vehicles Compete With Electric Cars?. Pretty decent article with some insight from our favorite LEAF Advisory Board Chairperson!

This quote says it a to me

"Today, the only such car is the Honda FCX Clarity, and Honda has leased only 40 of them since 2008, solely in Southern California."

That is eight per year. Less than one per month. That is the full market at this point. I don't see it growing much even with subsidized leases and fuel.

The market has been a bit bigger than that, although still just a demo program. I previously linked to a GCC article on D-B's B-class FCEV experience. Quoting:

"Fleet results. The greatest number of the vehicles are in operation in California around Los Angeles. All failures are tracked and statistically evaluated. Reliability of the fuel cell system has grown steadily during fleet operation, Mercedes-Benz says. To further improve the reliability of the fuel cell system, new components will be required."

And as I've mentioned, there's a Toyota Highlander FCHV-ADV in my neighborhood in the East Bay (along with a LEAF).

 

[AndyH]

Andy, if carbon is your bag, and it seems quite clear that it is, I think you have to address power generation first and foremost. At our house running the cars is only about 10% of the load. While that chart is an interesting statement for the here and now realities of power generation, it shows EVs emit no carbon and PHEVs emit none for the first 40 miles each day (it doesn't seem to completely convey that, not sure you could)

Whenever someone razzes me for transferring my emissions to the power plant, I simply tell them I did my part, now the electric company needs to do theirs. They are paying people to work on the problem, maybe those people need to up their game, but I'm not in a position to take over that assignment.

BEVs and PHEVs emit no carbon in electric mode only as long as they are charged from zero-carbon energy.*** This is also true of FCEV/FCHV if the hydrogen is electrolyzed using zero-carbon energy, or if biogas (possibly carbon negative) is steam distilled using at least a balance of zero-carbon energy.

Power generation and efficiency is important, sure. Heating and powering buildings covers about 40% of our emissions, and agriculture (mostly beef) is almost another 40.

Sure, there's the 'longer tailpipe' argument - but there's plenty we can do beyond passing the ball to the power company - even with EVs and PHEVs we can look for ways to not drive. We can sit and relax once the grid's 100% carbon neutral or carbon negative. Until then, we're all in a position to help them 'up their game' - we're the only people that can.

edit... This keeps bothering me - "if carbon is my bag"? It's the entire point of this transition to ZEVs! It may not be the reason you bought an EV, but it's ultimately the reason you have one to buy.

Dr. Richard Alley from Penn State made the following comments during the release of a new climate report on December 3rd:

The scholarship is very clear that if climate change arises slowly and gradually, we see it coming, we deal with it and adapt to it as it comes, we're actually still better off economically dealing with it - that there really is a social cost of emitting carbon now and that actions taken to reduce that and to deal with the impacts make us better off.

Analogy...suppose you're a commuter. You probably took the Metro to get there, but supposes you actually had to drive across Washington [DC]to get the [NAS] today - you probably got stuck in traffic. And you expect traffic. The best thing that you can hope for if you drive across Washington is no traffic. But you might really get stuck in traffic and while you're stuck in traffic you might be run-over by a drunk driver and killed. So in a risk management sense, what you expect is some problem, and it could be a little better, a little worse, or a lot worse.

You can think of abrupt climate change as the drunk drivers of the earth's system. And we know that if we get the most likely outcome, dealing with it still makes us better off just as dealing with traffic actually can make you better off. But in our transportation system, we put a lot of our effort into the drunk drivers. We have police out there trying to stop drunk drivers; we have cars with crumple zones, anti-lock brakes, air bags, child seats; Mothers Against Drunk Drivers; engineers working on better roads so we don't get killed - you know, we really work on something we don't expect to happen because if it does it's so consequential. And then we work on traffic as well.

Dealing with climate change and abrupt climate change in a risk management sense, if you take your cues from the way we deal with other things in our system, there's probably a lesson there.

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimat...s-of-climate-change-briefing-webcast-archive/

edit...

***
Not entirely true in the real world for the Volt as the car will still burn gasoline to maintain the ICE and keep the fuel system exercised. Even if all charges are from PV panels, it'll have a carbon footprint from the gasoline and engine oil that a BEV or FCEV/FCHV will not have.

 

[AndyH]

Seems Hyundai's taking a page out of Tesla's playbook for it's FCEV Tucson: Free fuel.

http://autos.jdpower.com/content/bl...-tucson-fuel-cell-expands-hydrogen-market.htm

Interested buyers will be able to lease one for 36 months at a monthly payment of $499. A down payment of $2,995 is required, but the lease includes an unlimited amount of free hydrogen fuel and an At Your Service Valet Maintenance program.

An additional note from this article:

For example, Hyundai says it has been testing its prototypes using hydrogen derived from the methane gas emitted by sewage at California's Orange County Sanitation District.

This is important as we research H2 suppliers - just because the hydrogen is supplied by a steam reformer doesn't mean the generator is using fossil natural gas.

 

[GRA]

Foudn the following on GCC, detailing Hyundai and other companies FCEV plans. Sadly, it seems that the initial roll-out of the Tucson will be restricted to SoCal, so I'll have to wait a bit until they expand here:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/11/20131121-fcvs.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[AndyH]

Interesting report on hydrogen storage - life cycle cost analysis and some info on how much less expensive auto fuel H2 will be when it's a 'byproduct' of grid storage. It's from 2009 so not incredibly old.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/46719.pdf

Using hydrogen for energy storage provides unique opportunities for integration between the transportation and power sectors. An analysis was performed to evaluate the potential cost implications of producing excess hydrogen for vehicles in addition to what is needed for the electricity storage scenario. Producing a small amount of excess hydrogen (five 280-kg tanker-truck loads or 1,400 kg per day) for the vehicle market was evaluated by adding a hydrogen load to the mid-range energy storage case with aboveground storage of hydrogen. Producing this small amount of excess hydrogen reduces the overall levelized cost of energy for this scenario by about 6% compared with the purely energy arbitrage scenario.2 The excess hydrogen is produced for $4.69/kg. Excess hydrogen produced in this way is still not competitive with hydrogen produced in a dedicated, distributed electrolysis process with the same daily output of hydrogen ($4.00/kg untaxed). However, for producing larger volumes of excess hydrogen to feed into a hydrogen pipeline, the scenario with energy storage plus excess hydrogen could be competitive with a dedicated hydrogen production facility. The energy storage plus excess hydrogen scenario produces 500 kg/hour (12,000 kg/day) of excess hydrogen for $3.33/kg (untaxed). A dedicated, centralized, 500-kg/hour electrolysis facility produces hydrogen for $6.86/kg (untaxed).

 

[RegGuheert]

The excess hydrogen is produced for $4.69/kg. Excess hydrogen produced in this way is still not competitive with hydrogen produced in a dedicated, distributed electrolysis process with the same daily output of hydrogen ($4.00/kg untaxed).

The energy storage plus excess hydrogen scenario produces 500 kg/hour (12,000 kg/day) of excess hydrogen for $3.33/kg (untaxed). A dedicated, centralized, 500-kg/hour electrolysis facility produces hydrogen for $6.86/kg (untaxed).

I'm a little confused by the numbers, so I was wondering if someone would explain them to me:

I pulled out two parts of the quote for comparison's sake. My reading is that in the first quote distributed, small-scale electrolysis can be done for $4.00/kg while the second quote indicates that centeralized, large-scale, 500-kg/hour electrolysis will produce H2 for $6.86/kg.

What I'm wondering is why electrolysis costs so much more to produce in the centralized facility than in the distributed one. Is it because the distributed one is only producing H2 at times when there is excess electricity available?

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

The excess hydrogen is produced for $4.69/kg. Excess hydrogen produced in this way is still not competitive with hydrogen produced in a dedicated, distributed electrolysis process with the same daily output of hydrogen ($4.00/kg untaxed).

The energy storage plus excess hydrogen scenario produces 500 kg/hour (12,000 kg/day) of excess hydrogen for $3.33/kg (untaxed). A dedicated, centralized, 500-kg/hour electrolysis facility produces hydrogen for $6.86/kg (untaxed).

I'm a little confused by the numbers, so I was wondering if someone would explain them to me:

I pulled out two parts of the quote for comparison's sake. My reading is that in the first quote distributed, small-scale electrolysis can be done for $4.00/kg while the second quote indicates that centeralized, large-scale, 500-kg/hour electrolysis will produce H2 for $6.86/kg.

What I'm wondering is why electrolysis costs so much more to produce in the centralized facility than in the distributed one. Is it because the distributed one is only producing H2 at times when there is excess electricity available?

guessing a centralized facility has more expenses for transportation and storage maybe?

 

[GRA]

I'm a little confused by the numbers, so I was wondering if someone would explain them to me:

I pulled out two parts of the quote for comparison's sake. My reading is that in the first quote distributed, small-scale electrolysis can be done for $4.00/kg while the second quote indicates that centeralized, large-scale, 500-kg/hour electrolysis will produce H2 for $6.86/kg.

What I'm wondering is why electrolysis costs so much more to produce in the centralized facility than in the distributed one. Is it because the distributed one is only producing H2 at times when there is excess electricity available?

guessing a centralized facility has more expenses for transportation and storage maybe?

Should be less, as tankers are far more expensive than pipelines once the volume is more than minimal, and the centralized facility assumes geologic storage. From the full report, which I'm still reading to figure out the reason for the numbers:

"In the first scenario, it is assumed there would be demand for five 280-kg (1,400-kg/day)
gaseous tankers of hydrogen per day from the storage system. This scenario produces
511,000 kg of hydrogen per year for vehicle use, which is roughly equivalent to the
output from one forecourt hydrogen station and about 12% of the hydrogen produced for
the energy storage scenario.

"It is assumed that the electrolyzer system would be sized
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/h2a_prod_studies.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false. 3
slightly larger but would operate on the same schedule as the energy storage scenarios to
take advantage of low electricity prices and provide additional load during times of low
electricity demand. It is assumed that the hydrogen would be stored in aboveground steel
tanks that could be loaded onto a trailer.

"The second scenario is similar to the first in that the electrolyzer system is sized to
accommodate production of additional hydrogen during off-peak hours. However, in this
scenario, approximately the same amount of hydrogen is produced for vehicles on a
yearly basis as is produced to fuel the fuel cell for peak electricity production. This
scenario assumes that 500 kg/hour of hydrogen flows into a pipeline at all times.
Geologic storage and pipeline transport of the hydrogen is assumed. Costs were
developed for production and storage of the hydrogen for both scenarios. Costs for
transport of the hydrogen to refueling stations were not considered.

And:

"In general, geologic hydrogen storage is anticipated to be considerably cheaper than
storing hydrogen in steel tanks. However, development of geologic storage reservoirs is
highly dependant on the characteristics of the geologic formation. EPRI-DOE (2003) cost
estimates for developing underground storage facilities for CAES systems range from
$0.10/kWh ($2003) for porous rock formations to $30/kWh ($2003) for excavation of
hard-rock formations. The storage volume required for a hydrogen-based system would
be orders of magnitude less than the volume required for an equivalent-energy-capacity
CAES reservoir because of the higher caloric value of the hydrogen. Crotogino and
Huebner (2008) estimated the energy density for a typical CAES system at 2.4 kWh/m3;
for a comparable hydrogen reservoir, they estimated 170 kWh/m3. Table 3 shows the
range of costs for geologic storage cavern development for CAES and hydrogen
assuming the energy density values given by Crotogino and Huebner. Geologic storage
costs for hydrogen developed for the H2A Delivery Components Model (Argonne
National Laboratory 2009/2009a) are shown for comparison. That analysis is based on a
natural gas storage facility in Saltville Virginia.

"The values given in the H2A Delivery Components Model are used for the geologic storage
costs in this report. The current cost estimate for storage of hydrogen in aboveground
tanks is $623/kg or ~$19/kWh."


Edit:

Okay, here's all they say:

"The untaxed levelized cost of hydrogen for this scenario is $4.69/kg. This cost compares
to a value of $4.98/kg for hydrogen in the equivalent energy arbitrage scenario. For
reference, the current forecourt hydrogen production H2A electrolysis case using the
same electricity price ($0.038/kWh) and production level (1,400 kg/day) produces
hydrogen at an untaxed levelized cost of $4.00/kg for the production process and
$5.05/kg at the dispenser.

"A similar comparison was done assuming that hydrogen would be stored in a geologic
formation and that excess hydrogen would be fed into a pipeline at the rate of 500
kg/hour (12,000 kg/day). The pipeline demand for hydrogen in this case is approximately
equal to the demand for hydrogen for the energy arbitrage scenario. As for the tanker
case, it was assumed that the electrolyzer would be operated only during off-peak hours.
The NPC for the pipeline excess hydrogen case is presented in Figure 15.

"The levelized cost of hydrogen for this scenario is $3.33/kg. This cost compares to a
value of $4.21 for hydrogen in the equivalent energy arbitrage scenario. For reference,
the current central hydrogen production H2A electrolysis case using the same electricity
price ($0.038/kWh) and production level (12,000 kg/day) results in an untaxed hydrogen
levelized cost of $6.86."

They provide references for both of these calcs, but they point you to Excel spreadsheets and you apparently have to be signed in to access them, so no joy there.

Meanwhile, found the following on how they calculated the necessary H2 price for 2020 in gallons of gas equivalent:

http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/11007_h2_threshold_costs.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[RegGuheert]

Thanks, Guy!

So IIUC it appears the $4.00/kg cost is based on the idea of using very-low-marginal-cost electricity from renewables as it is available versus $6.86/kg which uses electricity at all times. While I can see that idea lowers the cost of the electricity, it also seems that increases the capital costs substantially due to lower utilization rate.

In any case, the target prices in 2020 of $2 to $4/kg may be hard to reach using electrolysis given that there is a steadily-rising cost for electricity at the same time. It seems that study does not consider the impact of BEVs, but this third option cannot be ignored IMO.

 

[AndyH]

In any case, the target prices in 2020 of $2 to $4/kg may be hard to reach using electrolysis given that there is a steadily-rising cost for electricity at the same time.

The problem with this phrase is that the price of both capitol to generate and price of electricity generated by wind and solar continues to fall, not increase. We're only subjected to 'steadily-rising' costs for electricity when we assume continued use of fossil fueled generation.

 

[AndyH]

There was an NPR story on the 11th about storage on the California power grid. It was disappointing to hear that NPR seemed to be parroting industry talking points. And of course, nothing about hydrogen.

http://www.npr.org/2013/12/11/25004...eded-to-make-fickle-wind-and-solar-power-work

And there's not much time to figure this out. Utilities like PG&E are preparing for a huge surge of on-and-off power supplies in the next six years, as California's wind and solar industries ramp up to meet the state's 2020 renewable energy goal.

 

[JeremyW]

There was an NPR story on the 11th about storage on the California power grid. It was disappointing to hear that NPR seemed to be parroting industry talking points. And of course, nothing about hydrogen.

That because California has no plans to use hydrogen as grid storage. Hydro, gas turbines, demand response, batteries, and CAISO's new Energy Imbalance Market are being used to make up for intermittent renewables.