Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[Nubo]

I absolutely understand that some think this is some kind of government plot.

I have to say that my main exposures to Hydrogen powered vehicles usually come by way of discovering that the California Air Resources Board has taken steps that slow (or, infamously, kill) BEV adoption in favor of the much-superior Hydrogen cars. And, man it's getting to where you can't hardly turn around without seeing another H2 car and its drippy tailpipe. They're everywhere!

I'm familiar with the maneuvers behind the CARB hearings as reported by various authors and documentary producers.

Keep in mind that many of you have hydrogen generation and storage equipment in your cars now and have for years - what's an NiMH cell, anyway, but a device that stores hydrogen in a metal hydride until the energy's needed to move the Prius in EV mode?

The oil industry isn't behind the Third Industrial Revolution. The fossil fuel industry isn't behind Germany's transition to wind-H2 storage. It's not behind Reinventing Fire or demonstration projects in the US that make fertilizer from wind power.

You can tell that because they are FIGHTING the TIR and Reinventing Fire and fossil fuel divestment and the IPCC and the US climate change assessment.

I was under the mistaken impression that people here - if nowhere else - were interested in putting fossil fueled vehicles into museums. But even this thread - not only about the delivery of FCEV and FCHV, and not only about the 'plan' to deploy a fuel network, but about money released and fuel stations being installed - is labeled negatively.

Of COURSE we should pay for this! Our fuel taxes are collected specifically to pay for roads. Aviation fuel taxes are collected to feed the airways trust fund to upgrade airports. Alternative fuel money SHOULD be used to deploy alternative fueling infrastructure. Seriously - we're ALL paying for pollution - if we're going to pay for it anyway, we might as well get some benefit - especially if it stuffs the pollution in a coffin rather than our kids!

Do you people want to get off fossil fuels or not?

I do want us to get off fossil fuels. My main concern with H2 initiatives (at least here) is that they represent a huge opportunity for the fossil fuel hegemony to find another market. H2 as storage for renewably-generated energy is fantastic. If we're going to have mandates and public subsidies, they should come with guarantees that the H2 will be from renewable generation and not reformed fossil fuels. Don't make the mistake of trying to beat the devil by making a deal with him. That's only worked once that I know of.

 

[AndyH]

Of COURSE it does, Tom, I expect nothing less. You and Drees get the blue pill. We'll wake you when the USA has caught up with the rest of the world.

Why don't you leave the personal jabs out of it and insist on being abrasive when people disagree with you?

You're not listening, drees, and that's unfortunate. Again - I don't give a DAMN who agrees with 'me' - but I get somewhat cross when people try to cram outright lies down my throat. As we've said on this forum many times since it began - we're all welcome to our opinions but NOT our facts. If that's a problem for you or another moderator, just let us all know. Thanks in advance.

Do you people want to get off fossil fuels or not?

The obvious, and glaring disconnect to your hydrogen soliloqui is that pure battery electric cars do exactly that.

Not just that, but that EVs are a cheaper and more efficient way to do it than FCEVs.

We'll find out soon enough how well FCEVs do in real life.

Yes, Tony, BEVs do. But they are not today and likely will NEVER be a 100% solution. Electrification of transportation is much more than just BEVs. And drees - your thoughts on price and efficiency have already been corrected earlier in this thread.

It's not useful to get stuck in either a BEV stovepipe or religion. That type of thinking is what got us into this position with 'all' (the majority) of our eggs in one fossil-fuel basket. Resilience and adjusting to our new Earth requires that we step back and look first.

 

[TomT]

Have a good life.

Of COURSE it does, Tom, I expect nothing less. You and Drees get the blue pill. We'll wake you when the USA has caught up with the rest of the world. Or, well, we won't because we won't be around. Whatever.

 

[AndyH]

I do want us to get off fossil fuels. My main concern with H2 initiatives (at least here) is that they represent a huge opportunity for the fossil fuel hegemony to find another market. H2 as storage for renewably-generated energy is fantastic. If we're going to have mandates and public subsidies, they should come with guarantees that the H2 will be from renewable generation and not reformed fossil fuels. Don't make the mistake of trying to beat the devil by making a deal with him. That's only worked once that I know of.

Thanks Nubo. I don't disagree with what I think you're saying here.

At this point I'm trying to keep all the doors open. The same tech used to reform fossil natural gas can be used to reform biomethane for one example. Electrolysis is currently expensive but biogas is dirt cheap - and our list of landfills piping gas to a power turbine continues to grow.

I think we've too late for a 'kinder, gentler' transition back to sanity. We will either crash like most other addicts must, or we'll stop fighting and use that energy to break out of the rut as quickly and dramatically as we can. "Houston, we've got a problem" is not a call to convene a 6-month focus group...

Nubo - thanks for the sanity.

 

[AndyH]

Not just that, but that EVs are a cheaper and more efficient way to do it than FCEVs.

It's my understanding that 'cheaper' implies a comparison, and that one should find as direct a comparison as possible prior to judging. Do you agree with this, drees?

Can you show us a single BEV - available for lease or purchase anywhere in the world - that allows a 400 mile range in the winter in North Dakota with the heat on and that can be refueled to 100% range in less than 5...check that - in less than 15 minutes?

No - that animal doesn't exist in the BEV world and according to researchers in the battery world, we're not likely to see that anytime soon at any price. But that is where FCEVs are right now. And the energy industry, the financial industry, and the think tanks that advise them confirm that it's time for fuel cells to get on the road.

Just one example from 14 Aug 13:
http://www.navigantresearch.com/blog/volume-will-drive-down-fuel-cell-costs

The history of technology adoption shows that once something works and is good enough for the initial adoption phase, what’s needed to reduce costs is volume. Get the stuff out of the door. Ship product. Here, the fuel cell industry can learn from the solar PV industry.

According to legend, it took 2 years to sell the first 1 million iPods and then less than 6 months to sell the second million. If Apple had held on to the product until the devices became cheaper, and some would argue, more affordable, would that first 2 years have been shortened? Unlikely. People still had to play with the product and understand how it fit into their lives. The same is true with fuel cell technology.
The moral of this tale is to stop holding onto the technology until it is “better” (i.e., cheaper). Ship now and continue to make improvements. Then costs will come down.

Someone had to buy the first fax machine. While we don't necessarily 'need' another communication device, we desperately need the revolution it will catalyze.

 

[smkettner]

Yes, Tony, BEVs do. But they are not today and likely will NEVER be a 100% solution. Electrification of transportation is much more than just BEVs.

I believe BEVs are eventually a 100% solution for local transportation. For long distance some overhead electric power would seem more feasable than building the hydrogen infrastructure that would be needed.

 

[JeremyW]

Can you show us a single BEV - available for lease or purchase anywhere in the world - that allows a 400 mile range in the winter in North Dakota with the heat on and that can be refueled to 100% range in less than 5...check that - in less than 15 minutes?

My last two gas cars don't even fit that bill! :roll:

 

[AndyH]

Can you show us a single BEV - available for lease or purchase anywhere in the world - that allows a 400 mile range in the winter in North Dakota with the heat on and that can be refueled to 100% range in less than 5...check that - in less than 15 minutes?

My last two gas cars don't even fit that bill! :roll:

My '08 Ranger doesn't do that, but my previous two cars - both B4 VW Passat diesels (a '97 sedan and '96 wagon) - would burn 100% biodiesel for ~700 miles on a tank at a minimum of 45MPG at highway speeds (50 MPG if kept below 65 with some hypermiling tossed in).

Yet the Hyundai Tucson FCEV can do that today and return about 60 MPG - and that's the FCEV starting point.

I agree with your :roll: I just think it's misplaced.

 

[GRA]

Can you show us a single BEV - available for lease or purchase anywhere in the world - that allows a 400 mile range in the winter in North Dakota with the heat on and that can be refueled to 100% range in less than 5...check that - in less than 15 minutes?

My last two gas cars don't even fit that bill! :roll:

So maybe they only go 300, or even 250. And you don't care, because you can refuel them in five minutes and do another 250-300 miles while using the heater and defroster to your heart's content. No BEV currently can go anywhere near that far in those conditions, or 'refuel' that fast barring battery swap. Maybe they will someday, but not now, and FCEVs can.

Or in more practical terms, with current and soon to be available 300 mile range FCEVs I and a load of people/cargo can drive non-stop from the Bay Area 200 miles and 7,000 feet up to Tahoe in winter staying toasty and being able to see out clear windows the whole way, with chains on for the last 30-50 miles, refuel in 5 minutes in Truckee if I need to for the return trip, and then go non-stop all the way back. With 400 mile range FCEVs I can probably do the trip unrefueled, just as I can in my Forester (but I usually stop briefly in the Auburn area to top up on the way up, to allow for long closures and detours). Even a brand new S85 will need to stop in Roseville on the way up for 1/2 hour or so in those conditions, and depending on whether or not they can charge at the destination may have to stop again there or in Vacaville on the way back for another. S60s will definitely need to stop both ways if they want to use their heaters and defrosters, and will be in trouble if the roads get closed for any substantial period and/or they have to detour.

As the trip legs get longer the value of the FCEV's longer range, rapid refueling and waste heat become increasingly valuable for saving time and providing increased flexibility, and AFAIA without significant degradation of range. By comparison, if we assume that tomorrow tesla suddenly offers a Model S with double the battery capacity (170kWh) at the same price and weight while giving 530 miles of EPA range, then EoL at 70% of that would be 371 miles before you even start reducing that for temperature effects/heater/defroster use, typical speeds, climb, and a realistic winter reserve. I'd only figure a guaranteed 200-250 miles in those conditions.

 

[DaveEV]

Good article comparing FCEVs and plug-in electric vehicles:

Fuel Cell Vehicles: Hype or Hope?

 

[TomT]

Well balanced and reasoned...

Good article comparing FCEVs and plug-in electric vehicles: Fuel Cell Vehicles: Hype or Hope?

 

[DaveEV]

Good article comparing FCEVs and plug-in electric vehicles: Fuel Cell Vehicles: Hype or Hope?

Well balanced and reasoned...

Some quotes from the article:

It’s an exciting development, and by all accounts thus far, it’s a great car with a decent range of 250 to 300 miles. However, it’s not at all clear that fuel cell vehicles make much sense from a policy perspective.

This is in reference to the upcoming Tuscon FCEV - note that Hyundai claims an official 265 miles range, far short of the "required" 400 miles in winter with the heater blasting to be a viable vehicle.

Hyundai plans to build up to 1,000 Tucsons each year if leases are snapped up. However, the company is projecting only about 300 sales per year at this point.

Ouch, that's worse than most of the compliance EVs.

That said, it would be far more efficient to simply use the electricity to directly fuel an electric vehicle or a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. And this is a pretty serious demerit for FCVs in a world of very limited energy.

What many of us have been arguing for ages now...

What about fuel costs? Hydrogen fuel cost is likely to cost about the same as gasoline. In comparison, the cost for EV fuel -- electricity – is about one-half to one-fourth the cost of gasoline and thus one-half to one-fourth the cost of hydrogen.

It takes a reduction in operating costs or a commitment to the environment to convince most potential buyers to buy an EV. I fail to see why people would pay more for a FCEV unless it was a better vehicle. See Tesla for example - great car that people buy just because it's a great vehicle. The LEAF - low operating costs make up for high purchase cost. Can't say that for any of the FCEVs that we know pricing for. I guess maybe you could justify the Tuscon FVEV since it comes with free hydrogen if you put a huge amount of miles on it, but then again, the published $499/mo lease is only for 12,000 miles/year with no price set for overage.

 

[AndyH]

Good article comparing FCEVs and plug-in electric vehicles:

Fuel Cell Vehicles: Hype or Hope?

Too bad this "good" and "well reasoned" article is so full of errors. This thread already has more accurate info. But since some here are interested in supporting their "agin'it" paradigm more than uncovering facts, I'm not sure that repetition is the best use of time.

In the self-fulfilling prophecy category, let's start with the viewpoint of the 'un-journalist' that authored the article:

I have since become even more negative when it comes to FCVs, and my worries about the ability of manufacturers to deliver on the promise of FCVs are starting to look pretty accurate.

He starts with a quote from his own 2007 Santa Barbara County blueprint then states he's more bearish on FCEVs than he was then.

The author says it's not looking good for FCEL vehicle delivery, then reminds us that Hyundai is already delivering, Honda will be later this year, and Toyota is on track for early 2015.

He supports his belief system with opinions from a Car and Driver article. Scholarly so far... :roll:

Range - he states the "vehicle range for FCVs is generally advertises as 200 to 300 miles...the Tucson...is supposed to have up to a 300 mile range." This appears to be based on the pre-production data on https://www.hyundaiusa.com/tucsonfuelcell/ (Max. Driving Range: Approximately 265 miles).

The same site lists a 5.64kg H2 capacity. This is the same capacity as the Euro version that's been on the road since last year. The Euro version has an 'official' range of 369 miles, and a demonstrated 400+ mile range in California highway driving.
http://www.hyundaimedia-fuelcell.co.uk/#/default/default-page4.html
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/htac_may2012_hyundai.pdf

Maybe the 2014 US version gained some weight. Let's see. Nope, same weight - 1830 kg. Don't know. Since the capacity and weight are the same, and we have data for a real-world California drive (so it's not a UDDS VS Euro drive simulation disconnect), we'll have to see how the first US models perform.

"1000 Tucson's per year if leases are snapped up." According to Hyundai, they plan to "manufacture 1000 units of the hydrogen-powered ix35 by 2015." Yes, that's what they call the Euro model. What about the US model - the Tucson? That's been covered already as well - 1000/year initially, 35,000/year as they expand production. To me, "before 2015" means 2014 as this is the first year the cars will be available in the US. Nissan only shipped 19 Leaf the first year...

"...in a world of very limited energy..." Utter garbage. The real problem is fossil carbon emissions - and we already know that reformed fossil natural gas releases less CO2 per mile than burning the natural gas directly AND fueling a BEV from the national grid.
http://www.apep.uci.edu/3/Research/...ation/WTW_vehicle_greenhouse_gases_Public.pdf

"...fuel cost..." That's already been covered here as well. Hyundai's providing fuel with the car. Currently available H2 in California has a price per gallon similar to gasoline, but the FCEV uses it more than twice as efficiently than gas - and that cuts the price per mile in half. Another fail.

Assessment? This is yet another garbage article built from bad data and reinforced with bad assumptions.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=332980#p332980
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=333512#p333512
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=333615#p333615





Hide and watch, gents - the future's coming - ready or not.

 

[AndyH]

On numbers:

But this is not yet a full-scale retail launch of the car. The vehicle will be available in low numbers to start, O'Brien admitted. But, he added, "this is not some project to be started for a few headlines and then dropped. Our production capacity will build over the next few years; with the growth of the hydrogen fuel stations, so will the demand for this cutting-edge technology grow, as well."

The number of fuel-cell vehicles will likely ramp up steadily in the coming years as automakers work toward reaching a corporate average fuel economy target of 54.5 mpg. Auto manufacturers are also required to meet California's goal to have zero-emissions vehicles make up 15.4 percent of the fleet by 2025.

Infrastructure is the greatest barrier to adoption, according to industry experts. Automakers and fuel providers have been stuck in a chicken-and-egg conundrum, each waiting for either the cars or the stations before launching their product.

"We're ending the debate. We're building the fuel-cell vehicles," said Hyundai's O'Brien. "The chickens are here."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-2014-the-year-of-the-fuel-cell-car/

 

[smkettner]

"...in a world of very limited energy..." Utter garbage. The real problem is fossil carbon emissions - and we already know that reformed fossil natural gas releases less CO2 per mile than burning the natural gas directly AND fueling a BEV from the national grid.
http://www.apep.uci.edu/3/Research/...ation/WTW_vehicle_greenhouse_gases_Public.pdf

I think the point was to not use fossil fuels at all.

 

[TomT]

I suppose we'll have our answer when we see how many (or how few) lease it... I'm predicting a small number of takers... (And at those miniscule numbers, even if they lease every one of them, it says CARB compliance scam all over it...)

It takes a reduction in operating costs or a commitment to the environment to convince most potential buyers to buy an EV. I fail to see why people would pay more for a FCEV unless it was a better vehicle. I guess maybe you could justify the Tuscon FVEV since it comes with free hydrogen if you put a huge amount of miles on it, but then again, the published $499/mo lease is only for 12,000 miles/year with no price set for overage.

 

[AndyH]

"...in a world of very limited energy..." Utter garbage. The real problem is fossil carbon emissions - and we already know that reformed fossil natural gas releases less CO2 per mile than burning the natural gas directly AND fueling a BEV from the national grid.
http://www.apep.uci.edu/3/Research/...ation/WTW_vehicle_greenhouse_gases_Public.pdf

I think the point was to not use fossil fuels at all.

Which point is that? Who's point? This thread is all over the place - nailing Jello to a tree comes to mind.

Yes, getting off fossil fuels is part of my personal goal, and appears to be the point of climate scientists as well. But as I hope you can and possibly will agree, we cannot all go to sleep tonight and wake to a 100% renewable world on Saturday. If only.

And as 'fun' as some of these conversation are, transportation isn't even the majority problem for the world - the number one emitter of fossil carbon is our buildings, not our cars. Transportation isn't even 2nd - it's third behind a beef production/agriculture hybrid.

The oil industry is trying to sell natural gas as the 'bridge fuel' to nowhere so it can be burned in vehicles and to generate electricity, yet here we have a technology that uses that same gas more than twice as efficiently. What's blowing my mind is that I'll bet most of the people that are fighting FCEVs own a hybrid. That's not a 100% carbon-free solution either - it could be for many, but some of the same in the anti-fuel cell crowd are also anti-biofuel.

Meanwhile, here in mid-2014, we cannot make enough batteries on the planet to put enough BEVs on the streets. It's no surprise that we cannot put enough FCEF/FCHV on the streets either. But if we start now - and promote, push, lobby, buy, sing, lobby, push, and promote - electrification and efficiency, we have a small chance of being where we need to be by 2050. But if we let all the complainers and Eeyore's win, well, "game over" comes to mind...

Enjoy your weekend, all.

Feel free to join a day of action on May 17th:
http://content.sierraclub.org/beyondoil/may-17-national-day-action

On Saturday, May 17, 2014, join communities around the country to ask the president and local officials to reject the Keystone XL pipeline, offshore drilling and other dirty fuel projects that threaten our communities and destabilize our climate.

 

[WetEV]

"...in a world of very limited energy..." Utter garbage. The real problem is fossil carbon emissions - and we already know that reformed fossil natural gas releases less CO2 per mile than burning the natural gas directly AND fueling a BEV from the national grid.
http://www.apep.uci.edu/3/Research/...ation/WTW_vehicle_greenhouse_gases_Public.pdf

Interesting to note that "BEV - CA grid" was better than "Hydrogen from natural gas".

Even more interesting to note the choices not shown in your source:

"BEV - Seattle grid"

"BEV - from wind/solar"

Of course, these are not at all interesting to anyone.... Even though they would be lower than 100 g Greenhouse gases per mile.

 

[evnow]

The biggest problem with EV is the cost / weight of batteries.

The biggest problem with FCV is physics (efficiency compared to EV etc).

History shows that cost weight issues will get resolved but physics problems remain.

This is not to say that efficiency will always win in the market place. Clearly it doesn't (look at all those SUVs). But FCVs will always remain costlier to operate. If BEV can catch up to FCV on other fronts - FCVs will not get a foothold in the market.

The infrastructure cost of FCV is an order of magnitude more than BEV. This makes it clear that unless a war like effort is made by the governments, the market will not support the kind of infrastructure investment that is needed to develop FCV infrastructure.

 

[GRA]

I agree that it's well balanced and does a good job of listing the current pluses and minuses of each type.

Good article comparing FCEVs and plug-in electric vehicles: Fuel Cell Vehicles: Hype or Hope?

Well balanced and reasoned...

Some quotes from the article:

It’s an exciting development, and by all accounts thus far, it’s a great car with a decent range of 250 to 300 miles. However, it’s not at all clear that fuel cell vehicles make much sense from a policy perspective.

This is in reference to the upcoming Tuscon FCEV - note that Hyundai claims an official 265 miles range, far short of the "required" 400 miles in winter with the heater blasting to be a viable vehicle.

A real 265 would work too, although it's a bit tight. Still, that 265 is going to be a lot more 'real' than the S85''s 265 in winter. and for less than half the Lease cost. BTW, I wasn't referring specifically to the Tucson when making the 300 mile remark. IIRR Toyota is claiming 300+ for their 2015 car, and (as discussed up-topic) achieved over 400 in the last-generation FCHV-ADV. Honda has said their FCEV concept can go 300 versus the 240 of the existing Clarity, but I expect the Concept bears little physical resemblance to the car they're actually going to sell, so we'll see. Two things need to happen to boost the range: further increase in fuel cell power density (shrinking its volume and allowing more room for fuel tanks and/or installation in smaller cars, which is what Toyota has achieved for the 2015 car); or a change in storage, from high pressure cylindrical tanks to low pressure adsorption or carbon nano-tube storage.

Hyundai plans to build up to 1,000 Tucsons each year if leases are snapped up. However, the company is projecting only about 300 sales per year at this point.

Ouch, that's worse than most of the compliance EVs.

If either of the two storage methods I mention above are commercialized (and research has been going ahead on both for years), we really don't want to have too many FCEVs needing high pressure storage on the road. Striking the right balance will be difficult, but it probably makes sense to err on the side of a few too many than a few too little, in case neither of those two methods pan out.

That said, it would be far more efficient to simply use the electricity to directly fuel an electric vehicle or a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. And this is a pretty serious demerit for FCVs in a world of very limited energy.

What many of us have been arguing for ages now...

Yup, increasing the efficiency of H2 generation will be important, although as I've said it may not be ultimately the most important. It all depends on how expensive it is to generate the electricity from renewables, and how much excess we have available.

What about fuel costs? Hydrogen fuel cost is likely to cost about the same as gasoline. In comparison, the cost for EV fuel -- electricity – is about one-half to one-fourth the cost of gasoline and thus one-half to one-fourth the cost of hydrogen.

It takes a reduction in operating costs or a commitment to the environment to convince most potential buyers to buy an EV. I fail to see why people would pay more for a FCEV unless it was a better vehicle. See Tesla for example - great car that people buy just because it's a great vehicle. The LEAF - low operating costs make up for high purchase cost. Can't say that for any of the FCEVs that we know pricing for. I guess maybe you could justify the Tuscon FVEV since it comes with free hydrogen if you put a huge amount of miles on it, but then again, the published $499/mo lease is only for 12,000 miles/year with no price set for overage.

People are buying Teslas because they look good while providing much of the utility of an ICE, but they lack many of the features that are now standard on luxury cars in their price range, or even those that cost considerably less. As Tesla starts to have some competition they'll have to add these features while keeping the price the same.

FCEVs are handicapped by the high price of the fuel cell, so that they can't currently provide the same performance/luxury as Tesla for the same price. As I said a few posts back, once fuel cells halve again in price they'll be able to go head-to head with a Tesla on price/performance/luxury, while having the other benefits (and the disadvantages) of a FCEV vs. BEV. Fuel prices are important, but so is utility for most people, and (for some) environmental and energy security issues. We've got 200 million people driving ICEs in this country, so it's not as if they can't afford H2 priced the same as gas.