Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[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

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.

You're absolutely right, Wet - and the last thing I want to promote is reforming natural gas - yet some of our early H2 will come from the existing supply/infrastructure. I think that's OK on a national level because at its starting point it's orders of magnitude better than ICE and more than twice as efficient as burning the gas in a CNG vehicle.

Yes, the 7 or 8 Americans that care about efficiency AND for whom a BEV will meet their mission requirements will still have a BEV to use. Others simply need the benefits provided by a fuel cell electric even if there's an efficiency hit.

We're slowly winning the war against fracking, and fracked wells aren't long-term gas producers anyway. This will be a short bubble. The fossil fuel age is at end of life. BEVs and FECV/FCHV will continue to get cleaner. Good progress - slow but good.

By the way - a single small brewery in the Austin area disposes of between 6000-7000 lbs of distillers grains each day, Monday through Friday. That can go directly into a biogas generator - and the resulting methane can go straight into a standard reformer. Not only is the H2 fossil-fuel free and carbon negative, but it's 90% organic as well.

 

[DaveEV]

Future of Cars: Hydrogen Fuel Cells, Or Electric?
Lots of interesting discussion there on the topic.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

I'd actually have some interest in a PHEV with at least 50 miles of electric only range and a Hydrogen FC

Couldn't tell from the other thread if that quote was from TomT or Elon Musk, but in my mind that is a very interesting recipe. If I only had to find H2 stations as infrequently as I do gas stations for the Volt it wouldn't be an issue. And only having to stop for a few minutes vs the better part of an hour is attractive. The model S does it with grace, but designs centered around a half ton+ of batteries are going to be hard to scale.

 

[evnow]

I'd actually have some interest in a PHEV with at least 50 miles of electric only range and a Hydrogen FC

Couldn't tell from the other thread if that quote was from TomT or Elon Musk, but in my mind that is a very interesting recipe. If I only had to find H2 stations as infrequently as I do gas stations for the Volt it wouldn't be an issue. And only having to stop for a few minutes vs the better part of an hour is attractive. The model S does it with grace, but designs centered around a half ton+ of batteries are going to be hard to scale.

Yes, FCVs make poor PHEVs.
- You need the backup fuel to be ubiquitous. Not something you have to drive a lot to get to.
- Something very stable and can last a long time, without leaking.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

The better solution is probably 120 mile EVs and a world class HSR system for regional travel.

 

[Nubo]

If you inhale Hydrogen, does it make you talk funny, like Helium? I think this could be a major selling point.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

If you inhale Hydrogen, does it make you talk funny, like Helium? I think this could be a major selling point.

Ya, real funny in a dead sort of way

 

[TomT]

Other than the possibility of an explosion, it is not technically any more dangerous to inhale than helium. Being four times lighter, the effect on speech is more pronounced however... Industrial hydrogen may be contaminated with other gases depending on its source and some of these could be harmful (carbon monoxide, for example).

A mixture of hydrogen and oxygen called hydreliox is used in very deep diving (500-700m) to avoid nitrogen narcosis (the dissolution of nitrogen in blood due to high pressure). It is explosive and must be treated accordingly. Some mixtures also contain helium.

By the way, it is Graham's Law of effusion that makes your voice higher... If you use a gas heavier than air, it will also make it lower... Xenon and sulphur hexafluoride are a couple of examples of this.

If you inhale Hydrogen, does it make you talk funny, like Helium? I think this could be a major selling point.

 

[Nubo]

By the way, it is Graham's Law of effusion that makes your voice higher... If you use a gas heavier than air, it will also make it lower... Xenon and sulphur hexafluoride are a couple of examples of this.

Yeah, I ran into the SF6 videos while I was checking out Hydrogen inhalation on Youtube. Hilarious!

 

[GRA]

Other than the possibility of an explosion, it is not technically any more dangerous to inhale than helium. Being four times lighter, the effect on speech is more pronounced however... Industrial hydrogen may be contaminated with other gases depending on its source and some of these could be harmful (carbon monoxide, for example).

A mixture of hydrogen and oxygen called hydreliox is used in very deep diving (500-700m) to avoid nitrogen narcosis (the dissolution of nitrogen in blood due to high pressure). It is extremely explosive and must be treated accordingly. Some mixtures also contain helium.

By the way, it is Graham's Law of effusion that makes your voice higher... If you use a gas heavier than air, it will also make it lower... Xenon and sulphur hexafluoride are a couple of examples of this.

For Hydreliox and Hydrox 02% is normally kept in quite low concentrations for deep saturation diving, something like <=4% to avoid explosion/fire danger. Heliox is commonly used for deep saturation, but with both that and Hydreliox they tend to add some N2 back in to suppress Helium tremors. See http://www.techdiver.ws/exotic_gases.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[evnow]

Back on topic

http://insideevs.com/california-energy-commission-awards-10-grants-worth-3-5-million-install-181-charging-stations/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The California Energy Commission’s Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program has decided to award 10 grants worth a total of $3.5 million to fund the install of 181 public charging stations.

...

Some money is being set aside for hydrogen fueling stations too, but it’s only $1.2 million and all of that money will go “for the operation and maintenance of hydrogen refueling stations throughout the state,” which leads us to believe that the hydrogen fueling infrastructure will be incredibly expensive to operate and maintain. Separately, California is handing out $46.6 million to build out the state’s hydrogen fueling infrastructure.

This is the reason why we should oppose FCVs. They take away valuable resources which would otherwise go to EV infrastructure.

 

[AndyH]

This is the reason why we should oppose FCVs. They take away valuable resources which would otherwise go to EV infrastructure.

When you grok the Third Industrial Revolution and Reinventing Fire, you'll hopefully find that breaking down walls and removing silos allows creative synergies that are easier, less expensive, have lower carbon needs than trying to solve problems individually. Additionally, we need ALL ELECTRIFICATION, not just BEV. One important thing to keep in mind is that the current crop of BEVs have benefited greatly from money put aside for fuel cell vehicle research - both power electronics and batteries are better than they would otherwise be.

Put another way - don't be so eager to fight a solution simply because politicians have trouble keeping the money in the accounts you would prefer. The goal is to move beyond gasoline, not create a new type of EV war.

 

[evnow]

One important thing to keep in mind is that the current crop of BEVs have benefited greatly from money put aside for fuel cell vehicle research - both power electronics and batteries are better than they would otherwise be.

No doubt. But not as efficiently as if the funding was directly to research BEV.

We've all heard stories of how science & engineering was greatly benefitted by WWII - but few of use will support wars for that reason.

Question is not whether FCVs should be around - ofcourse they should be around. I welcome private capital and enthusiasts making hydrogen at home etc. Question is how should public dollars be best invested to get to a low carbon economy going fast.

 

[AndyH]

Question is how should public dollars be best invested to get to a low carbon economy going fast.

Seriously? Ok....

Since we cannot make enough batteries on the planet to replace all vehicles with BEV, and since BEV are not yet able to perform well enough to be a 100% solution across the entire country, seems that we should be cheerleading the hell out of all flavors of electrification - from light rail to long-haul electric trains, through BEV, and FCEV/FCHV/FCPHEV.

Zooming out, we must also realize that transportation is a distant third in the carbon emissions race - number 1 is electricity for buildings. RMI's Reinventing Fire and Rifkin's Third Industrial Revolution both show how it's better to get multiple uses out of each part of the puzzle. That's why Germany, Denmark, the entire EU, the UN folks supporting developing countries, China, and San Antonio have adopted the Third Industrial Revolution plan. Using H2 for grid storage allows 100% use of all renewable generation capacity, and provides an energy carrier for process heat (replacing natural gas) AND grid stabilization/grid storage (hydrolysis - storage - stationary fuel cells) AND transportation. One infrastructure change providing required energy for three former silos - heat, electricity, and transportation.

It's already more than "efficient enough" do do what we need it to do - let the engineers keep working on the Gen 3 and Gen 4 stuff, but we have all the pieces we need right now.

This is the 'all of the above' I think we should be supporting - and the last thing I expected from this group was an 'EV VS. EV' war...

 

[AndyH]

Any materials geeks in the house?

http://www.fool.com/investing/gener...ew-fuel-cell-catalyst-a-game-changer-for.aspx

Fuel cell electric vehicles, or FCEVs, may have just taken a giant step closer to widespread adoption. Why? Researchers from the U.S. Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have jointly developed a new type of fuel cell catalyst that has more than 30 times the catalytic activity than conventional catalysts and uses 85% less platinum.

Fuel cell catalyst researchers conventionally use polyhedra, or small, solid nanoparticles of pure platinum. However, when scientists at the labs combined platinum and nickel nanoparticles to make an alloy -- and then exposed that solution to air for two weeks -- it reacted with oxygen and dissolved the particle's nickel interior. The result was a dodecahedron nanoframe, which is a three-dimensional, 12-sided, hollow structure a thousand times smaller in diameter than a human hair.

Further, the Energy Department states: "The research team then took the nanoframes a few steps further -- applying heat to form a thin topmost skin of platinum atoms over the remaining nickel and encapsulating an ionic liquid in the nanoframe to allow more oxygen to access the platinum atoms during the fuel cell's electrochemical reaction."

To put the above in layman's terms, what researchers did is create a hollow frame of the original polyhedron so, instead of a solid particle of pure platinum, what's left is just a frame with platinum-rich edges. Thus, the amount of platinum needed is greatly reduced. Moreover doing this makes the catalyst more efficient because the surface area is increased, and the catalyzed molecules can contact the structure from more directions.

 

[ydnas7]

' vehicle’s hefty pricetag of 150 million won ($145,000), coupled with a dearth of hydrogen filling stations that are also expensive to build.

In the U.S., the fuel cell Tucson will lease for $499 per month, including unlimited free hydrogen refueling, for a 36-month term, with a $2,999 down payment.

http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20140428001282" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

bargain

so lets see

vehicle cost is more than a tricked out Tesla P85+ (compare cost of Tesla with high gross margin VS koreaherald article)
infrastucture cost is probably more than a free Tesla model S-60 (depends on # HFCV's sold, and cost of fuel stations, but is likely to be the reality for some time)

getting a Tucson will be like winning 130k lottery,since it cost Hyundai a 145k to make.

 

[AndyH]

getting a Tucson will be like winning 130k lottery,since it cost Hyundai a 145k to make.

So the U.S. debut is expected to be a real litmus test to gauge whether a fuel cell model could achieve mass-market acceptance, just as the Toyota Prius did as the first hybrid, despite earlier skepticism.

They compare it to the Prius? Those things flopped - this fuel cell stuff will never work.

Come to think of it, the early fax machines were more than 45 lbs, took more than 10 minutes to send a page, and cost way too much money. And who in their right mind would buy one anyway - especially the first idiot - who would they send a fax to anyway?

 

[TomT]

Hardly a fair comparison... The first Prius just required you to get in and drive it like any other car and then stop at any gas station to refuel it, albeit less frequently... Just like pretty much every other car on the planet at the time... Hydrogen is few of those things...

They compare it to the Prius? Those things flopped - this fuel cell stuff will never work.

 

[AndyH]

Hardly a fair comparison... The first Prius just required you to get in and drive it like any other car and then stop at any gas station to refuel it, albeit less frequently... Just like pretty much every other car on the planet at the time... Hydrogen is few of those things...

They compare it to the Prius? Those things flopped - this fuel cell stuff will never work.

Hydrogen is almost identical to the public's expectation, Tom - it's the EV that's the departure. Don't believe me? Review the posts on this forum from 2010, or look at areas using CNG/LPG.

I'm not saying the public perception/belief/paradigm is 'correct' (not that it would be a valid judgement anyway...) but driving to a fuel station and 'pumping gas' IS the conditioned expectation. And in areas where H2 is available (which are the only areas vehicles will be sold/leased) these vehicles will fit directly into the public's expectation.

So yes - it's a very fair and appropriate comparison.

 

[evnow]

I'm not saying the public perception/belief/paradigm is 'correct' (not that it would be a valid judgement anyway...) but driving to a fuel station and 'pumping gas' IS the conditioned expectation. And in areas where H2 is available (which are the only areas vehicles will be sold/leased) these vehicles will fit directly into the public's expectation.

So yes - it's a very fair and appropriate comparison.

The difference is that Prius would use existing infrastructure. With zero infrastructure, with a H2 FCEV we are tied to the nearest fueling station.