Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[RegGuheert]

I ran across an interesting article in IEEE Spectrum about work being done at the University of Maryland related to hydrogen storage: Graphene Origami Boxes Exceed Hydrogen Storage Targets.

Researchers at the University of Maryland have demonstrated through computer modeling that graphene can be triggered by an electric field to fold itself into a nifty three-dimensional box that can serve as a container for hydrogen storage and then unfold itself.

In the research, which was published in the journal ACS Nano (“Hydrogenation-Assisted Graphene Origami and Its Application in Programmable Molecular Mass Uptake, Storage, and Release”), the graphene origami boxes demonstrated remarkable hydrogen storage capabilities. The researchers calculate that graphene origami boxes have a hydrogen storage capacity of 9.7 percent by weight, far exceeding targets set by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) —5.5 percent by 2017 and 7.5 percent by 2020.

I wonder what the barriers are to bringing this from the computer into actual practice. The professor in charge of the research makes a pretty vague statement about the prospect:

“Much effort has been dedicated in this research to demonstrate the promising feasibility of the HAGO process, including its robustness to possible manufacturing defects and stability at room temperature,” wrote Li. “We will actively pursue collaborations with experimentalists to actually demonstrate.”

 

[donald]

I wonder what the barriers are to bringing this from the computer into actual practice.

Reality?!

 

[GRA]

Via GCC:

"Sandia study finds more California gas stations could provide H2 than previously thought; NFPA 2 code"

"A study by researchers at Sandia National Laboratories concludes that a number of existing gas stations in California can safely store and dispense hydrogen, suggesting a broader network of hydrogen fueling stations may be within reach.

"The report examined 70 commercial gasoline stations in the state to determine which, if any, could integrate hydrogen fuel, based on the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) hydrogen technologies code published in 2011. The study determined that 14 of the 70 gas stations—i.e., 20%—involved in the study could readily accept hydrogen fuel and that 17 more possibly could accept hydrogen with property expansions. Under previous NFPA code requirements from 2005, none of the existing gasoline stations could readily accept hydrogen."

Full article here: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/07/20140708-sandia.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Direct link to study here:

http://energy.sandia.gov/wp/wp-content/gallery/uploads/SAND_2014-3416-SCS-Metrics-Development_distribution.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also, there's these:

"Researchers demonstrate use of 3D printing to produce and operate light-weight, low-cost electrolyzers"

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/07/20140705-cronin.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"EU research partners develop solid state hydrogen storage tank coupled with fuel cell as vehicle APU unit"

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/07/20140703-ssh2.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As always, take lab developments with as large a pile of salt as you feel appropriate.

 

[GRA]

Future California H2 station locations can be found here:

http://cafcp.org/stationmap" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

With three exceptions, new Bay Area stations are scheduled to be completed by Oct. 31st, 2015. Mountain View is scheduled to complete by Oct. 31st, 2014 (as is West Sacramento), while Cupertino and Foster City are due to complete by June 30th, 2015.

And the powerpoint presentation showing the original stations areas under consideration can be found here:

chrome-extension://bpmcpldpdmajfigpchkicefoigmkfalc/views/app.html

 

[GRA]

Via GCC:

"Linde starts small-series production for hydrogen fueling stations; agreement with Iwatani for delivery of 28 units"

"In Vienna, the Linde Group officially opened the first small-series production facility for hydrogen fueling stations. Linde extensively modernized and expanded the Vienna Application Centre specifically for this project. A number of hydrogen fueling innovations have originated from this research and development hub in Vienna in recent years, including Linde’s energy-efficient, compact ionic compressor, the IC 90. (Earlier post.)

"Highlights of the new small-series production concept include a high degree of standardization across all components, which are installed in a compact 14-foot container for ease of transport and integration in existing fueling stations."

Full article here:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/07/20140714-linde.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[GRA]

CARB report released in June,

"Annual Evaluation of

Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Deployment and Hydrogen Fuel Station Network Development"

as required by AB 8, is here:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/ab8/ab8_report_final_june2014.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From the Executive Summary:

• 
  • 125 FCEVs are currently registered with DMV.
  
  • Auto manufacturer projections indicate that
  California’s FCEV fleet will grow to 6,650 by
  the end of 2017 and 18,500 by the end of 2020.
  
  • A total of 51 stations are expected to be
  operational statewide by the end of 2015,
  providing up to 9,400 kg/day of hydrogen.
  
  • The coverage and capacity provided by these
  stations will be nearly sufficient through 2018 to
  support the FCEV fleet within that timeframe.
  
  • However, the coverage and capacity provided
  by these stations to be funded under the latest
  CEC award will not be sufficient for
  the expected vehicles out to 2020.
  
  • Additional coverage and capacity needs in 2020 will require up to 49 additional stations.
  
  • Therefore, CEC should maintain the course – the maximum $20 million allocation
  and any other potential funding sources identified by ARB and CEC should be utilized
  in the next CEC funding program for hydrogen fuel stations, with placement and
  other considerations as recommended in the findings and the main report.

 

[finman100]

what an absolute waste.

 

[jlv]

I don't quite understand the negativity here related to FCEVs. There are several major downsides to BEVs today: the capacity of the battery, the lengthy time it takes to recharge the battery, and the battery aging degradation.

You can fix the first with $$$ (the Model S 85kWh as an example). Tesla even has a fix for the second (the "fast past swap" on the Model S), but that also costs $$$ (estimated as $50 a swap, but that's if they ever roll it out and the price doesn't balloon). And maybe that the solution for aging issues: swap out the battery often.

To me, FCEVs are potentially another way to continue to have vehicle with zero emissions but with a low priced quick "refill". I just don't see it as being FCEVs vs. BEVs.

I own a Leaf today because I wanted a EV, and it was the best available as far as cost/convenience for me. It's perfect for my daily commute. But, I'm leasing it because I hope to have a better choice in 3 years ... and I'm still looking at a FCEV as one of the options I'd like available to me.

 

[GRA]

Via GCC:

"SAE publishes SAE J2601 standard to harmonize H2 fueling of Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles worldwide"

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/07/20140716-j2601.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[WetEV]

I don't quite understand the negativity here related to FCEVs.

There is a perception that some automakers and energy companies have hyped fuel cells so that they avoid making BEVs and still sell fossil fuel derived fuel, namely hydrogen.

If a FCEV isn't powered by reformed natural gas, then hydrogen is a battery. Not a very good one, especially on efficiency.

Personally, I suspect that fuel cells might become big players. But the promise has been overhyped by some, and trashed unfairly by others. We have never seen that before.... Well, hardly ever.

 

[ydnas7]

I don't quite understand the negativity here related to FCEVs. There are several major downsides to BEVs today: the capacity of the battery, the lengthy time it takes to recharge the battery, and the battery aging degradation.

You can fix the first with $$$ (the Model S 85kWh as an example). Tesla even has a fix for the second (the "fast past swap" on the Model S), but that also costs $$$ (estimated as $50 a swap, but that's if they ever roll it out and the price doesn't balloon). And maybe that the solution for aging issues: swap out the battery often.

To me, FCEVs are potentially another way to continue to have vehicle with zero emissions but with a low priced quick "refill". I just don't see it as being FCEVs vs. BEVs.

I own a Leaf today because I wanted a EV, and it was the best available as far as cost/convenience for me. It's perfect for my daily commute. But, I'm leasing it because I hope to have a better choice in 3 years ... and I'm still looking at a FCEV as one of the options I'd like available to me.

HFCVs have lower range capacity than a Tesla, or at best match a Tesla

HFCVs suffer from efficiency degradation which leads to range degradation. HFCV's range degradation is significantly worse than Tesla's NCA. It can be improved by higher platinum content, but that is expensive.

HFCVs tend to have really inconvenient recharging, taking a 10 minute detour, for a 10 minute charge, with a 10 minute return trip is seriously greater inconvenience than charging a Tesla at home overnight.

Between PHEVs like Outlander and GM Volt and long range Tesla's there is no economic opening left for HFCV

Next Gen LEAFs and Tesla's will keep that door shut.

remember a Hyundai Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicle may lease for $499 / month but it Korean price is equivalent to US $144,000 http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/business/2014/04/17/3/0501000000AEN20140417003100320F.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

understand this, Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are significantly less viable than Hydrogen combustion vehicles.

 

[GRA]

I don't quite understand the negativity here related to FCEVs. There are several major downsides to BEVs today: the capacity of the battery, the lengthy time it takes to recharge the battery, and the battery aging degradation.

You can fix the first with $$$ (the Model S 85kWh as an example). Tesla even has a fix for the second (the "fast past swap" on the Model S), but that also costs $$$ (estimated as $50 a swap, but that's if they ever roll it out and the price doesn't balloon). And maybe that the solution for aging issues: swap out the battery often.

To me, FCEVs are potentially another way to continue to have vehicle with zero emissions but with a low priced quick "refill". I just don't see it as being FCEVs vs. BEVs.

I own a Leaf today because I wanted a EV, and it was the best available as far as cost/convenience for me. It's perfect for my daily commute. But, I'm leasing it because I hope to have a better choice in 3 years ... and I'm still looking at a FCEV as one of the options I'd like available to me.

HFCVs have lower range capacity than a Tesla, or at best match a Tesla

This statement is at best marginally true, and only in ideal temperature conditions, i.e. both the Tesla S85 and the Hyundai Tucson are rated at 265 miles of EPA range. But, as I mentioned a few posts ago, someone drove a Tucson (actually an ix35, the name in Europe) 435 miles at an average speed of 47 mph, which is almost double the 25mph at which a Tesla S85 was driven 425 miles. Upcoming FCEVs will have even greater ranges. And when using the heater/defroster, there's no contest at all; the FCEV has waste heat available.

HFCVs suffer from efficiency degradation which leads to range degradation. HFCV's range degradation is significantly worse than Tesla's NCA. It can be improved by higher platinum content, but that is expensive.

You have specific data showing this? Every technical paper I've read indicates that they're reducing the use of platinum, and in the longer term looking to replace it altogether, while increasing the lifetime of the cells.

HFCVs tend to have really inconvenient recharging, taking a 10 minute detour, for a 10 minute charge, with a 10 minute return trip is seriously greater inconvenience than charging a Tesla at home overnight.

It's certainly more inconvenient than charging at home, but no different than what 200 million + Americans do now at gas stations. Those of us who can't charge at home or at work see no difference in convenience whatsoever, except that it takes a lot longer to recharge a battery. And the current H2 refueling dispensers like Honda's can refuel in 3 minutes, just like gas.

Between PHEVs like Outlander and GM Volt and long range Tesla's there is no economic opening left for HFCV.

Next Gen LEAFs and Tesla's will keep that door shut.

Yes, there's definitely a need for govt. support for FCEVs at the moment. But then there's also need for government support at the moment for all PEVs.

remember a Hyundai Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicle may lease for $499 / month but it Korean price is equivalent to US $144,000 http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/business/2014/04/17/3/0501000000AEN20140417003100320F.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Which undoubtedly includes VAT. There's no question that the cars are being sold/leased at a loss now, and will be for several years. But AFAIA so's every BEV/PHEV that we know of: Tesla has yet to make a GAAP profit on their cars, and I'm not aware that Nissan has made any claims to profitability on the LEAF. Well before production started, Chevy said they expected to lose money on the first Gen Volt, and all the compliance cars are certainly money losers themselves, except for their CARB credits. Ford said from the start that they wouldn't sell FFEs at a loss, and their prices have generally been higher than everyone else's; maybe their Energi's make a little profit.

understand this, Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are significantly less viable than Hydrogen combustion vehicles.

That depends on what your definition of viability is, i.e. what goals you include in that.

 

[ydnas7]

GRA

an example of an impurity that degrades Pt based fuel cells is CO.
The CO absorbs onto Pt site blocking H2 adsorption. More Pt leads to more resiliency.

Remember how Gen 1 Nissan LEAFs had wilting batteries due to heat. Now imagine explaining to someone that their $144,000 HFCV is losing range and using more H2 because they live in a region with high air impurities. (or perhaps a bad batch of H2).


Different BEVs have different battery longevity, even if its just a tweak to electrolyte. but electricity remains clean.
Different HFCVs will have different fuel cell longevity, but the blame for short life will be harder to allocate (was it bad fuel, bad air, or bad fuel cell)

Electricity is intrinsically only electricity.
gasoline can have varying levels of impurities (Ethanol and water )depending on bowser
Hydrogen must be very pure, need honest distributes
Air it depends.

 

[jsongster]

I don't quite understand the negativity here related to FCEVs. There are several major downsides to BEVs today: the capacity of the battery, the lengthy time it takes to recharge the battery, and the battery aging degradation.

You can fix the first with $$$ (the Model S 85kWh as an example). Tesla even has a fix for the second (the "fast past swap" on the Model S), but that also costs $$$ (estimated as $50 a swap, but that's if they ever roll it out and the price doesn't balloon). And maybe that the solution for aging issues: swap out the battery often.

To me, FCEVs are potentially another way to continue to have vehicle with zero emissions but with a low priced quick "refill". I just don't see it as being FCEVs vs. BEVs.

I own a Leaf today because I wanted a EV, and it was the best available as far as cost/convenience for me. It's perfect for my daily commute. But, I'm leasing it because I hope to have a better choice in 3 years ... and I'm still looking at a FCEV as one of the options I'd like available to me.

HFCVs have lower range capacity than a Tesla, or at best match a Tesla

This statement is at best marginally true, and only in ideal temperature conditions, i.e. both the Tesla S85 and the Hyundai Tucson are rated at 265 miles of EPA range. But, as I mentioned a few posts ago, someone drove a Tucson (actually an ix35, the name in Europe) 435 miles at an average speed of 47 mph, which is almost double the 25mph at which a Tesla S85 was driven 425 miles. Upcoming FCEVs will have even greater ranges. And when using the heater/defroster, there's no contest at all; the FCEV has waste heat available.

HFCVs suffer from efficiency degradation which leads to range degradation. HFCV's range degradation is significantly worse than Tesla's NCA. It can be improved by higher platinum content, but that is expensive.

You have specific data showing this? Every technical paper I've read indicates that they're reducing the use of platinum, and in the longer term looking to replace it altogether, while increasing the lifetime of the cells.

HFCVs tend to have really inconvenient recharging, taking a 10 minute detour, for a 10 minute charge, with a 10 minute return trip is seriously greater inconvenience than charging a Tesla at home overnight.

It's certainly more inconvenient than charging at home, but no different than what 200 million + Americans do now at gas stations. Those of us who can't charge at home or at work see no difference in convenience whatsoever, except that it takes a lot longer to recharge a battery. And the current H2 refueling dispensers like Honda's can refuel in 3 minutes, just like gas.

Between PHEVs like Outlander and GM Volt and long range Tesla's there is no economic opening left for HFCV.

Next Gen LEAFs and Tesla's will keep that door shut.

Yes, there's definitely a need for govt. support for FCEVs at the moment. But then there's also need for government support at the moment for all PEVs.

remember a Hyundai Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicle may lease for $499 / month but it Korean price is equivalent to US $144,000 http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/business/2014/04/17/3/0501000000AEN20140417003100320F.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Which undoubtedly includes VAT. There's no question that the cars are being sold/leased at a loss now, and will be for several years. But AFAIA so's every BEV/PHEV that we know of: Tesla has yet to make a GAAP profit on their cars, and I'm not aware that Nissan has made any claims to profitability on the LEAF. Well before production started, Chevy said they expected to lose money on the first Gen Volt, and all the compliance cars are certainly money losers themselves, except for their CARB credits. Ford said from the start that they wouldn't sell FFEs at a loss, and their prices have generally been higher than everyone else's; maybe their Energi's make a little profit.

understand this, Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are significantly less viable than Hydrogen combustion vehicles.

That depends on what your definition of viability is, i.e. what goals you include in that.

From my point of view... this whole 90+ pages of debate boils down to "Where can we get the best results the quickest in converting away from the criminal enterprise known as the fossil fuel energy companies?"

Fuel Cell vehicles may be viable eventually in 5 to 10 more years... but let the fossil fuel industry fund it while our tax dollars are spent on getting more folks to stop burning dinos to get where they are going. Take the same crazy money currently being wasted on another "maybe its ready... no not yet cycle" for fuel cells and finish what has been started in our charging network that is currently happening all too slowly. Invest in tax credits to get apartment complexes over a certain number of units to install DC QCs and 30amp level 2s for 10% of their rentals.

Back in the 90s our fine governor Gray Davis decided to bail out utilities after the enron debacle rather than take them over. Imagine if he had taken the billions of bail out money and put solar panels on poor folks homes... and maybe some lower middle classers as well... what a different state we would have now.

Imagine going anywhere you wanted in the state with dc chargers as ubiquitous on a per car basis as gas stations. The fuel cell money could have gotten us much closer to that practical and realistic goal if only the govt groups weren't on the corporate take.

 

[GRA]

GRA

an example of an impurity that degrades Pt based fuel cells is CO.
The CO absorbs onto Pt site blocking H2 adsorption. More Pt leads to more resiliency.

Remember how Gen 1 Nissan LEAFs had wilting batteries due to heat. Now imagine explaining to someone that their $144,000 HFCV is losing range and using more H2 because they live in a region with high air impurities. (or perhaps a bad batch of H2).


Different BEVs have different battery longevity, even if its just a tweak to electrolyte. but electricity remains clean.
Different HFCVs will have different fuel cell longevity, but the blame for short life will be harder to allocate (was it bad fuel, bad air, or bad fuel cell)

Electricity is intrinsically only electricity.
gasoline can have varying levels of impurities (Ethanol and water )depending on bowser
Hydrogen must be very pure, need honest distributes
Air it depends.

Yes fuel cells can degrade due to impurities. Which is why the state, working with auto and dispenser manufacturers, has been establishing standards for H2 purity, filtering needed, etc. See the CARB paper I referenced a few posts back, which goes into that among other things. And of course, fuel cell manufacturers are all working on ways to make fuel cells more tolerant of impurities, and/or avoid the problem entirely. They do degrade, but I see no specific data in what you wrote above that would confirm your claim that " HFCV's [Which fuel cells? All? Some particular manufacturer's?] range degradation is significantly worse than Tesla's NCA", just more generic statements. Again, do you have specific data that would show this?

 

[GRA]

From my point of view... this whole 90+ pages of debate boils down to "Where can we get the best results the quickest in converting away from the criminal enterprise known as the fossil fuel energy companies?"

Fuel Cell vehicles may be viable eventually in 5 to 10 more years... but let the fossil fuel industry fund it while our tax dollars are spent on getting more folks to stop burning dinos to get where they are going. Take the same crazy money currently being wasted on another "maybe its ready... no not yet cycle" for fuel cells and finish what has been started in our charging network that is currently happening all too slowly. Invest in tax credits to get apartment complexes over a certain number of units to install DC QCs and 30amp level 2s for 10% of their rentals.

Back in the 90s our fine governor Gray Davis decided to bail out utilities after the enron debacle rather than take them over. Imagine if he had taken the billions of bail out money and put solar panels on poor folks homes... and maybe some lower middle classers as well... what a different state we would have now.

Imagine going anywhere you wanted in the state with dc chargers as ubiquitous on a per car basis as gas stations. The fuel cell money could have gotten us much closer to that practical and realistic goal if only the govt groups weren't on the corporate take.

I'm all for getting the quickest bang for the buck. Of course, that would involve subsidizing HEVs rather than BEVs, PHEVs or FCEVs. None of these last technologies is yet ready for the mass market, although PHEVs are getting close. We will (and have) undoubtedly wasted money by supporting all of these techs, as they spurted ahead or fell behind on the road to commercial viability (which none of them yet have, possibly excepting Tesla). I'm as skeptical of claims for fuel cell viability being just around the corner as I am for claims of the breakthrough battery ditto. Each technology has strengths and weaknesses, and while batteries are currently ahead in the development cycle, fuel cells are closing fast. IMO, Cailfornia potentially wasting $200M to give fuel cells a fair tryout is cheap insurance, if (as has repeatedly been the case over the last 110 years) batteries don't develop as fast as their promoters claim they will. And vice versa as far as fuel cells. Let's keep more than one arrow in the quiver until we KNOW we can do the job with only one.

As to the rest, California requires that at least 33% of the energy making the H2 be renewable, and is also subsidizing several 100% renewable fueling stations using different technologies to see which ones work best. See the CARB report. As to apartment charging tax credits and/or mandates, we're already doing that. Re DCQCs all over the state, until we get affordable 150 mile + BEVs they won't be practical for road trips, no matter how many QCs there are. Tesla figured this out.

 

[evnow]

Just checked. My closest H2 station is in .... California !

FCEV : We make RAV4EV look like a widely distributed vehicle !!

We need to attack Climate Change with the infrastructure we have today - not with something that requires trillion $$$$ investment by tax payers.

 

[AndyH]

Just checked. My closest H2 station is in .... California !

FCEV : We make RAV4EV look like a widely distributed vehicle !!

We need to attack Climate Change with the infrastructure we have today - not with something that requires trillion $$$$ investment by tax payers.

The infrastructure we have today, the one that does not require trillions of dollars in investment for infrastructure and/or to subsidize vehicles so that a majority of folks in the US can afford to purchase them, is gasoline/ICE. Please let us know when you're plan is ready - I'll pay admission to attend the presentation!

 

[RegGuheert]

I'm all for getting the quickest bang for the buck. Of course, that would involve subsidizing HEVs rather than BEVs, PHEVs or FCEVs. None of these last technologies is yet ready for the mass market, although PHEVs are getting close. We will (and have) undoubtedly wasted money by supporting all of these techs, as they spurted ahead or fell behind on the road to commercial viability (which none of them yet have, possibly excepting Tesla). I'm as skeptical of claims for fuel cell viability being just around the corner as I am for claims of the breakthrough battery ditto. Each technology has strengths and weaknesses, and while batteries are currently ahead in the development cycle, fuel cells are closing fast. IMO, Cailfornia potentially wasting $200M to give fuel cells a fair tryout is cheap insurance, if (as has repeatedly been the case over the last 110 years) batteries don't develop as fast as their promoters claims they will. And vice versa as far as fuel cells. Let's keep more than one arrow in the quiver until we KNOW we can do the job with only one.

As has been pointed out countless times, no battery breakthrough is needed. BEVs are fully viable today, in spite of the fact they only beat ICEVs in a few applications. But those few applications are huge and allow it to be used by tens of millions of drivers today while saving them total life-cycle costs and simultaneously reducing the damage to the environment. As BEV products evolve and consumers learn about their benefits, they will be accepted by more and more for commuting and other applications will also become viable.

FCEVs, OTOH cost multiple times more than their competitors to purchase and also much more to fuel. (No, refueling a FCEV is not free.) In short, they are the kind of "solution" that only a government bureaucracy can afford.

Claiming that BEVs are not viable at just the time when they are only slows the adoption.

 

[Stoaty]

As has been pointed out countless times, no battery breakthrough is needed. BEVs are fully viable today, in spite of the fact they only beat ICEVs in a few applications. But those few applications are huge and allow it to be used by tens of millions of drivers today while saving them total life-cycle costs and simultaneously reducing the damage to the environment.

Agreed. Any household that has 2 cars--and that is a lot of households--is a good candidate for a BEV today. They just don't know it yet. I go months without driving the other (ICE) vehicle... it's kind of a niche product, and the situations where it is needed will become rarer as battery capacities increase.