Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[AndyH]

From ABG:

"Affordable hydrogen will require fracking, cheap natural gas"

Garbage in, garbage out. The process that's been underway in Europe is proof that neither fracking nor fossil natural gas is required for a Hydrogen economy.

We can use our brains as well as Europeans. I wish I was confident that we actually will.

 

[TonyWilliams]

From ABG:

"Affordable hydrogen will require fracking, cheap natural gas"

Garbage in, garbage out. The process that's been underway in Europe is proof that neither fracking nor fossil natural gas is required for a Hydrogen economy.

We can use our brains as well as Europeans. I wish I was confident that we actually will.

But, even you recognize that "other-than-natural-gas" basis for hydrogen costs more money. A LOT MORE MONEY.

The cost of hydrogen doesn't compare to a BEV even with natural gas.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Which services can and cannot be served by BEV tech at any price, and which can be served by FCEV?

I think virtually all of us are in agreement that shipping, rail, long haul trucking and long haul busses might best be served by other than batteries for the foreseeable future.

Whether direct natural gas or hydrogen derived from natural gas is the best answer, I don't know.

The "utopia" of a purely green hydrogen and the resultant expense does not fit into these ultra-competitive models.

Airplanes will almost have to go with bio/synthetic jet fuel.

 

[AndyH]

From ABG:

"Affordable hydrogen will require fracking, cheap natural gas"

Garbage in, garbage out. The process that's been underway in Europe is proof that neither fracking nor fossil natural gas is required for a Hydrogen economy.

We can use our brains as well as Europeans. I wish I was confident that we actually will.

But, even you recognize that "other-than-natural-gas" basis for hydrogen costs more money. A LOT MORE MONEY.

The cost of hydrogen doesn't compare to a BEV even with natural gas.

No Tony, I do not "recognize" that H2 will cost "A LOT MORE MONEY" because even if we discount the 'minor' problem of climate change, we'll be spending MORE MONEY maintaining business as usual than we would if we implement either the Third Industrial Revolution or Reinventing Fire. And NEITHER OF THOSE uses fracked natural gas!

As I said... I'm not confident that we actually will.

 

[RegGuheert]

Study the article is based on is here:

http://steps.ucdavis.edu/files/08-13-2014-08-13-2014-NextSTEPS-White-Paper-Hydrogen-Transition-7.29.2014.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've learned some interesting "facts" from the UC Davis White paper:

- From Figure 4: If they were mass produced and "fully learned", fuel cell vehicles would cost $37,000 today to manufacture while a 100-mile BEV costs $43,000. And the difference was much greater in 2010 because BEVs were much more expensive then, but FCVs haven't come down much during that time.

- From Figure 5: FCV sales will overtake those of BEVs in 2021. This even though they expect BEVs and FCVs to be represented in about equal numbers in 2050.

With going-in assumptions like these, their list of questions to be answered don't include important topics like: What applications will be dominated by BEVs and what applications will be dominated by FCVs? Instead, light vehicles are assumed to be a strong suit for FCVs and, oh, by the way, they will likely be used in commercial sectors, as well. (I guess if their so much cheaper than BEVs, you can afford the higher price for fuel, right?)

I guess it's simply too much to ask to have government-sponsored analysis match reality rather than simply telling their sponsor exactly what they wanted to hear.

 

[TonyWilliams]

No Tony, I do not "recognize" that H2 will cost "A LOT MORE MONEY" because even if we discount the 'minor' problem of climate change, we'll be spending MORE MONEY maintaining business as usual than we would if we implement either the Third Industrial Revolution or Reinventing Fire. And NEITHER OF THOSE uses fracked natural gas!

As I said... I'm not confident that we actually will.

Perhaps you can give me the executive summary (in one sentence) how a non-fossil carbon base for hydrogen ever becomes cheaper than a natural gas one. Granted, natural gas is only cheap because of fracking, so it is possible to one day become more expensive, but I doubt it... not for dozens of years, or even 50 - 100 years.

Whether we like it or not, the cheapest solution always manages to win.

 

[TonyWilliams]

- From Figure 5: FCV sales will overtake those of BEVs in 2021. This even though they expect BEVs and FCVs to be represented in about equal numbers in 2050.

Tony's predictions:

In 2021, there will be less than 20,000 TOTAL hydrogen vehicles in the world.

At the same time, there will be well over one million battery electric vehicles.

 

[AndyH]

No Tony, I do not "recognize" that H2 will cost "A LOT MORE MONEY" because even if we discount the 'minor' problem of climate change, we'll be spending MORE MONEY maintaining business as usual than we would if we implement either the Third Industrial Revolution or Reinventing Fire. And NEITHER OF THOSE uses fracked natural gas!

As I said... I'm not confident that we actually will.

Perhaps you can give me the executive summary (in one sentence) how a non-fossil carbon base for hydrogen ever becomes cheaper than a natural gas one. Granted, natural gas is only cheap because of fracking, so it is possible to one day become more expensive, but I doubt it... not for dozens of years, or even 50 - 100 years.

Whether we like it or not, the cheapest solution always manages to win.

I don't disagree that the least expensive solution should win. Unfortunately, the traditional economics used for our planning is broken and does not include all factors. In spite of that - even if we work within the broken system - we must remember that we will be spending many billions of dollars for a business as usual evolution regardless. The reason I came here exited as hell to highlight both the Third Industrial Revolution and Reinventing Fire is that both show that revolution is less expensive than evolution even if we don't include our climate problems or water problems or food problems or peak oil or peak gas. That's why Europe and parts of Asia are taking a revolutionary road - because it's a significantly better direction to go whether we measure 'better' with a societal or a financial yardstick.

 

[Reddy]

I rode around in the BYD bus in London. AWESOME... a seamless replacement for diesel, and I doubt anybody on the bus even realized it wasn't diesel.

I also finished a trip recently and saw several electric buses transporting people from terminal to terminal in Milan and Stuttgart. There were also electric carts on most (if not all) of the airport tarmacs for shuttling luggage, supplies, etc. Apparently businesses have determined that electric fuel is cheaper and cleaner. I certainly appreciated the reduced diesel fumes when on the tarmac versus years past. Unfortunately, JFK was a joke, dirty, noisy, and obnoxious. The US has so far to go.....

 

[Stoaty]

For another take see:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/05/3467115/tesla-toyota-hydrogen-cars-batteries/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/13/3467289/tesla-toyota-hydrogen-car/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[AndyH]

For another take see:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/05/3467115/tesla-toyota-hydrogen-cars-batteries/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/13/3467289/tesla-toyota-hydrogen-car/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Already read both of those Sloaty, thanks. Elon's view has already been posted here. Frankly, what do we expect someone neck-deep in building a BEV business from scratch to say?

This is just another angle on why I think too many of the national lab papers are interesting but not useful - because of the starting assumptions. One way to solve a problem is to examine the current system, accept that everything we can see is a 'sunk cost', then change the smallest percentage possible to get an 'acceptable' result. "Well, if we're going to use natural gas anyway, and if the auto and oil industry is too powerful anyway, we might as well see what kind of crap we'll be stuck with and try to put the best spin on it. Sigh."

We do not have to do it this way. That's why RMI's been doing "deep retrofits" of buildings such as the Empire State building or why grocery stores are designing an efficient building from a clean sheet rather than by tweaking an existing model -- because when we go deep, go revolutionary, jump all the old garbage and start fresh we get a much more efficient system for less money.

The fake BEV VS. FCEV 'debate' is bogus because these two techs share ~90% of their DNA, they've depended on each other for development, they compliment each other in service, and together they're a 100% transportation solution. The target is ICE and fossil-fueled propulsion. Today's price of H2 is also a red herring because we're looking at today's production and today's environment -- but deploying BEV and FCEV isn't for today - it's so we have viable and cost-effective transportation in ~2050 and beyond. Wind and solar electricity prices continue to fall while even fracked gas is getting more expensive. Yes, electrolysis is expensive today but it's usable and economically viable today as well - and prices for H2 will continue to fall even as fossil fuel prices continue to rise.

Keep our eyes on the man, not the dog.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0vj-0imOLw[/youtube]

 

[smkettner]

I rode around in the BYD bus in London. AWESOME... a seamless replacement for diesel, and I doubt anybody on the bus even realized it wasn't diesel.

I think people do notice when the bus runs clean. Not sure they care why it is clean and quiet.

I wonder if the public noticed when the tube switched to electric from steam engines.... I bet they did.

 

[finman100]

"but deploying BEV and FCEV isn't for today"

Really? What is that parked in my garage, then? A figment of my imagination...everytime I plug in?

EVs seem to be progressing nicely. I see them more and more and it makes me smile. I read and learn more about hydrogen and it makes me sad. I for one will be doing everything in my power to fight hydrogen, knowing and driving a BEV. I do hope we wake up and realize physics/thermodynamics and reality DO matter.

I drove the future for 10 years ('04 Prius). I now drive the future, again, in a 2014 Leaf. I really really hope we as a species don't keep wasting our time and resources for dead-end H2 for cars! I do understand the status quo and greed...but, come on, let's evolve a little.

ALL signs point to an BEV future and I'm already there. No need to wait or waste electrons with hydrogen.

What, are we getting a free H2 pipeline from the sun?

 

[GRA]

From ABG:

"Affordable hydrogen will require fracking, cheap natural gas"

Garbage in, garbage out. The process that's been underway in Europe is proof that neither fracking nor fossil natural gas is required for a Hydrogen economy.

We can use our brains as well as Europeans. I wish I was confident that we actually will.

The title is definitely misleading given what's in the report. Essentially, the latter points out what anyone who's been following this thread for a while should already know, that 95% of current world H2 production is by SMR, and that fracking has caused a surge of cheap NG in the U.S. and elsewhere. The section starting on page 32 of the report talks about what it will take to transition to Green H2, most of which has been discussed here, but the report does go into considerable detail, especially about timelines at various levels of FCEV and H2 production, fuel prices etc. At current gas prices, H2 will be comparable in price to gas when it drops to $7/kg (as the FCEV is 2-2.5 times more efficient than a comparable ICE). The report is well worth the read, and I'm going to put it on the EV bibliography page.

 

[Stoaty]

Already read both of those Stoaty, thanks. Elon's view has already been posted here. Frankly, what do we expect someone neck-deep in building a BEV business from scratch to say?

Small correction: that is Joe Romm's view.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Romm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Note that he is no stranger to the Rocky Mountain Institute:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Romm#Early_life_and_career" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[AndyH]

"but deploying BEV and FCEV isn't for today"

Really? What is that parked in my garage, then? A figment of my imagination...everytime I plug in?

LOL No, not a figment of your imagination any more than mine's an illusion. But neither of us are even in the 'early adopter' phase - we're still in the 'silly wingnut' phase before that. What I'm talking about is the day in the future when there's a usable L2/L3 infrastructure across the US - a time when nobody thinks about taking a Leaf cross-country the way a couple of token Tesla owners can today.

EVs seem to be progressing nicely.

Yes they are. We need many, many more, but we finally have a good start.

I read and learn more about hydrogen and it makes me sad. I for one will be doing everything in my power to fight hydrogen, knowing and driving a BEV.

Thanks your choice, of course. You're welcome to join the others here that have drawn lines in the sand if you choose.

What, are we getting a free H2 pipeline from the sun?

Should you take the time to understand the Third Industrial Revolution that's underpinning today's use of H2 you'll recognize the sun is indeed the source.

 

[AndyH]

Already read both of those Stoaty, thanks. Elon's view has already been posted here. Frankly, what do we expect someone neck-deep in building a BEV business from scratch to say?

Small correction: that is Joe Romm's view.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Romm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Note that he is no stranger to the Rocky Mountain Institute:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Romm#Early_life_and_career" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Quite right, thanks. We've also discussed Romm earlier and his book was part of the "Unofficial thread book club" then. But the answer's the same for the same reasons. Romm is also looking at the problem using a historical tail and that's evolution, not revolution.

For what it's worth, one of the other book club reads was Rifkin's hydrogen book, and it misses the mark for the same reasons. Rifkin is also the primary architect of the Third Industrial Revolution that's unfolding in Europe and Asia today. Rifkin, Europe, China, and Korea are working post-revolution while we're still on the side of the river afraid to cross and trying to justify inaction.

 

[Stoaty]

For what it's worth, one of the other book club reads was Rifkin's hydrogen book, and it misses the mark for the same reasons. Rifkin is also the primary architect of the Third Industrial Revolution that's unfolding in Europe and Asia today. Rifkin, Europe, China, and Korea are working post-revolution while we're still on the side of the river afraid to cross and trying to justify inaction.

All of these claims sound an awful lot like the claims that preceded the dot com bubble, the housing bubble, the (soon-to-be) fracking bubble. I think a more realistic view of the future is presented here:

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-08-15/energy-and-the-economy-twelve-basic-principles" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We are running up against all kinds of limits that make the achievement of these lofty goals unlikely. For a more realistic analysis of Reinventing Fire see:

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2012-09-15/review-reinventing-fire-amory-lovins" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[AndyH]

For what it's worth, one of the other book club reads was Rifkin's hydrogen book, and it misses the mark for the same reasons. Rifkin is also the primary architect of the Third Industrial Revolution that's unfolding in Europe and Asia today. Rifkin, Europe, China, and Korea are working post-revolution while we're still on the side of the river afraid to cross and trying to justify inaction.

All of these claims sound an awful lot like the claims that preceded the dot com bubble, the housing bubble, the (soon-to-be) fracking bubble. I think a more realistic view of the future is presented here:

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-08-15/energy-and-the-economy-twelve-basic-principles" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We are running up against all kinds of limits that make the achievement of these lofty goals unlikely. For a more realistic analysis of Reinventing Fire see:

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2012-09-15/review-reinventing-fire-amory-lovins" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks Sloaty - I've give these a read when I can digest them. In the meantime, I agree completely that we're rapidly approaching limits in too many areas. The single best overview I've yet found on most of those is The Crash Course.

The claims made by both Rifkin and Lovins are from the experience of doing/overseeing the work. Neither are vaporware or paper exercises - they're being implemented around the world now. My preference is Rifkin's TIR so am watching Europe closely. I'm seeing more of RMI's work happening in the US as it's a 'by business for business' type of plan.

I'm working through two books on restoration agriculture and permanent agriculture at the moment written by farmers that have about 15 years into their work and they're additional examples of how revolution>evolution when it comes to defeating business as usual. One of the very important observations made by folks doing this work is that today we have cheap fuel, cheap tools, and easy access to materials and money - do the work you need and get the tools, equipment, and skills you need NOW. The fracking bubble is showing signs of popping, we only have 40-44 years of soil left in our grain belt, peak oil is past, we have a water problem (too much and too little) - now is the time to get to work if we don't want to crash and burn. Wasting time = failure.

http://www.peakprosperity.com/crashcourse
http://wholesystemsdesign.squarespace.com/
http://www.forestag.com/book.html

 

[GRA]

Via GCC:

"Molecular shuttle speeds up hydrogen production by the photocatalytic splitting of water"

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/08/20140815-lmu.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As always with progress in a lab, don't expect to see this commercially in less than a decade, if ever.

And, as a perfect example of how headlines can be written to take whatever you want to from a report, here's GCC's headline on a story about the same ITS report I'd previously linked to at ABG, which was titled "Affordable hydrogen will require fracking, cheap natural gas":

"UC Davis researchers suggest we may be at the beginning of a real hydrogen transition in transportation"

You'd never know the two headlines were talking about the exact same study. Having read the report I'd say the GCC headline is more accurate, albeit you need to read at least the next two paragraphs for the caveats.