Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[GRA]

Via ievs.com:

Fleet of 50 Kangoo Z.E. With Fuel Cells To Hit French Roads

http://insideevs.com/fleet-50-kangoo-z-e-fuel-cells-will-hit-french-roads/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If these are the same ones described going back a year or so, the fuel cells will operate as range extenders to a battery pack.

 

[GRA]

Via GCR:

Hydrogen Fuel-Cell Car Questions: Toyota, Honda & Hyundai Respond (Part 1)

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1095441_hydrogen-fuel-cell-car-questions-toyota-honda-hyundai-respond-part-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Via ABG:

Bibendum 2014: Former EU President says Toyota could lose 100,000 Euros per hydrogen FCV sedan

http://green.autoblog.com/2014/11/12/bibendum-2014-toyota-lose-100000-euros-fcv-hydrogen-car/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[GRA]

Via GCC:

DOE 2014 Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Progress Report highlights substantial progress

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/11/20141113-doefcto.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ClassNK grants Approval in Principle for new H2/CO2 FPSO design; offshore production of H2 and CO2 from associated gas from offshore wells

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/11/20141113-classnk.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[AndyH]

Here's the most concise and most current summary I've yet seen that provides an overview of how much oil we use for transportation in the US and why we cannot rely on only BEVs if we want to have even a remote chance of electrifying transportation by 2050.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uKihKkx0eY[/youtube]

Just to put this is context, food production and distribution uses fully 2/3 of the United State's domestic oil production...

edit...just listened to a precious metals talk. One of the items discussed is that there isn't enough silver to make enough PV to replace oil.

We'll need wind and all the other methods we can deploy as well as PV. That's really the beauty of Reinventing Fire and the TIR as they understand that it's much more efficient to break down 'silos' and go for multi-function and synergy. And now we're back to hydrogen - it's the only energy storage medium we have that can scale to do the job, in an affordable way, and is also usable across many functions - whether for the electric grid, transportation, or process heat.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Here is a great review of the H2 -v- Battery EV drama.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/news/auto-blog/are-hydrogen-cars-the-zero-emissions-future-17418995?%3Fsrc=rss" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also, I was thinking about Andy's statement, "we have to get off oil by 2050, so hydrogen is the only option".

In case it's not painfully obvious, the world will pump and consume every drop of oil they can economically get ahold of. Maybe not first world countries, but certainly other countries or "entities". For example, groups are killing elephants to sell tusks to get money to wage wars and terror.

They will do that with oil, if necessary. Rogue countries will get oil, just like they got nuclear status. Not because it's good for the world, but because it's good for them, today, now.

The only thing western world countries can do is pick the correct solutions to ease the inevitable transition... when there is NO viable oil.

Today, that option is clearly batteries, and with the future $100/kWh cells and faster and more plentiful charging networks (plus some battery swapping), the cost will be dramatically cheaper than unsubsidized hydrogen.

The future is here right before our eyes for personal and small commercial transport applications.

 

[AndyH]

Here is a great review of the H2 -v- Battery EV drama.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/news/auto-blog/are-hydrogen-cars-the-zero-emissions-future-17418995?%3Fsrc=rss" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also, I was thinking about Andy's statement, "we have to get off oil by 2050, so hydrogen is the only option".

Be careful with your pseudo-quotes, Tony... I never said it was the only option.

In case it's not painfully obvious, the world will pump and consume every drop of oil they can economically get ahold of. Maybe not first world countries, but certainly other countries or "entities". For example, groups are killing elephants to sell tusks to get money to wage wars and terror.

They will do that with oil, if necessary. Rogue countries will get oil, just like they got nuclear status. Not because it's good for the world, but because it's good for them, today, now.

Speaking as someone that used to work with indications and warning, and threat management, there's absolutely nothing 'painfully obvious' about the future until one puts on their blinders and takes a religious mindset. Sorry, facts is facts.

I agree that what you outline is one possibility - anything's possible. The thing we have to figure out is probability. Considering that we're talking about potential actions by groups of humans, we're back to debating which way the bulk will splat when we nail Jello to a tree. Good luck with that.

The only thing western world countries can do is pick the correct solutions to ease the inevitable transition... when there is NO viable oil.

Sorry, no again. Adaptation is PART of the solution but it's not the only one by a long shot.

Today, that option is clearly batteries

A bit of a disconnect here. First you suggest that all we can do is adapt to the no-oil future - then you declare that 'give me batteries or give me death' is the way to go. For the present, I'm finding that NO motorized vehicle is a much better option today and will be much more necessary for tomorrow. It's much less expensive, it uses far fewer resources, it uses significantly less energy (and uses nothing from today's fossil fuel grid and nothing from a future 100% renewables grid). Just as it's important to consider the mission when selecting a BEV tool, I realize that 'no car' won't work for everyone today. But just as some will be comfortable accepting a 60 mile BEV limit, others are finding that a 5-10 mile radius works as well.

and with the future $100/kWh cells and faster and more plentiful charging networks (plus some battery swapping), the cost will be dramatically cheaper than unsubsidized hydrogen.

Battery swapping is dead on arrival for the current population. Millennials are opting for bicycles, mass transit, and CAR swapping - there doesn't seem to be a bight spot for battery swapping in the future, either.

Future $100/kWh battery packs will also lower the price of hybrids and FCEV. As we've seen many times in this thread already, in the time period between now and the "Black Friday Battery 50% Off Sale", fuel cell stack prices are expected to drop about 75%. Add in the price reduction for the lower-cost batteries, and there's a strong possibility that FCEV cars will cost about the same as an equivalent BEV and have twice the range...

The future is here right before our eyes for personal and small commercial transport applications.

Yup - sure is! :lol:

 

[DaveEV]

Here is a great review of the H2 -v- Battery EV drama.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/news/auto-blog/are-hydrogen-cars-the-zero-emissions-future-17418995?%3Fsrc=rss" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nice article. Here's the original source: http://blog.caranddriver.com/what-replaces-gasoline-hydrogen-may-be-winning-the-zero-emissions-battle/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A couple of interesting quotes:

CARB’s upcoming regulations give the nod to hydrogen, but it takes a healthy imagination to envision the necessary infrastructure spreading across the country anytime soon. Meanwhile, every home in America is already equipped to recharge a BEV if the technology can mature enough to provide longer range and faster recharging. Of the two technologies, we’d place our money on BEVs.

Using today’s electrical infrastructure, BEVs generate only 39 percent of the emissions produced by FCVs when hydrogen is separated from water using home electrolysis. Using the cleaner electrical grids already in place in California, BEVs win again by producing only 27 percent of the FCV’s greenhouse-gas emissions. Centralized mass production of hydrogen by steam reformation of natural gas helps FCVs, but they would still produce nearly twice the BEV’s emissions and consume about 50 percent more energy.

 

[smkettner]

Can someone remind me what the MPGe rating is for any production FCV?

 

[GRA]

Can someone remind me what the MPGe rating is for any production FCV?

From Hyundai's website for the Tucson, 49/51/50 MPGe. We don't know yet what the Toyota and Honda FCEVs will be, although they should be considerably higher; Toyota is supposed to introduce them in Japan next month, in the U.S. maybe by the middle of next year. Not sure what Honda's time frame is, although ISTR it trails Toyota's by a few months.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Today, that option is clearly batteries

A bit of a disconnect here. First you suggest that all we can do is adapt to the no-oil future - then you declare that 'give me batteries or give me death' is the way to go.

First, thanks for toning down your counter points from personal ad hominems.

Second, there is no disconnect. By virtually any measure, batteries are ahead of H2 for personal transport, except for one:

1) refueling time

Range doesn't apply, since a 250 mile Hyundai H2 car costs (not the subsidized sales price, but COST) about the same as a Tesla EV with 250 miles of range. Obviously, a battery swap can be faster, but I don't honestly see that catching on.

For the present, I'm finding that NO motorized vehicle is a much better option today and will be much more necessary for tomorrow.

Every time I return from Europe (I spent most of the past year there), I'm amazed how well their public transport works AND how many cars there are. Honestly, people are influenced most by their personal needs and cost. I don't find the world getting away from motorized transport in the next several generations, if ever.

and with the future $100/kWh cells and faster and more plentiful charging networks (plus some battery swapping), the cost will be dramatically cheaper than unsubsidized hydrogen.

Battery swapping is dead on arrival for the current population. Millennials are opting for bicycles, mass transit, and CAR swapping - there doesn't seem to be a bight spot for battery swapping in the future, either.

Then, we don't need H2 cars, either.

Future $100/kWh battery packs will also lower the price of hybrids and FCEV. As we've seen many times in this thread already, in the time period between now and the "Black Friday Battery 50% Off Sale", fuel cell stack prices are expected to drop about 75%. Add in the price reduction for the lower-cost batteries, and there's a strong possibility that FCEV cars will cost about the same as an equivalent BEV and have twice the range...

There's really no point in butting heads over this point. I guess we will see.

I'm reminded of nuclear power that is "so cheap" that you won't need meters... in the future.

I do believe that batteries will get to $100, and I do not believe whatever % reduction of H2 in the same time period will match battery prices.

Batteries, again, win on EVERY count for personal transport EXCEPT refueling time. I do not believe that singular advantage will win the day.

 

[Wennfred]

265 mile range and free re-fills for 3 years, lease only. The problem I see, NO hydrogen filling stations.


https://www.hyundaiusa.com/tucsonfuelcell/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://youtu.be/9VO0CbNdC6I" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[Stoaty]

Moderator: please move to FCEV thread.

 

[GRA]

Via GCR:

Hydrogen Fuel-Cell Car Questions: Toyota, Honda & Hyundai Respond (Part 2)

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1095464_hydrogen-fuel-cell-car-questions-toyota-honda-hyundai-respond-part-2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Via GCC:

Toshiba to partner with Kawasaki City on 5-year demo of independent energy supply system utilizing solar power and hydrogen

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/11/20141114-toshiba.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[AndyH]

Today, that option is clearly batteries

A bit of a disconnect here. First you suggest that all we can do is adapt to the no-oil future - then you declare that 'give me batteries or give me death' is the way to go.

First, thanks for toning down your counter points from personal ad hominems.

:roll: It's not my problem that some take personally my comments about facts or ideas. Do you remember calling me a thief when I suggested that Tesla would score a PR win by installing L2 at their charger sites? Even after I made clear that I recommended a PAID service like all the rest, you still held to your ad hominems. :lol: Whatever.

Second, there is no disconnect. By virtually any measure, batteries are ahead of H2 for personal transport, except for one:

1) refueling time

Range doesn't apply, since a 250 mile Hyundai H2 car costs (not the subsidized sales price, but COST) about the same as a Tesla EV with 250 miles of range. Obviously, a battery swap can be faster, but I don't honestly see that catching on.

No disconnect - Really?! Let's see: the 'give me batteries or give me death' crowd uses today's sales numbers, infrastructure, prices, or buy/lease status to say FCEV won't work, while using tomorrow's BEV prices, capability, and/or infrastructure to 'prove' their superiority. Do you really not see the problem here? And yes, Amigo - you're the most consistently 'temporally challenged' member of this conversation...sorry about that...

Others continue to say that efficiency is more important that mission capability, or that we should trust predictions of near-term battery price while discounting near-term FCEV price projections. You did that in your post as well.

And finally, some continue to compare carbon emissions from a BEV charged with PV and a FCEV from reformed natural gas (even though some of the data presented wasn't about natural gas, but was from reformed biogas, which has no fossil carbon emissions).

So again - there are multiple disconnects. And when I point them out, folks attack me rather than recognizing the disconnect. Not my problem, guys - that's outside my boat.

The problem with the attempted comparison of the 250 mile FCEV with the 250 mile BEV is that the '250 mile' FCEV is rated for more than 300 miles and travels more than 400 miles in real-world CA driving. And again - it refuels in less than 5 minutes, and has the same range with the fan on high and heat cranked to max - and is expected to do the same when it's 5 years old.

and with the future $100/kWh cells and faster and more plentiful charging networks (plus some battery swapping), the cost will be dramatically cheaper than unsubsidized hydrogen.

Battery swapping is dead on arrival for the current population. Millennials are opting for bicycles, mass transit, and CAR swapping - there doesn't seem to be a bight spot for battery swapping in the future, either.

Then, we don't need H2 cars, either.

Really?! How in the world do you justify this jump?! Look, we still need to replace ICE and completely electrify transportation. Even for the younger folks (the primary motorists in the 2030-2050 time frame) that prefer to 'access' a car rather than to own one, we'll still need cars. BEVs should still be used in their sweet spots, FCEV in theirs, trains in theirs. I still don't understand why you and others seem to think this is a 'FCEV VS. BEV' problem, but that's completely false and makes absolutely zero sense.

Future $100/kWh battery packs will also lower the price of hybrids and FCEV. As we've seen many times in this thread already, in the time period between now and the "Black Friday Battery 50% Off Sale", fuel cell stack prices are expected to drop about 75%. Add in the price reduction for the lower-cost batteries, and there's a strong possibility that FCEV cars will cost about the same as an equivalent BEV and have twice the range...

There's really no point in butting heads over this point. I guess we will see.

I'm sure we'll see.

I'm reminded of nuclear power that is "so cheap" that you won't need meters... in the future.

Non sequitur much?

I do believe that batteries will get to $100, and I do not believe whatever % reduction of H2 in the same time period will match battery prices.

So, you think it's OK to 'believe' battery experts, but it's not OK to 'believe' fuel cell stack experts? OK...

Batteries, again, win on EVERY count for personal transport EXCEPT refueling time. I do not believe that singular advantage will win the day.

Another Non sequitur, Tony. There is NO 'BEV VS. FCEV' problem, therefore attempting to pit one against the other is illogical. Additionally, FCEV has more than just a single advantage, so trying to artificially trivialize the difference is also a problem. Sorry - those dogs don't hunt, either...

 

[ydnas7]

quick sanity check

per mile stored, cathode carbon and pressure vessel carbon is about the same cost, but cathode carbon has better cost reductions due to opportunity to blend with Si etc.

EMD is about $2/kg, its a refined precursor for cathode production.
Pt is about $42/gram, its a refined precursor for fuel cell production.

Toyota has reduced Pt requirements down to about 30grams for HFC. about $1200.
Nissan Leaf uses about 60kg of EMD precursor in an 80mile battery. about $120. about a 10x difference in cost.

so reduce the power required by a factor of 10, and hydrogen becomes equivalent, see forklifts.
but, for automotive use, Hydrogen Fuel Cells can never match Battery Electric Vehicles except for the slowest vehicles.

Forklifts are low power, urban Buses are low power but Trucks are high power
(Forklifts and Buses are lowpower because the frequent short term high power loads are taken by the on board battery)

 

[AndyH]

quick sanity check

per mile stored, cathode carbon and pressure vessel carbon is about the same cost, but cathode carbon has better cost reductions due to opportunity to blend with Si etc.

EMD is about $2/kg, its a refined precursor for cathode production.
Pt is about $42/gram, its a refined precursor for fuel cell production.

Toyota has reduced Pt requirements down to about 30grams for HFC. about $1200.
Nissan Leaf uses about 60kg of EMD precursor in an 80mile battery. about $120. about a 10x difference in cost.

so reduce the power required by a factor of 10, and hydrogen becomes equivalent, see forklifts.
but, for automotive use, Hydrogen Fuel Cells can never match Battery Electric Vehicles except for the slowest vehicles.

Forklifts are low power, urban Buses are low power but Trucks are high power
(Forklifts and Buses are lowpower because the frequent short term high power loads are taken by the on board battery)

Yes, in the past 5 years, the platinum requirement has dropped significantly. Nanomaterials work has already dropped it by at least another order of magnitude, possibly two. The power concern would be a factor if the FCEV didn't have a small battery pack, but it does. It uses it for acceleration and to capture regen energy like today's ICE/electric hybrids. So no, there's no power problem with FCEV.

Additionally, that's "about $1200" for 300 miles of range with the heat on and no drop to 80% in 5 years, about $4/mile of range. The EMD, also using your numbers, is about $1.50/mile. That's not a 10x difference in cost. Neither the Leaf nor the Tesla uses a 'carbon' battery, however - how's the price of lithium, manganese, and electrolyte chemistry? The fuel cell stack has no need for these expenses...

Disconnect, aisle 5...

 

[DaveEV]

Looks like Toyota is still on target to launch their FCEV which will be announced at the LA Auto Show which starts next weekend.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/11/20141117-mirai.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Unfortunately, Honda is delaying the launch of their FCEV for another year.
http://www.autoblog.com/2014/11/16/honda-delays-hydrogen-fuel-cell-sedan/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In other news, I read recently that Hyundai expects to sell (lease) about 60 Tuscon FCEVs in all of 2014, or about 10 a month for the 6 months it will have been available. Unfortunately, I can't recall where I read that! Contrast that to the 109 Kia Soul EVs sold in it's first month of availability in October 2014.

 

[NeilBlanchard]

This is some very interesting reading, and some excellent journalism:

http://www.greencarreports.com/news...questions-toyota-honda-hyundai-respond-part-1

http://www.greencarreports.com/news...questions-toyota-honda-hyundai-respond-part-2

http://www.greencarreports.com/news...questions-toyota-honda-hyundai-respond-part-3

 

[GregH]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUjYIaUGmqU
I like the ChaDeMo port shown at 1:15...

So you can use 300-400kWh of electricity to make H2 and cram it into your Mirai then connect to your home to provide 100kWh of emergency power...

 

[NeilBlanchard]

Yeah, what's up with the CHAdeMO port?

I wonder about the price and space comparison between the hydrogen tanks and their structure along with the fuel cell and other associated equipment VS a larger battery pack and charger?

The range of this car is virtually the same as the Tesla. The (real) cost of this car is probably higher than the Tesla. Why didn't Toyota just design a competitor to the Model S?