Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[AndyH]

http://insideevs.com/bmw-unsure-of-hydrogen-fuel-cell-future-battery-advancements-could-renders-fcevs-obsolete/

“We’ve said we’ll continue to invest in hydrogen and that will result in a small number of production test vehicles being made to prove technology works. The real issues lie not around what we can do, though, but whether the infrastructure can be built up to supply hydrogen in the marketplace cost-effectively.”

“As a result of the issues of the cost of hydrogen production and distribution, Robertson suggested battery technology gains could instead accelerate sales of electric vehicles. Advances in lithium ion technology are set to be followed by a switch to lithium air and then solid state batteries. These advances over the next ten years could “see charging time and range worries disappear” according to Robertson.”

Thanks evnow. The source article paints a rather different picture than Loveday would have us believe...

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/bmw-confirms-hydrogen-car-development

In addition, Robertson indicated that he could now envisage a time in the future when investment in internal combustion engine technology switched to battery and electric motor advances. “At some point in the future the technologies will switch over,” he said. “When the crossover comes and the focus becomes electricity, the rate of learning will accelerate even faster,” he said. “Relatively, that time is not far away.”

BMW is expecting to sell 15,000 i3 electric or range-extended vehicles in 2014, making it the third-largest electric car maker. The i3 will go on sale in Asia in 2015.

BMW's long-term hydrogen plans are understood to centre around a future model for its 'i' range of cars. The mooted BMW i5 would employ a revised version of the powertrain used in the Toyota FCV.

In general, yes, infrastructure is critical. Remembering that Germany and most of central Europe is actually building both infrastructure and green generation/distribution of H2 today, the message is interpreted differently there.

A lot can happen "in 10 years" - we might have a quantum leap in batteries. We might have cold fusion. We might be hit by a meteor. There are plenty of things that 'might' kill the hydrogen segment of electric transportation. But they might not.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Hyundai and now BMW expressing their love of batteries over H2.

Assuming things play out as I predict they will, the future is VERY bright for EV's.

 

[GRA]

Hyundai and now BMW expressing their love of batteries over H2.

Assuming things play out as I predict they will, the future is VERY bright for EV's.

Yes, whether they're BEV or FCV. I was going to link to the BMW article from ievs.com but was beaten to it, although I find it hard to describe it as news; after all, as we've been saying here for the past 18 months or so, the relative price and performance of any new tech, whether BEV, FCV or what have you, vs. that of ICEs will determine its ultimate success.

 

[lorenfb]

A lot can happen "in 10 years" - we might have a quantum leap in batteries. We might have cold fusion. We might be hit by a meteor. There are plenty of things that 'might' kill the hydrogen segment of electric transportation. But they might not.

- A good summary of this thread -

 

[ydnas7]

'12 Hyundai Tucson fuel cell vehicles were reported by Autodata as sold for December, up from 10 in November, 1 in October, and 6 in September. A single Honda FCX Clarity FCV was reported also after a string of zero units leased the past several months'

I guess the difference between 60 vehicles announced and 29 vehicles counted would be Hyundai's own usage. Considering the known unknowns etc, it probably prudent for Hyundai to absorb and use internally the production HFC that are not leased to the general public. Presumably all 60 vehicles count for CARB credits.

 

[smkettner]

Actually 10 per month is oddly surprising to me. At least it has good looks and some utility.
Best of luck Toyota.

 

[GRA]

Actually 10 per month is oddly surprising to me. At least it has good looks and some utility.
Best of luck Toyota.

Yeah, it would be hard to find another new tech car that's got to face such a self-administered wound as the Mirai's looks, in addition to all the other issues that any new tech has to overcome.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Actually 10 per month is oddly surprising to me. At least it has good looks and some utility.
Best of luck Toyota.

Yeah, it would be hard to find another new tech car that's got to face such a self-administered wound as the Mirai's looks, in addition to all the other issues that any new tech has to overcome.

With 200 mile EV's seemingly "falling out of trees" this week, they have a triple whammy:

1) competition from "mass market" EV's for their expensive and dangerous H2 technology
2) huge cost disadvantage
3) Ugly car
4) virtually no infrastructure

 

[RegGuheert]

...a triple whammy:

1)
2)
3)
4)

Tony, how many fingers am I holding up? :lol:

(Sorry, I couldn't resist!)

 

[Deleted member 14724]

...a triple whammy:

1)
2)
3)
4)

Tony, how many fingers am I holding up? :lol:

(Sorry, I couldn't resist!)

Dealing with the GOM does strange things to a man.

 

[AndyH]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010218009000170

The common misconception that hydrogen flames are not visible is examined. Examples are presented of clearly visible emissions from typical hydrogen flames. It is shown that while visible emissions from these flames are considerably weaker than those from comparable hydrocarbon flames, they are indeed visible, albeit at reduced light levels in most cases.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=335842#p335842
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOTgeeTB_kA[/youtube]

Hydrogen is so dangerous to store and use, especially around electrical equipment (remember the Hindenburg, after all!) that it's used to cool most of the generators feeding the power grid...

Most utility-scale generators use hydrogen to cool the generator windings because
of its superior characteristics versus alternatives. TEWAC cooling has become
newly popular in the US for smaller facilities – up to about 100 MW capacity, and is
sometimes used up to 200 MW+ overseas, particularly in 50 cycle markets.
Hydrogen cooling is the standard for baseload plants.

From Nov 2013...
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=335880#p335880


Recycling is good, but the smell of recycled red herring does not improve with age...

Here's a Tesla Model S battery pack exploding:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCn1CufaCYc[/youtube]
Here's a single lithium cell:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EseOhC8n7ro[/youtube]
Both from earlier in the thread, by the way... http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=337505#p337505

Things go 'bang' - even BEVs. BEVs have been making hydrogen since at least Edison's NiFe cells - that's why we have ventilation options in the EVSE standards.

 

[AndyH]

Hydrogen safety overview

http://wiki.40fires.org/Wiki.jsp?page=Hydrogen Safety - 1. Introduction

This document reviews the literature available regarding the safety aspects of using hydrogen as a fuel for automobiles. Past experiences of hydrogen are reviewed and it is found that the Hindenburg accident would still have happened even if inert Helium was used for buoyancy. The track record of hydrogen usage is explored and it is found that hydrogen has been used safely for many years. The storage and use of hydrogen on the vehicle is found to be safer than a typical gasoline vehicle. In addition, the properties of hydrogen are reviewed against the properties of gasoline in an attempt to provide a comparison with an accepted vehicle fuel. It is found that the properties of hydrogen make it safer in the event of an accident and fuel leak scenario, with a possible exception being an unvented, fully enclosed space. Finally, the safety aspects of a FCEV and hydrogen filling stations are explored and recommendations made.

These images were linked earlier in the thread. Side-by-side fuel fire testing of FCEV and gasoline ICE. One destroyed the interior and would have killed all trapped inside; the other didn't impact the cabin.

 

[TonyWilliams]

You've posted most (all?) of that previously. The cooling at an industrial plant isn't my concern (and I seriously doubt that they are using 10,000 psi / 700 atmosphere pressure). Having oodles of 10,000 psi tanks running around with ANY flammable gas makes some serious compromises to safety (compared to ANY battery or unpressurized gasoline or diesel fuel).

Hydrogen as grid storage, cooling plants, or other industrial uses is totally awesome. So are nuclear air craft carriers. I don't want nuke cars driving around, either.

If we have 200 mile "mass market" EV's in 3 years (and I think we will), imagine what we might have in 15 years (which is the earliest that Toyota thinks their H2 cars will be competitive with EV's)?

 

[RegGuheert]

I see Andy still only shows photographs of hydrogen in dark conditions, so here is my old post showing what it looks like in daylight:

Personally, I think many of the concerns about H2 fires and/or explosions may be overblown (an explosion from a tank compromised in a crash excepted), but there is one area of H2 fire safety that I don't think has been covered in this thread.

So far, all the pictures of hydrogen fires in this thread have been taken at night. There is probably a reason for that. Hydrogen fires during the daytime are much more dangerous. The reason? You cannot see it and you cannot feel it until you are in, or very close to, the fire. Here are a couple of pictures and comments from H2BestPractices.org:

Notice how invisible the hydrogen flame is in the left-hand photograph!

- Hydrogen burns with a pale blue flame that is almost invisible during daylight hours, so fires are almost impossible to see with the naked eye.
- Hydrogen fires have low radiant heat, so you can't sense the presence of a flame until you are very close to it (or even in it).

So it seems that a hydrogen fire during the daytime could be the worst case, since it may be undetectable, causing someone to get burned who otherwise would be able to avoid the fire.

And here are videos of Nissan LEAF batteries which have burst into flames following an accident:

<crickets>

Point being: Not all Li-ion chemistries are the same when it comes to safety.

The future will be paved with the technologies which offer the best compromise between utility, cost, safety, reliability and environmental impact.

 

[AndyH]

You've posted most (all?) of that previously.

Yes I have, Tony, that's why I provided source links to the 2013 entries in the thread. Seems most people refuse to start a the beginning and thus believe it when you continue to repeat FUD that's been soundly debunked in the thread. The starting article, though, is new.

The cooling at an industrial plant isn't my concern (and I seriously doubt that they are using 10,000 psi / 700 atmosphere pressure). Having oodles of 10,000 psi tanks running around with ANY flammable gas makes some serious compromises to safety (compared to ANY battery or unpressurized gasoline or diesel fuel).

Feel free to research storage pressure and get back with us. In the meantime, there are some important things to remember: Since pressurized H2 is incapable of supporting ignition, containers of H2 at any pressure above atmospheric are safe to use and store. In addition, the linked youtube demonstration from a real scientist demonstrates and analyzes the behavior of H2 at atmospheric pressure. Finally, the side-by-side fuel tank fire example shows that burning gasoline is more likely to kill a family inside a car than one of those 'dangerous' high-pressure H2 tanks. So...it appears your belief that H2 equates to "serious compromises to safety" FUD is unsupportable.

Hydrogen as grid storage, cooling plants, or other industrial uses is totally awesome. So are nuclear air craft carriers. I don't want nuke cars driving around, either.

Yes, you think "other industrial uses" is "totally awesome" unless you can suggest that it's dangerous to keep pressurized bottles around. :lol:

If we have 200 mile "mass market" EV's in 3 years (and I think we will), imagine what we might have in 15 years (which is the earliest that Toyota thinks their H2 cars will be competitive with EV's)?

That's the problem, then, isn't it, Tony? Because we don't have 200 mile mass-market BEVs today, we have to hope we'll have one in three years. And since we don't have the quantum leap in battery storage density some feel we cannot live without, we have to put our transportation evolution on hold for 15 years.

I'm confused though, Tony. I thought it was bad to think more than 10 years down the road. After all, hasn't that been the primary anti-FCEV meme - that hydrogen will "always" be ready in 10 years? Long-range FCEV are being deployed in the world today - and that's with today's tech. The fuel cell folks don't need new tech to provide a 400 mile range any more than Tesla does. And since fuel cell prices have been falling faster than battery prices have, there's a higher probability that FCEV will hit the "mass market" threshold before a BEV with similar range capability will.

Yes, we've covered this before...a couple of times now...but the FUD keeps trying to move forward just like a good little zombie.

 

[Deleted member 14724]

That's the problem, then, isn't it, Tony? Because we don't have 200 mile mass-market BEVs today, we have to hope we'll have one in three years. And since we don't have the quantum leap in battery storage density some feel we cannot live without, we have to put our transportation evolution on hold for 15 years.

Since we do have high-end 200 mile BEVs today, it's not hard to assume that there will be mass market ones in the near future. When ABS was new, it was high end. When lane departure, backup cameras, bluetooth, TPMS, etc. were new, they were high-end. They quickly became mass market, though, and I do think it reasonable to assume that something as important as range would be even more quickly adopted in mass market vehicles. But I don't have anything against hydrogen either. I'm probably in the minority here in that the ability to charge at home is an essential aspect of an electric vehicle for me. If I have to go to a station every time I refuel, I'd just as soon make it a gas station and deal with tried and true, and relatively inexpensive technology.

 

[smkettner]

These images were linked earlier in the thread. Side-by-side fuel fire testing of FCEV and gasoline ICE. One destroyed the interior and would have killed all trapped inside; the other didn't impact the cabin.

That's nice when the hydrogen comes out the planned relief valve. What happens when the leak blows into the vehicle cabin?

Can't happen? What about when the entire car flips and the nozzle is pointed at my family?

 

[AndyH]

That's the problem, then, isn't it, Tony? Because we don't have 200 mile mass-market BEVs today, we have to hope we'll have one in three years. And since we don't have the quantum leap in battery storage density some feel we cannot live without, we have to put our transportation evolution on hold for 15 years.

Since we do have high-end 200 mile BEVs today, it's not hard to assume that there will be mass market ones in the near future. When ABS was new, it was high end. When lane departure, backup cameras, bluetooth, TPMS, etc. were new, they were high-end. They quickly became mass market, though, and I do think it reasonable to assume that something as important as range would be even more quickly adopted in mass market vehicles. But I don't have anything against hydrogen either. I'm probably in the minority here in that the ability to charge at home is an essential aspect of an electric vehicle for me. If I have to go to a station every time I refuel, I'd just as soon make it a gas station and deal with tried and true, and relatively inexpensive technology.

Quite right, rob. Remember though that we have had 400 mile high-end FCEV SUVs on CA roads for a number of years as well. Tesla's catching up with FCEV, actually...

Plugging in is convenient, no doubt. That's why some of us are excited about the plug-in fuel cell vehicles. Think plug-in hybrid, but replace the ICE with a fuel cell stack.

 

[AndyH]

These images were linked earlier in the thread. Side-by-side fuel fire testing of FCEV and gasoline ICE. One destroyed the interior and would have killed all trapped inside; the other didn't impact the cabin.

That's nice when the hydrogen comes out the planned relief valve. What happens when the leak blows into the vehicle cabin?

Can't happen? What about when the entire car flips and the nozzle is pointed at my family?

We've covered that as well, if you recall. The nozzle, even if the car is inverted, is outside the cabin. Regardless of vehicle orientation, H2 still must expand and mix with oxygen in order to burn, and it still rises very quickly away from the vehicle while doing that. The systems are designed to vent quickly - the duration of a H2 burn is complete before the gasoline fire reaches full intensity. Gasoline fumes, being heavier than air, will always settle below the cabin, while H2, being much lighter than air, will always rise away from the cabin.

 

[GRA]

Via ievs.com:

Honda Announces Upcoming All Electric And PHEV Model While Debuting FCV Concept

http://insideevs.com/honda-announces-upcoming-electric-phev-model-debuting-fcv-concept/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

While I still wouldn't call it good looking, it's Much better looking than the Mirai. I've never been a fan of tire/wheel shrouds looks-wise and don't find the intake forward of the rear wheels nice either, but aero is aero (assuming it's being done for that purpose and not just for the 'gee-whiz' effect). and the front end is world's ahead of the Mirai, which always brings to mind something like this: http://d3o47n6kn1r59u.cloudfront.net/images/dogbreeds/large/Bulldog.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;