Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[AndyH]

Just one example of how progress toward the Third Industrial Revolution in Germany is paying dividends even before all the pieces are in place. The integration of widely distributed generation requires the same type of second by second supply/demand management that power grid operators are already experts in - but managing thousands of small producers is slightly different than orders of magnitude fewer but larger power plants.

Spreading generation out across large numbers of distributed generators helps to further stabilize production. The German startup Next Kraftwerke aggregates and sells 1 gigawatt of renewable capacity from some 2,500 different generators into a “virtual power plant” (VPP). Using advanced and standardized control electronics, and without owning any of the generation itself, the company operates this swarm of generators like a school of fish: if one “fish” malfunctions, the others cover for it. Curtailment or adjustment of production—for example, using biomass units—is needed only when short-term trading is insufficient to match demand and supply on the market.

http://blogs.worldwatch.org/providing-100-clean-electricity-through-the-spread-of-renewables/

Today it's managing distributed biomass plants that provided about 31% of Germany's energy in 2013, but is ready to manage the wind to hydrogen and H2 generation (gas turbines and fuel cells) components just as easily.

In Germany, just as in Iowa (27.4% of generation from wind), supply/demand management is more involved today. That will be made dramatically easier once the storage pillar of the TIR catches up with the renewable generation and smart grid pillars.

(And yes - as the portion of renewables increases, grid outages are reduced and wholesale prices continue to fall.)

The substantial growth of renewable energy in Europe has contributed to a sustained decline in electricity prices at the European Energy Exchange, to below 5 U.S. cents per kWh on average in 2013, a drop of 26 percent from 2011. This is evidence that renewables can help lower energy prices.  

http://www.worldwatch.org/system/files/energy transitions in Germany and the United States.pdf

No, those aren't funny numbers to make things look good on a blog...

In November 2014, one of Germany’s big four energy giants, E.on, announced plans to abandon its fossil fuel and nuclear business and focus on renewables and services. The company says it has been priced out of the market by clean energy and lower energy prices on the stock market, resulting in lost profitability for conventional power suppliers.

 

[AndyH]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NNxlUKYXEI[/youtube]

Scattered notes from an early 2014 Canadian energy storage expo. Note the pieces about wind to H2 (including a view of the operational site in Germany) and the piece on test batteries that have about 4x the density of LiIon... :shock:

 

[GRA]

Regardless of how anyone feels about the efficiency of the H2 conversion process, I love that Toyota is taking on one of their most prominent critics (and other technology competitor) head on. Via GCC:

Toyota embraces the “Bullsh*t” about hydrogen

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/04/20150422-toyota-1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Watch the video - let's just say it leaves little to the imagination :lol:

 

[Slow1]

Regardless of how anyone feels about the efficiency of the H2 conversion process, I love that Toyota is taking on one of their most prominent critics (and other technology competitor) head on. Via GCC:

Toyota embraces the “Bullsh*t” about hydrogen

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/04/20150422-toyota-1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Watch the video - let's just say it leaves little to the imagination :lol:

Enjoyed it. Yes, good to see that the marketing arms are doing well with it and have a sense of humor to boot! Some of the comments were worth reading as well.

I wonder if someone could come up with an efficient methane fuel cell.... while it would clearly put out CO2 as well as water, it seems that it would be a potentially simpler process and less energy intensive than pulling the hydrogen out...

I have to figure that the process used to strip the H2 from methane must release CO2 - unless they are leaving piles of graphite laying around...

 

[AndyH]

Enjoyed it. Yes, good to see that the marketing arms are doing well with it and have a sense of humor to boot! Some of the comments were worth reading as well.

I wonder if someone could come up with an efficient methane fuel cell.... while it would clearly put out CO2 as well as water, it seems that it would be a potentially simpler process and less energy intensive than pulling the hydrogen out...

I have to figure that the process used to strip the H2 from methane must release CO2 - unless they are leaving piles of graphite laying around...

Methane has to be reformed to pull the H2 out regardless - there are reformers for methane, ethanol (and the rest of the alcohols), glycerine, etc. They're heavy and use high heat - they're used in stationary systems and CHP units but not vehicles.

The CO2 emitted from the biogas process is not fossil carbon - it's carbon that was pulled from the air the previous summer by the plants the cattle ate.

There are plenty of ways to close the carbon loop as well - check out the closed-loops in this Canadian plant:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dppsoJ7gabk[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbxI1R207B0[/youtube]

 

[mbender]

I've admitted that this ad is sort of cute (it helps that I like Morgan Spurlock), but many parts of the "field to fuel" process are conveniently overlooked or not mentioned. These include 1.) collecting/bulldozing the BS 2.) trucking it to the plant 3.) spreading it into the digester 4.) the 'reforming' energy 5.) the compressing energy, and 6.) the need for vehicles to drive to a central location to fill up. But...

After ruminating (ahem) on it for a bit, I think the most "damning" part about it is that it relies on CAFO* dairies or finishing lots in order to have any chance of working. Elsewhere we have established or mostly agreed on how vile and earth/atmosphere/soul-or-is-it-soil-destroying these operations are, so I don't know why they'd be ok, now, for making a little fuel (after a long process). Far better I say to let the BS from free-ranging cattle fall to the ground in grass fields, feed the birds, and re-fertilize the soil through natural processes.

But I'm probably taking this way too seriously!


* Confined Animal Feeding Operations, for anyone new to the horror.

 

[AndyH]

I think it's a great response - collecting the BS tossed at them and putting it to good use.

Somewhere up thread we've posted examples of dairy farms and non-CAFO farms/ranches that are digesting the manure and other organics. The manure wouldn't have to be trucked of the farm - just connect to the gas pipeline and reform the biogas at the point of sale. Every landfill in the country makes biogas. Some is vented to the atmosphere, some is flared on site, some is used to generate electricity and fed into the grid.

Another point about the manure and biogas process: Mixing manure and other organics (like the municipal waste in the videos from Canada above) with water to feed a biodigester produces methane, but it doesn't 'destroy' or 'use-up' the biomas. The slurry that comes from the digesters is a better and more easily dispersed fertilizer than raw cow pies. Biogas is used all over the world, and the slurry is easily gravity fed back into the fields to close the nutrient loop. It's stone-age low tech.

ruminating...groan...

 

[Slow1]

Methane has to be reformed to pull the H2 out regardless - there are reformers for methane, ethanol (and the rest of the alcohols), glycerine, etc. They're heavy and use high heat - they're used in stationary systems and CHP units but not vehicles.

I wasn't aware of that. What do they do with the H2 now?

The CO2 emitted from the biogas process is not fossil carbon - it's carbon that was pulled from the air the previous summer by the plants the cattle ate.

In the case of biogas I agree. Where it breaks down (IMO) is when we cross over into fossil fuel cases where we are extracting more fossil fuels from the ground and releasing that carbon. Capture and re-use of methane certainly has other environmental benefits as well.

There are plenty of ways to close the carbon loop as well - check out the closed-loops in this Canadian plant:

Excellent examples - but notice that they burn the methane to generate electricity and utilize the waste heat from this (I presume internal combustion engines). Now, the question I have is IF they were to take that same methane and use it as a source of H2, do you think they would net more energy from it? I.e. option "A" is to use the recovered methane to generate electricity and heat; option "B" is to take that methane and generate H2 from it then pass that H2 through fuel cells to generate electricity (lets assume we recover some waste heat here too if possible) - Which option nets more useful energy?

 

[AndyH]

Methane has to be reformed to pull the H2 out regardless - there are reformers for methane, ethanol (and the rest of the alcohols), glycerine, etc. They're heavy and use high heat - they're used in stationary systems and CHP units but not vehicles.

I wasn't aware of that. What do they do with the H2 now?

I wouldn't expect that gas would be reformed into H2 unless the H2 is used. For stationary combined heat and power units, gas comes in, H2 is stripped off and run through a fuel cell, and the box outputs electricity, heat, and CO2.

The CO2 emitted from the biogas process is not fossil carbon - it's carbon that was pulled from the air the previous summer by the plants the cattle ate.

In the case of biogas I agree. Where it breaks down (IMO) is when we cross over into fossil fuel cases where we are extracting more fossil fuels from the ground and releasing that carbon. Capture and re-use of methane certainly has other environmental benefits as well.

I agree about both fossil carbon and methane.

There are plenty of ways to close the carbon loop as well - check out the closed-loops in this Canadian plant:

Excellent examples - but notice that they burn the methane to generate electricity and utilize the waste heat from this (I presume internal combustion engines). Now, the question I have is IF they were to take that same methane and use it as a source of H2, do you think they would net more energy from it? I.e. option "A" is to use the recovered methane to generate electricity and heat; option "B" is to take that methane and generate H2 from it then pass that H2 through fuel cells to generate electricity (lets assume we recover some waste heat here too if possible) - Which option nets more useful energy?

I guess 'useful' is determined by the needs of the process and the way markets twist things out of shape. I hope that if the farm, ranch, and ethanol plant were being planned for simultaneous deployment today that they'd do a better job of matching up resources with needs for all the processes. Ethanol production needs heat, and in a conventional process/paradigm burning gas is a much more efficient way to generate heat than using electricity as the carrier. Maybe local incentives change that - maybe the farmer gets more money for the gas if he makes electricity, and maybe the ethanol plant's commercial electricity rate is lower than the local price of gas. Dunno.

Adding fuel cells as an option 'should' change things for the better. Solid oxide fuel cells operate at high temperatures - they'll make steam - so they're the better choice for a stationary CHP unit than an ICE for an industry that needs the process heat. (Maybe there are economic factors involved, though, that push efficiency down the list - bean counters most often win over engineering...especially with efficiency. And/or maybe the greater inefficiency of the ICE and the larger volume of hot water is a better match than a more efficient fuel cell. Too many variables for a Twitter-scale answer. )
http://www.fuelcellenergy.com/why-fuelcell-energy/benefits/combined-heat-power-chp/

 

[EdmondLeaf]

]Going back home I maybe in trouble. Range on my Civic NG (natural gas) is 10 miles and closest station is 14 miles away. I am not sure if I will get there, but I will try. If I will not get there, I will call AAA, and they have special trucks that will share cng charge with my car. That may cost me few hours because that is in the middle of nowhere. One may say that I should think in advance and charge my car without waiting for such low fuel level, but true is that I have to make unexpected trip and there are no cng charging stations there. I wish my car was electric, plenty of unused plugs around. There is also natural gas installation in the my building, but gas will not flow against pressure gradient, I need compressor. There is no portable compressor for cng, and to install stationary one you need to comply with strict safety guidelines. I wish my car was electric, I will be at work for quite few hours so even with slow charge I will gain enough miles to go home. I hope FCEV will not need compressor to fill the tank, otherwise I will be in trouble as I am today.
edit
I check my car can't be "Fueled by Bullsh*t" or CH4 produced by bull
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pTluy9KpYU

 

[Slow1]

Adding fuel cells as an option 'should' change things for the better. Solid oxide fuel cells operate at high temperatures - they'll make steam - so they're the better choice for a stationary CHP unit than an ICE for an industry that needs the process heat. (Maybe there are economic factors involved, though, that push efficiency down the list - bean counters most often win over engineering...especially with efficiency. And/or maybe the greater inefficiency of the ICE and the larger volume of hot water is a better match than a more efficient fuel cell. Too many variables for a Twitter-scale answer. )
http://www.fuelcellenergy.com/why-fuelcell-energy/benefits/combined-heat-power-chp/

Read through that site (rather quickly I have to admit) - looks like they are marketing a FC that internally takes in methane and reforms it for the H2 - all within the same cell and they claim electrical efficiency of 47% (up to 90% if heat is captured).

So, the obvious question then becomes, could this be a viable solution for transportation? Is the net electrical efficiency of reforming to H2, storing, then feeding to FC for electricity better than the CH4 direct to electrical energy efficiency?

I wonder if this is a case of wanting to market "zero CO2 at the tailpipe"... or perhaps the risk of CH4 release at vehicle refueling is seen as too great (I hear they consider it a worse greenhouse gas than C02).

 

[AndyH]

Adding fuel cells as an option 'should' change things for the better. Solid oxide fuel cells operate at high temperatures - they'll make steam - so they're the better choice for a stationary CHP unit than an ICE for an industry that needs the process heat. (Maybe there are economic factors involved, though, that push efficiency down the list - bean counters most often win over engineering...especially with efficiency. And/or maybe the greater inefficiency of the ICE and the larger volume of hot water is a better match than a more efficient fuel cell. Too many variables for a Twitter-scale answer. )
http://www.fuelcellenergy.com/why-fuelcell-energy/benefits/combined-heat-power-chp/

Read through that site (rather quickly I have to admit) - looks like they are marketing a FC that internally takes in methane and reforms it for the H2 - all within the same cell and they claim electrical efficiency of 47% (up to 90% if heat is captured).

So, the obvious question then becomes, could this be a viable solution for transportation? Is the net electrical efficiency of reforming to H2, storing, then feeding to FC for electricity better than the CH4 direct to electrical energy efficiency?

I wonder if this is a case of wanting to market "zero CO2 at the tailpipe"... or perhaps the risk of CH4 release at vehicle refueling is seen as too great (I hear they consider it a worse greenhouse gas than C02).

Right - that's just one example of a fuel cell system that extracts hydrogen from different inputs. They're in use around the world - from the Siemens project just up thread providing electricity, hot water, and space heating for homes to the Bloom Boxes providing stable electricity to ebay, Google, and other customers. http://www.bloomenergy.com/customer-fuel-cell/ No, it's not a marketing decision - they're not suitable for vehicles because they're heavy, run much hotter than even the early smart's sodium sulfur battery, and take time to start-up (they have to get up to temperature before they can be used).

I think we've found in this thread that current tech proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cells (the ones used in vehicles) are a bit more efficient on the electric side while still being in the ~80%+ range if the heat's used. The heat can be used for both cabin heating and cooling which would allow a car to maintain close to full range summer or winter. (Google propane refrigerator/freezer for more on that if you care to.)

 

[ydnas7]

So, the obvious question then becomes, could this be a viable solution for transportation? Is the net electrical efficiency of reforming to H2, storing, then feeding to FC for electricity better than the CH4 direct to electrical energy efficiency?

this is their 300kW fuel cell, note well the size, that is a sea container on the right. All this to be equivalent to a diesel motor Nissan Titan, or the battery in a Tesla Model S

 

[AndyH]

So, the obvious question then becomes, could this be a viable solution for transportation? Is the net electrical efficiency of reforming to H2, storing, then feeding to FC for electricity better than the CH4 direct to electrical energy efficiency?

this is their 300kW fuel cell, note well the size, that is a sea container on the right. All this to be equivalent to a diesel motor Nissan Titan, or the battery in a Tesla Model S

Nope - not 'equivalent' at all. Note the inputs and outputs...and efficiency...and wastes. Also note that there are a number of different types of CHP units that range from small (can completely run a Japanese or German house) to large - for data center power. Folks don't have to like the tech, but please don't try to pull the sheep over our faces...

http://phys.org/news/2013-01-panasonic-trims-ene-farm-fuel-cell.html

(Phys.org)—This month, Panasonic and Tokyo Gas announced the launch of their newest Ene-Farm home fuel cell, a product that residents can use to generate energy right from their homes. This is a smaller, cheaper, and efficient successor to the Ene-Farm products of the past; the new product can operate 20 percent longer than the previous model, for 60,000 hours. The developers, Tokyo Gas and Panasonic, said that this Ene-Farm home fuel cell achieves overall efficiency of 95 percent LHV, as the world's most efficient fuel cell.

Panasonic's had these on the Japanese market since 2009.

 

[AndyH]

Interesting report from the UK. Yes, plenty of industry reps, but universities and Carbon Trust representatives as well. Talks to H2 CHP and also talks about the TIR practice of H2 in the NG grid and the Audi syn-methane program, the zero-fossil carbon methane can also use the existing gas grid. One note, useful for the previous Japanese CHP products, is that they're expected to be cost competitive in Japan without incentives in 2015.

http://www.h2fcsupergen.com/wp-cont...2FC-SUPERGEN-White-Paper-on-Heat-May-2014.pdf

Fuel cell CHP is already being deployed commercially around the
world. Commercial and industrial enterprises have used fuel cell CHP
for decades, particularly in the USA. Meanwhile, sales of residential
micro-CHP units are doubling every year, and in Japan they will be
fully competitive (sold without subsidy) from 2015. The capital costs
of fuel cells have greatly reduced in recent years as a result of innovation
and learning through field trials and deployment programmes.

Hydrogen can be a zero-carbon alternative to natural gas. Most technologies
that use natural gas can be adapted to use hydrogen and still
provide the same level of service. Hydrogen could potentially be delivered
via the existing natural gas distribution networks, although more
research is required to fully understand the issues surrounding conversion
of the networks. In the shorter term, injecting small amounts
of hydrogen into the gas networks or producing synthetic natural gas
using hydrogen and waste CO2 effluent could reduce the emissions
intensity of the gas delivered to all users.

 

[smkettner]

Regardless of how anyone feels about the efficiency of the H2 conversion process, I love that Toyota is taking on one of their most prominent critics (and other technology competitor) head on. Via GCC:

Toyota embraces the “Bullsh*t” about hydrogen

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/04/20150422-toyota-1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Watch the video - let's just say it leaves little to the imagination :lol:

I would like to see the H2 produced power the full cycle including hauling the manure, maintaining the harvest, reforming the methane, compressing the H2 and see what is really left over to power the car.

 

[ydnas7]

Folks don't have to like the tech, but please don't try to pull the sheep over our faces...

That is a 700 watt rated unit, with electric output of 200watt-700 watts
blackout output rating max 500 Watts
yes sir, that is Watts, not Kilowatts

http://panasonic.co.jp/ap/FC/en_doc03_00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

thats about right for a bike http://electricbikereview.com/e-bikekit/500w-direct-drive-kit/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[RegGuheert]

That is a 700 watt rated unit, with electric output of 200watt-700 watts
blackout output rating max 500 Watts
yes sir, that is Watts, not Kilowatts

http://panasonic.co.jp/ap/FC/en_doc03_00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

thats about right for a bike http://electricbikereview.com/e-bikekit/500w-direct-drive-kit/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Electrical efficiency is 39% (LHV) and 35% (HHV).

The link doesn't say what the price is, only that the new model was reduced by $2500 since the 2013 model. :shock:

Yet, somehow, they've managed to ship 52,000 of these things. I guess OPM is paying for them through subsidies.

Edit: I found the price here: $16,700 without a backup battery, $21,700 with a backup battery.

 

[AndyH]

Folks don't have to like the tech, but please don't try to pull the sheep over our faces...

That is a 700 watt rated unit, with electric output of 200watt-700 watts
blackout output rating max 500 Watts
yes sir, that is Watts, not Kilowatts

http://panasonic.co.jp/ap/FC/en_doc03_00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

thats about right for a bike http://electricbikereview.com/e-bikekit/500w-direct-drive-kit/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's also about right for an efficient house. Yeah, I lived in Germany and Korea, and have stayed in efficient buildings in the USA...

 

[AndyH]

That is a 700 watt rated unit, with electric output of 200watt-700 watts
blackout output rating max 500 Watts
yes sir, that is Watts, not Kilowatts

http://panasonic.co.jp/ap/FC/en_doc03_00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

thats about right for a bike http://electricbikereview.com/e-bikekit/500w-direct-drive-kit/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Electrical efficiency is 39% (LHV) and 35% (HHV).

The link doesn't say what the price is, only that the new model was reduced by $2500 since the 2013 model. :shock:

Yet, somehow, they've managed to ship 52,000 of these things. I guess OPM is paying for them through subsidies.

Edit: I found the price here: $16,700 without a backup battery, $21,700 with a backup battery.

The link with pricing is listed in my post. And again - they're cost competitive this year with NO subsidies or incentives.