Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[RegGuheert]

...$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.

Cost-competitive when compared with what? Here is what you get:

$22,000 for a piece of equipment that lasts almost seven years. Let's assume you can use all the hot water and have net metering available. At 500W of average production, you can produce about 360 kWh of electricity per month. At $0.20/kWh, that electricity is worth $72. OTOH, you will increase your gas consumption by approximately $50/month from $100/month to $150/month when compared with using an efficient gas water heater to heat the equivalent amount of water. (Natural gas in Japan costs almost as much the same as electricity on a per-kWh basis.)

Total savings: $22/month.
Monthly equipment cost to achieve this savings: $22,000/84= $260/month (at 0% interest)

Since you have to purchase a gas water heater in either case, there is no savings on that equipment with this unit.

So your net savings are $22/month and your net costs are $260/month based on these assumptions. Put another way, costs are 12X return.

It seems like electricity would have to increase to about $1.00/kWh (without any increase in natural gas costs) for this unit to make any sense.

 

[AndyH]

...$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.

Cost-competitive when compared with what? Here is what you get:

The report I linked clearly explains the 'cost competitive compared to what' part. The executive summary is: Everything Else.

Like it or hate it - that's up to you and well outside my sphere of responsibility. I personally will stick with real numbers.

 

[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:

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.

Me too. I have seen such calcs in the past for corn, corn stover, sugar and switchgrass ethanol, where it looks pretty bad beyond a fairly small radius of transport owing to the low density of the feed stock and its high water content, but don't remember if I've seen the same for H2 from manure. I believe I have seen numbers for cattle-produced methane alone, but don't remember where. Of course, assuming that you put the reformer on the farm itself and use methane and/or H2 for CHP as well as H2 for running the farm vehicles, I expect the numbers look pretty good. The density of the 'feed stock' is a lot higher than corn, at least, so transport costs should be less :lol:

 

[GRA]

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

Cost-competitive when compared with what? Here is what you get:

The report I linked clearly explains the 'cost competitive compared to what' part. The executive summary is: Everything Else.

Like it or hate it - that's up to you and well outside my sphere of responsibility. I personally will stick with real numbers.

Andy, I'm not sure which report you're referring to. I read the article and the press release, and the latter says a cost of 1,995,000 yen ($16,783 using an online currency calculator) and a savings of 60,000 yen/year ($504.75 ditto) on a household's utility bill, which equates to a payback of 33.25 years assuming the rates don't increase over the lifetime of the product (which won't be the case, obviously, so the actual payback time would be less). Even with that, based on those numbers provided by the manufacturer these aren't cost-competitive without subsidies yet, so you have to be doing it for GHG, air pollution and energy transition reasons. Are you referring to some other report?

 

[Slow1]

Cost-competitive when compared with what? Here is what you get:

The report I linked clearly explains the 'cost competitive compared to what' part. The executive summary is: Everything Else.

Like it or hate it - that's up to you and well outside my sphere of responsibility. I personally will stick with real numbers.

Which report is that? The economics listed in figure ES3 in http://www.h2fcsupergen.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/H2FC-SUPERGEN-White-Paper-on-Heat-May-2014.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; that you cite seem to rather well support what RegGuheert is saying - the net savings is very low taking into account the energy used and offset (about 71 british pounds/annually - about 5.7%) although I didn't see annualized equipment costs in that report... I'm confused, what you are finding...

 

[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;

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

I recommend that Japan purchase the 61% electrical-efficiency and 85% cogeneration efficiency CCGT generators which are being turned off in Germany due to Energiewende. They could probably get them for a song.

Then they can install heat-pump water heaters for use in the heat of the summer and greatly reduce their consumption of imported natural gas by also lowering their air-conditioning loads. That 22% extra electricity will go a lot farther than the extra heat provided by the uber-expensive fuel cells.

 

[mbender]

I recommend that Japan purchase the 61% electrical-efficiency and 85% cogeneration efficiency CCGT generators which are being turned off in Germany due to Energiewende. They could probably get them for a song.

Now I'm confused. That piece makes it sound as if it (the CCGT described) is going to be turned on next year. Got a reference describing any of these being turned off, much less sold off? I can't imagine them not tweaking the regulations to make these generators more economically viable than coal plants. Or were you "just kidding"?

 

[RegGuheert]

Or were you "just kidding"?

I'm not kidding. Siemens discusses the issues in the article linked. The world-record-holding 60.75% electrical efficiency unit that Siemens installed in a plant in Irsching that is mentioned in that same article is to be turned off in 2016 because the Energiewende policies are making it too costly for the owner to operate it.

See also:

The Problems Facing Gas Power Stations in Germany

It's Official: Most Efficient Gas-Fired Power Plant to be Shut Down Due to Losses Stemming from Energiewende

(That last link has been down all day. Hopefully it will come back up later.

 

[AndyH]

Or were you "just kidding"?

I'm not kidding. Siemens discusses the issues in the article linked. The world-record-holding 60.75% electrical efficiency unit that Siemens installed in a plant in Irsching that is mentioned in that same article is to be turned off in 2016 because the Energiewende policies are making it too costly for the owner to operate it.

See also:

The Problems Facing Gas Power Stations in Germany

It's Official: Most Efficient Gas-Fired Power Plant to be Shut Down Due to Losses Stemming from Energiewende

(That last link has been down all day. Hopefully it will come back up later.

As with climate change, Reg isn't a fan of Germany's energy transition, and frequents the fossil-fuel funded disinformation blogs. Whatever.

That there are losses should be a really, really huge red flag. I've already posted it in the appropriate threads (and just up a page). The FOSSIL FUEL power generation companies in Germany - like E.On - are splitting their companies into grid/grid services and fossil generation - they're divesting from fossil fuel generation - because renewables plus storage is TOO CHEAP for them to compete.

For most people that would be a ginormous victory. But in the climate and renewable denial zone, it's spin baby spin! :lol:

edit... here it is - from page 195. Note that I reported this at least once earlier in this thread where we learned from the architect of the TIR that while the large power companies originally complained about being required to work with renewable generation, they had started to come around - staring with E.On - to specialize in grid management and energy distribution similar to the way IBM moved from proving mainframe computers to becoming a data management company. A later report, also well up thread, was a report from E.On announcing their adoption of TIR practices and smart grid management. This info below is the third piece, with info also from E.On, that confirms the prediction/plans from Rifkin and earlier info from E.On. In other words, the TIR is advancing right on schedule and the world is not coming to an end. :lol:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=420376#p420376

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.

E.On's happy with the transition and their continuing to make good profits now that they've cut the fossil cancer. But nut-bag far-right bloggers are going to keep reporting their garbage until people stop reading.

 

[AndyH]

Andy, I'm not sure which report you're referring to. I read the article and the press release, and the latter says a cost of 1,995,000 yen ($16,783 using an online currency calculator) and a savings of 60,000 yen/year ($504.75 ditto) on a household's utility bill, which equates to a payback of 33.25 years assuming the rates don't increase over the lifetime of the product (which won't be the case, obviously, so the actual payback time would be less). Even with that, based on those numbers provided by the manufacturer these aren't cost-competitive without subsidies yet, so you have to be doing it for GHG, air pollution and energy transition reasons. Are you referring to some other report?

Yeah, the 2014 piece from the UK specifically mentioned that the residential units in Japan were expected to reach essentially 'grid parity' in 2015.

The thing about this tech is that it needs absolutely no modification when the feedstock is changed from fossil natural gas to biomethane. That's critical for my personal journey, but it's pretty clear that I'm out of phase with most here, so no harm if anyone feels the need to laugh at me. I've got my biogas digester plans and I intend to use them anyway.

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.

 

[RegGuheert]

That there are losses should be a really, really huge red flag.

It should be, but it doesn't seem to register with you: The massively costly and wasteful fuel cells being deployed in Japan along with the world's most efficient natural-gas-fired power plant being shut down in Germany are a clear indication of government policies which have run amuk.

Just take a look at what Siemens has to say about the situation (from the link I provided upthread):

Unfortunately, however, electricity from CCGT plants is hardly cost-effective in Germany, because of current market conditions. At the moment, in fact, despite Germany's plans for greener energy production, because of low raw material costs and the extremely low prices for CO2 emission certificates, coal, rather than natural gas, is the most common fuel now being used to generate electricity. “In Germany, many gas-fired power plants therefore produce electricity only 1,000 to 2,000 hours per year. But to operate cost-effectively, at least 3,000 hours are normally needed,” explains Olaf Kreyenberg, head of European power plant sales at Siemens Energy, who is responsible for sales activities at the Lausward project.

The point is that Germany's govenment has created the asinine situation in which it is not profitable to operate the most efficient fossil-fuel-powered electricity-generation plant in the world at the same time that new lignite coal stations are being built. At the same time, Japan has shut down most of their nuclear power plants and is importing natural gas on ships at extremely high cost to produce electricity and is making their situation worse by converting it to electricity using ridiculously-costly, low-power fuel cells that operate at less than 2/3 the electrical efficiency of the German plant being mothballed.

There is no way the German power plant costs many times what it produces like the fuel cells, but the difference is that those costs are being borne by a corporation, so they are not being sustained.

Again, Japan should purchase the plant that E.On is shutting down and install it in their country and operate it in an optimal fashion. That investment would produce massively more electricity than the 100,000,000 yen they have spent on low-power, wasteful fuel cells, but at much higher efficiencies.

It will be interesting to see if and when sanity comes back to replace the ridiculous energy policies which are appearing the world over.

 

[GRA]

Andy, I'm not sure which report you're referring to. I read the article and the press release, and the latter says a cost of 1,995,000 yen ($16,783 using an online currency calculator) and a savings of 60,000 yen/year ($504.75 ditto) on a household's utility bill, which equates to a payback of 33.25 years assuming the rates don't increase over the lifetime of the product (which won't be the case, obviously, so the actual payback time would be less). Even with that, based on those numbers provided by the manufacturer these aren't cost-competitive without subsidies yet, so you have to be doing it for GHG, air pollution and energy transition reasons. Are you referring to some other report?

Yeah, the 2014 piece from the UK specifically mentioned that the residential units in Japan were expected to reach essentially 'grid parity' in 2015.

The thing about this tech is that it needs absolutely no modification when the feedstock is changed from fossil natural gas to biomethane. That's critical for my personal journey, but it's pretty clear that I'm out of phase with most here, so no harm if anyone feels the need to laugh at me. I've got my biogas digester plans and I intend to use them anyway.

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

Okay, but IME manufacturers always quote numbers in a press release in whichever conditions make their product look best, so it just seemed odd that even in conditions which are unlikely to represent the typical case, even the manufacturer couldn't fudge the numbers to make them appear remotely cost-effective for most people, unlike the broad brush statement in the report you quote. The average homeowner just isn't going to accept a two-decade plus payback period - it needs to be in single digits. Assuming mass installation from new in a housing project, maybe it might make financial sense, but not as an individual retrofit at current prices - it looks to me like at least one and maybe two more generations to grid parity on cost grounds for that. Individuals may want to install them now for ideological reasons.

 

[RegGuheert]

The average homeowner just isn't going to accept a two-decade plus payback period - it needs to be in single digits.

For equipment that lasts less than seven years, I would say that is a given.

 

[GRA]

The average homeowner just isn't going to accept a two-decade plus payback period - it needs to be in single digits.

For equipment that lasts less than seven years, I would say that is a given.

Certainly true, although lifespans vary. I must have missed it - did it say that it had a 7-year max. lifespan, that was the length of the warranty, or ?

 

[Slow1]

The average homeowner just isn't going to accept a two-decade plus payback period - it needs to be in single digits.

For equipment that lasts less than seven years, I would say that is a given.

Certainly true, although lifespans vary. I must have missed it - did it say that it had a 7-year max. lifespan, that was the length of the warranty, or ?

Oddly enough it was a bragging point that it could now operate for 60000hrs (which comes to about 6.8 years). Now if you have a cabin in the woods that doesn't have electrical service but does have gas...

 

[AndyH]

Oddly enough it was a bragging point that it could now operate for 60000hrs (which comes to about 6.8 years). Now if you have a cabin in the woods that doesn't have electrical service but does have gas...

This is only accurate for a building that runs the fuel cell at full power 24/7. Homes don't draw power that way - and the type of efficient building these are used for certainly don't. As an aside, that number doesn't give any information about the life of the actual fuel cell - that's actually a typical rating for the electronic bits like capacitors. I wouldn't expect this to 'only' provide a 6.8 year life any more than I expect only 6.8 years of service from the inverter in my EV or in the power supply in my computers.

 

[RegGuheert]

This is only accurate for a building that runs the fuel cell at full power 24/7.

It only pays back when it is operating, so the number is entirely relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[AndyH]

Andy, I'm not sure which report you're referring to. I read the article and the press release, and the latter says a cost of 1,995,000 yen ($16,783 using an online currency calculator) and a savings of 60,000 yen/year ($504.75 ditto) on a household's utility bill, which equates to a payback of 33.25 years assuming the rates don't increase over the lifetime of the product (which won't be the case, obviously, so the actual payback time would be less). Even with that, based on those numbers provided by the manufacturer these aren't cost-competitive without subsidies yet, so you have to be doing it for GHG, air pollution and energy transition reasons. Are you referring to some other report?

Yeah, the 2014 piece from the UK specifically mentioned that the residential units in Japan were expected to reach essentially 'grid parity' in 2015.

The thing about this tech is that it needs absolutely no modification when the feedstock is changed from fossil natural gas to biomethane. That's critical for my personal journey, but it's pretty clear that I'm out of phase with most here, so no harm if anyone feels the need to laugh at me. I've got my biogas digester plans and I intend to use them anyway.

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

Okay, but IME manufacturers always quote numbers in a press release in whichever conditions make their product look best, so it just seemed odd that even in conditions which are unlikely to represent the typical case, even the manufacturer couldn't fudge the numbers to make them appear remotely cost-effective for most people, unlike the broad brush statement in the report you quote. The average homeowner just isn't going to accept a two-decade plus payback period - it needs to be in single digits. Assuming mass installation from new in a housing project, maybe it might make financial sense, but not as an individual retrofit at current prices - it looks to me like at least one and maybe two more generations to grid parity on cost grounds for that. Individuals may want to install them now for ideological reasons.

The average homeowner that is already living in an efficient house actually is not just 'accepting' this but they're seeking it out. I've posted a number of links in this thread that talked about the growing deployment of CHP - from the ICE (believe it or not) units being deployed in Houston to these fuel cells that have been deployed for a number of years (since 2004?) in Japan and increasingly in Germany. CHP is proving to be both less expensive and more efficient than more typical options - and that efficiency includes cost to own and operate as well as the total energy conversion process.

No, it's unlikely that many Americans will use them, as we waste more energy in a typical house than these small units provide, and because unfortunately we're still choosing to do the right thing only after trying all the other options.

I've talked about Passive Houses in the Solutions thread - and others here refuse to accept that they use as little energy as they do. I've had similar push-back on Earthships for similar reasons (energy use, comfort, climate suitability) even though all of those factors are superior to a conventional US home. No worries.

But these aren't used for vehicles anyway, and as they use methane aren't really a factor in a hydrogen economy or TIR process.

 

[GRA]

<snip>
Okay, but IME manufacturers always quote numbers in a press release in whichever conditions make their product look best, so it just seemed odd that even in conditions which are unlikely to represent the typical case, even the manufacturer couldn't fudge the numbers to make them appear remotely cost-effective for most people, unlike the broad brush statement in the report you quote. The average homeowner just isn't going to accept a two-decade plus payback period - it needs to be in single digits. Assuming mass installation from new in a housing project, maybe it might make financial sense, but not as an individual retrofit at current prices - it looks to me like at least one and maybe two more generations to grid parity on cost grounds for that. Individuals may want to install them now for ideological reasons.

The average homeowner that is already living in an efficient house actually is not just 'accepting' this but they're seeking it out. I've posted a number of links in this thread that talked about the growing deployment of CHP - from the ICE (believe it or not) units being deployed in Houston to these fuel cells that have been deployed for a number of years (since 2004?) in Japan and increasingly in Germany. CHP is proving to be both less expensive and more efficient than more typical options - and that efficiency includes cost to own and operate as well as the total energy conversion process.

No, it's unlikely that many Americans will use them, as we waste more energy in a typical house than these small units provide, and because unfortunately we're still choosing to do the right thing only after trying all the other options.

I've talked about Passive Houses in the Solutions thread - and others here refuse to accept that they use as little energy as they do. I've had similar push-back on Earthships for similar reasons (energy use, comfort, climate suitability) even though all of those factors are superior to a conventional US home. No worries.

But these aren't used for vehicles anyway, and as they use methane aren't really a factor in a hydrogen economy or TIR process.

The section I bolded says it all, I think. The average homeowner isn't living in a highly energy efficient house, anywhere. I should know, I was selling $2,500 Sun Frost 16 cu. ft. refrigerators that could run off 200W of PV panels and appropriate batteries more than two decades ago, to people living in off-grid homes that make Passive houses look like energy hogs The off-grid market was entirely about maximizing energy efficiency, but such concerns made (and still makes) up only a small fraction of the market. For every person who's motivated by environmental ideology, there's 1,000 motivated by financial considerations, and until you can achieve critical mass by convincing them it makes financial sense, all you've got is a niche product. That's where they are now with home fuel cells, but they're certainly moving in the right direction.

 

[Slow1]

The average homeowner that is already living in an efficient house actually is not just 'accepting' this but they're seeking it out. I've posted a number of links in this thread that talked about the growing deployment of CHP - from the ICE (believe it or not) units being deployed in Houston to these fuel cells that have been deployed for a number of years (since 2004?) in Japan and increasingly in Germany. CHP is proving to be both less expensive and more efficient than more typical options - and that efficiency includes cost to own and operate as well as the total energy conversion process.

No, it's unlikely that many Americans will use them, as we waste more energy in a typical house than these small units provide, and because unfortunately we're still choosing to do the right thing only after trying all the other options.

I've talked about Passive Houses in the Solutions thread - and others here refuse to accept that they use as little energy as they do. I've had similar push-back on Earthships for similar reasons (energy use, comfort, climate suitability) even though all of those factors are superior to a conventional US home. No worries.

But these aren't used for vehicles anyway, and as they use methane aren't really a factor in a hydrogen economy or TIR process.

The section I bolded says it all, I think. The average homeowner isn't living in a highly energy efficient house, anywhere. I should know, I was selling $2,500 Sun Frost 16 cu. ft. refrigerators that could run off 200W of PV panels and appropriate batteries more than two decades ago, to people living in off-grid homes that make Passive houses look like energy hogs The off-grid market was entirely about maximizing energy efficiency, but such concerns made (and still makes) up only a small fraction of the market. For every person who's motivated by environmental ideology, there's 1,000 motivated by financial considerations, and until you can achieve critical mass by convincing them it makes financial sense, all you've got is a niche product. That's where they are now with home fuel cells, but they're certainly moving in the right direction.

And there we have a key concept of marketing - market segments. While you can divide any market in to segments in any number of ways, there are always differences. Different products can succeed in various segments and utterly fail in others - simply due to variations in how each segment values particular featues etc.

To the point here - if I'm off-grid and desire to have cool/cold food in the summer without having to haul blocks of ice into my barn all winter, the $2,500 fridge may seem like a bargain. THose of use with inexpensive and reliable electricity won't see it the same way.

I am still trying to make the case to myself that H2 is a viable and perhaps superior way of storing power. I don't really see it as an energy source in itself any more than I think of the power in my batteries to be an energy source. Sure in the micro sense of the car's power train it is the energy source, but we don't mine for for H2 any more than we mine for lithium batteries.

IF we use solar to charge the batteries then the sun is our energy source, if we power off the grid it is wherever this power comes from... H2 I see much the same way although there is that catch that it COULD be from CH4 which may be from 'other than fossil' sources. But then I have to ask myself if there are more efficient and/or cost effective ways to use this energy without going through H2 storage.

If we get our H2 from water then it is purely an energy storage scheme - we can't get more energy out of re-combining H2 and O2 than we put into it when we split it... So then we go back to where did that energy come from and how efficient is it compared to the battery storage...

Well, I seem to have rambled a bit but it seems useful to throw out there where I am as folks often times give me new ways of looking at things.