Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread
- Thread starter TomT
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
WetEV
Well-known member
ydnas7 said:
CO2 comes to an equilibrium in tens of thousands of years. Methane comes to an equilibrium in decades. Water vapor comes to an equilibrium in days.
DaveinOlyWA
Well-known member
wondering if Methane's lighter than air density allows it to dissipate rapidly and at very high altitudes making an accurate measurement difficult since there is generally a bit more wind up there?
WetEV
Well-known member
DaveinOlyWA said:
The atmosphere is fairly well mixed. Methane is destroyed by UV in the Stratosphere, so concentrations there are lower.
http://www.univ-reims.fr/rubrique-cachee/laboratoires-labelises/groupe-de-spectrometrie-moleculaire-et-atmospherique-umr-cnrs-6089/trombinoscope-pages-personnelles/page_durry/version-anglaise,9562.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
GRA
Well-known member
GCC article reporting comments by Mark Matthias, the head of Fuel Cell R&D at GM, on the fuel cell JV between GM and Honda. Although fairly obvious when thought about, the energy density versus range and vehicle mass versus range graphs are useful in showing where BEVs and FCEVs have advantages, although Matthias aptly sums them up as follows:
"You need about 100 kWh at the wheel to drive about 300 miles. If you want the 100 kWh with a battery, the only way to do it is to add more battery. In a fuel cell system, even if you don't drive a single mile, you need the fuel cell system and the battery, and then to get range you put on hydrogen—this is analogous to what we do with the internal combustion engine today.
"Those scaling factors dictate the way the energy density turns out for the two systems."
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/02/20140221-mathias.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"You need about 100 kWh at the wheel to drive about 300 miles. If you want the 100 kWh with a battery, the only way to do it is to add more battery. In a fuel cell system, even if you don't drive a single mile, you need the fuel cell system and the battery, and then to get range you put on hydrogen—this is analogous to what we do with the internal combustion engine today.
"Those scaling factors dictate the way the energy density turns out for the two systems."
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/02/20140221-mathias.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
GRA
Well-known member
I don't normally bother to post press releases of the latest lab wonder, as even if they don't prove to have insoluble problems they're still years away from commercial availability. But this one does stand out a bit:
"Researchers at Berkeley and Argonne labs discover highly active new class of nanocatalysts for fuel cells; more efficient, lower cost"
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/02/20140228-pt3ni.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Some of the the comments are fairly informative as well, including the news that Hyundai has delivered the first 15 assembly-line produced ix35s (Tucsons) to Denmark.
"Researchers at Berkeley and Argonne labs discover highly active new class of nanocatalysts for fuel cells; more efficient, lower cost"
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/02/20140228-pt3ni.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Some of the the comments are fairly informative as well, including the news that Hyundai has delivered the first 15 assembly-line produced ix35s (Tucsons) to Denmark.
AndyH
Well-known member
That was reported in this thread very early on...GRA said:
GRA
Well-known member
From GCR:
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1090650_honda-opens-high-pressure-hydrogen-fueling-station-in-socal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1090650_honda-opens-high-pressure-hydrogen-fueling-station-in-socal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
GRA
Well-known member
I couldn't remember if I or anyone else had posted a link to this ABG article on test driving Toyota's prototype upcoming FCEV before, but since it provides a lot more detail than most other articles, and I think it's balanced, here it is (again, maybe):
http://green.autoblog.com/2013/12/11/2015-toyota-fuel-cell-hydrogen-vehicle-prototype-review/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://green.autoblog.com/2013/12/11/2015-toyota-fuel-cell-hydrogen-vehicle-prototype-review/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Did CARB just eliminate the 3 minute rule for hydrogen refills? yet make battey switch on a per mile use (not per car used) basis?
still won't remove the reality that Tesla sets a price that limits HFCs to loss making on both vehicles and infrastructure.
still won't remove the reality that Tesla sets a price that limits HFCs to loss making on both vehicles and infrastructure.
The performance is apparently not even LEAF quality... not even LEAF 2013/14. Pretty easy to outrun a FC once the cell is the main power source as battery depletes. Also was told at ALT Fuel Expo that the Stack platinum blisters eventually and lowers the efficiency. Imagine that will cost a fair bit to recondition or replace. Probably even more than the elusive LEAF battery price.
Not enough platinum in the world supply to convert all cars to it ( the stack uses this. Ballard has the "spread it thin as possible" method down... but it will still require loads of it. Might need to start mining platinum from the catalytic converters from wrecking yards.( Actually I'm sure we likely already do this)
With a price point of about 100k... and buying hydrogen at stations will not be that cheap. It ain't there yet. Not even that close. They need to deliver FC ready now (and not at 100k ) or why bother for another 5 years or so.
Enough of the drinking water from the exhaust pipe demos... get real rubber on the road or build out our charger net first... then we can chase unicorns later in our 200(LEAF?) to 400 (Next Teslas) mile range electrics that get developed in the next few years..
GRA
Well-known member
Via ABG:jsongster said:
"Toyota teams with FirstElement Fuel on 19 hydrogen stations in California"
http://green.autoblog.com/2014/05/02/toyota-teams-firstelement-fuel-19-hydrogen-stations-c/#continued" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
RegGuheert
Well-known member
So, let's do the math:GRA said:
Cost per station: $47M / 28 = $1.68MABG said:
Maximum vehicles per station: 10,000 / 68 = 147ABG said:
Taxpayer cost for infrastructure for each fuel-cell vehicle deployed: $1.68M / 147 = $11,500
How many FCEVs can CA support for their $200M? 200M / $11.5K = 17,400
That's before any incentives are provided to consumers to purchase the vehicles. It also ignores the cost to the consumer of the fuel itself. Clearly, CA taxpayers and consumers will pay dearly to drive on hydrogen.
But as technology improves, FCEVs may reduce the efficiency and cost gap with BEVs, but they will not surpass it. They need to compete in the niches where the convenience of FCEVs exceeds that of BEVs. I don't see how there can be a crossover point at which FCEVs can be weaned off of government funds. The "hydrogen economy" is a costly one by all measures.
A much better approach is to reduce fossil fuel consumption and provide distributed grid storage by deploying BEVs where they fit best. Today, that means commuters. As time marches on, it will include nearly every application. Hydrogen can carve out a few niche applications, but private enterprise should handle that task when/if there is a crossover versus incumbent technologies.
GRA
Well-known member
If they're driving a Tucson, the consumers aren't going to pay anything for the fuel, Reg.RegGuheert said:
My take, assuming that hydrogen and fuel cell costs come down to be equal or below gas, is that convenience will win out over efficiency every time, just as it did 100 years ago. ICEs didn't become the technology of choice over BEVs because they were more efficient. In the case of H2/fuel cells, barring some technological breakthrough that allows direct, high efficiency electrolysis of H2 via photosynthesis or somesuch, It will never be as efficient as batteries. I consider the operational and convenience advantages will triumph over energy efficiency, just as they usually do. If not, there wouldn't be millions of garages in this country equipped with automatic door openers, we wouldn't be using remote controls to save us walking a few steps to our TVs and entertainment systems, and people wouldn't be charging their cell phones on inductive chargers just so they don't have to plug them in.RegGuheert said:
Then there's the societal issue of people moving back to city cores. Charging in your garage is great, if you've got one. If not, I suspect the cost of putting curbside charging in every spot in every residential apartment neighborhood will be far higher than the cost of putting H2 fueling stations at every gas station, once H2 shifts into mass use.
One approach, which you mention above, is to go with a hybrid system, BEVs for local and FCEVs for trips. Such an approach (typically called 'separate spheres'; see David Kirsch: "The Electric Vehicle and the Burden of History") failed a century ago; maybe it would work this time around, but only if people buy into it. I expect that most people will prefer (or will only be able to afford) to have one car that can do both short and long trips, which is unquestionably cleaner (assuming renewables produce the H2) than fossil fuels, and just accept the lower efficiency vs. BEVs. It's going to be an interesting few years, watching the pace at which each technology advances.
JeremyW
Well-known member
I'd argue that charging at home or work is way more convenient than going to a gas station. It does it's thing at night or at work, and when I come out to the car, its full! Imagine that! 
The city which I live has charging stations in almost every parking garage, and is installing more (slowly).
The city which I live has charging stations in almost every parking garage, and is installing more (slowly).
I don't get why you guys can't see a hybrid system within a single car.
RegGuheert
Well-known member
Actually, the fuel is included in the $499 lease costs. Make no mistake, Toyota is funding this venture to make money. If they can get the government to pay for their capital equipment, then they can make money selling you fuel (which they cannot make for free, since they need to reform it from some source). (No, a single PV-powered station cannot fuel 147 cars. More like 15.)GRA said:
That's a very weak comparison. Tell me, how much money do you pay for the electricity to run your garage-door opener each month? How about to power your electronics so that they can be controlled remotely? The point is that the cost of fuel for a vehicle is an appreciable portion of your budget, unlike the examples you gave. Yes, people will consider efficiency, and hence fuel costs, in their decision. To my point, we are posting on a message board where most of the posters have chosen BEVs over (or at least in addition to) vehicles which currently offer much more convenience than the FCEVs you are promoting. Don't forget, BEVs have the convenience advantage of being able to be fueled at home.GRA said:
$11,500 should more than cover the cost for chargers for EVs, especially since the fuel will likely be cheaper, perhaps significantly.GRA said:
There is an inherent assumption in all of your thinking that BEVs will not provide the range and recharge convenience of a FCEV. At similar costs today, they are only marginally better. Will FCEVs be able to maintain this advantage? Likely not forever. At such a point I see no benefit at all for FCEVs. There will always be a trade-off to be made between cost and convenience. If FCEVs cannot get their costs down quickly, their convenience will only matter to those who care little about costs.GRA said:
hill
Well-known member
First ... if H2 were such a deal ... such a bargain, Shell oil would have been all over it. Yet, they refused. Do the math. They did. They got natural gas, and if anyone can make money on a project, they do. But they ran the #'s. The gov'ment tried to force the oilies to build it (infrastructure). They threatened to tie it up in litigation for decades. Faced with that prospect, Toyota et al used their lobby/mussle to force their lacky legislator whores into pushing money through DMV fees. For those billions, they'll only get a hand full of H2 stations. So ... one might need to re-think the simplistic pie in the sky, 'all we gotta do is put 'em at gas stations' mantra.RegGuheert said:
Lastly - the message baords of BEVs thing. Of COURSE we hate the hydrogen hoax ... for decades & decades, the promise of, "in just 10 more years" - it has taken billions of research dollars away from the much simpler battery tech research that could have been done in stead. To think how far battery tech might have been is sad. To think how far EVSE infrastructure could have been is sad. So yea ... go figure.
.
GRA
Well-known member
Sure, charging at home or work is more convenient, if it's available to you. If you live in an apartment with no way to charge (as I do) and work somewhere that doesn't have charging (ditto, but since I cycle to work it doesn't matter), it isn't, and it will likely be a couple of decades before either is widespread.JeremyW said:I'd argue that charging at home or work is way more convenient than going to a gas station. It does it's thing at night or at work, and when I come out to the car, its full! Imagine that!
The city which I live has charging stations in almost every parking garage, and is installing more (slowly).
I don't get why you guys can't see a hybrid system within a single car.[/quote]
Jeremy, you or someone else brought this up before, and if you'd read my reply you'll see that I can imagine it just fine. To repeat, for those who can both _afford and benefit from_ a PHFCEV aka FCHV, it's the best of both worlds. However, at the moment it will be heavier and more expensive than a pure FCEV, and the size of battery pack will be limited owing to volume issues. I suspect a pack providing anything more than ca. 20 miles of range will be a case of diminishing returns. Much as I'm a fan of the Voltec powertrain, at current battery prices and specific energies I think the Volt is at or above the limit of cost-effectiveness, and the energy density of gasoline is considerably better than H2, even at 10,000 PSI.
GRA
Well-known member
Er, Reg, Toyota doesn't make the Tucson, Hyundai doesRegGuheert said:
As to your main point, sure, the cost of the fuel is being rolled into the lease, and that's fine. But no one is going to make money selling people H2 at the moment. As to PV, I'm well aware of the power and space requirements. It's obvious that forecourt power generation from wind/PV won't be able to provide all the necessary energy, so the difference will have to be made up off-site.As it happens, I don't have a garage door opener. Or a garage. Or any place to charge at home, because I live in a rental apartment near the city center (which could as easily be a condo for this discussion). So, you know, you should add the costs of all those to the cost of operating that garage door, etc. As to the difference in the cost scale between charging a PEV versus the others, sure, it's large, but the difference in cost scale between using conductive versus inductive charging isn't that large. I fully expect that all PEVs will offer inductive L2 charging within 5 years, and that inductive charging will become the standard despite its lower efficiency. The next generation of PEVS all look they'll offer it either standard or as an option.RegGuheert said:
Which assumes that H2 fueling station costs will never come down below their current ones based on low volumes. How realistic is that?RegGuheert said:
I make no such assumption as you claim I do in the bolded sentence. I've gone out of my way in this entire thread to indicate that I'm technology agnostic, i.e. I have no stake in whether one or the other or both technologies ultimately succeed, nor am I making any prediction as to which one will be superior _in the long run_. My statements are based on each technology's capabilities and costs _now_, with a reasonable extrapolation a few years ahead. I've written repeatedly, including in the paragraph above which you reply to, that the relative pace at which each develops will determine which leads and (perhaps) ultimately triumphs.RegGuheert said:
I partially disagree with your contention that "at similar costs today, they are only marginally better". While this generation FCEV is still too high-priced to compete with a Tesla on luxury at the same price, their year-round utility for longer trips (assuming necessary infrastructure for both) is far better. As people have been discovering, especially this winter, 'waste' heat is rather useful. Year-round range without significant change matters. So does refueling time for longer trips. No or limited range degradation over the long-term matters. None of this implies that batteries can't or won't improve too, eliminating some or all of their disadvantages vis-a-vis fuel cells while maintaining their strengths. I expect they will; what matters is the pace of each.
Can you get a nicer car from Tesla right now compared to the same money on a FCEV, despite fuel cell costs having decreased from $1M to $50k over the past decade? Yes. But if year-round range is an issue for you, you can't get a Tesla at any price right now that provides the same utility as the current generation of FCEVs. Chances are the next likely battery upgrade, to say 100-110 kWh in the same weight/volume, won't do it either. It would take approximately double the Model S' current battery capacity, in the same package, to give the same long-term year-round range as the current FCEVs have now.
If fuel cell prices can be halved in the next generation, to $25k from $50k, FCEVs will be able to go head-to-head with a car like the Model S on luxury/performance, always assuming that the Tesla doesn't get a battery that can provide four hours of driving range in all weather conditions with minimal degradation etc., for the same price or less. At $10k/fuel cell, the middle class can start to consider them. If they can be reduced to the number Toyota feels is ultimately practical, ca. $1k, then everyone can.
OTOH, if by the time that happens you can buy a 100kWh battery for $1,000 that lasts 20 years with zero degradation, is unaffected by temperature, can easily be carried in your hand and can be fully recharged in five minutes, then no one will care about fuel cells. I look forward to seeing how the future develops.
Similar threads
