Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

smkettner said:

I do not consider business expenses including depreciation or accelerated depreciation to be a subsidy.

This is different from depletion allowances (oil and gas) that CAN EXCEED the cost to acquire the property.

Click to expand...

With due respect, the IRS does consider it to be a subsidy, incentive, or other sort of method used specifically to support and promote and expand these types of functions. Businesses get a TON of tax breaks that regular civilians cannot take - and that's well before we get to the special additional breaks allowed for the fossil fuel industry.

Just from the very basics: If I as a private citizen/civilian/non-business-owner buy and install an EVSE, that's a post-tax purchase that might qualify for a state or federal benefit. If a business buys and install an EVSE, they also receive benefits at least as good as civilians receive, but also get to depreciate the EVSE over maybe a seven year period. Oh yeah, and that purchase is made with pre-tax money if it's a business expense of any type - so their final income tax bill is lower.

We can't deduct telephone or internet service, but businesses can. We can't deduct our cars, but business can. We can't deduct our water or electricity bills, but business can. We can't deduct our healt insurance payments but business can. Gym memberships, legal fees, new cell phones, vehicle expenses, business meals, 'vacations' to meetings or to attend a trade show...in the Bahamas...in February... That battery charger for the 12V Leaf battery? Research! Seriously - if you don't yet have a micro-business of some type, get one! :lol:

AndyH said:

smkettner said:

I do not consider business expenses including depreciation or accelerated depreciation to be a subsidy.

This is different from depletion allowances (oil and gas) that CAN EXCEED the cost to acquire the property.

Click to expand...

With due respect, the IRS does consider it to be a subsidy, incentive, or other sort of method used specifically to support and promote and expand these types of functions. Businesses get a TON of tax breaks that regular civilians cannot take - and that's well before we get to the special additional breaks allowed for the fossil fuel industry.

Just from the very basics: If I as a private citizen/civilian/non-business-owner buy and install an EVSE, that's a post-tax purchase that might qualify for a state or federal benefit. If a business buys and install an EVSE, they also receive benefits at least as good as civilians receive, but also get to depreciate the EVSE over maybe a seven year period. Oh yeah, and that purchase is made with pre-tax money if it's a business expense of any type - so their final income tax bill is lower.

We can't deduct telephone or internet service, but businesses can. We can't deduct our cars, but business can. We can't deduct our water or electricity bills, but business can. We can't deduct our healt insurance payments but business can. Gym memberships, legal fees, new cell phones, vehicle expenses, business meals, 'vacations' to meetings or to attend a trade show...in the Bahamas...in February... That battery charger for the 12V Leaf battery? Research! Seriously - if you don't yet have a micro-business of some type, get one! :lol:

Click to expand...

Yeah, I remember how flabbergasted and disgusted I was, back when I was doing AE, when my accountant told me that the short, fairly casual chat/advice re compact fluorescent lights I'd had with the owner of an inn my girlfriend and I were staying at in Taos Ski Valley, after he'd mentioned how he was getting hosed by the local utility (IIRR, $0.33/kWh in 1992), and/or my tour of RMI later in the week on the way back, allowed me to write off the entire cost of a nine day vacation through Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Utah as a business expense. Especially since the nominal purpose of the trip (beyond the vacation) was to let my girlfriend check out the University of Colorado, Boulder so she could see if she wanted to apply to grad school there. What a ridiculous scam (but I took the money anyway).

GRA said:

<snip>Not that this has anything to do with a car you could buy now, and I'm sure it would cost about a gazillion dollars if you could, but I do like that 684 mile range, i.e. 124 miles (200km) on the battery plus another 560 on H2. Even if they're too optimistic and it's only 400 miles on H2, that's still plenty. The only thing I'd say is that the battery range appears to be a bit too big. I'd think that shrinking it to provide 75-100 miles of range would make more sense, the point being to provide maximum efficiency for routine local driving range on the battery, while not wasting space and weight for road trips where H2's higher energy density wins.

Click to expand...

Thinking about it a bit more, even a 75-100 mile battery range is excessive for most people when you've got the fuel cell backup. Back when GM was determining the design of the Volt, their data said that a 40 mile AER would cover 78% of all trips, and 35 miles would handle 75%. I don't know what % of trips the Gen 2 Volt's 50 mile battery range (say 30 miles in winter) would provide, but I'm guessing it would be at least 85 if not 90%. There's no good reason to haul the extra weight of a larger battery around for a small % increase in trips, especially when that excess weight will have the greatest effect on the efficiency of local trips.

The 560 miles of range on H2 also seems excessive, although D-B may be assuming autonomous cruising at 100+ mph for a real world range of 3-400 miles at that speed. Otherwise, 300-400 miles at 75 or 80 mph on H2 + 50 miles on the battery in average conditions seems more than adequate for the U.S.

Until there is a well developed and comprehensive refuel / recharge network of any particular non-petroleum energy source, long range is absolutely required to get everybody in either an EV or a hydrogen car.

It is a far more difficult task with hydrogen, when:

1) only 68 hydrogen stations are planned in California (and a handful elsewhere, notably the northeast CARB-ZEV states)

2) those stations cost not only millions to install, but also millions to maintain, inhibiting rapid adoption when faced with "ubiquitous" EV competition that costs an order of magnitude cheaper to refuel, purchase, and provide and maintain infrastructure.


NOTE: my identification of the vehicle is to identify the refueling infrastructure. An electrically propelled vehicle that uses stored hydrogen for autonomous operation is a "hydrogen" car.

TonyWilliams said:

Until there is a well developed and comprehensive refuel / recharge network of any particular non-petroleum energy source, long range is absolutely required to get everybody in either an EV or a hydrogen car.

It is a far more difficult task with hydrogen, when:

1) only 68 hydrogen stations are planned in California (and a handful elsewhere, notably the northeast CARB-ZEV states)

2) those stations cost not only millions to install, but also millions to maintain, inhibiting rapid adoption when faced with "ubiquitous" EV competition that costs an order of magnitude cheaper to refuel, purchase, and provide and maintain infrastructure.


NOTE: my identification of the vehicle is to identify the refueling infrastructure. An electrically propelled vehicle that uses stored hydrogen for autonomous operation is a "hydrogen" car.

Click to expand...

No worries. GM and the guys from Wrightspeed refuse to use standard definitions as well, preferring smoke and mirrors marketing speak.

You're welcome to look at the problem any way you wish - no harm, no foul. I just wish you'd include the ENTIRE H2 system we have in this country and not just the CA stations. World > USA > CA

I do think your point about the benefit of longer legs when the infrastructure's undeveloped is useful. What I find encouraging is that these 'first gen' FCEV can provide a considerable range for about the same cost as the Roadster when it was available. Almost twice the range for the same price? That's a nice place to start!

Reuters via ABG:

Japan falling behind on hydrogen fuel station goal

Click to expand...

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/04/14/japan-falling-behind-on-hydrogen-fuel-station-goal/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Summary: on track to have only 76 out of 100 planned by March 31, 2016 (end of FY).

GRA said:

Reuters via ABG:

Japan falling behind on hydrogen fuel station goal

Click to expand...

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/04/14/japan-falling-behind-on-hydrogen-fuel-station-goal/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Summary: on track to have only 76 out of 100 planned by March 31, 2016 (end of FY).

Click to expand...

Watch how behind schedule the California ones will be... but, the $100 million... that will be long gone, with their hands out for more to "finish".

"Based on the atomic properties of water, 1 kg of hydrogen gas requires about 2.4 gallons of water as feedstock. In one year, 60 billion kilograms of hydrogen would require 143 billion gallons of fresh, distilled water. This number is similar to the amount of water required for refining an equivalent amount of petroleum (about 1-2.5 gallons of water per gallon of gasoline)."

"The biggest increase in water usage would come from indirect water requirements, specifically as a cooling fluid for the electricity needed to supply the energy that electrolysis requires. Since electrolysis is likely to use existing infrastructure, it would pull from the grid and therefore depend on thermoelectric processes."

"At 100% efficiency, electrolysis would require close to 40 kWh per kilogram of hydrogen—a number derived from the higher heating value of hydrogen, a physical property. However, today’s systems have an efficiency of about 60-70%, with the DOE’s future target at 75%."

"Depending on the fraction of hydrogen produced by electrolysis (Webber presents estimates for values from 35 to 85%), the amount of electricity required based on electrolysis efficiency of 75% would be between 1134 and 2754 billion kWh—and up to 3351 billion kWh for a lower electrolysis efficiency of 60%. For comparison, the current annual electricity generation in the US in 2005 was 4063 billion kWh.
In 2000, thermoelectric power generation required an average of 20.6 gallons of water per kWh, leading Webber to estimate that hydrogen production through electrolysis, at 75% efficiency, would require about 1100 gallons of cooling water per kilogram of hydrogen. That’s 66 trillion gallons per year just for cooling."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news111926048.html#jCp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TonyWilliams said:

"Based on the atomic properties of water, 1 kg of hydrogen gas requires about 2.4 gallons of water as feedstock. In one year, 60 billion kilograms of hydrogen would require 143 billion gallons of fresh, distilled water. This number is similar to the amount of water required for refining an equivalent amount of petroleum (about 1-2.5 gallons of water per gallon of gasoline)."

"The biggest increase in water usage would come from indirect water requirements, specifically as a cooling fluid for the electricity needed to supply the energy that electrolysis requires. Since electrolysis is likely to use existing infrastructure, it would pull from the grid and therefore depend on thermoelectric processes."

"At 100% efficiency, electrolysis would require close to 40 kWh per kilogram of hydrogen—a number derived from the higher heating value of hydrogen, a physical property. However, today’s systems have an efficiency of about 60-70%, with the DOE’s future target at 75%."

"Depending on the fraction of hydrogen produced by electrolysis (Webber presents estimates for values from 35 to 85%), the amount of electricity required based on electrolysis efficiency of 75% would be between 1134 and 2754 billion kWh—and up to 3351 billion kWh for a lower electrolysis efficiency of 60%. For comparison, the current annual electricity generation in the US in 2005 was 4063 billion kWh.
In 2000, thermoelectric power generation required an average of 20.6 gallons of water per kWh, leading Webber to estimate that hydrogen production through electrolysis, at 75% efficiency, would require about 1100 gallons of cooling water per kilogram of hydrogen. That’s 66 trillion gallons per year just for cooling."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news111926048.html#jCp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Click to expand...

Which is of course why work is proceeding on photochemical and thermochemical electrolysis. Meanwhile, via GCC:

Ballard providing fuel cell power modules to new customer for 8 buses in China

Click to expand...

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/04/20150416-ballrd.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Short quote:

A new energy program, launched in 2011 and involving 48 Chinese cities, has an objective of expanding public transit while also reducing the number of vehicles in cities. One of the program’s specific goals is to deploy more than 1,000 clean energy buses in each of its participating cities, taking advantage of Government subsidies to facilitate this expansion.

Fuel cell buses, along with electric buses, are eligible for a subsidy of approximately US$150,000, through 2017. In addition, hydrogen fueling stations are eligible for a further subsidy of approximately US$650,000.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that physorg piece can be found up ghread.

The Webber Energy Group is a recipient of Koch 'education funding', and is at a school that just came out of a fossil-fuel funded scandal with a fracking study. Most of their current list of donors are oil industry, including the money funneled through the state's 'environmental quality' office.

Just one example: High pressure alkaline electrolyzers made for the US Navy directly use sea water to generate breathing oxygen. The H2's dumped in those applications. The company that supplies those units has operational high-pressure H2 units that produce gas pressures greater than 7500PSI without pumps. They're used on the east coast refueling buses.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2014/04/08/u-s-navy-can-convert-seawater-fuel/

A catalytic converter extracts carbon dioxide and hydrogen from water and converts the gases into liquid hydrocarbons at a 92 percent efficiency rate, and the resulting fuel can be used in ships’ existing engines.

Click to expand...

A LOT has happened since 2007.

edit...not sure that exact piece has been linked...thanks regardless. To clarify, certainly there will be a water footprint. All I wanted to communicate is that I have a number of reservations about that particular group and wouldn't hold them up to be the most balanced source.

Via GCC:

ITM Power to provide 0.5MW electrolyzer to EMEC for integrated H2 system for tidal energy storage

Click to expand...

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/04/20150417-itm.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Part:

The 0.5MW electrolyzer will be used to absorb excess power generated by the tidal turbines testing at EMEC. The hydrogen gas generated will be compressed and stored, with some of the gas being used in (an optional) hydrogen fuel cell to provide backup power to critical EMEC systems. The remainder of the hydrogen gas will be used off-site by a further project being developed separately which plans to absorb output of a local community wind turbine operated by Eday Renewable Energy Ltd.

Subject to contract ITM will supply, integrate, commission and maintain all parts of this system. The electrolyzer will be packaged in a standard 20' x 10' ISO container and features:

Hydrogen generation capacity up to 220kg/24hours
Self-pressurisation up to 20 bar
Rapid response
Hydrogen purity satisfying ISO 14687
CE compliant

Click to expand...

Note that they would need to use a boost pressure pump if they wanted to use it for cars, as 20 bar is about 290 PSI.

From here: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=420212#p420212

I'll do the best I can from memory. I still highly recommend that folks read this entire thread as the vast majority of this topic has been covered in deep detail by all of the contributors - with sources cited and unknowns highlighted as far as they can be.

Slow1 said:

AndyH said:

I'm not sure this is a real problem, and really don't expect this to be a problem for a homeowner.

Yes, on the technical side someone will have to maintain pumps and other infrastructure, just as someone maintains everything we've used to this point. They'll continue to do that as part of their normal business. However...

Click to expand...

Ok, so let us assume for the sake of discussion that all compression technical issues are resolved. Where do you propose the H2 come from and how much energy will it require from source to 'in the car's tank'?

I'd really like to see a reasonable breakdown and estimate of this. From what I have seen so far, the two main sources are hydrocarbons (natural gas) and water (lots of H2 in there eh?). So I am biased against the natural gas solution as I believe we need to move away from any fossil fuels.

Click to expand...

I'm also biased against natural gas and any other fossil source.

The "how much energy" depends on how the H2's produced and varies - there's not a single answer. A number of possibilities using current tech have been covered above, including numbers from a company that has H2 fueling stations deployed on the east coast and use high-pressure electrolysis. The largest-scale electrolysis project that I know of includes the 18 grid-scale wind-to-H2 projects being deployed in Germany (one was completed in late 2014). The power company installing those units and the Canadian company building them report industry-standard profitability. As the wind energy would otherwise be curtailed, the H2 produced is a net gain over business as usual and also reduces the volume of fossil gas used. That's all I can give you right now.

Slow1 said:

Then if we pull it out of water we have break it down which is very energy intensive. Face it, from a physics point of view, whatever energy we expect to get from combining the H2 and O2 is going to be required in order to break that bond. No 'free energy' being magically created here. My guess is that this will come from the electrical grid making the H2 systems a way of storing/transporting this energy.

Ok, so now we have our H2 ready to go but whatever energy is available has been spent getting it ready; is the efficiency of this system as a whole better than what it takes to get batteries charged? I.e. if we calculate the net energy input to the system and net energy used for motive power, what percentage are we at for each?

For rate of fueling - H2 likely wins
For energy density/weight - H2 likely wins
For energy efficiency and reduction of hydrocarbon use - do batteries win?

Long term I expect this really speaks to the meat of the issue. IF the H2 solution is better it will justify the additional expense to put a solution in place to refuel. As someone else stated - right now pure battery is a poor solution for long-haul trucking and the energy density of H2 or hydrocarbons wins. Increasing the efficiency of these systems (hybrid trucks) could go a long way to improve things, but in the end they are likely to remain on hydrocarbons for quite some time I would imagine. However for personal transport BEVs may be closer to a viable solution right now simply due to relatively lower cost of infrastructure. How much more efficiency can we gain in terms of actual energy storage/use with H2 vs batteries?

Click to expand...

As for the rest, if I join you in what I think is your point of view then I can't fault your line of reasoning or the overall assessment. As I've tried to communicate (and apparently failed miserably at each turn), I strongly feel that this is a view of the problem from a "that's the way we've always done it and therefore this is the only way we can use H2" point of view. H2 has a lot more potential to allow us to completely re-draw the system - and not just the grid energy system, but to finally integrate power generation and electric transportation and heat (water-, space-, and industrial).

The 'efficiency' puzzle has been covered here in gory detail as well and as with anything else "it depends." For example: Panasonic's fuel cell go-generation units they've been deploying in Japan and Germany since early 2014 have a total efficiency of about 90% - that's from a box that inputs methane and produces electricity and hot water.

All of the...debates ...that have occurred on this forum have been from people that consider only the electrical efficiency of a fuel cell stack VS. the electrical efficiency of LiIon batteries. In this paradigm, cabin heating or cooling is disregarded, the fuel cell's thermal energy supply is considered 'waste heat' to be disposed of, and 100% of the vehicle mission can be covered by a Nissan Leaf (or a Model S in the cases where a perceived threat requires a trump card ). If that's the way you prefer the problem to be defined, and we draw a box around the car and don't include a 'well to wheels' look at efficiency, then I have to go with a battery. (Considering that I've hand-built, used, and sold lithium packs for bicycles, velomobiles, and electric motorcycle conversions; commuted to class for two years on a LiFePO4 motorcycle with 45 miles of range with a tail wind; and that my sole vehicle today is a BEV with less range than a Leaf; I continue to go with lithium.)

But - and yes, there's a big 'but' there - the Third Industrial Revolution project underway across the EU today (as well as in various other parts of the world) does not just take the current system and tack-on a couple of windmills, electrolyzers, and FCEV - they've completely redesigned the overall power system. They found that doing that provided massive efficiency improvements relative to business as usual and also found that making and using hydrogen provides capabilities that no other tech can provide today at any price or at any efficiency. The paradigm is really important.

Finally...FCEV has already been proven in buses, delivery vehicles, and class-8 tractors. These are missions where either range, loads, or efficiency (or combinations) simply cannot be accomplished by a lithium battery pack alone. These are areas where in FCEV - either as a plug-in hybrid or as a rang extended BEV - fuel cells give us capabilities that no other non-fossil source can provide.

Back to energy for a moment: Hopefully it's not news to anyone that US conventional oil peaked in about 1972 and the global oil supply (I believe this includes all products - conventional and non-conventional plus gas) peaked in 2002-2004 right before the global financial melt-down. Hopefully it's also not news to anyone that fossil fuels are the most energy dense 'sources' of stored solar energy we've found. Compared to slowly charging a vast solar battery over millions of years and draining the battery to 50% in about 200 years, ...we've pretty much got nothing. So...I think it's a really bad idea to keep rejecting energy tools that are available today and that we know can get us free from fossil fuel in time to save our food supply - especially when we use the EROEI of crude oil that only Saudi Arabia can stand behind.

Bottom line from my perspective, based on everything I've read to date, the only way I can see even a remote possibility of electrifying surface transportation by 2050 and getting surface transport completely off fossil fuel is a combination of batteries and fuel cells in all of their possible combinations - BEV, FCEV, plug-in FCHV, BEV/FC extender.

Via GCC:

Toshiba begins demo operation of power-to-gas system; solar-to-H2

Click to expand...

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/04/20150420-toshiba.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Part:

H2One combines photovoltaic installations, storage batteries, hydrogen-producing water electrolysis equipment, hydrogen and water tanks, and fuel cells. Electricity generated from the photovoltaic installations is used to electrolyze water and produce hydrogen, which is then stored in tanks and used in fuel cells that produce electricity and hot water.

Since H2One uses only sunlight and water for fuel, it can independently provide electricity and hot water in times of emergency. Kawasaki Marien and Higashi-Ogishima-Naka Park, a municipal facility to promote Kawasaki Port, is a designated emergency evacuation area. In times of disaster, H2One will use stored hydrogen to provide an estimated 300 evacuees to the site with electricity and hot water for about one week. The H2One system is housed in a container, and can be transported to disaster-hit areas on trailers.

In normal, non-emergency operation, H2One’s hydrogen energy management system is used to contribute to peak shift, which reduces demand for mains power at times of high demand, through optimized control of hydrogen production, power generation and storage. Toshiba is working to enhance its hydrogen storage capabilities to realize a self-contained solution of local energy production for local consumption.

Click to expand...

Electric efficiency 55%, plus water heating efficiency of 40%.

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/04/17/good-news-fuel-cell-ev-fans/
http://news.rice.edu/2015/04/15/cobalt-film-a-clean-fuel-find/

More Good News For Fuel Cell EV Fans

Click to expand...

With your sparkling green hydrogen in hand, you still have to think about the cost of tooling around in a fuel cell EV compared to other rides. Part of that cost has to do with the catalyst used to wrench hydrogen and oxygen apart.

The current catalyst of choice is based on platinum, which needless to say is quite pricey.

The Rice team came up with a thin film based on cobalt that could do the same job, and do it better, and cheaper, too. No, really — the material itself is cheaper, and the manufacturing process is inexpensive and scalable.

Click to expand...

Speaking of US taxpayers, before we get on to that tidal energy thing, let’s pause here for a big group hug, because our friends over at the Air Force Office of Scientific Research supported the Rice team through its Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative. Didn’t know we had one of those, did you?

Click to expand...

Flexibility is the key to air power. Nice to see it helping the actual air.

H/T Miguel. Thanks sir.

GRA said:

Via GCC:

Toshiba begins demo operation of power-to-gas system; solar-to-H2

Click to expand...

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/04/20150420-toshiba.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Part:

H2One combines photovoltaic installations, storage batteries, hydrogen-producing water electrolysis equipment, hydrogen and water tanks, and fuel cells. Electricity generated from the photovoltaic installations is used to electrolyze water and produce hydrogen, which is then stored in tanks and used in fuel cells that produce electricity and hot water.

Since H2One uses only sunlight and water for fuel, it can independently provide electricity and hot water in times of emergency. Kawasaki Marien and Higashi-Ogishima-Naka Park, a municipal facility to promote Kawasaki Port, is a designated emergency evacuation area. In times of disaster, H2One will use stored hydrogen to provide an estimated 300 evacuees to the site with electricity and hot water for about one week. The H2One system is housed in a container, and can be transported to disaster-hit areas on trailers.

In normal, non-emergency operation, H2One’s hydrogen energy management system is used to contribute to peak shift, which reduces demand for mains power at times of high demand, through optimized control of hydrogen production, power generation and storage. Toshiba is working to enhance its hydrogen storage capabilities to realize a self-contained solution of local energy production for local consumption.

Click to expand...

Electric efficiency 55%, plus water heating efficiency of 40%.

Click to expand...

Impressive system. Ultimately the system is limited by the rate that the PV panels supply power - it is storing the excess energy in the form of the H2 and batteries(?) for future use.

Now I would not get too excited about the "95% efficiency" as that is just at the side of converting from H2 to useful power. Looking at the specs it seems that it needs 30kWh of power for each cubic meter of H2 generated. Then it uses 2.5 cubic meters of H2 to generate 3.5kWh of electric power plus heat. The amount of heat is harder to calculate - they only say 75L @ 40c without specifying the input temperature. However, if we look at their efficiency ratios (55% electric, 40% hot water) perhaps we can extrapolate that to be about ((3.5/55)*40) 2.55kWh of energy in the heated water. So then the total energy recovered would be 2.5+2.55 = 5.05kWh of energy for that 2.5 cubic meters of H2, which took (30*2.5) 75kWh to produce. If my numbers are correct then this would be about 6.7% end to end efficiency. Feel free to correct my calculations, but this seems very low to me. Good perhaps for emergencies, but far from something I'd want to use on a daily basis (i.e. for off grid homes etc) which was one of my first thoughts reading the article.... Marketing will always pick on the best sounding numbers eh?

Now, if they could use the system to desalinate water while they are at it that would be another plus for the 'emergency power' scenario - i.e. split a saline (from ocean) mix of water, then collect the clean water out the fuel cell side.

GRA said:

Electric efficiency 55%, plus water heating efficiency of 40%.

Click to expand...

Electricity is a much more valuable commodity than heat. So, overall, a miserable result is achieved by using a hydrogen-based storage system when compared with instead storing that valuable electrical energy in batteries. Let's look at battery-based storage instead:

- Round trip electrical efficiency: ~95%
- If you need the same amount of hot water, you can then heat it using a heat pump with a COP of ~3.0 (perhaps even a bit higher if you use the incoming cold water to cool the batteries and capture the small amount of lost heat): 14% of that electricity (output from the batteries) to heat the same amount of water to the same temperature
- That still leaves 81% of the electricity available for other uses.

End result:
- With the battery-based system, you have the same amount of hot water and nearly 50% MORE electricity available for the same input of electricity. Another way to put this is that you can provide exactly the same amount of electricity and hot water for about 73% as much input electricity.
- Costs for batteries plus heat pumps are likely quite a bit lower than the hydrogen-based system described, both in terms of money and impact on the environment.
- Maintenance/reliability of the batteries and heat pump system will likely be comparable if not better than the hydrogen-based approach.

Simply put, when compared to batteries, hydrogen has even less to offer for stationary applications than it does for transportation applications.

Slow1 said:

GRA said:

Via GCC:

Toshiba begins demo operation of power-to-gas system; solar-to-H2

Click to expand...

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/04/20150420-toshiba.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Part:

H2One combines photovoltaic installations, storage batteries, hydrogen-producing water electrolysis equipment, hydrogen and water tanks, and fuel cells. Electricity generated from the photovoltaic installations is used to electrolyze water and produce hydrogen, which is then stored in tanks and used in fuel cells that produce electricity and hot water.

Since H2One uses only sunlight and water for fuel, it can independently provide electricity and hot water in times of emergency. Kawasaki Marien and Higashi-Ogishima-Naka Park, a municipal facility to promote Kawasaki Port, is a designated emergency evacuation area. In times of disaster, H2One will use stored hydrogen to provide an estimated 300 evacuees to the site with electricity and hot water for about one week. The H2One system is housed in a container, and can be transported to disaster-hit areas on trailers.

In normal, non-emergency operation, H2One’s hydrogen energy management system is used to contribute to peak shift, which reduces demand for mains power at times of high demand, through optimized control of hydrogen production, power generation and storage. Toshiba is working to enhance its hydrogen storage capabilities to realize a self-contained solution of local energy production for local consumption.

Click to expand...

Electric efficiency 55%, plus water heating efficiency of 40%.

Click to expand...

Impressive system. Ultimately the system is limited by the rate that the PV panels supply power - it is storing the excess energy in the form of the H2 and batteries(?) for future use.

Now I would not get too excited about the "95% efficiency" as that is just at the side of converting from H2 to useful power. Looking at the specs it seems that it needs 30kWh of power for each cubic meter of H2 generated. Then it uses 2.5 cubic meters of H2 to generate 3.5kWh of electric power plus heat. The amount of heat is harder to calculate - they only say 75L @ 40c without specifying the input temperature. However, if we look at their efficiency ratios (55% electric, 40% hot water) perhaps we can extrapolate that to be about ((3.5/55)*40) 2.55kWh of energy in the heated water. So then the total energy recovered would be 2.5+2.55 = 5.05kWh of energy for that 2.5 cubic meters of H2, which took (30*2.5) 75kWh to produce. If my numbers are correct then this would be about 6.7% end to end efficiency. Feel free to correct my calculations, but this seems very low to me. Good perhaps for emergencies, but far from something I'd want to use on a daily basis (i.e. for off grid homes etc) which was one of my first thoughts reading the article.... Marketing will always pick on the best sounding numbers eh?

Now, if they could use the system to desalinate water while they are at it that would be another plus for the 'emergency power' scenario - i.e. split a saline (from ocean) mix of water, then collect the clean water out the fuel cell side.

Click to expand...

Two additional exercises for you: Calc a full end to end efficiency that includes the PV. Then do the same calcs for gasoline, also starting with solar collection.

Two additional exercises for you: Calc a full end to end efficiency that includes the PV. Then do the same calcs for gasoline, also starting with solar collection. [/quote]

Too many variables. The nice thing about this system is that is is billed as a closed system - only energy input is the solar power (listed as 30kW array) and only energy outputs listed as electricity and heat. The spec sheet on their site gives all the production/consumption rates required for analysis.

Not sure where gasoline would come in here though batteries certainly could (i.e. if they kept the solar and buffered the power in batteries, what would the net efficiency be). I believe someone else already put their thoughts on that out in this thread.

I'm still reeling from the net 7% end to end efficiency - that is a LOT of loss there IMO. How does one sell such a thing as a good idea?

Slow1 said:

AndyH said:

Two additional exercises for you: Calc a full end to end efficiency that includes the PV. Then do the same calcs for gasoline, also starting with solar collection.

Click to expand...

Too many variables. The nice thing about this system is that is is billed as a closed system - only energy input is the solar power (listed as 30kW array) and only energy outputs listed as electricity and heat. The spec sheet on their site gives all the production/consumption rates required for analysis.

Not sure where gasoline would come in here though batteries certainly could (i.e. if they kept the solar and buffered the power in batteries, what would the net efficiency be). I believe someone else already put their thoughts on that out in this thread.

I'm still reeling from the net 7% end to end efficiency - that is a LOT of loss there IMO. How does one sell such a thing as a good idea?

Click to expand...

They do it by 'believing' the alternatives are more efficient. As far as I can tell, they do that by failing to do calcs with the same bounds for the alternatives.

Two quick examples: Gasoline 'well to wheels' efficiency doesn't include any of the energy used to grow the plants and other critters that turned into oil, and doesn't include any of the heat or pressure used in the conversion process. Proponents then make great effect when touting the 100:1 EROEI for our dwindling supply of conventional crude.

The worst energy return calcs for corn ethanol range from just above to below zero. They were done by a a Cornell ecologist named Pimental. The calcs included the corn. And the embedded energy in the petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides. And the diesel burned by the equipment planting and harvesting the corn. And the energy used to turn corn into ethanol. And the energy needed to make the steel to make the combine and plows! I'm sure it's just a coincidence that that particular study was funded by an oil company. But his numbers in a single study are the ones most touted by opponents while they completely disregard the 8 or so similar studies that used the same 'well to wheels' methodology used for oil to show that corn-based ethanol has a similar EROEI to gasoline produced by tarsands syncrude. (No, I'm not suggesting that we should be using either of these for liquid fuels, just highlighting the way various applications of blinders are used to support one's belief system rather than allowing the beliefs to change based on the data.)

edit: I keep leaving things this out of replies as they've been covered here a number of times already. So...just in case... The problem we're fighting to replace is use of fossil fuel. Even a worst case - where an on-road vehicle's fuel cell is run 100% by reformed natural gas - that vehicle is still traveling twice as many miles per gram of CO2 as the same vehicle would travel if fueled by the same natural gas. Again - I'm not saying that we should convert short-range vehicles from gas to fuel cell when a BEV would be a better choice - but FCEV IS the best and most efficient option where loads, range, or a combination cannot be served at any price by batteries alone. If people keep arguing against FCEV and instead suggest that everything must be BEV, they're arguing for extended use of fossil fuel because BEVs can only directly replace about 40% of ground transport needs. That will directly impact everything from food to raw materials to iPhone deliveries.

Via GCC:

SAE World Congress offering technical insights into automakers’ series production fuel cell technology

Click to expand...

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/04/20150421-sae.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Part:

Among the offerings at SAE World Congress in Detroit this week are several technical papers covering the advances in hydrogen fuel cell technologies from vehicle manufacturers in the first stage of series production FCEVs. Papers will describe modeling studies and the evaluation of components mainly in PEM fuel cell systems, hydrogen storage and hydrogen fueling. Further, directly following the technical paper session on Thursday 23 April (PFL 720), a panel of key industry members to discuss commercialization of fuel cell vehicles in PFL 799.

The two sessions will mark some of the first detailed public discussions of some of the newest fuel cell and storage technologies from OEMS, including Toyota and Hyundai.

Click to expand...