GRA
Well-known member
Certainly. Of course, we'd also ditch BEVs and continue to rely on fossil-fueled ICEs, which are cheaper and vastly more capable for the price. Could be some long-term issues there.evnow said:
Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread
- Thread starter TomT
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
GRA
Well-known member
Walter, your calcs of the handling capacity per hour are based out outmoded equipment that was never intended to handle high throughputs. Even the smallest new stations are being built with 100 kg./day H2 dispensing and storage capacity, require 5 minute or shorter fills at 700 bar, and most fueling takes place from say 7 a.m. to about 9 p.m. Compression rates for the new stations are also much higher, as these are intended to be close to fully commercialized stations. Ultimate capacity will need to increase, but the companies know that.walterbays said:
BTW, California's settlement with NRG required them to build 200 QCs for $120 million dollars over 3 years (versus $20 million/yr. for a max. of 10 years for H2 stations). Early sites had a single CHAdeMO and later added a dual-standard QC; later sites just seem to have the latter. If you assume half the sites have the two separate units (and at least one car is using CHAdeMO), then those 200 sites will be capable of recharging 300 cars simultaneously, or $400k/charger, not $40k (note that NRG also had to build or at least prep some public L2s at these sites as well as others, so the actual amount per QC was less). Figuring 1/2 hour/QC, over the same 16 hour span you used above (rather than the 14 hour span which is more typical) you could charge 600 x 16 = 9600 cars/day, assuming no queuing/100% reliability etc. Of course, the range would typically be far less, especially if you're only charging to the taper point.
evnow
Well-known member
Exactly - that is why we should ditch H2 and support BEVs only.GRA said:
GRA said:
Hmmm, for me, my BEVs cost the same as an auto of equivalent size, and is vastly better in performance, drive quality, cargo/passenger space, fuel costs, safety and convenience.
I am looking forward to test driving a FCV in about 25 years when they start selling them in Minnesota (WAG).
evnow
Well-known member
This FCEV hobby for OEMs will last only as long as the criminally incompetent politicians can be bribed to support FCEV.Zythryn said:
Hmmm ... may be that will last a few more decades until the bottom 10% of the electorate gets wise too.
That is a misleading at best.GRA said:
1. $100M of the settlement was to be used for charging stations the other $20M was for ratepayer relief.
2. The settlement includes a make-ready L2 stubs - 10,000 at 1,000 locations. As we all know, just laying the cable for charging stations is the bulk of the cost when installing stations.
3. The Freedom Stations (public QC stations) are allocated $50M or about $250k each for 200 locations.
Now I agree that if NRG is spending $250k for each Freedom Station they are paying way too much.
The Nissan CHAdeMO station probably costs $15k and no more than $20k. The dual plug QC station probably costs about $50k. The L2 station is probably $10k at most (ChargePoint). So $80k hardware and probably $30k to trench, install, transformer, etc (NRG seems to pick expensive locations to install and add extra fluff and costs) for a total of around $110k/station.
Luckily, there is a provision in the settlement that if they do not spend all the money on the 200 stations, they are required to build more until they spend all the money, so I think it's quite possible that we will end up with quite a few more than 200 "Freedom Stations".
DNAinaGoodWay
Well-known member
To get back to H2, are FCV drivers signing an agreement that sticks them with a $500/month payment and a car that sits still because the promised included fuel is simply unavailable? That's got to act as a bigger brake on adoption than the adjustments needed to adopt BEVs.
aarond12
Well-known member
That sure sounds like a problem to me. Not having to visit a "gas station" (H2 station) is one of the big perks of EVs to me. A full tank every time I leave the garage? Yes, please!DNAinaGoodWay said:
Then there are the reviews of the current FCEVs. The promised 5 minute fill ups are taking 10-15 minutes, even with no one else at the fueling station. There are a lot of variables to H2 fueling and the outcome is longer fueling times. Still faster than EV charging at the moment, but I'm certain that will be improved upon eventually. For me, I have a base model LEAF with no quick charge. For all the driving I do, 3.3kW is fine.
GRA
Well-known member
Well, no, if all you care about is the simplest, cheapest option, then BEVs go by the board as well. If someone comes up with a way toevnow said:
sustainably and affordably produce liquid drop-in biofuels without using cropland (at least until the human population is far smaller than it is now), that would be the simplest, cheapest option, as we could easily swap over the existing gas station infrastructure, no one would have to change their behavior at all, and the auto companies could continue to build cars they're familiar with. That's proving to be quite difficult, much as getting BEVs to cross to the mainstream has been, and the same will hold true for FCVs. Barring either political will or economic disruption that vastly boosts the price of fossil fuels compared to alternatives, changing to any sustainable AFV tech will not be the simplest or cheapest option.
GRA
Well-known member
You're driving a Tesla, no? None of the above is true for me or the average car buyer when comparing cost for cost, without subsidies. It may be true in the future as battery prices come down, and of course it depends to a considerable extent on which performance features are most important for you. For me, they are unrefueled year-round range, refueling time, adequate performance, interior space, smallish size, flexibility and convenience. My 12.5 year old car cost me $24k+ out the door new, and not even the most expensive Tesla has the range and the convenience it has to drive anywhere I want without a thought, nor would I get a convenience benefit due to not being able to charge at home or anywhere nearby (for less than the price of gas). Given another 5-10 years of SC/QC deployment plus BEV range improvements, the convenience/flexibility advantage of ICEs may fade away to insignificance, but it's a long way from doing that now.Zythryn said:
Fuel costs? Last night I calculated just how far the difference in the out-the-door price of my car and an S85's $80k MSRP would take me per year, assuming that I'd been paying $4/gallon the entire time I've owned the car, and that I got all my electricity free. Over the 12.5 years to date, I could have driven my car almost 30k mile per year before I'd come out ahead in the Tesla. As it is, I've got a bit over 62k miles total[/ul on my odometer (the last few years have been anomalous, and it should be more like 75-80k), and I haven't paid anywhere near an average of $4/gal. Anyway, the calc goes something like this: $80k-$24.5 (don't have the exact figure handy, but that's accurate to a few hundred either way) = $55.5k / 12.5 years = $4,440/year, divided by $4/gal = 1,110 gal.year x 27 mpg (EPA HWY rating. I do the vast majority of my driving on highways, and normally get 28-31 there, but I'm using the more conservative number) = 29,970 miles/year. Dropping the mpg to the combined figure of 24 mpg to reflect more typical usage by mainstream drivers only drops the miles/year to 26,640, still far in excess of the average American's yearly miles.
Of course, I'm ignoring the likely higher maintenance costs of my ICE, although I'd estimate they haven't exceeded $2k total in that time for items that are unique to an ICE (e.g. tune-ups/oil changes/major scheduled services for engine/transmission etc. I've needed no unscheduled maintenance at all. I've got all my maintenance records, so should total it up sometime), but then I'm also ignoring the higher sales tax, and yearly license and insurance costs of the Tesla, as well as the undoubtedly high maintenance prices once the car's out of warranty. And my car retains essentially the same range performance as it had when new, and will continue to do so as long as I own it, which can't be said for any BEV now or for some time. Even if it were to degrade significantly to BEV levels, it's large enough to start with that, combined with fast refueling it's much less of a handicap (given a dense enough refueling infrastructure). Maybe we'll get a BEV in the future whose battery doesn't suffer from degradation, or at least is big enough that it can hide it for the life of the car, but that is impossible/unaffordable at the moment.
GRA
Well-known member
Which is why I said that the total included L2 deployments or make-ready, and the actual cost for the QCs would be less. Didn't have all the details to hand, so thanks for providing them.drees said:
We can certainly hope that will be the case. Personally, in most cases I'd prefer that they double up the QCs at existing sites rather than adding new sites with just a single.drees said:
GRA
Well-known member
Which is why Toyota and the other companies are stepping in to make sure that ceases to be an issue.DNAinaGoodWay said:
GRA
Well-known member
As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, the current H2 stations weren't designed for rapid re-fueling or high throughput, and many weren't fitted for 700 bar refueling either. None of that applies to the new, commercial stations now being built. Sheesh, how many times does this need to be repeated before it sinks in? Once more: Toyota has stated that FIVE MINUTE OR FASTER REFUELING IS A REQUIREMENT for the Toyota-sponsored stations. I imagine that holds for the other new stations as well, as otherwise they give up one of their biggest advantages re BEVs.aarond12 said:
See the following:
"Annual Evaluation of Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Deployment and Hydrogen Fuel Station Network Development"; California Air Resources Board; 2014. Has details of current and planned stations, where they're located and why, projections of FCEV sales out to 2020, projected H2 demand, station coverage and capacities, operating requirements, etc. http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/ab8/ab8_report_final_june2014.pdf Also see "The Hydrogen Transition" report listed below.
"The Hydrogen Transition"; Ogden, Joan; Yang, Christopher; Nicholas, Michael; Fulton, Lew; 2014.
Describes where we currently are, what steps will be needed to make the transition, projections of costs to do so, H2 and FCEV prices and cost curves, comparisons with other AFV technology costs and timelines, how much money various states, countries and regions are spending to support the development of FCEVs and H2 infrastructure etc. http://steps.ucdavis.edu/files/08-1...White-Paper-Hydrogen-Transition-7.29.2014.pdf Also see the CARB "Annual Evaluation" report listed above.
C. MINIMUM STATION DAILY FUELING CAPACITY
Each station shall have a minimum average daily fueling capacity of no less than 100kg. Each station must be able to deliver the rated daily capacity over a 12 hour period. The average daily station capacity (kg/day) shall be the total kg of hydrogen that can be delivered to a 7 kg-capacity fuel cell vehicle according to the SAE J2601, over a 12 hour period. For example, a 100 kg per day station should be able to dispense 100 kg during peak fueling hours from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. and allow regeneration or delivery of hydrogen to take place during the off peak hours. Applicants are strongly encouraged to propose projects that exceed the minimum station daily fueling capacity.
D. MINIMUM PEAK FUELING CAPACITY
The station(s)/dispenser(s) shall be capable of meeting or exceeding the following peak fueling capacity requirements:
• The station(s)/dispenser(s) requirement for minimum peak fueling capacity is not six fuel cell vehicle fills in one hour. The requirement is for three fills per hour, regardless of the type of fill, T40 or T20. The station(s)/dispenser(s) shall be able to fuel three vehicles in accordance with SAE International J2601 in a single one-hour period, back-to-back, without the vehicle user having to wait for the station to recharge.
• Applicants are strongly encouraged to propose projects that exceed the minimum peak fueling capacity requirements herein. Applications exceeding these minimum requirements will score higher.
Each station shall have a minimum average daily fueling capacity of no less than 100kg. Each station must be able to deliver the rated daily capacity over a 12 hour period. The average daily station capacity (kg/day) shall be the total kg of hydrogen that can be delivered to a 7 kg-capacity fuel cell vehicle according to the SAE J2601, over a 12 hour period. For example, a 100 kg per day station should be able to dispense 100 kg during peak fueling hours from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. and allow regeneration or delivery of hydrogen to take place during the off peak hours. Applicants are strongly encouraged to propose projects that exceed the minimum station daily fueling capacity.
D. MINIMUM PEAK FUELING CAPACITY
The station(s)/dispenser(s) shall be capable of meeting or exceeding the following peak fueling capacity requirements:
• The station(s)/dispenser(s) requirement for minimum peak fueling capacity is not six fuel cell vehicle fills in one hour. The requirement is for three fills per hour, regardless of the type of fill, T40 or T20. The station(s)/dispenser(s) shall be able to fuel three vehicles in accordance with SAE International J2601 in a single one-hour period, back-to-back, without the vehicle user having to wait for the station to recharge.
• Applicants are strongly encouraged to propose projects that exceed the minimum peak fueling capacity requirements herein. Applications exceeding these minimum requirements will score higher.
Finishing permit applications = not started construction
In permitting = not started construction
Planning approval = not started construction
Approved to build = not started construction
under construction = 4
fully constructed = 4
currently closed but to reopen = 1
open = 5
In permitting = not started construction
Planning approval = not started construction
Approved to build = not started construction
under construction = 4
fully constructed = 4
currently closed but to reopen = 1
open = 5
GRA said:
yes, you have that correct
the explosive limits and detonation limts are centered around a balanced reaction, 1x H2 molecule reacts with half an O2 molecule. 1 x C1H4 molecule reacts with 2x O2 molecules. etc etc the smaller the molecule, the less oxygen it can burn, the higher the fuel % needed for a balanced reaction.
Hydrogen's range of both detonation and flamability limits is impressively wide compare to hydrocarbons.
DNAinaGoodWay
Well-known member
GRA said:
As they should. Meanwhile, leasees pay $500/month for fuel free cars, are they getting refunds? Assuming the OEMs aren't sending round the AAA H2 truck to get them going.
GRA
Well-known member
Your bolding was incomplete, so I fixed it for youydnas7 said:
To quote from the ARB report (bottom of page 8) http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/ab8/ab8_report_final_june2014.pdf:For more detail on current and future station design capacity/throughput/availability/maintenance and repair requirements, see page 34-43, "Part VI: Hydrogen Fuel Station Performance Standards and Technology".
GRA
Well-known member
Thanks for this, I hadn't seen it. I suspect that it doesn't include my local station, as I only noticed construction about a week and a half ago.ydnas7 said:Finishing permit applications = not started construction
In permitting = not started construction
Planning approval = not started construction
Approved to build = not started construction
under construction = 4
fully constructed = 4
currently closed but to reopen = 1
open = 5
Similar threads
