Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

RegGuheert said:

GRA said:

Not ignoring it at all, just pointing out that when it comes to choice, most people will accept lower efficiency if it provides greater convenience or some other advantage. I'm curious: given the choice, are you going to insist on sticking with conductive charging, or would you opt for inductive? If the former, do you believe that this will be most people's choice?

Click to expand...

There are several types of efficiency: 1) energy efficiency, 2) resource efficiency, 3) cost efficiency and 4) time efficiency, among others. It's easy to place time efficiency above the others when energy and resources are cheap. At the end of the day, solutions will exists which address the markets for different types of efficiency. Round-the-clock logistics definitely optimizes for 4) time efficiency due to the high cost of warehouse operations. That is why H2 FCVs are making inroads there.

Click to expand...

What, general agreement? We can't have that!

RegGuheert said:

I think inductive charging will win out where 2) resource efficiency is significantly negatively impacted by wearout and/or vandalism. Certainly this is likely to be true curbside. As far as what will win out in private garages, I agree it will be based on personal preference. The difference between 90% and 95% charging efficiency will not have a huge impact on cost, so users can consider convenience.

Click to expand...

Curiouser and curiouser.

RegGuheert said:

GRA said:

I'm about as certain as I can be that the general public will opt for convenience over efficiency in that particular case, and it's also why I think FCEVs/H2 have a shot at success.

Click to expand...

The difference is that for H2 to win, it takes a SIGNIFICANT sensitivity to 4) time efficiency to make it worthwhile, since it is at a significant disadvantage in terms of 1) energy efficiency, 2) resource efficiency and 3) cost efficiency. This is precisely why nearly everyone on this thread has identified long-range trucking as a possible candidate. But remember that long-term trucking is very sensitive to 3) cost efficiency, so that is not a given, by any stretch. H2 may also have the advantage in terms of 2) resource efficiency in the case where energy needs to be stored for a long time (>week).

Click to expand...

Okay, that confirms it. Hello, Satan? I think there's something wrong with the furnace, there's icicles everywhere! I would add that I suspect (and really need to dig into that report to see if it confirms it) that the energy efficiency advantage of BEVs over FCEVs is considerably reduced if not eliminated owing to heating/cooling energy over the course of a year/lifetime, and that any difference may fall within much the same range as inductive/wireless efficiency. I saw some numbers a while back, but don't remember them in enough detail to quote them.

The auxiliary fuel-fired heaters I'm a fan of for BEVs would eliminate the operational disadvantages of BEVs for long range, cold weather trips, but I don't know what that would do to the overall energy efficiency, and GHGs would depend on the fuel. Nor do I k ow what the cost or space requirements might be, but I for one would happily give up a frunk if that was needed for such a heater and its fuel.

I'd also add 5) peace of mind to your list, which has an undeniable if sometimes hard to quantify value of its own. As for ultimate costs, that's still up in the air - short range BEVs will undoubtedly be cheaper, but longer range ones, we just don't know. I think we can all agree that the Model X sucks currently for towing much beyond 1 enroute SC stop.

RegGuheert said:

GRA said:

I just happen to think that governments are extremely bad at picking commercial winners, and prefer that they offer options and let the public do the job of picking the winner. On average, the public's far better at it. Beta was the technically superior option in most ways, but VHS won because it provided the public with a capability that they valued more than higher fidelity.

Click to expand...

We agree that governments are bad at picking winners. But IMO CARB has chosen H2 as the "winner" in CA.

Click to expand...

CARB is the reason you have any production BEVs/PHEVs to choose from, Reg, and we have more choices available in California than anywhere else in the U.S. They've hardly picked a winner, and without them there also wouldn't be any public charging or public H2 fueling stations. They (and other state agencies) also support biofuels, CNG/LNG, and lots of other techs. In short, I think California's government is acting in exactly the way they should - help develop and subsidize enough of the tech at an early stage to allow a decent comparison, then sit back and see which one(s) the public likes.

GRA said:

CARB is the reason you have any production BEVs/PHEVs to choose from, Reg, and we have more choices available here than anywhere else in the U.S.

Click to expand...

No argument. Unfortunately, CARB seems to have lost their way.

GRA said:

They've hardly picked a winner, and without them there also wouldn't be any public charging or public H2 fueling stations.

Click to expand...

On a per-car basis, CARB has incentivized H2 vehicles and infrastructure WAY beyond any other technology to the point where significant environmental damage is being done to deploy H2 FCVs in the WRONG applications (see above about stuff we agree about).

CARB allows:

1) ZEV credits - 9 for hydrogen -vs- 3 or 4 for EV

2) $5000 for each hydrogen car sold -vs- $1500 or $2500 for hybrids and EVs

3) Exemption from "traveling provision" for hydrogen -vs- EVs must be sold in all 8 ZEV states starting MY2018 (see below)

4) $20 million spent per year, every year, for hydrogen infrastructure -vs- no guaranteed funding for EV infrastructure


CARB-ZEV state coalition - California, New York, Massachusetts, Oregon, Vermont, Maryland, Connecticut and Rhode Island. Maine and New Jersey are participating with ZEV initiatives, but are not signatory CARB-ZEV states.

The eight states combined account for 23% of U.S. vehicle sales, according to California’s Air Resources, and all ten states make up 28%

***********

Auto manufacturer's Oct 19, 2012 request to EPA for waiver from CARB:

http://www.globalautomakers.org/sites/default/files/document/attachments/JointCommentsCAWaiverRequest10-19-12.pdf

"It is highly unlikely that the required infrastructure and the level of consumer demand for ZEVs will be sufficient by MY2018 in either California or in the individual Section 177 States to support the ZEV sales requirements mandated by CARB. EPA should therefore deny, at the present time, California’s waiver request for the ZEV program for these model years. During the interim, Global Automakers and the Alliance believe that California and EPA, with full auto industry participation, should implement a review for the ZEV program similar to the mid-term review process adopted under the federal GHG and CAFE regulations for MYs2017 through 2025."

That's a whole lot of gobbledy goop to say, "keep the traveling provision so we can only sell cars in California at the minimum number, and not sell any in the other CARB states."

GRA said:

Yes, almost all. You have spent a combined what, $48k including subsidies, so that you have cars that can do all your trips. In your part of the country with your electricity costs, it may even be cost-effective to do so at current gas prices, although I'd have my doubts.

Click to expand...

With a spouse also working, the need for two cars is to support transportation for two jobs. If I'd bought two ICEs rather than a hybrid and an electric, I'd could have had two cars for less capital cost, but more operating cost. The question is, will the extra operating cost, mostly gas the ICEs burn, be more than the extra capital cost of the more efficient cars? The hybrid is ahead, and still has years to go, not counting the subsidy. The electric isn't ahead yet, not counting the subsidy. Cost effective depends on a big unknown, the future price of gasoline, and on some other large unknowns, such as how long I continue to work at the same job. The key advantage of my part of the country isn't the lower electric rates (but that helps) but rather the much better battery life. I'm probably paying around $0.06 per mile for battery, unlike someone in Arizona paying more three times that. Electric is around $0.02 per mile. Hawaii would be more than four times that.

At the current gasoline price ($2.65), and all the other assumptions, my spreadsheet says I don't break even. I'll spend about $1200 extra to have an electric over the life of the car (assumed to be 12 years). Call it $100 per year. I can afford that. If gasoline goes up, I might do rather better. I pay a yearly fee with my license tabs, and that fee is going up by $50 per year (I think July this year), which isn't in the spreadsheet. Every penny change in the price of gasoline is a roughly $40 swing in break even. And so on.

All of this is why I try to say "cost competitive". Too many unknowns and unknowables. I don't see how a hydrogen FCEV gets to cost competitive this decade, if ever, for commuting, which is the vast majority of trips.

GRA said:

And most (virtually all) of my trips, the opposite would be the case.

Click to expand...

Which puts you as far from the average as the neighbors I had in Marlboro, Ma. You are an extreme case. I'm closer to average.

GRA said:

Can we at least agree that in their current state of development, even the most expensive BEVs are ill-suited for long towing distances, and that short refueling times (given a limited range) would be critical for anyone with time constraints, which anyone who isn't retired usually has for their recreational activities?

Click to expand...

You have totally ignored a key point. For a BEV that is recharged at home, at night, charge time doesn't matter. It's not a factor, it is not important, it is not critical. Commuting is the large use case. Look at the statistics. Almost all driving is short trips. Go look at a random road. Almost no cars are towing. Once again, for the vast majority of trips, recharge time doesn't matter in the slightest bit.

I don't see how a FCEV gets to cost competitive for the vast majority of trips, when compared with a BEV.

GRA said:

I just happen to think that governments are extremely bad at picking commercial winners, and prefer that they offer options and let the public do the job of picking the winner.

Click to expand...

Which is why we are chatting on Compuserve rather than the government developed Internet...

Hi WetEV,

You have attributed that quote to the wrong person.

RegGuheert said:

Hi WetEV,

You have attributed that quote to the wrong person.

Click to expand...

Opps, fixed.

WetEV said:

GRA said:

I just happen to think that governments are extremely bad at picking commercial winners, and prefer that they offer options and let the public do the job of picking the winner.

Click to expand...

Which is why we are chatting on Compuserve rather than the government developed Internet...

Click to expand...

Actually, that's an example of the public choosing which they preferred. My first provider was GEnie, when most people were on Compuserve or AoL. I'm all for government assisting R&D, but Arpanet is a long way from what the internet/WWW has become. Just think, if the government had been allowed to make the choice for us, we'd probably all still be using DOS. Now there's a scary thought! :lol:

GRA said:

Just think, if the government had been allowed to make the choice for us, we'd probably all still be using DOS.

Click to expand...

We would have a POSIX complaint operating system. Not DOS.

POSIX has lived on, however, and might still triumph. Apple's OS OSX is POSIX complaint.

With government "choosing" / funding hydrogen, it will also live on like a government funded DOS computer might.

Just because it's a slow news day, and also there've been some claims to the effect that FCHEVs are incapable of providing acceleration competitive with high performance BEVs, via ABG:

Hydrogen-powered Green GT H2 race car debuts at Le Mans
540 horsepower sounds good to us.

Click to expand...

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/06/20/hydrogen-green-gt-h2-race-car-le-mans/

. . . The hydrogen fuel cell on the GT H2 creates electricity for two 270-horsepower electric motors directly powering the rear wheels, and there's all of 2,950 pound-feet of torque. Each three-minute hydrogen fill-up gives the racer 40 minutes of driving.

Click to expand...

Of course, a race car isn't a street car, but I have no doubt that BMW's forthcoming 5 or 7 series FCEV will have performance that will be acceptable to BMW owners, and when Mercedes puts out their high-end FCEV the same will be true. From the original "Autocar" article ABG is basing their article on:

“Acceleration is linear and power seems to be unlimited. You press the accelerator and the power arrives in smooth, consistent, increasing quantities. The electric-hydrogen generator behaves like a very well-tuned engine. There is no gearbox so no gear changes, it’s your right foot that controls the speed. And the power’s there all the time; it’s available in all situations, slowing down, accelerating and so on – there’s no lag. . . .

The racing car shares its fuel cell technology with the Pininfarina-designed H2 Speed road car, which is on static display at Le Mans and can also be seen at next week’s Goodwood Festival of Speed.

Click to expand...

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/motorsport/hydrogen-fuel-cell-racing-car-completes-laps-le-mans-circuit

Which leads to:

Pininfarina H2 Speed - hydrogen sports car revealed at Geneva

Click to expand...

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/motor-shows-geneva-motor-show/pininfarina-h2-speed-hydrogen-sports-car-revealed-geneva

The H2 Speed, described as being “halfway between a competition prototype and a production supercar", uses similar technical underpinnings to the Green GT H2 racing car, albeit clothed in Pininfarina’s distinctive body.

It is driven by two electric synchronous motors with permanent magnets. With maximum power of 496bhp, the car is capable of 0-62mph acceleration of 3.4sec. The power is sent to the rear wheels and the H2 Speed uses torque vectoring to optimise performance. The concept also features a brake energy recuperation system. . . .

Click to expand...

Via GCC:

Johnson Matthey-led consortium to develop advanced automotive fuel cells in €7M EU-funded INSPIRE; BMW Group

Click to expand...

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/06/20160621-inspire.html

A coalition led by Johnson Matthey is working to develop the next-generation of automotive fuel cell technology in the three-year, €7-million (US$7.9-million) EU-funded project INSPIRE (Integration Of Novel Stack Components For Performance, Improved Durability And Lower Cost). Consortium members include fuel cell component suppliers, academic institutions and the BMW Group.

INSPIRE’s stated objective is to develop advanced components and to integrate them into an automotive stack showing BOL (beginning of life) performance of 1.5 W/cm2 at 0.6V, less than 10% power degradation after 6,000 hours, and with a technical and economic assessment showing a cost of less than €50/kW (US$57/KW) at a 50,000 annual production scale. . . .

Click to expand...

Interesting to see if they achieve their goals.

Via GCC:

GM and US Navy collaborating on fuel cell-powered underwater unmanned vehicles

Click to expand...

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/06/20160623-gm-usn.html

General Motors, the Office of Naval Research and the US Naval Research Laboratory are cooperating to incorporate automotive hydrogen fuel cell systems into the next generation of Navy unmanned undersea vehicles, or UUVs. Under the ONR’s Innovative Naval Prototype program for Large Displacement UUVs (LDUUV), energy is a core technology in the Navy’s goals for vehicles with more than 60-days endurance.

The goal of the LDUUV program is to develop fully autonomous, long-endurance, unmanned undersea vehicles capable of operating near shore. The LDUUV program will develop new air-independent energy systems and core vehicle technologies to extend unmanned undersea vehicles endurance into months of operation time. Advanced autonomy and sensing will enable operation in the cluttered littoral environment. . . .

Click to expand...

Also GCC:

First Toyota Mirai in Norway delivered to Uno-X Hydrogen

Click to expand...

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/06/20160623-unox.html

Following the United Kingdom, Denmark, Germany and Belgium, Norway is the 5th European country to start selling the fuel cell sedan. Uno-X Hydrogen, a newly established joint-venture that plans to establish a 20-station hydrogen network by 2020 in Norway, is the first customer in that country to take ownership of the Toyota Mirai.

Uno-X Hydrogen relies on renewable energy to produce hydrogen. The first of the 20 planned stations will use the surplus solar energy produced from the solar panels on the roof of the neighboring energy-positive office building. (Earlier post.)

The Norwegian government recently not only confirmed its support to a nationwide network of hydrogen refueling stations, it has also set up programs with the aim to reach sales of 50,000 hydrogen cars by 2025. The program offers many incentives that will make fuel cell cars even more attractive: these cars are exempt from registration taxes and value added tax, which can be very high in the country. Additionally, cost of ownership is further reduced for Norwegian fuel cell car drivers thanks to free toll roads and ferries, free public parking, access to bus lanes and 50% company car tax. . . .

Click to expand...

In short, Norway's giving FCEVs the same subsidies and perks as BEVs get/have gotten.

Also GCC:

DOE issues request for information on a Hydrogen Technology Showcase and Training (HyTeST) station

Click to expand...

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/06/20160623-hytest.html

. . . The facility would serve as a tool for research and development, testing, safety and demonstration training, and outreach for community and commercial early adopters, including station developers, owners, code officials, first responders, operators, investors, and insurers. . . .

The HyTeST station will be located at Sandia National Laboratories’ Livermore Valley Open Campus (LVOC) to enable partnership between the national laboratories and energy innovators. The HyTeST station will complement the existing hydrogen refueling facility at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Colorado. . . .

Click to expand...

Possible future FCEV help from VW:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/398...34bc5de480ad5b4e6f05248290&uprof=44&dr=1#alt2

I've taken the time to review recent posts and want to revise my (basically uninformed) "rant" - that I've edited out.

Solar (PV) technology has itself come under scrutiny for "life cycle" costs and carbon footprint - given our current methods of energy generation (takes lots of electricity to make ultra-pure PV crystals), and materials production techniques. I recall that overall, there is an advantage in "carbon" with PV based electrical generation vrs hydrocarbon based generation - that is lessened depending upon where the panels are made, e.g. China's lifecycle carbon footprint is somewhat worse than in more "developed" countries.

Is there a comprehensive and accurate study on the complete lifecycle cost/benefits of H2 fuel cell based technologies compared to "make it bigger/better" battery technology - and/or light hydrocarbon based fuels? This would include initial costs, maintenance, operating, finance and replacement costs for the electrical generation, the H2 production/purification/compression, the transport to fuel stations (what "fuel" will these specialty trucks use - or in-situ H2 production??), the fueling stations themselves, the production of the fuel cells, the added equipment in the vehicles, the efficiency cycle of the use of hydrogen, etc, etc? Also, what does the "carbon footprint" analysis (equivalent to the solar PV analysis) look like. Of course, it's a point in time, and most new technologies need a "boot-strap" to effectively start, but the complexity and energy intensity of any H2 based "fuel" for most transportation uses would appear (on the surface) to be highly questionable. Water being the only emission (at the vehicle level) sounds great, but if the overall carbon footprint (and most certainly costs!) are as great or greater than say LNG (to resolve the range issue), what is the point? If range is not the issue (most commuter miles), then keep improving the EV?

Hopefully such a basic study has been completed and issued - at least for analysis and comments.

Marktm said:

I cannot help myself!!! Why would ANYONE consider pure hydrogen as a fuel? To eliminate a carbon atom amongst 3 or 4 hydrogen atoms ??? - with methane and ethane (and propane and butane.....) being so cheap and available and safe and...... Is CO2 that poisonous? Should the research money be put into better fuel cells and/or batteries with renewable based electrical generation - to resolve the CO2 "poison" issue?

Being rhetorical to an extent (CO2 being a poison), but also, I'd actually like to hear good arguments as to why?

Click to expand...

Apologize - this thread is about the hydrogen fuel cells - not a competitive ICE hydrogen vehicle - ignore (ant), please.

Via GCC:

Ceres Power to demonstrate SOFC stack technology for EV range extender with Nissan; light commercial vehicle

Click to expand...

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/06/20160628-ceres-1.html

. . . The SOFC stack is based on Ceres Power's unique SteelCell technology, which is able to work with a variety of highefficiency fuel types (including biofuels) applicable to the automotive sector. . . .

The combination of low operating temperature -- with the related ability to use lower cost materials -- metal support and careful optimization of the microstructure of the ceramic layers allows low cell, stack and balance of plant cost and high robustness to real-world operating conditions. . . .

Click to expand...

Via IEVS:

Mercedes-Benz Road to Zero Emissions by Bart Herring – Video

Click to expand...

http://insideevs.com/mercedes-benz-road-to-zero-emissions-by-bart-herring-video/

German manufacturer intends to:

• continue improve fuel economy of conventional cars, including diesels
  sees great potential in the hydrogen fuel cells, which apparently are the real thing
  introduce more all-electric (BEV) as battery costs are falling, range is growing, and there are new opportunities with wireless charging (or higher power DC fast charging like 150 kW)
  introduce a lot of hybrids/plug-in hybrids coming, which are a bridge to future zero emission (BEVs/FCVs)
  Mercedes-Benz still will develop CNG and LNG alternatives

Click to expand...

Via GCC:

ITM sells integrated hydrogen refueling station to Hydrogène de France

Click to expand...

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/06/20160629-itm.html

ITM announced the sale of an integrated hydrogen refueling station (HRS) with on-site generation to Hydrogène de France (HDF), for deployment in France. The contract is worth €1.5 million (US$1.7 million) to ITM Power before follow-on contracts such as maintenance agreements.

The electrolyzer HRS selection was based on HDF’s usual competitive tender process. The station is targeted to serve both local captive fleets of Fuel Cell Range Extender-Electric Vehicle vans with a 350 bar refueling technology and Fuel Cell electric Vehicle with 700 bar refueling technology. . . .

The HRS will be commissioned mid-2017. . . . As part of this project, HDF will be able to test the operation of the electrolyzer in a live market to provide grid balancing services.

Click to expand...

Via GCC:

ISO publishes TS 19880-1 for hydrogen fueling stations

Click to expand...

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/07/20160701-iso.html

. . .The standard provides guidance on the following elements of a fueling station:

• hydrogen production/delivery system;
  
  delivery of hydrogen by pipeline, trucked in gaseous and/or liquid hydrogen, or metal hydride storage trailers;
  
  on-site hydrogen generators using water electrolysis process or hydrogen generators using fuel processing technologies;
  
  liquid hydrogen storage;
  
  hydrogen purification systems, as applicable;
  
  gaseous hydrogen compression;
  
  pumps and vaporizers;
  
  gaseous hydrogen buffer storage;
  
  pre-cooling device; and
  
  gaseous hydrogen dispensers.

Click to expand...

Also GCC:

PowerCell delivers 100 kW fuel cell stack prototype for a truck application for a European transport company

Click to expand...

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/07/20160701-powercell.html

Via GCR:

Early Mercedes fuel-cell driver's 'sobering assessment' to industry

Click to expand...

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1104842_early-mercedes-fuel-cell-drivers-sobering-assessment-to-industry

Pretty much the standard issues faced by early adopters of an immature tech with limited infrastructure - BEV owners trying to find/use working QCs/public chargers read much the same, especially in the 2011-2013 timeframe. Unfortunately, most of the more detailed article which GCR based this on is behind a paywall.