3 fuel types, Diesel, Hydrogen, Electric - Mercedes

Mercedes sells the B class in Diesel, Hydrogen and Electric variants
Diesel variant from 3.6l/100 km B 180 CDI BlueEFFICIENCY http://www.mercedes-benz.fr/content/france/mpc/mpc_france_website/fr/home_mpc/passengercars/home/new_cars/models/b-class/w246/facts_/engines/dieselengines.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Hydrogen variant from 0.97 kg H2 /100km http://www.mbusa.com/vcm/MB/DigitalAssets/pdfmb/fcell/248x168_b-klasse_f-cell_NP11_EN_DS_low2.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Electric variant from 16.6 kWh /100km http://www.mercedes-benz.fr/content/france/mpc/mpc_france_website/fr/home_mpc/passengercars/home/new_cars/models/b-class/w246/facts_/engines/alternativemotorization.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How do they compare?

(note for forum mods, keep this separate for a while from other threads until its quiet)

1 litre of petrol 9.1 kwh 32.6 mJ
1 litre of diesel-oil 10.0 kwh 35.9 mJ
1 kilogram of hydrogen 33.6 kwh 120.8 mJ

but there are refinery/reformation/electrolysis losses

using refinery losses of 25% (diesel) and reformation losses of 45% (hydrogen)

diesel
3.6 x 35.9 x 1.25 = 161.55 mJ or 45 kWh equivalent

Hydrogen (fossil fuel, bio fuel)
0.97 x 120.8 x 1.45 = 169.90 mJ or 47 kWh equivalent

Hydrogen (electrolysis, non fossil fuel)
0.97 x 54 = 52.4 kWh

so for energy equivalent to propel an EV 100km (16.6kWh)
Diesel 36.9 km
Hydrogen 35.3km (fossil fuel)
Hydrogen 31.6km (electrolysis - non fossil fuel)

ie
Diesel is marginally more efficient than Hydrogen
EV is about 3 x more efficient than hydrogen

California requires that publicly subsidized Hydrogen infrastructure must be 33% renewable.
typically that is 1/3 from electrolysis and 2/3 from fossils fuel reformation.
How does that compare to its equivalent in diesel and electricity?

ydnas7 said:

1 litre of petrol 9.1 kwh 32.6 mJ
1 litre of diesel-oil 10.0 kwh 35.9 mJ
1 kilogram of hydrogen 33.6 kwh 120.8 mJ

but there are refinery/reformation/electrolysis losses

using refinery losses of 25% (diesel) and reformation losses of 45% (hydrogen)

diesel
3.6 x 35.9 x 1.25 = 161.55 mJ or 45 kWh equivalent

Hydrogen (fossil fuel, bio fuel)
0.97 x 120.8 x 1.45 = 169.90 mJ or 47 kWh equivalent

Hydrogen (electrolysis, non fossil fuel)
0.97 x 54 = 52.4 kWh

so for energy equivalent to propel an EV 100km (16.6kWh)
Diesel 36.9 km
Hydrogen 35.3km (fossil fuel)
Hydrogen 31.6km (electrolysis - non fossil fuel)

ie
Diesel is marginally more efficient than Hydrogen
EV is about 3 x more efficient than hydrogen

Click to expand...

Seems to me that you might want to re-examine your bounds and comparisons.

Where's the energy that created the oil (and thus the diesel and petrol)? What's the source of energy for the H2 electrolysis and what type of electrolyzer was used? What's the H2 pressure and how is that achieved?

We've had proper well to wheels numbers from the DoE and research labs independent of industry for a couple of years now. Why do you not value those?

Both diesel and electricity are more efficient than Hydrogen, Energy for CA hydrogen fuel mix would've traveled 2/3s further in EV + Diesel than compared to H2 Fuel Cell Vehicle.

Put another way, since H2 for Vehicles is more fossil fuel intense than current technology. The pursuit of Hydrogen is drawing vehicles to a fossil fuel dependent future.

ydnas7 said:

Both diesel and electricity are more efficient than Hydrogen,

Click to expand...

Unsupported judgement/opinion, not fact.

ydnas7 said:

Energy for CA hydrogen fuel mix would've traveled 2/3s further in EV + Diesel than compared to H2 Fuel Cell Vehicle.

Click to expand...

While a diesel vehicle might provide the range and/or load capability, since the mission profile for this exercise is not defined, this, too, is unsupported judgement/opinion and not fact.

ydnas7 said:

Put another way, since H2 for Vehicles is more fossil fuel intense than current technology. The pursuit of Hydrogen is drawing vehicles to a fossil fuel dependent future.

Click to expand...

This appears to be derivative of the above two opinions, and therefore it, too, appears to be unsupported judgment/opinion and not fact.

AndyH said:

Seems to me that you might want to re-examine your bounds and comparisons.

Where's the energy that created the oil (and thus the diesel and petrol)? What's the source of energy for the H2 electrolysis and what type of electrolyzer was used? What's the H2 pressure and how is that achieved?

We've had proper well to wheels numbers from the DoE and research labs independent of industry for a couple of years now. Why do you not value those?

Click to expand...

The diesel is refined from oil.
The H2 electrolysis is renewable electricity, as per SunHydro Station 700bar.

Unless the 'proper' well to wheels numbers are comparing like to like (ie the same vehicle), than there is the magican's distraction and sleight of hand occurring. The clear review of the hydrogen lobby promotes such distortion is explained courtesy of Julian Cox. http://cleantechnica.com/2014/06/04/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-about-not-clean/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ydnas7 said:

AndyH said:

Seems to me that you might want to re-examine your bounds and comparisons.

Where's the energy that created the oil (and thus the diesel and petrol)? What's the source of energy for the H2 electrolysis and what type of electrolyzer was used? What's the H2 pressure and how is that achieved?

We've had proper well to wheels numbers from the DoE and research labs independent of industry for a couple of years now. Why do you not value those?

Click to expand...

The diesel is refined from oil.
The H2 electrolysis is renewable electricity, as per SunHydro Station 700bar.

Unless the 'proper' well to wheels numbers are comparing like to like (ie the same vehicle), than there is the magican's distraction and sleight of hand occurring. The clear review of the hydrogen lobby promotes such distortion is explained courtesy of Julian Cox. http://cleantechnica.com/2014/06/04/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-about-not-clean/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Click to expand...

Julian Cox is neither an unbiased nor scientific source. You have included the energy to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen via 'electrolysis' even though we are well aware from the hydrogen thread that there are a number of ways to separate water, including heat, membranes, and alkaline cells. Each has a different efficiency and provides output gas at different pressures. This, in turn, directly changes the energy required to compress the gas to 700 bar. You did not, however, begin with oil's raw materials. The 'efficiency' numbers you provide are useless if you provide a 10,000 year head-start for gasoline and diesel.

All measurements were in l/100km using NEDC. They are measurements.

Fact - new Nissan LEAF can go 124mile on NEDC.
reality - nobody drives a car NEDC style until they are stranded.

The point is, comparing equivalent, like per like, Hydrogen is more fossil intense than either diesel or electricity

ydnas7 said:

All measurements were in l/100km using NEDC. They are measurements.

Fact - new Nissan LEAF can go 124mile on NEDC.
reality - nobody drives a car NEDC style until they are stranded.

The point is, comparing equivalent, like per like, Hydrogen is more fossil intense than either diesel or electricity

Click to expand...

While you've done a great job repeating what you've already typed, it doesn't appear that you really understand that you're not using the same energy calculation starting point for all of the fuels, and I see no indication that you're listening to my feedback. While you say that 'like per like' is important, you haven't yet actually done it and don't seem to grok that something really large is missing. Here - let me help with that - compliments of the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-10/uou-bm9102603.php

Oct. 27, 2003 - A staggering 98 tons of prehistoric, buried plant material - that's 196,000 pounds - is required to produce each gallon of gasoline we burn in our cars, SUVs, trucks and other vehicles, according to a study conducted at the University of Utah.
"Can you imagine loading 40 acres worth of wheat - stalks, roots and all - into the tank of your car or SUV every 20 miles?" asks ecologist Jeff Dukes, whose study will be published in the November issue of the journal Climatic Change.

But that's how much ancient plant matter had to be buried millions of years ago and converted by pressure, heat and time into oil to produce one gallon of gas, Dukes concluded.

Click to expand...

Feel free to tally the amount of water and solar energy embodied in 98 tons of biomass that will become a gallon of gasoline. I look forward to your more correct energy balance. Feel free to ignore the energy it took to heat and compress the biomass into crude for now.

look closely, comparing like with like
The diesel fueled car travels further on the same fossil fuel input as the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle.



so it follows that hydrogen's fossil impact is greater than diesel's

Why do people who like hydrogen avoid and distract from the topic of comparing hydrogen with its diesel and electric equivalent?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/droga5-toyota-ad-campaign.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"After the poop shoot, the methane and the full crew were transported to Boston, where they processed the methane at Nuvera’s facilities."

think about it, slowly?

Transporting a lil bit a gas from California to Boston?
whats the distraction that Toyota is pretending about?
what is the switch that really happens with Hydrogen production?

ydnas7 said:

look closely, comparing like with like

Click to expand...

Nope. These have different bounds. That's easy to tell even with no source cited for the data. Maybe you'd like to provide sources for your 'refinery losses' and other assumptions in your 2nd post?

ydnas7 said:

The diesel fueled car travels further on the same fossil fuel input as the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle.

so it follows that hydrogen's fossil impact is greater than diesel's

Click to expand...

This is incorrect. What you've done is the logical equivalent of quoting the capacity of my refrigerator (17.5 ft^3), the capacity of my smart's battery (17 kWh) then declaring unequivocally that the tree in my back yard is too tall.

ydnas7 said:

Why do people who like hydrogen avoid and distract from the topic of comparing hydrogen with its diesel and electric equivalent?

Click to expand...

I couldn't answer that. I've certainly not done that and I've not seen that happen on this forum since at least 2012.

ydnas7 said:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/droga5-toyota-ad-campaign.html
"After the poop shoot, the methane and the full crew were transported to Boston, where they processed the methane at Nuvera’s facilities."

Click to expand...

ydnas7 said:

think about it, slowly?

Click to expand...

I've told you many times over the years that this bit of condescending BS is akin to an act of aggression. If you continue to attack others like this, you should expect to have someone in your face expressing displeasure. I hope that's expressed clearly enough this time around.

ydnas7 said:

Transporting a lil bit a gas from California to Boston?
whats the distraction that Toyota is pretending about?
what is the switch that really happens with Hydrogen production?

Click to expand...

You seem to have a real problem with a f'n Toyota AD CAMPAIGN. Dude - for God's sake - that is NOT fact - that's ADVERTISING. Yes, that TOO has been covered in gory detail on this board.

No, ydnas, it doesn't matter how many times one repeats an untruth, omits vital facts, or uses condescension in an attempt to put the onus on the other party in the conversation, the fact remains that you do not appear to care that you are not calculating an apples to apples energy comparison. The impression I get from yet another iteration of this conversation (on-going since Oct 2013) is that you have no desire to have an apples to apples comparison or to work with facts. While I'll gladly take part in a discussion where the parties desire one, it's clear to me that you're only interested in promoting an ill-formed opinion. That doesn't work for me. Good luck with your Toyota bashing.

Here's a set of slides from Argonne National Lab from 2010 that tallies well to wheels efficiency for FCEV compared with gasoline/petrol and gasoline/hybrid vehicles.

http://www.iphe.net/docs/Events/China_9-10/2-2_H2 FCV Presentation-09-2010.pdf

Please note that the last slide posted here is a tally of petroleum use and green house gas emissions relative to a 25 MPG gasoline vehicle. The box drawn on the chart inside 0.7/0.7 is the bounds of a 'pure' BEV. Please note that on the left that a PHEV40 fuel cell vehicle filled from reformed fossil gas has a 'national average' GHG score slightly greater than a BEV but that all other options - from PHEV20/FC on fossil gas through a PHEV 40 FC on centralized hydrogen derived from biomass gasification emit far fewer GHG than the BEV baseline, and have extremely low fossil fuel use. Please note that only H2 sourced from gasified biomas uses more total energy on a well to wheels basis than a gasoline HEV and all options - even the absolute worst with H2 derived from coal - uses less total energy than a conventional gasoline fuel car. This seems to be in contrast to the fear that FCEV = fossil fuels.

I'm going to put my money on data from a national energy lab.








This and plenty of other peer-reviewed, reproducible, standardized information - from datasets through higher-level fused reports can be found in the main hydrogen thread.

AndyH said:

Here's a set of slides from Argonne National Lab from 2010 that tallies well to wheels efficiency for FCEV compared with gasoline/petrol and gasoline/hybrid vehicles.

http://www.iphe.net/docs/Events/China_9-10/2-2_H2 FCV Presentation-09-2010.pdf

...

This and plenty of other peer-reviewed, reproducible, standardized information - from datasets through higher-level fused reports can be found in the main hydrogen thread.

Click to expand...

That is an excellent example of the illusionism that affects the hydrogen community. Look at page 7


It does not reflect real, like vs like vehicles.
Just how would it look for Diesel, Electric and H2 drivetrains using the same car. Mercedes B class

B Class diesel 3.6 l/100km NEDC
B Class hydrogen 0.97 l/100km NEDC
B class Electric 16.6 kWh/100km NEDC

its not difficult provide a starting equivalency NEDC for same vehicle, different fuel.
It can expressed as kWh, MJ, Calories or even Big Macs per 100km.

ydnas7 said:

AndyH said:

Here's a set of slides from Argonne National Lab from 2010 that tallies well to wheels efficiency for FCEV compared with gasoline/petrol and gasoline/hybrid vehicles.

http://www.iphe.net/docs/Events/China_9-10/2-2_H2 FCV Presentation-09-2010.pdf

...

This and plenty of other peer-reviewed, reproducible, standardized information - from datasets through higher-level fused reports can be found in the main hydrogen thread.

Click to expand...

That is an excellent example of the illusionism that affects the hydrogen community. Look at page 7

It does not reflect real, like vs like vehicles.
Just how would it look for Diesel, Electric and H2 drivetrains using the same car. Mercedes B class

Click to expand...

You have GOT to be kidding me! This is from a multi-fuel model that is independent of any car and allows DIRECT COMPARISON OF THE VARIOUS FUELS.

You are the one performing the sleight of hand here. You don't define the problem, don't declare bounds, don't cite sources for your mystery numbers, then when a number appears out of the mist you declared that ...something... happened and that it's MUCH more important than all the peer reviewed science published ANYWHERE. :lol:

Seriously?! :shock:

AndyH said:

...
You have GOT to be kidding me! This is from a multi-fuel model that is independent of any car and allows DIRECT COMPARISON OF THE VARIOUS FUELS.

You are the one performing the sleight of hand here. You don't define the problem, don't declare bounds, don't cite sources for your mystery numbers, then when a number appears out of the mist you declared that ...something... happened and that it's MUCH more important than all the peer reviewed science published ANYWHERE. :lol:

Seriously?! :shock:

Click to expand...

The Mercedes B class even allows us to quantify the illusionism that Hydrogen peer review papers start with.
Remember, vehicle efficiency is a primary parameter it directly (or inversely) affects the energy consumed.


Of course NEDC is not representative of how much fuel real people use, and companies optimize their results with high altitude testing etc but NEDC results are repeatable and comparative, they are a basis for taxation and as such, fraud with NEDC results would constitute tax fraud by both the individual and the company. They are far more defensible than Hydrogen peer review papers that are used to justify future funding.

B class diesel uses about 10% for fossil fuel on a bowser to wheel basis (MPGGE) than its hydrogen equivalent, that is far less than the 57% given as the assumption for GV vs H2 FC or the 40% given for the assumption for G.HEV vs H2 FC.

The illusion starts with a 47% (57%-10%) or 30% (40%-10%) incorrect comparison.

think slowly, why don't they show the EV MPGGE?
why don't they show diesel MPGGE?

ydnas7 said:

B class diesel uses about 10% for fossil fuel on a bowser to wheel basis (MPGGE) than its hydrogen equivalent,...
why don't they show diesel MPGGE?

Click to expand...

because the WTP (well to bowser) energy consumption to reform fossil fuel into hydrogen is significantly greater than refining oil, to the extent that on a well to wheel basis, diesel vehicles is more efficient than hydrogen. as demonstrated by Mercedes B-class.

Fossil Energy Input from "Well"*195,400Btu / 116,000 Btu


116,000 x 1.68 = 195,400 ie a 68% reformation and distribution burden. Significantly greater than the 45% in my graph.

like per like, the Mercedes B class demonstrates that Hydrogen Fuel Cells use more fossil fuel per km than its Diesel equivalent.

link to 68% figure http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/46612.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; page 73,76 116,000 x 1.68 = 195,400

ydnas7 said:

AndyH said:

...
You have GOT to be kidding me! This is from a multi-fuel model that is independent of any car and allows DIRECT COMPARISON OF THE VARIOUS FUELS.

You are the one performing the sleight of hand here. You don't define the problem, don't declare bounds, don't cite sources for your mystery numbers, then when a number appears out of the mist you declared that ...something... happened and that it's MUCH more important than all the peer reviewed science published ANYWHERE. :lol:

Seriously?! :shock:

Click to expand...

The Mercedes B class even allows us to quantify the illusionism that Hydrogen peer review papers start with.
Remember, vehicle efficiency is a primary parameter it directly (or inversely) affects the energy consumed.

Click to expand...

Welllll...vehicle efficiency could be the primary parameter, but to be sure the mystery person making that determination would have to tell the rest of us the bounds and goals of the evaluation. Since you haven't done that, you can basically claim anything you want and tell everyone else they're wrong. Nice job if you can get it! :lol:

If you want to discuss ONLY one Benz model, and only look at pump to wheels fuel efficiency, then STATE THAT. But - do not EVEN try to make us believe that every gas, diesel, FCEV, and BEV on the road or coming soon will perform exactly like a B-Class Benz - that's an absolutely insane suggestion - especially when we have literally and figuratively TONS/TONNES of real data that shows that's wrong right out of the gate.

No. This gets a +2 for word count and a -10 from the Russian judge for completely missing the high jump bar.

PS: In your 'well to wheels' attempts you're still working with all the energy required to make a kilo of H2 but are not including all the energy required to make a gallon of diesel. And the paper you're pulling from was published in 2009 with data from 2008 and earlier. Things have changed significantly since then - that, too, is fully documented in the real H2 thread. And...your numbers don't work for either CA or Europe as CA has a 1/3 minimum renewable content and the EU is building their H2 network for 90%+ renewable content. That 2009 paper used grid electricity and coal and conventional fossil natural gas. Massive fail right there...