Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
Where did I promote this? I've said on many occasions that a transition to H2 only makes sense if the goal is to make it 100% renewable at some point in the not-too-distant future. That it won't be initially is obvious, just as most electricity isn't 100% renewable yet, but that is the goal for both. Otherwise it's not worth the attempt.
The belief that a so-called "hydrogen economy" will eventually become a zero-emission economy is the highest form of naivete. You have to believe a lot of false things to come to that conclusion, not least of which is that the oil companies who are investing so heavily in converting their operations over to sell hydrogen instead of gasoline and diesel will simply pull out some day. The reality is that they intend to capture and hold the lions share of that market.

The *only* way to prevent that eventuality is to keep H2 where it is today: an also-ran.
And we know we differ on whether it's worth trying, given the uncertainty of success of all current approaches. As to energy companies being involved, sure they are, just as they are or have been involved with both batteries (first commercial Li battery was developed and sold by Exxon) and PV modules (I've seen and/or sold modules made by Shell, Arco and BP). I don't care who does it, only that it gets done, and the energy companies have the means to do things on a large scale. They'd happily develop and sell sand if they could make big profits from it.
 
GRA said:
I don't care who does it, only that it gets done, and the energy companies have the means to do things on a large scale.
Yeah, let's just keep putting huge ships full of toxic hydrocarbons on our oceans. In fact, let's do more of it than ever before!

Who cares?
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
I don't care who does it, only that it gets done, and the energy companies have the means to do things on a large scale.
Yeah, let's just keep putting huge ships full of toxic hydrocarbons on our oceans. In fact, let's do more of it than ever before!

Who cares?
I thought you did, Reg, and I certainly do. But given the choice between continuing to ship and use petroleum all over the world until it runs out, or shipping non-renewable H2 to initiate a possible transition to renewable H2 if BEVs and batteries don't make it, I'll choose the one that gives us more options.
 
GRA said:
I thought you did, Reg, and I certainly do.
You could have fooled us. In this case, you continued to pump this development after I pointed out how bad it really is multiple times and even then the most we get out of you is "I certainly do" followed by more promotion of this terrible idea.
GRA said:
But given the choice between continuing to ship and use petroleum all over the world until it runs out, or shipping non-renewable H2 to initiate a possible transition to renewable H2 if BEVs and batteries don't make it, I'll choose the one that gives us more options.
You should try to grasp the reality of Jevon's Paradox. This new, highly-polluting development does not reduce the amount of petroleum being used: It only adds to it.

If you want to drive fossil fuels out of the marketplace, the way to do it is NOT to purchase MORE from them. That's moving in exactly the opposite direction.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
I thought you did, Reg, and I certainly do.
You could have fooled us. In this case, you continued to pump this development after I pointed out how bad it really is multiple times and even then the most we get out of you is "I certainly do" followed by more promotion of this terrible idea.
GRA said:
But given the choice between continuing to ship and use petroleum all over the world until it runs out, or shipping non-renewable H2 to initiate a possible transition to renewable H2 if BEVs and batteries don't make it, I'll choose the one that gives us more options.
You should try to grasp the reality of Jevon's Paradox. This new, highly-polluting development does not reduce the amount of petroleum being used: It only adds to it.

If you want to drive fossil fuels out of the marketplace, the way to do it is NOT to purchase MORE from them. That's moving in exactly the opposite direction.
Reg, I didn't 'pump' this development, I reported it, and when asked said that I would prefer that it were being done differently. Japan is establishing the infrastructure to support an H2 economy, if that can be developed.

Japan, will be importing fossil-fuel energy for a very long time to come, and personally I prefer this to coal imports from Australia, which is where a lot of their future energy is coming from, e.g.:
Australia Sees Miners Winning Highest Japan Coal Deal Since 2012
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...rs-winning-highest-japan-coal-deal-since-2012

Japan is also considering sourcing H2 from Australian coal, and given the choice between that and H2 from NG, I much prefer the NG:
Australia's AGL to host coal-to-liquid hydrogen export trial for Japan's Kawasaki Heavy
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...trial-for-japans-kawasaki-heavy-idUSKBN1HJ0ET

By themselves these are emissions-shifting mechanisms with little if any overall benefit to total emissions, much like the efforts we discussed below in the 'AFV Truck/Commercial vehicle and Non-BEV Bus' thread. But as Brunei's main industry is petroleum and NG, I doubt this represents a significant increase in pollution for them. It's a question of choosing the least worst, which also has to be acceptable to the public. Here's another example:

GRA said:
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
Via GCC:
Flint MTA testing Proterra hydrogen fuel cell bus prototype for one year
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/10 ... ntmta.html
Another natural-gas-fueled vehicle hits the road, but at significantly higher cost and damage to the environment. From the press release:
Flint MTA wrote:

The hydrogen fuel used is produced through steam reforming natural gas.

Interestingly, I do not see any mention of this effort from Proterra. They only mention BEV buses on their website AFAICT. All of their BEV buses offer a top speed of 65 MPH and two of the 40-foot versions offer a longer range than this fuel-cell vehicle. Also, one 35-foot as well as one 40-foot bus offer 251 miles of range.
It's an interesting question whether this bus, using NG reformed via SMR, or the BEV buses in Louisville, using 87% coal-generated electricity, are dirtier. Neither makes much sense IMO - an HEV bus would seem to be cleaner. Still, this is primarily a cold-weather test of a single FCEV bus so it's no big deal that they're using H2 from SMR, unlike the Louisville fleet which will be running off coal-fired electricity for over a decade and probably a lot longer than that, as long as Senator "Coal is good for you. Here, eat some!" McConnell is representing them. It would be most useful if Flint ran an FCEV and a BEV bus side by side.
https://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=22441&p=474204&hilit=louisville#p474155

The main advantage of starting these projects, as with the BEV buses in Louisville and the FCEV buses, is that once they've built the infrastructure and gotten used to the tech, they can always clean up the source of the energy. Whether you or I consider it the best way to go is irrelevant. And that's really all I have to say on the matter.
 
Via GCC:
Toyota and partners launch low-carbon hydrogen supply-chain project in Japan
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/04/20180426-toyotah2.html

In Japan, Aichi Prefecture, Chita City, Toyota City, Chubu Electric Power, Toho Gas, Toyota Motor Corporation, and Toyota Industries have launched the Chita City and Toyota City Renewable Energy-use Low-carbon Hydrogen Project.

The project is a first step toward realizing the 2030 vision of a low-carbon hydrogen supply chain formulated by the Aichi Low-carbon Hydrogen Supply Chain Promotion Association, a body which includes the Aichi prefectural government, companies operating within the prefecture, municipal authorities, and experts. The goal of all entities is the realization of a hydrogen-based society spanning the entire region through mutual coordination and all-inclusive efforts. . . .

Main points. Building on Japan’s Strategic Roadmap for Hydrogen and Fuel Cells as well as the Basic Hydrogen Strategy, the 2030 Vision aims to achieve a hydrogen-based society ahead of the rest of country, leveraging the prefecture’s experience and expertise in monozukuri (all-encompassing approach to manufacturing).

The three pillars of the 2030 Vision are:

  • Sustained development of a regional low-carbon hydrogen supply chain;

    Carbon reduction in the various fields of electricity, transport, heating and industrial processes; and

    Elimination of dependence on fossil fuels through the expansion of hydrogen distribution volumes over a wider area.

The project. The project is designed to construct a subsistent low-carbon hydrogen supply chain to produce, supply, and use hydrogen generated from renewable resources within the prefecture, as the first step toward achieving the 2030 Vision.

In this project, Toho Gas is expected to produce city gas using biogas generated from sewage sludge at the Chita City Southern Sewage Treatment Center, which is then transported to Toyota’s Motomachi Plant through existing city gas pipelines. The city gas derived from biogas is passed through gas reformers at the Motomachi Plant, whereby low-carbon hydrogen, which is used to power the Toyota Industries fuel cell forklifts (FC forklifts) in the plant, is produced, compressed, and stored.

Additionally, by supplying Toyota with renewable energy from Chubu Electric Power generated at the Toyota City Togari Clean Center through heat from waste incineration (biomass incineration heat), CO2 emissions from city gas that would be used when there is a biogas shortage can be offset. . . .

The project is designed to transport renewable energy—such as biogas used for hydrogen production—through the existing energy infrastructure of city gas pipes and the electrical grid to produce and supply hydrogen near where it is used. This will allow costs to be reduced by eliminating the amount of capital investment necessary for the facilities required to compress and transport hydrogen, as well as their maintenance expenses, and to achieve early commercialization through the use of existing energy infrastructure.

In the future, in addition to discovering and using biogas and developing new renewable resources, such as biomass power generation and wind power generation, the partners intend to expand the deployment of fuel cell forklifts and the use of hydrogen through the early introduction of industrial-use fuel cells and small-scale hydrogen generation inside plants.
 
Via GCC:
UQM Technologies announces new China and Europe growth of fuel cell compressor business
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/05/20180509-uqm.html

UQM Technologies announced recent orders from five new customers in China and two new customers in Europe for UQM fuel cell compressor systems for fuel cell development programs. . . .

China is at the beginning of developing fuel cell vehicles and fueling infrastructure, and by 2020 plans to have 10,000 fuel cell vehicles on the road with the infrastructure to support the growth. . . .

I occasionally post articles about lab R&D, just to show where effort is being made. As always with lab R&D results there's no guarantee that the tech/process will ever be commercialized, and even if it is it will be some years before that happens. So, with that in mind, here's three articles via GCC on ways to increase efficiency/reduce costs of renewable H2 production:

Artificial enzymatic pathway delivers 1,000-fold enhancement in H2 produced by biological water splitting; more than 1g H2/L/h
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/05/20180509-zhang.html

Researchers from Virginia Tech developed an in vitro artificial enzymatic pathway that can produce hydrogen at extremely high rates by splitting water energized by carbohydrates (e.g., starch). As reported in a paper in the RSC journal Energy & Environmental Science, the pathway delivered up to a 1,000-fold enhancement in volumetric productivity of hydrogen, achieving a milestone of more than one gram of hydrogen per liter per hour. . . .

New protocol to enhance photosynthetic production of hydrogen from green algae
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/05/20180509-turku.html

A research group from the University of Turku, Finland, has developed a new protocol to deliver sustained hydrogen photoproduction in green algae under a train of strong white light pulses interrupted by longer dark phases. As reported in a paper in the RSC journal Energy & Environmental Science, under the new protocol, hydrogen photoproduction proceeds for up to 3 days with the maximum rate occurring in the first 6 hours. . . .

Exeter team develops low-cost photoelectrode for spontaneous water-splitting using sunlight
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/05/20180509-exeter.html

Researchers at the University of Exeter (UK) have developed a novel p-type LaFeO3 photoelectrode using an inexpensive and scalable spray pyrolysis method. The nanostructured photoelectrode results in spontaneous hydrogen evolution from water without any external bias applied with a faradaic efficiency of 30% and excellent stability.

The researchers believe this new type of photoelectrode is not only cheap to produce, but can also be recreated on a larger scale for mass and worldwide use. An open-access paper on the work is published in Scientific Reports. . . .
 
Just found this, although it dates from Feb. 11th:
PRELIMINARY REPORT
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
High-Pressure Hydrogen Gas Cylinder
Fire During Transportation
Diamond Bar, California
February 11, 2018
HMD18FR001
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HMD18FR001-preliminary.pdf

. . . Preliminary findings from the investigation include the following:

  • • The 25 aluminum-lined carbon composite gas cylinders were each 120 inches in length,
    17.8 inches in diameter, and had a nominal water capacity of 18,716 cubic inches
    (312.9 liters).

    • The cylinder module was shipped with all but one cylinder full. Each cylinder contained
    about 10.0 kg of hydrogen at a pressure of approximately 7,500 PSI gauge (psig).

    • Cylinder damage was limited to fire exposure. Twenty of the cylinders exhibited varying
    degrees of fire exposure, but none of them were breached
    (see Figure 2).

    Pressure relief devices activated on 12 of the cylinders.

    • The cylinder manufacturer specifications call for type CG-5 pressure relief devices set at
    10,000 psig.1 However, NTSB investigators and investigation party members found
    pressure relief devices set at an incorrect pressure rating of 5,833 psig installed in three
    of the cylinders. Two of these under-rated pressure relief devices had activated. The
    source of the incorrect pressure relief devices is under investigation.

    • The trailer included tubing attached to each pressure relief device outlet to safely vent
    relieved gases upward to the outside top of the cylinder module. Seven of the vent tubes
    became detached from the pressure relief device assemblies and vented gas to the interior
    of the trailer, which fueled the fire. The separated tubing had not been tightly secured by
    the compression fittings.

    • The incorrectly rated pressure relief devices and unsecured vent tubing were not identified
    during the cylinder requalification inspections at FIBA Technologies Inc.

    • Responding to initial findings, Air Products inspected its remaining fleet of 13 hydrogen
    cylinder modules. One trailer undergoing qualification inspection was found to have a
    cylinder with an underrated pressure relief device. Improperly secured vent tubing was
    found in about half of all the lines inspected.

    • Air Products and FIBA have revised the requalification inspection procedures to address
    fittings securement and pressure relief device compatibility.
 
GRA said:
Just found this, although it dates from Feb. 11th:
PRELIMINARY REPORT
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
High-Pressure Hydrogen Gas Cylinder
Fire During Transportation
Diamond Bar, California
February 11, 2018
HMD18FR001
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HMD18FR001-preliminary.pdf

. . . Preliminary findings from the investigation include the following:

  • • The 25 aluminum-lined carbon composite gas cylinders were each 120 inches in length,
    17.8 inches in diameter, and had a nominal water capacity of 18,716 cubic inches
    (312.9 liters).

    • The cylinder module was shipped with all but one cylinder full. Each cylinder contained
    about 10.0 kg of hydrogen at a pressure of approximately 7,500 PSI gauge (psig).

    • Cylinder damage was limited to fire exposure.Twenty of the cylinders exhibited varying
    degrees of fire exposure, but none of them were breached[/b] (see Figure 2).

    • Pressure relief devices activated on 12 of the cylinders.

    • The cylinder manufacturer specifications call for type CG-5 pressure relief devices set at
    10,000 psig.1 However, NTSB investigators and investigation party members found
    pressure relief devices set at an incorrect pressure rating of 5,833 psig installed in three
    of the cylinders. Two of these under-rated pressure relief devices had activated.
    The
    source of the incorrect pressure relief devices is under investigation.

    The trailer included tubing attached to each pressure relief device outlet to safely vent
    relieved gases upward to the outside top of the cylinder module. Seven of the vent tubes
    became detached from the pressure relief device assemblies and vented gas to the interior
    of the trailer, which fueled the fire. The separated tubing had not been tightly secured by
    the compression fittings.

    • The incorrectly rated pressure relief devices and unsecured vent tubing were not identified
    during the cylinder requalification inspections at FIBA Technologies Inc.


    • Responding to initial findings, Air Products inspected its remaining fleet of 13 hydrogen
    cylinder modules. One trailer undergoing qualification inspection was found to have a
    cylinder with an underrated pressure relief device. Improperly secured vent tubing was
    found in about half of all the lines inspected.

    • Air Products and FIBA have revised the requalification inspection procedures to address
    fittings securement and pressure relief device compatibility.

Interesting how the same piece can read very different simply by changing the bolder text.
 
Zythryn said:
GRA said:
Just found this, although it dates from Feb. 11th:
PRELIMINARY REPORT
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
High-Pressure Hydrogen Gas Cylinder
Fire During Transportation
Diamond Bar, California
February 11, 2018
HMD18FR001
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HMD18FR001-preliminary.pdf

. . . Preliminary findings from the investigation include the following:

  • • The 25 aluminum-lined carbon composite gas cylinders were each 120 inches in length,
    17.8 inches in diameter, and had a nominal water capacity of 18,716 cubic inches
    (312.9 liters).

    • The cylinder module was shipped with all but one cylinder full. Each cylinder contained
    about 10.0 kg of hydrogen at a pressure of approximately 7,500 PSI gauge (psig).

    • Cylinder damage was limited to fire exposure.Twenty of the cylinders exhibited varying
    degrees of fire exposure, but none of them were breached[/b] (see Figure 2).

    • Pressure relief devices activated on 12 of the cylinders.

    • The cylinder manufacturer specifications call for type CG-5 pressure relief devices set at
    10,000 psig.1 However, NTSB investigators and investigation party members found
    pressure relief devices set at an incorrect pressure rating of 5,833 psig installed in three
    of the cylinders. Two of these under-rated pressure relief devices had activated. The
    source of the incorrect pressure relief devices is under investigation.

    • The trailer included tubing attached to each pressure relief device outlet to safely vent
    relieved gases upward to the outside top of the cylinder module. Seven of the vent tubes
    became detached from the pressure relief device assemblies and vented gas to the interior
    of the trailer, which fueled the fire. The separated tubing had not been tightly secured by
    the compression fittings.

    • The incorrectly rated pressure relief devices and unsecured vent tubing were not identified
    during the cylinder requalification inspections at FIBA Technologies Inc.

    • Responding to initial findings, Air Products inspected its remaining fleet of 13 hydrogen
    cylinder modules. One trailer undergoing qualification inspection was found to have a
    cylinder with an underrated pressure relief device. Improperly secured vent tubing was
    found in about half of all the lines inspected.

    Air Products and FIBA have revised the requalification inspection procedures to address
    fittings securement and pressure relief device compatibility
    .
Interesting how the same piece can read very different simply by changing the bolder text.
Indeed. And your point being?
 
GRA said:
...
Indeed. And your point being?

An observation and question.
Why did you bother holding any of it.
Why not draw equal attention to the entire quoted text?

Hopefully they did make appropriate changes since their certifications previously missed so much.
 
Zythryn said:
GRA said:
...
Indeed. And your point being?

An observation and question.
Why did you bother holding any of it.
Why not draw equal attention to the entire quoted text?

Hopefully they did make appropriate changes since their certifications previously missed so much.
I bolded what I considered to be most relevant as far as design safety rather than human errors, which will always be with us. Safety regs are always written or modified on the basis on experience. The need for possible redesign of the relief valves so the wrong ones can't be used, and/or the inspection procedures to reduce the chances of that, will undoubtedly be addressed by the NTSB in the final report, just as recommendations were made in the earlier H2 tanker accident report about modifying the valves and protective caging on the tanks. We're talking about hazmat here; what does sometimes cheese me off here is the idea that has more than once been peddled in this thread that H2 is uniquely hazardous, or at least much more dangerous than other hazmat that we routinely haul around, store and use.

For instance, if you read the summary (or the entire report) of that earlier H2 tanker accident, it involved a collision between the tanker and an erratically driven pickup truck. The tanker rear-ended the pickup, which then departed the road and crashed. The tanker rolled over, and the drive died due to injuries sustained in the crash. Several of the tank valves at the rear of the trailer were damaged, and an H2 fire started. The fire never got to the cab, as the H2 went straight up. Is this uniquely dangerous? Let's look at what was happening elsewhere.

The driver of the pickup was seriously injured. Both drivers were eventually removed from their vehicles. However, In exiting the road, the pickup ruptured a fuel line and a gasoline fire, fed by its own fuel tank and completely separate from the H2 fire, started and destroyed it. NTSB wasn't interested in that fire, because car gasoline fires are routine and the risks and actions to be taken well known, yet both H2 and gas are flammable hazmat.
 
GRA said:
...
I bolded what I considered to be most relevant as far as design safety rather than human errors, which will always be with us. Safety regs are always written or modified on the basis on experience. The need for possible redesign of the relief valves so the wrong ones can't be used, and/or the inspection procedures to reduce the chances of that, will undoubtedly be addressed by the NTSB in the final report, just as recommendations were made in the earlier H2 tanker accident report about modifying the valves and protective caging on the tanks. We're talking about hazmat here; what does sometimes cheese me off here is the idea that has more than once been peddled in this thread that H2 is uniquely hazardous, or at least much more dangerous than other hazmat that we routinely haul around, store and use.

For instance, if you read the summary (or the entire report) of that earlier H2 tanker accident, it involved a collision between the tanker and an erratically driven pickup truck. The tanker rear-ended the pickup, which then departed the road and crashed. The tanker rolled over, and the drive died due to injuries sustained in the crash. Several of the tank valves at the rear of the trailer were damaged, and an H2 fire started. The fire never got to the cab, as the H2 went straight up. Is this uniquely dangerous? Let's look at what was happening elsewhere.

The driver of the pickup was seriously injured. Both drivers were eventually removed from their vehicles. However, In exiting the road, the pickup ruptured a fuel line and a gasoline fire, fed by its own fuel tank and completely separate from the H2 fire, started and destroyed it. NTSB wasn't interested in that fire, because car gasoline fires are routine and the risks and actions to be taken well known, yet both H2 and gas are flammable hazmat.

The bolded is incorrect. The H2 did not go straight up, it went into the vehicle and intensified the fire.
The trailer included tubing attached to each pressure relief device outlet to safely vent
relieved gases upward to the outside top of the cylinder module. Seven of the vent tubes
became detached from the pressure relief device assemblies and vented gas to the interior
of the trailer, which fueled the fire.
The separated tubing had not been tightly secured by
the compression fittings.

Sure, perhaps not the cab, but none the less, it wasn’t vented “straight up”.

And yes, human error can certainly result in disaster in both vehicles. However, there are more places with H2 where human error can cause disaster. As evidenced in this accident.
 
Zythryn said:
GRA said:
...
I bolded what I considered to be most relevant as far as design safety rather than human errors, which will always be with us. Safety regs are always written or modified on the basis on experience. The need for possible redesign of the relief valves so the wrong ones can't be used, and/or the inspection procedures to reduce the chances of that, will undoubtedly be addressed by the NTSB in the final report, just as recommendations were made in the earlier H2 tanker accident report about modifying the valves and protective caging on the tanks. We're talking about hazmat here; what does sometimes cheese me off here is the idea that has more than once been peddled in this thread that H2 is uniquely hazardous, or at least much more dangerous than other hazmat that we routinely haul around, store and use.

For instance, if you read the summary (or the entire report) of that earlier H2 tanker accident, it involved a collision between the tanker and an erratically driven pickup truck. The tanker rear-ended the pickup, which then departed the road and crashed. The tanker rolled over, and the drive died due to injuries sustained in the crash. Several of the tank valves at the rear of the trailer were damaged, and an H2 fire started. The fire never got to the cab, as the H2 went straight up. Is this uniquely dangerous? Let's look at what was happening elsewhere.

The driver of the pickup was seriously injured. Both drivers were eventually removed from their vehicles. However, In exiting the road, the pickup ruptured a fuel line and a gasoline fire, fed by its own fuel tank and completely separate from the H2 fire, started and destroyed it. NTSB wasn't interested in that fire, because car gasoline fires are routine and the risks and actions to be taken well known, yet both H2 and gas are flammable hazmat.

The bolded is incorrect. The H2 did not go straight up, it went into the vehicle and intensified the fire.
The trailer included tubing attached to each pressure relief device outlet to safely vent
relieved gases upward to the outside top of the cylinder module. Seven of the vent tubes
became detached from the pressure relief device assemblies and vented gas to the interior
of the trailer, which fueled the fire.
The separated tubing had not been tightly secured by
the compression fittings.

Sure, perhaps not the cab, but none the less, it wasn’t vented “straight up”.

And yes, human error can certainly result in disaster in both vehicles. However, there are more places with H2 where human error can cause disaster. As evidenced in this accident.
Immediately upon exiting the end of the tubes, the H2 went straight up. That it fed the existing fire is true, but it didn't spread horizontally (note, the trailers are open to the air, so no containment beyond the tanks and tubes applied). Whereas gasoline might have leaked and pooled under the trailer, or run downhill first before igniting, spreading the fire over a wider area.

How do you figure there are more places with H2 where human error can cause disaster? There've certainly been no shortage of gasoline fires through human error or stupidity - you'd think there wouldn't need to be signs at gas pumps saying "No Smoking", but there are, not to mention break-away connections on filling hoses and numerous other measures and regulations all based on past experience of human error/stupidity. Even so, no one in their right mind would consider gasoline inherently safe. Diesel's a lot safer than gas, but it can cause a conflagration too given the right conditions. The main difference between the risks of these and the risks of something like H2 is a century of familiarity.
 
My biggest concern is the storage and delivery while under such high pressures.
This is the area where human error can cause issue where the same errors would not be so hazardous with gasoline.
 
Zythryn said:
My biggest concern is the storage and delivery while under such high pressures.
This is the area where human error can cause issue where the same errors would not be so hazardous with gasoline.
That is certainly a higher risk factor, but it may well be more than balanced out by the lower risk factors due to being lighter than air, an inability to pool and rapid dispersal. Only large scale use will show whether overall it is or not. Of course, it would be safer to use much lower pressure transit and storage via adsorption or nano-tubes, and much research is being undertaken in both areas. There have seen some indications recently that at least one company is close to commercialization of the latter.
 
Via GCC:
German power-to-gas facility opens green methanation plant; €28M STORE&GO project
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/05/20180513-falkenhagen.html

Construction on the methanation plant began in July 2017. While the current facility feeds pure hydrogen (“WindGas”) directly into the gas grid, the new methanation plant provides for the generation of “green” methane.

In this second stage, hydrogen from regenerative energy sources is converted into methane (CH4), i.e. synthetic natural gas, using CO2 from a bio-ethanol plant. This constitutes an important contribution to the success of the energy transition, because green methane, in contrast to green hydrogen, can be used in a wider variety of ways.

It can be made available to a variety of markets, such as the manufacturing sector, the electricity, and heating market as well as the mobility sector. Moreover, it provides for unrestricted use of the natural gas infrastructure, including for transport and storage. This stored energy is then available as backup whenever there is an insufficient supply of solar and wind power. . . .

The wind-to-gas pilot plant “WindGas Falkenhagen” was constructed in 2013 to store wind energy in the natural gas grid. The cornerstone for the methanation plant was laid in July 2017, and additional essential components were put in place directly alongside the existing facility. All work was completed on schedule.

The methanation plant produces up to 57 m3/h of SNG (synthetic natural gas, at normal pressure and temperature), which equates to an output of 600 kWh/h. The heat generated by the process is used by a nearby veneer plant. . . .

STORE&GO focuses on the integration of PtG into the daily operation of European energy grids to investigate the maturity level of the technology. Three different demonstration sites—Falkenhagen, Troia (Italy), and Solothurn (Switzerland) offer highly diverse testing grounds for PtG:

  • Available energy sources (high wind power; PV and hydro; PV and wind power)

    Local consumers (low consumption; municipal region; rural area)

    Electricity grid type (transmission grid; municipal distribution grid; regional distribution grid)

    Gas grid type (long distance transport; municipal distribution grid; regional distribution grid)

    Type of CO2 source (biogas; waste water; atmosphere)

    Heat integration (veneer mill; district heating; CO2 enrichment)

Moreover, three different innovative methanation processes will be developed and improved from Technology Readiness Level 5 (TRL) close to maturity (TRL 6–7):

  • Catalytic honeycomb/structured wall methanation reactors

    Biological methanation

    Modular milli-structured catalytic methanation reactors
 
GRA said:
Via GCC:
German power-to-gas facility opens green methanation plant; €28M STORE&GO project
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/05/20180513-falkenhagen.html

Construction on the methanation plant began in July 2017. While the current facility feeds pure hydrogen (“WindGas”) directly into the gas grid, the new methanation plant provides for the generation of “green” methane.

In this second stage, hydrogen from regenerative energy sources is converted into methane (CH4), i.e. synthetic natural gas...
And the reason you posted this on the Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread, is to assure us that we now have a pathway to transform fuel cell hydrogen supplies-nearly all of which are derived from methane in an expensive and inefficient process-back into methane in another expensive and inefficient conversion?
 
edatoakrun said:
GRA said:
Via GCC:
German power-to-gas facility opens green methanation plant; €28M STORE&GO project
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/05/20180513-falkenhagen.html

Construction on the methanation plant began in July 2017. While the current facility feeds pure hydrogen (“WindGas”) directly into the gas grid, the new methanation plant provides for the generation of “green” methane.

In this second stage, hydrogen from regenerative energy sources is converted into methane (CH4), i.e. synthetic natural gas...
And the reason you posted this on the Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread, is to assure us that we now have a pathway to transform fuel cell hydrogen supplies-nearly all of which are derived from methane in an expensive and inefficient process-back into methane in another expensive and inefficient conversion?
Because it involves renewable H2 and power to gas, of course, which can be used in a variety of ways. If you don't find it germane, feel free to ignore it.
 
Back
Top