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.
GetOffYourGas said:
GRA said:
Ed wrote:
And this vision was so attractive, people just didn't want to notice that that obstacle was almost certainly impossible to overcome.
How does "didn't want to notice" mean anything other than deliberately ignoring? "Didn't want to" is a choice - example: When people just don't want to notice the homeless, they pretend not to see them and ignore their presence, but of course they do see them and know they're there, they just don't acknowledge their existence.
Guy, it's not that people are ignoring the obstacle. It's that they are ignoring the fact that said obstacle is almost certainly impossible to overcome
That is an opinion (held by some); government and industry have spent several billions trying to determine if that's correct. As I said, the division is between those who believe it's worth finding out if it's true or not (knowing there's a good chance we'll be throwing money away), and those who believe the above and don't think it's worth the time and money to be certain. Much cost reduction in the three critical areas has occurred thanks to that investment of time/money over the past three decades or so, but not enough yet to make H2/FCEVs commercially viable except in certain niche applications (such as 24/7-usage MHE in warehouses).
 
GetOffYourGas said:
Guy, it's not that people are ignoring the obstacle. It's that they are ignoring the fact that said obstacle is almost certainly impossible to overcome
Precisely. GRA repeatedly misrepresented what Ed said even after it was spelled out for him. Even now there has been no apology, no correction, nothing. Just more rhetoric. IMO, that is an extremely disingenuous way to interact with others and I will continue to point it out.

I have developed this argument that H2 FCV vehicle efficiency CANNOT approach that of BEVs in quite some detail in this thread. And, no, it is not about reducing "costs".
 
Toyota is peddling a vehicle which does not offer a single benefit over traditional cars on the road today, but feels it is necessary to increase production to 30,000 vehicles per year. I guess with more politicians like Colorado's governor overstepping their authority offering up taxpayer's money for these worse-at-everything vehicles, it seems Toyota is fine to waste more resources and do more environmental damage in order to collect that gravy train.
 
RegGuheert said:
GetOffYourGas said:
Guy, it's not that people are ignoring the obstacle. It's that they are ignoring the fact that said obstacle is almost certainly impossible to overcome
Precisely. GRA repeatedly misrepresented what Ed said even after it was spelled out for him. Even now there has been no apology, no correction, nothing. Just more rhetoric. IMO, that is an extremely disingenuous way to interact with others and I will continue to point it out.
On the contrary, I've corrected your inacccurate statements, and have also pointed out Ed's inaccurate claim, so what exactly am I supposed to apologize for?

RegGuheert said:
I have developed this argument that H2 FCV vehicle efficiency CANNOT approach that of BEVs in quite some detail in this thread. And, no, it is not about reducing "costs".
And as I've pointed out repeatedly, efficiency is rarely the sole or most important metric. If it were, fossil-fueled ICEs wouldn't have defeated BEVs a century ago, and you would be commuting on a 30 lb. bicycle instead of a several thousand pound car. Costs and operational capabilities have outweighed efficiency for powered vehicles for the past 100+ years, and it's entirely possible that they will continue to do so. We'll see. The day that the most energy-efficient transportation technology is also the best in many other important ways is a day we can all hope we'll live to see, but as long as there are important conflicting requirements, that day is likely a long way away.
 
RegGuheert said:
Toyota is peddling a vehicle which does not offer a single benefit over traditional cars on the road today, but feels it is necessary to increase production to 30,000 vehicles per year. I guess with more politicians like Colorado's governor overstepping their authority offering up taxpayer's money for these worse-at-everything vehicles, it seems Toyota is fine to waste more resources and do more environmental damage in order to collect that gravy train.
That is an incorrect statement. Being a ZEV is a definite benefit, just as it is for a BEV. As for the rest of its design, I agree the car is pedestrian.
 
GRA said:
That is an incorrect statement. Being a ZEV is a definite benefit, just as it is for a BEV. As for the rest of its design, I agree the car is pedestrian.
Nonsense. Focusing only on tailpipe emissions is a fools game: There is more damage done to the environment in the creation of an H2 FCV and its refueling infrastructure than is done by an ICE during its entire operational life. In other words, not only is MORE damage done, it is all done UP FRONT.

We need to stop making these beasts and thereby stop accelerating the damage to the environment.
 
GRA said:
the contrary, I've corrected your inacccurate statements, and have also pointed out Ed's inaccurate claim, so what exactly am I supposed to apologize for?
You haven't *corrected* anything. You've supported the most damaging vehicle technology on the planet. Ed's claim is accurate, whether you believe it or not.
GRA said:
And as I've pointed out repeatedly, efficiency is rarely the sole or most important metric. If it were, fossil-fueled ICEs wouldn't have defeated BEVs a century ago, and you would be commuting on a 30 lb. bicycle instead of a several thousand pound car. Costs and operational capabilities have outweighed efficiency for powered vehicles for the past 100+ years, and it's entirely possible that they will continue to do so. We'll see. The day that the most energy-efficient transportation technology is also the best in many other important ways is a day we can all hope we'll live to see, but as long as there are important conflicting requirements, that day is likely a long way away.
A bicycle does not have the same utility as a car, so you are again committing a non sequitur fallacy.

Low efficiency solutions can ONLY win if there is extra energy sloshing around in the system. But there is NOT extra electricity sloshing around to waste on making H2 gas. We need to conserve every single Wh of it in order to move toward the future. The promotion of H2 as a fuel just ensures that we will continue to be tied to fossil fuels, fossil fuel companies and their fuel pumps for the foreseeable future.

No, there is no virtue to be found in H2 FCVs. We need to stop this ill-conceived effort in its tracks. I have no desire to ever live in the dystopian world which you would choose.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
That is an incorrect statement. Being a ZEV is a definite benefit, just as it is for a BEV. As for the rest of its design, I agree the car is pedestrian.
Nonsense. Focusing only on tailpipe emissions is a fools game: There is more damage done to the environment in the creation of an H2 FCV and its refueling infrastructure than is done by an ICE during its entire operational life. In other words, not only is MORE damage done, it is all done UP FRONT.

We need to stop making these beasts and thereby stop accelerating the damage to the environment.
Who's focusing only on tailpipes? I was commenting on your claim that there is no benefit to an FCEV, which clearly isn't the case. The rest, as is always the case when we have this argument, represents our differing opinions as to whether or not sustainable H2/FCEVs are likely to be commercially viable, and whether or not we should spend the time and money to find out, and we know we disagree on that point.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
the contrary, I've corrected your inacccurate statements, and have also pointed out Ed's inaccurate claim, so what exactly am I supposed to apologize for?
You haven't *corrected* anything. You've supported the most damaging vehicle technology on the planet. Ed's claim is accurate, whether you believe it or not.
Ed stated an opinion, and your opinion that he is correct is just that. The expensive and time-consuming efforts taken by government and industry to determine whether or not sustainable H2/FCEVs can be made commercially viable will determine whether or not that is impossible, as opposed to expensive and difficult, just as they've done with BEVs.

RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
And as I've pointed out repeatedly, efficiency is rarely the sole or most important metric. If it were, fossil-fueled ICEs wouldn't have defeated BEVs a century ago, and you would be commuting on a 30 lb. bicycle instead of a several thousand pound car. Costs and operational capabilities have outweighed efficiency for powered vehicles for the past 100+ years, and it's entirely possible that they will continue to do so. We'll see. The day that the most energy-efficient transportation technology is also the best in many other important ways is a day we can all hope we'll live to see, but as long as there are important conflicting requirements, that day is likely a long way away.
A bicycle does not have the same utility as a car, so you are again committing a non sequitur fallacy.
On the contrary, you prove my point. You agree that energy efficiency isn't the sole and usually not even the primary consideration when choosing a transportation mode, in fact it's often well down the list of priorities. Don't want a bicycle because it's slow? Ride an electric bike, scooter, or motorcycle. Oh, but you can only carry one other person, you're not weather protected or climate controlled, you're less stable than a 3 or four wheeled vehicle so more prone to accidents, you're not surrounded by a few thousand pounds of material that serves to protect you from those accidents, if you want to carry any substantial amount of cargo you need to haul a trailer etc. Where does energy efficiency fall in this list?

RegGuheert said:
Low efficiency solutions can ONLY win if there is extra energy sloshing around in the system. But there is NOT extra electricity sloshing around to waste on making H2 gas. We need to conserve every single Wh of it in order to move toward the future. The promotion of H2 as a fuel just ensures that we will continue to be tied to fossil fuels, fossil fuel companies and their fuel pumps for the foreseeable future.

No, there is no virtue to be found in H2 FCVs. We need to stop this ill-conceived effort in its tracks. I have no desire to ever live in the dystopian world which you would choose.
Which is why we need to explore methods of making H2 that don't require electricity. This is being done. Of course, we do have extra electricity sloshing around now when renewables are in excess and have to be curtailed, but if we build enough expensive interties we can avoid most of the problems from that. Even so, we still need some cheap mass energy storage to replace fossil fuels, and unless/until batteries can supply that, we need to explore other options.

As to dystopian, the world we live in now is dystopian; probably they all are.
 
Via GCC:
Audi and Hyundai to partner on fuel cell technology
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/06/20180620-audi.html

. . . The two companies plan to cross-license patents and grant access to non-competitive components.

The agreement is currently subject to approval from the applicable regulatory authorities. Through their collaboration, both partners aim to bring the fuel cell to volume production maturity more quickly and more efficiently. Audi and Hyundai are also exploring more far-reaching collaboration on the development of this sustainable technolog.y . . .

Audi plans to introduce its first fuel cell model as a small series production at the beginning of the next decade. As a sporty SUV, the model will combine the premium comfort of the full-size segment with long-range capability. The cross-license agreement with Hyundai is already focused on the next development stage intended for a broader market offer. . . .
 
GRA said:
As to dystopian, the world we live in now is dystopian; probably they all are.
We live in a beautiful world. It's sad so many cannot see that.

Regardless, even if you think the current world is dystopian that is not a justification to make it worse by polluting it more.
 
GRA said:
On the contrary, you prove my point. You agree that energy efficiency isn't the sole and usually not even the primary consideration when choosing a transportation mode, in fact it's often well down the list of priorities. Don't want a bicycle because it's slow? Ride an electric bike, scooter, or motorcycle. Oh, but you can only carry one other person, you're not weather protected or climate controlled, you're less stable than a 3 or four wheeled vehicle so more prone to accidents, you're not surrounded by a few thousand pounds of material that serves to protect you from those accidents, if you want to carry any substantial amount of cargo you need to haul a trailer etc. Where does energy efficiency fall in this list?
Efficiency isn't high on the list because energy is cheap. Most people I know still think that 30 mpg is awesome fuel efficiency. That's the fuel mileage of the 6,000lb 1920's Doble Steamer, which also could go over 120mph, was dead silent, had instant keyed starting capability and got the emissions levels of modern day Californian standards. But after nearly 100 years, the majority of people haven't moved on. They are still drawn to 6,000lb mammoth vehicles that still only get up to 30mpg, if that. The only difference is that such vehicles are cheaper, have better safety features and A/C nowadays compared with the 1920's. But until the world runs out of fuel or the economy irreversibly colapses the majority of people just aren't going to care if their car gets good fuel mileage or not.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
As to dystopian, the world we live in now is dystopian; probably they all are.
We live in a beautiful world. It's sad so many cannot see that.

Regardless, even if you think the current world is dystopian that is not a justification to make it worse by polluting it more.
Of course, whether or not the world is beautiful or not, or dystopian or not, depends a lot on where you're viewing it from. If you're looking at it as a citizen of the developed world it probably looks pretty good. If you're looking from South Sudan, or Libya, or Syria, or Myanmar If you're Rohingya, or Guatemala/El Salvador/Honduras, etc., it looks a lot worse.

Just to take one issue, we've had the ability to feed the world's entire human population adequately for a couple of decades now, if we distributed food equally. But of course, we don't:
Of the roughly 7 billion people in the world, an estimated 870 million suffer each day from hunger.

That's hunger from malnutrition or not eating even the lowest amount of daily recommended calories—1,800—while often enduring food insecurity, or not knowing where the next meal is coming from.

The consistently massive population of hungry people—along with variables like severe weather and economic downturns—sometimes spark warnings that the planet faces impending food shortages.

And yet more people in the world—1.7 billion—are considered obese or overweight from a daily caloric intake that in some cases is at least six to seven times the minimum.
https://www.cnbc.com/id/100893540

Do you think the 2/3rds of Americans (as well as all others) who are overfed and under-exercised would be willing to voluntarily reduce their caloric intake and food options, if by doing so it meant that food would instead be distributed to people who are undernourished, providing food security for all? I don't. So yeah, I have no hesitation in describing human society as dystopian, for that and many other reasons. And people being people, I don't expect we'll ever not be dystopian in some way.

I'm not trying to pollute more, only to provide us with more non-fossil-fueled options, preferably ZEV but net- or better yet negative carbon will do (i.e. biofuels that don't take up cropland). Let's face it, private citizens, no matter how concerned they say they are with energy efficiency, only prioritize it up to the point at which it begins to impinge on their preferred lifestyle (assuming they can afford to pay extra for that), at which time its priority drops down to the AOTBE category, i.e. as long as they can get it at no cost to other things they value more. Anybody living in a developed country can increase their energy efficiency and reduce their energy usage and environmental impact, but most people are unwilling to do so if it involves having to make any significant personal sacrifice.
 
IssacZachary said:
GRA said:
On the contrary, you prove my point. You agree that energy efficiency isn't the sole and usually not even the primary consideration when choosing a transportation mode, in fact it's often well down the list of priorities. Don't want a bicycle because it's slow? Ride an electric bike, scooter, or motorcycle. Oh, but you can only carry one other person, you're not weather protected or climate controlled, you're less stable than a 3 or four wheeled vehicle so more prone to accidents, you're not surrounded by a few thousand pounds of material that serves to protect you from those accidents, if you want to carry any substantial amount of cargo you need to haul a trailer etc. Where does energy efficiency fall in this list?
Efficiency isn't high on the list because energy is cheap. Most people I know still think that 30 mpg is awesome fuel efficiency. That's the fuel mileage of the 6,000lb 1920's Doble Steamer, which also could go over 120mph, was dead silent, had instant keyed starting capability and got the emissions levels of modern day Californian standards. But after nearly 100 years, the majority of people haven't moved on. They are still drawn to 6,000lb mammoth vehicles that still only get up to 30mpg, if that. The only difference is that such vehicles are cheaper, have better safety features and A/C nowadays compared with the 1920's. But until the world runs out of fuel or the economy irreversibly colapses the majority of people just aren't going to care if their car gets good fuel mileage or not.
Yup, except where air pollution or some other factor starts to directly affect their standard of living, as happened in the developed world several decades back, more recently in China and India. Depending on the costs of renewables and other new techs, who knows, clean energy may well be cheap and abundant in the future, in which case people will opt for relatively inefficient AFVs just as they now opt for inefficient ICEs. Even if they did opt for efficient AFVs, under the above conditions Jevons paradox will ensure a rebound effect.
 
IssacZachary said:
Efficiency isn't high on the list because energy is cheap.
Hydrogen is NOT cheap. The only way you can sell or lease someone a highly-polluting, very expensive H2 FCV is to use OPM to provide them with free fuel.

The efficiency of BEVs, OTOH, is a major draw because it can significantly reduce the price of fuel, particularly when coupled with photovoltaics.

We need to encourage people to do what GRA does: DO NOT purchase an H2 FCV! (OTOH, we need to encourage the purchase of BEVs.)
 
This could be a real game-changer, via GCC:
Army researchers develop novel nanogalvanic alloys for on-demand hydrogen generation; plans to license
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/06/20180624-arl.html

Army researchers have developed a novel, structurally-stable, aluminum-based nanogalvanic alloy powder that, when combined with water or any water-based liquid, reacts to produce on-demand hydrogen for power generation at room temperature without chemicals, catalysts or externally supplied power.

These patent-pending powders produce hydrogen at a rate that currently is one of the fastest reported for Al and water reactions without the need of hazardous and costly materials or additional processes. The reaction results in the production of hydrogen and heat with only inert residual materials; i.e., no toxic by-products. ARL has demonstrated that hydrolysis will occur with virtually any water containing liquid. . . .

  • This powder-based alloy includes material that disrupts the formation of an encapsulating aluminum oxide layer, allowing for the continuous production of hydrogen that can be used at the point of need to power a wide range of devices via fuel cells and internal combustion.

    The powder can be easily manufactured to scale, and can be conveniently and safely transported via tablets or vacuum pouches, thus eliminating reliance on high-pressure hydrogen cylinders.


    —Dr. Anit Giri, a scientist with the lab‘s Weapons and Materials Research Directorate

ARL will post a Federal Register Notice and launch a supporting website inviting companies to submit their ideas on how best to commercialize this technology. The laboratory will then select the most appropriate partners and collaborators. Officials said license exclusivity will then be determined.

The researchers said the powders has many advantages, such as:

Energy and Power Source
Stable Alloy Powder
Non-Toxic
Environmentally Friendly
Hydrogen Emitting
Manufacture to Scale
Easily Transportable . . . .
 
RegGuheert said:
IssacZachary said:
Efficiency isn't high on the list because energy is cheap.
Hydrogen is NOT cheap. The only way you can sell or lease someone a highly-polluting, very expensive H2 FCV is to use OPM to provide them with free fuel.

The efficiency of BEVs, OTOH, is a major draw because it can significantly reduce the price of fuel, particularly when coupled with photovoltaics.

We need to encourage people to do what GRA does: DO NOT purchase an H2 FCV! (OTOH, we need to encourage the purchase of BEVs.)
Of course, FCEVs can also supplied by H2 coupled with PV or wind to produce it when they are in excess, as is being done, e.g. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/06/20180622-hyseas.html

http://greenhydrogen.dk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Hydrogen-in-Rennerod-press-release-1.pdf
 
Via GCC:
S Korea to invest $2.3B in hydrogen fuel cell vehicle industrial ecosystem over next 5 years
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/06/20180625-korea.html

. . . The target is to be able to install 310 hydrogen stations by 2022 to supply 16,000 fuel cell vehicles. The funds will be spent on building plants for fuel cell vehicles and fuel cell stacks, manufacturing fuel cell buses and developing hydrogen storage systems.

Some 125 billion won (US$112 million) will go to supporting R&D for major components such as the fuel cell stack.

In 2018, the plan envisions the investment of 150 billion won (US$135 million) in establishing a special corporation for hydrogen filling stations, with the goal of reducing the cost of filling station construction by 30%.

For 2019, the plan envisions spending 420 billion won (US$377 million) for the production of hydrogen buses and demonstrations, hydrogen storage vessels for buses, and the mass production of a domestic CNG reforming device for the production of hydrogen.

From 2020 to 2022, the plan foresees the expenditure of 2 trillion won (US$1.8 billion) on the expansion of plants for the production of hydrogen, fuel cell stacks, and the mass production of packaged hydrogen filling stations.
 
RegGuheert said:
A much better idea is to keep nearly all of that excess and charge BEVs or other batteries instead.

True until you get to beyond a week or more of storage. MIGHT not be true for the last bit, needed for seasonal shifting and such. The cost of energy from batteries rises the slower they are cycled, storing hydrogen (or perhaps some compound such as methanol produced from hydrogen) is less costly.

If there is a point to fuel cells in vehicles, it is probably mostly in aviation. More likely in fixed fuel cells to provide season shifting.

This is the last 10% problem in renewable energy. It is going to be more expensive than the first 90%, might even be far more expensive and inefficient. As long as it works, and the total cost isn't outrageous...
 
Back
Top