Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[RegGuheert]

Since BEVs charged at night waste the least amount of the owner's time, they win in this category as well.

As you posted yesterday, EVSEs are being provided for exactly the population you are concerned about: renters in high-density housing.

The reason is simple: BEVs offer the best automotive solution for individual commuters. Provision of EVSEs for these commuters is much more efficient in terms of cost, energy and materials than providing each of them with wasteful, expensive vehicles which require expensive refueling infrastructure.

 

[Reddy]

At the moment hydrogen would be cheaper for me and anyone else in California, because it's free to the consumer.

I was on a trip last week and saw a pay H2 station somewhere in CA. I was very surprised because I was under the impression that very few systems existed, and they hadn't "calibrated" them for dispensing H2 accurately enough to fix pricing. Sorry I don't remember the exact location, but somewhere along the 101/I-5 corridor. I think it was near the Harris Ranch Tesla battery swap station because I stopped there specifically to see it and spent some time walking around. At least, it wasn't one of the twelve listed on http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/hydrogen_locations.html

Heck, since I was driving from Portland to LA, it might even be in OR. Alas, the mind is the 2nd thing to go.

 

[GRA]

At the moment hydrogen would be cheaper for me and anyone else in California, because it's free to the consumer.

I was on a trip last week and saw a pay H2 station somewhere in CA. I was very surprised because I was under the impression that very few systems existed, and they hadn't "calibrated" them for dispensing H2 accurately enough to fix pricing. Sorry I don't remember the exact location, but somewhere along the 101/I-5 corridor. I think it was near the Harris Ranch Tesla battery swap station because I stopped there specifically to see it and spent some time walking around. At least, it wasn't one of the twelve listed on http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/hydrogen_locations.html

Heck, since I was driving from Portland to LA, it might even be in OR. Alas, the mind is the 2nd thing to go.

Harris Ranch is one of the sites that FirstElement is building, so it could well have been there; it's being put there for the same reason Tesla put the SC there, to enable S.F./Sac - L.A. trips. The CAFCP station website is showing its status as "construction complete", but not yet commissioned: http://cafcp.org/stations/coalinga. Their website is often out of date, but it's probably a bit more current than the DoE one: http://cafcp.org/stationmap

All the new 'full commercial' stations being built have 'pay at the pump' dispensers with accurate metering; that was one of the 'full commercial' requirements. Some of the old dem/val stations are being upgraded with these dispensers (and sometimes given H70 capability at the same time). I believe this is the model going in at my local station (they're definitely made by Bennett):

http://www.fleetsandfuels.com/wp-content/uploads/BennettPump_1111.jpg

but there are similar dispensers made by other companies, among them Linde and Quantum (Air Products is using them).

 

[TonyWilliams]

What range does the Toyota hydrogen car have with H 35?

Secondly, how many of the existing-stations actually have H 70 capability ?

 

[Reddy]

Cool! Thanks. That was probably it.

 

[GRA]

What range does the Toyota hydrogen car have with H 35?

Secondly, how many of the existing-stations actually have H 70 capability ?

I'd imagine the Mirai will go about half as far on H35 as on H70, Tony, assuming that the gas laws (Boyle's? I could never keep them straight) haven't been changed while I wasn't looking It certainly works for my scuba tanks.

As for the existing stations, the CAFCP website shows all 9 with opening dates prior to today having H70 capability, although one of them is showing offline at the moment. All the new ones being built will have it (another requirement for 'full commercialization').

 

[GRA]

Via GCC:

Technical review outlines challenges for both batteries and fuel cells as basis for electric vehicles

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/10/20151026-gr%C3%B6ger.html

As the original article is open access, I feel free to quote more from GCC's summary than I normally would:

In an open-access invited review for the Journal of the Electrochemical Society, Oliver Gröger (earlier post), Volkswagen AG; Dr. Hubert A. Gasteiger, Chair of Technical Electrochemistry, Technische Universität München; and Dr. Jens-Peter Suchsland, SolviCore GmbH, delve into the technological barriers for all-electric vehicles—battery-electric or PEM fuel cell vehicles.

They begin by observing that the EU’s goal of 95 gCO2/km fleet average emissions by 2020 can only be met by means of extended range electric vehicles or all-electric vehicles in combination with the integration of renewable energy (e.g., wind and solar). Based on other studies, they note that without an increasing percentage of renewables in the European electricity generation mix, the only vehicle concept which could meet the 95 gCO2/km target is the pure battery electric vehicles. (Hydrogen produced via electrolysis using the EU mix or by natural gas reforming would exceed the target.)

Theoretically, with renewable electricity, the 95 gCO2/km target could also be met by extended range electric vehicles with 40 miles all-electric range if 50% of driving is powered by the battery, or by fuel cell electric vehicles (FECVs), with hydrogen produced by water electrolysis.

"While these propulsion concepts look promising, their contribution to CO2 emission savings in the transportation sector would only be meaningful if their market penetration were substantial. In the absence of government regulations, the latter largely hinges on consumer acceptance, which in turn strongly depends on cost. In addition, in the case of BEVs, recent studies clearly showed that BEV driving range (closely followed by cost) are the predominant variables determining consumer acceptance.

"Since vehicle cost and range largely control market penetration, we will first provide a rough estimate of the cost/range projected for BEVs and FCEVs. Next, we will briefly review the current status and the expected future progress in lithium ion battery (LiB) technology, which is currently used to power BEVs. This will be followed by an assessment of the perceived technological barriers and the potential energy density gains for so-called post-LiBs, namely lithium-oxygen and lithium-sulfur batteries. Last, we will discuss the materials development challenges for FCEVs, focusing on approaches to reduce platinum catalyst loadings and to improve fuel cell durability.

—Gröger et al. . . ."

There's much more. The full, open access article published in the Journal of the Electrochemical Society can be found here: http://jes.ecsdl.org/content/162/14/A2605.full.pdf+html

and runs 16 pages plus two pages of cites. I haven't had time to read it yet, and no doubt much of the technical chemistry discussion will be over my head, but it looks well worth the time.

 

[GRA]

Since BEVs charged at night waste the least amount of the owner's time, they win in this category as well.

As you posted yesterday, EVSEs are being provided for exactly the population you are concerned about: renters in high-density housing.

The reason is simple: BEVs offer the best automotive solution for individual commuters. Provision of EVSEs for these commuters is much more efficient in terms of cost, energy and materials than providing each of them with wasteful, expensive vehicles which require expensive refueling infrastructure.

Reg, I've never said that EVSEs can't be provided for multifamily housing eventually, what I've been saying repeatedly is that it will take decades to do it, and I have serious doubts that we have that much time. I'm completely in favor of requiring all new housing and workplace construction as well as publicly accessible parking to include provisions for EV charging, but as I've been at pains to point out, even if that were a universal requirement from now on (even in the very EV-supportive Bay Area, I think there's only one municipality that has this requirement for new housing construction at the moment. I'm not sure if it was adopted, but there was a draft update to the California building code a year or two back for 2016 that would require 'provision' for EV charging, i.e. wiring and conduits, in new construction [Update: It was adopted, so we now have that provision statewide, but the draft only required 3% of parking spaces to be wired. I'm still looking for the actual reg]), it will still be decades before we can cover a substantial fraction of the households currently unable to charge at home, even assuming that an affordable BEV's capabilities grow to the point where they're acceptable (see the paper linked in the post above regarding the cost/range factor driving that issue).

 

[RegGuheert]

Reg, I've never said that EVSEs can't be provided for multifamily housing eventually, what I've been saying repeatedly is that it will take decades to do it, and I have serious doubts that we have that much time.

However long it might take, it will take more of EVERYTHING to provide H2 infrastructure instead, including time. The other significant difference is that 50% of the population can ALREADY move to BEVs immediately, compared with 0% for H2.

 

[WetEV]

However long it might take, it will take more of EVERYTHING to provide H2 infrastructure instead, including time. The other significant difference is that 50% of the population can ALREADY move to BEVs immediately, compared with 0% for H2.

0%? No, far more than that. More like 0.0001%

 

[GRA]

Reg, I've never said that EVSEs can't be provided for multifamily housing eventually, what I've been saying repeatedly is that it will take decades to do it, and I have serious doubts that we have that much time.

However long it might take, it will take more of EVERYTHING to provide H2 infrastructure instead, including time. The other significant difference is that 50% of the population can ALREADY move to BEVs immediately, compared with 0% for H2.

We disagree about the necessary time frame for each, so we'll just have to agree to disagree. In any case, as I've said on many occasions I want to move ahead in both areas until we arrive at the promised land with one or both techs, i.e. price/performance/convenience/utility comparable to ICEs with energy from renewables. And an even higher priority for me is to continue to rebuild our cities to reduce the need for cars (whether owned or shared) for local use and to make the urban area more energy efficient, which skews things in favor of FCEVs for the remaining car tasks as their operating characteristics will likely remain more suitable for trips. In short, I'd rather see us replace ICEs for local use with pedestrians/bikes/transit instead of BEVs (which have the advantage over FCEVs for local use).

 

[GRA]

Via GCC:

Aeristech developing turbomachine-type electric air compressors for fuel cells; claims potential doubling of output

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/10/20151027-aeristech.html

UK-based Aeristech, a provider of electrically driven pressure charging solutions (earlier post), is developing electric air compressor technology that the company says could double the output from a hydrogen fuel cell. The electric compressor would enable vehicle manufacturers to increase performance or to specify a considerably more compact fuel cell, improving packaging and weight. . . .

 

[GRA]

I've now read the entire paper, "Review—Electromobility: Batteries or Fuel Cells?" referenced a couple of posts back on the development issues facing advanced batteries and fuel cells, also found here: http://jes.ecsdl.org/content/162/14/A2605.full.pdf+html

As expected, the chemistry/physics is way over my head. You can avoid wading through all the technical discussion about what the issues are, the chemical/physical issues causing them, and what possible solutions might be, with cites to all the papers discussing them, and skip to the conclusion on page 2620.

 

[smkettner]

So no matter the technical differences BEVs lose on range anxiety and time required to charge :lol:

 

[GRA]

So no matter the technical differences BEVs lose on range anxiety and time required to charge :lol:

And win on price for shorter ranges, but lose on price at longer ranges compared to FCEVs, given the different distribution of costs. AIUI, the paper, which is essentially a review of current research, says that there are fundamental limits that will limit battery packs to about 250 Wh/kg, whether advanced Li-ion, Li-S, or Li-air; only lithium metal can move beyond that, and until someone finds a way to get around the safety issues of lithium-metal that's not going to happen.

Perhaps more importantly, in addition to getting the cost/kWh down, the paper states that the technical driver for longer-range mid-size and smaller BEVs is shifting from specific energy aka gravimetric energy density (Wh/kg) to (volumetric) energy density (Wh/l), as space constraints are the limiting factor. It also makes the point, which I agree with, that developing batteries that can accept much faster charging may be more important for customer acceptance than matching ICE range. Personally, I think a car that with a range of say 2 hours at 80 mph (six western states now have that limit for rural interstates, and they'll be joined by one more come February; all the rest of the west bar Oregon and California have 75 mph limits) into a 5 mph headwind, plus at least a 10% reserve while using heat/defrost at any temp between 32 and 110 deg. F, for at least a decade but preferably 15 years or more, that could be recharged to do the same again with no worries about long-term damage in no more than 10 minutes, would be acceptable to most people. The Tesla S85 can't manage that when new, and it takes a 100% charge to even approach it.

Re fuel cells, they aren't yet at the DoE target of 0.1g Pt/kW, but are getting closer - the paper estimates the Mirai uses somewhere in the range of 22 - 38g Pt for its 114kW stack - the DoE target would mean 10g Pt for a 100kW stack, and at that level if mass produced it wouldn't incur Pt shortages. Durability seems to be just about meeting the DoE target for 2020, and they're also closing in on the power density target.

 

[GRA]

Via GCC:

Mercedes-Benz Vision Tokyo concept fuel cell hybrid leverages F 015 Luxury in Motion concept

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/10/20151028-vision.html

Mercedes-Benz introduced a new advanced design concept at the Tokyo Motor Show: the Vision Tokyo. The concept is powered by a fuel cell electric drive system based on the F-CELL PLUG-IN HYBRID of the self-driving F 015 Luxury in Motion concept introduced at CES in January. (Earlier post.) The next combines the on-board generation of electricity with a particularly powerful and compact high-voltage battery that can be charged wirelessly via induction.

Pressure tanks made from CFRP store the hydrogen in the concept car. The electric hybrid system has a total range of 980 kilometers (609 miles), of which some 190 kilometers (118 miles) are courtesy of battery-powered driving and around 790 kilometers (491 miles) from the electricity produced in the fuel cell. . . .

Ranges are presumably NEDC, so figure 70% of those to convert to EPA. Just a concept, of course.

Also Via GCC:

Honda leverages older name for new FCV: Clarity Fuel Cell makes its debut at Tokyo; 435-mile range on JC08

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/10/20151027-clarity.html

Honda Motor Co., Ltd. unveiled the planned production model of its all-new fuel cell vehicle (FCV), called Clarity Fuel Cell, at the 44th Tokyo Motor Show 2015. This model will be on display at the Honda booth during the show. The name honors its predecessor, the FCX Clarity fuel cell vehicle, introduced at the LA Auto Show in 2007. (Earlier post.)

Employing original Honda technologies, the fuel cell stack for this model was downsized by 33% compared to the previous version of the fuel cell stack yet delivers output of more than 100 kW, with an output density of 3.1 kW/L—approximately a 60% improvement. The fuel cell powertrain was made as compact as a Honda 3.5L V6 engine, enabling it to be packaged under the hood of a sedan-type vehicle for the first time. This powertrain layout enabled a full cabin package that seats five adults. . . .

X-posted to the Honda FCV thread, which I'll rename. Using the same JC08 to EPA conversion factor as the Mirai of .77, the range works out to about 335 miles EPA. We'll see. Introduction in Japan (lease-only apparently) in March 2016, for the first year aimed primarily at business and govt. customers, then gradually expanding. Japan price $63,670, not sure what the Mirai price is there.

 

[GRA]

A couple more from GCC:

Lexus reveals all-wheel drive hydrogen fuel cell LF-FC flagship concept

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/10/20151028-lexus.html

Lexus revealed the LF-FC flagship concept, an all-wheel-drive hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, at the Tokyo Motor Show. This marks the Lexus brand’s first foray into fuel cell technologies. The high-output fuel cell power system energizes the rear wheels, and also sends power to two in-wheel motors in the front.

This innovative drive system allows precise torque distribution control between the front and rear wheels, giving the full-size sedan exceptional dynamic handling and superior road stability. The strategic placement of the fuel-cell stack at the rear of the vehicle, power control unit at the front and T-formation configured hydrogen fuel tanks result in front and rear weight distribution optimal for a sporty sedan. . . .

Unlike the Mirai and to a lesser extent the Clarity, this one looks pretty normal, and at least in the view given, IMO good.

Mercedes-Benz fuel cell vehicles drive from LA to Northern California using only public hydrogen stations

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/10/2015102-mbfcv.html

Mercedes-Benz B-Class F-CELL customers ventured beyond Southern California last week for the first time, while only filling up at existing public hydrogen stations along the route from Los Angeles to San Francisco. The opening of a new hydrogen station in Coalinga along the I-5 corridor made this opportunity possible.

A team driving five B-Class F-CELL refilled at four permanent hydrogen fueling stations located in Burbank, Coalinga, West Sacramento and Emeryville, accumulating nearly 1,000 miles over the course of their three day trip. . . .

The current hydrogen station network is limited to 10 stations and is in position to grow significantly over the next year. More than 40 public retail hydrogen stations are planned to be opened in 2016. . . .

With its 700-bar high-pressure fuel tank system, the car has a long operating range of around 250 miles (400 kilometers) and can be refueled in the short time of less than three minutes. . . .

So, it appears that Harris Ranch is now officially in commission, which means that Tucsons and Mirais can do LA-SF. BTW, the article is incorrect in stating that there were no B-class F-cells north of LA prior to this, as I know there'a at least one in the Bay Area (lessee's in Alameda). I only know about him because the local PBS station did a story about him some time back, which I think I linked upthread, but if not, http://ww2.kqed.org/quest/2014/03/11/highway-to-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles/ has the transcript and video.

 

[GRA]

Finally, some pure speculation on my part via GCR:

London's Black Cabs To Be Range-Extended Electrics, With Chinese Help

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1100655_londons-black-cabs-to-be-range-extended-electrics-with-chinese-help

The speculation comes in with this section here:

The London Taxi Company (LTC) unveiled its new model last week, and announced a major investment by its parent company Geely.

Dubbed the TX5, the latest London taxi features a range-extended electric powertrain.

LTC did not provide any details on the powertrain, but says it was chosen to allow zero-emission operation without encouraging range anxiety.

The actual environmental benefit of the TX5 fleet will depend largely on how what proportion of mileage they cover on electricity--and accessibility to charging infrastructure.

One possible reading of the bolded section is that they mean to use a BEV with a fuel cell range-extender or PHFCEV, ala' the French postal vans being trialed now. Geely has some fuel cell expertise : http://www.netinform.net/h2/h2mobility/Detail.aspx?ID=474 but they could also be buying that from an outside vendor. We also know that London's Mayor Boris Johnson is pushing ZEVs, including the Mirai. Via ievs:

. . .The other first Mirai will be used by Transport for London and Greentomatocars. Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, happily confirmed the news during a three-day trade mission to Japan.

“It is fantastic that London will benefit from these new state-of-the-art hydrogen vehicles. By embracing this technology of the future, we aim to consolidate hydrogen’s role as a practical alternative fuel for the 21st century and beyond. I am sure that Transport for London will provide the ideal environment for us to see everything Mirai can do and, in doing so, take another great step towards improving air quality in our city and protecting the health of Londoners.”

http://insideevs.com/itm-power-takes-delivery-uks-first-toyota-mirai/

 

[smkettner]

So no matter the technical differences BEVs lose on range anxiety and time required to charge :lol:

And win on price for shorter ranges, but lose on price at longer ranges compared to FCEVs, given the different distribution of costs. AIUI, the paper, which is essentially a review of current research, says that there are fundamental limits that will limit battery packs to about 250 Wh/kg, whether advanced Li-ion, Li-S, or Li-air; only lithium metal can move beyond that, and until someone finds a way to get around the safety issues of lithium-metal that's not going to happen.

I think you missed my point. All the technical jibber jabber made no influence into the summary. Just the same old GM white wash of range anxiety.
Rather disappointing.

 

[GRA]

So no matter the technical differences BEVs lose on range anxiety and time required to charge :lol:

And win on price for shorter ranges, but lose on price at longer ranges compared to FCEVs, given the different distribution of costs. AIUI, the paper, which is essentially a review of current research, says that there are fundamental limits that will limit battery packs to about 250 Wh/kg, whether advanced Li-ion, Li-S, or Li-air; only lithium metal can move beyond that, and until someone finds a way to get around the safety issues of lithium-metal that's not going to happen.

I think you missed my point. All the technical jibber jabber made no influence into the summary. Just the same old GM white wash of range anxiety.
Rather disappointing.

I'm certainly missing your point, if you're saying that range anxiety doesn't exist. Care to clarify?