Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[GRA]

Via GCC (mentioned in a previous post):

DOE’s HyStEP device will accelerate hydrogen refueling station commissioning

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/12/20151217-hystep.html

. . . The primary purpose of the HyStEP Device is to be used by a certification agency to measure the performance of hydrogen dispensers with respect to the required fueling protocol standard. Specifically, the device has been designed to carry out the test methods of CSA HGV 4.3 to measure that stations follow the fueling protocols standard SAE J2601-2014 including IrDA communications per SAE J2799.

The HyStEP Device includes three Type IV 70 MPa tanks capable of storing a total of 9 kg H2 that are instrumented with pressure and temperature sensors. The tanks are connected to a 70 MPa receptacle equipped with pressure and temperature sensors as well as IrDA communications integrated with a data acquisition, analysis, and control system.

A valve near the receptacle attached to a vent manifold can be used to both simulate a leak for fault detection tests and for controlled defueling. A nitrogen purge system is also included. Additional temperature sensors record ambient temperature near the receptacle and various external system temperatures.

The HyStEP Device is capable of performing key tests defined in CSA HGV 4.3. These include IrDA communication tests, fault detection tests, and communication and non-communication fills at 35 and 70 MPa. . . .

The current practice of commissioning hydrogen refueling stations is slow because each automotive manufacturer performs its own validation tests to measure the performance of hydrogen dispensers with respect to fueling protocol standards. Each test takes one to two weeks, so commissioning can take months.

HyStEP acts as a surrogate for vehicles, eliminating the need for each automotive manufacturer to test separately. HyStEP is equipped with modular tanks and all of the instrumentation that automotive manufacturers would use in performing their own tests.

• HyStEP addresses the two primary concerns of automotive manufacturers: keeping their testing data proprietary and ensuring the performance of the hydrogen dispenser.

—Sandia mechanical engineer Terry Johnson, project lead for HyStEP

Since automotive manufacturers must trust the device’s ability to provide the same results they’d achieve with their own test vehicles, manufacturers needed to be involved from the start. In addition to Sandia and NREL, the project team included Air Liquide, Boyd Hydrogen, the California Air Resources Board and Toyota Motor Corp.

HyStEP recently underwent validation testing at NREL’s Energy Systems Integration Facility in Golden, Colorado, and is now undergoing pre-deployment testing at refueling stations at California State University Los Angeles and the South Coast Air Quality Management District headquarters. Early in 2016, the Air Resources Board in collaboration with other state agencies will begin using HyStEP to support the commissioning of new stations. Additional automotive manufacturers, including Daimler AG, BMW and Honda, are contributing to that effort.

HyStEP will help California meet its ambitious goal of commissioning up to 35 new refueling stations by the end of 2016—one new station every one to two weeks. The target is a hydrogen-refueling network of more than 50 retail stations in this timeframe, primarily in the Los Angeles metro area, Orange County and the Bay Area. . . .

 

[GRA]

Via GCC:

Hydrogen from biomethane; gasoline & diesel from tree residue; cellulosic ethanol among new proposed California LCFS fuel pathways

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/12/hydrogen-from-biomethane-gasoline-diesel-from-tree-residue-cellulosic-ethanol-among-new-proposed-cal.html

The on-topic part of the article:

. . . The average CI for gasoline and gasoline substitutes for 2016 is 96.50 gCO2e/MJ; for diesel and diesel substitutes it is 99.97 gCO2e/MJ.

LytEn and hydrogen from biomethane. LytEn produces hydrogen from the cracking of methane (fossil natural gas or renewable biomethane) through a proprietary process. For the LCFS pathway applications, LytEn is using landfill gas.

LytEn proposes dual hydrogen production-delivery systems: one will include a facility with a hydrogen production system that will fill tube trailers for delivery of hydrogen to stations in the Bay Area in California, and the second will include installing on-site hydrogen production systems.

As a co-product, the hydrogen process produces carbon black, which could displace the use of carbon in the commercial production of electrodes.

The hydrogen production system is anticipated to generate 200 kg H2/ day or about 6000 kg of compressed H2 per month. LytEn proposes to use either 33.3% renewable biomethane and the balance fossil natural gas or 100% renewable biomethane as feedstocks for the production of hydrogen.

LytEN is requesting CIs of 15.29 and -46.91 g CO2e/MJ for 33.3% and 100% renewable biomethane pathways, respectively, generated from on-site systems. For the tube trailers pathways, LytEn is requesting CI values of 29.84 and -32.36 g CO2e/MJ for the 33.3% and 100% renewable biomethane pathways, respectively. The CI values for these pathways are based on lifecycle analysis conducted using the CA-GREET 1.8b model.

Because limited data provided by LytEn precluded ARB staff from determining all the necessary inputs for hydrogen production, staff is imposing a number of constraints on this prospective pathway which are listed below. Further, LytEn will need to submit commercial production data to obtain an updated provisional CI for this pathway prior to generating LCFS credits. (Fuels with prospective CIs are not eligible to claim credits under the LCFS.). . . .

 

[RegGuheert]

Via GCC:

Hydrogen from biomethane; gasoline & diesel from tree residue; cellulosic ethanol among new proposed California LCFS fuel pathways

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/12/hydrogen-from-biomethane-gasoline-diesel-from-tree-residue-cellulosic-ethanol-among-new-proposed-cal.html

The on-topic part of the article:

. . . The hydrogen production system is anticipated to generate 200 kg H2/ day or about 6000 kg of compressed H2 per month.. . .

If we assume an FCV can drive 50 miles on each kG of H2 and that the average commuter drives 40 miles/ day, then we find that this system can support a fleet of 250 H2 FCVs.

By way of comparison, note that you would need to construct TEN of these systems EACH MONTH in order to support FCV production equivalent to just the Nissan LEAF sales in the U.S. (but ignoring the sales of other BEVs and PHEVs).

 

[GRA]

Via GCC:

Hydrogen from biomethane; gasoline & diesel from tree residue; cellulosic ethanol among new proposed California LCFS fuel pathways

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/12/hydrogen-from-biomethane-gasoline-diesel-from-tree-residue-cellulosic-ethanol-among-new-proposed-cal.html

The on-topic part of the article:

. . . The hydrogen production system is anticipated to generate 200 kg H2/ day or about 6000 kg of compressed H2 per month.. . .

If we assume an FCV can drive 50 miles on each kG of H2 and that the average commuter drives 40 miles/ day, then we find that this system can support a fleet of 250 H2 FCVs.

By way of comparison, note that you would need to construct TEN of these systems EACH MONTH in order to support FCV production equivalent to just the Nissan LEAF sales in the U.S. (but ignoring the sales of other BEVs and PHEVs).

Yes, it's a small part of what will be needed to get us off fossil fuels, although 10 systems/month isn't that big a deal in mass production. 120 systems/year is a small fraction of the rate that U.S. gas stations were built out in their first decade.

 

[WetEV]

120 systems/year is a small fraction of the rate that U.S. gas stations were built out in their first decade.

The first gasoline stations were cheap, typically a guy selling gasoline out of a barrel measured in open containers after work.

Hydrogen stations are expensive. Hydrogen is expensive, unlike gasoline which was basically refinery waste as kerosene was the valuable product.

 

[TomT]

I feel safe in saying that I will never own a Hydrogen car in my lifetime... One can interpret that however one likes...

 

[GRA]

120 systems/year is a small fraction of the rate that U.S. gas stations were built out in their first decade.

The first gasoline stations were cheap, typically a guy selling gasoline out of a barrel measured in open containers after work.

Well, no. Although they sold gas, they weren't gas stations. From the wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filling_station#History):

The world's first purpose built gas station was constructed in St. Louis, Missouri in 1905 at 420 S. Theresa Avenue. The second gas station was constructed in 1907 by Standard Oil of California (now Chevron) in Seattle, Washington at what is now Pier 32. Reighard's Gas Station in Altoona, Pennsylvania claims that it dates from 1909 and is the oldest existing gas station in the United States.[14] Early on, they were known to motorists as "filling stations". The first "drive-in" filling station, Gulf Refining Company, opened to the motoring public in Pittsburgh on December 1, 1913 at Baum Blvd & St Clair's Street (Walter's Automotive Shop was located here on the 100th anniversary).[15] Prior to this, automobile drivers pulled into almost any general or hardware store, or even blacksmith shops in order to fill up their tanks. On its first day, the station sold 30 gallons of gasoline at 27 cents per gallon. This was also the first architect-designed station and the first to distribute free road maps.[16] The first alternative fuel station was opened in San Diego, California by Pearson Fuels in 2003.[17]

The book "The Gas Station in America" (http://www.amazon.com/Station-America-Creating-American-Landscape/dp/0801847230) opts for the 1913 date, although it contains photos of earlier stations in converted buildings.

Hydrogen stations are expensive. Hydrogen is expensive, unlike gasoline which was basically refinery waste as kerosene was the valuable product.

Yes, H2 stations are expensive, especially now, early in their development when economies of scale have only started to kick in, which is why they're being subsidized initially. But then modern gas stations with convenience stores are also expensive, depending on the cost of real estate and the toughness of the environmental regs they have to meet. As it is, most of the H2 stations (including my local one) are being added on to existing fuel stations, and I expect that will be the typical case. H2 is also currently expensive, and will have to come down in price (or gas will have to increase, or a combination of the two) to be commercially viable. We've discussed all this numerous times in the past.

BTW, AFAICT my local station is now complete; the hoses and nozzles have now been attached to the dispenser. I imagine all that remains is final inspections and then manufacturer testing, although the whole process has been pretty leisurely so far - they started in late July IIRR. I suspect that being new to both the inspectors and the contractors, everyone's taking it slow.

 

[RegGuheert]

The first gasoline stations were cheap, typically a guy selling gasoline out of a barrel measured in open containers after work.

Well, no. Although they sold gas, they weren't gas stations. From the wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filling_station#History):

...Prior to this, automobile drivers pulled into almost any general or hardware store, or even blacksmith shops in order to fill up their tanks. ...

The book "The Gas Station in America" (http://www.amazon.com/Station-America-Creating-American-Landscape/dp/0801847230) opts for the 1913 date, although it contains photos of earlier stations in converted buildings.

GRA, the reference and quote you provided confirms exactly the point that WetEV was making.

The point was that gasoline was cheap and easy to distribute. Hydrogen is neither.

 

[GRA]

The first gasoline stations were cheap, typically a guy selling gasoline out of a barrel measured in open containers after work.

Well, no. Although they sold gas, they weren't gas stations. From the wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filling_station#History):

...Prior to this, automobile drivers pulled into almost any general or hardware store, or even blacksmith shops in order to fill up their tanks. ...

The book "The Gas Station in America" (http://www.amazon.com/Station-America-Creating-American-Landscape/dp/0801847230) opts for the 1913 date, although it contains photos of earlier stations in converted buildings.

GRA, the reference and quote you provided confirms exactly the point that WetEV was making.

The point was that gasoline was cheap and easy to distribute. Hydrogen is neither.

And I agree that it isn't, yet. The question of its commercial viability will be if it can be made to be as cheap or cheaper than gas is.

 

[GRA]

Following on to the above, I can't remember if I've previously posted this, so just in case:

Pathway Analysis:
Projected Cost, Lifecycle Energy Use and Emissions of Emerging Hydrogen Technologies

2015 U.S. DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program and Vehicle
Technologies Office Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Meeting

Washington, DC
Todd Ramsden
June 9, 2015

http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review15/sa036_ramsden_2015_o.pdf

It's essentially a 25 page slide show. It also refers to this report from 2013, which at 268 pages isn't light reading:

Updated Cost, Well -to- Wheels Energy
Use, and Emissions for the Current Technology Status of Ten Hydrogen
Production, Delivery, and Distribution Scenarios

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60528.pdf

 

[TonyWilliams]

From the head of Cadillac:

"“Hydrogen is infrastructure. I have some experiences there. I worked for BMW for 15 years. I say one thing: If you look at the environmental balance of electromobility as it is now, it makes no sense whatsoever. Nobody wants to hear it. But as long as the majority of the energy is generated from fossil fuels … and that’s about 80 percent right? U.S. … the environmental balance is negative.”

“…I do believe that very long-term hydrogen is really the way … but I also realize that this industry needs to change its thinking in boxes, and in, let’s say, their own way forward because hydrogen failed. Even in Germany, where the government for a while was very excited about it, two leading manufacturers could simply not agree on the approach.”"

 

[GRA]

Actually Cadillac's head of Marketing, and I posted the complete quote in the ELR thread , but will repeat it here with my comments from that thread:

AM: Speaking of future propulsion, there’s a lot of talk about electric versus hydrogen fuel cells.

Ellinghaus: Hydrogen is infrastructure. I have some experiences there. I worked for BMW for 15 years. I say one thing: If you look at the environmental balance of electromobility as it is now, it makes no sense whatsoever. Nobody wants to hear it. But as long as the majority of the energy is generated from fossil fuels ... and that's about 80 percent right? U.S. ... the environmental balance is negative. Nobody wants to hear it because for whatever reason, electric power was always clean, and nobody cared how it got into it, right? It's still the case. So the Tesla, and electromobility per se, are not by definition good for the environment, on the contrary. I do believe that very long-term hydrogen is really the way ... but I also realize that this industry needs to change its thinking in boxes, and in, let's say, their own way forward because hydrogen failed. Even in Germany, where the government for a while was very excited about it, two leading manufacturers could simply not agree on the approach. And we see this with the fuel cell which requires hydrogen in a gaseous form, and we, at BMW at that time, insisted no, we wanted a regular combustion engine, and that means liquid. And then, the politicians had the perfect argument to say, "If you cannot even agree on a standard, we will not build infrastructure." And I cannot even blame them.

The recent book "Car Wars: The Rise, the Fall, and the Resurgence of the Electric Car" ( http://www.amazon.com/Car-Wars-Rise-Resurgence-Electric/dp/1250048702/?tag=myelecarfor-20& ) describes the disagreement between the German manufacturers in more detail. Now that everyone's agreed to use gaseous H2/fuel cells, the German Govt's been willing to subsidize infrastructure (and is doing so).

[Added] His off-the-cuff claim of 80% fossil-fueled electricity generation in the U.S. is too high, and should be ~67%. Per EIA:

Major energy sources and percent share of total U.S. electricity generation in 2014:

• Coal = 39%
  Natural gas = 27%
  Nuclear = 19%
  Hydropower = 6%
  Other renewables = 7%
  • Biomass = 1.7%
    Geothermal = 0.4%
    Solar = 0.4%
    Wind = 4.4%
  Petroleum = 1%
  Other gases < 1%

 

[GRA]

The CAFCP website has gotten a recent station status update, and shows the Coalinga station open as of 12/14, making 5 full commercial stations now, with 10 in 'commissioning' status and 10 more 'under construction'. Here's the stations in 'commissioning' status - the '2. Commissioning' in the lists below represents that status:

• San Juan Capistrano - 26572 Junipero Serra Rd., San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 2015 December 2. Commissioning Commissioning nearing end
  Los Angeles - CSULA 5151 State University Dr., Los Angeles CA 90032 2015 2. Commissioning Available with OEM approval
  Los Angeles - LAX 10400 Aviation Blvd, Los Angeles, CA, 90045 2015 December 2. Commissioning Bringing old station back online.
  Check with automaker
  Long Beach 3401 Long Beach Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90807 2015 December 2. Commissioning Commissioning has begun
  Riverside 8095 Lincoln Avenue, Riverside, CA 92504 2016 March 2. Commissioning Commissioning has begun
  South San Francisco 248 South Airport Blvd., South San Francisco, CA 94080 2015 December 2. Commissioning Commissioning has begun
  Santa Monica - Cloverfield Blvd. 1819 Cloverfield Blvd., Santa Monica CA, 90404 2016 January 2. Commissioning Active Construction
  San Jose 2101 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95131 2015 December 2. Commissioning Active Construction
  Costa Mesa 2050 Harbor Boulevard, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 2016 January 2. Commissioning Active Construction
  La Canada Flintridge 550 Foothill Boulevard, La Canada Flintridge, CA 91011 2016 February 2. Commissioning Active Construction

The full list showing station status (open, commissioning, under construction, approval to build etc.) as of 12/7 can be found here: http://cafcp.org/sites/files/20151211_H2-Station-Update.pdf

 

[GRA]

Via GCC:

FuelCell Energy pathway for hydrogen from digester gas has negative carbon intensity for CA LCFS

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/12/20151223-fce.html

Connecticut-based FuelCell Energy (FCE) has applied for a prospective pathway for California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for the production of hydrogen fuel produced from biogas derived from the mesophilic anaerobic digestion of wastewater sludge at a publicly owned treatment works (POTW).

The biogas is cleaned, then internally reformed in an integrated hydrogen energy system (Tri-Gen DFC) that produces hydrogen fuel for transportation; electric power for plant operations and export; as well as thermal energy for plant use. Once the internal energy demands of the pathway have been met, any energy not utilized for process is considered to be surplus to the system boundary and is credited to the FCE pathway.

The Tri-Gen DFC system is expected to generate 1,270 kilogram per day of hydrogen fuel which would be used as a transportation fuel; 2,250kW of electric power; and 2 million Btus of thermal energy. The electrical energy produced is the net electricity after subtracting the parasitic load of the Tri-Gen DFC system (705 kW). . . .

FCE proposes that the carbon intensity (CI) of the hydrogen is -0.82 gCO2e/MJ. ARB Staff is recommending approval of the proposed process as a prospective pathway; i.e., no LCFS credits can be claimed until the company supplies more operational data, and ARB staff completes an updated lifecycle analysis.

The FCE Tri-Gen DFC system was until recently operational at the Orange County Sanitation District Plant #1 (120 mgd) (OCSD), and was producing hydrogen, electric power, as well as thermal energy in a test project to demonstrate the economic and technical viability of high temperature fuel cells employed at CHP units. The proposed pathway is based upon the three-year demonstration project at OCSD.

 

[GRA]

Via GCC:

DOE releases three reports showing strong growth in US fuel cell and hydrogen technologies market

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/12/20151224-doeh2.html

. . . With support from the Energy Department, its national laboratories and private industry have already achieved significant advances in fuel cell and hydrogen technologies, resulting in reduced costs and improved performance. These research and development efforts have helped reduce automotive fuel cell costs by more than 50% since 2006 and by more than 30% since 2008. At the same time, fuel cell durability has quadrupled and the amount of expensive platinum needed in fuel cells has decreased by 80 percent in the last decade. . . .

State Of The States. The State of the States, Fuel Cells in America 2015 report highlights leadership among US states to grow domestic fuel cell manufacturing and deployment. The report recognizes California, Connecticut, and New York for leading the country with continued and expanded support for fuel cell and hydrogen technologies. The report also highlights efforts in Colorado, Hawaii, New Jersey, and Ohio as rising stars in the hydrogen and fuel cell industry.

Across the United States, a number of businesses are also driving continued US leadership in the fuel cell industry. Nearly 10% of Fortune 500 companies use fuel cells to generate power. When examining the top 100 companies on the Fortune list, the number grows, with almost 25% using fuel cells to power data centers, cell phone towers, corporate buildings, retail facilities, or forklifts.

Customers include companies such as Apple, AT&T, Verizon, Kroger, JPMorgan Chase, Google, Bank of America, Kaiser Permanente, Target, and Lowe’s. Walmart is the largest fuel cell customer for material handling equipment (MHE), deploying the technology to power more than 2,800 forklifts at warehouses in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Illinois, Indiana and Minnesota, with more sites on the way. Over the last few years, AT&T has deployed fuel cells to provide primary power to almost two dozen data and call centers, as well as backup power to hundreds of cell phone towers in multiple states.

Annual Progress Report. The 2015 Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Annual Progress Report documents more than 1,000 pages of accomplishments achieved by Energy Department-funded projects in the last year. The report highlights major programmatic achievements, including:

launching the $1-million H2 Refuel H-Prize;

demonstrating the world’s first fleet of hydrogen fuel cell airport ground support equipment;

establishing national laboratory-led consortia in key R&D areas; and

supporting the public-private partnership, H2USA, through national-lab led efforts developing financial assessment tools for hydrogen infrastructure and critical equipment to validate the performance of hydrogen stations as they come on line.

Each individual project team provides a summary of their annual progress.

Pathways To Commercial Success. According to the third report, [u]Pathways to Commercial Success: Technologies and Products Supported by the Fuel Cell Technologies Office[/u], the Energy Department’s fuel cell research and development efforts over the last decade have helped develop 40 commercial technologies and 65 new technologies that are expected to reach commercial-scale within the next three to five years. In addition, Energy Department fuel cell R&D has resulted in more than 515 US patents.

Direct links to the reports here:

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/12/f27/fcto_state_of_states_2015.pdf

http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/annual_progress15.html

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/12/f27/fcto_2015_pathways_commercial_success.pdf

 

[GRA]

Via GCC:

Report: Suzuki to commercialize fuel cell motorcycle in Japan; on-road testing begins in 2016

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/12/20151227-suzuki.html


Some crystal -ball gazing from Navigant via ievs, and like all forecasts of future sales, worth exactly what you paid for it (I'd love to see GM's sales forecasts for the ELR before the go-ahead was given):

Navigant: Fuel Cell Vehicle Sales To Exceed 228,000 Units By 2024

http://insideevs.com/navigant-fuel-cell-vehicle-sales-exceed-228000-units-2024/

“Toyota’s introduction of the Mirai, its first production-level fuel cell car, has thrust fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) back into the spotlight. While the performance of FCVs makes them ready for commercial launch, the industry is still focused on the two key requirements for larger-scale market introduction: driving down vehicle costs to be competitive with battery and hybrid vehicle technology and developing the hydrogen infrastructure necessary to fuel the vehicles.”

To which I would add "driving down the cost of H2 to be competitive."

“Until the infrastructure is available, the market for FCVs is expected to remain supply-constrained, with vehicle production at low levels, according to the report. To facilitate the creation of FCV infrastructure, automakers are collaborating with new partners in retail fueling and hydrogen supply. . . .”

 

[RegGuheert]

It's good to read that Nissan and Renault intend to put into service production quantities of vehicles which are environmentally-friendly, highly-efficient and can be refueled almost anywhere:

Setting out a timeline which included more electric vehicles as well as the gradual introduction of autonomous vehicle technology, Ghosn emphasised that both technologies were more important to the Renault-Nissan alliance than hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.

By comparison, Toyota intends to produce very small quantities of some of the least-environmentally-friendly vehicles ever created in order to stall the movement toward cleaner vehicles and to preserve the status quo of vehicle fuels being dispensed by fossil-fuel producers from centralized filling stations.

I know which effort I'll be supporting.

 

[lorenfb]

By comparison, Toyota intends to produce very small quantities of some of the least-environmentally-friendly vehicles ever created in order to stall the movement toward cleaner vehicles and to preserve the status quo of vehicle fuels being dispensed by fossil-fuel producers from centralized filling stations.

A rather extreme and irrational view of Toyota, isn't it?

 

[RegGuheert]

A rather extreme and irrational view of Toyota, isn't it?

No. It is a rather matter-of-fact view. Let's have a look:

By comparison, Toyota intends to produce very small quantities of some of the least-environmentally-friendly vehicles ever created...

That was a simple statement of fact.

...in order to stall the movement toward cleaner vehicles...

Toyota STOPPED production of BEVs and started production of H2 FCVs.

...and to preserve the status quo of vehicle fuels being dispensed by fossil-fuel producers from centralized filling stations.

This is the interesting part. Like many corporations, Toyota worked hard to become the largest auto manufacturer in the world. The Prius is extremely successful. But corporations often become quite irrational once they become the biggest. In their search to continue to improve shareholder value, they then look beyond their traditional market to find growth. In this case it seems clear that Toyota has decided that it is not enough to just build the cars. They are making a play to control the fueling infrastructure, as well. IMO, they are hoping to be able to sell extremely-expensive cars AND make additional revenues by also controlling worldwide H2 refueling infrastructure. Frankly, it's a bean counters dream. The environment be damned!

But their plan will fail miserably since physics and customer choice will dictate that BEVs dominate the world automobile market.

 

[GRA]

Via GCC, lab results so won't see it soon if ever, but interesting:

IU scientists create self-assembling biocatalyst for the production of hydrogen; modified hydrogenase in a virus shell

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/01/20160104-iu.html

Scientists at Indiana University have created a highly efficient self-assembling biomaterial that catalyzes the formation of hydrogen. A modified hydrogenase enzyme that gains strength from being protected within the protein shell (capsid) of a bacterial virus, this new material is 150 times more efficient than the unaltered form of the enzyme.

The material is potentially far less expensive and more environmentally friendly to produce than other catalytic materials for hydrogen production. . . .

In addition, P22-Hyd both breaks the chemical bonds of water to create hydrogen and also works in reverse to recombine hydrogen and oxygen to generate power. The material can be used either as a hydrogen production catalyst or as a fuel cell catalyst.

• Essentially, we’ve taken a virus’s ability to self-assemble myriad genetic building blocks and incorporated a very fragile and sensitive enzyme with the remarkable property of taking in protons and spitting out hydrogen gas. The end result is a virus-like particle that behaves the same as a highly sophisticated material that catalyzes the production of hydrogen.
  
  This material is comparable to platinum, except it’s truly renewable. You don’t need to mine it; you can create it at room temperature on a massive scale using fermentation technology; it’s biodegradable. It’s a very green process to make a very high-end sustainable material.
  
  —Professor Trevor Douglas, study leader

. . . .

Beyond the new study, Douglas and his colleagues continue to craft P22-Hyd into an ideal ingredient for hydrogen power by investigating ways to activate a catalytic reaction with sunlight, as opposed to introducing elections using laboratory methods. . . .