Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[lorenfb]

The larger battery IS the increased power.

No. The larger battery is the "increased amount of stored energy." The higher HP output comes from a higher output inverter, feeding more current to the electric motor - which, in the case of the Leaf, is the same motor used since 2013. The motor then produces more power to drive the front wheels. Your claim is like saying that muscle cars were powerful because they had large gas tanks. There seems to be some confusion here about the contextual meaning of the word "power."

A larger battery is both more energy and more power.

It's that simple! My 40 kWh Leaf has the same motor as the 60 kWh Leaf, but has less power (HP) because of the smaller battery.
The 60 kWh battery can develop a higher output current.

 

[SageBrush]

It's that simple! My 40 kWh Leaf has the same motor as the 60 kWh Leaf, but has less power (HP) because of the smaller battery.
The 60 kWh battery can develop a higher output current.

Yep. If my admittedly meagre understanding of electricity is correct, the reason is as follows:

In a DC circuit, P = V/R
If we keep the units in serial constant (say, a 96S pack) and add cells, we are adding more parallel branches and that reduces the pack's resistance.

 

[LeftieBiker]

You are essentially assuming a ~3C discharge rate. The original 24kwh Leaf has a more than 3C discharge capability. I'd be very surprised if the C rate didn't increase with the Gen II batteries. Put the inverter from a 62kwh Leaf in a 40kwh Leaf and you'd likely get the same power output from the motor - albeit for a fairly short time. IIRC, Dala is looking to do just that - use an inverter from a Plus in his Gen I Leaf with 40kwh battery.

 

[lorenfb]

It's that simple! My 40 kWh Leaf has the same motor as the 60 kWh Leaf, but has less power (HP) because of the smaller battery.
The 60 kWh battery can develop a higher output current.

Yep. If my admittedly meagre understanding of electricity is correct, the reason is as follows:

In a DC circuit, P = V/R
If we keep the units in serial constant (say, a 96S pack) and add cells, [b]we are adding more parallel branches and that reduces the pack's resistance.

and thus providing more current sources for the motor.

 

[WetEV]

There seem to be many on this forum who believe that (a) BEVs are, right now, a suitable replacement for ICEs for most consumers, and (b) further development of FCEVs should be abandoned. They also seem to think that lack of information is the only reason most consumers continue to purchase ICEs.

If everyone decided to buy a BEV, they couldn't. Production ramp time is years. Lucky that isn't the case.

People are all not the same. Most people will always be late to a technology change. And should be late, for a list of good reasons.

About 2% of car buyers buy BEVs today. I think it fairly likely that 4% will buy BEVs in the next two years. Then 8% a few years after that.

Exponential growth.

Technology is changing, BEVs are getting more capable and that is realistic to assume that battery technology will continue to improve. Decreasing cost and improving range and battery will broaden the acceptability of BEVs. Increasing sales drive more technology sales. A virtuous cycle.

FCEVs for personal vehicles looks mostly like a good testbench for other applications.

Both of these views are mistaken, IMHO.

I agree.

FCEVs have a number of potential advantages, including (a) making range a non-issue, (b) longer life, (c) less need for large-scale mining of Lithium and Cobalt. Whether these advantages can ever be realized is still an open question, as well as whether we can develop affordable green hydrogen at scale. But I don't believe the case for BEVs is such a slam-dunk that we shouldn't continue to work on alternatives.

FCEVs have a number of flaws, (a) Low efficiency, (b) short life, (c) large scale use of rare minerals, (d) central fueling. Perhaps these flaws can be overcome.

We must develop green hydrogen for other reasons. Yet at best, this is decades in the future for applications that we don't have good alternatives for... and hydrogen is required for.

 

[lorenfb]

You are essentially assuming a ~3C discharge rate. The original 24kwh Leaf has a more than 3C discharge capability. I'd be very surprised if the C rate didn't increase with the Gen II batteries. Put the inverter from a 62kwh Leaf in a 40kwh Leaf and you'd like get the same power output from the motor albeit for a fairly short time. IIRC, Dala is looking to do just that - use an inverter from a Plus in his Gen I Leaf with 40kwh battery.

Right, because the motors are the same! The motor controllers (inverters) are the same too, but are programmed differently via their firmware settings.

 

[WetEV]

I've never at any time claimed that BEVs don't work for anyone, in fact I've said that they could work for far more people than currently use them. What I've said, and this is supported by both surveys and sales, is that they don't currently provide enough value for most people to be willing to switch from ICEs. 2.5% have bought BEVs (or maybe that's PEVs, I forget) in 1H 2021 in the U.S., 97.5% haven't. Which is to say, 97.5% don't consider them superior to what they have now, even though for many they would be. Surveys tell us what it will take for those people to be convinced that BEVs are superior for them, so that they can seriously consider buying one.

Again, wanting "most people" to switch Today.

Time is why everything doesn't happen at once.

Current technology will suit the needs and wants of far more people than the currently are buying BEVs. Near future (ie in prototype production) technology even more people. When does it stop? In a little more than a decade, at best, with the majority buying the then cheaper BEVs. It will not finish until the stock of cars comes to an equilibrium, perhaps a century from now.

 

[WetEV]

The whole range issue (aka national parks) has been argued ad-nauseam. 200+ miles is non ideal, but can be made to work with your use cases. You would rather not "inconvenience" yourself is all. And you already know that your driving pattern isn't typical of most americans, so it's okay if a BEV doesn't fit your needs, since it fits many others. That's the point. A BEV is a viable alternative to an ICE for most consumers, whereas an FCEV is not. There is no "BEV's and FCEV's are both not ready yet".

My driving 'pattern' is skewed towards one end of the spectrum, but while most drivers spend most of their time at the other end or the middle, most of them also want their car to be able to operate in the same situations I do routinely, no matter how rarely they might do so aka 'The Occasional Use Imperative'. Which is why they expect any car to provide 300+ miles of range with rapid, convenient refueling, and buy accordingly. As I've said many times, far more of those in a multi-car family with guaranteed, convenient charging could make use of a BEV (or PHEV) for at least one of those, but most of them also demand ICE road-trip range and convenience from every car, even if they almost never require that simultaneously. Single-car households, especially those without charging, are a different matter. Anyone who demands go anywhere, anytime flexibility with the minimum of inconvenience is still restricted to an ICE/HEV/PHEV.

Notice that most people want the exact same things that GRA wants.

Why bother with surveys and letting customers choose? Just ask GRA.

I drove 281 miles yesterday. Took 8 hours. Not due to slow recharging, as other reasons for stopping almost covered that. Blinding rain coming down in buckets, miles of backups due to accidents. Would more range of helped? Of course. But by less time than my average drive to a gas station... which I don't need to do. And I would need to drive to the gas station more frequently.

the ultimate goal is charging as quickly as an ICE refuel. Two out of three (67%) consumers

As this is isn't realistic, GRA hopes that is the end of discussion.

Yet customer surveys need anywhere from a grain of salt to a boulder of salt. What were the other potential answers? Asking the question correctly and giving the right set of possible answers is hard. Easy to get the answer you want, if the other answers are completely bogus. What questions preceded this one in the survey? There is an order effect, and careful surveys randomize the order of questions. Bogus surveys put the questions in the order that gets the answer that they want.



The survey was done by "Castrol"? Sorry, I don't think this was a careful survey.

FCEVs are limited primarily by infrastructure at the moment, and price of the cars and fuel. The latter two will be cured by economies of scale, the learning curve and the usual incremental technological improvements, leaving only the former. FCEVs already provide ICE level inherent capabilities.

Hydrogen's other uses will keep hydrogen price high for decades, at least.

FCEVs have all the flaws of ICEs. Inconvenient central fueling that is slower than ICE fueling for one.

 

[LeftieBiker]

You are essentially assuming a ~3C discharge rate. The original 24kwh Leaf has a more than 3C discharge capability. I'd be very surprised if the C rate didn't increase with the Gen II batteries. Put the inverter from a 62kwh Leaf in a 40kwh Leaf and you'd like get the same power output from the motor albeit for a fairly short time. IIRC, Dala is looking to do just that - use an inverter from a Plus in his Gen I Leaf with 40kwh battery.

Right, because the motors are the same! The motor controllers (inverters) are the same too, but are programmed differently via their firmware settings.

You are suddenly agreeing with me, after contradicting me, while adding a new incorrect detail. Well, as long as you understand that...

I doubt that the inverters are "the same" for two reasons: They don't usually overbuild current-handling electronics to that extent - the motor being the exception - and I don't think that Dala would be looking for a 62kw inverter if he just had to reprogram the one he had. But hey, I give up. If you and Sagebrush want to believe that all you need for more horsepower is a bigger gas tank and larger fuel lines, I can't stop you.

 

[WetEV]

You are essentially assuming a ~3C discharge rate. The original 24kwh Leaf has a more than 3C discharge capability. I'd be very surprised if the C rate didn't increase with the Gen II batteries. Put the inverter from a 62kwh Leaf in a 40kwh Leaf and you'd like get the same power output from the motor albeit for a fairly short time. IIRC, Dala is looking to do just that - use an inverter from a Plus in his Gen I Leaf with 40kwh battery.

Right, because the motors are the same! The motor controllers (inverters) are the same too, but are programmed differently via their firmware settings.

You are suddenly agreeing with me, after contradicting me, while adding a new incorrect detail. Well, as long as you understand that...

I doubt that the inverters are "the same" for two reasons: They don't usually overbuild current-handling electronics to that extent - the motor being the exception - and I don't think that Dala would be looking for a 62kw inverter if he just had to reprogram the one he had. But hey, I give up. If you and Sagebrush want to believe that all you need for more horsepower is a bigger gas tank and larger fuel lines, I can't stop you.

Updating firmware usually required a signed download. If you don't have the private key, you can't produce such a download. The firmware may well check that the new version is the same functionality as the current version. So reprogramming an inverter might not be possible without the private key, which should be very closely held.

I am giving technical detail, not taking a stand on the issue.

 

[SageBrush]

But hey, I give up. If you and Sagebrush want to believe that all you need for more horsepower is a bigger gas tank and larger fuel lines, I can't stop you.

That is not what we are saying. Batteries are not petrol tanks.

I can understand why you think you can ignore what I write, but you should be a little more circumspect when an EE tells you something basic about electricity. Retired car salesmen are out of their league ... unless you are just playing the fool for our entertainment ?

 

[LeftieBiker]

Updating firmware usually required a signed download. If you don't have the private key, you can't produce such a download. The firmware may well check that the new version is the same functionality as the current version. So reprogramming an inverter might not be possible without the private key, which should be very closely held.

I am giving technical detail, not taking a stand on the issue.

Point taken, but I doubt that Dala would be stopped by the above. And again, power handling components are usually sized for the job, with a safety margin.

 

[LeftieBiker]

Retired car salesmen are out of their league ... unless you are just playing the fool for our entertainment ?

Personal attacks will get you warnings again, and some of the Mods are pretty tired of your behavior. It appears that you are never going to understand that people don't just judge us on what information we convey, but on how we communicate it. I can't control your behavior elsewhere - nor do I care to try - but here if you keep up the unprovoked personal attacks you will be warned, and then booted if you continue.

 

[SageBrush]

Retired car salesmen are out of their league ... unless you are just playing the fool for our entertainment ?

Personal attacks will get you warnings again, and some of the Mods are pretty tired of your behavior. It appears that you are never going to understand that people don't just judge us on what information we convey, but on how we communicate it. I can't control your behavior elsewhere - nor do I care to try - but here if you keep up the unprovoked personal attacks you will be warned, and then booted if you continue.

I'll continue ...

WHY are you arguing about a basic electricity concept with an EE ?
WHY did you distort the posts of myself and lorenFB to make a spurious insult ?

Give yourself a warning. You deserve it.

 

[lorenfb]

You are essentially assuming a ~3C discharge rate. The original 24kwh Leaf has a more than 3C discharge capability. I'd be very surprised if the C rate didn't increase with the Gen II batteries. Put the inverter from a 62kwh Leaf in a 40kwh Leaf and you'd like get the same power output from the motor albeit for a fairly short time. IIRC, Dala is looking to do just that - use an inverter from a Plus in his Gen I Leaf with 40kwh battery.

Right, because the motors are the same! The motor controllers (inverters) are the same too, but are programmed differently via their firmware settings.

You are suddenly agreeing with me, after contradicting me, while adding a new incorrect detail. Well, as long as you understand that...

I doubt that the inverters are "the same" for two reasons: They don't usually overbuild current-handling electronics to that extent - the motor being the exception - and I don't think that Dala would be looking for a 62kw inverter if he just had to reprogram the one he had. But hey, I give up. If you and Sagebrush want to believe that all you need for more horsepower is a bigger gas tank and larger fuel lines, I can't stop you.

You're guessing again. You obviously don't understand the design concepts for an electric motor controller. The key components that do the
power switching, e.g. typically IGFETs, are not the major cost determinate and are usually rated for the higher output motor application.
So a design cost for a 40 kWh motor application is not much different than a 62 kWh from a cost & production standpoint.

Dala's use of a Plus controller most likely simplifies not having to modify the 40 kWh controller's firmware to allow the higher power output.

 

[WetEV]

Updating firmware usually required a signed download. If you don't have the private key, you can't produce such a download. The firmware may well check that the new version is the same functionality as the current version. So reprogramming an inverter might not be possible without the private key, which should be very closely held.

I am giving technical detail, not taking a stand on the issue.

Point taken, but I doubt that Dala would be stopped by the above. And again, power handling components are usually sized for the job, with a safety margin.

Same sort of security that protects your bank. If you think Dala could hack your bank... OK: else Dala or anyone else would be stopped by such a crypto lock, done correctly.

 

[LeftieBiker]

Yes, done correctly. Nissan is practically synonymous with that phrase!

 

[GRA]

You don't get to rewrite the laws of physics to suit your wants. The performance comes with the range. Only in the ICE world is that an either/or selection.

That's not necessarily true. if the transmission final drive ratio has been chosen to provide acceleration rather than range, then you can in fact trade off range vs. acceleration. After all, that's what every overdrive gear ratio does. ICEs can make that trade-off, and so can BEVs. Porsche minimizes the issue by providing a two-gear transmission, just as Tesla did way back when (but couldn't get one to survive the Roadster's torque at the time. Obviously, that's no longer the case).

Yes, it IS true. Just compare a 2011 Leaf (24kwh battery) with a 2016 (30kwh) and a 2018 (40kwh). I assure you they didn't change the drive ratio (nor motor) between the years.

Your bias is clouding your comprehension abilities.

Edit: Save you the trouble of looking it up, the larger the batteries, the faster the 0-60 time and the higher the top speed. Absolutely nothing changed about the gearing.

Checking C&D for the 24 KWh 2011, I see 10.0 seconds 0-60. For the 30kW 2016, 10.4 seconds, even though the 2011 appears to be very slightly heavier. For the 40kWh 2018 it's 7.4 seconds, but it has a 149 vice 107hp motor. so, your claim fails to stand up. There can also be differences if the battery is skewed more towards the power than energy end of the spectrum, in order to supply a more powerful motor.

The whole range issue (aka national parks) has been argued ad-nauseam. 200+ miles is non ideal, but can be made to work with your use cases. You would rather not "inconvenience" yourself is all. And you already know that your driving pattern isn't typical of most americans, so it's okay if a BEV doesn't fit your needs, since it fits many others. That's the point. A BEV is a viable alternative to an ICE for most consumers, whereas an FCEV is not. There is no "BEV's and FCEV's are both not ready yet".

My driving 'pattern' is skewed towards one end of the spectrum, but while most drivers spend most of their time at the other end or the middle, most of them also want their car to be able to operate in the same situations I do routinely, no matter how rarely they might do so aka 'The Occasional Use Imperative'. Which is why they expect any car to provide 300+ miles of range with rapid, convenient refueling, and buy accordingly. As I've said many times, far more of those in a multi-car family with guaranteed, convenient charging could make use of a BEV (or PHEV) for at least one of those, but most of them also demand ICE road-trip range and convenience from every car, even if they almost never require that simultaneously. Single-car households, especially those without charging, are a different matter. Anyone who demands go anywhere, anytime flexibility with the minimum of inconvenience is still restricted to an ICE/HEV/PHEV.

A Bolt is a terrible road-trip car owing to its excruciatingly slow FC rate, made worse by its inadequate range. A Niro/Kona would be better from the charging perspective, an ID.4 better still, and the Ionic 5/EV6 would be approaching the level needed. Of course, most people coming from ICEs still want ICE-time recharging. From the Castrol survey:

Bringing charge times down to 31 minutes
for all consumers is the first part of this
critical challenge for the industry, but the
ultimate goal is charging as quickly as an ICE
refuel. Two out of three (67%) consumers
told us they believe the majority of new
cars will be electric when the rapid charge
time of EVs becomes comparable to ICE
equivalents.

https://www.castrol.com/content/dam...adoption/accelerating_the_evolution_study.pdf Page 21.


FCEVs are limited primarily by infrastructure at the moment, and price of the cars and fuel. The latter two will be cured by economies of scale, the learning curve and the usual incremental technological improvements, leaving only the former. FCEVs already provide ICE level inherent capabilities.

That "lack of infrastructure" is a $1T hurdle. The price of the fuel is secondary issue to the source of that fuel - namely natural gas.

Infrastructure prices have already come down considerably due to economies of scale, as have fuel prices. California has already subsidized 52 retail stations (4 temporarily non-operational due to upgrades or other issues), with another 148 to come, although we may not need to subsidize all of them, as 23 are currently being built without subsidies, which is exactly what's needed for infrastructure build rate to take off (Note, these sites didn't apply for grants, but will still benefit from LCFS credits).

To put that 52 in perspective, it would allow someone to travel end to end of both I-5 (12 and I-95 (15), along with I-80 (25), with stations at all primary interstate junctions plus some U.S. highways out west, where the interstates are spread further apart. If a single state such as California can afford to do this plus subsidize building an extra million EV chargers by 2030, I think the country can afford it as well.

 

[GRA]

GCC:

Rio Tinto and BlueScope to explore low-carbon steelmaking pathways

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/10/20211029-riotinto.html

Rio Tinto and steel producer BlueScope will work together to explore low-carbon steelmaking pathways using Pilbara iron ores, including the use of clean hydrogen to replace coking coal at BlueScope’s Port Kembla Steelworks.

The two companies have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to research and design low-emissions processes for the steel value chain, including iron ore processing, iron and steelmaking and related technologies.

Rio Tinto and BlueScope will prioritize studying the use of green hydrogen at the Port Kembla Steelworks in Australia to reduce Pilbara iron ores directly into a product that could then be processed in an electric melter to produce metallic iron suitable to be finished into steel. . . .

The first phase of the collaboration will be to determine the scale of a pilot plant to be based at the Port Kembla steelworks, consisting of a hydrogen electrolyzer, direct reduction process and melter.

At an investor seminar last week, Rio Tinto said it was focused on studying three potential pathways towards net-neutral steelmaking; using sustainable biomass with Pilbara iron ore to replace coking coal in the iron and steelmaking process; using hydrogen-based hot-briquetted iron (HBI) with high-grade ores in Canada; and using hydrogen direct reduced iron (DRI) with a melter for Pilbara ores. . . .

At the investor seminar, Rio Tinto announced new targets of reducing its Scope 1 & 2 carbon emissions by 50% by 2030, more than tripling its previous target, and a 15% reduction in emissions by 2025, five years earlier than previously. These targets are supported by around $7.5 billion of direct investments to lower emissions between 2022 and 2030.

 

[GRA]

I've never at any time claimed that BEVs don't work for anyone, in fact I've said that they could work for far more people than currently use them. What I've said, and this is supported by both surveys and sales, is that they don't currently provide enough value for most people to be willing to switch from ICEs. 2.5% have bought BEVs (or maybe that's PEVs, I forget) in 1H 2021 in the U.S., 97.5% haven't. Which is to say, 97.5% don't consider them superior to what they have now, even though for many they would be. Surveys tell us what it will take for those people to be convinced that BEVs are superior for them, so that they can seriously consider buying one.

Again, wanting "most people" to switch Today.

Time is why everything doesn't happen at once.

Current technology will suit the needs and wants of far more people than the currently are buying BEVs. Near future (ie in prototype production) technology even more people. When does it stop? In a little more than a decade, at best, with the majority buying the then cheaper BEVs. It will not finish until the stock of cars comes to an equilibrium, perhaps a century from now.

The people surveyed on average said they hoped/expected to buy a BEV that met their requirements as early as 2022 (India) or as late as 2025 (U.S., Germany, U.K. and Norway, so the latter is doing better than expected thanks to big subsidies and perks) or 2026 (Japan), so this is quite near-term.