Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[SageBrush]

I'm bored by GRA, but in the rebuttal this comment caught my attention:

The increased weight of the vehicle leading to slower 0-60 times is also more likely (specs of the china SR+ shows it being 120kg heavier than the Fremont SR+).

The increased weight of LFP is *part* of the reason why the acceleration is slower, but how much ?

If I'm thinking about this correctly, average acceleration if inversely proportional to the 0-60 time, and mass is inversely proportional to acceleration so it follows that a change in mass by itself will be proportional to a change in 0-60 times. Since the times of the LFP and Fremont models are 5.8 and 5.3 seconds, respectively, the LFP model carries a 9.4% time penalty.

The Fremont SR+ is 1611 Kg, and the LFP variant is 1720 Kg. Adding in a driver, the LFP model is 1800/1691 = 7% heavier.

That implies that 75% of the slower acceleration in the LFP is due to increased weight

 

[GRA]

The requirements of "the majority" don't figure into the doubling until nearing 50% market share.

Notice again the Norway has past 50%, and it seems just some subsidies were all that was really needed.

EVs are going to be cheaper than ICEs. Sales price, already lower in TCO.

BEVs may eventually be cheaper in sales price (for comparable capability); that's the hope. But almost no one buys a car based on TCO; if they can't afford the upfront price, it doesn't matter if it will be cheaper in the long-term, even if most people did such calcs. As to Norway only needing "just some subsidies", I've previously listed all the subsidies and perks that Norway gives, which is a lot more than "just some". As I've said before, given their scale you've got to wonder why BEVs or at least PEVs don't make up 99% of sales already.

This is the most ignorant retort EVER!! Norway is currently at 91.5% BEVs + PHEVs. Sure it's not 99%, but it's practically there. Oh and you might want to revisit your list of perks, because some of them have gone away already, yet the EV penetration went higher, not lower.

How did Norway get to that level? Massive subsidies which made BEVs less expensive to buy than ICEs, lots of perks that further reduced operating costs (free ferry tolls, parking etc.), in a small country with the majority of the population in the lower third, a very high home ownership rate and virtually all their electricity from hydro. I repeat, the amazing thing is that they weren't seeing 99% of sales after the first year or two, if BEVs were so obviously nicer in ways most customers cared about. You couldn't ask for a more favorable sales climate.

 

[GRA]

This is the most ignorant retort EVER!! .

Worse than ignorance, GRA reaches trumper level of dishonesty.

In Norway, the overwhelming financial savings of EV purchase instead of ICE is not having to pay the ICE pollution taxes. That is not a subsidy to EVs, it is a fair accounting of WtW ICE pollution costs

I've got no problem with carbon/pollution taxes, (not that they're likely in the U.S. anytime soon except regionally), but the 'overwhelming financial savings' in Norway came from BEVs not having to pay the 25% VAT, plus being exempt from the weight tax (Why? they're heavier and will do more damage to roads, if we're talking about appropriate taxes for the societal impact): https://elbil.no/english/norwegian-ev-policy/

That's 5,512 Euros savings for not paying VAT plus 1,715 Euros not paying for weight, totaling 7,227 euros, vs. 4,348 Euros not paying for CO2 and 206 not paying for NOx, total 4,554 euros. In my world, 7,227 is greater than 4, 554. Since you were accusing me of dishonesty,don't you owe me an apology?

 

[GRA]

Addendum: My quick googling says that PHEV and ICE are taxed the same in Norway. Isn't that interesting !!?

That is the way.

It's the way if your intent is to slow the spread of PEVs and thus the rate of emissions reductions. Norwegian PHEVs were achieving 53% of miles on the battery IIRR, which is certainly better than having those same people drive ICEs or HEVs. If you want to tax PHEVs more heavily for pollution than pure ZEVs be my guest, but it's far better to get the people who for whatever reason haven't opted for a BEV into a PHEV than leave them in an ICE/HEV, wouldn't you say?

 

[GRA]

Hydrogen will become competive when/if "peak oil" ever comes to pass. If oil gets to $250/barrel, then hydrogen generated from carbon-free sources (especially nuclear) will look much more attractive. At that point it will be profitable to build out an H2 infrastructure even without subsidies.

Oil price might drop rather than rise if consumption falls faster than supply.

BEVs are just better cars than ICEs.

If BEVs were 'better' in ways most consumers valued over other attributes, no subsidies, perks or mandates would be needed to get people to adopt them. That's clearly not yet the case.

 

[GRA]

TCO does matter, or Honda wouldn't be in business. And Honda should be scared.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/05/04/tesla-model-3-cheaper-than-honda-accord-15-cost-comparisons-updated/

Seeing as how the cheapest Model 3 now costs $7k more to buy (currently $45,190) than it did earlier this year, I'm sure Honda execs are quaking in their geta. Of course, gas prices are also up.

"Est. Delivery: June"

Even with a higher price, Tesla doesn't seem to have much problem selling them. Eventually the chip shortage will end, auto production will catch up, and prices will fall.

So will all other car prices. Even if the MSRPs haven't changed, dealers are asking far over MSRP because they can get it, owing to shortages of both new and used cars.

Norway is reducing these subsidies and perks, as you should know, and sales of BEVs keep rising there and elsewhere. This is global, rather than just Norway.

Yet, they remain dependent on subsidies, perks and mandates, here and most places. After all, the Chinese market is the world's largest PEV market, and they've got at least two and maybe all three of the above.

BEVs are less dependent, unlike FCEVs, and many BEV sales are made today with no subsidies, perks or mandates.

FCEVs are dead, unless increasing amounts of subsidies are spent.

But BEVs ARE still dependent on subsidies, perks and/or mandates, just as FCEVs are, despite the former having been available for longer and despite their being (by your standards) 'better' cars than ICEs. Until the public agrees with you they'll continue to need governments sticking their hand on the scale.

 

[GRA]

I doubt many people would want to buy a new Mirai unless they drove very little. Per https://www.toyota.com/content/dam/toyota/brochures/pdf/2021/MY21_Mirai_Owner_Benefits.pdf, the "free fuel" benefit of $15K or 6 years is if you purchase (assuming the benefit is still valid). If they drove a ton, if they'd seen H2 prices, they'd likely want to dump it soon after the free fuel runs out.

Yes, buying an FCEV rather than leasing at this time when no one knows when H2 prices will drop to competitive with gas levels, makes no sense.


Still playing catch up, so will continue tomorrow or later as possible.

 

[Oils4AsphaultOnly]

BEVs may eventually be cheaper in sales price (for comparable capability); that's the hope. But almost no one buys a car based on TCO; if they can't afford the upfront price, it doesn't matter if it will be cheaper in the long-term, even if most people did such calcs. As to Norway only needing "just some subsidies", I've previously listed all the subsidies and perks that Norway gives, which is a lot more than "just some". As I've said before, given their scale you've got to wonder why BEVs or at least PEVs don't make up 99% of sales already.

This is the most ignorant retort EVER!! Norway is currently at 91.5% BEVs + PHEVs. Sure it's not 99%, but it's practically there. Oh and you might want to revisit your list of perks, because some of them have gone away already, yet the EV penetration went higher, not lower.

How did Norway get to that level? Massive subsidies which made BEVs less expensive to buy than ICEs, lots of perks that further reduced operating costs (free ferry tolls, parking etc.), in a small country with the majority of the population in the lower third, a very high home ownership rate and virtually all their electricity from hydro. I repeat, the amazing thing is that they weren't seeing 99% of sales after the first year or two, if BEVs were so obviously nicer in ways most customers cared about. You couldn't ask for a more favorable sales climate.

What are you talking about? Most of the BEV SUV's and hatchbacks only started deliveries last year, and the model Y barely started deliveries a few months ago. It's a significant supply issue. Go ahead and find another excuse to deny the data. Your motive is blatant.

 

[WetEV]

How did Norway get to that level? Massive subsidies which made BEVs less expensive to buy than ICEs, lots of perks that further reduced operating costs (free ferry tolls, parking etc.), in a small country with the majority of the population in the lower third, a very high home ownership rate and virtually all their electricity from hydro. I repeat, the amazing thing is that they weren't seeing 99% of sales after the first year or two, if BEVs were so obviously nicer in ways most customers cared about. You couldn't ask for a more favorable sales climate.

Subsidies have declined while BEV sales have continued to rise.

Why?

 

[WetEV]

Seeing as how the cheapest Model 3 now costs $7k more to buy (currently $45,190) than it did earlier this year, I'm sure Honda execs are quaking in their geta. Of course, gas prices are also up.

"Est. Delivery: June"

Even with a higher price, Tesla doesn't seem to have much problem selling them. Eventually the chip shortage will end, auto production will catch up, and prices will fall.

So will all other car prices. Even if the MSRPs haven't changed, dealers are asking far over MSRP because they can get it, owing to shortages of both new and used cars.

Not for the Toyota Mirai. At or below MSRP.

Honda Clarity is out of production due to weak demand.

FCEVs are dead. Even with massive subsidies.

Yet, they remain dependent on subsidies, perks and mandates, here and most places. After all, the Chinese market is the world's largest PEV market, and they've got at least two and maybe all three of the above.

BEVs are less dependent, unlike FCEVs, and many BEV sales are made today with no subsidies, perks or mandates.

FCEVs are dead, unless increasing amounts of subsidies are spent.

But BEVs ARE still dependent on subsidies, perks and/or mandates,

No longer true. Sure some BEV sales are dependent on subsidies. Yet some sales do not benefit from subsidies, perks or mandates.

Some sales in Washington State, for example.

No Federal tax credit for Tesla or GM.

No State sales tax exemption for over $45,000.

No perks.

No mandates.

Higher registration fees.

 

[WetEV]

Hydrogen will become competive when/if "peak oil" ever comes to pass. If oil gets to $250/barrel, then hydrogen generated from carbon-free sources (especially nuclear) will look much more attractive. At that point it will be profitable to build out an H2 infrastructure even without subsidies.

Oil price might drop rather than rise if consumption falls faster than supply.

BEVs are just better cars than ICEs.

If BEVs were 'better' in ways most consumers valued over other attributes, no subsidies, perks or mandates would be needed to get people to adopt them. That's clearly not yet the case.

That's a path not traveled.

People that drove the GM EV1 loved the car. Most would have been willing to pay the extra cost involved in buying out the lease. Many people (including me) would have bought one if we could. But GM recalled and crushed almost all the EV1s and crippled the rest, and sold the patents to an oil company which never licensed them.

Sure, took a mandate to get the EV1 made to begin with. Yet it was a hit with drivers. Rather than killing it, GM could have sold the business. A product that customers love and are willing to pay a premium price for? GM didn't try. GM tried to kill the electric car. It was clear to anyone that thought about it that electric cars were the future.

So GM went on to push hydrogen fuel cells. They were "green", even though hydrogen was dirtier than coal, they were "science cool", and the hydrogen fuel cell was exactly precisely zero threat to gasoline engines.

Yet a different path might have been followed. Might have been the end of GM, much as the CCDs that Kodak developed were used in all sorts of digital cameras that doomed Kodak's business and thus Kodak itself. Or maybe GM would have survived on the new business. Or even thrived. GM was first, GM could have innovated, lowered cost, spread out the market, and picked up on newer battery technologies.

Sad, isn't it?

Now you point out that a mandate was needed to get the initial development. Sure. Consider this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude_rewards

Advances often need a push from government. The time for government to push EVs is almost over.

 

[GRA]

GCC:

MAN gas engines enable hydrogen use in power plants at up to 25% by volume

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/11/20211105-man.html

MAN Energy Solutions a{announced} that its gas-powered, four-stroke engines are “H2-ready” and operable in stationary mode with a hydrogen content of up to 25% by volume in a gas-fuel mix. As such, within the power-plant segment, the company’s MAN 35/44G TS, 51/60G and 51/60G TS gas engines are now designated as H2-ready and capable of exploiting hydrogen to further reduce CO2 emissions. . . .

The adaptive combustion control (ACC) of the MAN engines reacts fully automatically to varying hydrogen contents in the natural gas and enables operation without loss of efficiency, even with fluctuating hydrogen content. Gas engines already in operation can be retrofitted for hydrogen blend-in by upgrading the automation and adding additional ACC sensors.

We are focusing our R&D efforts on offering our customers maximum operational flexibility and future-proofness. The development of a hydrogen economy will take several years, during which time the infrastructure will be upgraded and the production of green hydrogen ramped up. In the German natural-gas grid, for example, a maximum admixture of up to 10% is currently possible; in the future, 20% will be feasible. With our engines, power-plant operators are optimally positioned for this situation.

—Dr Gunnar Stiesch

 

[GRA]

There's no point playing what-ifs with you, because you don't have a fundamental understanding of mechanics. But just for the sake of entertainment:

1) Porsche did the right call in using a 2-speed, because they DID NOT KNOW HOW else to achieve good acceleration and efficient high speed cruising on the autobahn (where speeds of 155+mph are expected from a porsche). The 2-speed was HORRIBLY INEFFICIENT as evidenced by the fact that their city range was LESS than their highway range. You just have to look at how much more energy is needed to push away air at 75mph versus 30mph to realize that city range for an efficient EV should ALWAYS be longer than the hway range. The fact that porsche had a worse city range shows how incredibly inefficient their power-train was! But they had to use it, because their home market has a use case that demanded it.

Do you think that maybe, just maybe, a single-speed EV's city range is better than highway range because they benefit from lots of regen in stop and go driving, unlike in highway cruising? Or do you think that's irrelevant?

No. Because that would mean that Porsche was lazy and didn't optimize their regen braking as best they could. At city speeds, a Porsche is effectively a single-speed EV anyway. Their range being poor is due to the inefficiencies of the 2-speed transmission and their EPA numbers attest to that.

Or it could mean that Porsche uses very aggressive tire treads with high rolling resistance, so that they can provide Porsche-level handling as demanded by their buyers. Of course, Porsche has also apparently chosen to understate their EPA numbers, as reflected in the fact that they easily exceed them in the real-world, while Tesla's EPA numbers are overstated and they, along with almost all other BEV manufacturers fall short of theirs in the real world. Tesla's numbers are especially optimistic because they use 5- versus the 2-cycle testing everyone else uses.

If using a two-speed transmission is such a bad idea, then why did Tesla opt for the one for the exact same reasons Porsche did (except they couldn't make one last)?

Of course, that doesn't explain why HEVs get better City than Hwy mpg. Are you claiming that regen is unrelated to that? After all, AFAIA every conventional ICE gets better Hwy than City mpg. yet AFAIA every HEV and PHEV gets the opposite, despite being heavier than a conventional ICE which should penalize them around town, where rolling resistance is a larger factor than drag. Serial vs. parallel vs. serial/parallel can shift the numbers around a bit.

2) However, the optimum solution is to drop the 2-speed tranmission (because the extra weight also reduces range) and get an electric motor that had a higher operating range, like the carbon-wrapped motor that Tesla uses. And/or use different gear ratios between the front-motor and rear-motor, because even a 1% improvement is better than none, since you'll have a reduction gear with the extra motor anyway. This is what the former model S uses (back in 2014, the 85d gained 1.5% additional range from this split-reduction-gear arrangement AND stronger regen braking from the additional front motor).

Or, you could build a two-speed transmission that can handle the torque, ans Tesla was unable to do themselves or buy (but Porsche could. I doubt Tesla had the in-house engineering resources, and maybe still doesn't) , and benefit from improved highway range, higher top speed, and AOTBE a quieter cabin at higher speeds.

Here you go again, proffering your unqualified "solutions". Armchair quarterbacking is fine for sports, but is dumb in engineering.

How is Porsche actually designing and building a two-speed transmission than can handle the torque when Tesla couldn't, and achieving what they set out to do, an 'unqualified' solution? It works. Or are you claiming that Porsche engineers are incompetent, and don't know how to design cars to meet their customers' demands?

You have no business judging other people's solutions, because you're misapplying conventional wisdom into non-conventional systems. Wanting 300+ miles of range is fine, but thinking that you know how to achieve that by asking people to reduce the motor power and changing the battery chemistry shows a complete lack of comprehension of the mechanics and factors involved.

Case in point, Tesla's selection of LiFePO4 (a well known LESS energy-dense chemistry) for their new model 3 SR's getting a HIGHER range (not sure about efficiency yet due to additional weight) than their NCA variant shows how you can't just pick things off a macdonalds menu and get a happy meal. Stop judging the work of the engineers, and let their results speak for themselves. You want the longest range EV? That's a Tesla Model S. You want the most efficient EV? That's a Model 3 SR Plus. You want the cheapest, 300+ mile yet efficient EV? That's a Model 3 LR.

The only one ignoring data is you.

Ah, glad you brought up the currently unnamed least expensive Model 3. Since it gets about 10 miles more range than the SR+ but has a 0-60 time that's 1/2 second slower (5.8 vice 5.3 seconds), my guess is that they've increased the size of the LFP pack to match the 3LR's NCA pack, but since it has lower specific energy and energy density than the NCA pack it's heavier than the SR+ and thus reduces the accel. It's also possible that the LFP pack can't produce the necessary power to drive the motor at full power. That certainly would explain the performance changes, as I doubt a gear ratio change would provide that much of a range boost with so little accel reduction. I'm glad someone at Tesla thinks range is more important than accel time for that model, although as it's now $7k more expensive than earlier this year, it's only "least expensiv"e in tesla terms.

The bolded part shows that you finally get it. And LFP packs are generally known for being able to discharge more power (and safer) than the other chemistries, so power wouldn't be an issue. So although an increase in kwh is likely, whether or not it got increased to the LR's size is not. The increased weight of the vehicle leading to slower 0-60 times is also more likely (specs of the china SR+ shows it being 120kg heavier than the Fremont SR+).

I got it a long time ago. I'm a fan of LFP for a variety of reasons (safety, no cobalt, tolerance to high SoC, cost, cycle life being some), but primarily for city cars, as I don't think they can meet range needs for all-around cars. So, up to about 40kWh/150 miles I'm all for them. Whether or not LFP can provide the needed power in this case despite a high specific power remains to be seen, as we need full specs for the car, esp. the motor, transmission, and pack.

Thanks for ignoring the Ioniq (final drive ratio of 7.4:1 for fewer revs) vs. model 3 (final drive ratio of 9:1) example which directly shows a smaller motor AND a taller gear ratio does NOT translate to better efficiency. Sorry, let me correct/clarify this. IF all else were equal, then YES, a taller gear would improve efficiency (however slight that might be), but as evidenced by the Ioniq, there are more gains to be made in other trade-offs. See the above about your qualifications to judge what are "better" trade-offs.

There now, was that so hard?

Are you so happy with that caveat that you've missed the point entirely (especially with the model S 85 vs. 85D comparison)? Less than 1.5% improvement (and most of that was from the higher regen from having a motor in the front). Stop proposing a reduction of motor power as the key to longer usable range, as it is NOT. There are better places to extract range from costs (like cheaper cell chemistries - aka LFP). You've already demonstrated that you're incapable of analyzing the data.

Again, I've said that I'm concerned about longer range and am willing to accept less accel, especially at the low end, however that's achieved. A less powerful motor that's operated at peak efficiency level can indeed improve range, but that's only one way to get there: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/04/f15/10097517.pdf

Incorrect. Tesla's are the largest number. Although neither are independent entities (as in separate from an automanufacturer), neither are funded by public subsidies

As Tesla is a proprietary standard still only usable by their vehicles, I don't count them. As has been discussed before, they had to build a network themselves because, as Elon said way back when, they "couldn't afford to wait for someone else to."

EA is a different matter, they're non-proprietary and built with funds that would otherwise have been paid to the government as additional fines. The Government has the final say in where and how EA spends the money, it just doesn't pass through the treasury. That is a government-subsidized network. I'm not sure, but while Tesla may have more chargers I think EA now has more stations in California.

EA is a government-subsidized network?! No. Full stop. You can play word games all you want, but you won't deceive anyone. California had no choice in VW's settlement with the EPA, and it wasn't my tax dollars that went into building those EA stations. The more you write, the more you come across as an industry shill.

Actually, California has the final say (through CEC and/or CARB, I forget which) in how EA spends the $800 million they are forced to spend here by the settlement, just as the federal government has final say in the $1.2 billion EA has to spend in the rest of the country. If the government got the $2 billion in fines and then decided to spend it on building chargers, I assume you'd agree that was government-subsidized?

Now, if the only difference between the two situations is that in one case the government gets the money in fines from VW and then awards contracts to build chargers; in the other VW instead has to give the same money in lieu of fines to EA and then EA spends it how the government directs to build chargers, that's a government-subsidized operation for all intents and purposes in my book.

Excluding EA and Tesla, EVgo has 300 DCFC sites, and Greenlots has 130 DCFC sites. I don't have the totals for Chargepoint, but it's more than Greenlots. Just from those 3 providers alone (assuming the 293 public subsidies went to them), there's already more privately-funded stations than not. Don't get me wrong, the cost of those fast chargers can not be supported by charging fees alone. The stations needs to be paid for by the manufacturers/shareholders who benefit from the stations and written off as a marketing expense, NOT subsidized with public dollars.

Good, we agree that these are subsidized. Many of the EVgo sites were also subsidized IIRR; don't remember about Greenlots, although there are few of those in state.

As for the companies who are spending "billions of their own money" to build infrastructure ... baloney. There's fewer than 50 operating H2 stations now, and another 100 coming soon (most of them relying on public subsidies that amounted to over $300M), I can only see less than $500 million (both private and public) being spent on this paltry infrastructure, and most of that coming from the taxpayers, NOT industry.

See what's happening overseas. H2 infrastructure and production is getting lots of private funding.


Still catching up, so will reply to other posts tomorrow.

So now you're comparing domestic subsidies against global expenditures just to change the context?

Is it NOT obvious that GRA is just an industry mouthpiece? Or at best, a hydrogen apologist?!

There are both domestic and international expenditures. Naturally, expenditures are greater now where the economics are better, i.e. in countries with higher fuel prices due to taxes than the U.S. there may be some European countries where H2 is approaching or maybe even competitive with fossil fuels now. As renewable H2 prices continue to fall, that situation will spread.

As to being an industry mouthpiece, what industry would that be, exactly? I have no financial interest nor am I employed by any energy, auto, or transportation company (to my knowledge; there may be some shares in a mutual fund, but as I don't pay any attention to what's held by that it can't affect me in any way, not that I'd let it in any case).

 

[Oils4AsphaultOnly]

GCC:

MAN gas engines enable hydrogen use in power plants at up to 25% by volume

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/11/20211105-man.html

MAN Energy Solutions a{announced} that its gas-powered, four-stroke engines are “H2-ready” and operable in stationary mode with a hydrogen content of up to 25% by volume in a gas-fuel mix. As such, within the power-plant segment, the company’s MAN 35/44G TS, 51/60G and 51/60G TS gas engines are now designated as H2-ready and capable of exploiting hydrogen to further reduce CO2 emissions. . . .

The adaptive combustion control (ACC) of the MAN engines reacts fully automatically to varying hydrogen contents in the natural gas and enables operation without loss of efficiency, even with fluctuating hydrogen content. Gas engines already in operation can be retrofitted for hydrogen blend-in by upgrading the automation and adding additional ACC sensors.

We are focusing our R&D efforts on offering our customers maximum operational flexibility and future-proofness. The development of a hydrogen economy will take several years, during which time the infrastructure will be upgraded and the production of green hydrogen ramped up. In the German natural-gas grid, for example, a maximum admixture of up to 10% is currently possible; in the future, 20% will be feasible. With our engines, power-plant operators are optimally positioned for this situation.

—Dr Gunnar Stiesch

This is a combustion engine that can accept some H2 in it. Much like how E15 is essentially gasoline with some ethanol in it. You're a shill for the fossil fuel industry.

 

[Oils4AsphaultOnly]

Do you think that maybe, just maybe, a single-speed EV's city range is better than highway range because they benefit from lots of regen in stop and go driving, unlike in highway cruising? Or do you think that's irrelevant?

No. Because that would mean that Porsche was lazy and didn't optimize their regen braking as best they could. At city speeds, a Porsche is effectively a single-speed EV anyway. Their range being poor is due to the inefficiencies of the 2-speed transmission and their EPA numbers attest to that.

Or it could mean that Porsche uses very aggressive tire treads with high rolling resistance, so that they can provide Porsche-level handling as demanded by their buyers. Of course, Porsche has also apparently chosen to understate their EPA numbers, as reflected in the fact that they easily exceed them in the real-world, while Tesla's EPA numbers are overstated and they, along with almost all other BEV manufacturers fall short of theirs in the real world. Tesla's numbers are especially optimistic because they use 5- versus the 2-cycle testing everyone else uses.

If using a two-speed transmission is such a bad idea, then why did Tesla opt for the one for the exact same reasons Porsche did (except they couldn't make one last)?

Of course, that doesn't explain why HEVs get better City than Hwy mpg. Are you claiming that regen is unrelated to that? After all, AFAIA every conventional ICE gets better Hwy than City mpg. yet AFAIA every HEV and PHEV gets the opposite, despite being heavier than a conventional ICE which should penalize them around town, where rolling resistance is a larger factor than drag. Serial vs. parallel vs. serial/parallel can shift the numbers around a bit.

"Or it could mean that Porsche uses very aggressive tire treads with high rolling resistance"

Give it up. High rolling resistance tires affects efficiency equally at ALL speeds. The two-speed transmission isn't the answer you were hoping for.

As for HEV's getting better city than hway mpg - DING DING DING!! If even a combustion engine based vehicle gets better city mileage (due to regen) than Porsche, then that 2-speed transmission must REALLY SUCK!! Although Porsche could've sandbagged their numbers, that's neither here nor there for your case about 2-speed transmissions.

And you're misunderstanding the reason for why PHEV's get better city mileage than hway, despite "rolling resistance being a larger factor". It's NOT because rolling resistance increases (it stays constant), it's because drag decreases significantly (plot an exponential curve with speed). The city mpg for PHEV/HEV being better than ICE city mpg is ENTIRELY due to regen braking, but that's a comparison between different powertrains, not a comparison between city & hway mpg from within the same powertrain. You are mis-using data without any comprehension of what they mean.

Or, you could build a two-speed transmission that can handle the torque, ans Tesla was unable to do themselves or buy (but Porsche could. I doubt Tesla had the in-house engineering resources, and maybe still doesn't) , and benefit from improved highway range, higher top speed, and AOTBE a quieter cabin at higher speeds.

Here you go again, proffering your unqualified "solutions". Armchair quarterbacking is fine for sports, but is dumb in engineering.

How is Porsche actually designing and building a two-speed transmission than can handle the torque when Tesla couldn't, and achieving what they set out to do, an 'unqualified' solution? It works. Or are you claiming that Porsche engineers are incompetent, and don't know how to design cars to meet their customers' demands?

Because the 2-speed transmission reduces the overall powertrain efficiency to the point of yielding less range instead of more. And Porsche didn't prioritize range, but priorized speed. Porsche's engineers designed their car to perform within the trade-offs that they were after. It's too bad that less than 2 years later, Tesla showed them how to get BOTH good performance AND range ... by using a single gear transmission.

Tesla in 2010 was less than 400 employees and didn't have the resources to solve ZF's 2-speed transmission issues. They're a much larger company now and they've determined that a 2-speed is still not worth the trade-off.

Ah, glad you brought up the currently unnamed least expensive Model 3. Since it gets about 10 miles more range than the SR+ but has a 0-60 time that's 1/2 second slower (5.8 vice 5.3 seconds), my guess is that they've increased the size of the LFP pack to match the 3LR's NCA pack, but since it has lower specific energy and energy density than the NCA pack it's heavier than the SR+ and thus reduces the accel. It's also possible that the LFP pack can't produce the necessary power to drive the motor at full power. That certainly would explain the performance changes, as I doubt a gear ratio change would provide that much of a range boost with so little accel reduction. I'm glad someone at Tesla thinks range is more important than accel time for that model, although as it's now $7k more expensive than earlier this year, it's only "least expensiv"e in tesla terms.

The bolded part shows that you finally get it. And LFP packs are generally known for being able to discharge more power (and safer) than the other chemistries, so power wouldn't be an issue. So although an increase in kwh is likely, whether or not it got increased to the LR's size is not. The increased weight of the vehicle leading to slower 0-60 times is also more likely (specs of the china SR+ shows it being 120kg heavier than the Fremont SR+).

I got it a long time ago. I'm a fan of LFP for a variety of reasons (safety, no cobalt, tolerance to high SoC, cost, cycle life being some), but primarily for city cars, as I don't think they can meet range needs for all-around cars. So, up to about 40kWh/150 miles I'm all for them. Whether or not LFP can provide the needed power in this case despite a high specific power remains to be seen, as we need full specs for the car, esp. the motor, transmission, and pack.

Of course you'd think that. And it's not "we need full specs", it's just you. The mental gymnastics that you had to perform to write that (despite what you wrote previously) must be amazing.

As Tesla is a proprietary standard still only usable by their vehicles, I don't count them. As has been discussed before, they had to build a network themselves because, as Elon said way back when, they "couldn't afford to wait for someone else to."

EA is a different matter, they're non-proprietary and built with funds that would otherwise have been paid to the government as additional fines. The Government has the final say in where and how EA spends the money, it just doesn't pass through the treasury. That is a government-subsidized network. I'm not sure, but while Tesla may have more chargers I think EA now has more stations in California.

EA is a government-subsidized network?! No. Full stop. You can play word games all you want, but you won't deceive anyone. California had no choice in VW's settlement with the EPA, and it wasn't my tax dollars that went into building those EA stations. The more you write, the more you come across as an industry shill.

Actually, California has the final say (through CEC and/or CARB, I forget which) in how EA spends the $800 million they are forced to spend here by the settlement, just as the federal government has final say in the $1.2 billion EA has to spend in the rest of the country. If the government got the $2 billion in fines and then decided to spend it on building chargers, I assume you'd agree that was government-subsidized?

Now, if the only difference between the two situations is that in one case the government gets the money in fines from VW and then awards contracts to build chargers; in the other VW instead has to give the same money in lieu of fines to EA and then EA spends it how the government directs to build chargers, that's a government-subsidized operation for all intents and purposes in my book.

You have a very twisted mindset. I won't argue this further. FCEV's will die due to its own demerits anyway.

 

[jlv]

If using a two-speed transmission is such a bad idea, then why did Tesla opt for the one for the exact same reasons Porsche did (except they couldn't make one last)?

Because they *thought* they needed it (in the original Roadster) for the exact same reasons Porsche did, and then realized they didn't need it at all.

https://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/23/breaking-tesla-has-a-solution-for-their-transmission-woes-get/

Tesla from the Model S production onwards is vastly different than the Tesla that put together the original 2500 Roadsters.

 

[GRA]

I've been emergency house- and pet-sitting for some friends for the past two weeks or so, after their regular (and now ex-) sitter flaked on them. Between the extra two hours of commuting via bike and rapid transit, plus the two 45 minute dog walks per day (he's a sweet dog, but in no hurry to conclude his business), I've been in no mood to post. Rather than replying to posts gradually I decided to write all of mine and then post them at once, as otherwise I never would have caught up; new replies would have been putting me even further behind. I've spent my free time the past couple of days writing them, so, there will be a ton of posts all arriving at once on a variety of topics.

This is the most ignorant retort EVER!! Norway is currently at 91.5% BEVs + PHEVs. Sure it's not 99%, but it's practically there. Oh and you might want to revisit your list of perks, because some of them have gone away already, yet the EV penetration went higher, not lower.

How did Norway get to that level? Massive subsidies which made BEVs less expensive to buy than ICEs, lots of perks that further reduced operating costs (free ferry tolls, parking etc.), in a small country with the majority of the population in the lower third, a very high home ownership rate and virtually all their electricity from hydro. I repeat, the amazing thing is that they weren't seeing 99% of sales after the first year or two, if BEVs were so obviously nicer in ways most customers cared about. You couldn't ask for a more favorable sales climate.

What are you talking about? Most of the BEV SUV's and hatchbacks only started deliveries last year, and the model Y barely started deliveries a few months ago. It's a significant supply issue. Go ahead and find another excuse to deny the data. Your motive is blatant.

The wider assortment of model types certainly plays a part, although I'm not sure if Norwegians are a big fans of CUVs as Americans or (increasingly) Europeans in general are. Anyone have any Norwegian sales data that breaks them down by type? I've only been able to find sales by manufacturer: https://www.marklines.com/en/statistics/flash_sales/automotive-sales-in-norway-by-month

 

[GRA]

Deleted dup. post.

 

[GRA]

All GCC:

Freudenberg, ZF and FlixBus partner to develop fuel cell drive systems for long-distance coaches

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/11/20211111-hyfleet.html

Technology supplier Freudenberg is starting the research project “HyFleet” together with ZF Friedrichshafen and FlixBus. The partners aim to develop a high-performance fuel cell system by 2024 to completely replace conventional diesel drives. They will also be examining the hybridization of electric powertrains with fuel cells and batteries.

Anyone traveling by long-distance coach instead of using a car already reduces CO2 emissions by 6.6 kilograms on a 400-kilometer (249-mile) trip. However, to date there has been no practical solution for completely carbon-neutral operations of long-distance bus fleets in regular service.

The reason is that long-distance services are extremely demanding to operate: just like long-distance freight trucks, buses are often used day and night and travel well over 100,000 kilometers (60,000 miles) per year. The durations of stopovers must be minimized in the interest of the passengers. The long charging times for the batteries of purely battery-electric drives, as well as the implementation of the cost-intensive charging infrastructure this requires, are simply not feasible in this sector.

Hydrogen-powered fuel cells that are combined with an electric drive and complementary battery storage to form a hybrid powertrain could be an alternative. Such a solution will now be explored as part of a major fuel cell technology project.

A consortium consisting of Freudenberg, ZF, FlixBus and a major European bus manufacturer has joined forces for this purpose. The German Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure has already provided a non-binding letter of intent for funding the project.

Within the HyFleet project, Freudenberg is developing a long-range fuel cell system that will be tested directly in a demonstrator long-distance bus.

To ensure that the fuel cell system can withstand the rigors of practical operation in long-distance buses, the first stage of the HyFleet project will center on the fuel cell’s technical performance. Among other things, this includes optimizing the behavior of the fuel cell system in continuous use with a minimum operating time of 35,000 hours.

This means that the degradation mechanisms must be controlled, thus maximizing the system’s efficiency over the entire service life. Fleet operators will notice low fuel consumption as a result.

At the end of the project, Freudenberg’s innovative fuel cell system will be tested in a demonstrator bus provided by the bus manufacturer.

The partner FlixBus contributes the expertise of a global mobility provider to the project. Together with more than 500 partner companies, the business is already operating Europe’s largest fleet with more than 4,000 long-distance buses in regular service. . . .

Although HyFleet is focusing on coach fleets, one of the project partners’ priorities from the outset is that the achieved results can be transferred to all heavy-duty segments, especially to freight transport with heavy trucks. Freudenberg also believes that coaches could play a pioneering role in the rapid switch to hydrogen mobility—because thanks to the long-distance buses, the refueling infrastructure created along the most heavily traveled highways would be reliably used to capacity.

In addition to the HyFleet project, ZF and Freudenberg are jointly researching additional applications to develop fuel cell solutions for mobility applications and industrial use.

Since 2018, Freudenberg has already launched various cooperation projects with renowned partners to develop fuel cell systems for the heavy-duty sector. Among other things, the company is a technology partner in the “Pa-X-ell2” project. The goal is to develop a new generation of fuel cells to be used for passenger ships on the open seas. . . .

Daimler Truck and TotalEnergies partner to develop hydrogen ecosystem for transportation in Europe

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/11/20211111-daimlertotal.html

. . . The partners will collaborate in the development of ecosystems for heavy-duty trucks running on hydrogen, with the intent to demonstrate the attractiveness and effectiveness of trucking powered by clean hydrogen and the ambition to play a lead role in kickstarting the rollout of hydrogen infrastructure for transportation.

The collaboration includes hydrogen sourcing and logistics, dispensing of hydrogen in service stations, development of hydrogen-based trucks, establishment of a customer base as well as other areas.

In particular, TotalEnergies has the ambition by 2030 to operate directly or indirectly up to 150 hydrogen refueling stations in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg and France.

As part of the collaboration, Daimler Truck is also to supply hydrogen-powered fuel-cell trucks to its customers in the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg and France by 2025. The truck manufacturer will support its customers to ensure easy operability and highly competitive uptime.

In order to develop these projects and to establish hydrogen-based transportation as a viable option, both companies want to jointly investigate the means of reducing the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) of hydrogen truck operations, in line with their common approach to work together with authorities on the regulatory framework in the European Union. . . .

Daimler Truck has the ambition to offer only new vehicles that are CO2-neutral in driving operation (“from tank to wheel”) in Europe, North America and Japan by 2039. The company is focused on both CO2-neutral technologies: batteries and hydrogen fuel-cells. Currently, the truck manufacturer is testing a new enhanced prototype of its Mercedes-Benz GenH2 Truck on public roads in Germany. The first series-produced GenH2 Truck are expected to be handed over to customers starting in 2027.

Daimler Truck has a clear preference for liquid hydrogen. In this state, the energy carrier has a far higher energy density in relation to volume than gaseous hydrogen. As a result, the tanks of a fuel-cell truck using liquid hydrogen are much smaller and, due to the lower pressure, significantly lighter. This gives the trucks more cargo space and a higher payload. At the same time, more hydrogen can be carried, which significantly increases the trucks’ range. This will make the series version of the GenH2 Truck, like conventional diesel trucks, suitable for multi-day, difficult-to-plan long-haul transport and where the daily energy output is high.

TotalEnergies is a global multi-energy company that produces and markets energies on a global scale: oil and biofuels, natural gas and green gases, renewables and electricity. TotalEnergies is looking into the production of clean hydrogen—blue or green—produced using carbon-neutral processes, from natural gas with carbon capture and storage or based on intermittent renewable electricity. . . .

Ballard acquires Arcola Energy to help customers integrate fuel cell systems into heavy-duty mobility

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/11/20211112-ballard.html

. . . With more than 10 years of experience integrating Ballard fuel cell systems into powertrains and heavy-duty vehicles, including buses, refuse trucks and trains, Arcola currently has approximately 90 employees based in the UK. Arcola is one of the fastest-growing hydrogen companies in the UK.

We continue to focus on simplifying the fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV) experience and ease implementation friction points for OEM customers and end-users. We are putting the customer at the heart of our strategy and investments. With the acquisition of Arcola, we will make it easier for existing and new OEM customers globally to offer FCEVs by providing stronger support for the integration of our fuel cell engines into their vehicle platforms, including powertrain integration, vehicle integration and application engineering.

—Randy MacEwen, Ballard President and CEO. . . .

ACIA Aero Leasing LOI with Universal Hydrogen for up to 30 regional aircraft conversions to hydrogen power

[url]https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/11/20211114-uh.html[/url]

Universal Hydrogen Co. (earlier post) has signed a letter of intent (LOI) with ACIA Aero Leasing (ACIA), a regional aircraft lessor with offices in Ireland, France, Canada, Mauritius, and South Africa. ACIA expects to place 10 firm orders for Universal Hydrogen’s ATR 72 conversion kits with additional purchase rights for 20 more conversion kits of various turboprop types.

To accelerate market adoption of hydrogen in aviation, Universal Hydrogen is developing a conversion kit to retrofit existing regional airplanes—starting with the ATR72 and the De Havilland Canada Dash-8—to hydrogen power.

The conversion consists of a fuel cell electric powertrain that replaces the existing turboprop engines. It also accommodates, in the rear of the fuselage, UH’s proprietary, lightweight, modular hydrogen capsules that are transported from green hydrogen production sites to the airport and loaded directly into the aircraft using the existing intermodal freight network and cargo handling equipment.

Following the aircraft conversions, Universal Hydrogen and ACIA will collaborate on marketing hydrogen fuel services to ACIA’s leasing customers.

Universal Hydrogen and Fortescue Future Industries (FFI) also recently announced their partnership to enable the aviation industry to decarbonize through zero-emissions green hydrogen. . . .

Under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by the two, FFI and Universal Hydrogen have agreed to:

Negotiate a global offtake arrangement whereby FFI will supply green hydrogen to Universal Hydrogen to power regional and other aviation sectors until 2035;

Conduct a scoping study to develop green hydrogen production and logistics hubs in Iceland, New Zealand and Southeast Queensland; and

Evaluate future green hydrogen demand in the aviation industry on a region-by-region basis to identify and promote green hydrogen adoption and uptake.

Hyzon Motors and TC Energy to collaborate on modular hydrogen production hubs; 20 tonnes per hub per day

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/11/20211115-hyzon.html

Hyzon Motors, a supplier of hydrogen-powered fuel cell electric vehicles,and TC Energy Corporation will collaborate on development, construction, operation, and ownership of hydrogen production facilities (hubs) across North America.

The hydrogen production facilities will be used to meet hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicle demand by focusing on low-to-negative carbon intensity hydrogen from renewable natural gas, biogas and other sustainable sources. The facilities will be located close to demand, supporting Hyzon back-to-base vehicle deployments. . . .

Under the agreement, the companies will evaluate sites across multiple states and provinces to develop hydrogen production facilities with the goal of hydrogen delivery to fuel heavy duty vehicles. The hubs will be prioritized near existing and potential customer demand with a goal to produce up to 20 tonnes of hydrogen per hub per day.

TC Energy will operate the hubs, supply the power and gas commodities, and provide asset development, management services, and power and gas sales marketing. . . .

Kawasaki, Subaru, Toyota, Mazda, and Yamaha partner on producing, transporting, and using carbon-neutral fuels, including hydrogen

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/11/20211115-kawasaki.html

Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd., Subaru Corporation, Toyota Motor Corporation, Mazda Motor Corporation, and Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd. jointly announced that, toward the achievement of carbon neutrality, they will take on the challenge of expanding fuel options through the use of internal combustion engines at the (three-hour) Super Taikyu Race in Okayama on 13-14 November.

Specifically, to expand options for producing, transporting, and using fuel, the five companies intend to unite and pursue the three initiatives of:

Participating in races using carbon-neutral fuels;

Exploring the use of hydrogen engines in two-wheeled and other vehicles; and

Continuing to race using hydrogen engines. . . .

Exploring the use of hydrogen engines in two-wheeled and other vehicles

Initiating consideration of the possibility of joint research for hydrogen engine development (Kawasaki Heavy Industries and Yamaha Motor). Since 2010, Kawasaki Heavy Industries has been focusing on hydrogen as a next-generation energy source and has been developing technologies for producing, transporting, and using hydrogen throughout the entire supply chain needed to support society. The company is currently conducting verification tests for transporting large-quantity, low-cost hydrogen to Japan produced from Australian lignite.

By the end of fiscal 2021, it plans to transport hydrogen using its in-house-constructed, first-in-the-world purpose-built liquefied hydrogen carrier, the Suiso Frontier. Also, based on hydrogen combustion technologies cultivated through the creation of the world’s first successful urban-area, 100% hydrogen-fueled gas turbine power generation technology for which it completed development in 2018, Kawasaki Heavy Industries is developing hydrogen-fueled engines for land, sea, and air mobility applications, such as for aircraft, ships, and two-wheeled vehicles.

Yamaha Motor is developing hydrogen engine technology for possible use in its two-wheeled vehicles, ROV (four-wheeled recreational off-highway vehicle) series, and other products. To accelerate this technology development, it is preparing to introduce new equipment and is strengthening its in-house development structure.

Kawasaki Heavy Industries and Yamaha Motor have started considerations toward the joint development of a hydrogen engine for possible use in two-wheeled vehicles. Going forward, they are planned to be joined by Honda Motor Co., Ltd. and Suzuki Motor Corporation, and the four companies intend to jointly explore the possibility of achieving carbon neutrality through the use of internal combustion engines in two-wheeled vehicles. To maintain a distinct line between cooperation and competition, they intend to proceed after establishing a framework that will clearly define areas of cooperation and collaborative research. . . .

The challenge of producing hydrogen fuel. In addition to the companies and municipalities that have supplied hydrogen for Toyota's hydrogen-engine vehicle that has been competing in the Super Taikyu Series, Toyota is now collaborating with Fukuoka City, which is to supply Toyota hydrogen derived from sewage biogas.

Since 2015 and as a world first, Fukuoka City has been taking on the challenge of producing and commercializing hydrogen from domestic wastewater sewage. The city is producing non-CO2-increasing green hydrogen from biogas generated during sewage treatment at the Fukuoka City Chubu Water Treatment Center and has a daily hydrogen production capacity of 3,300 Nm3—roughly equivalent to the daily amount of hydrogen used by 60 units of the Toyota Mirai hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicle, based on a per-unit daily hydrogen requirement of 55 Nm3. The city is also conducting verification tests with corporate partners, such as supplying green hydrogen to fuel cell-powered trucks, motorcycles, and power supply vehicles.

The challenge of transporting hydrogen fuel. For the Super Taikyu Race in Okayama, hydrogen is to be transported using large and midsize trucks of Toyota Transportation Co., Ltd. fueled by Euglena’s next-generation biofuel. Also, Toyota and Commercial Japan Partnership Technologies (CJPT) have started considering how to solve the transportation efficiency challenges of small fuel cell-powered trucks as identified at the SUZUKA S-TAI.

Challenge 1: Metal tanks are heavy, limiting the number of tanks that can be loaded onto a small truck.

Challenge 2: Matters related to the allowable pressure of metal tanks limit the amount of hydrogen that can be filled per tank.

To overcome these challenges, Toyota and CJPT are employing CFRP (carbon fiber-reinforced plastic) tank resin-liner technologies developed through Toyota’s experience with the Mirai, making lightweight, high-pressure transport of hydrogen possible. The two companies are on the verge of significantly improving transportation efficiency compared to when using conventional metal tanks, and they are advancing development and considerations that should enable them to actually transport hydrogen in the future.

The challenge of using hydrogen fuel. Toyota has advanced the speedy development of its hydrogen engine by competing in the harsh environment of motorsports in the form of the past three races of the Super Taikyu Series. Since the engine’s first Super Taikyu Series race, which was the Fuji Super TEC 24 Hours Race, improvements have been made to it after each race.

In the six months leading up to the Super Taikyu Race in Okayama, its output has been improved by about 20% and torque by about 30%, and in the two months since the SUZUKA S-Tai, its output and torque have been improved by 5% to 10%, giving it performance superior to that of a similarly-sized gasoline engine.

Meanwhile, fuel economy has been kept the same. (If output were to be set the same as that at the time of the Fuji Super TEC 24-hour race, fuel economy would improve by about 20%.)

The engine’s connected system, which was newly introduced during development before the SUZUKA S-Tai, has been improved to be able to process and analyze more data. Using the system in test runs further accelerated development, and increasing the pump pressure rating reduced hydrogen filling time to two minutes or less.

 

[GRA]

All GCC:

Schlumberger electrolyzer JV Genvia signs pilot project agreements in steel and cement

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/11/20211119-genvia.html

Schlumberger New Energy, France’s CEA and partners have announced the signature of pilot project agreements between Genvia (earlier post) and critical-industry leaders on the pathway to net-zero in the cement and steel industries. Through these agreements, Genvia will scale up the next generation of electrolyzer technology, developed over two decades of R&D at the CEA, to produce clean hydrogen without CO2 emissions, accelerating the decarbonization of multiple industrial sectors.

Leveraging Schlumberger’s industrialization expertise and global footprint, these new agreements will set the stage for developing the entire value chain to use hydrogen as the preferred clean energy carrier.

Genvia’s pilot projects will focus on efficiency, performance and decarbonization of industrial processes for the steel and cement industries, as follows:

Genvia and ArcelorMittal Méditerranée, a subsidiary of ArcelorMittal have agreed a pilot project to substitute current hydrogen use, and support the decarbonization of high-performance electric steel production required for the electric vehicle industry.

Genvia and Ugitech, part of Swiss Steel Group, a world leader in long stainless-steel products, have agreed a pilot project to demonstrate both the technical relevance of hydrogen as a clean fuel for a reheating furnace that can replace natural gas, and the economic efficiency of Genvia's technology.

Genvia; Vicat, a cement production group; Hynamics, a low-carbon and renewable hydrogen solutions subsidiary of EDF group; and EDF research have agreed a pilot project focused on the optimization of Genvia’s technology for industrial applications, demonstrated in the cement sector. . . .

Several Rotterdam terminals to be ready for hydrogen imports by 2025

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/11/20211123-rotterdam.html

In the port of Rotterdam, the first companies are already preparing for the storage, processing and transit of hydrogen, according to a study conducted by the Port Authority into the development of hydrogen import terminals in Rotterdam. The Port Authority held consultations with a large number of Rotterdam-based companies and asked several research agencies to carry out sub-studies into the necessary preconditions in the fields of navigation, safety, the environment and space.

The four terminals that could be operational by 2025 for the transhipment of hydrogen are spread throughout the port area. The hydrogen will be in various forms: liquid hydrogen or packaged in ammonia or methanol or specially developed hydrogen carriers, known as Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carriers (LOHC).

The import terminals will be connected to the central hydrogen pipeline HyTransPort.RTM, which will then transport hydrogen to the end users. Initially, these will mainly be industrial users in Rotterdam, but fairly soon it will also be possible to supply industry in Chemelot and North Rhine-Westphalia, as well as other parts of the Netherlands. For these inland destinations, preparations for the laying of the Delta Corridor pipeline bundle and a link to the national hydrogen grid are underway. . . .

Among the findings of the report:

According to current expectations, the production of green hydrogen in Rotterdam will rise from 115 kilotonnes in 2025 to 195 kilotonnes by 2030. On top of this, imports of 200 kilotonnes are expected by 2025 and 400 kilotonnes by 2030, with an upward potential of 1,300 kilotonnes, according to the National Hydrogen Program’s forecasts. In terms of volume, imports will rapidly outstrip local production.

By 2050, demand for hydrogen is expected to increase to 20 Mtonnes, around 18 Mtonnes of which will be imported.

Rotterdam is already familiar with hydrogen in industry and the transhipment of hydrogen carriers such as ammonia. In addition, the port has experience in the transhipment of cold energy carriers such as LNG and chemicals such as methanol. This experience can be applied to the new forms of hydrogen that are anticipated: liquid hydrogen, ammonia and LOHCs. Rotterdam’s extensive, existing tank storage and infrastructure for hydrogen and hydrogen carriers add to the port’s appeal as an import location. Companies will be able to develop existing fossil energy assets for hydrogen and hydrogen carriers.

All port areas—from Pernis to Maasvlakte 2—have the potential to import hydrogen. Depending on the volumes, the import of hydrogen is possible in all of these port areas, both in terms of space and safety, and from an environmental and navigational point of view. Four companies working in refining, energy and tank storage are actively preparing to import hydrogen. It looks like they will have both the physical space and the licences to import, process and export hydrogen in various forms by 2025. In addition, several companies are preparing to free up physical and/or environmental space by restructuring their existing product portfolio.

The unique navigational access means there are no restrictions to the safe shipment of hydrogen in Rotterdam.

Haldor Topsoe and Green Fuel to develop scalable technologies for green ammonia in Iceland

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/11/20211118-topsoe.html

Green Fuel and Haldor Topsoe have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which will see the companies partnering to identify efficient and scalable technologies for the production of green ammonia in Iceland.

The agreement also enables the two companies to explore other business opportunities within green ammonia. Green ammonia will likely be used in the decarbonization of hard-to-abate industries such as shipping, heavy goods transport and agriculture.

As part of its plan to produce green ammonia and green hydrogen in Iceland, Green Fuel has secured a Letter of Intent to operate at Bakki Eco-Industrial Park in north-east Iceland.