Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[AndyH]

How did you make the massive jump from "analyst" to "strategist"? You know those are different, right? :shock:

I sure do. Read it again:

Guy, Andy's view is that of a military analyst. Military strategists don't care about costs, they only care about capabilities. If it is possible and it helps accomplish their mission, they will put it into practice. Now.

An analyst such does not work in a vacuum. They need to get their direction from someone and give their work products to someone. The end user of their analysis is the strategist. Otherwise, their work is for naught.

Sorry, no. There are many types of analysts in many types of positions. The work I did - whether generating requirements or information or using the fruits of that - is not at all described by your assertion. In addition, cost is a core aspect of the process - that includes monetary cost, equipment cost, and the cost in human life.

One comparison I could draw is that in a military environment we consider all available info, while too many in the civilian world omit the categories of info that they don't agree with. Some Americans from a couple of political persuasions, for example, like the 'personal rights' part of the equation but push aside the 'personal responsibility' part that is required for the 'rights' bit to work. A specific and somewhat on-topic example is that many believe that the government should stop all subsidies - that business should be able to stand on its own. But in order for this to work as it should, all of the businesses must pay their fair share for the resources they use. That means, for example, that the coal industry should be paying for the raw material they extract. They should pay to restore the land, should minimize and remediate any damaged caused by processing or transportation, and should be paying disposal fees to the owners of the commons (water, land, and atmosphere) they use when the dispose of their wastes. It's not just about tax credits from the government.

According to his writing and statements, Rifkin considers all aspects of the problem - not just the price of electricity. Europe and most of the rest of the world does as well. As too many Americans don't, I'm not at all surprised by the problem understanding the point of view of those that have determined that a transition is required. Because of their focus, I don't expect most corporations to grasp it either becuase:

The Externality Trap[/url]"]Economic life in the industrial world these days can be described, without too much inaccuracy, as an arrangement set up to allow a privileged minority to externalize nearly all their costs onto the rest of society while pocketing as much as possible the benefits themselves.

Anyone suggesting that it's long past time to 'internalize' the 'externalities' is not likely to be knighted by the local power company. :lol:

Again - please do not even try to translate. If someone wants to know what I mean I will answer.

Guy's view of V2G suggested to me that he thought that there's not enough info yet to implement V2G and that more research is needed. I simply stated that the US is not the only country conducting pilot studies - yet some of the pilot programs and/or studies that took place here are considered 'complete' (those from SWRI, for one example) and operational programs are in process in the US as a result. Europe is ahead of the US in both deployment of EVs, V2G research, developing a full-scale plan, and began implementing the plan in the early 2000s. There are clearly more than enough 'knowns' to recognize the value of V2G and to start deploying the associated systems. The rest of the knowledge holes will be filled as the programs progress. That's my take on the status of V2G. It appears to be the assessment of Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, the EU as a whole, part of the UN, and various entities in Delaware, Vermont, California, and Texas as well.

 

[GRA]

Guy's view of V2G suggested to me that he thought that there's not enough info yet to implement V2G and that more research is needed. I simply stated that the US is not the only country conducting pilot studies - yet some of the pilot programs and/or studies that took place here are considered 'complete' (those from SWRI, for one example) and operational programs are in process in the US as a result. Europe is ahead of the US in both deployment of EVs, V2G research, developing a full-scale plan, and began implementing the plan in the early 2000s. There are clearly more than enough 'knowns' to recognize the value of V2G and to start deploying the associated systems. The rest of the knowledge holes will be filled as the programs progress. That's my take on the status of V2G. It appears to be the assessment of Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, the EU as a whole, part of the UN, and various entities in Delaware, Vermont, California, and Texas as well.

The bolded section isn't an accurate statement of my position. I'm suggesting that there isn't enough info yet to implement V2G on a large scale (i.e. not a demo project) with accurate enough data to price it correctly for all three entities (utility/car manufacturer/owner) concerned, so that it can be a profitable business as opposed to a government or industry-supported demonstration. V2G is likely to acquire adequate enough data and customer buy-in to proceed to mass adoption earlier in NW Europe than in the U.S., but that's because gas, electricity and car prices are higher there and the climate variation lower, allowing greater margins of uncertainty.

 

[AndyH]

Guy's view of V2G suggested to me that he thought that there's not enough info yet to implement V2G and that more research is needed. I simply stated that the US is not the only country conducting pilot studies - yet some of the pilot programs and/or studies that took place here are considered 'complete' (those from SWRI, for one example) and operational programs are in process in the US as a result. Europe is ahead of the US in both deployment of EVs, V2G research, developing a full-scale plan, and began implementing the plan in the early 2000s. There are clearly more than enough 'knowns' to recognize the value of V2G and to start deploying the associated systems. The rest of the knowledge holes will be filled as the programs progress. That's my take on the status of V2G. It appears to be the assessment of Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, the EU as a whole, part of the UN, and various entities in Delaware, Vermont, California, and Texas as well.

The bolded section isn't an accurate statement of my position. I'm suggesting that there isn't enough info yet to implement V2G on a large scale (i.e. not a demo project) with accurate enough data to price it correctly for all three entities (utility/car manufacturer/owner) concerned, so that it can be a profitable business as opposed to a government or industry-supported demonstration. V2G is likely to acquire adequate enough data and customer buy-in to proceed to mass adoption earlier in NW Europe than in the U.S., but that's because gas, electricity and car prices are higher there and the climate variation lower, allowing greater margins of uncertainty.

And that's different how? Not beating on you, but if there's not enough info for 'a large scale' then that suggests that more 'small scale' (aka tests/demos) tests are needed, right?

Europe's got an overall plan so that V2G will have a functional spot to 'plug into' when the time comes. They have a V2G specification for hardware and software, and have at least 'proof of concept' hardware in the wild. Countries are starting to deploy operational interfaces (places for V2G to plug-in and be paid for their services). And car owners are being paid. There's a TON of climate variability from Denmark to Italy to Portugal...I certainly don't see any battery coddling there. What else do they need?

I certainly agree that the US isn't ready - we don't have a plan, a standard, or national-scale system. We do have some scattered projects...and without an overarching plan, we'll likely lose to Europe by many, many laps.

 

[GRA]

Guy's view of V2G suggested to me that he thought that there's not enough info yet to implement V2G and that more research is needed. I simply stated that the US is not the only country conducting pilot studies - yet some of the pilot programs and/or studies that took place here are considered 'complete' (those from SWRI, for one example) and operational programs are in process in the US as a result. Europe is ahead of the US in both deployment of EVs, V2G research, developing a full-scale plan, and began implementing the plan in the early 2000s. There are clearly more than enough 'knowns' to recognize the value of V2G and to start deploying the associated systems. The rest of the knowledge holes will be filled as the programs progress. That's my take on the status of V2G. It appears to be the assessment of Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, the EU as a whole, part of the UN, and various entities in Delaware, Vermont, California, and Texas as well.

The bolded section isn't an accurate statement of my position. I'm suggesting that there isn't enough info yet to implement V2G on a large scale (i.e. not a demo project) with accurate enough data to price it correctly for all three entities (utility/car manufacturer/owner) concerned, so that it can be a profitable business as opposed to a government or industry-supported demonstration. V2G is likely to acquire adequate enough data and customer buy-in to proceed to mass adoption earlier in NW Europe than in the U.S., but that's because gas, electricity and car prices are higher there and the climate variation lower, allowing greater margins of uncertainty.

And that's different how? Not beating on you, but if there's not enough info for 'a large scale' then that suggests that more 'small scale' (aka tests/demos) tests are needed, right?

Sure, I've never said otherwise. In fact, I've called for a lot more tests/demos at larger scales upthread.

Europe's got an overall plan so that V2G will have a functional spot to 'plug into' when the time comes. They have a V2G specification for hardware and software, and have at least 'proof of concept' hardware in the wild. Countries are starting to deploy operational interfaces (places for V2G to plug-in and be paid for their services). And car owners are being paid. What else do they need?

I've also said that it's easy to pay based on looser numbers, when the # of vehicles involved is small and the margins large. If you're off by a couple of thou per on 20 vehicles on a subsidized project it's not a big deal, but if you're talking about mass adoption with no government help it's quite another matter.

I certainly agree that the US isn't ready - we don't have a plan, a standard, or national-scale system. We do have some scattered projects...and without an overarching plan, we'll likely lose to Europe by many, many laps.

That's fine, as long as we get it right in the end with our narrower margins. I'm all in favor of V2G, but I don't see it being as critical as other programs that can more easily justify haste and the associated waste. Demand-side management through ToU, valley filling etc. is cheaper and easier to implement, and buys us enough time to work on that last 20%. V2H for emergencies, OTOH, is something that we can likely implement sooner, as the decision to use it and the cost/benefit analysis of doing so is solely with the owner. Naturally, modifying battery warranties to allow for this will increase its viability, but it's not essential in the way that routine use of V2G would be.

 

[AndyH]

Here's just a small example of why I think that there's plenty of info available today for a wholesale transition to V2G as part of an overall plan. I think it also pretty much proves that this is yet another area where the US has fallen behind.

http://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/158710_en.html

The project, which ran for three years and ended in August 2014, will continue to build on its achievements to find new solutions for the mobility market through the efficient use of large amounts of data. DATA SIM is considering the creation of two spin off companies, and plans are currently at the development stage.

A three year project that ran from 2011 through 2014...for what?

The technology behind the design of electric vehicles is ever improving and the EU predicts that these vehicles could be in mass production by 2020. By developing a completely new way of using information from GPS and location data shown by GSM, the EU DATA SIM project simulated the consequences of a massive switch to electric vehicles, and studied the impact on mobility and electricity distribution networks.

And it provided what?

Working out what people are doing when they get behind the wheel, and how far they are likely to be going, also means researchers are able to establish what and where energy demands are probably going to be.

As Janssens says, ‘You can see whether there is a risk of energy shortages in certain zones when a given number of vehicles are being charged. For example, if too many EVs are charged at the same time, is there a risk that the street lighting will go out?’

These answers will provide useful information for policy-makers, to reinforce the network in those specific locations or to re-design the charging point locations.

One key challenge for renewable energy is its intermittency, with peaks and drops in its production. DATA SIM also studied the possibility that the EVs could be used to store the excess of generated energy in peak period, and extra energy stored in the car’s batteries can be fed back into the grid when needed (when the cars are parked).

So...here's a three year project for the EU as a whole that provides a full picture of BEV and renewables and the energy grid and storage. That's what - four of the five pillars of the TIR?

There are other links just a few posts up that provide more breadth and depth. The systems are evolving as they must - but we (even we in the US!) know enough to move forward. Europe knows even more. Our problem isn't a lack of information, it's a lack of a plan.

edit... another one. BEVs and a smart grid - from 2012.
http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/DiscussionPapers/DP201202.pdf
The last few pages list global smart grid and V2G evaluation and pilot projects.

Another... http://www.gaccmidwest.org/fileadmi...nfoV_Presentations/Lohse-Busch_Smart_Grid.pdf

Another...testing battery resistance when EV battery is subjected to rapid charge/discharge cycles (in other words: utility power pulses) at various states of charge:
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/02/f19/batterySmart7525.pdf

my cup runneth over... US and EU and China collaborating on EV, smart grid, and V2G
http://energy.gov/articles/energy-d...-electric-vehicle-and-smart-grid-coordination

The work at Argonne will also be complemented by the launch of a European Interoperability Center by the European Commission's (EC) Joint Research Center at facilities in Ispra, Italy, and Petten, Netherlands, in 2014. Employing common test procedures, interoperability standards and test comparisons, the U.S. government and EC will work together to ensure harmonized technologies and to prevent unnecessary regulatory divergence, helping foster the development of the transatlantic EV market and create new jobs.

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/default/files/ES_InteropBroch_0713_v9[3].pdf

 

[GRA]

Via GCR:

Honda Fuel-Cell Vehicle U.S. Sales Date Gets A Little Fuzzier

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1097098_honda-fuel-cell-vehicle-u-s-sales-date-gets-a-little-fuzzier" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just for Andy, via GCC :

Nissan and Endesa collaborating to deliver vehicle-to-grid systems to market

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/03/20150305-nissan.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[AndyH]

Just for Andy, via GCC

\o/

 

[Berlino]

Via GCR:

Honda Fuel-Cell Vehicle U.S. Sales Date Gets A Little Fuzzier

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1097098_honda-fuel-cell-vehicle-u-s-sales-date-gets-a-little-fuzzier" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What will Honda do for ZEV credits in the meantime? I thought the Fit EV was being phased out, but could be wrong.

 

[mbender]

Back to V2G -- if we can get back -- there's this from ChargedEVs today:

• Nissan and Endesa partner to develop mass-market V2G system

Maybe V2G is too off-topic here (although who's to say what the topic is anymore) and I'll just create a new one.

 

[GRA]

Back to V2G -- if we can get back -- there's this from ChargedEVs today:

• Nissan and Endesa partner to develop mass-market V2G system

Maybe V2G is too off-topic here (although who's to say what the topic is anymore) and I'll just create a new one.

Same story already mentioned a page or two back, linked from GCC (which usually gets this stuff first, and then all the EV websites re-write the story). I almost linked the same story from GCR or maybe it was ievs.com a day or two ago, until I realized I'd already linked the GCC version. Edit: Here's a new story, one I would have linked to yesterday, but for some reason I couldn't access MNL:

Toyota says fuel cells could cost no more than diesels soon

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/03/10/toyota-fuel-cells-cost-same-diesels/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For soon read 7 to 15 years, per the article. Someone needs to hire more accurate headline writers, although using 'mid-term' is a bit awkward; just going with '7 to 15 years' is probably best.

 

[DaveEV]

MODERATORS NOTE: I moved a bunch of extra snarky posts over to Snippiness.

 

[GRA]

Via GCC:

Intelligent Energy introduces new high performance 100kW automotive fuel cell architecture

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/03/20150312-ie.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The meat:

The 100 kW platform takes full advantage of Intelligent Energy’s stack technology, which offers leading power density of 3.5 kW/l (volumetric) and 3.0 kW/kg (gravimetric), while being engineered for low cost, high volume series production. As points of comparison, the US Department of Energy (DOE) 2020 technical targets for an automotive fuel cell stack are 2.5 kW/l and 2 kW/kg. Toyota says that its new fuel cell stack in the Mirai offers 3.1 kW/l (2.2 times higher than that of the previous Toyota FCHV-adv limited-lease model) and 2.0 kW/kg. . . .

Intelligent Energy said it developed the new architecture in response to increasing market demand for high power automotive fuel cell solutions. The key enabler for these high power densities is the company’s proprietary, evaporatively-cooled (EC) technology.

Compared to conventional liquid-cooled fuel cell stacks, the EC design removes the need for individual cooling channels between each cell. This delivers an advantage in terms of stack mass and volume, and helps contribute to the stack power density which translates into in-vehicle packaging and weight advantages.

No price data in the article (no surprise, given that these will be peddled to OEMs).

At Intelligent Energy's website, found the following study. Given the businesses involved in the study, I'm sure it's biased towards showing the viability of FCEVs, but looks like a useful read anyway (I haven't had a chance to do more than skim), as the subtitle is "The role of Battery Electric Vehicles, Plug-in Hybrids and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles": http://www.fch-ju.eu/sites/default/files/documents/Power_trains_for_Europe.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[ydnas7]

"The role of Battery Electric Vehicles, Plug-in Hybrids and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles": http://www.fch-ju.eu/sites/default/files/documents/Power_trains_for_Europe.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

giggle

no mention of Tesla, or that 500km NEDC range EVs exist and are on the market.
no mention of longer range base EVs GM Bolt, Nissan LEAF gen 2
no understanding of how longer range PHEVs squeeze out the viability of HFCs

no future for Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicles, its hard to fight physics

a more realistic European appraisal of hydrogen vehicles
http://ssj3gohan.tweakblogs.net/blog/11470/why-fuel-cell-cars-dont-work-part-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://ssj3gohan.tweakblogs.net/blog/11493/why-fuel-cell-cars-dont-work-part-2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[GRA]

"The role of Battery Electric Vehicles, Plug-in Hybrids and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles": http://www.fch-ju.eu/sites/default/files/documents/Power_trains_for_Europe.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

giggle

no mention of Tesla, or that 500km NEDC range EVs exist and are on the market.
no mention of longer range base EVs GM Bolt, Nissan LEAF gen 2
no understanding of how longer range PHEVs squeeze out the viability of HFCs

no future for Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicles, its hard to fight physics

a more realistic European appraisal of hydrogen vehicles
http://ssj3gohan.tweakblogs.net/blog/11470/why-fuel-cell-cars-dont-work-part-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://ssj3gohan.tweakblogs.net/blog/11493/why-fuel-cell-cars-dont-work-part-2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Haven't read all of it yet, but I would say that it does cover PHEVs, in fact it says that in the near term they have a TCO advantage over both BEVs and FCEVs, which I think is indisputable. It also says that only large BEVs can have long range at least at the moment, which is also indisputable; we'll have to see how much batteries progress in the next two years, to see if Tesla/Chevy/Nissan etc. can get them to 200 miles EPA (which is still inadequate for road trips beyond weekend distances, given long recharge times) at a semi-reasonable price. 200 miles would be okay with a five minute fill up/recharge, but not with 45 minutes to an hour as currently. I'm a lot more hopeful about getting to that 200 mile range than I was a year ago, but we don't have an actual car for sale yet.

 

[ydnas7]

why doesn't anyone make a FCEV?

take an EV, replace the battery with an electrolysis unit, H2 tank and fuel cell

that would be a FCEV, as it runs on electricity, but uses hydrogen instead of a battery.

(where would one place the electrolysis unit - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwlvsTZsRtM#t=281" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
its already hefty system as is?)

 

[RegGuheert]

why doesn't anyone make a FCEV?

take an EV, replace the battery with an electrolysis unit, H2 tank and fuel cell

that would be a FCEV, as it runs on electricity, but uses hydrogen instead of a battery.

I'm sorry, but that's a pretty weak straw man. While I agree with the premise that the low efficiencies of the electrolysis unit and of the fuel cell are the Achilles' heel of H2-based systems, there are real benefits to be gained by moving the electrolysis off-board and only storing the H2. Weight and volume are two benefits, but the biggest one is refueling time. These benefits will have the result that FCEVs will find a home in some high-duty-cycle applications such as fleet vehicles.

 

[ydnas7]

why doesn't anyone make a FCEV?

take an EV, replace the battery with an electrolysis unit, H2 tank and fuel cell

that would be a FCEV, as it runs on electricity, but uses hydrogen instead of a battery.

I'm sorry, but that's a pretty weak straw man. While I agree with the premise that the low efficiency of electrolysis and of the fuel cells are the Achilles' heel of H2-based systems, there are real benefits to be gained by moving the electrolysis off-board and only storing the H2. Weight and volume are two benefits, but the biggest one is refueling time. These benefits will have the result that FCEVs will find a home in some high-duty-cycle applications such as fleet vehicles.

strawman or not, if Hydrogen Fuel Cells were so good, just add a plug and an electrolysis unit, leave the fast fuelling inlet for Hydrogen in place.

did you read the dutch links I provided earlier? they were from someone in a team who had actually built a hydrogen university racing vehicle?

 

[AndyH]

why doesn't anyone make a FCEV?

take an EV, replace the battery with an electrolysis unit, H2 tank and fuel cell

that would be a FCEV, as it runs on electricity, but uses hydrogen instead of a battery.

If you are serious about this question then you've not been reading this thread. There are examples of production FCEV, BEVs with FCEL range extenders, and of people ripping the lead out of Ford Ranger EVs and installing a fuel cell.

edit...
Does this meet your FCEV definition?

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/ResearchUpdate/Helios/index.html
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090019663.pdf
It's an unmanned aerial vehicle with PV panels, a fuel cell, electrolyzer, water recycling, etc. designed to remain airborne for long periods as basically an atmospheric 'satellite'.

 

[GRA]

why doesn't anyone make a FCEV?

take an EV, replace the battery with an electrolysis unit, H2 tank and fuel cell

that would be a FCEV, as it runs on electricity, but uses hydrogen instead of a battery.

I'm sorry, but that's a pretty weak straw man. While I agree with the premise that the low efficiency of electrolysis and of the fuel cells are the Achilles' heel of H2-based systems, there are real benefits to be gained by moving the electrolysis off-board and only storing the H2. Weight and volume are two benefits, but the biggest one is refueling time. These benefits will have the result that FCEVs will find a home in some high-duty-cycle applications such as fleet vehicles.

strawman or not, if Hydrogen Fuel Cells were so good, just add a plug and an electrolysis unit, leave the fast fuelling inlet for Hydrogen in place.

did you read the dutch links I provided earlier? they were from someone in a team who had actually built a hydrogen university racing vehicle?

By the same token, why doesn't anyone make a practical, affordable BEV recharged solely by onboard PV modules? It would make about as much sense.

 

[finman100]

Thanks for the links ydnas7. It's just so easy to see the numbers don't add up in the hydrogen hoax.