Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[GRA]

Via GCC:

ULEMCo delivers first hydrogen-diesel dual-fuel refuse trucks to Fife Council in Scotland

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/05/20160522-ulemco.html

. . . The dual-fuel engines are equipped with hydrogen injection and a separate ECU control system. A diesel pilot injection initiates combustion of the hydrogen, which is stored onboard at 350 bar. CO2 emissions under dual fuel mode are approximately 70% less than a comparable diesel vehicle, according to the company. . . .

At higher loads, the engine utilizes larger quantities of diesel injection with the hydrogen to achieve the same torque curve as the diesel-only engine, resulting in no performance degradation at all. The hydrogen naturally promotes clean combustion with particulate masses being in excess of a factor of 10 lower than diesel-only. . . .

The work is part of a project that will also see the conversion of five Ford Transit vans and ten Renault HyKangoo vans to Hybrid Electric and Hydrogen Fuel Cell operation. . . .

Last year, The Scottish Government awarded the project £4.3 million (US$6.2 million) from their Local Energy Challenge Fund. There will be hydrogen refueling points at both the Hydrogen Office, Methil and at the Council’s depot at Bankhead, Glenrothes. . . .

 

[GRA]

Via GCC:

Praxair partners with NEL ASA on hydrogen refueling network in Norway; invests in Uno-X JV

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/05/20160524-praxair.html

Uno-X Hydrogen AS, a NEL ASA (NEL) joint venture, has entered into an agreement with a Norwegian affiliate of Praxair, a leading global industrial gas company, as a strategic alliance to install 20 hydrogen refuelling stations, covering all the major cities in Norway by 2020. . . .

The joint venture will build a network of hydrogen refueling stations with hydrogen production, allowing fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) to operate in and between all the major cities in Norway. The stations will be deployed in cities such as Oslo, Bergen, Trondheim, Stavanger, and Kristiansand, along with corresponding corridor locations.

"Our joint venture will identify and develop the production infrastructure necessary to support a Norwegian network of refuelling stations. We believe that working closely with gas and oil companies, like we have done in Denmark and are now doing in Norway, is a recipe that can be successfully replicated around the globe."
—Jon André Løkke, CEO of NEL ASA . . . .

 

[GRA]

Someone posted a link to this on ievs (via the Huffington Post), so I thought I'd repost it here, given the often heated discussions re WtoW energy usage and GHG production of H2 FCEVs vs. BEVs:

The Weird Angry Politics of Batteries v. Fuel Cells in Zero Emission Vehicles: Our Transportation Future, Part 2

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shane-m-kite/the-weird-angry-politics-_b_10009422.html

 

[WetEV]

Someone posted a link to this on ievs (via the Huffington Post), so I thought I'd repost it here, given the often heated discussions re WtoW energy usage and GHG production of H2 FCEVs vs. BEVs:

The Weird Angry Politics of Batteries v. Fuel Cells in Zero Emission Vehicles: Our Transportation Future, Part 2

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shane-m-kite/the-weird-angry-politics-_b_10009422.html

The comments are better than the article. The article is weird and angry.

Compare apples to apples. Here is the case the FCEV wins.

Natural gas -> hydrogen -> FCEV
Vs
Natural gas -> electric power -> BEV

The FCEV comes out slightly ahead in efficiency. If a bunch of technology problems can be solved, FCEVs might have a few decades of glory as we phase out coal and oil for natural gas to reduce carbon dioxide releases. Natural gas use also releases CO2, so this is a temporary stopgap, not a solution.


All other cases that are truly apples to apples, the BEV does. Especially the very long term one.

Non-fossil power -> electric power -> hydrogen -> FCEV
Vs
Non-fossil power -> electric power -> BEV

This one the BEV wins on efficiency, by about a factor of three. That doesn't mean that there isn't a case for some uses of higher cost, higher risk and less convenient hydrogen. Hydrogen can do some things that a battery can't. Like put things into orbit. Or drive cross country with just fewer minutes to refuel. Electric power has much lower cost distribution, much higher efficiency, and is more convenient.

I'm truly puzzled with the fuel cell reality distortion zone.

 

[GRA]

<snip> I'm truly puzzled with the fuel cell reality distortion zone.

I'm truly puzzled by the BEV reality distortion zone that assumes that the general public values energy efficiency over flexibility, convenience, and capability (as long as it's at a price they can afford), despite the abundant, continuing evidence to the contrary, such as the current reversion to more expensive, less efficient CUVs/SUVs instead of cheaper, more efficient cars owing to cheaper gas, or people choosing to buy larger-sized, side-by-side frost-free refrigerators with automatic ice-making and in-door water/ice dispensers instead of more efficient, smaller units with manual defrost, top freezer/bottom refrigerator and no in-door conveniences (for even more efficiency but even less convenience, top-mounted compressors). AOTBE they'll opt for the most energy--efficient solution, but unless and until that point is reached, BEVs will suit some and FCEVs (or bio-fueled ICEs) will suit others, all depending on the relative costs of the features of most value to them, and of greater importance relative to the cost of fossil-fueled alternatives. See any of the previous rounds of this argument for cites backing up either side's position.

 

[DanCar]

With the next generation of BEVs you'll be able to pay $35K, charge everywhere, and drive across America. With FCEV pay $60K and charge at ten places in California.

 

[sparky]

I'm truly puzzled by the BEV reality distortion zone that assumes that the general public values energy efficiency over flexibility, convenience, and capability (as long as it's at a price they can afford), despite the abundant, continuing evidence to the contrary, such as the current reversion to more expensive, less efficient CUVs/SUVs instead of cheaper, more efficient cars owing to cheaper gas, ....

I tend to agree and see this as the biggest problem for FCVs. They can't compete with ICE for flexibility or performance and too few care if they're "cleaner" or more efficient. It's hard to see how H2 will ever have the ubiquity of gasoline or the price point. The FCV "movement" missed out on the early adopter types who will tolerate lots of inconvenience to have, quiet, non-polluting next-gen tech. Those folks adopted BEVs and don't seem to be clamoring for a Mirai. Fuel cell vehicles just aren't fun; except as a science project in your garage (tail pipe water anyone?).

 

[lorenfb]

I tend to agree and see this as the biggest problem for FCVs. They can't compete with ICE for flexibility or performance and too few care if they're "cleaner" or more efficient. .

Which is also the case for a BEV, if you ask the typical ICEV owner why they don't drive a BEV.
Obviously the market penetration of the BEV clearly "speaks" to that!

 

[WetEV]

I tend to agree and see this as the biggest problem for FCVs. They can't compete with ICE for flexibility or performance and too few care if they're "cleaner" or more efficient. .

Which is also the case for a BEV, if you ask the typical ICEV owner why they don't drive a BEV.
Obviously the market penetration of the BEV clearly "speaks" to that!

Which is not the case for a BEV. Tesla performance 0-60 seems quite competitive, for example. Instant on torque is nice, even in Leaf.

I notice you didn't mention convenience. The ideal here is probably an inductive charged BEV. Just park the car, never stand in the cold wind and rain filling a gas or hydrogen tank, or even take a few seconds to plug in.

Flexibility, yes, on long drives that people rarely make, both hydrogen and gasoline are much faster fueling. Gasoline and electricity are both widely available, hydrogen isn't.

If technology stays constant and gasoline stays cheap, I'd expect that BEV market penetration will slowly increase. Most common will be second cars in a household, used mostly for commuting and other local trips. The main reason is convenience. BEV is just less bother than a gasoline car.

At current technology and with cheap gasoline, there is no market for a FCEV. Too expensive, not convenient, low performance.

The future will see changing technology and the end of fossil fuels. It is hard to see how this plays out over the years, decades and centuries ahead. Perhaps there will be a market for FCEVs. Maybe not.

 

[lorenfb]

Tesla performance 0-60 seems quite competitive, for example. Instant on torque is nice, even in Leaf.

A very minor factor for the typical consumer.

I notice you didn't mention convenience. The ideal here is probably an inductive charged BEV. Just park the car, never stand in the cold wind and rain filling a gas or hydrogen tank, or even take a few seconds to plug in.

Where is this available now in wide scale? Besides, transferring sufficient amounts energy in a short
time interval is limited with inductive.

Gasoline and electricity are both widely available, hydrogen isn't.

Electric charging as perceived by the typical consumer is widely available as is gas? Please!

If technology stays constant and gasoline stays cheap, I'd expect that BEV market penetration will slowly increase.

Like very slowly.

At current technology and with cheap gasoline, there is no market for a FCEV.

And a very small market for BEVs.

Perhaps there will be a market for FCEVs. Maybe not.

Right, and that sums it up!

 

[rcm4453]

Tesla performance 0-60 seems quite competitive, for example. Instant on torque is nice, even in Leaf.

A very minor factor for the typical consumer.

I notice you didn't mention convenience. The ideal here is probably an inductive charged BEV. Just park the car, never stand in the cold wind and rain filling a gas or hydrogen tank, or even take a few seconds to plug in.

Where is this available now in wide scale? Besides, transferring sufficient amounts energy in a short
time interval is limited with inductive.

Gasoline and electricity are both widely available, hydrogen isn't.

Electric charging as perceived by the typical consumer is widely available as is gas? Please!

If technology stays constant and gasoline stays cheap, I'd expect that BEV market penetration will slowly increase.

Like very slowly.

At current technology and with cheap gasoline, there is no market for a FCEV.

And a very small market for BEVs.

Perhaps there will be a market for FCEVs. Maybe not.

Right, and that sums it up!

Wow, almost seems as if you're against BEVs based on how hard your arguing against them? Why do you even have one then? All the negative points are 10 times worse for a FCEV. So based on your assessment of BEVs then FCEVs are a total EPIC FAIL! Too funny!

 

[GRA]

With the next generation of BEVs you'll be able to pay $35K, charge everywhere, and drive across America. With FCEV pay $60K and charge at ten places in California.

Please see any of my previous replies to the same points. Oh, the current total of publicly accessible H2 fueling stations in California is 18 full retail, plus 7 non-retail. The first 4 full retail in the Northeast (basically Boston - NYC), subsidized by Toyota, are scheduled to open by early 2017 as noted upthread. Presumably I-5/95, the major N-S interstates along both coasts will be completed first in any expansion, just as Tesla did, followed by other metro areas with likely high-take rates (Denver, Twin Cities, Madison, maybe DFW/Houston/Austin etc.) outside those corridors, and an X-C route would follow shortly if that's considered necessary/useful for PR, and the demand is there.

If it is, presumably any such route would be more logical and efficient than Tesla's initial X-C SC route, aka the 'Musk Family Adventure'. As there are already H2 stations scheduled to be built in both Truckee (projected opening date end of next month) and NYC (the Bronx, opening early 2017), it would only take 12 or 13 more for the initial X-C route, assuming an average spacing of 210 miles (102 less than the Mirai's 312 mile EPA range, to provide a 30 mile reserve plus allowances for freeway speeds of 75 or 80 mph, weather, HVAC use, terrain), depending on whether the route follows I-80 all the way, or does the I-70/I-80 jog at SLC. Toyota has already subsidized 18 or 19 stations in California, plus the ones mentioned above in the NE, so they can certainly afford it. If the route is built to also handle the shorter-ranged Tucson the spacing would need to be closer, say 165 miles average, and 16 or 17 stations respectively, as above.

Personally, I expect few people with the income to afford such cars are likely to drive such distances, as flying is faster, but there's always some people with sufficient time who consider it an adventure.

 

[ydnas7]

Hydrogen vehicles are dead, its over
yes some places will spend millions, perhaps billions on infrastructure, but to no avail.

a few years from now, used 200 mile EVs from Tesla, GM and Nissan will be on the market at the $10k price point.
used full fat PHEVs like Volt, Pacifica and Outlander will also be on the market at the same price point.

its over, no natural person in USA is going to pay $16.49 per kg for their vehicle fuel (Toyota is a company, not a natural person )


go rent a H2 vehicle if you can, people refill at between the 50% full and the 75% full mark,
so the 265mile range is closer to 65mile to 130mile range. Its similar usefulness to today's 30kWh EVs, but for 3 times the price. The lack of home refueling really hurts these vehicles in USA.

Anyone for a guess of what a lease price of a H2 vehicle drops to once the Bolt is released?

 

[lorenfb]

Wow, almost seems as if you're against BEVs based on how hard your arguing against them? Why do you even have one then? All the negative points are 10 times worse for a FCEV. So based on your assessment of BEVs then FCEVs are a total EPIC FAIL! Too funny!

No I'm not. We all wish that EV technology would evolve faster. But without major technology breakthroughs,
the EV's share of the ICEV market will not change rapidly. All it takes potentially is one single technology
breakthrough, e.g. battery chemistry, and the EV market could change dynamically. Take for example
the development of the microprocessor in the '70s and how it basically changed significant aspects
of our lives rapidly.

 

[rcm4453]

Wow, almost seems as if you're against BEVs based on how hard your arguing against them? Why do you even have one then? All the negative points are 10 times worse for a FCEV. So based on your assessment of BEVs then FCEVs are a total EPIC FAIL! Too funny!

No I'm not. We all wish that EV technology would evolve faster. But without major technology breakthroughs,
the EV's share of the ICEV market will not change rapidly. All it takes potentially is one single technology
breakthrough, e.g. battery chemistry, and the EV market could change dynamically. Take for example
the development of the microprocessor in the '70s and how it basically changed significant aspects
of our lives rapidly.

Well ICEVs have been around more then 100 years, modern EVs around 6 years in comparison. The market share they hold is pretty normal considering this. It's not going to happen overnight it will take a long time, especially considering many Americans are slow to adopt new things. Low gas prices don't help either as many have shifted away from fuel efficient vehicles to SUV/CUV and big pickup trucks. In the next couple years we're getting over 200 miles per charge for about what 80 - 107 miles per charge EVs cost today. so in 7 - 8 years we will have doubled the range which I think is pretty good actually. Look at how many decades it took ICEVs to get the fuel economy they're now getting today!

 

[Zythryn]

Wow, almost seems as if you're against BEVs based on how hard your arguing against them? Why do you even have one then? All the negative points are 10 times worse for a FCEV. So based on your assessment of BEVs then FCEVs are a total EPIC FAIL! Too funny!

No I'm not. We all wish that EV technology would evolve faster. But without major technology breakthroughs,
the EV's share of the ICEV market will not change rapidly. All it takes potentially is one single technology
breakthrough, e.g. battery chemistry, and the EV market could change dynamically. Take for example
the development of the microprocessor in the '70s and how it basically changed significant aspects
of our lives rapidly.

No, they didn't.
It took about 15 years for microprocessors to show in many people's homes in the form of computers.
Actually, I would define that as rapid, considering the magnitude of the change.
You apparently don't, considering modern EVs have only been around a bit shy of 6 years.

 

[Nubo]

Hydrogen vehicles are dead, its over
yes some places will spend millions, perhaps billions on infrastructure, but to no avail.

a few years from now, used 200 mile EVs from Tesla, GM and Nissan will be on the market at the $10k price point.
used full fat PHEVs like Volt, Pacifica and Outlander will also be on the market at the same price point.

its over, no natural person in USA is going to pay $16.49 per kg for their vehicle fuel (Toyota is a company, not a natural person )


go rent a H2 vehicle if you can, people refill at between the 50% full and the 75% full mark,
so the 265mile range is closer to 65mile to 130mile range. Its similar usefulness to today's 30kWh EVs, but for 3 times the price. The lack of home refueling really hurts these vehicles in USA.

Anyone for a guess of what a lease price of a H2 vehicle drops to once the Bolt is released?

Agreed. The utility of highly-compressed Hydrogen is marginal for an automobile and I don't see the technological challenges becoming significantly easier. Battery technology is also marginal for some automobile use-cases but battery technology will continue to improve. H2 has good use for stationary storage, but for automobiles it's a solution whose time will have passed before the requisite infrastructure can be developed.

 

[epirali]

Hydrogen vehicles are dead, its over
yes some places will spend millions, perhaps billions on infrastructure, but to no avail.

a few years from now, used 200 mile EVs from Tesla, GM and Nissan will be on the market at the $10k price point.
used full fat PHEVs like Volt, Pacifica and Outlander will also be on the market at the same price point.

its over, no natural person in USA is going to pay $16.49 per kg for their vehicle fuel (Toyota is a company, not a natural person )


go rent a H2 vehicle if you can, people refill at between the 50% full and the 75% full mark,
so the 265mile range is closer to 65mile to 130mile range. Its similar usefulness to today's 30kWh EVs, but for 3 times the price. The lack of home refueling really hurts these vehicles in USA.

Anyone for a guess of what a lease price of a H2 vehicle drops to once the Bolt is released?

Agreed. The utility of highly-compressed Hydrogen is marginal for an automobile and I don't see the technological challenges becoming significantly easier. Battery technology is also marginal for some automobile use-cases but battery technology will continue to improve. H2 has good use for stationary storage, but for automobiles it's a solution whose time will have passed before the requisite infrastructure can be developed.

Wow you better hurry and tell the Europeans, they didn't get the memo:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/09/20150924-h2me.html

 

[RegGuheert]

Wow you better hurry and tell the Europeans, they didn't get the memo:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/09/20150924-h2me.html

Here's the title of the article linked by epirali:

"$70M H2ME project launches in Europe to deploy 325 fuel cell vehicles and 29 refueling stations"

That comes to $215,000 per vehicle fielded. That kinda says it all.

 

[ydnas7]

....That comes to $215,000 per vehicle fielded. That kinda says it all.

free Tesla's anyone? Thats almost 3 times the cost of a base Tesla S (with its infrastructure included)

for that price ($215k) they could've bought
a new Tesla S
+ new Tesla model 3
+ new LEAF 200 mile
+ new Bolt 200 mile
+new Volt
+new Outlander PHEV

seriously, add it up, for the base models, perhaps adding the outlander to the end takes it over the edge.