GRA
Posts: 12073
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Tue Jul 07, 2020 7:54 pm

World’s Largest Green Hydrogen Project Unveiled in Saudi Arabia
Air Products, the world’s leading hydrogen producer, plans to power a huge green hydrogen plant using 4 gigawatts of Saudi renewable electricity.

https://www-greentechmedia-com.cdn.ampp ... en-project

Air Products & Chemicals . . . announced plans on Tuesday to build a green hydrogen plant in Saudi Arabia powered by 4 gigawatts of wind and solar power, the world's largest such project announced so far.

The $5 billion plant will be jointly owned by Air Products, Saudi Arabia's ACWA Power and Neom, a new mega-city planned near Saudi Arabia’s borders with Egypt and Jordan.

The completed facility will produce 650 tons of green hydrogen daily, enough to run around 20,000 hydrogen-fueled buses, Air Products said. The fuel will be shipped as ammonia to end markets globally then converted back to hydrogen. Ammonia production is expected to start in 2025. . . .

The project would be a big step forward for Saudi Arabia's ambition for Neom to become an important global center for renewable energy and green hydrogen. The country is establishing Neom as a special economic zone, with an ambition to host 1 million people from around the world. "This is a pivotal moment for the development of Neom and a key element in Saudi Vision 2030 contributing to the Kingdom’s clean energy and circular carbon economy strategy," Neom CEO Nadhmi Al Nasr said in a statement.

Speaking to analysts on a conference call on Tuesday, Air Products CEO Seifi Ghasemi said the company is confident the project will be viable without subsidies given the accelerating global race for low-carbon transport fuels. Any government support would be "icing on the cake."

“There are 260 million commercial vehicles in the world. If 1 percent converts to hydrogen, you end up with huge numbers that would require 50 plants like this," Ghasemi said. "We’ve been working on this for four years, and our strategy was to be the first to build a mega-scale plant. . . ."

Asked whether the project economics would stand up to current hydrogen prices, Ghasemi said yes, before correcting himself and saying that green hydrogen will garner a premium.

Green hydrogen is currently uncompetitive with its gray cousin, which is produced using natural gas. Competitively priced green hydrogen will require low power prices and high electrolyzer utilization rates. Air Products believes it can secure both with a large pool of offtakers and access to Saudi Arabia’s vast renewable energy resources. . . .

German's thyssenkrupp will supply the electrolyzers. Last month the company revealed its electrolyzer manufacturing capacity had reached 1 gigawatt, with the option to ramp up further. Norwegian firm Nel and the U.K.’s ITM Power are also developing electrolyzer gigafactories.

A number of major oil and industrial players are rapidly accelerating their investments into green hydrogen. BP is studying the feasibility of an ammonia plant in Australia, powered by 1.5 gigawatts of wind and solar, previously thought to be the largest such plan.

"Hydrogen is not niche anymore," Christoph Noeres, head of energy storage and hydrogen at thyssenkrupp, told GTM in an email. “It will enable the sector coupling [required] to reach the Paris Agreement’s climate goals. Hydrogen has been identified to be the key element for sustainable fuels and chemicals and can reduce or avoid CO2 in sectors where electrification is not possible.”
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

WetEV
Posts: 3809
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:16 am

GRA wrote:
Tue Jul 07, 2020 1:54 pm
WetEV wrote:
Tue Jul 07, 2020 6:41 am
That's a very very funny way of saying those assertions are true. You made my morning.
It's a way of pointing out that the current situation isn't going to remain static. You seem to believe that only batteries will improve, while everything to do with H2 and fuel cells won't. This is completely unrealistic. The question is HOW MUCH each of them will improve and how much relative to the other, not whether they will.
Hydrogen cost makes hydrogen cars unattractive.

Hydrogen cost will always be several times the cost of renewable electric power used to produce it.

GRA wrote:
Tue Jul 07, 2020 1:54 pm
As I've pointed out over and over, it doesn't matter how efficient it is compared to directly charging batteries, if it provides capability that batteries lack but customers want.
Comparing batteries from 10 years ago with fuel cells of the future, sure.

Or looking to niche auto markets, like your needs. Yes, some sort of nonrechargable by electric but rechargeable by putting in "fuel" like hydrogen or aluminum-air batteries might be part of the far future, when ICE is either gone, or high priced burners of biofuels. For just the kind of niche that is your needs: long distances to very remote areas. Or perhaps plug in hybrids burning biofuels.
GRA wrote:
Tue Jul 07, 2020 1:54 pm
WetEV wrote:
Tue Jul 07, 2020 6:41 am
GRA wrote:
Mon Jul 06, 2020 7:42 pm
Hydrogen car performance is quite typical of most cars now, and if anyone wanted to build an ultra high-performance FCEV they could. It's just a matter of providing a powerful enough motor along with a battery pack able to supply enough surge current to handle rapid accel. Someone undoubtedly will build one, eventually.
This "ultra high-performance FCEV" could be made even higher performance by just removing the fuel cells. Hydrogen has a good energy density, but fuel cells don't have a good power density.
Please define "good power density".
https://youtu.be/9bxwQeKhYXQ

Build a fuel cell car that can do 1/4 mile faster than this car. Get back to me. I'm convinced by working hardware. Get it working.
GRA wrote:
Mon Jul 06, 2020 7:42 pm
The reason people buy a Civic instead of a Model S (or some more expensive ICE) is because they can only afford a Civic.
Not always true. I owned a Civic, and could have afforded a more expensive ICE.
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red
2019 eTron Blue

Oils4AsphaultOnly
Posts: 747
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:09 pm
Delivery Date: 20 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 313890
Location: Arcadia, CA

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Wed Jul 08, 2020 4:26 pm

Even after posting direct experience showing that a single H2 dispenser can't serve more than 6 customers within an hour, and even after acknowledging that there's still no solution to the frozen nozzle problem (condensation is physics, you can't engineer around it without insulating everything), GRA still thinks some sort of PHFCEV would work and in large enough numbers that the economies of scale would reduce the price of H2 enough for it to be a viable.

If you can't serve more than 3 PHFCEV travelers within 30 mins, then a model Y would actually get you to your destination sooner than being the 4th driver to have pulled up to that H2 dispenser. The PHFCEV is going to be crippled by the limits of thermodynamics and economies of scale. Hydrogen isn't limited by technology, it's being limited by physics.

For the love of the environment, please switch to a BEV (I know you've "tried" it years ago, but a few years of infrastructure changes has a very dramatic effect on usability). Fuel Cells will never be a cost-efficient solution.
:: Model 3 LR :: acquired 9 May '18
:: Leaf S30 :: build date: Sep '16 :: purchased: Nov '16
100% Zero transportation emissions (except when I walk) and loving it!

GRA
Posts: 12073
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Wed Jul 08, 2020 5:16 pm

WetEV wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:16 am
GRA wrote:
Tue Jul 07, 2020 1:54 pm
WetEV wrote:
Tue Jul 07, 2020 6:41 am
That's a very very funny way of saying those assertions are true. You made my morning.

It's a way of pointing out that the current situation isn't going to remain static. You seem to believe that only batteries will improve, while everything to do with H2 and fuel cells won't. This is completely unrealistic. The question is HOW MUCH each of them will improve and how much relative to the other, not whether they will.
Hydrogen cost makes hydrogen cars unattractive.

Hydrogen cost will always be several times the cost of renewable electric power used to produce it.

So you've said, repeatedly. And as I've said repeatedly, that assumes two things: 1. That the price of H2 is more important to customers than the capability it provides, and 2. That electrolysis is the only way to produce renewables H2.

Neither if the above points is certain. If price were all important, no one would ever QC a BEV, or use public L2 FTM.

WetEV wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:16 am
GRA wrote:
Tue Jul 07, 2020 1:54 pm
As I've pointed out over and over, it doesn't matter how efficient it is compared to directly charging batteries, if it provides capability that batteries lack but customers want.
Comparing batteries from 10 years ago with fuel cells of the future, sure.
I'm comparing current batteries to current fuel cells, and possible future batteries to possible future fuel cells. No BEV provides the combination of range, rapid refueling and longevity of current FCEVs, but fuel cells are probably more expensive currently (we don't know how much the costs have come down, from $50k/stack several years back towards the $8-$11k Toyota was hoping to achieve as they increased annual production from 3 up to 30k), as is their fuel.

Stack costs will decrease even more once they get into true mass production (300k-3M annually), but even at $8-11k they should be comparable to ICE-competitive BEVs, which are forecast to achieve that once pack costs drop to $100/kWh in a few years (2023 by one forecast), which is to say a 100kWh pack will cost $10k then. Economies of scale are already dropping H2 fueling infrastructure costs.

So, price of renewable H2 will be the determining factor in FCEV success or failure, along with possible developments in batteries. Note, I'm ignoring possible/likely resource constraint issues in both techs here.

WetEV wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:16 am
[quote=GRA post_id=586243
Or looking to niche auto markets, like your needs. Yes, some sort of nonrechargable by electric but rechargeable by putting in "fuel" like hydrogen or aluminum-air batteries might be part of the far future, when ICE is either gone, or high priced burners of biofuels. For just the kind of niche that is your needs: long distances to very remote areas. Or perhaps plug in hybrids burning biofuels.

We're already seeing that start to play out in FCEV commercial vehicles, so 'far future' seems unnecessarily delayed. You did see the post about the number of FCEV buses and trucks in China already in the 'AFV trucks' topic? Of course, anywhere a BEV bus or truck can do the job at the lowest TCO, it should be the tech of choice, but when it can't we need some other ZEV.

If Nikola actually builds the H2 fueling infrastructure they say they plan to support their FCEV trucks, that will eliminate one of the major hurdles for FCEVs, just as the SC network did for Teslas and EA's is starting to do for other BEVs. Which again leaves getting RE H2 cost down to the level of fossil fuels as the primary issue that needs to be solved.

WetEV wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:16 am
GRA wrote:
Tue Jul 07, 2020 1:54 pm
WetEV wrote:
Tue Jul 07, 2020 6:41 am


This "ultra high-performance FCEV" could be made even higher performance by just removing the fuel cells. Hydrogen has a good energy density, but fuel cells don't have a good power density.
Please define "good power density".
https://youtu.be/9bxwQeKhYXQ

Build a fuel cell car that can do 1/4 mile faster than this car. Get back to me. I'm convinced by working hardware. Get it working.

Why do you consider the ability to win drag races to be an important factor in FCEV success? Sure, everyone enjoys the feeling of rapid accel, and no doubt some people are willing to pay thousands extra for a P100D just so they can go 0-60 in 2.6 sec. instead of what, 3.2 sec in an S100D, but that's hardly a requirement for the typical driver. Not that there'd be any trouble making an FCEV do so, as all the ones currently in service are FCHEVs. As I said, just install a powerful enough motor and a battery pack that can supply the necessary current, and there you are.

WetEV wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:16 am
GRA wrote:
Mon Jul 06, 2020 7:42 pm
The reason people buy a Civic instead of a Model S (or some more expensive ICE) is because they can only afford a Civic.
Not always true. I owned a Civic, and could have afforded a more expensive ICE.

And I own a Forester even though I could own a more expensive car. Are we typical American consumers? BTW, you also own an e-Tron. If you bought a Civic because it met your needs, presumably you'd have preferred to pay tens of thousands less for a BEV that also did so, but none were available.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 12073
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Wed Jul 08, 2020 5:43 pm

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 4:26 pm
Even after posting direct experience showing that a single H2 dispenser can't serve more than 6 customers within an hour, and even after acknowledging that there's still no solution to the frozen nozzle problem (condensation is physics, you can't engineer around it without insulating everything), GRA still thinks some sort of PHFCEV would work and in large enough numbers that the economies of scale would reduce the price of H2 enough for it to be a viable.

Actually, what I wrote was that the problem was known, and solutions were under development as of 2 years ago, which was the most recent info I was able to find in a cursory search. I also mentioned that the current capability standard IIRR was 8 back-to-back fills/Hr, which implies that the problem's been solved for new dispensers.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 4:26 pm
If you can't serve more than 3 PHFCEV travelers within 30 mins, then a model Y would actually get you to your destination sooner than being the 4th driver to have pulled up to that H2 dispenser. The PHFCEV is going to be crippled by the limits of thermodynamics and economies of scale. Hydrogen isn't limited by technology, it's being limited by physics.
Alternatively, even in the unlikely event that the problem's technically unsolvable, you could just provide more dispensers per site. You did read my post in the 'California retail H2 stations' topic, didn't you, which announced the opening of True Zero's latest station in Fountain Valley, which has a storage capacity of 1,200 kg (vice 180 for the 1st Gen retail stations, or ca. 500 kg. for the typical Gen. 2), and FOUR dispensers vice one for the first gen. (two for gen. 2)?


Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 4:26 pm
For the love of the environment, please switch to a BEV (I know you've "tried" it years ago, but a few years of infrastructure changes has a very dramatic effect on usability). Fuel Cells will never be a cost-efficient solution.

Obviously, many countries and companies disagree with you. As for me, I remain technologically agnostic, and am unwilling to predict the future when there are so many variables in play. When some ZEV tech meets my needs (and hopefully the majority of my wants), I'll buy it.

As none do yet, I continue to monitor the situation. BEVs are closer to my price but lack the capability, FCEVs have the capability but not the price, both still lack the necessary infrastructure in rural areas, and the 'fuel' for both is still more expensive than gas (BEVs are closer).
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

Oils4AsphaultOnly
Posts: 747
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:09 pm
Delivery Date: 20 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 313890
Location: Arcadia, CA

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Wed Jul 08, 2020 6:44 pm

GRA wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 5:43 pm
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 4:26 pm
Even after posting direct experience showing that a single H2 dispenser can't serve more than 6 customers within an hour, and even after acknowledging that there's still no solution to the frozen nozzle problem (condensation is physics, you can't engineer around it without insulating everything), GRA still thinks some sort of PHFCEV would work and in large enough numbers that the economies of scale would reduce the price of H2 enough for it to be a viable.

Actually, what I wrote was that the problem was known, and solutions were under development as of 2 years ago, which was the most recent info I was able to find in a cursory search. I also mentioned that the current capability standard IIRR was 8 back-to-back fills/Hr, which implies that the problem's been solved for new dispensers.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 4:26 pm
If you can't serve more than 3 PHFCEV travelers within 30 mins, then a model Y would actually get you to your destination sooner than being the 4th driver to have pulled up to that H2 dispenser. The PHFCEV is going to be crippled by the limits of thermodynamics and economies of scale. Hydrogen isn't limited by technology, it's being limited by physics.
Alternatively, even in the unlikely event that the problem's technically unsolvable, you could just provide more dispensers per site. You did read my post in the 'California retail H2 stations' topic, didn't you, which announced the opening of True Zero's latest station in Fountain Valley, which has a storage capacity of 1,200 kg (vice 180 for the 1st Gen retail stations, or ca. 500 kg. for the typical Gen. 2), and FOUR dispensers vice one for the first gen. (two for gen. 2)?


Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 4:26 pm
For the love of the environment, please switch to a BEV (I know you've "tried" it years ago, but a few years of infrastructure changes has a very dramatic effect on usability). Fuel Cells will never be a cost-efficient solution.

Obviously, many countries and companies disagree with you. As for me, I remain technologically agnostic, and am unwilling to predict the future when there are so many variables in play. When some ZEV tech meets my needs (and hopefully the majority of my wants), I'll buy it.

As none do yet, I continue to monitor the situation. BEVs are closer to my price but lack the capability, FCEVs have the capability but not the price, both still lack the necessary infrastructure in rural areas, and the 'fuel' for both is still more expensive than gas (BEVs are closer).
Knowing about the problem over two years and STILL NOT having a solution pretty much means it's not solvable (or at least within practical limits - vacuum isolated tubing would be one impractical way). Stop dancing around that fact with semantics and just acknowledge that there currently is NO SOLUTION to this limitation. Whether it's 8 per hour, or 3 per 30 mins, the improvement does not scale.

And we've already discussed your use cases, and have already determined that BEV's do meet your use cases very well. You would rather continue polluting the air on your boy scouts and nit-pick about the minimal vampire-drain and extra 15-minutes of a single charging stop than to acknowledge that BEV's do work for you. You're a hypocrite with your "copper-shots vs silver bullets" line.
:: Model 3 LR :: acquired 9 May '18
:: Leaf S30 :: build date: Sep '16 :: purchased: Nov '16
100% Zero transportation emissions (except when I walk) and loving it!

smkettner
Posts: 7476
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:13 pm
Delivery Date: 26 Feb 2014
Location: Orange County, CA

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Wed Jul 08, 2020 8:41 pm

GRA wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 5:16 pm
I'm comparing current batteries to current fuel cells, and possible future batteries to possible future fuel cells. No BEV provides the combination of range, rapid refueling and longevity of current FCEVs, but fuel cells are probably more expensive currently (we don't know how much the costs have come down, from $50k/stack several years back towards the $8-$11k Toyota was hoping to achieve as they increased annual production from 3 up to 30k), as is their fuel.

Stack costs will decrease even more once they get into true mass production (300k-3M annually), but even at $8-11k they should be comparable to ICE-competitive BEVs, which are forecast to achieve that once pack costs drop to $100/kWh in a few years (2023 by one forecast), which is to say a 100kWh pack will cost $10k then. Economies of scale are already dropping H2 fueling infrastructure costs.

So, price of renewable H2 will be the determining factor in FCEV success or failure, along with possible developments in batteries. Note, I'm ignoring possible/likely resource constraint issues in both techs here.
Tesla and other talk about a 1 million mile battery. I have also read fuel cell will also wear out.... does it go a million and still produce 70 % rated power?

I don't think there is an actual BEV or FCEV that has gone this far on the original equipment.
1 bar lost at 21,451 miles, 16 months.
2 bar lost at 35,339 miles, 25 months.
LEAF traded at 45,400 miles for a RAV4-EV
RAV4 traded in for I-Pace Dec 2018

WetEV
Posts: 3809
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Wed Jul 08, 2020 10:12 pm

GRA wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 5:16 pm
WetEV wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:16 am
Hydrogen cost makes hydrogen cars unattractive.

Everyday, not just when road tripping. Today. Future is the future, has yet to happen.

Hydrogen performance makes hydrogen cars unattractive.
https://youtu.be/9bxwQeKhYXQ

Build a fuel cell car that can do 1/4 mile faster than this car. Get back to me. I'm convinced by working hardware. Get it working.

Why do you consider the ability to win drag races to be an important factor in FCEV success? Sure, everyone enjoys the feeling of rapid accel, and no doubt some people are willing to pay thousands extra for a P100D just so they can go 0-60 in 2.6 sec. instead of what, 3.2 sec in an S100D, but that's hardly a requirement for the typical driver. Not that there'd be any trouble making an FCEV do so, as all the ones currently in service are FCHEVs. As I said, just install a powerful enough motor and a battery pack that can supply the necessary current, and there you are.
Notice that hydrogen needs a niche. Electric cars have one, partly due to performance, as people will pay for 0-60 in 2.3 seconds. Hydrogen is more expensive, lower performance and less convenient than electric cars.

Power density of current practical fuel cells is about 200W/kg. So to get 1000kW (Formula One ), you need 5,000 kg. A tank. Just isn't going to go fast. Sure, will improve with time. Wake me when it happens.

I'm sure that rule and safety issues would make this difficult, but running laps with NASCAR cars would do wonders for hydrogen cars. Not even winning, just staying up. Even qualifying runs, which might be easier to arrange, if competitive, would make selling hydrogen cars easier. Or Indy cars. But this is out of range for hydrogen fuel cells. Fuel cells are slow.

Electric cars have a niche. Hydrogen fuel cells rely on subsidies. Niches can expand. Subsidies will get cut, sooner or later.
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red
2019 eTron Blue

GRA
Posts: 12073
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Thu Jul 09, 2020 12:46 am

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 6:44 pm
GRA wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 5:43 pm
Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 4:26 pm
Even after posting direct experience showing that a single H2 dispenser can't serve more than 6 customers within an hour, and even after acknowledging that there's still no solution to the frozen nozzle problem (condensation is physics, you can't engineer around it without insulating everything), GRA still thinks some sort of PHFCEV would work and in large enough numbers that the economies of scale would reduce the price of H2 enough for it to be a viable.

Actually, what I wrote was that the problem was known, and solutions were under development as of 2 years ago, which was the most recent info I was able to find in a cursory search. I also mentioned that the current capability standard IIRR was 8 back-to-back fills/Hr, which implies that the problem's been solved for new dispensers.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 4:26 pm
If you can't serve more than 3 PHFCEV travelers within 30 mins, then a model Y would actually get you to your destination sooner than being the 4th driver to have pulled up to that H2 dispenser. The PHFCEV is going to be crippled by the limits of thermodynamics and economies of scale. Hydrogen isn't limited by technology, it's being limited by physics.
Alternatively, even in the unlikely event that the problem's technically unsolvable, you could just provide more dispensers per site. You did read my post in the 'California retail H2 stations' topic, didn't you, which announced the opening of True Zero's latest station in Fountain Valley, which has a storage capacity of 1,200 kg (vice 180 for the 1st Gen retail stations, or ca. 500 kg. for the typical Gen. 2), and FOUR dispensers vice one for the first gen. (two for gen. 2)?


Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 4:26 pm
For the love of the environment, please switch to a BEV (I know you've "tried" it years ago, but a few years of infrastructure changes has a very dramatic effect on usability). Fuel Cells will never be a cost-efficient solution.

Obviously, many countries and companies disagree with you. As for me, I remain technologically agnostic, and am unwilling to predict the future when there are so many variables in play. When some ZEV tech meets my needs (and hopefully the majority of my wants), I'll buy it.

As none do yet, I continue to monitor the situation. BEVs are closer to my price but lack the capability, FCEVs have the capability but not the price, both still lack the necessary infrastructure in rural areas, and the 'fuel' for both is still more expensive than gas (BEVs are closer).
Knowing about the problem over two years and STILL NOT having a solution pretty much means it's not solvable (or at least within practical limits - vacuum isolated tubing would be one impractical way). Stop dancing around that fact with semantics and just acknowledge that there currently is NO SOLUTION to this limitation. Whether it's 8 per hour, or 3 per 30 mins, the improvement does not scale.

Seeing as how there are almost no gen 2 stations in operation yet, how do you know there isn't a solution yet? And even in the unlikely event there were no way to prevent temporary freeze up of the nozzle, do you think it might just occur to someone to install two hoses/nozzles per dispenser, in the same way EA puts two cables/connectors on their QCs? Hopefully they'd be smarter about it than EA is, and put them on opposite sides of the dispenser so that two cars could be connected at the same time, unlike EA.

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 4:26 pm
And we've already discussed your use cases, and have already determined that BEV's do meet your use cases very well. You would rather continue polluting the air on your boy scouts and nit-pick about the minimal vampire-drain and extra 15-minutes of a single charging stop than to acknowledge that BEV's do work for you. You're a hypocrite with your "copper-shots vs silver bullets" line.

What complete and utter B.S. I've described at length the places I'm likely to go, the routes I'm likely to take, and the low density if not complete absence of QC facilities along them, requiring me to either take completely different routes and/or plan my entire trip around charging stops, usually in places I have no wish to stay, or else forego the trip altogether.

Please do tell me of your fantasy about how BEVs are suitable for me. Let's start by having you explain how I'm going to drive across Nevada on U.S. 50 to Great Basin National Park (before continuing on to Ricky Mtn. NP), something I plan to do this fall but am still unable to do in a BEV owing to the total lack of QCs east of Fernley, NV, unless I'm willing to waste a night enroute and stay in an RV park, neither of which I'm willing to do.. Otherwise, don't waste my time.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 12073
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

Thu Jul 09, 2020 1:09 am

smkettner wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 8:41 pm
GRA wrote:
Wed Jul 08, 2020 5:16 pm
I'm comparing current batteries to current fuel cells, and possible future batteries to possible future fuel cells. No BEV provides the combination of range, rapid refueling and longevity of current FCEVs, but fuel cells are probably more expensive currently (we don't know how much the costs have come down, from $50k/stack several years back towards the $8-$11k Toyota was hoping to achieve as they increased annual production from 3 up to 30k), as is their fuel.

Stack costs will decrease even more once they get into true mass production (300k-3M annually), but even at $8-11k they should be comparable to ICE-competitive BEVs, which are forecast to achieve that once pack costs drop to $100/kWh in a few years (2023 by one forecast), which is to say a 100kWh pack will cost $10k then. Economies of scale are already dropping H2 fueling infrastructure costs.

So, price of renewable H2 will be the determining factor in FCEV success or failure, along with possible developments in batteries. Note, I'm ignoring possible/likely resource constraint issues in both techs here.
Tesla and other talk about a 1 million mile battery. I have also read fuel cell will also wear out.... does it go a million and still produce 70 % rated power?

I don't think there is an actual BEV or FCEV that has gone this far on the original equipment.
There have already been stacks that have lasted 20k+ hours of use in commercial vehicle (Bus IIRR) service with the high time one over 25k, which is far beyond the operational lifetime any personak vehicle's likely to rack up I believe I posted the details in the "AFV Trucks" topic some time back although it might have been here. Again from memory, stacks seem to suffer about a 10% power loss over 12 years.

Both of these numbers give useful longevity far beyond what any available battery pack can do. I've yet to see any detailed performance numbers or warranties from Tesla or anyone else about so-called 'million mile' batteries, none of which is yet available to buy, let alone has undergone large-scale service testing by customers. But I'd love to see a battery that will provide ICE-comparable range for at least 15 years, if not the life of the vehicle. That would make the life-cycle costs competitive with ICEs, which they aren't now for anyone line me who keeps cars until they wear out.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

Return to “Business / Economy and Politics”