Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Nubo said:
I'm not opposed to that; Hydrogen as an energy storage medium holds promise -- IF being used to store clean energy. My fear is that the "hydrogen economy" will be largely a way for petro companies to repackage their fossil fuels.
This is where my resistance lies as well.
Nubo said:
However, what is the capital outlay for a PV system, hydrolyzer, fuel cell, and H2 compression and storage, all sufficient to fuel a vehicle? I don't see this going mainstream quickly, even if it works well and deals with H2 generation losses, density and diffusion properties. It's far cry from plugging in an EV.
Yes, today it's expensive. But it's also proven to work. There are fuel cell UPS vans on the road, city buses, etc. I'd much rather see an expansion of H2 rather than a move to CNG vehicles.
Nubo said:
Motorists value convenience above all. That's the one strong suit of EVs that can overcome some of the trepidation and "range anxiety". Word of mouth about how convenient they really are to own and drive. I see H2 taking quite some time before it compares to the convenience level of EVs, or conversely the "drive anywhere at a moments notice" siren song of gasoline. Just doesn't seem to hit either note.
I think this is where we get off-track with the discussion. I don't see the H2 infrastructure being best used for personal cars, but rather to allow the expansion of fuel cell buses and delivery vehicles. I like that we can get more diesels out of cities while also pushing natural gas aside.
http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/42781-2.pdf

Europe's in the lead here - check this out:
http://gofuelcellbus.com/index.php/project/high-vlocityscotland
H2 Fueling Infrastructure
A 1MWe electrolyser provided by BOC will generate hydrogen. Scottish & Southern Energy Power Distribution (SSEPD) will supply electricity from a nearby wind farm to power the electrolyser which will also operate in a grid balancing capacity.
 
Ah well, the law is signed, $20M or 10 H2 stations per year allocated for, so they are coming. Some cars will be sold, but the EV market should blow them away. Who knows, maybe future technology will make them viable.

Here's an interesting study, just FYI: http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/51564.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
Elon Musk: "Fuel cells are so bullshit"

Jump directly to 29m15s: http://youtu.be/MmQb94EF1UY?t=29m15s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmQb94EF1UY[/youtube]
 
^ "no way for it to be a workable technology" ...quotes like that have a way of coming back and biting you in the ass

also "hydrogen is quite, kind of dangerous" - I so thought he was about to make a Hindenburg joke there, but I think he caught himself and remembered where he was :lol:
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
^ "no way for it to be a workable technology" ...quotes like that have a way of coming back and biting you in the ass

also "hydrogen is quite, kind of dangerous" - I so thought he was about to make a Hindenburg joke there, but I think he caught himself and remembered where he was :lol:


Elon is actually being very sincere when he describes Hydrogen Fuel Cells as Fool Cells, for automotive use, its a technology where success is not a possible outcome for varying reasons. But Tesla's 2 automotive shareholders are big into Hydrogen Fuel Cells, so Tesla is more polite than Elon in describing Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle.

Even going back to early Tesla, Hydrogen is not seen as competive. Page 7 http://www.evworld.com/library/tesla_21centuryev.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
I confess I don't understand all the claims about the size of the infrastructure being a major impediment to H2 fuel cells. Obviously, the infrastructure will be limited to start with, but so what, every developing infrastructure suffers from that. But just as with BEVs, you start by building the densest infrastructure where the majority of sales will be, and we know where that is in California - the metropolitan areas of the S.F. Bay Area, L.A., San Diego and Sacramento.

Inevitably there will be a need for some people to travel further than they would like to fuel at the start, but those people will probably hold off buying until there's a station more conveniently located. Or maybe they'll be able to buy a FCHV like the variant of the Highlander that's now available, so that they do their local driving on batteries. Ultimately, in an urban area you want fueling stations no more than 5 miles from anyone, but that will take a while.

Where H2 fuel cells really shine is that with their range, long road trips don't need many stations. Consider what a 300+ mile freeway range with 5 minute refueling gives you. Although I'm not suggesting you would space them that far apart, the almost 800 mile length of I-5 in California can be covered by just two H2 stations, for argument's sake lets say at Lost Hills (Exit 278) and Dunnigan (Exit 556). the former covers I-5 from the Mexican border northwards, the latter the area from Medford, Or. south, and between them they cover the San Joaquin Valley.

More practically, you'd want stations spaced between 1/3rd and 1/2 of the max. range, to allow for out and back trips up to that radius plus some local driving without needing to refuel. Either way, the long range means the number of H2 stations, like the number of gas stations required to provide a basic infrastructure to cover the whole state, is fairly small.

And the fast refueling time gives another benefit. While co-locating 24/7 services like food and bathrooms at the H2 refueling stations is nice to have, it's not essential in the way it is for 30 minute or more QCs. You can go elsewhere for those services as you're not tied to that location for a prolonged period of time, so unmanned stations can be used which are available 24/7.

An example of this might be to put an H2 electrolysis fueling station at Moccasin on Highway 120 on the way to Yosemite, at the base of Priest Grade (Old and New). There's absolutely nothing at Moccasin except a hydroelectric power station, which is part of San Francisco's Hetch Hetchy water and power system. But ten minutes east is the town of Groveland, where food and other services are available.

Someone posted that they think that BEV ranges will have improved to fuel cell range in the next few years at a lower price. Certainly that's a possibility but by no means a certainty, and the competition between them will improve both types.

I've got no preference for which ultimately wins, but it's far too early to say which will prove superior. Or perhaps each will find their own niche(s), or FCHVs will rule.

As for home hydrogen production, well, we're a long ways from that making any financial or energy sense, and the safety issues will probably dominate in any case. For commercial production I expect that the majority of H2 in this dem/val stage will come from methane, but I know that at least one of the planned H2 stations will use PV or wind-powered electrolysis, which will ultimately be required. I can live with the use of methane for now, as long as we keep it small scale.

I expect it will be fairly small scale, because companies don't want to sink a lot of capital into production installations that may be obsolete in just a few years. For example, compression to 5-10,000 PSI takes something like 15-20% of the energy embodied in the H2, and if low-pressure metal hydride or nanotube storage becomes commercial in a few years, those expensive (and energy-intensive) compressors will only be worth their scrap-value, unless they can be re-purposed.
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
^ "no way for it to be a workable technology" ...quotes like that have a way of coming back and biting you in the ass

also "hydrogen is quite, kind of dangerous" - I so thought he was about to make a Hindenburg joke there, but I think he caught himself and remembered where he was :lol:
Well---Mr. Musk is certainly optimistic regarding the future of electric autos.
 
Gra

Miles are probably both cheaper and more compact for Tesla to get from a Panasonic/Samsung/LG battery, than it is for Toyota/Etc to get from a carbon fibre H2 tank. and that is excluding the cost of the fuel cell stack and other ancillary expenses. But Toyota/Etc must sell for less than a Model S, because fuel cells vehicles are so much less acceleration and cramped than their EV competition.
 
derkraut said:
Well---Mr. Musk is certainly an egotistical SOB. Sort of reminds me of Obama. :roll:
Well, I'd say that at worst, both can display a little cockiness, on rare occassions. And given their track record of accomplishments, success, and being right, I think they can be forgiven momentary "lapses" &or a small amout of gloating.

On the whole, I think any objective observer of their public personae would say that they are for the most part humble and gracious. Far more so than others who have held similar positions (fill in your own examples here), and certainly more so than they "need" be.

:shock:
 
GRA said:
I confess I don't understand all the claims about the size of the infrastructure being a major impediment to H2 fuel cells.

For me, it's more an observation that H2 infrastructure must be built whole-cloth. There is essentially no existing infrastructure to support it. This makes the investment required - time, money and materials - much greater that the alternatives.

It's true that BEVs also require more infrastructure, but the vast majority of what's required is already there: virtually every inhabited destination in the US has electricity. If you have a wall outlet, you have your charging infrastructure.


GRA said:
Inevitably there will be a need for some people to travel further than they would like to fuel at the start, but those people will probably hold off buying until there's a station more conveniently located. Or maybe they'll be able to buy a FCHV like the variant of the Highlander that's now available, so that they do their local driving on batteries.

As far as I know, *all* fuel cell vehicles are "FCHV." Which is to say, all fuel cell vehicles use traction batteries to help provide peak power so the (very expensive) fuel cell can be reduced in size. I suppose the distinction is more about the size of the battery.


GRA said:
Where H2 fuel cells really shine is that with their range, long road trips don't need many stations.

I disagree. A single individual might not need many stations for any one particular trip, but given the number of possible "long range trips" from every possible starting location to every possible destination, you will need a lot of H2 stations to make it work. Not everyone would be willing to drive 20+ miles out of their way to refuel. If you don't believe me, consider how nearly every gasoline vehicle has a 300+ mile range and how many gas stations there are. They wouldn't be there if there were no customers!


GRA said:
And the fast refueling time gives another benefit. While co-locating 24/7 services like food and bathrooms at the H2 refueling stations is nice to have, it's not essential in the way it is for 30 minute or more QCs.

Again speaking from experience with CNG - fueling times are not guaranteed. I've witnessed times from 3-4 minutes to over 20 minutes depending on the station and how busy it is. In other words, you have no way of knowing how long it'll take until you're done. At least with BEVs, you'll know how long it'll take based on how low your battery is and can plan accordingly!

In all the examples I know of, hydrogen and CNG fueling are identical except for the gas involved. I can describe the fueling cycle and why the time can vary so much if you want, and it should still be applicable.
=Smidge=
 
Smidge204 said:
Again speaking from experience with CNG - fueling times are not guaranteed. I've witnessed times from 3-4 minutes to over 20 minutes depending on the station and how busy it is. In other words, you have no way of knowing how long it'll take until you're done. At least with BEVs, you'll know how long it'll take based on how low your battery is and can plan accordingly!

In all the examples I know of, hydrogen and CNG fueling are identical except for the gas involved. I can describe the fueling cycle and why the time can vary so much if you want, and it should still be applicable.
=Smidge=
My 10 months Civic NG have already 26KM and all done using public stations. I managed few long trips, but I have to admit that infrastructure is really limiting factor. My FL and IN trips required careful planning and assuming that all will be in working order. As of home recharging station, is not cheap, and what is really strange it will cost me more to make my cng comparing to what I pay at public stations. There is a lot cng cars around but this may change when subsidies for cars and cng are gone. I am fortunate that I can refuel not far away from the places that are usually travel and do not like making trips to just refuel. I like the idea of FC but I do not believe we will have reasonable infrastructure here within next few years, or maybe more than few years.
 
ydnas7 said:
Gra

Miles are probably both cheaper and more compact for Tesla to get from a Panasonic/Samsung/LG battery, than it is for Toyota/Etc to get from a carbon fibre H2 tank. and that is excluding the cost of the fuel cell stack and other ancillary expenses. But Toyota/Etc must sell for less than a Model S, because fuel cells vehicles are so much less acceleration and cramped than their EV competition.
If Toyota can put a Prius-size car that goes 300+ miles on the market in 2015 for $50k, as they claim, I'd say that they've already disproved your first contention, since the Gen 3 will probably be about the same size (Tesla says "about BMW 3 series") but only provide 200 miles of range (under ideal conditions) two or three years later. We'll have to see how much of a density improvement Tesla can manage in the time after Toyota's FCEV (and any others) is supposed to come to market.

As to less acceleration and cramped, the power density of current gen fuel cells is something like 3 x greater than the last generation, and the component diagrams I've seen show everything including tanks fitting in/alongside the skateboard, so I don't think either is likely to apply. But again we'll have to see how close each of these technologies comes to its claims.
 
Have to agree that fuel cells are needed but only in commercial applications along major routes where an infrastrucutre can be in place within months. This allows continued research to improve the tech. For consumer use? Still at least a decade away
 
Smidge204 said:
GRA said:
I confess I don't understand all the claims about the size of the infrastructure being a major impediment to H2 fuel cells.
For me, it's more an observation that H2 infrastructure must be built whole-cloth. There is essentially no existing infrastructure to support it. This makes the investment required - time, money and materials - much greater that the alternatives.

It's true that BEVs also require more infrastructure, but the vast majority of what's required is already there: virtually every inhabited destination in the US has electricity. If you have a wall outlet, you have your charging infrastructure.
We're certainly starting from next to nowhere as far as H2 retail stations, but H2 production at refineries exists now and retail dispensing could be added (although I'm not suggesting this). As it is, much of the H2 is hauled by tanker truck to customers (who use it for other purposes than transportation), and that's not very energy-efficient.

Smidge204 said:
GRA said:
Inevitably there will be a need for some people to travel further than they would like to fuel at the start, but those people will probably hold off buying until there's a station more conveniently located. Or maybe they'll be able to buy a FCHV like the variant of the Highlander that's now available, so that they do their local driving on batteries.
As far as I know, *all* fuel cell vehicles are "FCHV." Which is to say, all fuel cell vehicles use traction batteries to help provide peak power so the (very expensive) fuel cell can be reduced in size. I suppose the distinction is more about the size of the battery.
Right, or how it's used. Instead of using it strictly as a power booster, I'm talking about batteries sized to allow battery-only driving for considerable distance, like a Volt/Fusion Energi etc.

Smidge204 said:
GRA said:
Where H2 fuel cells really shine is that with their range, long road trips don't need many stations.
I disagree. A single individual might not need many stations for any one particular trip, but given the number of possible "long range trips" from every possible starting location to every possible destination, you will need a lot of H2 stations to make it work. Not everyone would be willing to drive 20+ miles out of their way to refuel. If you don't believe me, consider how nearly every gasoline vehicle has a 300+ mile range and how many gas stations there are. They wouldn't be there if there were no customers!
I've devoted considerable time to studying it, and you could provide a good basic infrastructure for California's major highways with just 20-25 stations spaced every 100-150 miles, not counting those in urban areas. 300+ miles of range eases the siting problems considerably. For example, Google maps shows that it's 265 miles from LA to Vegas, so you could probably make it non-stop, although the need to climb over a 4,730 foot pass might make it iffy. Not to worry, an H2 station in Barstow, at the junction of I-15, I-40 and SR 58, solves that by allowing people to top up.

I-8 from San Diego, you can drive the 173 miles to Yuma, Az. no problem, but stick one in El Centro anyway. I-80 from the Bay Area, you can reach Reno or Lake Tahoe non-stop (and much of the time, do the round-trip from Sacramento to the Lake un-refueled), but there will be fueling stations in Sacramento in any case, and one each in Truckee on I-80 and South Lake Tahoe on U.S. 50 for those who are worried.

As to the number of gas stations, that's due to the number of cars, not the distance they have to cover. Go to many intersections and there are gas stations on all four corners; they certainly aren't needed to give cars enough range to cross the intersection :D . The number of FCEVs will be limited to start, and so will the number of fueling stations (and their capacity) needed to serve them.

Summarizing, 100 stations will be more than adequate to cover travel in the whole state as well as provide at least one fueling station in all 66 California cities with a population of 100k or more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_California_cities_by_population" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Note that I'm not saying that it will provide the ubiquitous cover that the 100 year-old gas infrastructure will, but then we don't need it to yet. If you'd like to see my suggestions of where all the non-urban H2 fueling stations should go, I'll be happy to send it to you via a private message; I doubt most people (esp. non-Californians) would find it interesting. Besides, most of the locations are blatantly obvious to anyone with a California road map and a knowledge of regional tourist attractions.

Smidge204 said:
GRA said:
And the fast refueling time gives another benefit. While co-locating 24/7 services like food and bathrooms at the H2 refueling stations is nice to have, it's not essential in the way it is for 30 minute or more QCs.
Again speaking from experience with CNG - fueling times are not guaranteed. I've witnessed times from 3-4 minutes to over 20 minutes depending on the station and how busy it is. In other words, you have no way of knowing how long it'll take until you're done. At least with BEVs, you'll know how long it'll take based on how low your battery is and can plan accordingly!

In all the examples I know of, hydrogen and CNG fueling are identical except for the gas involved. I can describe the fueling cycle and why the time can vary so much if you want, and it should still be applicable.
Sure, but you also can't guarantee how long it will take you at a QC, because you never know how many people will be ahead of you, how much they need, whether the max. rate is shared between cars or is dedicated, whether someone is blocking the dispenser, etc. In short, delays are a universal problem, varying only in the technical details between the different sources of energy.
 
smkettner said:
50k for a Prius and the fuel is just as expensive an rather hard to find :shock:
Good luck with that.
People were willing to pay $35k three years ago for a "Prius" with a 75 mile range. Judging by the number of people who are constantly saying that they're willing to pay more for a Leaf-sized BEV with considerably increased range, I suspect there are plenty of people willing to pay $50k for a "Prius" (better than a Prius, because it will be far quieter) with at least four times the range of current sub-Tesla BEVs. Especially if they can count on that range for the life of the car. That last point is worth a lot to me, because I buy cars and keep them until they cost more to maintain than getting a new one does, and I'm hardly alone in that. Of course, if the fuel costs are greater than a Prius, well, no, but that remains to be seen.
 
DaveinOlyWA said:
Have to agree that fuel cells are needed but only in commercial applications along major routes where an infrastructure can be in place within months. This allows continued research to improve the tech. For consumer use? Still at least a decade away
Apparently decades are shorter here in California, Dave, as the next one will arrive in 2015 with the first reasonably affordable FCEV/FCHV that anyone can buy. :D But fleets will likely be the main users of FCEVs while the infrastructure is built up.
 
Back
Top