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.
WetEV said:
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
WetEV said:
Lithium isn't uncommon. Resources is the number you want, and is much bigger than reserves. But starting up mines, refining, plants to make batteries, plants to make machines that make all the above, training staff, building infrastructure, all of this takes time.

Repeat for semiconductors, copper, steel and plastics.

I never disagreed with you on the "takes time" part, only claimed that it was "easy", in the sense that no new tech needed to be developed.

If you include nuclear power.

If you will not include nuclear power, then new technologies need to be developed. While they are, new nuclear plants will need to be built to replace existing plants as the existing plants reach end of life until the new technologies are developed and deployed at scale.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this part. The whole concept of "baseload" power is a carry over from the coal days, where it was cheaper to keep the power plants running and giveaway the electricity during off-peak hours, than to stop and restart the power plants. If power is cheaper during the day, then the industrial loads will follow. This will be a seeing-is-believing condition, so I don't expect to sway any viewpoints here.


WetEV said:
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
WetEV said:
Biofuels are mostly in direct competition with either human and wild animal food/shelter. There just isn't enough biofuels for the Whole Earth.

Sorry, let's agree on what's "bio fuels" first. When I read Biofuels, I read it as crops grown to produce ethanol. I'm actually advocating for banning that completely, exactly because it consumes fuel for the purpose of reducing fuel consumption. It's tech that's a waste of time and resources.

But if you're including wood into the biofuels category, then I don't think there's as much of a competition with food production as you think. The fruit orchards regularly uproot their "old" fruit trees after they stop producing. The wood would release CO2 from decomposition anyway, so burning it for heat doesn't add to the CO2 total. Burning it to produce electricity is no-go, and not what I had spelled out in my off-grid solution.

Of course wood is a biofuel. How much wood is grown every year? How does that compare with the current energy usage?

Almost all of the wood is grown for either the construction or paper industry. If the scrap is what's used for making biofuels, then I won't quibble. But wood should never be used to produce electricity.

Secondly, the IEA doesn't consider wood a biofuel: https://www.iea.org/fuels-and-technologies/bioenergy

So arguing about biofuel impeding on food supply is a serious issue, but a red herring when talking about renewable energy replacing fossil fuels in electricity production and transportation. Biofuel should be taken off the list of renewable energy sources and is on the way to being supplanted anyway, as more of transport gets electrified by BEV's.



WetEV said:
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
WetEV said:
Quibble. Pick a grid. Your choice.

Why does it matter how much there currently is? There isn't enough battery storage in the grid for all the solar and wind that we already have installed. That's why there's curtailment. They are however being added, and they will have an outsized impact on the reduction of fossil fuel use in electricity generation.

But just so you have the info, there's 1.6GWh as of 2020 (https://www.energy-storage.news/eia-us-battery-storage-installed-capacity-hit-1650mw-by-end-of-2020/)

Half the answer, and none of the simple math. And I think there is more as of right now.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/use-of-electricity.php

3.9 trillion kWh per year.

Let me get the answer in seconds:

(1600000 kWh storage / 3900000000000 kWh per year) *365 days per year *24 hours per day *60 minutes per hour *60 seconds per hour.

Check my math, will you? I get it wrong, sometimes.

About 13 seconds. There is no massive impact on the grid from this. Or ten times this, but some impact on good renewable power days.

Wow, really?! Firstly, your math is correct, but is completely mis-applied.

That 1.6GWh (which is only 400MW of power capacity) was all curtailed wind/solar power (energy that was lost during peak production, but is instead saved for later). Replacing energy that would've been supplied by running a 400MW nat gas peaker plant an extra 4 hrs every day for the whole year to cover the times when solar/wind are NOT available. Every MW of battery power directly offsets that much peaker power.

So the bulk of the electricity must still come from additional solar and wind farms, but the batteries make it so that additional gas peaker plants aren't required to balance those new farms. This HAD been the case these past few years as coal power (baseload) was being replaced by wind/solar + nat gas peaker.
 
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
WetEV said:
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
Why does it matter how much there currently is? There isn't enough battery storage in the grid for all the solar and wind that we already have installed. That's why there's curtailment. They are however being added, and they will have an outsized impact on the reduction of fossil fuel use in electricity generation.

But just so you have the info, there's 1.6GWh as of 2020 (https://www.energy-storage.news/eia-us-battery-storage-installed-capacity-hit-1650mw-by-end-of-2020/)

Half the answer, and none of the simple math. And I think there is more as of right now.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/use-of-electricity.php

3.9 trillion kWh per year.

Let me get the answer in seconds:

(1600000 kWh storage / 3900000000000 kWh per year) *365 days per year *24 hours per day *60 minutes per hour *60 seconds per hour.

Check my math, will you? I get it wrong, sometimes.

About 13 seconds. There is no massive impact on the grid from this. Or ten times this, but some impact on good renewable power days.

Wow, really?! Firstly, your math is correct, but is completely mis-applied.

That 1.6GWh (which is only 400MW of power capacity) was all curtailed wind/solar power (energy that was lost during peak production, but is instead saved for later). Replacing energy that would've been supplied by running a 400MW nat gas peaker plant an extra 4 hrs every day for the whole year to cover the times when solar/wind are NOT available. Every MW of battery power directly offsets that much peaker power.

So the bulk of the electricity must still come from additional solar and wind farms, but the batteries make it so that additional gas peaker plants aren't required to balance those new farms. This HAD been the case these past few years as coal power (baseload) was being replaced by wind/solar + nat gas peaker.

Shoot! I gave you too much credit! It's not 13 seconds of energy for the national grid, but 13,000 seconds (~215 mins or ~3.5hrs)! I missed the part where you miss-applied total energy consumed with installed battery capacity. The 1.6GWh can be charged and discharged fully on a daily basis, which is potentially ~584 GWh of energy supplied for the year.
 
lorenfb said:
WetEV said:
Let me get the answer in seconds:

(1600000 kWh storage / 3900000000000 kWh per year) *365 days per year *24 hours per day *60 minutes per hour *60 seconds per hour.

Check my math, will you? I get it wrong, sometimes.

About 13 seconds. There is no massive impact on the grid from this. Or ten times this, but some impact on good renewable power days.

Correct.

T (sec) = (1.6*10^6) * (3.65*10^2)*(8.64*10^4) / (3.9*10^12) = 12.93

Incorrect. Should be:

T (sec) = (1.6*10^6 * 365) * (3.65*10^2) * (8.64*10^4) / ((3.9*10^12) = 12937

* The "365" is due to the 1.6GWh capacity being charged and discharged daily. The rest is just to cancel out the "per year" label.
 
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
lorenfb said:
WetEV said:
Let me get the answer in seconds:

(1600000 kWh storage / 3900000000000 kWh per year) *365 days per year *24 hours per day *60 minutes per hour *60 seconds per hour.

Check my math, will you? I get it wrong, sometimes.

About 13 seconds. There is no massive impact on the grid from this. Or ten times this, but some impact on good renewable power days.

Correct.

T (sec) = (1.6*10^6) * (3.65*10^2)*(8.64*10^4) / (3.9*10^12) = 12.93

Should be:

T (sec) = (1.6*10^6 * 365) * (3.65*10^2) * (8.64*10^4) / ((3.9*10^12) = 12937

* The "365" is due to the 1.6GWh capacity being charged and discharged daily. The rest is just to cancel out the "per year" label.

Although his calculations were correct, his error was not properly expressing the energy storage number 1.6 GWh - 1.6*10^9, and not 1.6*10^6 (1.6MWh);
https://www.energy-storage.news/eia-us-battery-storage-installed-capacity-hit-1650mw-by-end-of-2020/

1. He took the annual energy usage and converted to a daily number, as is the case for the battery storage number;
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/use-of-electricity.php

3.9* 10^12 / 365 = 1.07* 10^10 (daily energy usage)

2. He then took the ratio of daily battery storage to daily energy usage;

(1.6* 10^9) / (1.07* 10^10) = .15, Note: Daily battery capacity is less than 15% of daily usage.

3. He then converted the daily rate usage to a per second rate usage;

His original number; (.15) * (24*60*60) = 12960 seconds = 3.6 hrs
 
lorenfb said:
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
lorenfb said:
Correct.

T (sec) = (1.6*10^6) * (3.65*10^2)*(8.64*10^4) / (3.9*10^12) = 12.93

Incorrect. Should be:

T (sec) = (1.6*10^6 * 365) * (3.65*10^2) * (8.64*10^4) / ((3.9*10^12) = 12937

* The "365" is due to the 1.6GWh capacity being charged and discharged daily. The rest is just to cancel out the "per year" label.

His calculations are correct:

1. He took the annual energy usage and converted to a daily number, as is the case for the battery storage number;

3.9* 10^12 / 365 = 1.07* 10^10 (daily energy usage)

2. He then took the ratio of daily battery storage to daily energy usage;

(1.6* 10^6) / (1.07* 10^10) = 1.5 *10^-4, Note: Daily battery capacity is less than .015% of daily usage.

3. He then converted the daily rate usage to a per second rate usage;

His original number; (1.5 * 10^-4) * (24*60*60) = 12.96 seconds

At first I thought the same! But you've forgotten that the 13 seconds is a PER DAY number! Or a total of 4745 seconds (or 1.5hrs) of electricity for the year (due to rounding errors, our numbers differ by over 8000 seconds, but not important). It's a flaw that's similiar to the missing-dollar-riddle, where context of the labels gets forgotten and mis-applied.

In any case, it's all irrelevant. Per my original response to WetEV's calculations, it's all about using curtailed (aka wasted) solar/wind energy to displace natural gas peaker plant energy.


Edit: I see you've made edits, so disregard what I've written above.

Edit #2: Actually, your original interpretation/calculations were correct. The revised calculations are wrong, since it was 1.6*10^6 KWh (to keep it consistent with the EPA total of 3.9*10^12 KWh). In any case, the problem had to do with the fact that it was deriving a daily total (13 seconds) for an annual total.
 
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
lorenfb said:
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
Incorrect. Should be:

T (sec) = (1.6*10^6 * 365) * (3.65*10^2) * (8.64*10^4) / ((3.9*10^12) = 12937

* The "365" is due to the 1.6GWh capacity being charged and discharged daily. The rest is just to cancel out the "per year" label.

His calculations are correct:

1. He took the annual energy usage and converted to a daily number, as is the case for the battery storage number;

3.9* 10^12 / 365 = 1.07* 10^10 (daily energy usage)

2. He then took the ratio of daily battery storage to daily energy usage;

(1.6* 10^6) / (1.07* 10^10) = 1.5 *10^-4, Note: Daily battery capacity is less than .015% of daily usage.

3. He then converted the daily rate usage to a per second rate usage;

His original number; (1.5 * 10^-4) * (24*60*60) = 12.96 seconds

At first I thought the same! But you've forgotten that the 13 seconds is a PER DAY number! Or a total of 4745 seconds (or 1.5hrs) of electricity for the year (due to rounding errors, our numbers differ by over 8000 seconds, but not important). It's a flaw that's similiar to the missing-dollar-riddle, where context of the labels gets forgotten and mis-applied.

In any case, it's all irrelevant. Per my original response to WetEV's calculations, it's all about using curtailed (aka wasted) solar/wind energy to displace natural gas peaker plant energy.


Edit: I see you've made edits, so disregard what I've written above.

Edit #2: Actually, your original interpretation/calculations were correct. The revised calculations are wrong, since it was 1.6*10^6 KWh (to keep it consistent with the EPA total of 3.9*10^12 KWh). In any case, the problem had to do with the fact that it was deriving a daily total (13 seconds) for an annual total.

Read it again. It was clarified before your last post.
 
lorenfb said:
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
lorenfb said:
Correct.

T (sec) = (1.6*10^6) * (3.65*10^2)*(8.64*10^4) / (3.9*10^12) = 12.93

Should be:

T (sec) = (1.6*10^6 * 365) * (3.65*10^2) * (8.64*10^4) / ((3.9*10^12) = 12937

* The "365" is due to the 1.6GWh capacity being charged and discharged daily. The rest is just to cancel out the "per year" label.

Although his calculations were correct, his error was not properly expressing the energy storage number 1.6 GWh - 1.6*10^9, and not 1.6*10^6 (1.6MWh);
https://www.energy-storage.news/eia-us-battery-storage-installed-capacity-hit-1650mw-by-end-of-2020/

1. He took the annual energy usage and converted to a daily number, as is the case for the battery storage number;
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/use-of-electricity.php

3.9* 10^12 / 365 = 1.07* 10^10 (daily energy usage)

2. He then took the ratio of daily battery storage to daily energy usage;

(1.6* 10^9) / (1.07* 10^10) = .15, Note: Daily battery capacity is less than 15% of daily usage.

3. He then converted the daily rate usage to a per second rate usage;

His original number; (.15) * (24*60*60) = 12960 seconds = 3.6 hrs

My error:

The annual energy usage is 3.9 trillion kWh, 3.9 X10^15 Wh and not 3.9 X10^12 Wh

Time = 12.96 sec (as per my 5/14 post)
 
lorenfb said:
lorenfb said:
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
Should be:

T (sec) = (1.6*10^6 * 365) * (3.65*10^2) * (8.64*10^4) / ((3.9*10^12) = 12937

* The "365" is due to the 1.6GWh capacity being charged and discharged daily. The rest is just to cancel out the "per year" label.

Although his calculations were correct, his error was not properly expressing the energy storage number 1.6 GWh - 1.6*10^9, and not 1.6*10^6 (1.6MWh);
https://www.energy-storage.news/eia-us-battery-storage-installed-capacity-hit-1650mw-by-end-of-2020/

1. He took the annual energy usage and converted to a daily number, as is the case for the battery storage number;
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/use-of-electricity.php

3.9* 10^12 / 365 = 1.07* 10^10 (daily energy usage)

2. He then took the ratio of daily battery storage to daily energy usage;

(1.6* 10^9) / (1.07* 10^10) = .15, Note: Daily battery capacity is less than 15% of daily usage.

3. He then converted the daily rate usage to a per second rate usage;

His original number; (.15) * (24*60*60) = 12960 seconds = 3.6 hrs

My error:

The annual energy usage is 3.9 trillion kWh, 3.9 X10^15 Wh and not 3.9 X10^12 Wh

Time = 12.96 sec (as per my 5/14 post)

Yes, and as noted before, that's the daily time. So 4745 seconds total for the year.

Battery storage purpose is NOT to be a primary source of electricity, but an enabler for bringing more solar/wind energy into the grid.
 
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
lorenfb said:
Time = 12.96 sec (as per my 5/14 post)

Yes, and as noted before, that's the daily time. So 4745 seconds total for the year.

Battery storage purpose is NOT to be a primary source of electricity, but an enabler for bringing more solar/wind energy into the grid.
I think the point is that we only have enough battery storage to buffer the grid for 13 seconds. After that the batteries must be recharged (not clear how long that might take) before we can buffer the grid for another 13 seconds.

We need a buffer of maybe 12-18 hours in order to balance diurnal variations in RE supply. To balance seasonal variations and prolonged doldrums we would need MUCH more, so much that batteries will never be practical; chemical storage is probably the only option. Chemical storage would waste around half of the energy round-trip, and would require us to design conversion processes that can work economically with intermittent energy input.
 
oxothuk said:
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
lorenfb said:
Time = 12.96 sec (as per my 5/14 post)

Yes, and as noted before, that's the daily time. So 4745 seconds total for the year.

Battery storage purpose is NOT to be a primary source of electricity, but an enabler for bringing more solar/wind energy into the grid.
I think the point is that we only have enough battery storage to buffer the grid for 13 seconds. After that the batteries must be recharged (not clear how long that might take) before we can buffer the grid for another 13 seconds.

We need a buffer of maybe 12-18 hours in order to balance diurnal variations in RE supply. To balance seasonal variations and prolonged doldrums we would need MUCH more, so much that batteries will never be practical; chemical storage is probably the only option.

No. That's the point of the overbuild solution. You build enough solar/wind/geothermal/pumped-hydro to supply the grid during the low seasons, so that you won't need more than 4 hrs of battery storage the rest of the time, because there's an excess amount of solar + wind. Focusing on trying to solve the seasonal variations has been a distraction away from simply building out solar + wind as quickly as possible. Overbuilding optimizes the available battery production capacity to minimize the time it takes to electrify transportation AND the grid.
 
Oh shoot. I just had an epiphany! You're all saying that it'll be a LONG TIME before we get enough batteries for 4hrs of storage. With 1.6GWh being only enough for 13 seconds, and thus 10x that would only be enough for 130 seconds, and to get to 4hrs, we'd need 14,400 seconds of battery storage (which would be ~1772 GWh of batteries)!

Was that everyone's point? Welps, gotta start somewhere. Much like with solar and wind, it's all additive. Secondly, summer months uses more electricity than winter months, since winter heating is usually best solved by burning something (wood pellets being the least CO2 impact of all the fuels), so we don't actually need that much battery storage to get to 4hrs worth of battery storage for all year round needs.
 
And 100 million EVs (of all types) with and average of 100 kWh batteries yields 10,000 giga-watthours of energy storage. Can that many batteries be produced and when?
May want to check my math also :mrgreen:
 
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
oxothuk said:
I think the point is that we only have enough battery storage to buffer the grid for 13 seconds. After that the batteries must be recharged (not clear how long that might take) before we can buffer the grid for another 13 seconds.

We need a buffer of maybe 12-18 hours in order to balance diurnal variations in RE supply. To balance seasonal variations and prolonged doldrums we would need MUCH more, so much that batteries will never be practical; chemical storage is probably the only option.

No. That's the point of the overbuild solution. You build enough solar/wind/geothermal/pumped-hydro to supply the grid during the low seasons, so that you won't need more than 4 hrs of battery storage the rest of the time, because there's an excess amount of solar + wind. Focusing on trying to solve the seasonal variations has been a distraction away from simply building out solar + wind as quickly as possible. Overbuilding optimizes the available battery production capacity to minimize the time it takes to electrify transportation AND the grid.
So do you think there are enough suitable sites for pumped hydro to power the whole US grid through windless nights? I'm skeptical of that.
 
oxothuk said:
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
oxothuk said:
I think the point is that we only have enough battery storage to buffer the grid for 13 seconds. After that the batteries must be recharged (not clear how long that might take) before we can buffer the grid for another 13 seconds.

We need a buffer of maybe 12-18 hours in order to balance diurnal variations in RE supply. To balance seasonal variations and prolonged doldrums we would need MUCH more, so much that batteries will never be practical; chemical storage is probably the only option.

No. That's the point of the overbuild solution. You build enough solar/wind/geothermal/pumped-hydro to supply the grid during the low seasons, so that you won't need more than 4 hrs of battery storage the rest of the time, because there's an excess amount of solar + wind. Focusing on trying to solve the seasonal variations has been a distraction away from simply building out solar + wind as quickly as possible. Overbuilding optimizes the available battery production capacity to minimize the time it takes to electrify transportation AND the grid.
So do you think there are enough suitable sites for pumped hydro to power the whole US grid through windless nights? I'm skeptical of that.

Weather isn't so homogenous that a windless night in Idaho is also windless in Texas and Arizona. Likewise with cloudy days.

Besides, once we're approaching the overbuilt solar/wind scenario, we will have enough free energy to consider synthesizing methane as feedstock for any remaining natural gas peaker plants. That would change those peaker plants into being carbon-neutral and not need to be shut down.
 
Marktm said:
And 100 million EVs (of all types) with and average of 100 kWh batteries yields 10,000 giga-watthours of energy storage. Can that many batteries be produced and when?
May want to check my math also :mrgreen:

Ford's F-150 lightning is a great step in the right direction, as the batteries there can also double as grid-storage batteries (requires the installation of an EVSE that's capable of V2G). Ford isn't alone in this thinking.

And yes, that many batteries can be produced, the when is ~2030 (if all goes according to plan). Tesla had already set a goal of producing 3 TWh of batteries annually by 2030 (most of it for use in grid storage though). If they succeed, others will follow.
 
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
oxothuk said:
So do you think there are enough suitable sites for pumped hydro to power the whole US grid through windless nights? I'm skeptical of that.

Weather isn't so homogenous that a windless night in Idaho is also windless in Texas and Arizona. Likewise with cloudy days.
It's more homogeneous than you think, at least some of the time.

Besides, once we're approaching the overbuilt solar/wind scenario, we will have enough free energy to consider synthesizing methane as feedstock for any remaining natural gas peaker plants. That would change those peaker plants into being carbon-neutral and not need to be shut down.
Synthesizing methane is a form of chemical storage. Nothing wrong with that, except for the round-trip conversion losses, and that we would need to design synthesizing plans that can work intermittently.
 
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
Ford's F-150 lightning is a great step in the right direction, as the batteries there can also double as grid-storage batteries (requires the installation of an EVSE that's capable of V2G). Ford isn't alone in this thinking.

And yes, that many batteries can be produced, the when is ~2030 (if all goes according to plan). Tesla had already set a goal of producing 3 TWh of batteries annually by 2030 (most of it for use in grid storage though). If they succeed, others will follow.

Agreed - Ford/Sunrun will hopefully lead the way - that Nissan has seemingly missed out on (with its bidirectional CHAdeMO connection). Anxious to hear about actual installations and their success. The AC route is likely a better way for most home owners anyway.

"Energy transitioning" vehicle fuels away from diesel and gasoline to electricity has the potential to actually stabilize the renewable transitioning grid. It's a real challenge for the HC industry. Shell has recognized this and others will. Going to be an interesting next decade for sure.
 
oxothuk said:
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:
oxothuk said:
So do you think there are enough suitable sites for pumped hydro to power the whole US grid through windless nights? I'm skeptical of that.

Weather isn't so homogenous that a windless night in Idaho is also windless in Texas and Arizona. Likewise with cloudy days.
It's more homogeneous than you think, at least some of the time.

Besides, once we're approaching the overbuilt solar/wind scenario, we will have enough free energy to consider synthesizing methane as feedstock for any remaining natural gas peaker plants. That would change those peaker plants into being carbon-neutral and not need to be shut down.
Synthesizing methane is a form of chemical storage. Nothing wrong with that, except for the round-trip conversion losses, and that we would need to design synthesizing plans that can work intermittently.

The synthesizing plans might need to be designed, but the tech doesn't. Having high conversion losses with the initial iterations of the tech should be accepted at the beginning to provide a learning foundation for future iterations. But this should be spurred by the renewable energy farm owners who don't want to see their energy curtailed.
 
GCC:
Cummins unveils 15L hydrogen engine

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2022/05/20220517-cummins.html


At the recent ACT Expo in Long Beach, California, Cummins debuted its 15-liter hydrogen engine. This engine is built on Cummins’ new fuel-agnostic platform, where below the head gasket each fuel type’s engine has largely similar components, and above the head gasket, each has different components for different fuel types.

This version, with expected full production in 2027, pairs with clean, zero-carbon hydrogen fuel, a key enabler of Cummins’ strategy to go further faster to help customers reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

We’ve established significant goals as part of our PLANET 2050 sustainability strategy, including a target of zero emissions. Reducing well-to-wheels carbon emissions requires innovation of both energy sources and power solutions. While use cases for battery electric and fuel cell electric powertrains are promising, the pairing of green hydrogen in the proven technology of internal combustion engines provides an important complement to future zero emissions solutions.

—Srikanth Padmanabhan, President, Engine Business, Cummins Inc.

Cummins announced the testing of hydrogen internal combustion (ICE) technology in July 2021, and has made impressive early results, already achieving production power and torque targets (more than 810 ft-lb torque and 290 hp from the medium-duty engine). Additional testing on Cummins’ more advanced prototypes will begin soon. With Cummins’ significant global manufacturing footprint, the company can quickly scale production.

The industry needs multiple solutions to meet the needs of all on- and off-highway customers and all applications considering the variation in duty cycles and operating environments, the company said.

The engine will be a zero-carbon fueled solution for multiple markets. Cummins intends to produce hydrogen internal combustion engines in both the 15-liter and 6.7-liter displacements, believing that these engines enable the industry to take action and reduce GHG emissions yet this decade, ultimately accelerating carbon reduction. . . .

Hydrogen internal combustion engines use zero-carbon fuel at a lower initial price of a fuel cell or battery electric vehicle with little modification to today’s vehicles. Accelerated market adoption of hydrogen engine powered vehicles is driven by the technology’s high technology maturity, low initial cost, extended vehicle range, fast fueling, powertrain installation commonality, and end-user familiarity.
 
Back
Top