Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[WetEV]

EU car companies are not positive on hydrogen.

https://www.ft.com/content/a1325d48-6c7 ... e504c21791

“We cannot expect everything to be green and sustainable and our individual behaviours and lives remain the same,” said Christian Bruch, the boss of Germany’s Siemens Energy, which has signed a hydrogen production deal with France’s Air Liquide. “The worst thing that can happen is that we talk about a silver bullet [green hydrogen] that never comes, and it's always five years away.”

[Oils4AsphaultOnly]

I never saw a post detailing the root cause of the Norway hydrogen station explosion, but just came across this post recently:https://www.fleeteurope.com/en/new-ener ... ety&curl=1

"About a month after a hydrogen filling station exploded in Norway, the cause has been found: a faulty valve."

So it turns out the explosion wasn't due to explosive decompression afterall, but actual combustion of the H2 gas.

And this is why FCEV's will be a dead end. IF the number of FCEV's get large enough, all it will take is a few poorly maintained cars to cause enough collateral damage to bury the tech permanently.

Green ammonia has a more viable future than green hydrogen. It has none of the drawbacks of hydrogen (liquid at -33C, therefore much lower containment temperatures and pressures and more easily dispensed), and many of the same use cases - source of hydrogen for industrial applications, as well as a feedstock for fuel cells (still in development).

[GRA]

Both GCC:

BNEF: steel industry set to pivot to hydrogen in green push; additional $278B for clean capacity and retrofits

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/1 ... steel.html

Steel production could be made with almost no carbon emissions through $278 billion of extra investment by 2050, according to a new report from research firm BloombergNEF (BNEF). Hydrogen and recycling are likely to play a central role in reducing emissions from steel production. Steel is responsible for around 7% of man-made greenhouse gas emissions every year and is one of the world’s most polluting industries.

Government and corporate net-zero commitments are pushing the steel industry to cancel out its emissions by 2050. Efforts to decarbonize steel production are central to the net-zero aspirations of China, Japan, Korea and the European Union.

The report “Decarbonizing Steel: A Net-Zero Pathway” outlines the path to making profitable, low-emissions steel and describes how a combination of falling hydrogen costs, cheap clean power, and increased recycling could reduce emissions to net zero, even while total output increases.

By 2050, green hydrogen could be the cheapest production method for steel and capture 31% of the market. Another 45% could come from recycled material, and the rest from a combination of older, coal-fired plants fitted with carbon capture systems and innovative processes using electricity to refine iron ore into iron and steel. This would be a major shift in the type of furnaces and fuels used to produce steel.

Today, around 70% of steel is made in coal-fired blast furnaces, with 25% produced from scrap in electric furnaces, and 5% made in a newer, typically natural gas-fired process known as DRI—direct reduced iron (earlier post). Converting a significant portion of the fleet to hydrogen would require more DRI plants and more electric furnaces. Blast furnace production would fall to 18% of capacity in this scenario.

The steel industry cannot afford to wait for the 2040s to start its transition. The next ten years could see a massive expansion of steel capacity to meet demand in growing economies, such as India. Today’s new plants are tomorrow’s retrofits. Commissioning natural gas-fired plants could set producers up to have some of the lowest-cost capacity by retrofitting them to burn hydrogen in the 2030s and 2040s. But continuing to build new coal-fired plants will leave producers with only bad options toward a net-zero future by 2050.

-- Julia Attwood, head of sustainable materials at BNEF and lead author of the report

In order to achieve this transformation, there are five key actions for the sector to consider, according to the report:

Boost the amount of steel that is recycled, particularly in China;

Procure clean energy for electric furnaces;

Design all new capacity to be hydrogen or carbon capture-ready;

Begin blending hydrogen in existing coal- and gas-based plants to lower the cost of green hydrogen; and

Retrofit or close any remaining coal-fired capacity by 2050.

Producing green steel from hydrogen and electric furnaces will require massive amounts of clean energy, and a shift to higher grades of iron ore. This could change where most steel is made, or shake up the mining industry.

Russia and Brazil both have access to high-quality iron ore reserves and to abundant clean power. Moreover, Brazil is expected to have one of the lowest costs for hydrogen production by 2030, according to research by BloombergNEF. South Africa and India have good iron ore reserves and the potential to produce a large amount of low-cost clean power. The world’s largest iron ore producer, Australia, however, currently produces lower grade ores, and could lose its number one place in the supply chain, if it does not invest in equipment to upgrade its product.

China will continue to play a pivotal role. Currently home to 57% of the world’s steelmaking capacity, its path to lower emissions will set the direction for the industry as a whole. The Chinese steel industry intends to focus first on increasing recycling and energy efficiency before adopting early-stage technologies like hydrogen and carbon capture.

The global steel industry is poised to begin a titanic pivot from coal to hydrogen. Green hydrogen is both the cheapest and most practical way to make green steel, once recycling levels are ramped up. This transition will cause both great disruption, and great opportunity. Companies and investors don’t yet appreciate the scale of the changes ahead.

—Kobad Bhavnagri, head of industrial decarbonization at BNEF

The support that policymakers provide for industrial decarbonization could also be a deciding factor for steelmakers. Subsidies for key enabling technologies, such as the hydrogen and carbon capture tax credits in the US’s pending Build Back Better Bill, green steel procurement mandates for the public sector, such as the Industrial Deep Decarbonization Initiative announced at COP26, or rising carbon prices, like those in the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme, could all help green steel to compete with fossil-fuel based production, the report said.

BloombergNEF estimates that new clean capacity and retrofits for lower emissions will cost the steel industry an additional $278 billion compared to business-as-usual capacity growth.

This is a relatively modest figure, compared to the $172 trillion estimated by BNEF to decarbonize the global energy sector. Most of the costs to make green steel come from operations, rather than capital costs.

Reducing the cost of green hydrogen is thus critical, and BNEF estimates that these should fall more than 80% by 2050 to under $1/kg in most parts of the world. Green recycling is also a cost-effective and immediate solution. Steel recycled using 100% clean electricity would only require a 5% premium to match costs for today’s recycled material. By 2050, with lower clean power costs, this premium could shrink to less than 1%.

Renewable hydrogen fuel being studied for the Port of Seattle

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/1 ... attle.html

Two studies—led by a team from Seattle City Light, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), and Sandia National Laboratories—are exploring the potential of shifting from fossil fuel to clean hydrogen as fuel to power medium-and heavy-duty vehicles.

The studies will assess the issues associated with scaling up hydrogen infrastructure large enough to serve the Port of Seattle’s maritime-related and electrical grid uses. . . .

These efforts are supported by two awards from the US Department of Energy (DOE) totaling $2.12 million to help meet emission reduction goals set by Seattle City Light and the Port of Seattle. The study team also includes partners at The Northwest Seaport Alliance (NWSA) and PACCAR/Kenworth.

Supported by DOE’s Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office under the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the studies include:

Analytic Framework for Optimal Sizing of Hydrogen Fueling Stations for Heavy Duty Vehicles at Ports – A study exploring the potential of shifting from fossil fuel to clean hydrogen as fuel to power medium-and heavy-duty vehicles, including heavy equipment such as forklifts, drayage trucks and even cranes. The team is also exploring the concept’s scalability if future demand for hydrogen increases, including the potential to use the energy stored as hydrogen to power cruise or cargo ships while they’re being loaded and unloaded. ($1.35 million DOE award, $150,000 City Light = $1.5 million project total)

Large-scale Hydrogen Storage – Risk Assessment Seattle City Light and Port of Seattle – A study assessing the risks and benefits associated with scaling up clean hydrogen infrastructure large enough to serve multiple maritime-related and utility uses. Hydrogen at this larger scale could be used for propulsion for tugboats, commercial fishing vessels and passenger ferries and accommodate a significant portion of drayage trucks and cargo handling equipment serving the Port. This research and future work will likely shed light on what it will take to use clean hydrogen as a fuel source for larger ships too. ($770,000 DOE award, $185,000 City Light, $145,000 Port of Seattle = $1.1 million total).

Unlike coal and oil, hydrogen can be used to store renewable energy in a simple, sustainable cycle. This hydrogen is produced by using clean and renewable energy (such as hydroelectricity, solar and wind) to power an electrolyzer, producing pure hydrogen and pure oxygen. The versatile hydrogen that is produced can then be stored, used as fuel or converted back to electricity by a fuel cell, creating a backup system to power critical loads or support the electric grid. This flexibility supports resiliency, which is an essential component of the design being studied to ensure that the system could help to support port operations during an extreme event that causes disruption to the grid.

The hydrogen fuel can be stored in tanks for weeks to months with minimal energy loss, which may not be possible with short-duration energy storage methods such as batteries. This makes hydrogen a good solution for decarbonizing some energy loads that aren’t ideal for battery energy storage.

The stored hydrogen can power vehicles ranging in size from light-duty trucks to heavy equipment at ports such as forklifts, drayage trucks and even cranes. The team is also exploring the concept’s scalability if future demand for hydrogen increases, including the potential to use the energy stored as hydrogen to power cruise or cargo ships while they’re being loaded and unloaded.

Further, PNNL and Sandia experts will contribute expertise to help evaluate all the considerations needed to ensure future clean hydrogen use can be safely stored and handled while meeting the latest safety standards. . . .

The team is projecting a two-year timeframe to produce the final project recommendations. City Light, PNNL and Sandia National Laboratories will continue to provide updates as significant milestones are met.

[WetEV]

100 years ago, gas stations were similarly expensive and unreliable.

LOL. 120 years ago, "gas stations" were cheap and reliable. Gasoline was expensive, however, adjusted for inflation. $0.20 a gallon or so. Gasoline was sold in 5 gallon cans. Cheap. Reliable. Still used today, for remote delivery. Hydrogen has no analog. Hydrogen is expensive fuel delivered by unreliable and very expensive equipment.

[GRA]

100 years ago, gas stations were similarly expensive and unreliable.

LOL. 120 years ago, "gas stations" were cheap and reliable. Gasoline was expensive, however, adjusted for inflation. $0.20 a gallon or so. Gasoline was sold in 5 gallon cans. Cheap. Reliable. Still used today, for remote delivery. Hydrogen has no analog. Hydrogen is expensive fuel delivered by unreliable and very expensive equipment.

Actually, I meant to write 110 years ago. The first designed-as-such gas station in the U.S. opened in 1913 IIRR, and the first gas pumps with transparent tanks at the top arrived or were retrofitted around 1918. Before that, you never knew what you were getting, as gas was often sold at general stores and the like where you filled whatever container you had handy from a big tank, and you never knew whether or not it had been watered down by the proprietor or had other contaminants.

One of the reasons early gas pumps had transparent glass tanks added at the top was so that you could see the gas before letting it gravity flow into your tank. In addition to confirming the amount, it also let you see if it had separated into gas and water or had other sludge in it, essentially a larger-scale version of the fuel samplers I used to use on Genav a/c.

See: [urlhttp://www.379136154956493191.com/gravity-gas-pumps.html[/url]

for some details and pictures.

[GRA]

I never saw a post detailing the root cause of the Norway hydrogen station explosion, but just came across this post recently:https://www.fleeteurope.com/en/new-ener ... ety&curl=1

"About a month after a hydrogen filling station exploded in Norway, the cause has been found: a faulty valve."

So it turns out the explosion wasn't due to explosive decompression afterall, but actual combustion of the H2 gas.

And this is why FCEV's will be a dead end. IF the number of FCEV's get large enough, all it will take is a few poorly maintained cars to cause enough collateral damage to bury the tech permanently.

Are you saying that the general public would consider unacceptable a flammable fuel that if a leak happens will rise straight up and quickly disperse, yet they will accept a flammable fuel that's responsible for hundred of thousands of cars fires and the odd explosion every year, and as it's at room temp is likely to pool beneath the vehicle before igniting? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA8dNFiVaF0

Reading your link, it says the following:

Reportedly, the issue is related only to this particular filling station, because safety standards weren’t respected during installation. It is likely that quality checks for hydrogen filling stations will be made more stringent following this incident.

Pretty much the same for every hazardous new tech, which is why gas stations now require break-away hoses and fire sprinklers among other safety improvements.

Green ammonia has a more viable future than green hydrogen. It has none of the drawbacks of hydrogen (liquid at -33C, therefore much lower containment temperatures and pressures and more easily dispensed), and many of the same use cases - source of hydrogen for industrial applications, as well as a feedstock for fuel cells (still in development).

Ammonia presents an obvious inhalation hazard, which is why current developments for its commercial use as a transport fuel seem to be aimed at oceanic shipping, as noted in the articles I've linked in the "AFV truck and commercial vehicles" topic. Liquid H2 will probably be limited to commercial rather than private vehicle use due to handling issues while fueling (very low temps requires protective clothing, so dedicated attendants or at least provision of safety gear with individual driver training needed), although if robotic fueling systems become available that could change. As noted uptopic, DoE awarded Nikola a contract recently ($2.1M IIRR) to develop just such a system. Alternatives for land and probably air transport strike me as more likely methanol or LOHCs rather than ammonia, if LH2 doesn't serve.

[WetEV]

100 years ago, gas stations were similarly expensive and unreliable.

LOL. 120 years ago, "gas stations" were cheap and reliable. Gasoline was expensive, however, adjusted for inflation. $0.20 a gallon or so. Gasoline was sold in 5 gallon cans. Cheap. Reliable. Still used today, for remote delivery. Hydrogen has no analog. Hydrogen is expensive fuel delivered by unreliable and very expensive equipment.

Actually, I meant to write 110 years ago.

So? A "hydrogen can" doesn't exist. Gas infrastructure started cheap and reliable, not at all like hydrogen.

And you are still wrong.

Hydrogen production is still almost all from fossil fuels. Hydrogen production will be mostly from fossil fuels for more than a decade, right?

[WetEV]

The EV1 had as much market potential as BEVs did two decades before after the first oil crunch when they were similarly hyped, i.e. minimal.
FTM, the Spark and Fit also sold poorly, despite having much better batteries than the EV1 and not looking like someone stepped on the car. Face it, in order to move beyond the hobbyist niche you've got to have far better range than batteries could provide until recently, and they're not yet at a reasonable price. which is why I think GM got into BEVs seriously at the right time with the Bolt. And blew it with the non-AWD CUV Gen 2 Volt.

Yet the facts disagree with your opinion. The EV1 had more interest than the Spark or the Fit.

The Spark and Fit were compliance cars that had better choices for competition. GM and Honda wanted to sell a specific number of these only. These were competing against the LEAF, the Tesla Model S, the iMiEV, the Ford Focus EV (all sold nationwide) as well as other compliance cars. I never heard of any waiting lists for Chevy Spark EVs or Honda Fit EVs. Have you?

The LEAF was a modest success. The Tesla Model S outsold many of the competing cars, and has been successful even where there are no rebates, subsidies, mandates or other perks for EV ownership.

Hydrogen cars don't sell without subsidies.

[Oils4AsphaultOnly]

I never saw a post detailing the root cause of the Norway hydrogen station explosion, but just came across this post recently:https://www.fleeteurope.com/en/new-ener ... ety&curl=1

"About a month after a hydrogen filling station exploded in Norway, the cause has been found: a faulty valve."

So it turns out the explosion wasn't due to explosive decompression afterall, but actual combustion of the H2 gas.

And this is why FCEV's will be a dead end. IF the number of FCEV's get large enough, all it will take is a few poorly maintained cars to cause enough collateral damage to bury the tech permanently.

Are you saying that the general public would consider unacceptable a flammable fuel that if a leak happens will rise straight up and quickly disperse, yet they will accept a flammable fuel that's responsible for hundred of thousands of cars fires and the odd explosion every year, and as it's at room temp is likely to pool beneath the vehicle before igniting? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA8dNFiVaF0

Reading your link, it says the following:

Reportedly, the issue is related only to this particular filling station, because safety standards weren’t respected during installation. It is likely that quality checks for hydrogen filling stations will be made more stringent following this incident.

Pretty much the same for every hazardous new tech, which is why gas stations now require break-away hoses and fire sprinklers among other safety improvements.

"a flammable fuel that if a leak happens will rise straight up and quickly disperse" ... yeah that industry talking point worked so well in Norway and Bay Area huh? You obviously don't have a firm grounding in physics, which is why you rely on reports and studies for your "answers" and not on any fundamental understanding of tech. An explosion from an invisible flame (or just plain decompression of the tank) is no where near equivalent to a gasoline fire. Although flammable gasoline is bad, getting hurt because your car was simply within 50 feet of someone else's poorly maintained FCEV isn't acceptable by anyone, period.

Green ammonia has a more viable future than green hydrogen. It has none of the drawbacks of hydrogen (liquid at -33C, therefore much lower containment temperatures and pressures and more easily dispensed), and many of the same use cases - source of hydrogen for industrial applications, as well as a feedstock for fuel cells (still in development).

Ammonia presents an obvious inhalation hazard, which is why current developments for its commercial use as a transport fuel seem to be aimed at oceanic shipping, as noted in the articles I've linked in the "AFV truck and commercial vehicles" topic. Liquid H2 will probably be limited to commercial rather than private vehicle use due to handling issues while fueling (very low temps requires protective clothing, so dedicated attendants or at least provision of safety gear with individual driver training needed), although if robotic fueling systems become available that could change. As noted uptopic, DoE awarded Nikola a contract recently ($2.1M IIRR) to develop just such a system. Alternatives for land and probably air transport strike me as more likely methanol or LOHCs rather than ammonia, if LH2 doesn't serve.

I don't have any skin in ammonia. Just pointing out that it's much easier to solve the issue of leaking ammonia at low pressures than it is to solve it for H2's extreme pressure and temperatures. And if both are to be produced using renewable energy with similiar use cases, then my bet is on the material that is easier to handle (which directly means lower costs).

[Oils4AsphaultOnly]

https://insideevs.com/news/552741/hyund ... la-rivals/

"According to Bloomberg, a 38-year-old sales manager in South Korea – Song Young-jin – bought a Nexo in March 2020. He ran into problems almost immediately. While South Korea is having more success with FCVs than any other market, the Nexo owner said he still had to drive about 40 miles every week just to refuel the vehicle. Maintenance costs proved quite high, too. He wants to sell the car, too, but its value has plummeted on the used market. "

And this is with more significant South Korean government support than in CA!

And driving out to find a fueling station is not the convenience that every proponent is claiming, but actually a detriment.

As more apartment parking spaces get charging stalls (might actually cost less to support more cars than installing more DC chargers and H2 stations), the slower charging speeds will no longer be the scary issue that the uninitiated fear the most.