Competing technologies to BEV

[RobStark]

Johan

In CA hydrogen stations are required to sell a blend that is at least 30% renewable/clean so it matches the local electric grid. Some stations plan on selling 100% renewable hydrogen.

Is there such a requirement in Norway? It would need to be 100% renewable for hydrogen to match the Norwegian electric grid correct?

- - - Updated - - -

Hyundai also seems to be choosing fcv path into the automotive future.

It seems to me we may get to witness a technology war between bev and fcv, in few years.

May drivers decide the winners.

But Hyundai is hedging its bets by using its Kia subsidiary to market BEVs

 

[Johan]

I don't know if there is a "requirement" per se, as in a law or directive, but it's clearly the game plan for the hydrogen association to be renewable. If you zoom in on Norway on this map, you can see where the stations are:

H2where

According to slide 11 in this presentation: http://www.hydrogen.no/Kalender/201...gen/presentasjoner/2 - HYOP - Ulf Hafseld.pdf the goal is to produce on-site, with electrolysis from fully renewable sources (hydropower if course). For my closest station the info is "The hydrogen is freighted in and produced by water electrolysis, but will in the future be produced locally by the waste disposal & recycling company Lindum, with support from the Institute for Energy Technology at Kjeller."

Nonetheless, at the current point in time it's very wasteful. In 20-30 years, when we have fully reached the point of clean energy abundance this point will be moat, but hydrogen FCVs will also be moat long before this as BEVs evolve further (FCVs are already moat, before even coming to market).

My "moat" point above refers to personal transport. My view on hydrogen for heavy transport, long distance trucking etc, is less clear. By that I mean that if battery technology evolves quickly and substantially in the next 10 years hydrogen for this application will also likely be moat. If batteries "only" evolve 7% per year then I do think there will be a case for the use of hydrogen in heavy transport, provided the technology proves to be working and safe. Even if most of that hydrogen, for now, is made from reformation of natural gas you could argue that it's better to switch to hydrogen since then you will be ready for when renewable electricity becomes cheap and abundant and you can move to hydrogen generated by electrolysis as the energy carrier. Must the same argument as you could make today for personal BEV cars in markets where most electricity comes from burning coal: you switch to a technology ready to be fueled by renewables as they gradually come in to play, even if it has a net neutral environmental effect at this point in time.

 

[Johan]

I found a very interesting answer by the Norwegian Hydrogen Forum (a collaboration between industry and research and universities) on the FAQ page to the question: Does producing hydrogen require a lot of energy. Here's the answer translated. It's remarkably balanced and correct. It's obviously written by an engineer.

Most of the hydrogen produced today is produced via steam reforming of natural gas. The process is done by subjecting the natural gas and steam to high temperatures (700 - 1100 C) with the help of a catalyst, typically nickel based. The result of the reaction is hydrogen and CO (CH4 + H2O → CO + 3H2). Furthermore additional hydrogen produced through a so-called "shift reaction" by lowering the temperature to about 350 C and adding more water: (CO + H2O → CO2 + H2). The overall reaction is then: CH4 + 2H2O → CO2 + 4H2. This process has an efficiency of around 75% in large scale, and the energy used in the process to create heat is natural gas. The main reason that most of the hydrogen is produced in this way is that it is the cheapest way to produce it. Most of the hydrogen is used for upgrading oil in a refinery (enrichment), the ammonia and methanol production for the food industry. To ascertain whether producing hydrogen requires "a lot of energy" in this case, one must look at what you should utilize it for. If it is for powering a vehicle, one must compare it with the number of miles one gets out of hydrogen from natural gas to the burning natural gas directly in an internal combustion engine. In this case, the technologies come out fairly equal and hence it requires, by definition, not a lot of energy to produce hydrogen from natural gas if the aim is to fuel a car. Also, both technologies use heat from the combustion / fuel for heating the passenger compartment, and in this way a NG-car and a hydrogen car are roughly the same, so the use cases are equal. The main difference in this case is that you're shifting emissions from several thousand gas cars to a hydrogen plant, where it is easier to manage emissions. With increasing focus on local environment it may therefore be that hydrogen from natural gas be preferable to direct use of natural gas in ICEs.

The second way to produce hydrogen is we a electrolysis, ie the splitting of water molecules with electricity. Electrolysis has an efficiency of about 70%, and compression and cooling at the station a total of about 80%. Overall, one can say that it costs approximately 55 kWh of electricity to produce and fill one kilogram of hydrogen in a car, and totally lose you over 40% of primary energy before the hydrogen is in the tank, ie a lot more than the natural gas reforming. The fuel cell car has an efficiency of approximately 60-70%, and overall efficiency is hence that about 35 - 40% of the primary energy remains for the propulsion of the vehicle. It is tempting to compare this with an electric car, since they both derive their primary energy from electricity. An electric car also saves electricity chemically, so one can say hydrogen is - but in other forms. The most common battery type for the new-cars is Lithium ion. By slowly charging an electric car can expect a negligible loss, and it is estimated that there are approximately 10% loss in the car, ie 90% of primary energy remains for propulsion and heating of the car. If outdoor temperature is lower than the temperature desired in the vehicle, one must expect considerably higher energy consumption, and range lowered, sometimes significantly. Nevertheless, EVs overall have a significantly higher total efficiency. There are two main elements that come into play here as well as overall efficiency. The first and most obvious is the difference in use value of the cars. Hydrogen cars come in all sizes, with a range of 400-700 km, and it takes 3-5 minutes to fill up the tank - and thus significantly different from EVs. The second element is future supply and price of hydrogen. Electricity must be consumed or converted at the same moment as it is produced. Since electricity is sold in a commercial market price will vary with the supply or production of electricity. Proudseres much the price is low, and vice versa. If they are producing more than the market is able to accept the award at times forced into 0, and energy producers who have naturally fluctuating production, such as wind power producers, may shut down wind farms that are not online will be overloaded. The trend is clearly towards a sharp increase in the accumulation of renewable energy sources like wind and solar; which will only amplify the effects of varying flow rates. While looking at the challenges associated with the fluctuating electricity production, the storage of electricity for days, weeks or months with low access to wind or sun a more and more important topic, and for countries that do not have access to large dams as Norway; which is much of the world, hydrogen is the most appropriate forms to store large amounts of electricity on. Since willingness to pay for one kWh of electricity is far lower than 1 kWh of fuel, the fuel market (hydrogen) could be an interesting market area for energy producers ahead. It is therefore likely that hydrogen could be a relatively cheap fuel compared to fossil fuels, especially in Norway, where we already have a low electricity price, and will in the green certificate market get a large surplus of power forward. The complete answer to the simple question, "Does production of hydrogen require a lot of energy when one uses the pathway of electrolysis?" is thus quite complex, and the short answer is: "Yes, but at certain periods it's the best and only use of surplus power, and it can there pay off."

One can also produce hydrogen directly using sunlight or algae, but there still remains a lot of research before these methods can be scaled up.

 

[SebastianR]

The complete answer to the simple question, "Does production of hydrogen require a lot of energy when one uses the pathway of electrolysis?" is thus quite complex, and the short answer is: "Yes, but at certain periods it's the best and only use of surplus power, and it can there pay off."

Thanks for this - that's remarkably honest - well done. One key difference between BEV and FCV in my eyes is that while a Tesla may use Superchargers for convenient long-distance travel, they are not required - you can perfectly just charge at home and you never have stop for gas ever again. The key charm of a BEV is that you can get away from an oligopoly that seems to move prices arbitrarily just in time for the holidays and that you can produce the power for your car entirely yourself.

Of course we all know this. But this argument seems to not have sunk in with the general public. But once it does and a few years down when the price parity of Norway is reached in other countries, too - then I don't think any sane person would want to tie themselves to an energy source that's only available at some kind of gas station.

 

[CalDreamin]

In CA hydrogen stations are required to sell a blend that is at least 30% renewable/clean so it matches the local electric grid. Some stations plan on selling 100% renewable hydrogen.

California law requires that H2 fueling stations that receive state funds be sourced from at least 33% renewable H2. However a FCV using 33% renewable & 67% SMR H2 produces more well-to-wheels CO2 than a BEV charged off the California average grid.

WTW CO2 of BEVs charged off the California average grid from the EPA's website are Beyond Tailpipe Emissions: Results
Tesla Model S 85 - 150 g/mile
Tesla Model S 60 - 140 g/mile
Nissan Leaf - 120 g/mile
BMW i3 - 110 g/mile

The EPA’s fueleconomy.gov uses eGRID2012 (8th edition) for the California average grid emissions. The California average region (CAMX) in eGRID2012 has CO2 emissions of 659 lb/MWh.
Information about the Greenhouse Gas Emission Calculations
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/egridzips/eGRID_8th_edition_year_2009_data.zip

The eGRID database was updated earlier this year to the 9th edition, though EPA hasn’t yet updated their fueleconomy.gov site to use it. California CO2 average grid emissions were updated to 611 lb/MWh. With that change, BEV WTW CO2 emissions are:
Tesla Model S 85 - 139 g/mile
Tesla Model S 60 - 130 g/mile
Nissan Leaf - 111 g/mile
BMW i3 = 102 g/mile

Fuel cell vehicle efficiency according to the EPA (data for the Toyota Mirai is not yet available but it’s been estimated at 60 miles/kg)
Compare Fuel Cell Vehicles Side-by-Side
2015 Hyundai Tucson - 49 miles/kg
2014 Honda Clarity - 59 miles/kg

UCS calculates the WTW CO2 emissions for the Hyundai Tucson FCV at 202 g/mile when fueled with H2 that’s 33% renewable-sourced. We can calculate the Honda Clarity as 49/59 * 202 = 168 g/mile.
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default...-Clean-Are-Hydrogen-Fuel-Cells-Fact-Sheet.pdf

So the well-to-wheels CO2 emissions of H2 FCVs that use 33% renewable-sourced H2 are substantially higher than BEVs charged off the California average grid
Hyundai Tucson FCV - 202 g/mile
Honda Clarity FCV - 168 g/mile
Tesla Model S 85 - 139 g/mile
Tesla Model S 60 - 130 g/mile
Nissan Leaf - 111 g/mile
BMW i3 - 102 g/mile

Due to California's RPS mandate, California's electric grid will keep getting cleaner. So the WTW CO2 emissions gap between FCVs and BEVs will get larger over time.

A Hyundai Tucson FCV would need to be fueled with H2 that's 63% renewable-sourced (not 33%) to match the WTW CO2 emissions of a Tesla Model S 85 charged off the California average grid, nearly twice the renewable H2 content that CA is mandating. And yet CA state incentives (rebates, ZEV credits, fueling infrastructure subsidies per vehicle) are substantially higher for FCVs than for BEVs.

 

[mspohr]

Since electrolysis has an end to end efficiency of only 35-40%, it doesn't seem to be very useful for H2 car use or storage of surplus electricity generation. Batteries are much more efficient (90%).
H2 from CH4 is merely substituting a lot of inefficient processes for burning directly and in the end, you are still dumping a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere.
I think all of the pressure for H2 is coming from the fossil fuel industries who see it as a continuing market.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Since electrolysis has an end to end efficiency of only 35-40%, it doesn't seem to be very useful for H2 car use or storage of surplus electricity generation. Batteries are much more efficient (90%).
H2 from CH4 is merely substituting a lot of inefficient processes for burning directly and in the end, you are still dumping a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere.
I think all of the pressure for H2 is coming from the fossil fuel industries who see it as a continuing market.

If it could really be 35-40% efficient end-to-end, it'd still be waaaaayyyyyy better than using petroleum, while also eliminating tailpipe pollution.

But, both HFCV and BEV both use an electric drivetrain, so success for either sets up manufacturers to make the other more easily, which means it's really not an either-or situation. And success for either means cheap batteries or cheap fuel cells and either would be hugely beneficial.

 

[RobStark]

If it could really be 35-40% efficient end-to-end, it'd still be waaaaayyyyyy better than using petroleum, while also eliminating tailpipe pollution.

But, both HFCV and BEV both use an electric drivetrain, so success for either sets up manufacturers to make the other more easily, which means it's really not an either-or situation. And success for either means cheap batteries or cheap fuel cells and either would be hugely beneficial.

Toyota and Hyundai are using about 1 kWh of nickel metal hydride batteries. I think Honda will follow suit.

Whereas all modern BEV use lithium-ion.

FCEV only way better if H2 is clean and you compare apples to apples not 134 hp compacts to 300 hp mid-size. And that means way more expensive than petroleum.

And way more expensive than BEV. No matter how much more efficient they become at extracting H2.

In the future, the herd will break one way or another.

You will have a convenient nationwide fast charging DC system or H2 station network.

Not both. IMO it won't be H2.

 

[mspohr]

If it could really be 35-40% efficient end-to-end, it'd still be waaaaayyyyyy better than using petroleum, while also eliminating tailpipe pollution.

Petroleum is about 30% efficient so no real gain from going the CH4 -> H2 -> Fuel cell -> electric motor route.

 

[trils0n]

Electricity must be consumed or converted at the same moment as it is produced. Since electricity is sold in a commercial market price will vary with the supply or production of electricity. Proudseres much the price is low, and vice versa. If they are producing more than the market is able to accept the award at times forced into 0, and energy producers who have naturally fluctuating production, such as wind power producers, may shut down wind farms that are not online will be overloaded. The trend is clearly towards a sharp increase in the accumulation of renewable energy sources like wind and solar; which will only amplify the effects of varying flow rates. While looking at the challenges associated with the fluctuating electricity production, the storage of electricity for days, weeks or months with low access to wind or sun a more and more important topic, and for countries that do not have access to large dams as Norway; which is much of the world, hydrogen is the most appropriate forms to store large amounts of electricity on. Since willingness to pay for one kWh of electricity is far lower than 1 kWh of fuel, the fuel market (hydrogen) could be an interesting market area for energy producers ahead. It is therefore likely that hydrogen could be a relatively cheap fuel compared to fossil fuels, especially in Norway, where we already have a low electricity price, and will in the green certificate market get a large surplus of power forward. The complete answer to the simple question, "Does production of hydrogen require a lot of energy when one uses the pathway of electrolysis?" is thus quite complex, and the short answer is: "Yes, but at certain periods it's the best and only use of surplus power, and it can there pay off."

Why is hydrogen the most appropriate way to store large amounts of electricity? Why is it the only use of surplus power? It seems batteries could perform both these functions, and most likely more efficiently. Willingness to pay for 1 kWh of electricity is lower than 1kWh of fuel? Aren't they the same with a BEV? So, why would someone pay considerably more for 1kWh of electricity stored in the form of hydrogen?

When it comes to excess electricity production, I guess it depends whether the cost of electricity stored in batteries at a grid level is less than the same amount electricity stored as hydrogen. It's already more efficient/cheaper to store electricity in the batteries of an electric vehicle, than to make hydrogen and use it in a fuel cell vehicle. Does it matter where those batteries are (Grid vs. car)? Wouldn't it still be more efficient to store the electricity in grid level batteries? Even another charge/discharge cycle wouldn't eat up the efficiency difference between charging and hydrogen production. Excess electricity production doesn't seem to me to sway the efficiency argument to hydrogen. It would be basically the same as in cars (BEV wins), regardless if the electricity is excess or not.

 

[Johan]

Why is hydrogen the most appropriate way to store large amounts of electricity? Why is it the only use of surplus power? It seems batteries could perform both these functions, and most likely more efficiently. Willingness to pay for 1 kWh of electricity is lower than 1kWh of fuel? Aren't they the same with a BEV? So, why would someone pay considerably more for 1kWh of electricity stored in the form of hydrogen?

When it comes to excess electricity production, I guess it depends whether the cost of electricity stored in batteries at a grid level is less than the same amount electricity stored as hydrogen. It's already more efficient/cheaper to store electricity in the batteries of an electric vehicle, than to make hydrogen and use it in a fuel cell vehicle. Does it matter where those batteries are (Grid vs. car)? Wouldn't it still be more efficient to store the electricity in grid level batteries? Even another charge/discharge cycle wouldn't eat up the efficiency difference between charging and hydrogen production. Excess electricity production doesn't seem to me to sway the efficiency argument to hydrogen. It would be basically the same, regardless if the electricity is excess or not.

I totally agree with your assesment. The above argument, together with fast refilling, was apparently the only benefit they could come up with when comparing FCVs with BEVs. It's a weak one at best, and with a couple more years of battery development and price reductions I think it will be completely moat.

 

[CalDreamin]

If it [electrolysis] could really be 35-40% efficient end-to-end, it'd still be waaaaayyyyyy better than using petroleum, while also eliminating tailpipe pollution.

Whether it's better for CO2 depends on the source of the electricity that's used for the electrolysis.

H2 FCVs fueled by H2 made from electrolysis and the U.S. average grid, NREL well-to-wheels CO2 estimates (Figure ES.2 and Table 6.3.4):
48 MPGe - 820 g/mile
68 MPGe - 580 g/mile

Translating these to real FCVs, WTW CO2 emissions using H2 made from electrolysis and the U.S. average grid:
Hyundai Tucson FCV (EPA 50 MPGe) - 787 g/mile
Honda Clarity (EPA 61 MPGe) - 645 g/mile

These are both substantially worse than the average new U.S. gasoline car which has WTW CO2 of 480 g/mile.

The Hyundai Tucson FCV fueled with H2 made from electrolysis using the U.S. average grid would have the same CO2 emissions as a gasoline vehicle that gets 14 mpg.
The Honda Clarity fueled with H2 made from electrolysis using the U.S. average grid would have the same CO2 emissions as a gasoline vehicle that gets 17 mpg.

For comparison purposes, the Tesla Model S 85 charged with the U.S average grid has WTW CO2 of 250 g/mile. This is less than 1/3 of the Hyundai Tucson FCV emissions using the same electricity source because BEVs are a lot more efficient than FCVs that use H2 via electrolysis.

If 100% renewable energy is used instead of the U.S average grid, WTW CO2 emissions of FCVs using H2 made from electrolysis are estimated by NREL at 70-90 g/mile (Figure ES.2). A BEV has zero WTW CO2 emissions if charged with 100% renewable electricity.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Toyota and Hyundai are using about 1 kWh of nickel metal hydride batteries. I think Honda will follow suit.

If they're using NiMH, it's because there are plenty of them available and they're proven as hybrid batteries. Longer term, you'd still expect hybrid batteries to shift to lithium (assuming there are any hybrids left ).

 

[Cosmacelf]

At the end of the day, you will need someone to build a large scale and maintained network of hydrogen filling stations. Until someone steps up to do that, I'm not going to waste too much time worrying about FCVs.

Before Tesla, that was always the valid knock against BEV. After Tesla, it's the minimum bar level.

And I am still wondering how these companies will survive the very first hydrogen explosion. Tesla was knocked on its keister after a couple of very minor, non damaging fires. A hydrogen explosion, you'd expect, would reduce car sales to essentially zero for a period of time.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Whether it's better for CO2 depends on the source of the electricity that's used for the electrolysis.

H2 FCVs fueled by H2 made from electrolysis and the U.S. average grid, NREL well-to-wheels CO2 estimates (Figure ES.2 and Table 6.3.4):
48 MPGe - 820 g/mile
68 MPGe - 580 g/mile

Translating these to real FCVs, WTW CO2 emissions using H2 made from electrolysis and the U.S. average grid:
Hyundai Tucson FCV (EPA 50 MPGe) - 787 g/mile
Honda Clarity (EPA 61 MPGe) - 645 g/mile

These are both substantially worse than the average new U.S. gasoline car which has WTW CO2 of 480 g/mile.

The Hyundai Tucson FCV fueled with H2 made from electrolysis using the U.S. average grid would have the same CO2 emissions as a gasoline vehicle that gets 14 mpg.
The Honda Clarity fueled with H2 made from electrolysis using the U.S. average grid would have the same CO2 emissions as a gasoline vehicle that gets 17 mpg.

For comparison purposes, the Tesla Model S 85 charged with the U.S average grid has WTW CO2 of 250 g/mile. This is less than 1/3 of the Hyundai Tucson FCV emissions using the same electricity source because BEVs are a lot more efficient than FCVs that use H2 via electrolysis.

If 100% renewable energy is used instead of the U.S average grid, WTW CO2 emissions of FCVs using H2 made from electrolysis are estimated by NREL at 70-90 g/mile (Figure ES.2). A BEV has zero WTW CO2 emissions if charged with 100% renewable electricity.

The standard grid mix is irrelevant. If using electrolysis there'd be a choice of sources, including renewables. Either they could handle the variability of renewables or they'd have constant demand, either of which would beat the average grid.

On top of that, in comparison to petroleum-based fuels, there are a bunch of externalities that can be eliminated, as well as potential indirect benefits from making cities cleaner and quieter.

 

[CalDreamin]

The standard grid mix is irrelevant. If using electrolysis there'd be a choice of sources, including renewables. Either they could handle the variability of renewables or they'd have constant demand, either of which would beat the average grid.

I'm not sure what the renewable power options are where you live, but there is no power provider in my area offering an option for more renewables. In order to get cleaner power than the northern California grid average, I had to install my own solar PV system.

My point is that WTW CO2 emissions for H2 FCV cars vary a lot depending on how the H2 is sourced -- from much lower than comparable ICE cars, to a lot higher. The DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory studies say this as well.

 

[Auzie]

The standard grid mix is irrelevant. If using electrolysis there'd be a choice of sources, including renewables. Either they could handle the variability of renewables or they'd have constant demand, either of which would beat the average grid.

On top of that, in comparison to petroleum-based fuels, there are a bunch of externalities that can be eliminated, as well as potential indirect benefits from making cities cleaner and quieter.

My guess is that some ice car makers do see HFCV as an improvement over their existing technology, regarding their cars greenhouse effects on our environment.

The comparison of BEV vs HFCV in that respect may be irrelevant to their decision-making process, for various reasons.

 

[DITB]

Toyota seems to deliberately screw themselves over, both on design, advertisement, functionality and price.

Good luck to HFCVs - even the design is asking for this car to end up in a museum - before it's even launched commercially.

 

[Johan]

Toyota seems to deliberately screw themselves over...

Good luck to HFCVs - even the design is asking for this car to end up in a museum - before it's even launched commercially.

Good association visually. Mine was this:

 

[adiggs]

Why is hydrogen the most appropriate way to store large amounts of electricity? Why is it the only use of surplus power? It seems batteries could perform both these functions, and most likely more efficiently. Willingness to pay for 1 kWh of electricity is lower than 1kWh of fuel? Aren't they the same with a BEV? So, why would someone pay considerably more for 1kWh of electricity stored in the form of hydrogen?

When it comes to excess electricity production, I guess it depends whether the cost of electricity stored in batteries at a grid level is less than the same amount electricity stored as hydrogen. It's already more efficient/cheaper to store electricity in the batteries of an electric vehicle, than to make hydrogen and use it in a fuel cell vehicle. Does it matter where those batteries are (Grid vs. car)? Wouldn't it still be more efficient to store the electricity in grid level batteries? Even another charge/discharge cycle wouldn't eat up the efficiency difference between charging and hydrogen production. Excess electricity production doesn't seem to me to sway the efficiency argument to hydrogen. It would be basically the same as in cars (BEV wins), regardless if the electricity is excess or not.

One partial answer to your question has to do with the volume of battery storage available to store electricity today. We've got a thread elsewhere on the forums talking up this big deal where Wal-Mart is going to buy a 4 Mwh battery from Solar-City / Tesla. At this scale, that isn't a rounding error to a rounding error.

Move up to the Gigafactory, and take all 50 Gwh of batteries per year and put them into stationary grid storage, and maybe we're into a rounding error range finally. The volume of batteries to be built to move the electric grid reliably to something approaching 100% renewable is staggering. So part of the answer isn't hydrogen over battery for stationary storage - it's "everything that works" for stationary storage for a long time to come. Pumping water uphill, splitting water into Hydrogen, and storing electricity directly in batteries of all shapes and sizes - they're all part of that answer.

But hydrogen for personal transport doesn't make any sense to me. If you think the Tesla battery fires were a big deal, just wait for the first city block leveled by a passenger vehicle with a safety system failure in an accident or whatever. Put an FCV into any of the 4 big news accidents (2 spikes to the undercarriage, through a barrier and wrapped around a tree, and car split in half) - talk about news, that's going to be some of the most exciting footage our news stations will have had in years (unless you happen to be there when it happens).