Competing technologies to BEV

[roblab]

I don't see hydrogen as a viable competitor to EV's with a >200 mile range.

Reason is the cost of the supporting infrastructure. I think widespread use of hydrogen is going to require new fueling stations or conversion of existing stations plus a significant increase in the number of tanker-trucks able to transport hydrogen. None of this is cheap and I doubt any auto company has the combination of financial resources and will to build out enough infrastructure on its own.

With >200 mile EV's, Tesla is proof that one company can build out enough high speed charging infrastructure to support long-distance driving. Lots of people and companies can and will shoulder the cost of adding home and destination charging. All this is possible because EV recharging can leverage the very expensive power distribution infrastructure we've already built.

Hydrogen is going to work only if governments puts massive amounts of money into the supporting infrastructure for decades. I don't see that happening. EVs will prove out their economic practicality long before then if someone (cough, Tesla, cough) can field a reasonably mass-market EV with a >200 mile range. Gen III will be the tipping point.

Wait, Wait... I know the answer! HOME REFUELING! Of course! Many many homes, esp in CA, have Nat gas to the home. A simple machine, plumbed for gas, water, and power, the size of a refrigerator, can pump hydrogen into your car while you sleep. No flood of big tankers trucking hydrogen to the neighborhood "gas" station, no trips for hydrogen several times a week: Just "plug it in"!

Now, don't get started on the science. You know I don't like all those formulas no one can understand. Second Law? What the Frunk is that? Leakage through metals? Many times more explosive that gasoline? Far more costly than unleaded regular? You can't prove it. If it weren't a good idea, then Honda and Toyota wouldn't be pushing for it. California State CARB board chairman is a member of Fuel Cell Partnership, so obviously, the State knows better.

Case closed.

 

[Julian Cox]

Thanks for your posts Julian - much appreciated. I think I understand a bit better what your are trying to say - please correct me if I'm wrong but essentially it boils down to these two aspects:

• The core threat here is about diversion of attention/funds/resources (away from electric cars towards hydrogen)
• Tesla is still too small a player to match dollar for dollar the resources pumped into hydrogen

I offer the following thoughts:

• I think the threat is real and hydrogen has the potential to do a lot of damage
• I do however also think (and believe you may agree on that one) the "electric car genie is out of the bottle" - I don't think the long term development away from ICE cars to electric cars will be stopped - it may be delayed by plug-in hybrids, hydrogen, natural gas driven and other cars but not more than delayed.
• I also believe that while Tesla is too small to counter the hydrogen dollars, pretty much anything Elon says is getting out there with amazing speed.

So going back to the initial premise of this discussion: I see no real competition to Tesla right now. (and I concede that I think my assessment holds true for a Northern European location predominantly - the situation may be entirely different in the US)

Yes absolutely the core threat is the diversionary tactic and propaganda but that threat is horrendous. Nobody behind FCVs actually imagines that FCVs will be the future this time any more than they did last time they pulled the same stunt to get rid of renewable and EVs.

1. Green-leaning consumers that might consider an EV targeted with subsidised vehicle leases and free hydrogen for life amidst a hail of propaganda that hydrogen is the green future of humanity, just like EVs without the terrible range limitations and supply restrictions on materials required for their manufacture - please as if the world has abundant Platinum for fuel cells and rare earths for low quality DC Brushless drivetrains but a terrible lithium and copper shortage.

2. Big Oil is not interested in paying for Hydrogen infrastructure, the whole point is to drain government budgetary resources for green energy and transportation, again amidst a hail of lobbying and propaganda for hydrogen's non-existent green credentials. It can fool green-leaning democrats and its has been known to attract the enthusiastic support of Texas oil-men including George W Bush. This looks like a big deal out of small potatoes but here is a claim that Obama is up for Hydrogen too: Obama Administration Wants to Speed Up Hydrogen-Powered Vehicles - IEEE Spectrum

Check the text of the article: The advantages of hydrogen are that it is abundant, renewable and non-polluting. How many times does a member of the public have to read that before it becomes 'common knowledge' despite the fact that it is false from top to bottom - try non-existent on earth, exclusively and forever fossil fuel based on economic grounds, derived from a combination of two of the most polluting processes ever conceived (fracking and steam reforming).

3. Tesla enjoys enormous public support partly owing to the acknowledgement that solar and EVs lead away from fossil fuel dependency. A media absolutely obsessed that hydrogen and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles perform the same function with greater convenience is precisely the outcome sought. Already there is a loss of consensus in the USA due to incessant climate denial lobbying including the ridiculing of environmental advocates (Al Gore for example - when do a gut check on the name Al Gore I come up with unease and the words 'buffoon' and 'hypocrite' despite the fact that all of my direct experience of Al Gore is knowing full well that he was defrauded of the presidency of the USA in Florida having won the popular vote giving way to arguably by far the most disastrous two-term Presidency in American history both politically and economically, being materially and pivotally involved in paving the advent of the Internet, being on Apple's board and seeing him advocate for climate change awareness in a manner that I almost completely agree with (and winning the Nobel Peace Prize for it). That is the danger of propaganda. I have no direct evidence of Al Gore's hypocrisy and buffoonery at all, actually the man is a genius and a hero.

4. @rcc. "I don't see hydrogen as a viable competitor to EV's with a >200 mile range". Technically it isn't, environmentally it isn't. Economically it isn't. There is no question that Hydrogen FCVs are the future of energy and transportation, nobody behind it could possible believe it either (or even want it). It has one function - to attack EVs and renewable energy. Big Oil and Big Auto is a 2+ $Trillion industry. It is not going to lie down and let Tesla sweep public opinion, political support and market share even if it does not have a viable non-polluting product to offer in the green energy space. Hence mounting what I am confident is developing into the biggest (multi 10s $Billion) fraud in human history. Complacency will not assist in countering it - the only viable defence is a universally well informed public presenting united in rejection of BS - as well as availability and mass adoption of real environmental solutions.

5. I believe that Musk had exactly the correct idea to promote partnership and competition from Big Auto in the EV space, seeing Tesla's mission as a catalyst to accelerate inevitable positive transformation to EVs and essentially recruiting Big Auto vs Big Oil. I cannot speak for how Elon thinks in private, he did grow up in the land of Cecil John Rhodes and perhaps he is secretly excited about taking on the whole world to create the first multi $Trillion consolidated energy and transportation company, however his public statements clearly underestimate the laws of disruption. Industries facing technology disruption almost invariably dig their heels in trying to defend old ways and attacking and blocking new market entrants until they prevail or are destroyed by customer defection to new players representing a new value proposition. Looking from the perspective of Big Auto, it is just about impossible to compete with Tesla in terms of EV product development. Tesla-style products are simply too canibalistic to develop alongside a core ICE business, too advanced in competencies alien to ICE manufacturing and developing much too fast. Even if a big auto maker was to come up with a vehicle design that could take on a Tesla Gen III there is barely enough battery manufacturing capacity on Earth for Tesla let alone to replace volume sales of the Toyota Camry for example. No, Tesla is simply a threat to their entrenched interests that must be eliminated by any means fair or foul. There are no fair means realistically or readily available and apparently Big Oil has cash to spend on collaboration, hence resorting to foul: Subsidised FCVs and dumping the price of Natural Gas derived hydrogen - probably to $zero for as long as it takes to either get rid of EVs or go bust trying.

6. Besides concerted efforts to counter public and political disinformation from the FCV lobby, the other thing that I think will be extremely useful in alleviating the entrenchment that exists in Big Oil and Big Auto is to campaign for the ability to defer taxation on capital gains on Oil and Auto stocks when transferring value into an approved list of renewables energy and sustainable transportation stocks (obviously excluding Hydrogen from Natural Gas and FCVs). One of the leading sources of entrenchment of vested interests in any mature industry, especially energy and auto is the long-term buy and hold of dividend stocks. These stocks are basically somewhere between unattractive and senseless to sell owing to the capital gains tax liability accrued over a period of years if not decades. This results in massive wealth trapped in polluting industries and deep conservative resentment of change resulting from challenge from renewables even if it is for the greater good. I believe that the most massive difference government could possibly make to enable and to accelerate positive change (and energise the whole economy) is to facilitate a free flow of wealth transfer to environmentally friendly growth industries without penalising shareholders for the transfer - by all means account for the taxable gains transferred and collect the deferred taxation plus the tax due on any subsequent capital gains. This to my mind will be a battle to de-list FCVs but apart from that - a much better idea for government than subsidies, cap and trade etc - just a zero-cost policy decision as far as I can tell to get the economy moving into global boom of wealth-creating activity, not just moving but moving in the right direction.

 

[Auzie]

Thank you for the informative posts Julian, I agree with everything you said, I just see it slightly more optimistic. Big oil and Auto do seem to go to great lengths to derail evs, I just think that they are doing it at their own peril. No one will fall into the trap that they are making but themselves. As for the government subsidies being misdirected, that is a case so often and subsidies to un viable technologies is a part of the parcel that we all get with our governments. I just do not think it possible now to kill evs again.:smile:

 

[Julian Cox]

Auzie, I don't just hope you are right, I want to contribute some effort and thought to guaranteeing the outcome.

Forgive me for using this space as a note pad, I hope it is useful and informative to others. Maths check and constructive critique gratefully received.

In my opinion Musk despite or perhaps because of his caring and brilliance has one glaring vulnerability. He has now been 'caught out' twice with injustice. Tesla is having to take legal action in New Jersey vs Dealer Lobby inspired political corruption and now SpaceX has to protest the effects of graft on Air Force procurement. I think that Tesla/SpaceX will ultimately win both of those battles and it may be that fighting them and winning will result in a better outcome than never having faced them in the first place. While I absolutely admire the emphasis on doing rather than talking approach - it will be hilarious for example to see Toyota trying to launch a poor-performing FCV vs a Gen III unveiling, particularly considering the Gen III will be profitable for Tesla and the Toyota a cost item and doubly hilarious if the Gen III is launched with a Metal Air range extender that totally invalidates the sum of all investment in fuel cells for transportation - but - it is not enough to call FCVs 'so bullshit' when the entire objective of FCVs is to bullshit the markets and political landscape in which Tesla operates up to and including a cynical willingness to poison the entire well for green energy and transportation.

Clearly it is the case that demonstrating the viability of a better way of doing things does not always function as a word to the wise where vested interests are concerned. It would be gut wrenching to see Tesla completely bogged down in battling unjust political and market corruption on multiple fronts brought on by FCVs due to poor anticipation - this I think is well worth treating at a more curable stage in the disease. Right now there is one FCV offered in limited quantities with free hydrogen but the specious political lobbying by CAFCV and others aimed squarely at Tesla has started in earnest already and 2015 and 2016 will see a complete rash of FCVs racing to head off the Gen III Tesla and an accompanying tsunami of BS.

Offering a treatise on defence against the dark arts is contribution that I believe is valuable especially if recognised as such sooner rather than later.

Julian

@Julian.

You write with a lot of prior knowledge and background, but the layperson is not going to be able to follow the above. I am paying attention to this topic and I am having a hard time understanding fully what you just presented. Could you please present it in a way that a good college freshman could understand?

@hummingbird. That is kind and probably a fair critique, let's see if I can refine it some and add some thoughts of merit.


Here is Steam Reforming in an animation from Air Liquide, the contractor handling numerous hydrogen installations for Big Oil, for example Saudi Aramco.


http://www.airliquide.com/en/compan...ng-or-producing-gases/producing-hydrogen.html


The cost advantage of this process is that CH4 (the main constituent of Natural Gas) starts life as a fossil fuel as it comes from the ground. It is possible to burn some of that fuel to power the process that turns CH4 and H20 into CO2 and H2. The result is a polluting process that retains 75% of the energy from the original fuel in the form of Hydrogen. About 68% after additional energy is supplied to compress the Hydrogen sufficiently to transport to market.


Very often FCVs are promoted with the idea that producing hydrogen this way will ultimately be replaced by non-polluting processes. For example using renewable electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. While this sounds appealing in theory this is misdirection. Unlike Natural Gas, water cannot simply be burned to contribute energy to the process. All of the energy needs to be supplied from an external source to produce Oxygen and Hydrogen from water.


Industrial Hydrolysis of water into hydrogen and oxygen is about 75% efficient and is non-polluting at that step so long as the water is clean. It costs about 1% of the energy content derived from hydrogen to desalinate sea water.


That is where the similarity ends.


Taking the numbers (presented in a deliberately misleading format) by the CAFCP, a prominent lobby group for hydrogen fuel cells and fuel cell vehicles, we can look at some practical examples.


Ref: http://cafcp.org/sites/files/20120910wells2wheels.pdf


Using renewable-sourced electricity the well to tank efficiency of electrolysis is shown on a graph at 68% (bizarre considering there is no well, but so be it. Notably they are allowing a 7% efficiency reduction for compression to go from 75% to 68%, this is therefore contemplating hydrogen production in the location where cars are to be refilled (filling stations). One of the key features of distributed production is the impracticality of sequestering the resulting CO2 - and arguably the ability to use an on-site Natural Gas furnace too instead of burning NG offsite to produce electricity for heating the process at even more significant cost of pollution.


CAFCP then presents a table of BTUs/mile that *very notably* omits the direct equivalent: Charging an EV with renewable-sourced electricity. So in the name of dealing with deceit by omission let’s fill in the gaps:


The ‘well to tank’ efficiency of charging an electric vehicle can be considered 93%. That assumes that the renewable source is distant and not a home or office PV installation and allowing for 7% for grid loss (transmitting the electricity to the home via wires and transformers). Note that in reality the FCV would need to expend time and energy driving to a remote filling station which is never accounted for because the filling stations are assumed to be ubiquitous and en route like a gas station for ICE or an owner’s home or office in the case of EVs.

All of this ignores the cost of infrastructure including hydrogen filling stations featuring local steam reformers (or desalination and hydrolysis infrastructure to be pedantic) which in the former case, Big Oil is planning to have the taxpayer fund in the name of green energy - successfully too I might add in the case of California. This is a cataclysmic omission when considering cost equivalence to renewables. All Solar PV cost per kWh (including all of the figures I have used here) assumes the cost of the Solar Panel amortised over a lifetime of energy production - basically a lifetimes worth of kWh output over 20 or 25 years divided by the cost of the panel that is to produce it. By applying exactly the same standards to Hydrogen, Solar PV is $0.00 per kWh. Actually it is even better than that because the entire cost of the hardware in the case of hydrogen at $2 million per filling station is treated as a free gift as far as energy cost calculations are concerned.

A (very generous) estimate of Hydrogen Fuel Cell efficiency in converting Hydrogen to electricity is 60% http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/fuelcells/pdfs/fc_comparison_chart.pdf . On board an FCV the fuel cell charges a conventional Li Ion or NiMH battery to power an inverter or power control unit and then an electric motor, similar to an EV or a PHEV. The proposed 2015 Toyota FCV essentially uses a Prius drive train to deliver power to the wheels. A fair estimate of efficiency of the electric drive train for an EV or an FCV is 85%.


Putting the numbers end to end where they belong:


For a renewable powered EV we have a 93% ‘well to tank’ efficient renewable electricity supply driving an 85% efficient drive train = 79% ‘well to wheel’ efficiency.


For a renewable powered FCV we have a 68% ‘well to tank’ efficient renewable-derived supply of hydrogen driving a 60% efficient Fuel Cell, driving an 85% efficient drive train = 34.68% ‘well to wheel’ efficiency.


Reversing those numbers to meet a demand in terms of numbers of miles we would need by this calculation 79%/34.68% = 228% of the amount of renewable energy to go the same distance with an FCV - basically raising the amount of renewable energy required by more than double per mile. Clearly the way to eliminate unnecessary waste in this process and to hasten cost effectiveness of renewables vs fossil fuels is to get rid of the unnecessary hydrogen production step and the unnecessary fuel cell. These facts are not only ignored but actively obscured in the promotion of FCVs vs EVs.


If we were to make the simplistic assumption that today or some point in the not to distant future that Solar per kWh is the same price as the cost of production of Natural Gas per kWh at the ‘well’ then we have the following competitive scenario in terms of cost per mile:


Natural Gas Powered FCV 62% * 60% * 85% = 31.62% cost efficient


Renewable Powered FCV 68% * 60% * 85% = 34.68% cost efficient


Natural Gas Powered EV 60% (combined cycle gas generator) * 93% * 85% = 47% cost efficient


Renewable Powered EV 93% * 85% = 79% cost efficient


There can be no valid argument that a renewable powered transport economy is favored by EVs and hindered by FCVs to the extent that any FCV replaces the purchase of an EV.


EVs are already deeply competitive in terms of cost per mile at the artificial consumer price points payable for Electricity from any source vs ICE vehicles powered by gasoline, diesel and even Natural Gas.


The more interesting metric is the fundamental cost break-even points (actual societal cost) for Renewables vs Natural Gas for use in transportation.


Considering the current state of a Natural Gas powered FCV as a benchmark for cost per mile:


Break even point for renewable powered EV miles is 2.49 times more expensive than NG powered FCV miles.


Break even point for renewable sourced hydrogen FCV miles is 1.09 times more expensive than NG powered FCV miles.


An apples to apples cost comparison to get to the bottom of what this means:


Natural Gas production from the Fracking of Shales in the US is running at about $2.50 per “MBtu”. A MBtu = 239.07107 kWh. Putting that together we have $0.00853 per kWh just less than a US cent per kWh, prior to using it for producing anything (for example electricity or hydrogen).


Recently a Texas utility Austin Energy contracted 150MW of solar for $0.05 (5 US cents per kWh).


In terms of absolute economics EV break-even per mile travelled is occurring at 2.12 US Cents per kWh. It does not need to be as cheap as Natural Gas because pure EV miles are extremely efficient compared with FCV miles and ICE miles.


$0.0212 is dangerously close to the current and rapidly falling cost of Solar. Solar cost is seen to be halving every 3 years (see Swanson’s Law). This is far too dangerous for the Fossil Fuel industry to ignore - because this is writing on the wall time.


FCVs on the other hand push renewable break even per mile travelled out to 0.92 cents per kWh. Commencing at 5 cents per kWh this is six to ten years away as opposed to three but effectively FOREVER if the fossil fuel industry is able to pervert the societal approach to tackling emissions and climate change, derailing clarity of focus on Solar and EVs and substituting the environmental mirage of producing hydrogen FCVs.


That is the cynical underpinnings of the promotion of FCVs and why I am stating that hydrogen FCV is a most exquisitely dangerous Cuckoo In the Nest assault on renewables and sustainable transportation. This is a deception that MUST be countered vigorously in the interests of society.


Some thoughts on how to tackle it:

1. Production of increasingly compelling and affordable EVs - At this point Tesla is pretty much alone in focussing whole-heartedly on that objective.
2. Tackling out-dated and misleading reports at source and ensuring that these are updated to include realistic numbers for production emissions in the case of Natural Gas and to stop including the misleading presumptions of fossil fuel sourced energy for battery and solar panel production: Government Energy agencies (EPA, DOE, Argonne National Labs etc etc).
3. Tackling NGOs and establishing clear and unified opposition to the false and misleading promotion of FCVs - Including issuing warning to their members that they are being targeted. (Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, National Geographic, Greenpeace etc etc).
4. Tackling media and news agency awareness (Cannot have it that for example that Shell is going unanswered sponsoring a green debate on National Geographic pushing Hydrogen to educated green consumers and opinion formers, cannot have Top Gear promoting Honda FCVs as saving the planet etc).
5. Tackling FTC and Advertising standards agencies: Cannot have it that Toyota, Hyundai and all the rest are promoting Hydrogen as ‘totally emissios free’, ‘bright future for all’.
6. FTC / Anti Trust: Cannot have it that fossil fuel industry dumps the price of hydrogen in the market to stifle competition from renewables.
7. CARB: Cannot have it that California Air Resources Board is paying $200 Million for local CO2 production in California at $2 Million per fueling station in 2014 after CO2 has been officially declared an air pollutant by the EPA.
8. CAFCV: Cannot have it that lobby groups like this are not called out for misleading consumers, investors and politicians with false and misleading data that directly endangers efforts to tackle emissions and climate change.
9. Actively supporting the divestment movement by lobbying for tax deferral to reinvestment in (genuine) renewables and sustainables.

 

[hummingbird]

Thanks Julian.

 

[rcc]

I don't know. I have a hard time getting too worked up about hydrogen.

I understand CARB and other govt agencies pushing hydrogen. They need to operate like venture capitalists: push 10 technology efforts in the hopes that 1-2 will pay off big.

So I don't care if the government encourages hydrogen as long as it doesn't pull back significantly from encouraging EVs. And who knows, hydrogen may work out well for say, heavy transport use cases.

Point is that if EVs are so much better than hydrogen for replacing consumer ICE's, then what matters most is keeping the playing field reasonably fair, level and open.

So I don't care if CARB is putting money behind hydrogen as long as they continue to encourage EVs. I care very much if regulation is used to lock Tesla out of markets - the NJ sales laws and others like it.

 

[SteveG3]

I contribute what I hope is at least a significant start.

Targeting fracking and steam reforming at green-leaning consumers to me is quite wrong and I think something drastic needs to be done about it to curb the deception risk in order to prevent the deliberate derailing of hope by well funded vested interests:

View attachment 48051

There may be a way that anti trust provisions or trading standards can stop hydrogen being given away for free in connection with a blatantly false and misleading promotion like this. The first order of business is to get clear that this is absolutely the darkest anti-sustainable future for all that could possibly befall renewables and sustainable transportation.

I refer to this as a Cuckoo In The Nest promotion. There are two major sources of hydrogen on planet earth. Methane (Natural Gas) and Water.

One of them contains energy potential in air sufficient that burning 25% of it provides the energy to heat steam to crack the combination into hydrogen and CO2. The other one has no energy potential in air, it is already the combustion product of hydrogen and oxgen. To crack that into hydrogen and oxygen requires an input of 100% of the energy potential in the resulting hydrogen, plus another 25% (at least) for thermodynamic efficiency losses.

Considering we start out with the first choice (the polluting process that costs 25%) who believes that we are inevitably heading towards the second that costs 125%? Definitely not anyone close enough to the technology to understand it - i.e. those promoting it as a bright emissions free future for all.

After all, who needs solar and EVs when 'hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe'.

One other thing. Hydrogen from renewables:

So let's say we take that 125 kWh of renewable electricity.

1. Send it across the grid (7% grid loss) and charge up our Model S with the remaining 116kWh. At 330 Wh / mile our Model S ought to go about 352 miles.

2. Make 100 kWh worth of hydrogen by electrolysis. Compress it, now we have 90kWh worth remaining, put it in a fuel cell to charge a system just like a Model S now we have 45kWh remaining, at At 330 Wh / mile our FCV range extended Model S will take us 137 miles or 38% of the distance.

So now we require 263% of the cost of renewable energy to move the same mass the same distance. That is REAL HANDY if you happen to be worried that Solar is approaching cost parity with fossil fuels.

Julian, huge appreciation for this and several other very informative posts.

I'm just wondering if the incumbent automakers have a more modest goal, one considerably less threatening to Tesla.

Might their stepping further toward FCV be more of an attempt to buy themselves some time and pr coverage of their reputations rather than to actually derail EVs? That is by this growing chorus for FCV among them, does it allow them each to basically spend a billion or so on bridge to nowhere FCV projects, so they can more easily sell their ICE vehicles another decade or so with a straight face despite what Tesla is achieving? Sort of, "yes, we at Honda see what Tesla's doing. We think they've got it right that their is a greener future, we just think Tesla has picked the wrong technology... and oh, by the way, all the other automakers see it as we do."


This could buy time & give them a ready story when eventually is obvious to the great majority of people that EVs are better... "Look innovation is frought with risk, no one has 20-20 hindsight, we acted in good faith..."

Don't get me wrong... they may want what for them would be a home run, cutting TeslaEVs off all together. I just suspect that even the automakers pursuing this see how unlikely such a home run is (the Tesla horse already out of the barn, the infrastructure cost of FCVs needed, and the need of these automakers to con governments and markets accross the world as other comments here have discussed).

 

[rcc]

"Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity."

I think most big auto companies are going after hydrogen because they don't understand that EVs will work. And as they continue to try and push out $40K EVs with <140 mile ranges, these EVs don't sell so they see their thinking as validated. And they may be right - sort of.

It's quite possible that a cheap enough >85KW battery that will be easy for big auto companies to incorporate into their design and manufacturing process could be 10 years away and even that likely assumes revolutionary battery chemistry. Whereas Tesla will likely get there in <5 years assuming evolutionary developments in commodity battery chemistry. But other auto companies probably can't build an EV that uses commodity chemistry without years of tech development and much tighter cooperation between their various engineering design teams. The odds of this happening in a big auto company are nearly zero.

So big auto companies are probably pushing hydrogen because they believe that they could build a hydrogen car that worked if the fueling infrastructure was there. Whereas they don't understand how they can make EVs work.

The only people who really understand how to make EVs work as a product are the folks at Tesla and their customers and potential customers.

 

[Julian Cox]

"Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity."

FCVs are a well planed and coordinated, well funded and highly sophisticated deception, hence the effort to draw attention to the extreme deception risk.

This action currently out-classes the sophistication of Tesla's marcoms. This is not to be confused with first order stupidity.

 

[Johan]

Tesla competition developments

Agree Julian. FCVs looks to be the next big hoax being pushed.

Whenever I get in a debate about it, whether it is with a knowledable person or an idiot, I always make sure that first of all we agree on the fact that an FCV is really just an EV with a hydrogen tank instead of a battery. When this has been established I have actually never had any trouble convincing the other party about the fallacies of the hydrogen tank as an alternative to the battery, for all the different reasons you so in-depth have pointed out.

 

[Julian Cox]

Agree Julian. FCVs looks to be the next big hoax being pushed.

Whenever I get in a debate about it, whether it is with a knowledable person or an idiot, I always make sure that first of all we agree on the fact that an FCV is really just an EV with a hydrogen tank instead of a battery. When this has been established I have actually never had any trouble convincing the other party about the fallacies of the hydrogen tank as an alternative to the battery, for all the different reasons you so in-depth have pointed out.

Indeed. One simple to explain method of improving an FCV is to get rid of the fuel cell and the whole unnecessary industry of dealing with hydrogen and just make the drive train battery big enough to go whatever distance is desired.

The issue that then arises is whether to make lots of big batteries or lots of fuel cells and hydrogen infrastructure.

One path leads inevitably to solar energy and recycling and a reduction of green house gas emissions.

The other leads away from solar energy and recycling and inevitably towards fossil fuel consumption and pollution.

They are both presented via the media as green energy and transportation as though they were alternative routes to the same goal. That needs to stop.

 

[Julian Cox]

Double Checking hydrogen emissions figures.




1 kg Hydrogen / molar mass of hydrogen (atoms) [1.0079 mol per gram]


= 922 Moles (atoms) or 461 Moles of H2 gas.


These are the steps for producing compressed hydrogen in reverse order.


Step 1.


Hydrogen compression to 5000 psi (Toyota for example).


2.23 kWh / Kg ref: http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/...ompression.pdf


Taking a CO2 emission factor of 0.527 Kg / kWh for the use of the grid to drive a compressor. ref: http://www.carbonindependent.org/sources_home_energy.htm


2.23 kWh * 0.527 Kg / Kwh = 1.175 Kg CO2.


Molar Mass CH4 16.01g
Molar Mass CO2 44.01g


Note also that 1.175 Kg CO2 is the product of burning 1.175 *16.04/44.01 = 0.43 Kg CH4 (nominally Natural Gas).


Subtotal: 1.175 Kg CO2.




Step 2.


SMR (Steam Methane Reforming) two step chemical reaction.


CH[SUB]4[/SUB] + H[SUB]2[/SUB]O ⇌ CO + 3 H[SUB]2[/SUB]
CO + H[SUB]2[/SUB]O ⇌ CO[SUB]2[/SUB] + H[SUB]2[/SUB]


Back calculating there is 1 mole of CO2 produced for every 4 moles of H2


molar mass of CO2 is 44.01 g/mol


(461 / 4 * 44.01)/ 1000g/Kg = 5.072 Kg CO2 per Kg H2


Note also 1 mole of CH4 is required for every 4 moles of H2


(461 / 4 * 16.04/ 1000g/Kg = 1.849 Kg CH4 per Kg H2




Subtotal for Step 2. 5.072 Kg CO2




Step 3.


Powering the SMR reaction.


Industrial SMR (Steam Methane Reforming) reactors are typically quoted as 75% efficient.


1 Kg Hydrogen output containing 120 MJ/Kg represents 75% of the inputs energy. Note some of the heat input energy is electrical, potentially all of it in the case of distributed SMR (at gas stations), also industrial SMR is generally quoted as 65~75% efficient.


Hence at its most generous interpretation:


120 MJ / 0.75 = 160 MJ input.


Natural Gas (nominally CH4) is 50 MJ/Kg (LHV)


1.849 Kg CH4 consumed in the reaction contributes 92.45 MJ


Balance of 160 MJ (67.55 MJ) for heating requires the combustion of an additional 1.35 Kg CH4 per Kg Hydrogen produced.


Simple combustion reaction CH4 + 2 O2 = CO2 + 2 H20


Natural gas is 16.04 g/mol
CO2 is 44.01 g/mol


They are in a 1:1 proportion in this reaction hence


1.35 Kg CH4 releases 1.35 * 44.01 / 16.04 = 3.704 Kg C02 per Kg Hydrogen.




Subtotal for Step 3. 3.704 Kg CO2




Step 4.


Production of Natural Gas.


Looking at step 1, 0.43 Kg CH4 is required for compression


Looking at step 2, 1.849 Kg CH4 is consumed as a chemical feedstock.


Looking at step 3, 1.35 Kg of CH4 required for heating the SMR process.


Total CH4 requirement for 1 Kg H2 = 0.43 + 1.849 + 1.35 = 3.629 Kg Ch4 per Kg Hydrogen.


Cross check 50 Mj/Kg for Natural Gas = 181.45 Mj


Best Estimate for CO2 emissions from Natural Gas Production, 13.5g / Mj ref: http://www.capp.ca/getdoc.aspx?DocId=215278


181.45 * 13.5 / 1000g/Kg = 1.974 Kg CO2


Subtotal for Step 4. 2.450 Kg CO2




Putting that all together we have a grand total of


1.175 + 5.072 + 3.704 + 2.450 = 12.401 Kg CO2 per Kg Hydrogen.


To produce 1 Kg Hydrogen containing 120 MJ / Kg energy

120 / 181.45 = 66% efficiency.

This errs on the side of generosity and compares favourably with the 62% efficiency stated by the Hydrogen FCV lobby group California Fuel Cell Partnership.

http://cafcp.org/sites/files/20120910wells2wheels.pdfx

Naturally a sympathetically calculated 12.401 Kg CO2 / Kg Hydrogen DOES NOT concur with CAFCP's promotional message. Namely and I quote: 'We can fuel vehicles with hydrogentoday and get clear environmentalbenefits'. In fact at 62% efficiency the resulting figure for CO2 emissions would rise to something in the order of 13.2 Kg per Kg Hydrogen.



Now lets see what we can do with this information.



Combustion only calculations ref: David Hone - Climate Change Advisor for Shell Natural gas, CO2 emissions and climate change


Coal 0.093 kg CO2/MJ


Coke 0.108 kg CO2/MJ


Natural gas 0.056 kg CO2/MJ


Now using the 120 MJ/Kg (LHV) figure representative of combustion of H2 with a water vapour exhaust we can add hydrogen on a pure combustion basis:


Hydrogen 0.104 kg CO2/MJ (81.4% worse than Natural Gas or 11.8% worse than Coal, only 3.7% better than Coke!).


Now Here is a kicker (on a pure combustion basis).


Gasoline 0.069 kg CO2/MJ (33.7% better than hydrogen).


Diesel 0.074 kg CO2/MJ (28.8% better than hydrogen).


This is another reason alongside high cost of production, handling difficulties and low energy density is why Hydrogen is not generally considered in the absence of fuel cell hybrids that feature electric drive trains and regenerative braking recover from profound efficiency losses. A water vapor exhaust would be available from a hydrogen ICE vehicle but the overall pollution would similar to a coal fired steam engine.


Now let's have a look at MPGe figures for FCVs


Honda FCX Clarity, 60 miles per Kg Hydrogen (with the claim that 1 Kg hydrogen equals 1 gallon of gasoline). Ref: Honda FCX Clarity - Refueling - Official Web Site


It is probably fair to say that the FCX Clarity is equivalent to a 30mpg style and performance of car so that 60 miles would replace 2 gallons of gasoline emitting 8.91 Kg CO2/ gallon = 17.82 ref: Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program - Electricity Factors


So in fact the FCX clarity is 1-(12.401 / 17.82) 30.4% better than a 30mpg gasoline vehicle under a true well to wheel calculation or 18.0% better than a 40mpg gasoline vehicle.


Toyota is claiming 68.3 miles/kg Hydrogen which is 45.7% better than a 30mpg gasoline vehicle or 7.2% better than a 40mpg gasoline vehicle.


So far so good.




Let's have a look at Honda FCX Clarity's 60 mpg rating.


Strictly speaking, the use of the term MPGe relates to miles travelled per unit of energy consumed. In order to arrive at an environmental measure one really ought to compare apples to apples with regards to emissions with a baseline of CO2 output per gallon of gasoline.


8.91 Kg CO2 per gallon of gasoline relates to 8.91/12.401 Kg of hydrogen or 71.8% of the 60 mile distance claimed. In environmental terms the FCX Clarity is operating at 43.08 mpg equivalent. The Toyota that claims 60 miles per Kg H2 is doing a bit better at 48.82 mpg.


Not bad, but not exactly an Earth shattering environmental breakthrough considering the 2014 Toyota Prius is claiming 51 mpg City and 48 mpg highway. Honda Accord Hybrid 50 mpg City and 45 mpg highway with similarly tame performance offered by 100 kW motors in the case of the FCVs.


For example, the 300 kW Tesla Model S P85 delivers 31.1 kWh per 100 miles (EPA 85 kWh / 265 miles). Reusing the 0.527 kg CO2 / kWh figure above, and an environmental measure of a gallon of gas at 8.91 Kg / gallon we have 8.91 / 0.527 = 16.90 kWh which comes to 52.69 mpg (environmental equivalent). 263% of the environmental performance of a 20mpg car of similar performance.




Conclusion of this exercise.


Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles currently offer no improvement on the carbon footprint of current ICE hybrids. Even this is subject to the accuracy of the figures provided for emissions associated with flaring of Natural Gas that are likely considerably higher than disclosed and additional inefficiencies introduced by distributed small scale steam reforming at gas stations. The slippage of CH4 in Natural Gas production and handling certainly ensures that current ICE hybrids out-perform FCVs in terms of green house gas emissions by a large margin. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that about 2.5 percent of all natural gas produced in the United States is lost to leaks or vented into the air, that estimate is also questionable with independent figures ranging to 4%. There is no environmental rationale for the construction of a 'hydrogen highway', on the contrary, the push for FCVs is environmentally dangerous.


The economics of hydrogen ensure that 12.401 Kg CO2 per Kg Hydrogen is as good as it gets in large scale production. Abundance of Natural Gas from hydraulic fracturing provides overwhelming price competition to low-carbon production of hydrogen relegating alternatives to SMR to corner cases and promotional stunts in perpetuity. Hydrogen from Natural Gas is not a route to a low emissions future. There is no justification for the promotion of Hydrogen FCVs as an environmentally attractive alternative to EVs, in particular the trend of EVs powered by renewable electricity generation. The potential for environmental set-back caused in hindering or displacing EV sales should be the primary environmental concern.


Looking at the IPCC table of National grid Kg CO2 / kWh shows some striking variations. ref : https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-repo...bles/t0305.pdf


Norway whose national grid is powered primarily with hydro electric generation shows 0.003 Kg CO2 / kWh. This equates to 2970 kWh to match the CO2 output from a single gallon of gasoline. That is impressive and it brings the Model S to 9259 mpg (environmental equivalent). This is a 2014 live example of the green energy and sustainable transportation future threatened by the marketing of FCVs as an environmentally friendly and 'emissions free' technology on a par with EVs. With the rapidly falling cost of solar electricity generation electric vehicles will increasingly replicate the figures currently attained in Norway while hydrogen remains a heavily polluting form of fossil fuel energy threatening a proliferation and permanency of damage to atmosphere and groundwater caused by scantly regulated gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing.


A diversion of energies and investment into FCVs at this juncture as opposed to green energy and sustainable transportation offered by the combination of falling solar prices and EVs that are uniquely able to take direct advantage of abundant clean electricity without punitive efficiency losses is deeply unadvisable on environmental and economic grounds.

 

[Johan]

Excellent data and calculations! This post is bookmarked for reference and will be useful in the future!

Hydrogen is not a good fluid battery. If hydrogen cars do come in to use I will be excited to see how much vampire drain they have - H2 leaks extremely easily but there is just no published real life data on this (i.e. with regards to FCVs)

Also you'd be surprised how many people think FCVs burn hydrogen in an engine. They are often surprised to learn there are no cylinders, pistons or carburators - just an EV with a fuel cell as battery.

 

[arondaniel]

Agree Julian. FCVs looks to be the next big hoax being pushed.

Whenever I get in a debate about it, whether it is with a knowledable person or an idiot, I always make sure that first of all we agree on the fact that an FCV is really just an EV with a hydrogen tank instead of a battery. When this has been established I have actually never had any trouble convincing the other party about the fallacies of the hydrogen tank as an alternative to the battery, for all the different reasons you so in-depth have pointed out.

Don't FCEVs also have a battery since FCs that fit in passenger autos don't currently produce enough power to get good acceleration?

I see the risk of FC hoax siphoning gov't money also but like another poster said, the genie is out of the bottle with EVs. Tiny little Tesla made it work, why can't you? Plugin gas hybrids are the practical stepping stone to get there.

I also think back to the highly-reported Tesla fires that caused no injuries. What is the public reaction to an event involving a 10,000psi mobile bomb going to be?

 

[Johan]

Don't FCEVs also have a battery since FCs that fit in passenger autos don't currently produce enough power to get good acceleration?

I see the risk of FC hoax siphoning gov't money also but like another poster said, the genie is out of the bottle with EVs. Tiny little Tesla made it work, why can't you? Plugin gas hybrids are the practical stepping stone to get there.

I also think back to the highly-reported Tesla fires that caused no injuries. What is the public reaction to an event involving a 10,000psi mobile bomb going to be?

Yes they do have smallish batteries, another fact that goes to show it's just an EV with hydrogen as energy storage.

Yes the first fires/explosions and resulting deaths with FCVs will be tragic but also very interesting to see they will try to spin it PR-wise.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Don't FCEVs also have a battery since FCs that fit in passenger autos don't currently produce enough power to get good acceleration?

I see the risk of FC hoax siphoning gov't money also but like another poster said, the genie is out of the bottle with EVs. Tiny little Tesla made it work, why can't you? Plugin gas hybrids are the practical stepping stone to get there.

I also think back to the highly-reported Tesla fires that caused no injuries. What is the public reaction to an event involving a 10,000psi mobile bomb going to be?

I believe FCVs have a battery for the same kind of reason that hybrids have batteries: minimize the fuel cell stack size (in this case to lower cost and space use), optimize performance, take advantage of regen.

I think the hydrogen combustion danger is a bit overplayed. No injuries so far, including in a hydrogen filling station fire. We'll get to see as volume builds.

To me the fuel cell issue is about cost and efficiency. There are claims the it can become much cheaper and more efficient, but I'll watch with skepticism. I don't see HFCV as any hoax or scam. I just think there was a massive misjudgment on how battery technology would advance. The heavy HFCV research really began when batteries were still NiMh, with lower density and higher cost than today. It didn't seem like BEV or even EREV had the potential it has today.

 

[FluxCap]

Wow, thanks for the huge post and good work, Julian. That one should be an article somewhere.

 

[surfside]

lots of good analysis here julian -- very helpful for me to learn some of the real facts behind hydrogen and FCVs. while i think you may well be correct about big auto's intentions re: the misdirection and FCVs, i think at the end of the day, the vast majority of people are going to buy cars based on price vs. quality/performance. i think that was the fundamental thing that elon "got" early on: that in building the model s he didn't just need to make a great electric car, he needed to make the best car out there. because while there may be people out there that will pay more for an environmentally friendly car with passable looks and performance (i'm pointing at you, prius owners), the majority of people just aren't going to sacrifice looks, performance and quality for the sake of the environment.

and so while lobbying efforts and government dollars are most certainly at stake with regard to FCVs, i personally believe that it remains incumbent on tesla to make better quality, higher performing, attractively priced cars to have real success against any competitors -- whether it be an ICE and FCV. and given the model s success relative to all of its true competitors, i am confident that allowing for the time required for battery costs to continue to come down, tesla will be able to do just that.

given all this, i think the real question to be asked here about how competitive FCVs will be (given the point made above that a FCV is simply a electric car with a different type of "battery") is whether or not the large automakers can get the electric motor right (and how the performance of that motor will compare to tesla's motor) and how well/quickly they will be able to build out the hydrogen infrastructure required to support the transition to FCVs. i think the latter issue is clearly the bigger hurdle, and from what you all have posted about the cost of these refueling stations (~$2 million each), i think i'll place my bet on at home charging and tesla's supercharger network.

surfside

 

[gavine]

Regarding competition in the Battery EV field, doesn't Tesla have protected intellectual property that will make it very difficult for other manufacturers to make competitive vehicles? I'm thinking that is why Tesla supplies drive trains to Toyota and Mercedes Benz.

 

[Pollux]

I am blown away by this analysis. I wish I still remembered enough chemistry and math to independently verify Julian's work. For now, I will content myself by observing that it all seems to hang together and wait anxiously while those more knowledgeable vet the analysis.

In any case, I have already forwarded this analysis to Environmental Tax Reform - Massachusetts (ETR-MA) and to Citizens' Climate Lobby (CCL), two organizations pursuing revenue-neutral tax reform that would put a price on carbon.

Thank you, Julian!!

Alan