Hydrogen vs. Battery

[Saghost]

Anyhow, I think discussing electric car fires here is a digression. I will start looking like an electric car FUDster.

Not quite sure how to tell you this - but you passed that milestone weeks ago.

 

[ajdelange]

That reminds me, how's Schrodinger's cat?

Kinda hard to tell, actually.

 

[scaesare]

... those stuck at electric charging stalls and superchargers for hours, trying to get the last 10% of the charge.

Then they're doing it wrong. I've has quite a bit of opportunity to supercharge and observe behavior in the 6-1/2 years I've has my S, and nobody does that.

...a fast 3-5 minute fill up...

After a 20 minute wait while the station re-pressurizes and chills?

There is a plan to have 10000 worldwide stations by 2030.

Oh.. well then. Problem solved.

 

[S'toon]

That reminds me, how's Schrodinger's cat?

Meanwhile, inside the box, Schrodinger's Cat plots his revenge.

 

[S'toon]

If not hundreds, tens for sure! A little google search shows up many. I will post one as a starter.
Rest you have to use google.

Do you think the road below is open to traffic? if you do, then watch the video.
Lots of interesting details in this article against battery fire.
Are electric cars a deathtrap in waiting? Terrifying video shows how hard it is to extinguish a blaze


View attachment 465520

Anyhow, I think discussing electric car fires here is a digression. I will start looking like an electric car FUDster. But if you insist...

Ah, the good ol' right wing fear mongering Sun.

As for numbers of fires, I can think of off the top of my head half a dozen. Maybe a dozen.

I have personally seen 2 ICE car fires.

Plug-in electric vehicle fire incidents - Wikipedia

Quite a bit less than was stated.

 

[ajdelange]

And ask himto learn about how the world is producing 75B (with a B) kg of hydrogen each year and consuming it safely.

By using it (mostly for the manufacture of ammonia) in what are clearly industrial settings and that's where I think hydrogen as a means for storing energy will have its application until, and if, someone comes out with a safe and cost effective way of transporting it. One from time to time sees reports of technologies which sound promising. The latest is some organic compound which, when mixed with water, ab (or ad) sorbs hydrogen. It can be trucked around like water and pumped into a vehicle's tank where a reactor removes the gas that then runs the fuel cell. The solution from which the hydrogen has been removed is then returned to the "gas station" and ultimately to the producer where it is reloaded with hydrogen. Feasible from an engineering or economic perspective? Don't know.

For now I see a role for hydrogen as a means for storing excess wind and solar energy at the solar or wind farm to be dumped into the grid at times of high demand. That's sorely needed and it seems that hydrogen generated by electrolysis could do the job. There is such plant in existence in some places. Economics?

 

[S'toon]

Ah, the good ol' right wing fear mongering Sun.

As for numbers of fires, I can think of off the top of my head half a dozen. Maybe a dozen.

For now I see a role for hydrogen as a means for storing excess wind and solar energy at the solar or wind farm to be dumped into the grid at times of high demand. That's sorely needed and it seems that hydrogen generated by electrolysis could do the job. There is such plant in existence in some places. Economics?

I feel to see how that's more efficient than batteries, which are being used for grid storage now.

 

[ajdelange]

I feel to see how that's more efficient than batteries, which are being used for grid storage now.

I don't really feel that strongly about it and try not to let my feelings effect my objectivity anyway. I feel that if the trial installations prove more effective as a means of load leveling than metal/metal-oxide batteries (remember that a fuel cell IS a battery) that the utilities will adopt them. The industry needs storage desperately. I think hydrogen may well be an answer to that need.

Certainly hydrogen has a much much higher specific energy than a metal/metal-oxide battery which means that relative to say, lithium batteries, much less real estate is required to store a given amount of energy. Real estate doesn't come free so this may be a factor. OTOH, conversion of solar energy to stored energy is more efficient when the cells' electrical output is used to charge a metal/metal-oxide battery than when it is used to charge a fuel cell battery. Thus the acreage saved by the higher specific energy, or even, perhaps more than that, may be needed for additional panels. We don't care one whit about the wasted energy (the energy from the sun either hits the ground and warms it or warms an electrolyzer) except through the capital requirement for more cell energy. While I personally believe anthropogenic global warming is probably the biggest scientific hoax ever perpertrated I am aware that minimizing carbon emission (and I do agree that less can't be detrimental) is a big goal. Lower electrical efficiency does not translate into higher carbon emission when the source is renewable (wind, solar) except, again, through the need for more panels/turbines. The same is true for the relative energy losses in the two types of batteries themselves.

Economies of scale come into play here as well and that's another reason why I feel that hydrogen's place is at the power plant - not in the car.

 

[mblakele]

I feel to see how that's more efficient than batteries, which are being used for grid storage now.

Interseasonal.

I’d go into more detail, but this thread is in the Electric Vehicles sub. So grid storage is technically off-topic.

 

[S'toon]

I feel to see how that's more efficient than batteries, which are being used for grid storage now.

fail to see*

 

[nwdiver]

I feel to see how that's more efficient than batteries, which are being used for grid storage now.

Certainly not more efficient. But it could be A LOT cheaper in terms of bulk storage. It costs >$3k for sufficient battery capacity to store the energy equivalent of 1kg of H2. The bottleneck would be electrolysis and the fuel cell. The cost of the equipment to split water is ~100x more than the cost of charging batteries.

Either way... so long as we're using CH4 to produce ~10B kg/yr of H2 for industrial purposes it makes ZERO sense to use H2 for grid storage OR transportation. If we go through the expense of producing H2 it needs to be used to reduce industrial demand. Only once that demand is met will other uses make any sense.

 

[SageBrush]

Either way... so long as we're using CH4 to produce ~10B kg/yr of H2 for industrial purposes it makes ZERO sense to use H2 for grid storage OR transportation. If we go through the expense of producing H2 it needs to be used to reduce industrial demand. Only once that demand is met will other uses make any sense.

Hi Chris,

Your argument comes close to resembling one that says:
Make grid-EVs once the current grid has been cleaned up.

Curious, eh ?

 

[nwdiver]

Hi Chris,

Your argument comes close to resembling one that says:
Make grid-EVs once the current grid has been cleaned up.

Curious, eh ?

Not really. There are two BIIG advantages that BEVs have over FCEVs.

1. They use ~70% less energy so even using fools fuel to charge an EV the amount of fools fuel used overall declines. This isn't true for FCEVs. There's no energy benefit to using H2 over CH4 in a car and barely any energy benefit over gas or diesel.
2. BEVs can buffer surplus wind or solar making the grid more efficient. So BEVs actually HELP clean up the grid. Also not true for FCEVs.

If there wasn't a market for clean H2 then there would be some merit to using FCEVs drive demand for clean H2... but even that isn't true. There's a MASSIVE market for clean H2. Most of the infrastructure we need to support a H2 fleet can be developed without a H2 fleet. H2 cars today are somewhat like BEVs in 1905. We didn't need BEVs to give us a reason to build transmission lines or wind farms or solar... we don't need FCEVs to give us a reason to build massive electrolysis plants.

 

[Curious George]

Then they're doing it wrong. I've has quite a bit of opportunity to supercharge and observe behavior in the 6-1/2 years I've has my S, and nobody does that.

Nobody?
Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

I just did a 4000 miles road trip, half of it with a trailer. I had to charge to a higher level because of the high energy usage. That's when I noticed how slow charging has become. Especially charging above 90% has been slowed down very noticeable. A charge to 100% now takes more than 3 hours with the majority of time spend going from 90 to 100%.

After a 20 minute wait while the station re-pressurizes and chills?

You may want to update your knowledge. You are stuck in the last decade. Today they can fill 6-10 cars per hours and some stations have multiple nozzles. Depends how powerful the compressor is.

Oh.. well then. Problem solved.

(since thumbs up emoji is missing.)

 

[nwdiver]

Nobody?
Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

Somebody doing a dumb thing doesn't mean there's any need or even a benefit to doing that dumb thing.
You can sit there watching your car charge at 5A (SOC at '~99%')with time remaining displayed as 'calculating' for 45 minutes. OR.... OR.... you can drive home OR... OR.... you can just hit up a L2 for 10 minutes on your way if you can't make it home. Really no reason to sit on a SC for 3 hours unless you're just being silly.

There are hundreds of people that drive H2 cars when there's really no benefit or need.

I have a 2012 P85 effected by the SW update that now gets 218 miles on a full charge. The closest SC to my house is ~240 miles. The great thing about electricity is it's pretty much everywhere. I just stop off at a free RV park to get enough range to make it home. For daily use it's not even an issue.

 

[Curious George]

I don't really feel that strongly about it and try not to let my feelings effect my objectivity anyway. I feel that if the trial installations prove more effective as a means of load leveling than metal/metal-oxide batteries (remember that a fuel cell IS a battery) that the utilities will adopt them. The industry needs storage desperately. I think hydrogen may well be an answer to that need.

Certainly hydrogen has a much much higher specific energy than a metal/metal-oxide battery which means that relative to say, lithium batteries, much less real estate is required to store a given amount of energy. Real estate doesn't come free so this may be a factor. OTOH, conversion of solar energy to stored energy is more efficient when the cells' electrical output is used to charge a metal/metal-oxide battery than when it is used to charge a fuel cell battery. Thus the acreage saved by the higher specific energy, or even, perhaps more than that, may be needed for additional panels. We don't care one whit about the wasted energy (the energy from the sun either hits the ground and warms it or warms an electrolyzer) except through the capital requirement for more cell energy. While I personally believe anthropogenic global warming is probably the biggest scientific hoax ever perpertrated I am aware that minimizing carbon emission (and I do agree that less can't be detrimental) is a big goal. Lower electrical efficiency does not translate into higher carbon emission when the source is renewable (wind, solar) except, again, through the need for more panels/turbines. The same is true for the relative energy losses in the two types of batteries themselves.

Economies of scale come into play here as well and that's another reason why I feel that hydrogen's place is at the power plant - not in the car.

Quite reasonable. I discussed it up thread. Hydrogen can store huge amount of electricity in abandoned caverns, aquifers other artificial places. Check out Chevron's Philips Clemens in Texas, that stors 167 GWh of electricity deep in the belly of mother earth quite cheaply (2.1% energy overhead). They are doing that for few decades already. So the real estate needed above ground can be minimal, since the hole is deep underground.
By that measure, the hyped up Big Battery of Australia is just a hole the size of an average American home ( 2000 sq ft.)
Underground hydrogen storage - Wikipedia

And this:
Larger Scale Hydrogen Storage - ScienceDirect

Energy transition to a high proportion of fluctuating electricity obtained from fluctuating wind and solar power generators requires electricity to be stored at various scales. This chapter looks at grid-scale storage on the basis of electrolytically formed hydrogen. Previous forecasts indicate that an industrial country like Germany requires storage capacities in the double-figure terawatt range in the long term. Volumes of energy at this scale can only be stored in the form of hydrogen or in the form of methane synthesized by combining hydrogen with carbon dioxide—in other words, chemical methods. The main method available for the large-scale storage of hydrogen gas is to store the gas in artificially constructed salt caverns. Practical experience has already been gained from the storage of town gas, which contains large amounts of hydrogen, as well as the storage of pure hydrogen. Because suitable salt formations are not available everywhere, other alternatives are being sought, such as the methods used for the storage of natural gas: depleted gas fields and aquifer formations. Research in this context is mainly focused on looking at potential reactions between hydrogen and the constituents of the reservoirs (minerals, fluids, and microorganisms).

But the part where I disagree is your final statement "hydrogen's place is at the power plant - not in the car.".
If hydrogen is already produced and stored partially compressed (200 bars), why not put that in the cars and larger vehicles like semi trucks and buses, to replace the highly inefficient (35%) ICE engines? That is a no brainer to me
Accordign to Hyundai, 60+ mile BEV bus is already more expensive than its fuel cell version. Hyundai has both compelling BEVs and fuel cell cars in the market. So you can't say they are biased against BEVs.
How much is a 400+ mile range electric car?

 

[nwdiver]

If hydrogen is already produced and stored partially compressed (200 bars), why not put that in the cars and larger vehicles like semi trucks and buses, to replace the highly inefficient (35%) ICE engines?

Because we need that Hydrogen for other uses and it's roughly as efficient and WAAAY cheaper to displace CH4 with that H2 and keep burning oil in ICE (Or better yet just use a BEV). When we have a surplus of H2 then yes but we still have a 10B kg/yr deficit.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

Nobody?
Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software





You may want to update your knowledge. You are stuck in the last decade.



(since thumbs up emoji is missing.)

So, more edge case examples? At least a Tesla owner can actually fill to 100%. Many FCEV owners can't do that no matter how long they wait at the pump. This article only came out 4 years ago:

H2 Station Woes

The stations are frequently inoperative, they say, closed for days or weeks at a time.

Moreover, when the stations are functioning properly, they sometimes can only fuel one or two cars before an hour-long wait is required--and some stations can only fuel the cars to half-full.

And considering the recent months long H2 shortage...it doesn't appear much has changed.

 

[ajdelange]

But the part where I disagree is your final statement "hydrogen's place is at the power plant - not in the car.".
If hydrogen is already produced and stored partially compressed (200 bars), why not put that in the cars and larger vehicles like semi trucks and buses, to replace the highly inefficient (35%) ICE engines? That is a no brainer to me

Getting it into the car implies having to get it to the filling station and store it there or producing it at the filling station. I feel that with the current state of the art those things are a bit dangerous in places where there is public access. The recent disaster in Denmark was, of course, illustrative of the risk. If that incident had happened at a wind farm on top of a mountain or at a solar farm in the middle of the desert I wouldn't be so concerned and, of course, if this Israeli/Aussie thing pans out those fears will go away. As for trucks and buses I suppose one could argue that they tend to get refueled at some sort of depot where the risk to the man on the street is somewhat less.

Whether hydrogen as a load leveler works or not is to be determined. I think there's a chance it might but of course I don't know. The economics will be the determinant. The economics for the cars do not, under the current technology, seem too inspiring.

 

[ggr]

Did he check the road closures after every Tesla CAR fire? There are hundreds of them.

This is materially false information. According to a quite comprehensive list there have been 21 Tesla fires. Very few have closed roads, since many happened while charging, in carparks, or after accidents such as driving off a cliff.