Hydrogen vs. Battery

[FutureShock]

Nah! With new [H2] stations, we are doing fine.

Stations?? What, you mean you have TWO of them now? Congratulations!

Funny [about Honda dropping FCV]. Honda already had a city EV, called Fit EV. Demand was so through the roof and they were making such a boatload of money, that they killed it few years back.
Let's hope people buy this one. The cane whipping of people by the European govts may keep this alive little longer than the Fit EV.

Clarity BEV demand is also through the roof in US. It sold a grand total of 35 in just Sept. /s
Things are often not how they are made to look like.
But I am glad that Fred finally found something to write about fuel cell cars.

So, your entire response to a major automaker dropping FCV is to snark about how their BEV lineup hasn't done well to date?
You sound like an angry, jilted lover.

In any case, Honda sees where the market's going (to BEVs), and is naturally following suit. Ah well.

If anything, city cars are what are most suitable for EVs.

LOL, you from 2007 or something? Plenty of BEVs now with 250-375 mile range. Drop the disingenuous FUD, it isn't helping your (lost) cause any.

Look, let me help you out here... this is your future:

1) You're gonna Homer for passenger FCVs for the next several years.

2) They aren't gonna happen. The Mirai gets outsold literally almost 100 to 1 by the Model 3 in the US. That sort of thing is gonna continue.

3) One by one, all the major automakers will throw in the towel on passenger FCVs (as Honda's already done)... with Toyota being the last to go.

4) You'll cry.

5) You'll then switch to exclusively Homer'ing for FCV for heavy transport (trucks, shipping, etc).

6) That probably won't go too well either... but at least there's some chance of success there, unlike with passenger FCVs.

.

 

[JRP3]

I didn't have to go back too far to find FUD from you:



Daimler gave up on fuel cells???? That's what you wanted to hear. But it's not what the article says.

The fuel cell for hydrogen-powered Stromer plays no central role for Källenius in the drives of the future.

Blame Google translate then.

 

[scaesare]

Wow, so you are not charging the car with clean electrons flowing out of your solar panels? I was told differently by some pundits.
My answer was for CO2 reduction. Both EVs and FCEVs have point of use ZEV advantage, which no one disagrees.

It's weird isn't it?? Using excess baseload generation at night so that peak usage during the day could use solar to offset that demand... what a hare-brained idea! And to think some people even think off-peak energy could be cheaper... what idiots!

And, then that fanciful thought that the night time generation should be transitioned ot something renewable... like wind. No chance!

And that dream of assembling together a bunch of battery packs to power things from excess stored renewable energy.... they'd probably even call them something lame like "PowerPacks". What a dumb idea... even the Aussies wouldn't try that! Morons.

So you should go soothe the anger of owners in the range loss thread. They are pi**ed as hell because they feel they were lied about the 30 min charging. It will be easy for you to explain why slower charging is no issue at all. I mean, who doesn't want to hang around at super chargers for an extra hour or two with family & friends while on a long trip?

Thank you, I will. I'll be sure to let them know: "Hey, I'm sorry that for the stretches of your trip where you want to drive past the next 2 superchargers to get to the third one, you'll need to charge for longer than 30 minutes. But I recommend you stay for an extra hour or two even though you'd be finished long before that, so that you can console each other."

For the record, some FCEVs drivers have also put similar annualized miles as yours, even with the limited refueling network, just in CA.

Ooh, good to know! I hadn't even realized that having to drive an hour each way to a fueling station, or them randomly being empty, was actually part of a long-distance testing scenario the manufacturers were conducting on unwitting cutomers to rack up miles on the cars. Clever!

 

[Curious George]

I'm not sure that the liquifaction step is correct, and I think the fuel cell step is missing. The final result though matches what I have read elsewhere.

Yes, those extra steps are @nwdiver 's imaginary stuff.
The idea of CH4 -> fuel cell sounds good theoretically, enough to get me to look it up.
It took a minute of googling to find out that there is no fuel cell that converts CH4 efficiently to electricity.
Breaking the C-H bond takes high temperatures between 650C to 1100 C and is infeasible in cars.
When an efficient methane fuel cell stack is practical, this could become another option.
IMHO, that is an area of early research.

Best Effort Yet To Make Direct Methane Fuel Cell A Reality | November 2, 2015 Issue - Vol. 93 Issue 43 | Chemical & Engineering News

The process converts methane directly to electricity at 80 °C and generates five times the power of any previous low-temperature direct methane fuel cell. But it has limitations: The catalyst deactivates over time, diffusion of methane into the anode is limited, and maximum power density is still too low for real-world use.

 

[SageBrush]

Yes, those extra steps are @nwdiver 's imaginary stuff.

That is not what I am saying, and @nwdiver is not imagining anything.

1. I think the loss related to liquifaction is less than he said
2. I think he missed a step - the conversion of H2 to electricity by the fuel cell with its conversion losses

 

[nwdiver]

Yes, those extra steps are @nwdiver 's imaginary stuff.
The idea of CH4 -> fuel cell sounds good theoretically, enough to get me to look it up.
It took a minute of googling to find out that there is no fuel cell that converts CH4 efficiently to electricity.
Breaking the C-H bond takes high temperatures between 650C to 1100 C and is infeasible in cars.
When an efficient methane fuel cell stack is practical, this could become another option.
IMHO, that is an area of early research.

Best Effort Yet To Make Direct Methane Fuel Cell A Reality | November 2, 2015 Issue - Vol. 93 Issue 43 | Chemical & Engineering News

I assumed ~35% loss to liquify H2. According to this report it's 30-40%... even if you assume a generous 25% loss you're still only going to get ~90 miles in a FCEV after all the conversion losses. So you're still spending FAR more and getting less than if you burn CH4 directly in ICE.

I wasn't assuming a CH4 fuel cell but CH4 direct combustion which yields ~38mpg. If you disagree with my numbers what are YOUR numbers? No matter which way you run it the best use cases for 100kWh of CH4 is

BEST - BEV with ~160 miles of driving
2nd Best - CH4 in ICE ~100 miles of driving
WORST - CH4 steam reformed to H2 transported as LH2 and used in a FCEV ~ 90 miles

Totally agree it's great to use surplus wind or solar to make H2. By all means... split water... but there's no reason to then waste H2 that is expensive to produce in a car when super-cheap CH4 is just as efficient.

 

[FutureShock]

SCORECARD... (IOW, "Oh noes, FACTS")

Number of EVs on US roads: Over 1.1 million

Number of FCVs on US roads: 6,558

IOW, about 170 EVs for every FCV. Or, put more succinctly.... "What's an FCV?"


Fact of the Month March 2019: There Are More Than 6,500 Fuel Cell Vehicles On the Road in the U.S.

Number of plug-in cars climbs to 5.6M worldwide - electrive.com
.

 

[nwdiver]

Add this to the list of losses...

'it can be shown that boil-off losses can vary from 15% of delivered LH2 for a 100 kg/day, 5% at 400 kg/day, and down to less than 2% for stations above 1,800 kg/day'
​

 

[FactsBot]

I assumed ~35% loss to liquify H2. According to this report it's 30-40%... even if you assume a generous 25% loss you're still only going to get ~90 miles in a FCEV after all the conversion losses. So you're still spending FAR more and getting less than if you burn CH4 directly in ICE.

I wasn't assuming a CH4 fuel cell but CH4 direct combustion which yields ~38mpg. If you disagree with my numbers what are YOUR numbers? No matter which way you run it the best use cases for 100kWh of CH4 is

BEST - BEV with ~160 miles of driving
2nd Best - CH4 in ICE ~100 miles of driving
WORST - CH4 steam reformed to H2 transported as LH2 and used in a FCEV ~ 90 miles

Totally agree it's great to use surplus wind or solar to make H2. By all means... split water... but there's no reason to then waste H2 that is expensive to produce in a car when super-cheap CH4 is just as efficient.

There are 3 transportation methods that are being tested in Japan. Not saying that any of them has excellent roundtrip efficiency but one might become cheap over time.

 

[nwdiver]

Not saying that any of them has excellent roundtrip efficiency but one might become cheap over time.

..... which goes back to my main point that this isn't even worth considering until industrial H2 demand is met by clean H2. From a GHG perspective it makes no sense to lose H2 as a transport fuel if we're still converting ~13kWh of CH4 into ~10kWh of H2.... Just use the 13kWh of CH4 or better yet.... use a BEV

Only once there's a surplus of clean H2 will round trip efficiency stop being a HUGE concern.

 

[FactsBot]

..... which goes back to my main point that this isn't even worth considering until industrial H2 demand is met by clean H2. From a GHG perspective it makes no sense to lose H2 as a transport fuel if we're still converting ~13kWh of CH4 into ~10kWh of H2.... Just use the 13kWh of CH4 or better yet.... use a BEV

Only once there's a surplus of clean H2 will round trip efficiency stop being a HUGE concern.

It is very challenging to increase the share of renewables in Japan due to the high population density. It makes sense to connect them with Australia.

 

[nwdiver]

It is very challenging to increase the share of renewables in Japan due to the high population density. It makes sense to connect them with Australia.


View attachment 475860

..... ok..... what does that have to do with FCEVs?

There's this weird dichotomy on this thread that the natural alternative to wind or solar powered BEVs is somehow H2. It's not. Using CH4 directly or to generate electricity is better. Can't produce enough energy domestically? Ok.... import LNG or better yet build HVDC. CH4 is where most H2 comes from anyway... adding a middleman is rarely better. Except with BEVs because they're so absurdly efficient.

From a GHG perspective it makes no sense to use H2 as an energy carrier if we're still converting ~13kWh of CH4 into ~10kWh of H2.... Just transport 13kWh of CH4.

The irony here is that one of the best ways to transport Hydrogen in terms of efficiency and safety probably IS CH4. And it has the benefit that you can get energy without the conversion loss of turning it INTO H2. So..... why not just use CH4? But... it's harder to greenwash people so.... I guess that's not really an option is it

 

[FactsBot]

..... ok..... what does that have to do with FCEVs?

There's this weird dichotomy on this thread that the natural alternative to wind or solar powered BEVs is somehow H2. It's not. Using CH4 directly or to generate electricity is better. Can't produce enough energy domestically? Ok.... import LNG or better yet build HVDC. CH4 is where most H2 comes from anyway... adding a middleman is rarely better. Expect with BEVs because they're so absurdly efficient.

From a GHG perspective it makes no sense to use H2 as an energy carrier if we're still converting ~13kWh of CH4 into ~10kWh of H2.... Just transport 13kWh of CH4.

Japan is the largest LNG importer in the world. They could replace the entire car park with that if they wanted to. The only thing that explains their steps is that they want to be emission free. Hard to understand your resistance regarding this.
Additionally they may know something we don't. They can't rely on the HVDC. It may come alive and be ok for 20 years but needs an alternative that can be turned on quickly.

 

[nwdiver]

The only thing that explains their steps is that they want to be emission free.

For probably the 10th time now..... importing H2 as a fuel does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to help achieve that. They would be INCREASING their net emissions by ~30%.

From a GHG perspective it makes no sense to use H2 as an energy carrier if we're still converting ~13kWh of CH4 into ~10kWh of H2.... Just transport 13kWh of CH4.

What part of this is so confusing to you? Until industrial H2 demand is met using H2 as a fuel is literally worse than useless. You're literally spending $$$... A LOT of $$$ to make things WORSE.

Hard to understand your resistance regarding this.

Math. Incredibly simple Math. If you have 100kg of clean H2 from wind... and want energy.... then trade it for 130kg of CH4. You get more energy and someone else saves a lot of $$$.

 

[FactsBot]

For probably the 10th time now..... importing H2 as a fuel does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to help achieve that. They would be INCREASING their net emissions by ~30%.




What part of this is so confusing to you? Until industrial H2 demand is met using H2 as a fuel is literally worse than useless. You're literally spending $$$... A LOT of $$$ to make things WORSE.

Their primary goal is to import green hydrogen. I have already showed that. Temporarily they will import fossil H2 as well for the pilot programs.

Why don't you argue with them by the way...

 

[nwdiver]

Their primary goal is to import green hydrogen.

Then it's literally just a fraud because they could easily trade their 'Green H2' for >2x more CH4. They save $$$. Emissions are lower. Everyone wins.

From a GHG perspective it makes no sense to use H2 as an energy carrier if we're still converting ~13kWh of CH4 into ~10kWh of H2.... Just transport 13kWh of CH4.

The cost difference is stark. Per Gallon Gasoline Equivalent (~34kWh)

H2 - $12
LNG - $0.32

If they have ~equal value as a FUEL... why would you chose H2???? We need to split more water... totally agree... but there's a 10B kg/yr demand to be met for H2 before it makes any sense to start using it as a fuel. Using H2 as an energy source is like buying firewood at Ashleys....

 

[JRP3]

Why don't you argue with them by the way...

"They" aren't posting here.

 

[mblakele]

This discussion about Japan seems to be a red herring, to distract from H2's failure in the marketplace — and to drive engagement with misinformation.

It's tempting to think that certain users are paid to make that happen. Amateurs usually aren't quite so enthusiastically and creatively obtuse.

Getting back to the facts: BEV is burying HFCEV in the passenger vehicle market. BEV is affordable, efficient, and green — right now, whereas HFCEV is pie in the sky. Plus BEV will benefit as the grid continues to get cleaner and battery technologies continue to improve. On past form that means BEV will stay well ahead of HFCEV.

 

[FactsBot]

Then it's literally just a fraud because they could easily trade their 'Green H2' for >2x more CH4. They save $$$. Emissions are lower. Everyone wins.

From a GHG perspective it makes no sense to use H2 as an energy carrier if we're still converting ~13kWh of CH4 into ~10kWh of H2.... Just transport 13kWh of CH4.

The cost difference is stark. Per Gallon Gasoline Equivalent (~34kWh)

H2 - $12
LNG - $0.32

If they have ~equal value as a FUEL... why would you chose H2???? We need to split more water... totally agree... but there's a 10B kg/yr demand to be met for H2 before it makes any sense to start using it as a fuel. Using H2 as an energy source is like buying firewood at Ashleys....

I have one guess.

"electricity accounts for the majority of gas consumption"

if they are already producing the majority of electricity by LNG, then the only way they can bring emissions down if they switch nat gas to something. Replacing nuclear with LNG would increase emissions.

The Carbon Brief Profile: Japan | Carbon Brief

I guess CH4 sourced H2 is temporary and serves only for the pilot programs.

Japan’s vision to realize a “Hydrogen-Based Society” | Insights | DLA Piper Global Law Firm

 

[nwdiver]

I have one guess.

"electricity accounts for the majority of gas consumption"

if they are already producing the majority of electricity by LNG, then the only way they can bring emissions down if they switch nat gas to something. Replacing nuclear with LNG would increase emissions.

The Carbon Brief Profile: Japan | Carbon Brief

I guess CH4 sourced H2 is temporary and serves only for the pilot programs.

Japan’s vision to realize a “Hydrogen-Based Society” | Insights | DLA Piper Global Law Firm

Um.... no..... CH4 sourced H2 solves literally nothing over just CH4........ because....... math.

And the 10B kg/yr deficit isn't something that can be resolved anytime soon. Their pilot program is ~20 years too early. They should focus on more efficient electrolysis... that WOULD be useful. Then sell the H2 AS H2.