Hydrogen vs. Battery

[Curious George]

Daimler just released their FCEV and can wait 5 years to see how it plays out since things are happening slowly
Germany expands hydrogen infrastructure - electrive.com
Plan for 80 hydrogen fuel stations for Ireland by 2030

VW was forced to enter the BEV business, but even they are careful. For example they were ok with lower efficiency in the Audi E-Tron by using induction motors instead of permanent magnets, since these latter need rare metals and they expect some shortage or at least price volatility there. For some reason all the Germans are careful making steps in EV world.

@FactsBot You say you speak German and are following German market.
What's the deal with Germany? It has set up so many stations, more than in California actually. The hydrogen is also cheaper there, I think.
Still very few fuel cell cars are sold/leased there. Why? Lack of incentives/zev credits?

I am asking because I am genuinely confused about the situation there. Korea has cars. japan has cars.
California has cars. But Germany very few cars.

 

[Curious George]

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.

You seem to get stuck in the worst case for H2 to prove your point, and always get stuck in today's nascent stage of H2 economy.
Liquefaction is not necessary for hydrogen transport/use. it is only important for long haul transport, and is cheaper to start up the infrastructure.
There is no reason the hydrogen station can't be supplied with a pipeline from the generation plant.
And to get 10k psi H2 from low pressure H2, it is just 3% of the energy, IIRC.
Hydrogen Pipelines

* 1600 miles of H2 already in place in the gulf coast today.

Also, if efficiency was everything, the world should be promoting bicycles and electric trams
That Honda CNG car had much lower range (200 miles) and was much smaller compared to today's FCEVs.
There are many more factors other than efficiency: driving experience, govt credits, green washing by govt/society, economic motivation, etc. etc.

 

[nwdiver]

You seem to get stuck in the worst case for H2 to prove your point, and always get stuck in today's nascent stage of H2 economy.
Liquefaction is not necessary for hydrogen transport/use. it is only important for long haul transport, and is cheaper to start up the infrastructure.
There is no reason the hydrogen station can't be supplied with a pipeline from the generation plant.
And to get 10k psi H2 from low pressure H2, it is just 3% of the energy, IIRC.

Also, if efficiency was everything, the world should be promoting bicycles and electric trams
That Honda CNG car had much lower range (200 miles) and was much smaller compared to today's FCEVs.
There are manymore factors other than efficiency: driving experience, govt credits, green washing by govt/society, economic motivation, etc. etc.

I'm not the one that pointed to LH2 as the solution for the persistent supply shortages...

Good question! The significances are:
- It brings some supply to the north bay area around San Francisco. So a little better for @ohmman 's neighbor with the Mirai.
- It has two nozzles, doubling the throughput. The compressor capacity is still little bit of unknown.
- New stations are going to be like this; high capacity based on liquid hydrogen. Many of the existing ones, which used gaseous hydrogen delivery, were cheaper to build but a truck could only bring ~150 kg, enough for 40-50 cars.
- Also, only one supplier for gaseous hydrogen, which is the cause of the current crisis. For liquid hydrogen, there are multiple suppliers.
- A single liquid hydrogen carrier truck can haul 4000-6000 kg of hydrogen; good for 1000-1500 cars! This lowers the trucking cost a little, but there are some energy penalty for liquefying the hydrogen.
View attachment 457477

This change is needed as number of cars have grown, and so refueling is going to the next stage!
Liquid H2 is what's keeping couple of stations (Mountain view and San Ramon) alive, each with 350 kg of supply per day.

This doesn't solve the current shortage as the small stations based on gaseous delivery remain in trouble, and a single supplier air products is causing the supply disruption. But the new ones coming up around them should solve this issue in future. It's a matter of when, not if.

Efficiency isn't 'everything' .... but it's also not 'nothing'... there's a limit to what's viable...

 

[mblakele]

It must be painful trying to push the same silly ol' FUD every day. At least it's making us laugh!

 

[nwdiver]

It must be painful trying to push the same silly ol' FUD every day. At least it's making us laugh!

Only took ~3k posts for him to get to the point... trying to convince us that Hybrids are the real 'solution'. I'm sensing a common theme

 

[mblakele]

Only took ~3k posts for him to get to the point... trying to convince us that Hybrids are the real 'solution'. I'm sensing a common theme

I went back and looked at post history: turns out hybrids are a recurring theme. "Hybrids and (semi) electric cars can save the planet just fine for now." "BEVs also won't look good compared to efficient hybrids." etc — FUD ad nauseam.

So why bother making hydrogen?

 

[SageBrush]

Problem #1 for hybrids is that so few people in the USA want them. Toyota is doing much better with hybrids in Europe.

 

[FutureShock]

I went back and looked at post history: turns out hybrids are a recurring theme. "Hybrids and (semi) electric cars can save the planet just fine for now." "BEVs also won't look good compared to efficient hybrids." etc — FUD ad nauseam.

So why bother making hydrogen?

Hmm, constantly Homer’ing for hybrids and FCVs... maybe CG is a Toyota employee, lol.
.

 

[mblakele]

Hmm, constantly Homer’ing for hybrids and FCVs... maybe CG is a Toyota employee, lol.
.

Maybe just a contractor? Anyway if he's being paid, they're paying him too much.

 

[nwdiver]

Hmm, constantly Homer’ing for hybrids and FCVs... maybe CG is a Toyota employee, lol.
.

The FCEV nonsense as a solution to perceived issues with BEVs reminds me of the plot of 'Interstellar'... when they couldn't farm Okra anymore so clearly the only solution was to evacuate Earth.

Pretty much every 'issue' 'solved' by a FCEV has even more problems that are nearly insurmountable in the near future.

 

[SageBrush]

The enduring reason that hybrids have not caught on in the USA is mediocre performance. I wonder how many FCEV advocates realize that those cars have similar performance ?

 

[Curious George]

Imagine how clean coal would be if we just left it underground!

Well.. we agree on one thing at least. Now tell that to people chargign their electric car swith coal power please

 

[nwdiver]

Well.. we agree on one thing at least. Now tell that to people chargign their electric car swith coal power please

Which emits more CO2? 100 tons of CO2 from oil or 80 tons of CO2 from coal? Math

 

[FutureShock]

Well.. we agree on one thing at least. Now tell that to people chargign their electric car swith coal power please

Coal’s only 25% of the grid, and dropping fast.

Now, ‘go tell dat’ to the majority of FCV owners who get their H2 from natural gas steam reformation.
.

 

[mblakele]

The FCEV nonsense as a solution to perceived issues with BEVs reminds me of the plot of 'Interstellar'... when they couldn't farm Okra anymore so clearly the only solution was to evacuate Earth.

Pretty much every 'issue' 'solved' by a FCEV has even more problems that are nearly insurmountable in the near future.

Yep, H2 for passenger vehicles sounds a lot like something a Hollywood script writer would come up with.

 

[nwdiver]

Yep, H2 for passenger vehicles sounds a lot like something a Hollywood script writer would come up with.

And the Energy path DEFINITELY does. It's like the LOTR of energy. 'Why didn't the Eagles just carry you to the volcano?' .... 'Why not just use the CH4 as fuel?'

 

[FutureShock]

The enduring reason that hybrids have not caught on in the USA is mediocre performance. I wonder how many FCEV advocates realize that those cars have similar performance ?

Too true... FCVs are 0 to 60 in about ten minutes, lol.

‘Bout as fun to drive as an early Prius.
.

 

[FactsBot]

@FactsBot You say you speak German and are following German market.
What's the deal with Germany? It has set up so many stations, more than in California actually. The hydrogen is also cheaper there, I think.
Still very few fuel cell cars are sold/leased there. Why? Lack of incentives/zev credits?

I am asking because I am genuinely confused about the situation there. Korea has cars. japan has cars.
California has cars. But Germany very few cars.

Difference between Germans and Japanese is that the Japanese think they can make fuel cell cars become as cheap as an ICE. While the German fuel cell movement is forced by the CO2 emission standards.

Clean mobility: New CO2 emission standards for cars and vans adopted - Climate Action - European Commission

If they can't reach the 2030 target with ICE/hybrids but can't produce/sell enough batteries for EVs for some reason, they will have to start making FCEVs. Right now they are just waiting and have platforms ready.
Some expect battery shortages and prefer fuel cells for trucks. It's also good for renewable energy storage. Others think that renewable energy storage can be solved by controlled charging. Similar to what nwdiver mentioned. Buy a PHEV but you can charge it only on specific days. If you have a BEV with large battery, you can charge it every few days only depending on the availability of green sources.

So why bother making hydrogen?
They think synthetic kerosene might be the alternative for current aviation fuel and H2 is needed for that for example. Synthetic fuel is also expected for ships, trucking and maybe for passenger cars.

 

[Saghost]

Too true... FCVs are 0 to 60 in about ten minutes, lol.

‘Bout as fun to drive as an early Prius.
.

That’s part of how you know it’s greenwashing.

A FCEV actually intended for mass adoption would look a lot like a Volt - or even an i3.

That is, they take the most expensive part of the car, the fuel cell, and downsize it, leaving it just large enough to handle freeway average load with a comfortable margin, and add several kilowatt hours of cheaper batteries to handle the acceleration - and a charger module to charge that battery at home. That would also mean EV acceleration is in easy reach, depending on battery and motor size and design.

There is no good technical reason to build an FCEV the way they are *all* being built (except for one or two concepts that were only seen a couple times,) so clearly there are non-technical reasons to do it.

The one that seems most likely to me is to keep the separation between EVs and fuel cells in the public’s mind, so they can denigrate EVs and hold fuel cells as the only answer.

 

[SageBrush]

That’s part of how you know it’s greenwashing.

A FCEV actually intended for mass adoption would look a lot like a Volt - or even an i3.

That is, they take the most expensive part of the car, the fuel cell, and downsize it, leaving it just large enough to handle freeway average load with a comfortable margin, and add several kilowatt hours of cheaper batteries to handle the acceleration - and a charger module to charge that battery at home. That would also mean EV acceleration is in easy reach, depending on battery and motor size and design.

There is no good technical reason to build an FCEV the way they are *all* being built (except for one or two concepts that were only seen a couple times,) so clearly there are non-technical reasons to do it.

The one that seems most likely to me is to keep the separation between EVs and fuel cells in the public’s mind, so they can denigrate EVs and hold fuel cells as the only answer.

I was looking at the Toyota Mirai specs yesterday:

111 kW motor
244 Volt, 9 kW battery


I've always understood FCEV to be a an EV/Fuel_cell hybrid but I don't understand this battery spec. Can you explain it ?