Hydrogen vs. Battery

[just-an-allusion]

I've seen a number of individuals mention throughout this thread (and elsewhere) the matter of a perceived need to develop an EV charging infrastructure in the form of "stations" for the purpose of convenience for owners whom are commuting over distances beyond the Tesla's present range.

I'd like to take this time to address this particular issue by expressing that it is my understanding that the Tesla comes with a "portable charging pack" that allows the owner to "plug in" to any convenient outlet, anywhere, to act as an intermediary (a transformer/power inverter) between the typical power supply and the Tesla for the purpose of recharging depleted batteries.

So, do I have this wrong (my perception of the Tesla's "power pack") or is this, perhaps, some oversight on behalf of the Tesla developers that needs to be addressed as it would readily circumvent any need for any form of a supportive infrastructure development and provide just that much more of a "practical" image to prospective buyers/investors as it's always a bonus when a technology is self-supporting.

 

[JRP3]

Plugging in anywhere is possible, but without a 220 volt high amp outlet recharging will be very slow. Hence the need to build high power charging stations to take advantage of fast charge capability.

 

[just-an-allusion]

One thing I've always wondered about when it comes to Hydrogen FC, is why noone seems to be trying to use them for aviation. For commercial aviation you don't care about the price of the fuelcell (or not nearly as much as with a car). Their fueling stations, read airports, already have infrastructure or is so limited in numbers building out infrastructure makes sense. They've got qualified technician to handle any problems. They are not that much conserned with efficiency, they are flying after all. Cryogenic storage has a higher weight/energy ratio than batteries which is important for flights...
Can someone tell me why this would be a bad idea ? Not the least so all that research could be used for something usefull..

Cobos

Good points all around...I think that the question comes down to whether or not an aeroplane(jet or prop) is capable of housing a tank (or tanks) that maintains a pressure of 3-5 bar and a consistent temperature of -250C to restrict the hydrogen to a liquid state irregardless of the elevation of flight which, as anyone who has flown knows, encompasses a variety of air pressures depending on the elevation of flight at any given point.

 

[doug]

Plugging in anywhere is possible, but without a 220 volt high amp outlet recharging will be very slow. Hence the need to build high power charging stations to take advantage of fast charge capability.

We should be clear, though. The fast charging Siry appears to be talking about is not the 240V 70A charge that might get you another 75 miles after an hour or so. He seems to mean fast charging as in 5 minutes or less, which is another thing all together.

 

[malcolm]

He seems to mean fast charging as in 5 minutes or less, which is another thing all together.

But in order to ensure a good return on their investment, the developers of ultra-fast charging systems would, quite naturally, be keen to see some form of proprietory connector - the inductive paddle from the 90s is just one example - as a way of locking customers in to using their system.

Otherwise we're back to the same old argument that customers will prefer, wherever possible to access cheaper ($/kWh) and slower delivery of electricity at home (or in the office parking lot) compared with more expensive delivery of the same amount of energy from an ultra-fast station.

If you could make your own gas legally, safely and more conveniently and cheaply (but more slowly) at home, would you continue to queue up at the local gas station? (Okay the family might complain about the smell - just imagine it's odorless)

So are there enough long distance road trips going on to justify and support the development and cost of ultra-fast battery packs and charging stations? I just don't think there's going to be enough of this sort of traffic unless you can use a proprietory connector to create a captive customer base.

As EV numbers rise, owners with the space will still be able to keep their ICEs; they are still the ideal vehicle for longer journeys. BEVs become the weekly workhorses. ICEs become the grand tourer of choice. Families may choose to car pool the ICE amongst relatives. There are lots of alternatives.

The BEV doesn't have to be the answer to every motoring problem.

Getting back on topic; does this leave any market for hydrogen? I don't think so. The combination of BEVs and ICEs have it covered providing that BEV manufacturers stay focussed and don't get distracted into developing unnecessary fast-charge this and battery-swap that.

 

[Chris H.]

.....and hydrogen ICE should be less costly and more efficient than a fuel cell.

I think that you're correct. I believe that this is the route that both BMW and Mazda are following.

The problem continues to be a source of cheap H2, plus the required infrastructure...

 

[doug]

Talk about hydrogen planes and hydrogen "sponge" storage got moved:

Hydrogen planes
Hydrogen Storage

 

[dpeilow]

Reposting this as it seems to have been lost in the site crash:

Honda FCX Clarity: Beauty for beauty's sake - Los Angeles Times

Face it: Fuel-cell technology has been eclipsed by vastly cheaper, here-now advances in batteries and plug-in electric vehicles. To knit together even the barest network of H2 refueling stations would cost billions. And, in any case, the fuel itself, whether produced by cracking natural gas or hydrolyzing water (consult your freshman chemistry texts), represents a horrible energy return on investment.


Behold, the grand and lovely futility of the FCX Clarity. It's hard to scold something so wonderful, so I won't. Just bring me one that I can plug in.

 

[JRP3]

Great article. This is part of the problem:

First, major manufacturers must begin complying with California's mandate that each sell 7,500 zero-emission vehicles between 2012 and 2014. Fuel-cell vehicles get extra points in meeting this quota.

That incentive needs to be taken away, it's artificially creating a demand for hydrogen vehicles.

 

[dpeilow]

Another site picks up the story. Hopefully this will pick up momentum.

Hydrogen motoring too heavy for pundit ? Register Hardware

 

[vfx]

Another site picks up the story. Hopefully this will pick up momentum.

Hydrogen motoring too heavy for pundit ? Register Hardware

Tesla is used at a standard. Nice. Thank you Martin.

 

[vfx]

Another site picks up the story. Hopefully this will pick up momentum.

Snowball!

Climate Progress Blog Archive L.A. Times: “Hydrogen fuel-cell technology won’t work in cars.” Duh. Time for Obama and Chu to kill the program.

 

[doug]

Some opinion from the hydrogen side.

EVcast did an interview with this morning with the Greg Blencoe, the CEO of a company that wants to sell hydrogen pipelines, who wrote the following article.

Fallacy of energy efficiency argument against hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by plug-in battery advocates For hydrogen advocates only

Listen to the interview here:
EVcast #181: Interview with Greg Blencoe

The article is a good example of failed logic and specious reasoning.

 

[Cobos]

Doug, I probably know this but could you say explicitly what is wrong with his logic ? I figure I can always use some more good arguments.

Cobos

 

[JRP3]

That article has so many problems I'm not sure where to start.
He compares a full sized hydrogen SUV to a limited range compact EV.
Somehow he thinks that since wind and solar energy are so abundant it doesn't matter how efficiently we use them.
He ignores the costs and maintenance of Fuel cells and a hydrogen infrastructure.
He asks "why haven’t people been driving plug-in battery vehicles for the last 100 years?"
The whole article is so ridiculous I can't believe anyone would put that into print.

 

[stopcrazypp]

That article has so many problems I'm not sure where to start.
He compares a full sized hydrogen SUV to a limited range compact EV.
Somehow he thinks that since wind and solar energy are so abundant it doesn't matter how efficiently we use them.
He ignores the costs and maintenance of Fuel cells and a hydrogen infrastructure.
He asks "why haven’t people been driving plug-in battery vehicles for the last 100 years?"
The whole article is so ridiculous I can't believe anyone would put that into print.

He seems to have totally forgotten (or purposefully omitted) the Toyota RAV4 EV.

And outright ridiculous to imply that somehow EVs will always be limited to small compact cars, given all hydrogen fuel cell cars are essentially EVs but with a hydrogen fuel cell & hydrogen tank instead of a large battery pack.

The major car companies decision to push small EV concepts are following the existing stereotype. I don't believe there is a conspiracy or anything but being EVs actually have a chance of making it to the showroom, I see two reason why they introduce smaller EVs. First being if they are planning to offer one to the market, a smaller one is going to be a lot more affordable. The other being that they are possibly reluctant to go full bore into EVs and release smaller ones so the public will want to wait for the hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (this part is conspiracy theory-ist).

Basically the second part of his main argument summarized in this quote:

Furthermore, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are far superior to plug-in battery vehicles in terms of driving range, fueling time, passenger and trunk space, etc.

Driving range, fueling time, he has some point. The passenger & trunk space argument is complete junk.

Then there's his argument about "abundant" renewable energy. If you look at the renewable energy market now, you realize it is far from "abundant". And in fact, it is fairly expensive. Therefore it would make logical sense to use the resources as efficiently as possible.

 

[vfx]

Considering the highest profits ever recorded by a corporation for the last few years are the suppliers of fuel for our cars, this man will say or do anything to become the successor.

Who controls the world's energy controls the world.

 

[doug]

Doug, I probably know this but could you say explicitly what is wrong with his logic ? I figure I can always use some more good arguments.

Well, it's clear that Mr. Blencoe's motivation is not so much to inform, but to capitalize on some H2 pipeline technology his father developed. I won't try to point out all the problems with his blog post, just a brief comment.

It is true that there are times when we choose to, and it even makes sense to sacrifice efficiency for the benefit of increased utility. However, to make a case for hydrogen, Mr. Blencoe contorts reality to suggest renewable energy is so abundant that it's ok to waste it, therefore the fact that BEVs are more efficient than HFCVs doesn't matter. He must be living in some sort of future land dream world. I think efficiency is going to be important for a good long while, perhaps forever. It's not like we don't use electricity for other things. A main problem with his arguments, which is also mentioned in the podcast, is that he's trying to compare the BEV and energy infrastructure of today (or even yesterday) with the HFCV and energy (including hydrogen) infrastructure of some potential future. This is either failed logic or intellectual dishonestly.

Unfortunately his blog does not appear to take comments.

 

[shark2k]

Unfortunately his blog does not appear to take comments.

Cause he probably does not feel like having to deal with people proving him wrong. He has not problem writing the lie, but having someone confront him through comments is probably to much for him :biggrin:.

BTW, what does HFCV stand for?

-Shark2k

 

[stopcrazypp]

Cause he probably does not feel like having to deal with people proving him wrong. He has not problem writing the lie, but having someone confront him through comments is probably to much for him :biggrin:.

BTW, what does HFCV stand for?

-Shark2k

HFCV stands for Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle.