Hydrogen vs. Battery

[lklundin]

Toyota, Shell Among Giants Betting $10.7 Billion on Hydrogen

This one


New "Hydrogen Council" launches in Davos | TOYOTA Global Newsroom

For Shell (and any other oil company) this is a deceptive act of desperation.

Shell knows that BEVs will kill the gas stations and that Shell's death will be collateral damage.

So they latch on to the pathetic hydrogen technology, because that still requires the car owner to go to a gas station for the fuel, offering a continued business case for the soon to be obsolete oil industry.

The talk about reducing CO2 emissions is nothing but a red herring, it is all about keeping people as customers at gas stations that Shell can supply.

 

[McRat]

For Shell (and any other oil company) this is a deceptive act of desperation.

Shell knows that BEVs will kill the gas stations and that Shell's death will be collateral damage.

So they latch on to the pathetic hydrogen technology, because that still requires the car owner to go to a gas station for the fuel, offering a continued business case for the soon to be obsolete oil industry.

The talk about reducing CO2 emissions is nothing but a red herring, it is all about keeping people as customers at gas stations that Shell can supply.

Perhaps more than that. Commercial H2 is produced at refineries by cracking fossil fuels with a tremendous CO2 footprint.

H2 is a currently a premium and profitable limited production product for oil companies. And by lobbying with the H2 Club, they will probably get CO2 credits for making H2 as a side effect.

Make no mistake, the H2 Club is all about lobbying for government monies. In California, H2 gov't assistance draws several times the tax dollars per car as EV cars are allocated. The H2 Club claiming $11b investment in 5 years for all facets of H2 systems? Not impressed, especially when there isn't a binding agreement.

GM makes H2 vehicles for the military and has the most experience, but they did not join the H2 soup line:

General Motors has been working on hydrogen fuel cell cars for 50 years

 

[ig_epower]

Perhaps more than that. Commercial H2 is produced at refineries by cracking fossil fuels with a tremendous CO2 footprint.

H2 is a currently a premium and profitable limited production product for oil companies. And by lobbying with the H2 Club, they will probably get CO2 credits for making H2 as a side effect.

Make no mistake, the H2 Club is all about lobbying for government monies. In California, H2 gov't assistance draws several times the tax dollars per car as EV cars are allocated. The H2 Club claiming $11b investment in 5 years for all facets of H2 systems? Not impressed, especially when there isn't a binding agreement.

GM makes H2 vehicles for the military and has the most experience, but they did not join the H2 soup line:

General Motors has been working on hydrogen fuel cell cars for 50 years

No denying whether there is a more sinister agenda at play here but couldn't H2 be generated by simple electrolysis using solar power at home? Much like phase two in Tesla's plan is to encourage everyone to generate (and store) their own electricity through solar panels and store in PowerWalls for car charging at night, the same can be done with local H2 production and stored in tanks. The issue may be the liquefaction of the generated gas. But someone will solve it if they are truly committed. Overall, I like the battery EV concept better than the combustible solutions but obviously from a science perspective, the engineers are trying to solve an energy transfer limitation of charging batteries versus pumping fuel. I always thought the LNG solution was kind of neat because in my area, natural gas is pumped directly to the homes now. That solves the fuel delivery problem and the fueling time constraint but I guess it doesn't solve the non-renewable source conundrum.

Meanwhile, someone in the H2 camp has a pretty compelling powerpoint presentation to garner $11B worth of support.

 

[McRat]

No denying whether there is a more sinister agenda at play here but couldn't H2 be generated by simple electrolysis using solar power at home? Much like phase two in Tesla's plan is to encourage everyone to generate (and store) their own electricity through solar panels and store in PowerWalls for car charging at night, the same can be done with local H2 production and stored in tanks. The issue may be the liquefaction of the generated gas. But someone will solve it if they are truly committed. Overall, I like the battery EV concept better than the combustible solutions but obviously from a science perspective, the engineers are trying to solve an energy transfer limitation of charging batteries versus pumping fuel. I always thought the LNG solution was kind of neat because in my area, natural gas is pumped directly to the homes now. That solves the fuel delivery problem and the fueling time constraint but I guess it doesn't solve the non-renewable source conundrum.

Meanwhile, someone in the H2 camp has a pretty compelling powerpoint presentation to garner $11B worth of support.

You would need very expensive compression equipment and filling interlocks. You would need a lot solar power and an expensive holding tank. And it would cost more than just buying H2 commercially when you allow for the cost of capital and typical driving distances and FC lifespan.

The H2 lobby has been very successful in California by misrepresenting the technology. There is a lot of money to be made if tax dollars do most the capitalization. H2 cost per mile is 25 cents US in a compact sedan (C&D 2016). This is higher than a 1-ton dually pickup. And far higher than a large SUV.

A Prius averages 6.1 cents per mile at high California gas prices.

 

[Yggdrasill]

No denying whether there is a more sinister agenda at play here but couldn't H2 be generated by simple electrolysis using solar power at home? Much like phase two in Tesla's plan is to encourage everyone to generate (and store) their own electricity through solar panels and store in PowerWalls for car charging at night, the same can be done with local H2 production and stored in tanks.

Hydrogen is hard to contain, and is the most explosive gas known to man. I certainly wouldn't trust an aging hydrogen storage system.

And you may get away with installing an electrolyzer today, but it wouldn't be long before the regulation would catch up, with annual inspections, etc. I think it would be way more effort than it would be worth.

The issue may be the liquefaction of the generated gas.

To liquify hydrogen you need to cool it to −253 °C / −424 °F. And then you need to maintain that low temperature, to avoid boiloff, wasting lots of energy.

It's easier to compress it to an acceptable energy density. 200-700 bar is sufficient. (This is quite a lot.)

 

[stopcrazypp]

No denying whether there is a more sinister agenda at play here but couldn't H2 be generated by simple electrolysis using solar power at home? Much like phase two in Tesla's plan is to encourage everyone to generate (and store) their own electricity through solar panels and store in PowerWalls for car charging at night, the same can be done with local H2 production and stored in tanks. The issue may be the liquefaction of the generated gas. But someone will solve it if they are truly committed. Overall, I like the battery EV concept better than the combustible solutions but obviously from a science perspective, the engineers are trying to solve an energy transfer limitation of charging batteries versus pumping fuel. I always thought the LNG solution was kind of neat because in my area, natural gas is pumped directly to the homes now. That solves the fuel delivery problem and the fueling time constraint but I guess it doesn't solve the non-renewable source conundrum.

Meanwhile, someone in the H2 camp has a pretty compelling powerpoint presentation to garner $11B worth of support.

Yes, you can have a home electrolyzer, but it'll be more expensive and slower than a home EVSE (due to the need for compression of hydrogen). The energy is better used in an EV (it'll be roughly 3x as efficient on a per-mile basis).

 

[xmetal]

Hydrogen, go home, you're drunk. (results as of Jan 2017).

Electric, btw, is over 15,000, and nearly every building in the country already has electricity and could be used to make more charging stations quite a bit easier than adding in hydrogen tanks and filling stations.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

No denying whether there is a more sinister agenda at play here but couldn't H2 be generated by simple electrolysis using solar power at home? Much like phase two in Tesla's plan is to encourage everyone to generate (and store) their own electricity through solar panels and store in PowerWalls for car charging at night, the same can be done with local H2 production and stored in tanks. The issue may be the liquefaction of the generated gas. But someone will solve it if they are truly committed. Overall, I like the battery EV concept better than the combustible solutions but obviously from a science perspective, the engineers are trying to solve an energy transfer limitation of charging batteries versus pumping fuel. I always thought the LNG solution was kind of neat because in my area, natural gas is pumped directly to the homes now. That solves the fuel delivery problem and the fueling time constraint but I guess it doesn't solve the non-renewable source conundrum.

Meanwhile, someone in the H2 camp has a pretty compelling powerpoint presentation to garner $11B worth of support.

As others have noted hydrogen is a very hazardous material and unless they can come up with a different way of storing it, it's really best to minimize refueling sites.

The ironic best case for HFCV is probably to have PHFCVs with decent AER. Then everyday driving would allow them to be refueled at home by charging, while hydrogen stations would be used for longer trips, and maybe also used when you need some heat (since the reaction in fuel cells produces heat as well as electricity, I don't know how much).

 

[derekt75]

No denying whether there is a more sinister agenda at play here but couldn't H2 be generated by simple electrolysis using solar power at home? Much like phase two in Tesla's plan is to encourage everyone to generate (and store) their own electricity through solar panels and store in PowerWalls for car charging at night, the same can be done with local H2 production and stored in tanks. The issue may be the liquefaction of the generated gas. But someone will solve it if they are truly committed. Overall, I like the battery EV concept better than the combustible solutions but obviously from a science perspective, the engineers are trying to solve an energy transfer limitation of charging batteries versus pumping fuel. I always thought the LNG solution was kind of neat because in my area, natural gas is pumped directly to the homes now. That solves the fuel delivery problem and the fueling time constraint but I guess it doesn't solve the non-renewable source conundrum.

Meanwhile, someone in the H2 camp has a pretty compelling powerpoint presentation to garner $11B worth of support.

Electrolysis of water is a really terrible way to use electricity.

If you want to reduce CO2 emissions, you can put solar panels on your house regardless of what vehicle you drive.
Solar panels create electricity, and electricity has no knowledge of whether it was created via solar or via coal.

If you use electricity to electrolyze Hydrogen, it most likely means that the natural gas plant near you burns more natural gas. This is true regardless of whether or not you happen to have a solar cell or wind turbine on your property.
Burning natural gas to create electricity to crack water to store as compressed Hydrogen to later use in a fuel cell vehicle is one of the most inefficient ways to power a vehicle. more CO2 per km than a 20 mpg gasoline car.

Unless there's a local surplus of energy, the cleanest way to create Hydrogen is via steam reformation. The resulting FCVs can then emit almost as little CO2 per km as a gasoline burning Prius. You get several times more elemental Hydrogen per kg of natural gas using steam reformation rather than burning it to generate electricity and then using the electricity to split water.

Also, home electrolysis seems like a dubious idea for a number of other reasons. Electrolysis is hard to do with decent efficiency. I mean, sure, you can just put 9 V across some terminals and watch Hydrogen bubble up, but that's horribly inefficient, and you need to carefully do something with that Hydrogen like compress it.

Yes the engineers are trying to solve the energy transfer limitations of batteries, but the various engineering challenges involved in efficiently producing and using Hydrogen are overwhelming.

 

[derekt75]

As others have noted hydrogen is a very hazardous material and unless they can come up with a different way of storing it, it's really best to minimize refueling sites.

The ironic best case for HFCV is probably to have PHFCVs with decent AER. Then everyday driving would allow them to be refueled at home by charging, while hydrogen stations would be used for longer trips, and maybe also used when you need some heat (since the reaction in fuel cells produces heat as well as electricity, I don't know how much).

Nah, fuel cells are too expensive for this application. You're going to spend $40k on something that's used for less than 10% of your miles? I mean even if the Hydrogen miles were CO2 free (which I think is crap), you'd be much better off using the Volt gasoline engine and sending a $20k check to Terrapass or something. and I'd also argue that the Volt running on gasoline is lower CO2 / km than a Mirai, but I know people love to pretend that their Mirai runs only on Hydrogen generated from renewable sources, ignoring how much better that electricity could have been used if it had been dumped on the grid instead of wasted generating Hydrogen.

 

[dpeilow]

You guys are going around the same points that have been done to death on this 9 year thread.

Meanwhile I've made some updates to the presentation so if you'd care to check them out...

 

[ig_epower]

Wow! Lots of responses but the conclusions all seem the same - hydrogen looks like a dead horse to me. I should move over to the super-capacitor thread (if there is one!).

 

[Saghost]

Wow! Lots of responses but the conclusions all seem the same - hydrogen looks like a dead horse to me. I should move over to the super-capacitor thread (if there is one!).

It's not dead - because a lot of people with a lot of money refuse to let it die. But it is a rather impractical solution to any of our problems, and if Tesla gets a couple years of Model 3 production under their belt it'll be pretty difficult for Hydrogen to keep pretending the are a serious alternative.

 

[TonyWilliams]

It's not dead - because a lot of people with a lot of money refuse to let it die. But it is a rather impractical solution to any of our problems, and if Tesla gets a couple years of Model 3 production under their belt it'll be pretty difficult for Hydrogen to keep pretending the are a serious alternative.

Hydrogen dies the very minute the taxpayer funded gravy train ends. I suspect it gets harder and harder to convince regulators to fund hydrogen in the future when there are millions of electric vehicles.

 

[dpeilow]

Just found something very interesting.

The direct CO2 production from steam reforming is 5.5 kg per 1 kg of hydrogen produced. However I was aware that there must be other inefficiencies as obviously you have to heat up the steam.

So I was reading this 100MW electrolyser plant designs to be launched at Hannover – and they claim the emissions are closer to 10 kg. They are using this to try to justify the sales of their electrolysers of course, but that really skewers the argument that steam reformation can get close to EV efficiency.

Refinery hydrogen
Refineries currently use hydrogen to improve the quality of fractional distillation products and most of this hydrogen is produced from steam-reforming. About 17% of the total CO2 emissions from the European refinery sector can be attributed to hydrogen production. Emissions from steam reforming natural gas are about 10 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of hydrogen produced, nearly 50% of direct refinery CO2 emissions. The EU Fuel Quality Directive states that fuels in Europe must reduce their carbon emissions by 6% by 2020. Furthermore, The EU Emissions Trading System threshold, will be reduced by 1.74% (based on the 2010 cap) annually. UKPIA has calculated that the total additional costs for UK refineries are up to £75 million/year using an allowance cost of £10.50/t CO2e. If using green hydrogen can cut 50% of direct CO2 emissions, this represents a saving of £37 million/year for UK refineries and small emitters (<25ktCO2e a year) could be allowed to opt out entirely. Refineries need a cost effective solution that reduces carbon emissions, allowing them to comply with stringent legislation and avoid fines, while maintaining output.

Now to track down some verifiable sources for that.

 

[dpeilow]

A bit of searching found several analyses giving 9 to 10 kg, but this seems to be the most comprehensive. (There is a problem with the PDF so I saved it and then was able to open it in reader and skip past page 2).

https://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/27637.pdf

 

[dpeilow]

rather impractical solution

It's not really a solution at all though - as it belches out more upstream CO2 than gasoline.


By the way, about 10 or more years ago I remember a quote that was something like "you can prove hydrogen is nonsense with high school math". I'm pretty sure it was from Elon but can't pin down a source. This is not his more recent ones where he said it is dumb or BS.

Does anyone else remember that?

 

[SwTslaGrl]

I'll repost this here too,

Wednesday, January 11, 08:07
Japan, Australia set hydrogen transport standards
View attachment 210784

Japan and Australia have agreed on safety standards to transport liquid hydrogen by sea.

Government officials from both countries struck a deal in the Australian capital of Canberra on Wednesday.

Hydrogen produced in Australia by heating brown coal will be shipped in liquid form by tanker to Japan for use as energy.

The safety standards require that storage tanks be made of materials that can withstand the low temperature extreme of liquid hydrogen, at minus 253 degrees Celsius. They also cover fire extinguishing equipment.

Both governments will set domestic safety standards ahead of a pilot project planned for 2020.

Japan's Kawasaki Heavy Industries will build a dedicated tanker for the project.

Senior company official Yukichi Takaoka says technical challenges remain, as liquid hydrogen has never been shipped. But he says the tanker will be ready on time.

Japan, Australia set hydrogen transport standards- News - NHK WORLD - English

 

[dpeilow]

Hydrogen dies the very minute the taxpayer funded gravy train ends. I suspect it gets harder and harder to convince regulators to fund hydrogen in the future when there are millions of electric vehicles.

Trouble is that if you look at the last 25+ years there is clearly a strong correlation between Republican administration and hydrogen funding - so brace yourselves for another round of it. I can't speak for CA, but if the layman's opinion here is anything to go by, hydrogen is still the easy sale, despite the growing number of plug-ins on the road.

 

[daniel]

A few years ago I was talking to someone about electricity vs. hydrogen. I pointed out that H2 is an energy carrier, not an energy source: There are no H2 mines. It must be produced with an input of energy. Electrolyzing water with electricity, or extracting it from fossil fuels. Her reply was, "You can believe that if you want to!" She was absolutely convinced that there was abundant free H2 for the taking, because she had heard that hydrogen is the most abundant element on Earth. She knew nothing of chemistry, or energy levels, or the fact that hydrogen is abundant in the form of H2O, or the fact that you get energy from H2 by letting it join with an oxygen molecule, and you must add energy to break it back down to H2.

With ignorance like that, it's not surprising that a lot of politicians will vote to fund H2. Their constituents support it without understanding what it is, and probably many of the legislators are as ignorant as their constituents.