Hydrogen vs. Battery

[nwdiver]

If I remember correctly Lithium is only 2% of the battery.

There is a lot of things need to be straightened before all the factories come online. Not only customers, companies and investors have to align but also countries/politicians. Right now for example Indonesia is playing with the Nickel: Indonesia to ban nickel exports from January 2020

Sure... I didn't pick Lithium as the bottleneck...

Total lithium ion battery production is around 300GWh/year right now. Total new cars sales is around 80M/year.

Nickel? Ok... Proven Reserves of Nickel have also risen in the past 10 years from 70M tons to ~90M tons. Go Fish

 

[ohmman]

If I remember correctly Lithium is only 2% of the battery.

There is a lot of things need to be straightened before all the factories come online. Not only customers, companies and investors have to align but also countries/politicians. Right now for example Indonesia is playing with the Nickel: Indonesia to ban nickel exports from January 2020

So we've concluded that FCEVs are less efficient than BEVs, especially when looking at sustainable sources. We've concluded that BEVs are significantly easier to fuel and are higher performing. We've concluded that BEVs are being manufactured and purchased on a significantly faster curve than FCEVs.

To be fair to you, I believe your argument has stayed pretty consistent. The superiority of BEVs over FCEVs isn't a concern for you. What concerns you is the possibility of a future battery shortage. So the question I guess I have for you is why do you think FCEVs, which aren't truly viable today, are a good fit for a potential gap in the future?

 

[mblakele]

And on the other side H2 investors are cautious since any big improvement in battery technology could blow away their plans.

Can you put some numbers behind that? Batteries can expect about 25% improvement in energy density over five years and 60% in ten, according to comments by JB Straubel. Is that a "big improvement"? What % improvement in battery energy density would make HFCEV irrelevant? Why?

 

[acoste]

Sure... I didn't pick Lithium as the bottleneck...



Nickel? Ok... Proven Reserves of Nickel have also risen in the past 10 years from 70M tons to ~90M tons. Go Fish

Let's calculate with 90M tonns.

Right now battery density is around 250Wh/kg

NCA cell (Tesla) has 40% of Nickel. NMC cell (everyone else) has around 25-30%.
70kWh battery > NCA has 112kg Nickel, NMC has 70-85kg.

Let's calculate with 85kg / car.
90M tons = 1B car. Right now there are ~1.4B cars on the road and growing.

And all the Nickel went into cars in this calculation. No other industry received any. No renewable energy storage either.

 

[nwdiver]

Let's calculate with 90M tonns.

Right now battery density is around 250Wh/kg

NCA cell (Tesla) has 40% of Nickel. NMC cell (everyone else) has around 25-30%.
70kWh battery > NCA has 112kg Nickel, NMC has 70-85kg.

Let's calculate with 85kg / car.
90M tons = 1B car. Right now there are ~1.4B cars on the road and growing.

And all the Nickel went into cars in this calculation. No other industry received any. No renewable energy storage either.

You understood the part where 'proven reserves' is growing.... right? Interesting thing about the market... if there's demand for something we tend to start looking harder for more of it and we usually find it. Earth is a big place.

There's also an estimated ~270M tons of Nickel literally sitting on the sea floor just waiting to be picked up.

Turns out that we're really good at finding more minerals. What we're still struggling with is getting around the laws of thermodynamics

 

[mblakele]

https://www.nickelinstitute.org/media/2272/201707-nickel-reserves-en-new-design.pdf has higher numbers. Published 2017 using older data: sources on p2.

MINED NICKEL 1.900.000 metric tons
Annual nickel mine production
APPLICATIONS 25.000.000 metric tons
Nickel in use today
RESERVES
100.000.000 metric tons
Proven nickel reserves worldwide
RESOURCES
199.000.000 metric tons
Potentially available nickel resources worldwide
290.000.000 metric tons
Potentially available nickel offshore worldwide

 

[acoste]

So we've concluded that FCEVs are less efficient than BEVs, especially when looking at sustainable sources. We've concluded that BEVs are significantly easier to fuel and are higher performing. We've concluded that BEVs are being manufactured and purchased on a significantly faster curve than FCEVs.

To be fair to you, I believe your argument has stayed pretty consistent. The superiority of BEVs over FCEVs isn't a concern for you. What concerns you is the possibility of a future battery shortage. So the question I guess I have for you is why do you think FCEVs, which aren't truly viable today, are a good fit for a potential gap in the future?

ICE cars can be GHG neutral with synthetic fuels like methane. But they aren't zero emission vehicles. Incomplete combustion in the engine create harmful gases. FCEVs are real ZEVs.
And FCEVs will prevail only if governments push for ZEVs. ICE cars have a second chance though by creating exhaust systems that collect particles and dump it safely. DPF is a start of it.

 

[acoste]

https://www.nickelinstitute.org/media/2272/201707-nickel-reserves-en-new-design.pdf has higher numbers. Published 2017 using older data: sources on p2.

MINED NICKEL 1.900.000 metric tons
Annual nickel mine production
APPLICATIONS 25.000.000 metric tons
Nickel in use today
RESERVES
100.000.000 metric tons
Proven nickel reserves worldwide
RESOURCES
199.000.000 metric tons
Potentially available nickel resources worldwide
290.000.000 metric tons
Potentially available nickel offshore worldwide

290M tons sound a lot better. Enough for cars. Not enough for renewables.

Now look at Cobalt.
7.1M tons. Cobalt - Wikipedia
Not enough for cars alone. And here is where battery research may shine. There are some Cobalt free prototypes.
70kWh battery contains 10-30kg of Cobalt depending on battery type.

 

[nwdiver]

290M tons sound a lot better. Enough for cars. Not enough for renewables.

Now look at Cobalt.
7.1M tons. Cobalt - Wikipedia
Not enough for cars alone. And here is where battery research may shine. There are some Cobalt free prototypes.
70kWh battery contains 10-30kg of Cobalt depending on battery type.

.... you realize we need ~2x as much renewables to support FCVs... right? Because Physics.

Also... ALL 'proven reserve' numbers are growing. Not falling. For every mineral we need for BEVs we're finding new sources faster than we're mining it.

 

[arnis]

No road vehicle is actually zero emission. There is a lot of tire and road wear resulting in particles have you seen snow at the curb? Well that is actually road surface. Also add some brake pad dust.
Even though many do not understand modern exhaust treatment systems well enough and believe whatever media says about how bad can diesel vehicle be.... facts do not care about opinions.
CNG vehicles are almost pure in terms of pollutants. Those traces they do emit hardly matter. Literally less than a pack of cigarettes smoked on the street.
Diesels with latest DPF and SCR are also really close. Actually, if you drive modern diesel in a REALLY polluted city (London, Shenzhen or similar) exhaust is cleaner than intake air. I know...almost funny.
Though these create lots of CO2. Thinking global that is not a solution. And no bio-fuel will fix that.

 

[mblakele]

290M tons sound a lot better. Enough for cars. Not enough for renewables.

Over 600M if you add it up. Not proven though.

Keep in mind that resources usage will decrease as technology improves. We don’t know how much, but it will. For example Toyota announced not long ago that they’d cut the platinum needed for HFC by about 90%. Great! And there’s an interesting dynamic there, because most platinum is a byproduct of nickel production.

 

[Curious George]

.... you realize we need ~2x as much renewables to support FCVs... right? Because Physics.

Also... ALL 'proven reserve' numbers are growing. Not falling. For every mineral we need for BEVs we're finding new sources faster than we're mining it.

Thanks folks for a number oriented discussion.
Your arguments have convinced me that the Fraunhofer report is wrong and biased.... ... against fuel cell cars!
Because hydrogen IS the storage medium of future for excess renewable energy. So, the H2 generation should be considered as ZERO CO2-e for hydrogen cars!

Just look at your statement above. To store the excess renewables, we will be too hard pressed for mineral resources.
But we don't need to sweat so hard, go under the ocean floor for traces of cobalt and other minerals, spend MORE energy and produce MORE GHG in the process. All you need for hydrogen is to find already dug holes from abandoned mines!

As I wrote earlier, we ALREADY HAVE hydrogen storage worth 167 GWh at s single place.
Tesla battery pack = a small hole in teh ground the size of an average American home (200 sf.). Yeah right, we call it The BIG battery,
Back in Texas, no one calls a 167 GWh storage anything but a cavern.

Once you AGREE that hydrogen IS the energy storage medium, then it is too obvious which type of car is more efficient.
Laws of thermodynamics .... bent.

So, thank you for opening my eyes to the bias in the Fraunhofer report. Cheers!

 

[nwdiver]

Thanks folks for a number oriented discussion.
Your arguments have convinced me that the Fraunhofer report is wrong and biased.... ... against fuel cell cars!
Because hydrogen IS the storage medium of future for excess renewable energy. So, the H2 generation should be considered as ZERO CO2-e for hydrogen cars!

Yes... once the 10B kg/yr industrial demand for H2 is filled. Until that happens H2 used by FCVs is effectively 100% from NG because any H2 used in a FCV could/should have been used to displace CH4 to make H2.

Where we are now only BEVs can take advantage of surplus renewables because Electrolyzer capacity is simply insufficient. I can't find any good capital cost estimates but apparently a 20MW H2 generator is planned in Canada for >$100M. This equipment isn't cheap enough to not be operated 24/7. If it needs to operate 24/7 then it obviously can't be used strategically to take advantage of surplus wind or solar. Maybe in ~20 years this will make sense but certainly not today and we don't need a fleet of FCVs to move this technology. For the ~5th time.... there's robust H2 industrial demand to drive innovation. Fill that. Until then BEVs make infinitely more sense economically and in terms of energy use.

Here's that 10B figure in context. 1kg of H2 is ~33kWh. So that's (10B kg)(33kWh/kg) = 330B kWh of H2. To get 330B kWh of H2 you need >500B kWh of electricity. That's 500TWh/yr we need to make enough H2 just for what we CURRENTLY use. In 2018 total US wind generation was 275TWh. But that's not the objective you need to use SURPLUS wind or solar that would have otherwise been curtailed or you're better off just using steam reforming from CH4. Not all ISOs report curtailment but CAISO is <5TWh/yr and they're the highest so it's unlikely that total US curtailment exceeds 10TWh. PLUS.... the most efficient solution to surplus IS NOT splitting water but load shifting. So.... yeah..... we've got a few... possibly several decades before H2 makes ANY sense in cars.....

Then of course there's the ~140B gallons of gasoline which would require >100B kg of H2 => easily another 5,000TWh of electricity, for context the US uses ~4,000TWh of electricity per year. So... 5,000TWh/yr of electricity to make H2 to make electricity in a car OR... ~2,500TWh/yr to just make electricity for electric cars.....

 

[nativewolf]

You understood the part where 'proven reserves' is growing.... right? Interesting thing about the market... if there's demand for something we tend to start looking harder for more of it and we usually find it. Earth is a big place.

There's also an estimated ~270M tons of Nickel literally sitting on the sea floor just waiting to be picked up.

Turns out that we're really good at finding more minerals. What we're still struggling with is getting around the laws of thermodynamics

Those darn thermo's are just too dynamic. However, there is hope. I've seen my 3 year old nephew in action and I feel he's only got those left to break. Expect some press release shortly.

 

[ohmman]

Looks like we can close this chapter of the thread for another 2 years. I look forward to the same arguments and decades-long promises at that time!

 

[Curious George]

Yes... once the 10B kg/yr industrial demand for H2 is filled. Until that happens H2 used by FCVs is effectively 100% from NG because any H2 used in a FCV could/should have been used to displace CH4 to make H2.

Where we are now only BEVs can take advantage of surplus renewables because Electrolyzer capacity is simply insufficient. I can't find any good capital cost estimates but apparently a 20MW H2 generator is planned in Canada for >$100M. This equipment isn't cheap enough to not be operated 24/7. If it needs to operate 24/7 then it obviously can't be used strategically to take advantage of surplus wind or solar. Maybe in ~20 years this will make sense but certainly not today and we don't need a fleet of FCVs to move this technology. For the ~5th time.... there's robust H2 industrial demand to drive innovation. Fill that. Until then BEVs make infinitely more sense economically and in terms of energy use.

Here's that 10B figure in context. 1kg of H2 is ~33kWh. So that's (10B kg)(33kWh/kg) = 330B kWh of H2. To get 330B kWh of H2 you need >500B kWh of electricity. That's 500TWh/yr we need to make enough H2 just for what we CURRENTLY use. In 2018 total US wind generation was 275TWh. But that's not the objective you need to use SURPLUS wind or solar that would have otherwise been curtailed or you're better off just using steam reforming from CH4. Not all ISOs report curtailment but CAISO is <5TWh/yr and they're the highest so it's unlikely that total US curtailment exceeds 10TWh. PLUS.... the most efficient solution to surplus IS NOT splitting water but load shifting. So.... yeah..... we've got a few... possibly several decades before H2 makes ANY sense in cars.....

Then of course there's the ~140B gallons of gasoline which would require >100B kg of H2 => easily another 5,000TWh of electricity, for context the US uses ~4,000TWh of electricity per year. So... 5,000TWh/yr of electricity to make H2 to make electricity in a car OR... ~2,500TWh/yr to just make electricity for electric cars.....

I think you make 2 mistakes.
1. 20 MW is just the rate of generation; doesn't indicate storage capacity, For battery storage, more energy means bigger battery, means more minerals and cost proportional to energy. For hydrogen the stack (most expensive part) remains same regardless of storage capacity. To store more, we just need to dig or find a bigger hole. If we build above ground tank, its cost isn't proportional to stored energy either. It's an order of magnitude less.
2. I never said BEVs and FCEVs can't coexist. In the future, BEVs could charge directly from wind and solar too. And FCEVs can fill up from stored hydrogen. Win Win.

So here is a new word of the day: "wind gas" for hydrogen generated from wind. It's true. Fraunhofer didn't make it up.
Hamburg to build world's largest hydrogen plant in port

Will California and USA join #TeamHydrogen or be left behind?

 

[nwdiver]

I think you make 2 mistakes.
1. 20 MW is just the rate of generation; doesn't indicate storage capacity, For battery storage, more energy means bigger battery, means more minerals and cost proportional to energy. For hydrogen teh stack remains same. To store more, we just need to dig or find a bigger hole.
2. I never said BEVs and FCEVs can't coexist. In the future, BEVs could charge directly from wind and solar too. And FCEVs can fill up from stored hydrogen. Win Win.

So here is a new word "wind gas" for hydrogen generated from wind.
Hamburg to build world's largest hydrogen plant in port

View attachment 453230
Will California and USA join #TeamHydrogen or be left behind?

1. ..... Yeah.... I understand 20MW is the rate of generation... what did I post that would suggest differently? No one is arguing that H2 isn't easy to store.... we're arguing that it's energy intensive and expensive to PRODUCE...... If you have 3GWh of curtailed wind per day but it only occurs for ~3 hours that 20MW isn't going to go very far in using SURPLUS wind.

2. I never said that there wasn't a future for FCVs.... AFTER we fullfull the 10B kg/yr industrial demand for H2 (With SURPLUS wind/solar) and probably after we're using H2 in aircraft. Passenger cars make the least sense. As long as most H2 comes from CH4 using H2 in cars makes no sense. AND... the only energy that makes any sense to use to split water is SURPLUS renewables... we have <10TWh/yr of surplus and we need >500TWh/yr just to meet industrial H2 demand. We've got a LOOOONG.... LOOOOOOONG way to go......

 

[Curious George]

1. ..... Yeah.... I understand 20MW is the rate of generation... what did I post that would suggest differently? No one is arguing that H2 isn't easy to store.... we're arguing that it's energy intensive and expensive to PRODUCE...... If you have 3GWh of curtailed wind per day but it only occurs for ~3 hours that 20MW isn't going to go very far in using SURPLUS wind.

2. I never said that there wasn't a future for FCVs.... AFTER we fullfull the 10B kg/yr industrial demand for H2 (With SURPLUS wind/solar) and probably after we're using H2 in aircraft. Passenger cars make the least sense. As long as most H2 comes from CH4 using H2 in cars makes no sense. AND... the only energy that makes any sense to use to split water is SURPLUS renewables... we have <10TWh/yr of surplus and we need >500TWh/yr just to meet industrial H2 demand. We've got a LOOOONG.... LOOOOOOONG way to go......

I see you repeat this 10Bkg h2/yr quite often. Where are you getting it from?

 

[nwdiver]

I see you repeat this 10Bkg h2/yr quite often. Where are you getting it from?

US EIA

 

[Curious George]

US EIA

That link shows natural gas used for hydrogen production in US.
~200K million cu ft in 2018. How do you calculate kg of hydrogen produced from this?
Why are you using only US data, and why only natural gas?

Because worldwide, it was almost 75 B kg of hydrogen produced last year. So your 10B kg/yr is confusing to me.
Please clarify what and how you came up with 10B kg/year.