Hydrogen vs. Battery

[vfx]

CEC Awards First Three Stations | California Fuel Cell Partnership

...This month, the funding for three of the stations—San Francisco, Laguna Niguel and West Sacramento—was released for contracting.

CEC is building upon the funding and work in the California Hydrogen Highway Network. The CEC solicitation included several first-time points to ensure public access, longevity and faster station planning and construction,...

 

[doug]

I'm surprised there isn't more NIMBYism wrt H2 fueling stations. Well perhaps there is and I'm just not aware of it.

 

[mfogarty5]

Hi, this is my first post here at the tesla motors club. I have a general interest in technology and I think all the developments with BEVs, EREVs and HFCVs is exciting. I have considered buying a Model S or a Volt among other vehicles. I love to read the back and forth between the technologies not just here, but on other forums as well.

I read this entire thread and a common theme is that hydrogen as a fuel is impractical because of storage issues and the cost of the infrastructure. I'm not going to address the storage issue, but I would like to get opinions on the infrastructure issue.

What I can't figure out is that the phrase "hydrogen is the most common element in the universe" is quickly dismissed in this thread(and rightfully so) because upon closer inspection that statement is irrelevant since hydrogen cannot be mined anywhere.

However people in this thread, and EV fans in general, seem to make the same mistake when they say "every one has electricity". Upon closer inspection though, that statement is about as relevant as the "hydrogen is the most common element in the universe" for two reasons.

First, everyone may have electricity, but they don't have 240v chargers installed. I think everyone agrees that 240v chargers are needed for BEVs. It costs $2,000 to have a 240v charger installed for a Chevy Volt, but for purposes of this exercise I will use a nice round $1,000. There are 250M vehicles in this country which means it would cost over $250 BILLION to have a 240v charger installed for each of them. Furthermore, that does not include additional chargers at places like hotels, etc. that would be expected
if everyone owned a BEV. So let's be conservative and say there have to be 2 240v chargers for every vehicle which would raise the cost to $500 BILLION. That does not include the additional wiring that would be required at commercial locations like hotels. Now what if I have overnight guests at my house? Will the new social norm be that I need to have a spare 240v charger installed so that overnight guests can recharge?

Ok, so that is one issue. The second issue is that while everyone may have electricity, millions of people who live in apartments have no access to a parking spot with electricity. Running electrical wire to apartment parking spaces would be astronomical.

I am not trying to start a fight, but based on the evidence above can someone please explain why the statement "everyone has electricity" is any different than "hydrogen is the most common element in the universe"?

Is there something missing from my analysis?

 

[JRP3]

Sure, reality. There are no basic physics barriers to having cheaper chargers, especially with volume production. In fact 240 volt chargers may already be in the vehicles and all you need is a plug that is capable of providing the voltage and amperage, anything from the equivalent of a 240V 30A dryer circuit to a 240V 50A range outlet. I installed a 240V 30A breaker and plug for my EV for about $30. You can't change the physics of hydrogen production and storage for $30, or any amount of money.
Apartment dwellers may have to charge at work, or at fast charge stations, or in many cases street charging may be possible. All rather irrelevant until all home owners who want EV's have them, and we are a loooong way off from that.

 

[Adm]

@mfogarty: I have know idea how much it would cost to build a nation wide net hydrogen stations, but I assume the amount would be astronomical as well. The world and the US especially is spending astronomical amounts of money to keep peace in regions where oil is produced.
It will come down to priorities. Going electric will cost money, going hydrogen will cost money, we cannot afford to stay on oil for more than just financial reasons.

 

[richkae]

My EV now uses $300 worth of electricity per year instead of the $2000 of gasoline my gas car would have used.

Want some big numbers?

The average car in 2010 was $29217. Average New-Car Purchase Price Rises in 2010 Road Reality
About 13 million cars and light trucks were sold in 2010. Auto Sales - Markets Data Center - WSJ.com
Thats 377 billion dollars total.

Americans used 137.93 billion gallons of gasoline in 2009. http://www.eia.doe.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=23&t=10
Gasoline averages $3.68 across the US right now. Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update
Thats 508 billion dollars per year.

The business of selling gasoline is bigger than the business of selling the cars that burn it up.

The cost of the gasoline used by a car in its lifetime will exceed its purchase cost by a large margin. Any analysis of the cost of switching to EVs needs to be done over the lifetime of the car and include all costs, especially energy.

 

[Tdave]

I didn't have to install a $1000-$2000 charger for my Tesla. I installed a 240v outlet in my garage that cost me about $100 (parts + labor). I'm scratching my head as to why everyone thinks expensive "chargers" need to be installed.

 

[JRP3]

Probably because that's what Nissan and GM have been quoting for their higher powered interfaces, which are clearly a rip off.

 

[qwk]

Every house and even most apartments that I have been to have a 240v-30amp dryer and a 240v-50amp stove outlet.

 

[richkae]

I also installed a couple of 240volt outlets in my garage for minimal cost.
I think the big scary numbers are important though.

We ( the US ) are going to spend around 500 billion dollars on gasoline this year.
If we could magically have all EVs and all of those miles were driven electrically the electricity cost would be somewhere between 70 and 100 billion. Lets call it 100.

That is a savings of 400 billion per year.
Over 10 years, thats 4 trillion dollars - assuming a constant price of gasoline which has actually been increasing every year at more than double the rate of electricity.
That pays for a lot of infrastructure and a lot of batteries. Not to mention that the bulk of the money stays here rather than being exported.

 

[JRP3]

Not to mention that the bulk of the money stays here rather than being exported.

Exactly, an important point that is often over looked.

 

[vfx]

More numbers:

A hydrogen station is around 2 to 3 million to build.
California to get three new hydrogen stations | The Car Tech blog - CNET Reviews

California plans no exit from hydrogen highway | Grist

According to the California Energy Commission, it will cost $40 million to build 11 hydrogen fueling stations, compared to just $12 million cost to build 6,500 EV charging stations.

The USA had 121,446 filling stations (gas stations) in 2002 according to the Census

Replacing all gas stations with Hydrogen stations would cost X.

 

[stopcrazypp]

However people in this thread, and EV fans in general, seem to make the same mistake when they say "every one has electricity". Upon closer inspection though, that statement is about as relevant as the "hydrogen is the most common element in the universe" for two reasons.

Is there something missing from my analysis?

#1 You are committing the fallacy of false equivalency. The statement "Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe" is not equivalent to "everyone has electricity". The former is irrelevant because, as you know, despite it being a "common element," it doesn't exist purely in nature. The "everyone has electricity" is relevant since it means the necessary backbone infrastructure for plug-ins is already there (we have means to produce and deliver electricity already, enough to power 80% of our current fleet; you can't say the same of hydrogen). An equivalent statement would be "everyone has hydrogen" or to put it more specifically "everyone already has a hydrogen pipe to their house and uses it regularly" or "every gas station already has hydrogen delivery and uses it regularly".

#2 Another fallacy you committed is comparing one time costs (station costs) to ongoing costs (of producing hydrogen). No one is arguing producing electricity is free (something implied by that "common element" argument). Installing a "charging station" is a one time cost. It's the same fallacy people make when comparing lithium with gasoline (which is even more wrong since lithium can be recycled).

#3 is as people mentioned, the current multi-thousand dollar cost of a "charging station" is completely unnecessary and a rip-off, when in reality you can spend about 100 dollars or even $0 to have your own 240V charging socket. Some people can even make do with 120V if their trips are short enough. Also keep in mind the $2500 includes installation costs. You can get one for $700 from GM if you install it yourself. There are plenty of much cheaper options coming from third parties (including ones that you just plug into a socket to "install," saving even installation costs).

#4 Although the public charging stations are primarily publicly funded, the large majority of private/home charging stations will be privately funded and it is actually viable for it to be privately funded, since the unit cost is still relatively low (if you are buying a $30k+ car, you can afford a $1000 charging station). This includes other "public" stations that are funded by private businesses (plenty of those already in California).

All hydrogen stations will be partially or fully publicly funded. No private company wants to do it themselves (even the SunHydro company that said they would do it themselves did it with public funding) because of the high costs, no hydrogen cars for sale, and the fuel costs more than gasoline even when you count higher efficiency of hydrogen cars. That means a decision to go hydrogen has to be mainly supported by tax payers. You can't go part way either and have a working solution, since unlike plug-ins you can't install a station yourself. And despite all the claims of it solving the "range anxiety" problem of EVs, it actually doesn't until you have an infrastructure similar to the current gasoline infrastructure. A PHEV actually is the one that addresses the issue.

With hydrogen you not only have the station cost ( when one costs $3-4million; just to match gasoline infrastructure you need to have 120k stations, or $360-480 billion), but also backbone infrastructure costs (the production/delivery infrastructure).

In summary:
+ hydrogen cars don't emit local emissions (besides from water) and tends to be more efficient than typical ICE
+/- it can be used for long trips, but you need the full infrastructure first
- hydrogen cars will cost more than BEVs, PHEVs, and ICE cars.
- it will cost more to fuel than BEVs, PHEVs, and even ICE cars.
- it completely doesn't work even for daily driving until someone installs a multi-million $ station near you (no one wants to drive 50 miles just to fuel up). Good luck waiting for that to happen.
- uses 2-3x the energy of a plug-in when used with renewable sources (or any other electrolysis sourced hydrogen)

 

[vfx]

Brilliant SCPP.

- it will cost more to fuel than BEVs, PHEVs, and even ICE cars.

Does anyone have this per-mile cost comparison?

 

[mfogarty5]

The "everyone has electricity" is relevant since it means the necessary backbone infrastructure for plug-ins is already there (we have means to produce and deliver electricity already, enough to power 80% of our current fleet; you can't say the same of hydrogen). An equivalent statement would be "everyone has hydrogen" or to put it more specifically "everyone already has a hydrogen pipe to their house and uses it regularly" or "every gas station already has hydrogen delivery and uses it regularly".

Thank you for the detailed response. A few people responded that we need to get off gasoline, etc. which isn't really what I wrote about.

But is the infrastructure there? I live in a community on a lake and we want to have electricity run to the gate at the boat ramp so that key FOBs can be used instead of keys. We got estimates of over $5,000 to run 50 yards of electrical wire to the gate. I assume the bulk of this cost is related to trenching that would have to be done. This is relevant since trenching would have to be done millions of times to accommodate chargers for non single family homes.

#2 Another fallacy you committed is comparing one time costs (station costs) to ongoing costs (of producing hydrogen). No one is arguing producing electricity is free (something implied by that "common element" argument). Installing a "charging station" is a one time cost. It's the same fallacy people make when comparing lithium with gasoline (which is even more wrong since lithium can be recycled).

I thought that off peak power at night could be used to generate hydrogen at night the same way that BEVs would charge at night. Is that not the case?

#3 is as people mentioned, the current multi-thousand dollar cost of a "charging station" is completely unnecessary and a rip-off, when in reality you can spend about 100 dollars or even $0 to have your own 240V charging socket. Some people can even make do with 120V if their trips are short enough. Also keep in mind the $2500 includes installation costs. You can get one for $700 from GM if you install it yourself. There are plenty of much cheaper options coming from third parties (including ones that you just plug into a socket to "install," saving even installation costs).

Ok, it is good to know that the current Nissan and GM installations are expensive, but even with a unit that plugs into a socket most people would still need an electrician to install the outlet which would probably be a couple hundred dollars.

#4 Although the public charging stations are primarily publicly funded, the large majority of private/home charging stations will be privately funded and it is actually viable for it to be privately funded, since the unit cost is still relatively low (if you are buying a $30k+ car, you can afford a $1000 charging station). This includes other "public" stations that are funded by private businesses (plenty of those already in California).

All hydrogen stations will be partially or fully publicly funded. No private company wants to do it themselves (even the SunHydro company that said they would do it themselves did it with public funding) because of the high costs, no hydrogen cars for sale, and the fuel costs more than gasoline even when you count higher efficiency of hydrogen cars. That means a decision to go hydrogen has to be mainly supported by tax payers. You can't go part way either and have a working solution, since unlike plug-ins you can't install a station yourself. And despite all the claims of it solving the "range anxiety" problem of EVs, it actually doesn't until you have an infrastructure similar to the current gasoline infrastructure. A PHEV actually is the one that addresses the issue.

Both batteries and hydrogen have had their share of government funding so I will stay away from the public vs. private discussion.

I do agree that PHEVs solve the range anxiety issue.

With hydrogen you not only have the station cost ( when one costs $3-4million; just to match gasoline infrastructure you need to have 120k stations, or $360-480 billion), but also backbone infrastructure costs (the production/delivery infrastructure).

I agree that hydrogen is probably unworkable as a solution as long as it is in a gaseous state. If it can be stored as a liquid such as methanol or some sort of new method like one involving boron I read about, then I think it changes the equation to favor HFCVs.

In summary:
+ hydrogen cars don't emit local emissions (besides from water) and tends to be more efficient than typical ICE
+/- it can be used for long trips, but you need the full infrastructure first
- hydrogen cars will cost more than BEVs, PHEVs, and ICE cars.
- it will cost more to fuel than BEVs, PHEVs, and even ICE cars.
- it completely doesn't work even for daily driving until someone installs a multi-million $ station near you (no one wants to drive 50 miles just to fuel up). Good luck waiting for that to happen.
- uses 2-3x the energy of a plug-in when used with renewable sources (or any other electrolysis sourced hydrogen)

I believe the 2-3x more energy is overstated since excess power from the grid can be used to generate hydrogen. If we could generate enough hydrogen to meet our needs using all the power that is wasted at night, then it would be "free".

In addition, batteries are clearly not going to be used for planes, trains, long distance trucking, etc. which means that another fuel will have to be developed for them.

Also, how does the cost of a replacement battery for a BEV fit into your +/- equation? Some of the people who responded to my original post detailed their cost savings of using electricity vs. gas, but aren't those savings offset by the fact that a replacement battery will be required somewhere around the 7-10 year mark? How much does a replacement battery for the roadster cost?

One of our vehicles is a 1999 Honda Accord with 95,000 miles that runs great and still has a decent resale value. How much will a 12 year old BEV with that kind of mileage be worth? Unless the battery has been replaced I'm pretty sure the answer is zero.

Thanks again for writing a detailed response.

 

[qwk]

How much will a 12 year old BEV with that kind of mileage be worth? Unless the battery has been replaced I'm pretty sure the answer is zero.

You can't be serious. Initially they will probably be worth more than an ICE car with the same mileage because of demand.

 

[richkae]

Your points one at a time without quoting them:

Whoever quoted you the $5000 to run 50 yards of wire was trying to rip you off. Get another quote. Hire a laborer to dig a trench and then an independant electrician to put the wire in the ground.
The vast majority of private homes need little or no upgrading.

Off peak electrical capacity is available, that means we don't need to build new generation plants to produce it. It is less expensive than peak electricity but not free.

Gasoline enjoys vastly more public funding than batteries or hydrogen research. I'd love for the government to get out of all of it, but they wont.

Again there is no "free" electricity, and thus no "free" hydrogen. Electricity put into a battery will drive a car a lot further than by converting it into hydrogen then compressing it, and then using it in a vehicle.

Battery powered small planes are being developed. They have a number of huge advantages.
Trains don't need batteries, the fastest trains in the world are already electric, they get power from overhead wires or rails. In the past freight trains in the U.S. have been electric and they can be again.
Long distance trucking competes with trains because of subsidised fuel and roads. When that goes away, we can return to ( electric ) rail freight.

A 12 year old BEV has huge advantages over a 12 year old ICE. Yes a battery eventually needs replacement, but there is no exhaust system to rust out, no transmission to wear out and electric motors last many times longer than an ICE which has hundreds of moving parts that wear out.
The current technology for hydrogen fuel cells is more expensive than the equivalent battery and may also need replacement sooner.

 

[mt2]

I believe the 2-3x more energy is overstated since excess power from the grid can be used to generate hydrogen. If we could generate enough hydrogen to meet our needs using all the power that is wasted at night, then it would be "free".

You touched on what I believe is the simplest pro EV argument. Compare using that same "free" electricity (it isn't free) to charge EVs in off-peak hours at home to using the same electricity to create hydrogen, store it, ship it and compress it for pumping at a multi-million dollar station nowhere near you. Oh, and storing it, shipping it, and compressing it don't happen in off-peak hours, by the way.

Or put more simply, why use that excess electricity to create a dangerous and cumbersome fuel to convert back to electricity to drive your vehicle when you could use it directly to drive your vehicle?

 

[Adm]

I thought that off peak power at night could be used to generate hydrogen at night the same way that BEVs would charge at night. Is that not the case?

These kind of installations run 24/7. The ernormous costs to build these installations require 24/7 operation to be profitable, but also shutting down and starting up is very inefficient.

 

[JRP3]

More to the point, there is no excess electricity at night, there is excess potential generating capacity at night, an important distinction. Power plants ramp down at night, except nuclear, but nukes are base load and demand is always greater than what they produce, so there is no wasted electricity at night.
Storing hydrogen as a liquid takes a lot of energy just to keep it cold enough, not practical. Hydrogen also tends to leak out of everything, creating more efficiency losses along the whole supply chain. Finally, every hydrogen station I've seen has an oil company logo on it, do we really want to create another system dependent on a single source of energy controlled by them? I know I don't.