What does Toyota see in "Fool" Cells?

[stopcrazypp]

Your numbers say nothing about efficiency. How can we know that the assumed vehicle energy requrements are the same for FCV and EV? Often you see that research institutions assume that EVs are small city cars while hydrogen FCVs are full-sized family cars. A larger vehicle will naturally use more energy per mile.

BTU per mile is a direct measure of efficiency (a car with a lower BTU/mi is more efficient than one with a higher one)! And the link I gave already shows all the assumptions, including the assumption for pump to wheels. And it seems they are assuming both cars are large cars.

For pump to wheel it assumes:

HFCV = 2197 Btu/mi = 64.4kWh/100 mi = 52.3mpge
EV = 1357 Btu/mi = 39.8kWh/100mi = 84.7mpge

You have to click the link to the excel file to see the exact numbers (rather than just a graph/chart):
http://greet.es.anl.gov/files/greet1_2012_results

As you can see, the Clarity (mid-sized) gets 60mpge, F-Cell (small) gets 50mpge
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fcv_sbs.shtml

Model S (85kWh, large) gets 89mpge.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evsbs.shtml

You can change the number for Hydrogen to the Clarity's 60mpge, and EVs will still be on top using the Model S number. To be really "fair" you would use the Leaf's (mid-size) 115mpge, but that would put hydrogen at an even greater disadvantage. And small cars actually don't really have a big efficiency advantage, as their aerodynamics give them a disadvantage in highway efficiency.

We'll see how much mpge the Toyota car gets pretty soon.

 

[JRP3]

Now, was it really important to do those calculations? I would say no, the conclusion is unchanged.

Except for the fact that your "future" EV scenario is closer to today's reality. There is no doubt that depending on time of charge and location that an EV can hit that number today.

 

[Yggdrasill]

I didn't do a calculation for the future. I did a calculation using your numbers for the present. If you look at the future numbers, the electrical distribution and motor combined are 92.9% as efficient as the distribution alone of hydrogen. If you start with hydrogen, a stationary fuel cell power plant has to be 1.07 times as efficient as the one in the car to be as efficient overall, assume the "future" numbers, 1.11 times as efficient if you assume the "present" numbers.

Not to mention that your numbers are wildly skewed in favor of hydrogen. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell#In_practice, fuel cell vehicles are closer to 36% efficiency in real world conditions.

If you start with hydrogen, the best thing you can do is put it straight into a highly efficient stationary fuel cell and transmitting the power through the grid to a BEV. That is how good BEVs are, they let you run any power source more efficiently and more flexibly than by using it to directly fuel the car.

The study claiming 36% is from 2007, which means it's far too outdated. But reference 87 wasn't too bad. VIII.0 Technology Validation Sub-Program Overview It shows an efficiency between 42% and 59%. That's not as good as Toyta is claiming, but this was 4 years ago.

Crunching some numbers and reading about Toyota's car, it seems that Toyota could have been somewhere around 60% average efficiency, if the fuel cell had been allowed to work at it's optimal power level and the battery pack to do the hard lifting, but it doesn't seem as if they've gone for this solution. They seem to have chosen to allow the fuel cell to output it's full power, at a suboptimal efficiency, so that they could reduce the size of the battery pack. This choice means that the vehicle in question does actually use more energy than a BEV when running on even natural gas. I will not concede that a FCV can't be more energy efficient when running on hydrogen produced from natural gas, but I will concede that Toyota's car isn't more energy efficient.

An EREV-type vehicle using a fuel cell to supply the battery with power could be more efficient, but that is not actually what Toyota has designed.

- - - Updated - - -

BTU per mile is a direct measure of efficiency (a car with a lower BTU/mi is more efficient than one with a higher one)!

No. A larger vehicle does more work, it isn't less efficient. A Model S is more or less just as efficient as a Leaf, but that doesn't mean they use the same amount of energy per mile.

And the link I gave already shows all the assumptions, including the assumption for pump to wheels. And it seems they are assuming both cars are large cars.

For pump to wheel it assumes:

HFCV = 2197 Btu/mi = 64.4kWh/100 mi = 52.3mpge
EV = 1357 Btu/mi = 39.8kWh/100mi = 84.7mpge

You have to click the link to the excel file to see the exact numbers (rather than just a graph/chart):
http://greet.es.anl.gov/files/greet1_2012_results

As you can see, the Clarity (mid-sized) gets 60mpge, F-Cell (small) gets 50mpge
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fcv_sbs.shtml

Model S (85kWh, large) gets 89mpge.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evsbs.shtml

You can change the number for Hydrogen to the Clarity's 60mpge, and EVs will still be on top using the Model S number. To be really "fair" you would use the Leaf's (mid-size) 115mpge, but that would put hydrogen at an even greater disadvantage. And small cars actually don't really have a big efficiency advantage, as their aerodynamics give them a disadvantage in highway efficiency.

We'll see how much mpge the Toyota car gets pretty soon.

The excel-files don't work in my excel, and "MPGe" is an arbitrary term riddled with flaws.

- - - Updated - - -

Except for the fact that your "future" EV scenario is closer to today's reality. There is no doubt that depending on time of charge and location that an EV can hit that number today.

Some locations are fairly close, but I was talking averages.

 

[dpeilow]

We are raking up old ground from the lengthy hydrogen vs. battery thread.

I'm still interested in the actual thread title. What does Toyota see in fool cells? Particularly given the massive infrastructure that would be needed that is essentially out of their control?

 

[stopcrazypp]

No. A larger vehicle does more work, it isn't less efficient. A Model S is more or less just as efficient as a Leaf, but that doesn't mean they use the same amount of energy per mile.

I already factored that in by pointing out the various mpge of different vehicles. Just plug it in the vehicles you prefer to compare as having the same or similar amount of "work" done.

And isn't efficiency in energy per mile ultimately what we care about when comparing cars and pathways? For example, batteries tend to be heavy and that would cost EVs more energy per mile, but not efficiency in percentage (as the amount of work you do also goes up with the weight).

The excel-files don't work in my excel

For the excel file, just click OK when it pops an error message.

"MPGe" is an arbitrary term riddled with flaws.

It's a direct conversion of 33.7kWh = 1 gallon. It's a easy way for people to compare plug-to-wheel efficiency. If you prefer kWh/100 mi, I provided that too.

Some locations are fairly close, but I was talking averages.

Your data is not average. It's ideal for hydrogen vs average for electricity. AFAIK there are no statistics gathered for the average efficiency of hydrogen reforming stations (all US stations), while there are for powerplants (provided by the EIA).

 

[herbvdh]

Toyota cancels hydrogen vehicle article Toyota Cancels its Hydrogen Fuel Cell Program My huge question is safety in an accident? See the results of swapping a tank out. Hydrogen Explosion Deals Blow to Fuel Cell Advocates - KickingTires From a retired volunteer to OEM a hydrogen vehicle incident will require massive evacuations. I believe 2,500 feet in all directions just quoting the book on chemical safety.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Just to be clear, Toyota has not cancelled their hydrogen program, and the post above is speculation.

Toyota cancels hydrogen vehicle article Toyota Cancels its Hydrogen Fuel Cell Program My huge question is safety in an accident? See the results of swapping a tank out. Hydrogen Explosion Deals Blow to Fuel Cell Advocates - KickingTires From a retired volunteer to OEM a hydrogen vehicle incident will require massive evacuations. I believe 2,500 feet in all directions just quoting the book on chemical safety.

 

[castigador55]

There's no loss. 1 kg before compression is still 1 kg after compression.

I can live with that assumption. Okay, so you need 9.3 kWh of natural gas for the compression.

That means that if at the end of the compression you have 1 kg of Hydrogen or 40 kWh, you would need to have inputed 50/0.7 + 9.3 = 66.4 kWh of natural gas. The total efficiency for hydrogen production + compression would be 40/66.4 = 60%. And the efficiency for the compression would be 86%, as 0.86 * 0.7 = 0.60. The corrected numbers would be:

Electric car, current situation:

Natural gas distribution to power plant: 96.5%
Power plant efficiency: 42.45%
Power grid distribution: 93.5%
Charger efficiency: 85%
EV efficiency: 90%

Total efficiency: 29.3%

FCV, current situation:

Natural gas distribution to steam reformation plant: 96.5%
Hydrogen production: 70% efficiency
Hydrogen compression: 86% efficiency
Hydrogen distribution: 90% efficiency
Hydrogen fueling: 98% efficiency
FCV efficiency: 65%

Total efficiency: 33.3%

And assuming the power for the compressor came from a 55% efficient power plant, the numbers would be:

Electric car, some time in the future:

Natural gas distribution to power plant: 97%
Power plant efficiency: 55%
Power grid distribution: 94%
Charger efficiency: 90%
EV efficiency: 90%

Total efficiency: 40.6%

FCV, some time in the future:

Natural gas distribution to steam reformation plant: 97%
Hydrogen production: 75% efficiency
Hydrogen compression: 88% efficiency
Hydrogen distribution: 95% efficiency
Hydrogen fueling: 98% efficiency
FCV efficiency: 70%

Total efficiency: 41.7%

.

Similar energy efficiency .. which has a lower carbon footprint, Ev or hydrogen?


The hydrogen produced from natural gas has lower carbon footprint than gasoline?


Hydrogen fuel cell is an electric car with a range extender, Toyota Prius is cheaper than a Fuel cell .. and is almost the same ... you should go to hidrogenera, you have to buy the hydrogen shell or exxon.


What is the economic efficiency of a house with a roof full of solar panels (supplied free SolarCity) compared with the efficiency of refueling a Shell or Total hidrogenera or exxon?

 

[chimpanzee]

I was at the Toyota press-conference (2014 CES)

2014 CES: Automotive Tech

 

[EchoDelta]

I don't get why "Pump to wheel" is something that comes up in discussions about sustainability.

 

[renim]

We are raking up old ground from the lengthy hydrogen vs. battery thread.

I'm still interested in the actual thread title. What does Toyota see in fool cells? Particularly given the massive infrastructure that would be needed that is essentially out of their control?

Historically Toyota was a textile weaving company, so filament winding is in their ancestral DNA
Toyota is also a major forklift supplier, so there are joint economy of scale for hydrogen there.
So Toyota should be in poll position to outcompete other OEMs when it comes to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.

But that won't help Toyota overcome the poor economics of hydrogen fuel cell vs battery.

Plug, a little seeking alpha blog looking at sensitivity of hydrogen fuel cells vs battery Why Li Ion Beats Hydrogen Fuel Cell For Vehicles - renim - Seeking Alpha

 

[EchoDelta]

What is the economic efficiency of a house with a roof full of solar panels (supplied free SolarCity) compared with the efficiency of refueling a Shell or Total hidrogenera or exxon?

Hmm.. Let me prorrate all relevant past oil spills and the potential global ecocide of global warming including my grandchildren... I'd say Ka-ching!

 

[Reykjavik]

I don't get why "Pump to wheel" is something that comes up in discussions about sustainability.

If the process that brings power from the pump to the wheel is not sustainable (for example, an ICE emits CO2, so is not acceptable). And overall efficiency does matter, Every little bit of energy that we can save is one we don't have to produce. Solar cells and wind farms cost money, and have local environmental impacts, so the fewer we need, the better. Fuel cells are less efficient, so to use them sustainable would be more difficult than to use batteries.

 

[EchoDelta]

I get it, but I think you are illustrating why it is a small factor and irrelevant in discussions about sustainability (ie compatible with a closed system in which it is acceptable to live) it is of course very relevant in discussions about engineering, operational costs etc. Or when trying to take something unsustainable and make it less so. Eg:

One vehicle by Pump to wheel metrics could be very inefficient but run on something that has net zero side effects in supply and recovery chains and culturally I.e. sustainable

Another vehicle could have amazing pump to wheel efficiency but exhaust radioactive waste, or run for miles on a single teardrop of a tortured child.

I think clarity on when it matters or it doesn't is something we can get better at in dialogue. That's all I'm saying.

 

[cwerdna]

It has nothing to do with zev credits, it is much more simple than that.

You don't live in CA.

I'm going to disagree. Besides Tony's post as to the # of credits, even Toyota put up this page awhile ago: CARB Mandate For Zero Emission Vehicles.

 

[mnx]

A lot of us seem to have a strong hate towards anything that's not a pure BEV. Personally I think something like the Chevy Volt with a fuel cell range extender would be pretty awesome. At this point in time however it makes zero sense as the fuel cell would cost far more than a BEV and there is zero fueling infrastructure.

 

[JRP3]

My "hate" is directed at the waste of time, money, energy, and resources on technologies that are not going to move us forward in the long run and especially those such as fuel cells that will simply perpetuate the existing monolithic fueling model controlled by oil companies. No thanks. Just ponder for a moment all the brilliant people and all the time and money spent on fuel cells instead being spent on improving EV's. Without a doubt battery technology would already be much further ahead.

- - - Updated - - -

Toyota doesn't care what Elon thinks. http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/toyota-on-hydrogen-critic-musk-we-dont-care.html/?a=viewall
As is often the case, I find myself in agreement with Elon.

 

[widodh]

My "hate" is directed at the waste of time, money, energy, and resources on technologies that are not going to move us forward in the long run and especially those such as fuel cells that will simply perpetuate the existing monolithic fueling model controlled by oil companies. No thanks. Just ponder for a moment all the brilliant people and all the time and money spent on fuel cells instead being spent on improving EV's. Without a doubt battery technology would already be much further ahead.

- - - Updated - - -

Toyota doesn't care what Elon thinks. http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/toyota-on-hydrogen-critic-musk-we-dont-care.html/?a=viewall
As is often the case, I find myself in agreement with Elon.

Ditto!

 

[ggies07]

My "hate" is directed at the waste of time, money, energy, and resources on technologies that are not going to move us forward in the long run and especially those such as fuel cells that will simply perpetuate the existing monolithic fueling model controlled by oil companies. No thanks. Just ponder for a moment all the brilliant people and all the time and money spent on fuel cells instead being spent on improving EV's. Without a doubt battery technology would already be much further ahead.

Exactly! I feel the same way.

 

[ecarfan]

Comparing the task of building a network of hydrogen fueling stations to building the Tesla SC charging network is not a reasonable comparison. Tesla is basically creating relatively inexpensive customized "plugs" to connect its cars to an existing electrical infrastructure. Toyota will have to create a completely new infrastructure from scratch that will deliver a brand new vehicle fuel. That will be an order of magnitude more expensive.

And I am skeptical about the Toyota executive likening the consumer adoption of Prius hybrid cars to the adoption of fuel cell vehicles. My wife drove a Prius for five years before replacing it with a Model S. The Prius is essentially an ICE with a small battery and it is fueled just like an ICE. A fuel cell vehicle is very different and is fueled very differently.

I think a decade from now Toyota is going to be suffering from the decisions it's management is making today. During the time my wife and I had a Prius I kept waiting for Toyota to offer a good EV, thinking that they must have the in-house expertise and foresight to move forward with electric propulsion. I was wrong. Toyota just doesn't get it.