What does Toyota see in "Fool" Cells?

[Doug_G]

I think "order of magnitude" is underestimating the challenge by at least another order of magnitude. And yes that does sound delusional. EV technology is completely worked out and they just have to drive the cost down. They really haven't figured out how to make hydrogen sustainably, and I personally would be really concerned about safety.

 

[jerry33]

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.

This works for me.

- - - Updated - - -

I think "order of magnitude" is underestimating the challenge by at least another order of magnitude. And yes that does sound delusional. EV technology is completely worked out and they just have to drive the cost down. They really haven't figured out how to make hydrogen sustainably, and I personally would be really concerned about safety.

And maintenance. Hydrogen is pretty corrosive and gets through everything. Perhaps the best comparison is to steam powered cars. Most people just won't perform the maintenance needed to keep them running safely, and if they do costs will make them uneconomical. I'd think it would be airplane-like maintenance costs.

 

[Jaff]

Yep...very well said JR!

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.

 

[CalDreamin]

There's a similar thread on the TM forum today.

I don't have a problem with different ways to make cars and trucks more efficient. I love my Model S, but I'm not a BEV purist.

There are a number of concerns about hydrogen fuel cell vehicles that others have outlined. IMO, the single biggest issue is the safety of driving around with so much high pressure flammable gas. This is a show stopper for me. I have spent more than two decades of my professional life working with high pressure hydrogen, as a chemical engineer. I'm familiar with the risks.

There's been some comparisons made between Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles (FCEVs) and the Hindenburg. This is a bad analogy.

The hydrogen in the Hindenburg was at atmospheric pressure, it was not pressurized to 10,000 psig like a FCEV hydrogen tank.

If a 10,000 psig hydrogen tank catastrophically ruptures in a traffic accident involving a FCEV it will not burn like the Hindenburg. It will probably explode, as a vapor cloud explosion (VCE). This is not at all like an ICE gasoline car fire, where only the small percentage of the fuel that has vaporized can potentially explode, and it usually doesn't.

In a catastrophic FCEV tank rupture, the hydrogen will probably all burn at once from the violent decompression of 10,000 psig, the wide range between the lower and upper explosive limits of hydrogen in air (4 - 75%), and the very small amount of energy (e.g. a tiny spark) needed to trigger combustion of hydrogen.

A full tank in a Toyota FCEV contains about 6 kg of hydrogen at 10,000 psig. The heat of combustion from 6 kg of hydrogen burned after a FCEV tank rupture produces equivalent energy to the detonation of 455 pounds of TNT. This makes a FCEV tank rupture on par with a terrorist's car bomb, in terms of energy released.
http://www.nctc.gov/site/technical/bomb_threat.html

The good news is, FCEV hydrogen tanks are required to be built to high standards for resistance to damage. The probability of a hydrogen tank rupture is lower than the odds of an ICE gasoline tank leak in similar traffic accidents. The bad news is, there's no such thing as fail safe, and the rupture of a 10,000 psig hydrogen tank will typically have far worse consequences than the rupture of a ICE car's gasoline tank.

The news coverage about a few EV battery fires where no one was hurt is nothing compared to what will follow when a FCEV hydrogen tank explosion kills and injures people, and the news media correctly compares the blast to a terrorist's car bomb. What happens to sales of FCEVs after that?

I'm aware that FCEV hydrogen tanks are required to withstand rifle bullets without bursting. That does not mean the bullet cannot penetrate into the tank, causing a high-speed jet of escaping hydrogen. This avoids an explosion but it doesn't necessarily avoid a large blow torch fire.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NVS/...gy Vehicle Systems Safety Research/811150.pdf

FCEV hydrogen tanks cannot necessarily withstand a high-speed collision with a big truck without catastrophically rupturing. Or a high-speed encounter with a 3-prong trailer hitch. Either of these can exert orders of magnitude more force than a rifle bullet. While it might sound impressive to those who don't understand the forces involved, I'm not impressed with a rifle bullet test.

I'm OK with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, as long as the hydrogen storage system is intrinsically safer than compressed hydrogen gas. Metal hydrides for hydrogen storage have been studied for FCEVs, but apparently have not been practical to date.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

The traditional automakers like Toyota and Honda favor FCEV because their engineers reasoned by analogy. I am very sure this is the reason they keep pushing FCEV.

An ICE goes to a gas stations, the driver pumps liquid fuel into a tank, and then they drive away. H2 works nearly the same way.

Going by the First Principle that vehicles should be charged at home overnight changes the whole game. Superchargers take care of whatever doubts are left.

 

[CalDreamin]

Here's a couple of papers documenting a study of the fire safety of hydrogen tanks in FCEVs. In these tests, hydrogen tank rupture was initiated by external fires, not mechanical impact.
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/feh5/pdfs/FEH_pdf_pp149.pdf
http://www.mvfri.org/Summaries/Hydrogen Research1.pdf

Here's a quote, describing the blast when 2 kg of hydrogen in a 5000 psig FCEV tank exploded. Keep in mind that the FCEVs that will go on sale will have 10,000 psig tanks containing ~6 kg of hydrogen, therefore greater energy in a tank rupture explosion:

The mechanical impulse from the tank burst did extensive damage to the vehicle, and parts of the vehicle were scattered as far as 350 feet. A large portion of the tank landed 135 feet away. Overpressures of 2 psi were measured at 32 feet, and thus the exclusion radius for no overpressure damage (0.3 psi) is about 150 feet.

 

[JRP3]

Regarding safety, there is also the fueling aspect. CNG vehicle users reported problems with leaking seals, I'd expect it to be even worse with higher pressure hydrogen.

 

[Doug_G]

Then there's the question of safety at the refueling depots. In 2008 a propane facility exploded in Toronto:

Toronto propane explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now imagine a hydrogen facility with lackadaisical safety procedures. Hydrogen is explosive in 4% to 75% concentrations, and can be triggered by the tiniest of sparks. It is way more volatile than natural gas. The molecule is tiny and goes through tiny pores, and it eats metal. And, as has been pointed out, has to be stored at far higher pressures.

 

[miimura]

The report from Sandia regarding the Hydrogen leak and fire at the Emeryville, CA AC Transit fueling station was enlightening. Hydrogen stations can be safely built and operated, but these trials and accidents show that we collectively need to learn a lot about how to do it properly. There were many failures that led to this accident, all of which could have been avoided with sufficient oversight and review by knowledgeable and experienced industry personnel. There is a reason that industrial gases companies are involved in Hydrogen stations - they have the experience to do it.

PDF of Sandia report

There are many reasons to oppose hydrogen, which I do oppose, but I don't think safety is one of them. The potential safety issues can be mitigated to levels that we already accept with current liquid transport fuels.

 

[Doug_G]

There are many reasons to oppose hydrogen, which I do oppose, but I don't think safety is one of them. The potential safety issues can be mitigated to levels that we already accept with current liquid transport fuels.

I dunno, people take safety shortcuts all the time. See above propane explosion. The same will happen with hydrogen, and it's far more unforgiving.

 

[Johan]

I dunno, people take safety shortcuts all the time. See above propane explosion. The same will happen with hydrogen, and it's far more unforgiving.

Even though I share most's views on this thread (fuel cell=fool cell), in fairness one could say regarding BEVs: "Just think about the safety challenges: people charging over night at 20-30-40-50 amps. There are millions of home fires a year from bad wiring, failing fuses etc. "

 

[JRP3]

The mayhem potential of EV's is far lower than any highly compressed explosive gas.

 

[Discoducky]

My buddy has a CNG civic which holds 3500psi and that freaks me out.

 

[Doug_G]

Even though I share most's views on this thread (fuel cell=fool cell), in fairness one could say regarding BEVs: "Just think about the safety challenges: people charging over night at 20-30-40-50 amps. There are millions of home fires a year from bad wiring, failing fuses etc. "

Millions, no. There were 364,500 residential fires and 2,450 deaths in the USA in 2011. There were about 3,000 fires due to electrical equipment failure. Seems like electrical equipment is pretty safe.

Highly compressed and extremely flammable gas... that's scary.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I think the total number of accidents that will happen with hydrogen won't be that many, but the ones that do happen will be blown up by the media (and the effects may be larger given the double danger of both high flammability and high pressure).

 

[Reykjavik]

Adding wiring to charge an EV does change the risk of a fire caused by electrical wiring. I'm not sure it increases the risk though. Having a qualified electrician look at your system and work on it might actually expose flaws and let you fix them, adding an additional source of risk compounds the issue. Most houses already have electrical systems to run lights, a dryer, dishwasher, TV, computers, and various other appliances (some houses also heat water and air with electricity). Adding a car to the mix doesn't make much difference. Adding a hydrogen powered vehicle adds an entire new system, with its own risks, and it may even cause more risk to the electrical system. A small spark in an electrical system isn't always an issue, but that same small spark could be enough to ignite a hydrogen cloud that has been leaking from a faulty fuel cell vehicle.

One big system is easier to handle than two small systems. This is why EVs are more efficient even if you got all your power from petroleum. The system for electricity to homes will exist whether or not you include transportation. By consolidating the systems, you can decrease costs, improve safety, and improve efficiency.

 

[Johan]

Millions, no. There were 364,500 residential fires and 2,450 deaths in the USA in 2011. There were about 3,000 fires due to electrical equipment failure. Seems like electrical equipment is pretty safe.

Highly compressed and extremely flammable gas... that's scary.

Worldwide definitely millions. I was just pointing out the possible opposite argument. However, no need to convince me. I believe and know that it's many "orders of magnitute" to use electrical equipment safely compared to highly compressed hydrogen. No doubt. In fact I think the safety barrier would be the downfall of hydrogen FCVs if the technology were otherwise mature and competetive (which it is not).

 

[Doug_G]

Worldwide definitely millions. I was just pointing out the possible opposite argument. However, no need to convince me. I believe and know that it's many "orders of magnitute" to use electrical equipment safely compared to highly compressed hydrogen. No doubt. In fact I think the safety barrier would be the downfall of hydrogen FCVs if the technology were otherwise mature and competetive (which it is not).

Millions of house fires, sure. But fires caused by electrical wiring are a couple of orders of magnitude less. In any case we agree about hydrogen safety.

 

[renim]

Until Hydrogen Vehicles are available for sale and not just lease, the safety issues will be hidden.
Ownership demands open responsibilty for safety, but leases allows safety issues to be obscured.

For instance, transportable 70mPa pressure vessels containing H2. The will be regulations concerning hydrostatic testing intervals, differing country by country. There is no equivalent test for ICE or EVs, as they don't require components to be removed to be verified.

Permissions to operate publicly accessible H2 refuleing stations, thats currently banned in cities like Seoul. (Private accessible is possible though)

 

[miimura]

Permissions to operate publicly accessible H2 refuleing stations, thats currently banned in cities like Seoul. (Private accessible is possible though)

There are many rules and regulations that need to be changed to allow hydrogen infrastructure. For example, I heard that it's not legal to make retail sales of hydrogen in California. That clearly has to change eventually. That's also why all the FCEV leases include the cost of the H2 - as a private individual you're not allowed to buy it!