Big hydrogen fuel cell push from Japan

Beta Ray Bill

http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/japanese-car-giants-support-pollution-free-fuel-cell-push-790356.html

This is very interesting, key points:
1) Aiming to have 40,000 fuel cell cars on the road in 3 years.
2) Collaboration of 11 companies, including car giants Toyota, Nissan and Honda, as well as energy and gas companies and a bank

The collaboration between the companies is the big one.
Looks like serious challenge being mounted against the EV's

Although I wonder will relationship between EV and FC be the same as Petrol to Diesel?

Outkast_IRE

A few years back Toyota were of meant to of been days away from signing a partnership with Tesla. Toyota apparently pulled out as at senior levels a decision was made that Hydrogen was the future of the company.

I am not surprised from this announcement, My brother does design work for Mercedes Benz and at a senior level they are also convinced that hydrogen is the future for cars.

I think if you can get the infrastructure in place to produce hydrogen and vehicles at a reasonable economic cost then its the way to go.

I would hedge my bets longterm on Hydrogen, but shortterm i would still expect to see more battery powered EVs on the roads. Since Hydrogen powered cars and EV cars will share a good amount of technology it makes sense to see side by side development for a while.

mikeecho

Hydrogen has being trialled in Germany for the past few years.
They built special hydrogen stations along certain routes.

Shefwedfan

There was article this morning about Electric cars would kill the Fuel industry(BP, ESSO etc). This is not good for those big companies so they will throw there weight behind something they can sell in a garage. Electric is harder to manage so hydrogen is the answer...

Who will win? Nobody knows yet

My preference is electric

Ubbquittious

Hopefully hydrogen cars will take off to some extent because you can have an ordinary combustion engine run on hydrogen as well and the fuel tank doesn't degrade after every fill like lithium batteries do.

Beta Ray Bill

Shefwedfan wrote: »

There was article this morning about Electric cars would kill the Fuel industry(BP, ESSO etc). This is not good for those big companies so they will throw there weight behind something they can sell in a garage. Electric is harder to manage so hydrogen is the answer...

Who will win? Nobody knows yet

My preference is electric

It's hard to see how the energy companies will maintain there wealth.
Electricity is relatively cheap for power a car and Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. Obviously it's nearly always bonded to something, but producing your own hydrogen in a few years may be possible

Ubbquittious wrote: »

Hopefully hydrogen cars will take off to some extent because you can have an ordinary combustion engine run on hydrogen as well and the fuel tank doesn't degrade after every fill like lithium batteries do.

I think the environmental and economic cost of building and maintaining these batteries is what will make people move away from EV cars long term

Vicxas

Hydrogen engines seem more realistic than us all switching to Electric cars, as im sure old combustion engines can be easily modified to accept hydrogen.

H3llR4iser

Guys, just to point out - if we're talking fuel cells, we're talking about devices that essentially convert the hydrogen's chemical energy into electricity, It's not "hydrogen engines" nor the "big bad petrol business" trying to get a shoe in, fuel cells would work as generators in EVs; NASA used a variant of the concept to power key electrical systems on the Space Shuttle.

If you ask me, the fuel cell way is the way EVs should have gone from the beginning - batteries are bulky, heavy, cumbersome things from the past century. Think about something as trivial as your phone or laptop - what is the worst, least technologically advanced part of it? Yep...the one providing the power.

Shefwedfan

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Guys, just to point out - if we're talking fuel cells, we're talking about devices that essentially convert the hydrogen's chemical energy into electricity, It's not "hydrogen engines" nor the "big bad petrol business" trying to get a shoe in, fuel cells would replace batteries in EVs; NASA used a variant of the concept to power key electrical systems on the Space Shuttle.

If you ask me, the fuel cell way is the way EVs should have gone from the beginning - batteries are bulky, heavy, cumbersome things from the past century. Think about something as trivial as your phone or laptop - what is the worst, least technologically advanced part of it? Yep...the one providing the power.

The problem is that most of the dev work was not done on the battery. It was done on the UI or the aesthetics of the device

Only now with the like of Tesla/Audi/Volvo/Hyundai/Nissan/Renault really looking at electric car and battery technology have advancements been made. If you look at the current EV cars out there all are coming out quick and fast with newer, higher capacity battery technology.

Tesla opening up battery factory and planning on having another 3-4 will also push more development.

Also remember, the battery technology is used for Solar etc so it has multiple uses.

This year alone you have seen a new model e-Golf and Zoe with higher range. Also hynudai with Ioniq and they plan on having larger battery next year. The Leaf will have new version next year....etc etc etc

GavMan

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Guys, just to point out - if we're talking fuel cells, we're talking about devices that essentially convert the hydrogen's chemical energy into electricity

There in lies the problem. It takes a lot of energy to convert the Hydrogen into 'energy'. So using a small battery is tricky...

mikeecho

Total H2 in Germany

http://de.total.com/en-us/total-germany/better-energy-projects-germany/emission-free-mobility-green-hydrogen-practical-trial


12 years.. TWELVE years, they've been trialing / testing it

grogi

GavMan wrote: »

There in lies the problem. It takes a lot of energy to convert the Hydrogen into 'energy'. So using a small battery is tricky...

Very little is required. Hinderburg rings a bell?

Hydrogen Fuel Cell does exactly that - "burns" the hydrogen and produces electricity, in a very slow and controlled way. I don't understand what battery you're talking about - the car needs battery to power its computers and other systems.

There might be a small amount required to initialise the electricity production in the cell - but I am not an expert on the details here.

Beta Ray Bill

grogi wrote: »

Very little is required. Hinderburg rings a bell?

Hydrogen Fuel Cell does exactly that - "burns" the hydrogen and produces electricity, in a very slow and controlled way. I don't understand what battery you're talking about - the car needs battery to power its computers and other systems.

There might be a small amount required to initialise the electricity production in the cell - but I am not an expert on the details here.

It doesn't burn Hyrdogen.
It just allows the Hydrogen to Combine with air (Oxygen) which creates water (H20) and an electrical current, that's basically it in principal

The opposite can be done
IE Spliting water into Oxygen and Hydrogen by running a current through water. This is called electrolysis

http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/projects/split_h2o.html

The principal is very simple and Hydrogen gas can be compressed into a liquid making it possible to to produce a lot of power.

Battery Stores a charge
Fuel Cell creates a charge

grogi

grahambo wrote: »

It doesn't burn Hyrdogen.
It just allows the Hydrogen to Combine with air (Oxygen) which creates water (H20) and an electrical current, that's basically it in principal

FFS, what burning is?

Beta Ray Bill

grogi wrote: »

FFS, what burning is?

Forgive my ignorance,
But doesn't something need to be ignited to burn?

grogi

OSI wrote: »

Burning = combustion.
Fuel cell != combustion.

For sake of correctness - combustion is a synonim to burning, you can hardly use it to explain the difference.

Nevertheless, combustion is an uncontrolled oxidation reaction, which results in light and excessive heat emission. A fuel cell similarly performs oxidation, but in controlled manner. The main difference is it hardly emits any heat.

I keep taking a stand that usage of verb to burn, especially in quotes, is justified in this context. The flame in fuel cell is very tiny

ScumLord

I think the electric motor is the future, the things that can be done with them is bonkers, they're faster, more controllable, can do torque vectoring. The motor is way simpler, there's less to go wrong, more reliable, easier to fix.

The only question left is how we power those motors. Hydrogen doesn't have to be in competition with electric, they're both part of the same solution.

I've even been wondering why there aren't more manufacturers making cars with a generator that runs on petrol hooked up to an electric motor, I assume you just lose too much energy in the conversions? But when it came to sports cars a generator/electric motor combination may not be all that bigger or heavier than a performance engine.

Beta Ray Bill

ScumLord wrote: »

The only question left is how we power those motors. Hydrogen doesn't have to be in competition with electric, they're both part of the same solution.

True

They will share a high percentage of the same components

grogi

ScumLord wrote: »

I think the electric motor is the future, the things that can be done with them is bonkers, they're faster, more controllable, can do torque vectoring. The motor is way simpler, there's less to go wrong, more reliable, easier to fix.

The only question left is how we power those motors. Hydrogen doesn't have to be in competition with electric, they're both part of the same solution.

Exactly. Hydrogen-EV plugin hybrid sounds like a good idea. EV range of 40-50km, while long range can be easily provided by H₂O synthesis in the fuel cell from H₂, which can be conveniently and rapidly filled at a petrol station.

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

I think the electric motor is the future, the things that can be done with them is bonkers, they're faster, more controllable, can do torque vectoring. The motor is way simpler, there's less to go wrong, more reliable, easier to fix.

The only question left is how we power those motors. Hydrogen doesn't have to be in competition with electric, they're both part of the same solution.

I've even been wondering why there aren't more manufacturers making cars with a generator that runs on petrol hooked up to an electric motor, I assume you just lose too much energy in the conversions? But when it came to sports cars a generator/electric motor combination may not be all that bigger or heavier than a performance engine.

F1 car 702kg now with a smaller engine and all and they struggle to make weight. 10 years ago they were 600kg and had loads of ballast to play with. Subtracting the driver and bodywork components shows how much more weight there is in the powertrain proportionately. And they can't use the top-end much at all.

zilog_jones

ScumLord wrote: »

I've even been wondering why there aren't more manufacturers making cars with a generator that runs on petrol hooked up to an electric motor, I assume you just lose too much energy in the conversions? But when it came to sports cars a generator/electric motor combination may not be all that bigger or heavier than a performance engine.

There's only really the BMW i3 REx that does that - but it turns out most people who own these cars rarely use the ICE generator (there are stats somewhere). It adds weight and takes away valuable space that could be better used with more battery, and it's not particularly cheap to run if you were using it regularly. The fuel tank is quite small (9 litres) so doesn't add massive range either (maybe 100-150km or so).

Series-parallel plug-in hybrids (BMW 330e, Outlander PHEV, Prius Plug-in, etc.) are arguably more practical as you can do short range driving very cheap (and with zero emissions), but still get normal petrol car range (1000km or whatever) when needed.

There is some potential with Mazda in this field, as their rotary engines would work well as a range extender - they're light, small and actually quite efficient at constant speed (as opposed to when directly driving the wheels, where they're pretty awful on fuel).

ScumLord

Deleted User wrote: »

F1 car 702kg now with a smaller engine and all and they struggle to make weight. 10 years ago they were 600kg and had loads of ballast to play with. Subtracting the driver and bodywork components shows how much more weight there is in the powertrain proportionately. And they can't use the top-end much at all.

F1 is a different world though. They can make much lighter engines because they're prepared to have the engine only do a handful of races before it's useless. On a normal road car, like say the GT86, the tesla motor could be producing 700hp. What size of an engine would you have to put into a GT86 to be able to do 700hp reliably and without all the drama of a highly tuned engine?

zilog_jones wrote: »

There's only really the BMW i3 REx that does that - but it turns out most people who own these cars rarely use the ICE generator (there are stats somewhere). It adds weight and takes away valuable space that could be better used with more battery, and it's not particularly cheap to run if you were using it regularly. The fuel tank is quite small (9 litres) so doesn't add massive range either (maybe 100-150km or so).

That car doesn't convince me either but the generator engine was an afterthought, I'm thinking of a generator that's basically hooked directly to the electric motor and without any kind of storage battery in the middle, once the batteries are out of the equation the weight plummets.

zilog_jones

ScumLord wrote: »

That car doesn't convince me either but the generator engine was an afterthought, I'm thinking of a generator that's basically hooked directly to the electric motor and without any kind of storage battery in the middle, once the batteries are out of the equation the weight plummets.

That makes sense in diesel locomotives when you're dealing with huge amounts of power and weight (they are generally diesel-electric as you describe), but not in small passenger cars. A petrol hybrid will do that more efficiently.

H3llR4iser

ScumLord wrote: »

F1 is a different world though. They can make much lighter engines because they're prepared to have the engine only do a handful of races before it's useless. On a normal road car, like say the GT86, the tesla motor could be producing 700hp. What size of an engine would you have to put into a GT86 to be able to do 700hp reliably and without all the drama of a highly tuned engine?

I think what he meant is that even in F1 the addition of the electric motor, power harvesting system and batteries has added a significant amount of weight to the cars, notwithstanding the cutting edge technology and the ultra-lightweight materials.

I am not sure about this, but on a whim, I would say that an electric system (motors + batteries) capable of producing "700hp" with a decent mileage will weigh significantly more than a petrol engine of the same power; Something like a Ferrari F154 V8 will weigh more than the GT86s original engine, but the difference would likely still less than the 544kg of the batteries alone in a Tesla Model S.

ScumLord wrote: »

That car doesn't convince me either but the generator engine was an afterthought, I'm thinking of a generator that's basically hooked directly to the electric motor and without any kind of storage battery in the middle, once the batteries are out of the equation the weight plummets.

That's how diesel-electric locomotives work; The engine generates electricity that powers electric motors connected to the axles. There have been studies applied to cars, and as we discuss there are some road applications - mostly with buses (e.g. special versions of the Mercedes Citaro) and trucks.

Some manufacturer have even experimented with gas turbines; The problem lies in the fact that in order to have the same performance, you need an ICE generator engine that has roughly the same power output - at that point, you might as well connect the thermal engine to the wheels directly as in your average car; or go the same way as the cars mentioned above, with a "small" engine charging battery packs.

Even in the purely hypothetical scenario where it was a technically viable option, I have a feeling that a "petrol-electric", "diesel-electric" or "gas-electric" car wouldn't tick the "marketing checkboxes"...first there would be no "zero emissions" moniker, and second...well, it's not like generators are the most silent nor the most charmingly sounding things around

nice_guy80

Think of how long it took the first cars to be developed
It was a slow process
The conversion to hydrogen will also be slow

Doltanian

Big Oil will want to control supply and demand, Battery Electric Vehicles would cut them out. The biggest thing however is Government's they could easily slap a few cents on a litre of Hydrogen wheras Taxing Electricity could not work due its ubiquitous nature and the ability to self generate also.

The electric car and or Hydrogen fuel cell will come along but we as motorists will still get screwed at the end of the day. Super Capacitor batteries would be my best hope as Lithium is a finite resource.

Beta Ray Bill

Doltanian wrote: »

Big Oil will want to control supply and demand, Battery Electric Vehicles would cut them out. The biggest thing however is Government's they could easily slap a few cents on a litre of Hydrogen wheras Taxing Electricity could not work due its ubiquitous nature and the ability to self generate also.

The electric car and or Hydrogen fuel cell will come along but we as motorists will still get screwed at the end of the day. Super Capacitor batteries would be my best hope as Lithium is a finite resource.

True, that about the tax. However governments would have a hard time justifying it. As it is the most abundant element in the universe. Such to the extent that you can actually produce it yourself (you'd have no way to compress it though)

Ubbquittious

Ubbquittious wrote: »

Hopefully hydrogen cars will take off to some extent because you can have an ordinary combustion engine run on hydrogen as well and the fuel tank doesn't degrade after every fill like lithium batteries do.

I think the cars will be electric motors powered from hydrogen fuel cells.
I'd conceptually prefer ICE powered by hrdrogen.

A blogger in the UK had some hydrogen fuel cell electric Toyota thing on test lately. The price of it was looney.

When in school I remember being told the Japanese were great at making technology and other nation's inventions better

This is a good article.. ..... https://www.ft.com/content/328df346-10cb-11e7-a88c-50ba212dce4d

the American's are on to the same thing for HGVs.... https://nikolamotor.com/

I wouldn't be holding on to Tesla shares if I had any

Wibbs

Augeo wrote: »

I wouldn't be holding on to Tesla shares if I had any

Neither would I for all sorts of reasons. Still it would be my bet that down the line lithium battery cars will be the Betamax of the automotive world, cool but a niche player. Just on the car side of the equation fuel cell cars will be simpler, based on long standing understanding of the tech(that's still scalable), far lighter, with less of an impact in overall environmental terms than pure battery cars and instantly fillable with far greater ranges. Plus the "money" will prefer them.

zilog_jones

Hydrogen FCVs are not light - The Honda Clarity and Toyota Mirai are both over 1800kg!

Hydrogen production also requires a lot of energy, as opposed to with EVs which take electricity directly. In terms of environmental impact, hydrogen is probably worse.

grogi

zilog_jones wrote: »

Hydrogen FCVs are not light - The Honda Clarity and Toyota Mirai are both over 1800kg!

Hydrogen production also requires a lot of energy, as opposed to with EVs which take electricity directly. In terms of environmental impact, hydrogen is probably worse.

The fuel cell in Mirai is not that heavy: 2.0 kW/kg... 50 kW (of average power) requires only 25kg...

zilog_jones

Yes, I don't know what's causing it but the package as a whole has led to a very heavy car for its class. It's a good 300-400kg heavier than an equivalent ICE or hybrid, or the Hyundai Ioniq Electric (granted it's probably a bit larger than that).

ei9go

[QUOTE=ScumLord;103560308
I've even been wondering why there aren't more manufacturers making cars with a generator that runs on petrol hooked up to an electric motor, I assume you just lose too much energy in the conversions? But when it came to sports cars a generator/electric motor combination may not be all that bigger or heavier than a performance engine.[/QUOTE]

There is a Nissan Note in Japan that works exactly like this.

cros13

Hydrogen Fuel Cells don't make any sense for transportation use.

I say that as an engineer who's worked with h2 fuel cells in remote power applications.

There are fundamental unsolvable issues that will prevent them ever hitting the mass market.

Chief among the issues is efficiency. Unless you are reforming natural gas you have to get your h2 from electrolysis which means taking electricity that could be used to charge an EV or grid battery and immediately losing ~50% of the power you put in.
Then subtract energy inputs and losses for liquefaction or compression, distribution losses, another 50% loss in the fuel cell and you end up delivering about 10-15% of the energy you started with to the battery and electric motor and the road surface. This inefficiency makes operating an FCV inherently more expensive than EVs which vary from 70-90% efficient from generation to the road surface.

Add to that the addition practical issues (not an exhaustive list):

• Hydrogen is volatile and difficult to store and transfer... it hydridizes seals, embrittles metal and leaks through air-tight gaps
  
• There are difficult safety issues with both the onboard fuel tanks and fuel pumps. COPV fuel systems like in the Mirai have a safe operation life after which the fuel system needs to be replaced. Out of less than 20 pumps in California, two have already blown up. Crash safety is also an issue with a colourless, odourless highly flammable gas. Refueling currently requires special training.
  
• EVs can already charge quicker than FCVs can refill and pressurize the tanks.
  
• EV range is already above every FCV that made it to limited production.
  
• Fuel cells being developed for use in cars have very limited power outputs and the size of the battery buffer also limits the power that can be fed to the electric motor.
  
• Fuel cells are very expensive to build, currently the Mirai's stack costs around $50,000 to build and uses for example 15 times the platinum used in a typical catalytic converter. Billions in development money over twenty years has resulted in only a 50% drop in the amount of precious metals required.
  
• Other cost issues... including that a hydrogen pump costs a lot more to build than a 400kW EV rapid charger. Ten times more.... and I can see little scope in the bill of materials for reducing that to below 2-3X the EV charger regardless of the scale of mass production. Hydrogen currently costs twice what petrol costs per km... and battery EV is four to five time less (or 12 times less if you include taxation differences).

Daimler has seen the writing on the wall and halted fuel cell development. BMW and Hyundai/Kia have one foot out the door and that leaves Toyota (who have a crash program to develop a battery EV), Honda and the japanese government (who have a lunatic plan for mining methane hydrates from the ocean floor) the only idiots willing to spend money on this nonsense.

The only Fuel Cells that make sense for transportation use would be methane fuel cells (SOFC or similar) as range extenders for HGVs... although we're starting to see development of long range (1000km+) battery electric HGVs now that battery prices have dropped (Tesla will have something to show in september). Methane... we can already create and distribute easily and it's much more energy dense than hydrogen.

Wibbs

cros13 wrote: »

Methane... we can already create and distribute easily and it's much more energy dense than hydrogen.

Eh what science book did you pull that from? Hydrogen has a significantly higher energy density than methane. And you're an engineer? That's pretty basic stuff TBH.

Tesla will have something to show in...

[insert nebulous timeframe reality here] Tesla have almost never made their publicised deadlines/announcements, so we can but wait and see.

Honda and the japanese government (who have a lunatic plan for mining methane hydrates from the ocean floor) the only idiots willing to spend money on this nonsense.

TBH with wording like that it sounds more like a press release from the battery is king camp.

cros13

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh what science book did you pull that from? Hydrogen has a significantly higher energy density than methane. And you're an engineer? That's pretty basic stuff TBH.

Think again buddy... hydrogen has high energy density by weight but poor density by volume... and the weight of the larger 150 or 200kg storage tank and associated fittings far outweighs the benefit of the carrying 10hg of H2 vs 20 or so kg of CH4. Either that or you need to use higher pressure... in which case you need stronger tanks like carbon overwrapped pressure vessels and safety becomes even more difficult.

Wibbs wrote: »

[insert nebulous timeframe reality here] Tesla have almost never made their publicised deadlines/announcements, so we can but wait and see.

September reveal.... production in ~3 years (probably longer... but that's down to manufacturing capacity)

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/852580027178696704

Wibbs wrote: »

TBH with wording like that it sounds more like a press release from the battery is king camp.

FCVs were never meant to be anything more than a bridging technology to battery EVs anyway.

ScumLord

It looks like we'll just have to put a cage over every road and do it bumper car style.

Wibbs

cros13 wrote: »

Think again buddy...

Your statement that methane is "much more energy dense than hydrogen" was plain incorrect, "buddy".

A tweet from Elon Musk as a gauge of anything is about as reliable as a 1960's Italian cars electrics.

ScumLord wrote:

It looks like we'll just have to put a cage over every road and do it bumper car style.

Aye. There does seem to be real fanboy zealotry and fervour on all sides of this whole EV thing. To an embarrassing degree at times. Best added to the list of People to avoid getting stuck in a corner at parties, along with vegans and a/theists.

With any emerging technology it's best for the rest of us to remember; pioneers take the arrows, settlers take the land.

ScumLord

Wibbs wrote: »

Aye. There does seem to be real fanboy zealotry and fervour on all sides of this whole EV thing. To an embarrassing degree at times.

I was never a fan of electric until I saw the Mercedes SLS AMG electric. That thing is incredible, granted, it only runs for about 15 minutes, but for those 15 minutes it's the greatest sports car on the planet from a performance perspective. I'll buy into that future no problem. It really showed the benefits of electric motors, I could see off roaders benefiting from electric motor too. Even the Tesla shows that there could be a massive performance jump switching to electric.

I think electric motors are incredible, I want one. The range issue is a bitter reality pill to swallow after seeing what's possible. Made even more bitter by the fact there doesn't seem to be a simple solution.

Sabre Man

Wibbs wrote: »

[insert nebulous timeframe reality here] Tesla have almost never made their publicised deadlines/announcements, so we can but wait and see.

Elon has already driven the truck. I'm pretty sure they'll show it in September but maybe not the final version, a bit like the Model 3 unveil.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-says-tesla-semi-truck-can-drive-like-sports-car-2017-4?r=US&IR=T

Wibbs

ScumLord wrote: »

I think electric motors are incredible, I want one.

Oh same here and I like the idea of the electric cars coming down the line, it's the happy clappy, obsessive, blind to any criticism preachers of the tech that do my head in. Like I said, you don't wanna be stuck with one at parties. I have a neighbour with a Leaf. Since he got it, he could bore for Ireland* and place well in the High Horse event too.







*It's not a bad car at all. So long as one doesn't have to look at it. Then again that's the market segment and a large one too; car as household appliance, regardless of motive power. White goods on wheels. Those cars for people who don't like driving, but just want to get from A to B. And it works as that. The power delivery is way better than equivalent petrol cars in the segment(whose engines are as exciting as tepid milk). Defo better as an electric car.

cros13

cros13 wrote: »

..........................
I say that as an engineer who's worked with h2 fuel cells in remote power applications..........................

That's that so.

zilog_jones

ScumLord wrote: »

I think electric motors are incredible, I want one. The range issue is a bitter reality pill to swallow after seeing what's possible. Made even more bitter by the fact there doesn't seem to be a simple solution.

The solution is simple enough - we need batteries with higher energy density and faster charging rates, then most the limitations of EVs will be resolved. The technology is moving quickly (cost is going down rapidly too), and they'll get there eventually, but I don't know how soon. TBH I can see this happening faster than hydrogen FCVs taking off.

cros13

Wibbs wrote: »

Your statement that methane is "much more energy dense than hydrogen" was plain incorrect, "buddy".

I'm sorry that you seem to think the ability to tap a search query into google is the same thing as knowledge.You unilaterally decided that I was referring to specific energy by mass because that's what google defaulted your query to.

I hate to break this to you, but you can't just load kilogram bricks of metallic hydrogen into your boot. At the temperatures and pressures common at sea level on planet earth the density of hydrogen is around 0.09 kg per cubic decimeter and methane's equivalent is 0.717 kg per cubic decimeter (STP - 0 degrees C, one ATM).... THEN you can use your specific energy per kg or mol to determine how much energy is in a dm3 of the gas at 1 atmosphere.... In this case you may not have noticed that the value google gave you for hydrogen was for gas compressed at 700 bar (just over 690 times atmospheric pressure).

I have no issue with hydrogen fuel cells being used in applications to which they are suited. Backup power for datacenters, some remote power applications, some aerospace applications among others... but if you are betting on shoehorning a technology into an application where the economics and basic physics say it can't be competitive you're going to lose your money.

cros13

cros13 wrote: »

........... At the temperatures and pressures common at sea level on planet earth the density of hydrogen is around 0.09 kg per cubic meter and methane's equivalent is 0.717 kg per cubic meter (STP - 0 degrees C, one ATM).... THEN you can use your specific energy per kg or mol to determine how much energy is in a m3 of the gas at 1 atmosphere...................

Be honest, where did you pull that from.......... I'd be fairly sure it wasn't the top of your head.

cros13

Augeo wrote: »

Be honest, where did you pull that from.......... I'd be fairly sure it wasn't the top of your head.

I knew the h2 number off the top of my head... I had to look up methane in an old textbook... but I did know the rough proportions.

And there are of course other factors... you can't just directly take the chemical specific energy as the output of the fuel cell for example... far from it.

For a long time I've been of the opinion that a methane fuel cell range extender might be a good option for long-distance HGVs... but the rapid drop in battery price per kWh has meant that we have a shot at 1000km range BEV HGVs... The two outstanding questions are whether today the TCO will justify the purchase price until the battery price drops further and whether what the additional weight costs you in cargo carrying can be made up.

I'm still skeptical that Tesla are going to be able to reveal a commercially useful long-range HGV this year or produce it in 3 years. I was expecting them to aim for the 200-400km market.

Wibbs

cros13 wrote: »

I'm sorry that you seem to think the ability to tap a search query into google is the same thing as knowledge.You unilaterally decided that I was referring to specific energy by mass because that's what google defaulted your query to.

Nope, no google required on my part*, so maybe dial back your childish pettiness just because your E-"expertise" was questioned? Just a thought.





*TBH I remember it from some TV programme or other that mentioned the explosive properties of different gases and hydrogen was king. Also various bits and bobs in my memory regarding the space programme and different gaseous fuels and again hydrogen was above methane in energy.

zilog_jones

I think I'd trust an engineer with experience in hydrogen fuel cell applications (irrelevant to his EV ownership) more than someone who maybe watched something on TV...

Wibbs

It's the internet, so "self claimed" should be kept in mind. I've also found actual experts far less prone to getting petty. Never mind that his original statement was incorrect. Simple as that really.

This is also... well, plain wrong;

cros13 wrote:

EVs can already charge quicker than FCVs can refill and pressurize the tanks.

Demonstrable nonsense. Current FCV's fill up at pretty much the same speed as ICE vehicles. It's one of the main benefits touted for the tech when compared to EV's. What EV fills up in under five minutes? Sure they've gotten better but that would be none.

And I did google this because I had a "eh hang TF on" moment, when I reread that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKPic7W0oF8

Further googling(missis!) and I revisited other points raised.

Out of less than 20 pumps in California, two have already blown up

I could only find one incident where this happened seven years ago. Still, current petrol stations go on fire on the regular worldwide. Though to be fair pure EV pretty much eliminates that worry. EDIT there are more than 20 pumps in CA. Musta googled older "facts".

Crash safety is also an issue with a colourless, odourless highly flammable gas.

Petrol is not exactly too safe and LPG cars must be deathtraps.. The humanity...

Refueling currently requires special training.

Again utter tripe for an "expert" to state. See video above. There are plenty of them on the 'Tube.

Now when I did go a googling I also found similar bullet points from the EV/Musk fanbase against FCV(you get similar slanted "truths" from the anti EV/Musk, pro FCV fanbase. It's daftly polarised a subject). As I said don't automatically assume expertise on the interwebs, especially when enthusiastic fans are in play.

Since now we're googling between friends check it all out for yourself ZJ. Though it's damned hard to get an unbiased slant.

For me, I have no skin in the game. Yet. The only time I've plugged my car in overnight was when the alternator went a bit dicky. I have no particular preference for either tech. If gun to my head I had to pick one today? I'd obviously go EV as the infrastructure is more in place(zero for FCV's in Ireland?) and I like that you can fuel up at home overnight for feck all. Down the line who knows. Maybe the FCV will start to make inroads, maybe it won't. I'd see the three major blocks being infrastructure, hydrogen production costs and the EV already having a foothold. I'd certainly not be a pioneer in either tech as such pioneering tech often turns out quite different in the end. I would adopt a wait and see approach myself.

zilog_jones

Nobody said anything about being a fuel cell vehicle "expert". Please don't jump to conclusions. I bet nobody here has even touched a FCV. Incessant personally-targeted nitpicking doesn't really contribute to meaningful discussion.

EVs are not without their limitations, but at least it's technology that can be used in this country right now at a reasonable cost - and the technology is moving rapidly. The same can't be said for FCVs right now, and I'm not sure they'll ever really take off considering the infrastructure challenges (production and supply of fuel, and environmental cost compared to lecky). Maybe elsewhere outside of passenger cars.