Hydrogen FCVs in 2019

wassie

I've read in a few threads recently posts that state that hydrogen vehicles are not viable and 'that ship has sailed'. I would disagree. Perhaps the lack of discussion around hydrogen vehicles is also due, in part, to the fact there isn't an offering locally at this point in time (for various reasons).

However, I view hydrogen is a serious technology that continues to be developed particularly by the three biggest (by production) Asian-only manufacturers. Toyota & Hyundai have massive investments in the technology. Honda, as the worlds largest engine manufacturer, see uses beyond just vehicles. GM are also partnering with Honda with the aim of releasing their own FCV in the near future.

2019's most notable hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) models around the globe include the Toyota Mirai, Hyundai Nexo and the updated Honda Clarity.

EVs are well suited to small or densely populated countries (like Ireland). But FCVs have great potential in areas where larger distances need to be covered like Australia. They also can be refuelled in minutes, unlike EVs and again with zero emissions. Range is significantly better also, due in part to reduced weight (no batteries) and better suited for heavy haulage (towing, trucks, buses, forklifts etc).

But the infrastructure for refuelling remains the biggest obstacle to uptake as hydrogen cannot be readily transported in pure form.

Recently however, the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) has developed a membrane technology that will potentially over come this issue. (Incidentally the CSIRO gave the world wifi - so they have credability). According to their website:

One way of overcoming (this) limitation is to convert hydrogen to ammonia, piggybacking existing transport infrastructure - the financial and technical barriers to using ammonia as a hydrogen carrier are low.

Personally, I don't believe this is a battle for supremacy of EV vs FCV. I think the world will see both technologies continue to develop & thrive whereby we will see a mix of both, with demand driven according to the specific regional needs of a particular market.

Round Cable

The big issue with hydrogen is inefficiency.

You can fill 3-4 EVs with the same quantity of electricity required to power a single FCV.

And there is just no way to overcome the physics.

SlowBlowin

I don't think there is any future for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, they seemed logical some time ago but as batteries/EV infrastructure have matured they just don't make logical sense. They are terribly inefficient (making/storing hydrogen then using), and hollywood car crash sequences would become reality with every car carrying a bomb. Also where are you going to fill them up, you mention outback Australia there will be no hydrogen filling stations there. EVs have won the infrastructure battle, its a VHS/Betamax type things

We are in a great place where battery innovation continues apace, every year storage capacity goes up, costs come down. Dry electrode batteries will start appearing in the next 18 months, giving real world EV ranges of 500 miles +, at lower cost than today's batteries (Maxwell/Tesla). HFCVs are just EVs with a fuel cell and a tank instead of a battery, and its always going to be more expensive to fill a tank rather than charge a battery.

The amount of money being put into hydrogen FCVs is tiny, minuscule, compared to the investment and commitments in EVs from the majority of the major manufacturers.

I have not read the thread you refer to but I would agree, that ship has sailed, maybe even sunk.

cruizer101

Two major issues with hydrogen

1. Currently no efficient way to generate it.
2. Storage is very hard as hydrogen loves to leak through everything, including solid steel

I did read recently about a way of storing as liquid dissolved in water but it was early days on the research so hard to know if will work well.

I did also read of a methane fuel cell, which if they could crack that there would be a lot of potential as we, and a lot of countries, already have a network for that.

MrMusician18

Round Cable wrote: »

The big issue with hydrogen is inefficiency.

You can fill 3-4 EVs with the same quantity of electricity required to power a single FCV.

And there is just no way to overcome the physics.

Most consumers don't care about efficiency tbh. Just look at ICE vehicles.

If the vehicle is affordable, fuel inexpensive, and delivers good range, consumers will buy it.

SlowBlowin

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Most consumers don't care about efficiency tbh. Just look at ICE vehicles.

If the vehicle is affordable, fuel inexpensive, and delivers good range, consumers will buy it.

That's the point because hydrogen as a fuel is so inefficient the fuel is expensive.

n97 mini

Have a look at this site. That company is betting the future will involve hydrogen, and after having read a lot of their tweets I can see where they're coming from.

They're installing 700 hydrogen filling stations across the US, where anyone can fill up on hydrogen (100% from renewable sources) at $6 a kilogram. $30 worth is enough to do 500km in a Toyota Mirai. That's comparable to petrol at $3 a gallon, but in California and some other states it's heading for $4, so instant savings.

unkel

We're all predicting here, nothing is certain. But this is my view:

Hydrogen is only useful as storage for over production of renewable electricity (once we all have well over 100% renewable electricity a lot of the time. Which his going to happen in the next decade or two)

And that usefulness is very limited once storage in batteries becomes substantially cheaper than they are now

n97 mini

unkel wrote: »

And that usefulness is very limited once storage in batteries becomes substantially cheaper than they are now

I reckon 60-70kwh batteries will be the sweet spot for most cars. Would cover a day's driving.

Hadn't thought about lorries and other forms of heavy transport though. Tesla's semi is estimated to have a battery between 800 and 1000kwh. I think hydrogen probably scales to those levels a lot more easily and cheaply... just fit a bigger tank.

unkel

n97 mini wrote: »

I reckon 60-70kwh batteries will be the sweet spot for most cars. Would cover a day's driving.

Hadn't thought about lorries and other forms of heavy transport though. Tesla's semi is estimated to have a battery between 800 and 1000kwh. I think hydrogen probably scales to those levels a lot more easily and cheaply... just fit a bigger tank.

I wasn't just referring to batteries in vehicles. Maybe I should have specifically stated grid attached (unmovable) storage

Then you charge your 800kWh lorry battery up in an hour at a very fast charger. Maybe even far quicker than that, again in a decade or two

SlowBlowin

n97 mini wrote: »

Have a look at this site. That company is betting the future will involve hydrogen, and after having read a lot of their tweets I can see where they're coming from.

They're installing 700 hydrogen filling stations across the US, where anyone can fill up on hydrogen (100% from renewable sources) at $6 a kilogram. $30 worth is enough to do 500km in a Toyota Mirai. That's comparable to petrol at $3 a gallon, but in California and some other states it's heading for $4, so instant savings.

Can you point me to the quote for 700 stations ? I followed your link and the company says it has built 2 filling stations with plans for another 30 by 2020.

Anyhow, boasts and promises are easy to come by in the HFC/EV worlds, fact is the EV charging network is in place and being used.

Round Cable

unkel wrote: »

We're all predicting here, nothing is certain. But this is my view:

Hydrogen is only useful as storage for over production of renewable electricity (once we all have well over 100% renewable electricity a lot of the time. Which his going to happen in the next decade or two)

And that usefulness is very limited once storage in batteries becomes substantially cheaper than they are now

Absolutely spot on, one useful aspect of a limited hydrogen economy would be to electrolyse water with surplus wind power, that would be otherwise curtailed, and inject it into the natural gas network. This could be then used to heat homes and indeed generate electricity at gas power plants.

Testing in Germany has shown that hydrogen can be introduced as a blend up to 20% on the gas grid without effect on appliances using it and infrastructure transporting it.

n97 mini

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Can you point me to the quote for 700 stations ? I followed your link and the company says it has built 2 filling stations with plans for another 30 by 2020.

Scroll down

By 2028, Nikola is planning on having more than 700 hydrogen stations across the USA and Canada.

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Anyhow, boasts and promises are easy to come by in the HFC/EV worlds, fact is the EV charging network is in place and being used.

EV charging network is used solely by cars and light vans. Nikola is targeting a different market.

samih

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Can you point me to the quote for 700 stations ? I followed your link and the company says it has built 2 filling stations with plans for another 30 by 2020.

Anyhow, boasts and promises are easy to come by in the HFC/EV worlds, fact is the EV charging network is in place and being used.

Even Nikola are now planning BEV trucks (Nikola Tre in Europe, although there will be hydrogen option too) of their own and will reserve the H2 only for the Nikola 1. The company sounded like a great idea back in the day but now it appears that the long enough range can be archived using batteries only in most cases.

Time will tell which approach wins. But even for Australian outback it sounds like solar generation with local battery banks would be a better option than hauling Liquified Hydrogen (or any liquid fuel as a matter of fact) for thousands of kilometers to the middle of nowhere.

n97 mini

samih wrote: »

Even Nikola are now planning BEV trucks (Nikola Tre in Europe, although there will be hydrogen option too) of their own and will reserve the H2 only for the Nikola 1. The company sounded like a great idea back in the day but now it appears that the long enough range can be archived using batteries only in most cases.

Time will tell which approach wins. But even for Australian outback it sounds like solar generation with local battery banks would be a better option than hauling Liquified Hydrogen (or any liquid fuel as a matter of fact) for thousands of kilometers to the middle of nowhere.

I agree about Nikola. There's a certain amount of crystal ball gazing going on, but they've recently had a hugely successful round of funding. So someone believes in them.

Their hydrogen stations are self fueling... H2 is generated by hydrolysis. So the only inputs they need are water and electricity. No hauling around tankers of H2.

samih

The German auto was talking about hydrogen for at least 30 years from 70's until about 10 years ago. The idea at the time was to use a V12 (BMW did that) running on the stuff. But the problems with fuel escaping through any materials and requirement for venting the gas when the H2 tank slowly warmed up were issues. The final nail at the time was the running costs as the ICE was even less efficient running on Hydrogen than with petrol.

The problem with Hyrdogen is that not only it wants to escape but if we discount producing it from natural gas (which is absolutely bonkers, just use the gas directly, doh), the electrolysis option is still much less efficient than even charging two sets of batteries (one for storage and then use the stored energy to charge BEVs) absolutely murders the electrolysis for efficiency. Hydrogen contains 33.33 kWh of energy per kilogram (although it cannot be converted back to electricity in a fule cell with perfect efficiency) but typical process uses 50 kWh to produce one kilogram plus another 15 kWh to compress the H2 gas to liquid. So input 65 kWh to produce maybe 30 kWh (net including the fuel cell inefficiency, not sure how efficient they really are) of energy.

So even if you used hydrolysis via solar, a perfect way to produce H2 gas, you would still loose almost 50 percent of the product when compressing it in usable format. Battery charging process on the other hand is over 90 percent efficient.

n97 mini

samih wrote: »

The idea at the time was to use a V12 (BMW did that) running on the stuff. But the problems with fuel escaping through any materials and requirement for venting the gas when the H2 tank slowly warmed up were issues. The final nail at the time was the running costs as the ICE was even less efficient running on Hydrogen than with petrol.

That hydrogen burning BMW was an idiotic idea and smacked of a "oh we've got a hydrogen car too" stunt in response to Honda and Toyota.

On the efficiency site, it doesn't really matter if the inputs are basically free. Electricity from solar or wind, and water.

wassie

SlowBlowin wrote: »

I don't think there is any future for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, they seemed logical some time ago but as batteries/EV infrastructure have matured they just don't make logical sense.
They are terribly inefficient (making/storing hydrogen then using), and hollywood car crash sequences would become reality with every car carrying a bomb.

Renewable electricity sources that produce excess electricity (eg hydro & wind schemes) are prefect for production of hydrogen from water. Plenty of projects happening around the world. I don’t want to offend, but the ‘bomb’ scenario is kind of non-sense. Cars have been getting around all over the world just fine with petrol, LPG & CNG in tanks for decades. The mere fact of cars being sold in dealerships puts paid to that.

SlowBlowin wrote: »

EVs have won the infrastructure battle, its a VHS/Betamax type things.

That's my point entirely. I don’t see this as a battle for supremacy of polar opposites. Both technologies will evolve and even co-exist to suit. Infact there will be a lot of shared technology in use.

SlowBlowin wrote: »

We are in a great place where battery innovation continues apace, every year storage capacity goes up, costs come down. Dry electrode batteries will start appearing in the next 18 months, giving real world EV ranges of 500 miles +, at lower cost than today's batteries (Maxwell/Tesla). HFCVs are just EVs with a fuel cell and a tank instead of a battery, and its always going to be more expensive to fill a tank rather than charge a battery.

But look at this way – currently EV have good infrastructure and poor range. You are predicting (soundly I might add) that this will change in the future with improvements in battery technology.
That’s also what I am saying. The advantage of fuelling a car with hydrogen is that automakers can already get to the magical 300-mile range between fill-ups and refilling a hydrogen fuel cell car takes no longer than petrol/diesel.

EV infrastructure in place doesn’t cater for the masses. At present it takes time to charge a battery at most stations. Not exactly convenient for the family doing a long distance trip in the holidays. Fast charge is coming (like Tesla’s exclusive network) – but the infrastructure is not there yet.

You are right that the next couple of years are really going to be interesting in this space and I hope it develops quickly.

SlowBlowin wrote: »

The amount of money being put into hydrogen FCVs is tiny, minuscule, compared to the investment and commitments in EVs from the majority of the major manufacturers.

I wouldn’t call £5.5 billion of planned investment announced by Hyundai in December last year alone exactly miniscule.

SlowBlowin wrote: »

I have not read the thread you refer to but I would agree, that ship has sailed, maybe even sunk.

I can see why you hold that view and you have a lot of valid points. I hold the view that the long game is taking place here and its just a matter of economics. Around 7 years ago it was California, Germany, Japan, and South Korea investing hydrogen infrastructure. China has come to the party in the last 2 years which will dramatically drive volume and ultimately cost. As far as I can see it’s just the start and the infrastructure is coming.

Interesting times either way!

samih

Kind of synopsis from me: No technology is perfect. I think both hydrogen and batteries and also petrol/diesel/gas will coexist in the market but the hydrogen won't become *the* major player in the market due to various problems with storage and that inherent inefficiency of the production regardless how it is done even if the input energy comes for "free" from solar.

Hydrocarbons will also continue to be viable option for non-inter-urban usage for many decades to come. And yes, it will be interesting times ahead.

SlowBlowin

Wassie the mobile bomb thing is very real.

I have 4500 Ah of lead acid battery, charged by PV and wind. In the summer I generate too much power, so I was looking for a way to make something useful from the excess (about 10 years ago). I did lots of research and experiments with a view to producing and storing hydrogen but its far too difficult to do safely:

It leaks though everything that's not in perfect condition.
It detonates with oxygen, a proper detonation explosion, nothing like petrol in a tank.

I cant think of anything worse than hydrogen tanks being in underground carparks, the channel tunnel, it would only be a matter of time before there was a good sized accident. We have all seen those images of motorways during fog where car after car was rear-ended, imagine that with H2 in the boot.

I imagine there will be significant H2 production in the future, for specific projects not automotive use.

In the end I used my excess electricity to mine for Litecoin. In the future (this year) I am going to use excess electricity to produce fertiliser (Birkland Eyde).

wassie

Point taken.

BTW that is a decent amount of batteries you have!

pdpmur

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Wassie the mobile bomb thing is very real.

I have 4500 Ah of lead acid battery, charged by PV and wind. In the summer I generate too much power, so I was looking for a way to make something useful from the excess (about 10 years ago). I did lots of research and experiments with a view to producing and storing hydrogen but its far too difficult to do safely:

It leaks though everything that's not in perfect condition.
It detonates with oxygen, a proper detonation explosion, nothing like petrol in a tank.

I cant think of anything worse than hydrogen tanks being in underground carparks, the channel tunnel, it would only be a matter of time before there was a good sized accident. We have all seen those images of motorways during fog where car after car was rear-ended, imagine that with H2 in the boot.

I imagine there will be significant H2 production in the future, for specific projects not automotive use.

In the end I used my excess electricity to mine for Litecoin. In the future (this year) I am going to use excess electricity to produce fertiliser (Birkland Eyde).

I salute you for your innovation.
I don't want to derail this thread, but the Birkeland Eyde process is a high energy consumption process (15MWh/ton of nitric acid, or 15kWh/g, according to Wikipedia). Apart from the cost of making such a processor, do you think that it will generate meaningful amounts of fertiliser for you for the excess electricity that will be generated?

SlowBlowin

wassie wrote: »

Point taken.

BTW that is a decent amount of batteries you have!

Yes, they were expensive too, I cant help thinking of all the Lithium Ion batteries I could have bought, but they were the best available when I bought them, so I am stuck with lead acid. It was pretty hard to drag them up the mountain too, don't want to drag them down again !!

I will take a picture now for you.battery.jpg

Its a real mess as I am changing things, each cell is 2v.

SlowBlowin

pdpmur wrote: »

I salute you for your innovation.
I don't want to derail this thread, but the Birkeland Eyde process is a high energy consumption process (15MWh/ton of nitric acid, or 15kWh/g, according to Wikipedia). Apart from the cost of making such a processor, do you think that it will generate meaningful amounts of fertiliser for you for the excess electricity that will be generated?

Yes its not a very efficient process, but you get something of value that is solid.

There is very little you can do with excess electricity, I have been wracking my brains for years and crypto and fertiliser are the best I can come up with.

Making a BE cell is not difficult or expensive, create a high voltage spark, spread it with a magnetic field and pass though dry air. I am not expecting big yields but anything is better than nothing.

And I bet vegetables fertilised with your own nitrates tastes better than shop bought fertilised vegetables !

wassie

SlowBlowin wrote: »

I will take a picture now for you.battery.jpg

At the risk of going off-topic, I had a 5kW PV installation around 10 years ago at a previous residence and would have killed to have that kind of storage capacity.

Serious battery envy :cool:

SlowBlowin

With regard to the green aspect of H2 as a fuel in transport, I think large shipping is the best bet.

Shipping pollutes more than all the ICE cars in the world, mainly because the fuel is heavy diesel, high sulphur.

I could see a future in shipping switching the H2 as they already mainly use electric engines.

unkel

SlowBlowin wrote: »

In the end I used my excess electricity to mine for Litecoin.

Similar here. Almost anytime the sun is out in full even in the coldest of winter, my mining rigs run fully on my own solar PV. At night they run on cheap night rate from the grid (largely wind generated)

The mining rigs now heat most of the house, I have cut down about 75% of my gas units used for heating

KCross

https://electrek.co/2020/04/22/daimler-ends-hydrogen-car-development-because-its-too-costly/
https://evbite.com/daimler-ceases-further-hydrogen-car-development/


Looks like another nail in the coffin to me for hydrogen in passenger cars. Toyota are going to be on their own soon.

Snippet

"Fuel cells work great. It’s just a cost issue, and it’s all about scaling. We need volume.”

-

[Hydrogen fuel-cell cars] are at least twice as expensive to build as an equivalent battery-powered car in the manufacturing. As a result, sales prices are not reflective of the cost.

-

Volkswagen concluded:

Everything speaks in favor of the battery, and practically nothing speaks in favor of hydrogen.

Daimler are focussing on fuel cells for trucks instead and are partnered with Volvo for that.


It backs up the thought process that hydrogen in passengers cars is dead but still has application in commercial scenarios, particularly trucks and buses.

unkel

Even for trucks and buses it's dead. Mark my words and you can quote me in a few years time.

I can see some use for hydrogen, made for free with overproduction of electricity from renewables that we can't use for anything else. But mostly for fixed plant / heating / maybe large ships

n97 mini

Jeff Ubben sporting a Covid-19 haircut. Interesting piece nonetheless.

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2020/03/04/valueacts-ubben-this-is-the-next-billion-dollar-company.html

KCross

unkel wrote: »

Even for trucks and buses it's dead. Mark my words and you can quote me in a few years time.

In an ideal world with no supply constraints on batteries I'd agree but we dont live in that world and the drain on resources to produce enough batteries for cars in the next decade is going to be massive.

I just dont think there is enough in the pipeline to service both cars and commercial vehicles. Thats where hydrogen might fill the gap.

It's also somewhat easier in a commercial vehicle as they have the space for the tanks and cell stack.

I could see that a truck manufacturer would provide both battery and hydrogen drivetrains and you buy the one that suits you.