-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Isn't it refreshing to know that if a theif steals a Toyota FCV he can also do as the theif in LA just did and hit a light pole in 100mph. Always fun together with a tank full of high pressure gas.
Cobos
Zapped
Model S - PURE EV
I didn't know oil companies produce hydrogen gas.
What would it take to revamp a gas station or just build more ?
How much time does it take to fill up a hydrogen car and how big of a tank does one need to go 300 miles ?
Personally I like the heavier car. Always seems to be the survivor in an accident
The other awful thing about hydrogen, even if you could magically solve everything else, is hydrogen embrittlement. The tiniest leak, and all the high-strength steel parts of your car slowly and silently turn to glass (metaphorically speaking). No thanks. This isn't just theoretical, BTW -- major structures like the Bay Bridge have had failures due to HE.
Oil companies are in fuel supply business. They are natural fit to take over hydrogen supply business, in fcv world. Here is an extract from Wired archive, How Hydrogen Can Save America
Relevant extracts:
"Like the car companies, oil producers have already taken steps toward an oil-free future. Over the past 15 years, corporations like Shell and Exxon have ceded their leadership in oil production to a dozen state-owned enterprises in countries such as Venezuela, Brazil, and Norway. Instead they've focused on adding value farther down the supply chain by refining crude into gasoline and distributing and selling it through filling stations. They know they could play the same role in a hydrogen economy, which is why Shell and BP have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in hydrogen storage and production technology. Indeed, BP, formerly British Petroleum, has rebranded itself Beyond Petroleum.
The major oil companies are already extracting hydrogen from gasoline for industrial uses at nine refinery complexes throughout the United States. With a little push, these plants could serve as hubs for a nascent hydrogen-distribution network.
Converting filling stations is bound to cost billions of dollars over several decades. But it should cost relatively little to retrofit clusters of stations in proximity to both a hydrogen-producing refinery and a population center where fuel cell vehicles are sold. Oil companies could meet initial demand by trucking hydrogen from refineries to these stations. As the number of fuel cell vehicles on the road rises, stations that aren't served by refinery hubs could install processors, called reformers, that use electricity to extract hydrogen from gasoline or water. The White House should ask for $5 billion - roughly $30,000 for each of the nation's 176,000 filling stations - to get the ball rolling.
In the long run, a pipeline piggybacking on existing natural gas pipelines might deliver most of the fuel, either from high-volume plants or more widely distributed facilities. The administration should set aside $10 billion for incentives like interest-free loans to encourage oil companies to construct a national hydrogen pipeline. It might also grant five-to-ten-year monopoly rights to pipeline builders."
Hey Julian, obviously amazing work. I have skimmed this thread repeatedly but recently was in a debate over Tesla vs fuel cells. I have zero background in the sciences so I read all your available work to get up to speed. I did so with as critical an approach as possible as I am sure you would agree lends a hand to building my own strongest possible argument. This might just be me, but the weak part in your illustration for someone in accounting and IT like myself is understanding how fuel cells are actually not clean. When I searched this I mostly came up with articles stating verbatim "hydrogen fuel cells release zero emissions". I ended up finding the following excerpt from Hydrogen vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and am going to use it as a starting point, but I am sure there is much stronger evidence elsewhere
"Volkswagen's Rudolf Krebs said in 2013 that "no matter how excellent you make the cars themselves, the laws of physics hinder their overall efficiency. The most efficient way to convert energy to mobility is electricity." He elaborated: "Hydrogen mobility only makes sense if you use green energy", but ... you need to convert it first into hydrogen "with low efficiencies" where "you lose about 40 percent of the initial energy". You then must compress the hydrogen and store it under high pressure in tanks, which uses more energy. "And then you have to convert the hydrogen back to electricity in a fuel cell with another efficiency loss". Krebs continued: "in the end, from your original 100 percent of electric energy, you end up with 30 to 40 percent."[SUP][99][/SUP] In 2013, Volkswagen signed a $60 million to $100 million engineering services deal with Ballard for the development of fuel cells to move ahead faster with new power transportation technologies.[SUP][100][/SUP] The Business Insider commented:
"Volkswagen's Rudolf Krebs said in 2013 that "no matter how excellent you make the cars themselves, the laws of physics hinder their overall efficiency. The most efficient way to convert energy to mobility is electricity." He elaborated: "Hydrogen mobility only makes sense if you use green energy", but ... you need to convert it first into hydrogen "with low efficiencies" where "you lose about 40 percent of the initial energy". You then must compress the hydrogen and store it under high pressure in tanks, which uses more energy. "And then you have to convert the hydrogen back to electricity in a fuel cell with another efficiency loss". Krebs continued: "in the end, from your original 100 percent of electric energy, you end up with 30 to 40 percent."[SUP][99][/SUP] In 2013, Volkswagen signed a $60 million to $100 million engineering services deal with Ballard for the development of fuel cells to move ahead faster with new power transportation technologies.[SUP][100][/SUP] The Business Insider commented:
Pure hydrogen can be industrially derived, but it takes energy. If that energy does not come from renewable sources, then fuel-cell cars are not as clean as they seem. ... Another challenge is the lack of infrastructure. Gas stations need to invest in the ability to refuel hydrogen tanks before FCEVs become practical, and it's unlikely many will do that while there are so few customers on the road today. ... Compounding the lack of infrastructure is the high cost of the technology. Fuel cells are "still very, very expensive".[SUP][101]"
Hopefully this is just my own failure to catch on to your own logic. Nevertheless, my goal of demonstrating Tesla as the path of least resistance to an alternatively powered vehicle fleet has been greatly aided by your efforts. Thanks Again!
[/SUP]
Hopefully this is just my own failure to catch on to your own logic. Nevertheless, my goal of demonstrating Tesla as the path of least resistance to an alternatively powered vehicle fleet has been greatly aided by your efforts. Thanks Again!
[/SUP]
Your quote is focusing on the theoretical argument behind hydrogen as green fuel, whereas it is supposedly produced from water by electrolysis using green electricity -- in that scenario the efficiency is very low so not competitive with BEV.
However, in the real life, what hydrogen is available at those few pumping stations is all made from fossil fuels (oil and natural gas) in a chemical process which produces CO2 as a byproduct. Julian has calculated that the amount of CO2 per mile traveled in an FCV is comparable to an ICE vehicle CO2 emission. That's the main point where it is not a clean fuel source.
Oh, BTW, producing H2 from fossil fuels is much more economical than splitting water -- that is why such calculations are only theoretical, while what hydrogen is produced by the industry and available for use in commercial vehicles is all originating from fossil fuels at the cost of lots of CO2 emissions.
However, in the real life, what hydrogen is available at those few pumping stations is all made from fossil fuels (oil and natural gas) in a chemical process which produces CO2 as a byproduct. Julian has calculated that the amount of CO2 per mile traveled in an FCV is comparable to an ICE vehicle CO2 emission. That's the main point where it is not a clean fuel source.
Oh, BTW, producing H2 from fossil fuels is much more economical than splitting water -- that is why such calculations are only theoretical, while what hydrogen is produced by the industry and available for use in commercial vehicles is all originating from fossil fuels at the cost of lots of CO2 emissions.
The cheapest way to make hydrogen is through fossil fuels, and that is how it will be made, using water is what they want to sell people on but it is not going to happen. Even when made with renewable energy, hydrogen is not competitive:
William13
Active Member
@evme, I love your diagram. However the concerns are always with the efficiencies. Obviously to us BEV is better. Wiki says there is a 95% efficient electrolysis.
You know what I hate? When wiki articles make a claim and when you go down to the source link the information is behind a pay wall. I hunted down the study and it can be found here:
A comprehensive review on PEM water electrolysis - ResearchGate
Doing a quick skim, I see nothing that suggests 95% efficiency. (you can check yourself by clicking the view button)
William13
Active Member
I read the article. No mention of efficiency. Reference 203 would have efficiency but I cannot access.
igotzzoom
Active Member
I'd feel more comfortable buying a Tesla than buying a VW, a company that's been in business for decades. Probably a BMW too, for that matter. I've seen too many issues with German cars to believe in their myth of invincibility.
It is there, it says 67-82% efficiency. Again, not sure where the wiki got 95% efficiency. My guess is it was put in by a pro-fuel cell person and since the source is behind a paywall no one would question it. But once you look up the source it is clear the numbers are wrong.
Just FYI (don't beat me!)
商用åˆã®æ°´ç´ ステーション開è¨ã€€å²©è°·ç”£æ¥ã€ç‡ƒæ–™é›»æ± 車å‘ã‘ - スマホ版 - 47NEWS（よんãªãªãƒ‹ãƒ¥ãƒ¼ã‚¹ï¼‰
Iwatani, LP gas and industrial gas provider in Japan, launched the first commercial H2 fueling station for FCVs in Hyogo Japan. The cost is said to be $5M.
商用åˆã®æ°´ç´ ステーション開è¨ã€€å²©è°·ç”£æ¥ã€ç‡ƒæ–™é›»æ± 車å‘ã‘ - スマホ版 - 47NEWS（よんãªãªãƒ‹ãƒ¥ãƒ¼ã‚¹ï¼‰
Iwatani, LP gas and industrial gas provider in Japan, launched the first commercial H2 fueling station for FCVs in Hyogo Japan. The cost is said to be $5M.
Yeah and that cost is enough for just one pump. 
FYI the station uses liquefied hydrogen from nearby factory.
FYI the station uses liquefied hydrogen from nearby factory.Yeah and that cost is enough for just one pump.
Hi hiroshiy
Thank you for bringing the news from the land of the rising sun, great to have you here:smile:
Liquified hydrogen is very expensive trouble, here is MSDS for it.
Extracts from technifab:
"Liquid Hydrogen (H2) typically has to be stored at -423°F (-253°C or 20 K). The temperature requirements for liquid hydrogen storage necessitate expending a great deal of energy to compress and chill the hydrogen into its liquid state. The cooling and compressing process requires energy, resulting in a net loss of about 30% of the energy that the liquid hydrogen is storing. The storage tanks are insulated to maintain temperature. Liquid Hydrogen is often stored at higher pressure so significant reinforcement is used.
The margin of safety concerning liquid hydrogen storage is a function of maintaining tank integrity and preserving the temperatures that liquid hydrogen requires. Combine the cost or energy required for the process to get hydrogen into its liquid state and the cost of tanks required to sustain the storage pressure and temperature, and liquid hydrogen storage becomes very expensive compared to other methods."
Pressure vessels are likely to have limited life and are subject to regulations in most countries. That adds to running costs of these stations.
I am curious about the unlucky neighbours, whose property value could plummet due to unfortunate location.
Japan plans to import LH from Australia, where a lot of brown coal is mined. Kawasaki Heavy Industries is developing LH tankers for this purpose. Generate hydrogen from brown coal, liquidify it to LH on site, then transfer it to Japan. They plan to collect CO2 and fill the underwater cave from LNG mining with it.
So FCV or move from LNG to LH or high pressure H2 seems to be an energy security related issue for Japan.
I agree that hydrogen filling station would negatively affect property values nearby.
So FCV or move from LNG to LH or high pressure H2 seems to be an energy security related issue for Japan.
I agree that hydrogen filling station would negatively affect property values nearby.
Similar threads
