Hydrogen vs. Battery

[graham]

A main problem with his arguments, which is also mentioned in the podcast, is that he's trying to compare the BEV and energy infrastructure of today (or even yesterday) with the HFCV and energy (including hydrogen) infrastructure of some potential future. This is either failed logic or intellectual dishonestly.

I think this is an excellent point. Especially with quotes like this (from the article):

You can buy the Toyota FT-EV battery-only vehicle that is an ultra-compact car with a 50-mile driving range. Or you can buy a Toyota FCHV hydrogen fuel cell vehicle that is a mid-size SUV that gets 516 miles of driving range.

Completely ignoring the fact that you cannot buy (at any price) any fuel cell vehicle today, and you can buy an electric car today that goes 200-250 miles on a charge. At what point in the future will you be able to buy a fuel cell vehicle and make more realistic comparisons?

We can conjecture about the battery cars of the future too! With the statistic that batteries improve about 8% a year, that means the amount of time for capacity to double is about 8 years (100ln2 / 8 =~ 8). Today's roadster battery is built using 2006 battery technology, so that means that by 2014 we should have a Roadster that can do 400-500 miles on a charge. Will hydrogen vehicles be available for sale by then? Doubtful.

In 2022, 13 years from now, we should have a car which can go 800-1000 miles on a charge. In 2030, 1600-2000 miles, 2038, 3200-4000 miles...

Many reports say hydrogen cars are at least 20-30 years away from being sold. At what point does range and hypothetical fast fill-ups become moot?

Granted my numbers are optimistic, and based on a 2-seater car, etc. etc. but they are not any less intellectually disingenuous than the arguments in that article.

 

[TEG]

Many reports say hydrogen cars are at least 20-30 years away from being sold.

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/electric-cars/182-future-cars-discovery-channel.html

...there is a saying about hydrogen. Hydrogen is the fuel of the future. And it always will be. in ten years it will still be the fuel of the future. in twenty years it will still be the fuel of the future.

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/electric-cars/1252-honda-production-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicle.html

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/technical/1028-gm-toyota-doubt-hydrogen-betting-electrics.html

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/off-topic/1635-hydrogen-fueling-stations.html

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/cars-transportation/696-hydrogen-car-fantasy-crumbles.html

 

[TEG]

Hydrogen - The longer tailpipe

By the way, Glen Blencoe's blog is called FOR HYDROGEN ADVOCATES ONLY, so us EV fans should probably stay away!

Lots of FCHV info here:
http://ncvecs.colostate.edu/cac.docs/cac23/PDFs/Reinert.pdf

 

[shark2k]

HFCV stands for Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle.

Thank you.

-Shark2k

 

[graham]

Hopelessly "ForthComing" Vehicle?

 

[shark2k]

Hopelessly "ForthComing" Vehicle?

Thanks, that gave me a good chuckle :biggrin:

-Shark2k

 

[dpeilow]

By the way, Glen Blencoe's blog is called FOR HYDROGEN ADVOCATES ONLY, so us EV fans should probably stay away!

Maybe he thinks plug-in advocates can't use the internet

 

[SByer]

Maybe he thinks plug-in advocates can't use the internet

Or think, apparently...

 

[vfx]

Hopelessly "ForthComing" Vehicle?

I'm stealing that!!:biggrin:

 

[JRP3]

Clueless elected officials just don't get it:
Green Car Congress: ARB Chairman Characterizes Ideological Debate Between Hydrogen and Batteries as Madness
In the comment section we see some of the troubling fallout from that TopGear piece, where a seemingly intelligent person was convinced of the viability of HFCV :frown:

 

[TEG]

http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html

 

[Kevin Harney]

I took me quite a while to figure that one out. That flow chart is a little confusing. One question. Shouldn't the AC via grid tranmission be on BOTH sides of the table ? Most of the time the creation of Hydrogen will NOT be located at a generation plant or even a substation which is still after transmission. Just curious. That makes Hydrogen even less than 1/3 the efficiency. But also can't fuel cell vehicles also have regenerative braking ?

 

[graham]

Are there any such efficiency statistics for generating hydrogen from natural gas instead of water electrolysis? That should take less energy (and is apparently the typical manner these days).

Also, how about the efficiencies of hydrogen combustion as opposed to fuel cells? I understand that is around 95% (the other problems still apply, obviously). It would be nice to have a chart of the full range of hydrogen options compared with electricity.

 

[doug]

I took me quite a while to figure that one out. That flow chart is a little confusing. One question. Shouldn't the AC via grid tranmission be on BOTH sides of the table ? Most of the time the creation of Hydrogen will NOT be located at a generation plant or even a substation which is still after transmission. Just curious. That makes Hydrogen even less than 1/3 the efficiency.

Yeah, the author is giving them the benefit of the doubt there... but also he's charging them efficiency due to physical transport, which is worse than electric transmission efficiency. If the hydrogen is made on site, I guess those transportation losses should be removed but transmission losses added in.

But also can't fuel cell vehicles also have regenerative braking?

Yeah, but you need a battery system for that.

 

[graham]

Yeah, but you need a battery system for that.

I thought most Fuel Cell vehicles included a battery? Smaller than a pure EV of course, but I thought most were essentially series hybrids with a fuel cell instead of an ICE. That should allow for regen, shouldn't it?

Speaking of which, there are inefficiencies associated with weight between hydrogen, battery and ICE (although those are probably dependent upon specific implementations). BEVs have to carry around massive heavy batteries, ICE need to carry a gas tank an engine etc, and hydrogen have to have either cryo gear or whatever other method to transport their hydrogen.

I get the feeling that BEVs on average lose this comparison badly due to battery weight and petrol ICEs probably win (even with their complex amount of parts) due to the sheer amount of kJ gas contains. I don't have an idea for where hydrogen fits in. Somewhere in between, but exactly where? That is an efficiency loss that I haven't really seen detailed before.

 

[vfx]

Still though, it's a good start.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I get the feeling that BEVs on average lose this comparison badly due to battery weight and petrol ICEs probably win (even with their complex amount of parts) due to the sheer amount of kJ gas contains. I don't have an idea for where hydrogen fits in. Somewhere in between, but exactly where? That is an efficiency loss that I haven't really seen detailed before.

BEVs don't lose so bad if they stay within the range of ~100-150 miles of range. The pack weight would then be ~500lbs or less and then the weight saved from a much lighter motor vs a heavy engine & transmission makes up for the battery weight.

About the natural gas electrolysis I've been trying to find efficiency numbers for a while and I have yet to see a comprehensive analysis of it. Of course this chart is concerned with renewable energy and natural gas isn't renewable.

A quick search found this:
http://www.getenergysmart.org/Files/HydrogenEducation/6HydrogenProductionSteamMethaneReforming.pdf
This 2003 article says highest possible efficiency is 65-75%.
That yields 23-27% for the compression route in the HFCV (I'm using the chart posted by TEG for the other numbers).

AutoBlogGreen Q&A with Prof. Joan Ogden and Stephen Ellis- Hydrogen efficiency - AutoblogGreen
The article here claims a high of 75-80% for steam reformation of natural gas.

Taking that you get 27-29%.

For the EVs:
Taking natural gas plant efficiency of max of 35-40%, you get .24-28%

Taking a combined cycle natural gas plant at 60% max, you get 41%.

Combined heat and power is even higher at 85% but then that isn't electricity only so it doesn't really apply for EVs.

It seems they are about the same for non combined cycle natural gas electricity and maybe the HFCV is a little better if it is reformed on site rather than transported. But add the combined cycle (which most new plants are) and it's no contest.

 

[Joseph]

"Also, how about the efficiencies of hydrogen combustion as opposed to fuel cells?"

BMW pursued hydrogen combustion. They have a 12 cyliner 7-series running on hydrogen that makes significantly less horsepower than the standard engine and does 0-60 in 12 seconds. They may not necessarily speak to the efficiency of the engine, but obviously the power density is awful.

Also, considering that only BMW and Mazda (that I can think of, at least) have pursued hydrogen combustion, I think it's fair to say hydrogen combustion must be a pretty bad choice.

"The article here claims a high of 75-80% for steam reformation of natural gas."

I think I recall Honda making a similar remark. Then again, Honda wouldn't be a very good source for info on fuel cells; they kind of have special interests.

No matter how efficient natural gas may be, it's pretty silly to consider it in considerations for futrue fuels. Are we gonna swtich over our whole infrastructure so we can choose another fuel that'll run out? No, infrastructure is a long term investment - so let's invest thinking long term, not next week.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Greg Blencoe finds 20 great hydrogen news items - AutoblogGreen

The hydrogen side fires another shot across the bow.

It's Greg Blencoe's response to Dan Neil's and Joe Romm's article.
If you read his entry, it's mostly articles of Toyota & Honda puffing up their hydrogen vehicles and questioning BEVs (ie saying they are more suited for golf carts, of course Blencoe doesn't mention that Honda CEO who said that, Takeo Fukui, is no longer CEO). There's three quotes of Bill Reinert, national manager of Toyota’s advanced technology group, who obviously, like Blencoe, has some kind of grudge with BEVs since he's the guy who talked about a death watch for the Karma, the Volt and the Model S.

I guess this kind of shows why BEVs and HFCV advocates argue.

 

[TEG]

Fuel Cell research has been a money vacuum sucking up tax $ that should have gone to battery development, solar subsidies and such.

It is a "gravy train" that people like Mr. Blencoe and Alan Lloyd jumped on and have been trying to keep subsidized ad nauseum.

(The "Who Killed the Electric Car" movie shows rather clearly that Mr.Lloyd killed the CA BEV mandate and instead pushed for hydrogen when he appears to have had a stake in seeing hydrogen become dominant.)
Who Killed the Electric Car? - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The CARB, headed by Alan Lloyd, caved to industry pressure and repealed the ZEV mandate. Lloyd was given the directorship of the new fuel cell institute, creating an inherent conflict of interest. Footage shot in the meetings showed how he shut down the ZEV proponents while giving the car makers all the time they wanted to make their points.

Greg Blencoe Debates Joseph Romm | Hydrogen Cars and Vehicles

Mr. Blencoe asks Dr. Romm is “If all of your arguments against hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are correct, why are all of these car companies moving forward with them?”

Um, maybe because our government has been paying them to research it for many many years?

NOW . Transcript . June 9, 2006 | PBS

BRANCACCIO: You know, Chris I open all these big ads from the oil companies these days, and they're touting all this cool alternative fuel research that they're supporting. Our hydrogen future for instance. I mean they -- that could undermine their -- their business model, yet they seem to be embracing some alternatives.

RIPPEL: If hydrogen can do a better job as an energy carrier than electricity then by gosh it should be the carrier of choice, the problem is that it's not even close.

...

NARRATOR: A fuel cell car powered by hydrogen made with electricity uses 3 to 4 times more energy than a car powered by batteries.

...

PAINE: Well, hydrogen fuel cell was a big surprise for us as filmmakers. Because, California, when they said, "Okay, car companies you don't have to make electric cars anymore, you win." And the car companies said, "Great. We'll build zero emission vehicle hydrogen fuel cell cars."

And, we were all very excited about them. But, as we began to look at the evidence, it turns out the hydrogen fuel cell was a really bad deal. And it certainly doesn't -- doesn't warrant quite all the enthusiasm it's been getting.

BRANCACCIO: What's wrong with hydrogen? I mean it would be cleaner.

PAINE: Well, I think the reason the oil industry likes hydrogen so much is that hydrogen is basically a way for them to ship something around in their trucks, to charge to fueling stations, just like oil. It's the same exact paradigm for the oil industry.

BRANCACCIO: As opposed to plugging something in, in your garage.

PAINE: Plugging in, very different. The oil industry doesn't want people plugging in, they want people filling up. So -- hydrogen works for them in that sense. But this is all 15, 20 years down the road if they perfect this technology.

And -- the work we did -- the research we did on film indicates the hydrogen fuel cell is a lot farther off than industry would have you believe.

BRANCACCIO: So you're not intrinsically against it, it's just that you are, from your study of this, skeptical this is something that could come to our environmental aid anytime soon.

PAINE: Yeah, I mean, that's really it. I mean, electric cars -- battery powered electric cars is a technology that exists today. We could all have them.

We could have millions of them on the street right now working very effectively, using domestically created electricity, charging off solar panels. Hydrogen fuel cell -- which they convinced California to wait for, is ten, 15 years off and, unfortunately, it turns out to be a much less efficient -- user of energy than if you just used a battery in the first place.