Toyota negative on batteries because it has more experience than other others on them

strange coincidence above - proponents of hydrogen claiming how hydrigen is safer than gas - then mentioning the space shuttle too. That brought back the reality of the ill fated Challenger assent/hydrogen leak, when an o-ring blew due to cold temps. Couple that with Toyota rushing their hydrogen car through - via safety regulation 'exemptions' and it can't look too dissimilar.



L
iirc, the hydrogen used for the space shuttle was lower than 10,000Lbs psi too. Despite cost, infrastructure, and continued use of fossil fuel, Toyota says they got all the tech worked out. I guess if you can ignore those teeny details AND get safety exemptions, then yes ... it's all worked out.

.

 

Seems like expensive, high maintenance, and inefficient way to store modest amounts of solar energy to me.

I agree this was a fun and cool technology showcase for 2006 but it wouldn't make much sense today.

 

Mirai's hydrogen tank is bullet-proof, literally. Has hydrogen rocket gone through similar test?

 

Hmm, that's strange and I guess my memory fails me but... wasn't the failed o-ring part of the solid rocket boosters?
And the Hydrogen was in liquid state, that doesn't need much pressure, right but of course, that doesn't help Toyota...
(Sorry for my petty comment Hill

 

You're right, very low pressure. I believe less than 35 psi. And that was my point - as that's quite a difference from 10,000 psi. And yes when the o-rings failed it caused flame to shoot towards the hydrogen tank. The rest was history.

 

I would say why not convince the state of California to account for power the same way you want me to account for it. Under the planned renewable stations are grid tied renewable stations. None of the electricity is counted as being produced on the national grid, but if renewables are bought then it is assumed to be renewable electricity or renewable methane whether it comes out of the pipe or not. If renewables are not paid for then it is assumed to be California electricity, much lower in ghg than the national average. I think you won't be sucessful convincing them, but I would like to here mary nichols or governor brown's response to counting reneables the way you do it. I understand you disagree with me and the state of california, but why not tell them instead of me. I simply think your accounting methods are wrong and counter productive.

According to Toyota's Craig Scott there are only 2 stations really good enough to fill the mirai so far to toyota standards. I don't know where the second one is, but here is the first.

New hydrogen car fueling station commissioned in West Sacramento -- WEST SACRAMENTO, Calif., Dec. 10, 2014 /PRNewswire/ --
Pioneering hydrogen fuel cell station opens in West Sacramento - Sacramento Business Journal
http://cafcp.org/sites/files/West-Sacramento_H2-Station-profile.pdf

Details are the station cost will only be $2.5M because the hydrogen will be produced off site and trucked in. The taxpayer will help with $1.621M, the equipment to liquify the hydrogen and compressors at the station will be connected to the grid. This seems like a cheaper way to test the cars than the on-site at landfills and waste water treatment facilitates that need to go down for an hour if too many cars come at once. All of the renewable facilities are grid tied, but in none of them will california calculate national grid emittions.

So there you have it. If you count california's way, I get credit for renewable for my wind. If you count USBs way, most of the renewables being used can't be counted as renewable hydrogen. I beilve the diesel trucks emissions are not counted either because some day when volume increases they may be able to produce on site. Not a bad assumption, but again, it is counter to everything that USB is using in his method of renewable accounting.

Build the stupid stations. Lets do the test. Build them like sacramento, and see if people like the cars and if they can bring the costs down.

Don't ask for extra money to build renewable hydrogen with the excuse that 10,000 psi hydrogen vehicles are cleaner than plug-ins because renewables for plug-ins don't count. That just seems wasteful and counter productionve. I don't understand the extra money for the east coast either, if they don't make sense in mild climate California, why would they make sense in Boston or New York. One nice thing this latest fuel cell press release did was finally lower the hyper inflated estimate of 50,000 cars by 2017 in california.

To put that in perspective tesla will sell approximately 20,000 rich boys toys (model S and X) in the tiny niche for BEVs in the US this year. California is now hoping that all the fuel cell vehicles combined and sold in 2020 will be the same as this one years US tesla sales. Japan's estimate is 6000 for its country in 2020, and no other country comes close to the US and Japan. California in 2014-2020 will spend approximately $140 Million in that time period for hydrogen commercialization and if there are 20,000 fcv an additional tax credit of $100 Million. The Federal government in the time period will have spent about $700 Million for the fuel cell and hydrogen R&D. That is $940M for the promis that these 20,000 cars will get the tech on track.

Toyota has characterized these spending levels as too little, and why not the Japanese government is spending more for 6000 cars.

I am glad the crazy optimistic forecasts of millions by 2020 have come down. Its time to get to that second point. At least through 2020, plug-ins look like they will satisfy a lot more users needs than fuel cell vehicles.

I hope toyota gets its breakthroughs, but its pretty clear from plug-ins already in R&D that fuel cell vehicles are not going to outsell them anytime in the next decade. Getting 10,000 psi hydrogen infrastructure to work properely and be cost effective with predicted oil prices and plug-in advances is just too hard to do in 3 or 6 years.

 

Several thousand other people don't see it the same way you do. There will likely be wireless charging for those that do see it your way.

Again, different people have a different way for accounting it.

Some of us are fine with continued R&D spending on fuel cells. The issue is with commercializing them now. Some research paths could make hydrogen FCEVs obsolete. California is going to spend $220 million on hydrogen stations that will likely need upgrading before the next generation of FCEVs come out, or possible scrapped if a diesel fuel cell is released for cars.

Battery research benefits plug ins, hybrids, and FCEVs.

Then send the message to Toyota.

What about all the lines and valves between the tank and the fuel cell? What safety features are in place in the event of an hydrogen leak inside a garage?

 

Which has more energy, a bullet or a 60mph crash?

 

that was a quite the linked article ... fully proving my point. You have Toyotas mouthpiece claiming how bulletproof their tanks are ... not some independent lab. And even then it doesn't say bulletproof. It says a large caliber bullet was needed in order to damage their tank. But this was my favorite part of Toyota's claim;

10,000 Lbs? simply leaking out after being shot w/ a 50 caliber round? Sign me up!

And that blast of 10,000 PSI is that they call a simple leak?, what if the car is on fire? Doesn't sound like they want to contemplate that.
Yea see, these are the same folks that said we'd have 50,000 hydrogen cars on the road in no time. And when it can't possibly happen, all they have to do is start saying it a few years later.
.

 

I'm sure Toyota means that at 10000 psi the hydrogen simply leaks out with such a speed that it leaves Earths gravitational field and enters interstellar space?

 

I go to a gas station about twice a year for my car (~15,000 miles/year) and every single time I think "this is an activity I really don't miss".

 

Be prepared to have that shortcoming solved by autoconnection systems at some point. With enough EVs in play, Telsa and others will just pop out a device you place on the floor of the garage to auto connect and disconnect to an undercar accessible plug. It's coming so be prepared to find some other inconvenience to blame on EVs. Followup question--How many folks are really bothered with plugging things in and out of electrical outlets in their home but not at all bothered with plugging liquid/gas fuel connections far from home? Is it really that big of a population?

 

i love my rechargeable tools, even though i have to set the batteries in the charger when i'm done.

 

I would hope we keep the discussion friendly even though different views of technology are held. I'm still hopeful fuel cell technology will find wide uses. I'm also aware that some EV organizations are willing to bend politics for inside advantage.

 

Won't most free hydrogen simply leak out into space when it reaches the upper atmosphere?

 

Please take a trip and report back, we all await.

DBCassidy

 

That is news to me. Do you have any examples of EV organizations "bend[ing] politics"?
It seems to me, at least in CA, the fuel cell industry is the one that has an inordinate amount of control.

 

Here is what I think is a fair comparison of using clean renewable electricity in an EV compared to a FCV.

EV.
Best case: about 90% efficient to charge and about 90% efficient to discharge. Net: 80% (maybe as low as 75% for L1 or fast charging with active cooling)

H2 FC.
Electrolysis is about 60% efficient, max. The other 40% is lost as waste heat or goes into the O2 (useless).
Compression. Maybe 90% efficient
Liquefication. Maybe 90% efficient
Fuel cell. Converting H2 back to electricity...about 60% efficient (after warm up period). Wikipedia says 40-60%.
Net result: 0.6 * 0.9 * 0.9 * 0.6 = ~29% efficient, best case unless you somehow utilize the waste heat for other purposes. Less expensive equipment gets lower efficiency...some sources say the number is closer to 20-25%.
If you find some more accurate numbers feel free to plug them in and multiply out to get your own final result.

Analysis.
We get the 80% with electricity today on PHEV/EV cars with an normal/cheap L2 charger that can be installed anywhere (work, home, stores, etc.). It is yet to be seen if a mass produced electolyzer can be built, cheaply that gets those peak numbers. The 29% doesn't consider H2 leakage or any trucking of fuel etc (assumes everything done on site -- which mostly precludes using any waste heat).
Also, we don't have any real numbers on the efficiency of FCV for short trips. EV s still get very near their peak efficiency even on a 1-2 miles trip. FCs are known to have to warm up before they can be at their full output and at their full efficiency.

Mike

 

There is one plug-in pac - Plug-in america. It doesn't think 10,000 psi fuel cell vehicles are the perfect solution. Here is there page on fuel cells.

What about hydrogen cars? | Plug In America
That's it, one page. It points to ex-DOE hydrogen advocate now hydrogen skeptic Joe Roam's analysis, but nothing too negative. They don't create advertise against fuel cells. They don't have the California AIr Rsource Board and California Energy Commission as partners these governmental organizations are members of the fuel cell lobby.

But there is a group that lobbies on behalf of plug-ins. It was mainly big business and CARB that set up the fuel cell subsidies and hydrogen fueling plan. It was also big business that pushed through the plug-in incentives.

 

Anytime a car or battery vendor lobbies or curries influence for specific rules to favor a tax break or incentive reward for a particular size battery or type of battery or particular use (car, solar storage, etc.) of batteries, that is bending politics. Even Tesla doing all the multi-state maneuvering to get the best Gigafactory deals in Nevada can only be considered bending politics. That does not mean people or corporations are bad or suspect for pursuing their interest. It does say our political systems are way too corruptible. That only invites every industry (oil, coal, electric, nuclear, solar, etc.) to shake down politics as much as possible.

The difference here is the fuel cell lobby has perverted the CA political system far beyond what any EV or battery organization has done. It does not mean EV organizations or battery organizations are immune to exploiting politics. It just turns out that EV organizations (e.g. Tesla) see much greater success and profit in offering a good product and don't need massive political perversion. (If some crook saw a chance to fool politicians and make money with an EV scheme, they would.) Meanwhile, FCV organizations are entirely dependent on the government forcing the technology into the car marketplace as their only chance of present market success...so they do so using every political lever possible.