Time To Come Clean About Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles

Some tables from above.

 

His whole piece is screwy because he wants to use Natural Gas as a feedstock to make Hydrogen out of. This would be like burning gasoline to run a generator to make electricity to power my car, and then saying there is no benefit to using electricity to run a car, that I would be better off just using the gasoline.

 

It isn't like that at all. If the generator idea got floated in an anti-BEV piece, it would quickly get shot down for being an expensive way of making electricity, and that no corporation or lobbying group is proposing that we charge BEVs this way. Toyota's dated chart on FCEVs being greener is based upon reformation of natural gas for the hydrogen.

He does not want to make hydrogen from natural gas. That is simply how our supply of hydrogen is made. The vast majority of the hydrogen industry produces comes from steam reformation of natural gas. California requires some of the hydrogen stations to produce or use renewable made hydrogen. Nice, but it will take a huge break through for renewable hydrogen to become cheaper than reformed. We could run out of natural gas, I suppose. Then renewable just needs to be cheaper than reforming coal for the hydrogen. The economics is that hydrogen will just be a way of staying tied to fossil fuels.

When using elemental hydrogen to run a fuel cell, its name is misleading. Hydrogen isn't a fuel. It is an energy carrier. We have to make it from something. That something in the US is natural gas. A tiny bit is made from water by electrolysis. In either case, once emissions and costs are factored in, burning the NG in an ICE, or charging a BEV with the electricity, comes out ahead.

 

This is Toyota's calculation and why they see it as one of the viable ultimate eco-car.

Yes, hydrogen stations need to be built, so would Super Chargers for EVs. Both are better than combusting natural gas like the Civic NGV and they can use the abundance natural gas reserves we have.

So is electricity.

Electricity is considered an alternative fuel. Fuel cell stack generates electricity. The difference is, the refueling time is vastly faster for hydrogen (about the same as gas). The battery is also much heavier.

Another advantage of FCV is the cold weather performance. FC stacks produces heat as well as electricity. It is useful for cabin heat. As for electricity, majority of it's waste heat got lost at the power plant- range will suffer more.

 

One possible offset I see is the use of renewable energy for the EV.

 

But plug in advocates aren't using "the most plentiful element in the universe" equivalent that leads the audience to believe we can easily just scoop hydrogen off the ground for their cars. We are already making the electricity from multiple sources; coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydro, wind, and solar are the well known ones. Some ways are dirty, but it is the cleaner and renewable ones that are growing.

Once FCEVs are sold in a place with a winter, we can count their cold weather advantage then.

 

Electrons are probably more abundant than hydrogen. Who cares and why do you let that get on your nerve?

Plugin advocates have been greenwashing with zero emission from EV operation. Some justify free electricity for reckless usage. In reality, emission from generating and distribution of electricity is 2.5x dirtier and uses about 2x more energy than gas. This does not agree with the true Prius pioneers.

I have a plugin Prius and it is the only plugin hybrid car that is cleaner than the hybrid equivalent.

The grand view of well to wheel is when you can see the beauty and potential of FCV. EVa will probably lead in renewable energy but I think FCV will lead in energy independence as it has the highest efficiency and fastest refueling speed with natural gas as the domestic fuel source.

Battery has charging loss, self discharge, capacity and charging speed reduction over time. None of those exist for FCV.

Just refuel like a gas car and drive like an EV.

 

Perhaps, generously, we can assume that toyota simply made some assumption mistakes, and did the calculations wrong. I don't think that chart is anymore on the toyota site and I hope they pulled it. Surely for 2014, that chart is wrong. From the OP link here is a more powerfull graphic.



It is difficult to agree on what efficiency means when different sources of energy are used. If we look at toyota's figures 67% is far more efficient than hydrogen will be in 2015 and 2016 on natural gas as much of the hydrogen will be liquified taking far more electricity, then trucked using diesel, and this energy should be accounted for in stating it. Of course we can look at idealized for natural gas, and maybe you do get to 67% sometime in the distant future (80% steam large reformation natural gas + 3kwh electricity to go from 20 bar to 700 bar if electricity is 39% efficient makes 67%) . The 39% for natural gas to electricity was probably true at the time, but we have been adding more ccgt to the grid. The new ccgt is 60% efficient, and grid losses around 7% and some drops in efficiency when the plant is at less than 40% load, and we are adding wind and solar too. 53% for new gas, so if we are saying in the future steam reforming will all be done on site and compression done with clean electricity, wouldn't the equal assumption be that natural gas would at least be done in 50% efficient giving 46% efficient (50%x93%) for these nat gas plants built after 1990.

If we go with 39% the i3, which is an advance 4 seater like the clarity gets 117 mpge (did the one with the range extender) which gets us to 46 mpge wtw ng. If we use a current tech 46% it is 54 mpge wtw ng. Ok now say we build all this hydrogen infrastructure and don't use trucks etc at 67% this new toyota needs to be 68 mpge just to be as efficient, or if we use ccgt natural gas 80 mpge. Now toyota could have done something amazing and beat 68mpge but they won't get close to 80 mpge. If you use good figures its less efficient. Now I know you want to use the tesla's 89 mpge, but the toyota will be much slower than the i, it won't be in the same class at all of the tesla. Pricewise toyota has just released prices for japan and instead of being much cheaper than the tesla it is at $96K and producting starting at 50 cars a month. I expect lower prices for it in the US just to get vehicles on the road to get zev credits. For the bmw i3 with range extender is $45K, which becomes $35K after state and federal tax credits in california and texas. The toyota fcv will only be sold in small areas of california. Its tough to see how the toyota will be much more efficient, even on future infrastructure. We can't simply discount the tesla and the bmw i because of price, because toyota fcv looks to be even more expensive. Future tech can drop the prices of all these cars and raise efficiency.

On electricity efficiency is not even close, the plug-in will be 3 to 4 times more efficient than the fcv.

I say bring on the fuel cell vehicles and give the customers choices, but don't tell me fcv are more efficient or greener. That simply is a lie.

 

First time I've seen it put that way. Has that ever come from a plug in supporter or group? No, because the general public knows electricity has to be generated. That likely isn't so in regards to hydrogen, and that lobby is making the 'hydrogen is the most abundant element.

For local emissions, they are cleaner than an ICE car. For places like LA, moving the vehicle emissions to outside the basin is more important than which is cleaner overall. Isn't that one of the reasons to make FCEVs instead of burning the NG directly in an ICE? Then the grid has been getting cleaner and more efficient. Gasoline isn't as we have to shift to more sources that require more energy to get it to the refinery.

Plus, controlling emissions at a few hundred power plants is easier than doing some in a few million cars. We can even attempt to sequester the CO2 at a power plant. That isn't going to happen with on site hydrogen reformers at hydrogen refueling stations.

I'm curious, what is reckless EV usage?

Actually, since a FCEV uses a battery like a hybrid, there is the wear on it. We know old hybrids lose fuel efficiency as the battery ages.

We know fuel cells have limited lifespans. We don't know how long or the replacement cost, because the ones that know aren't talking.

We know CNG tanks also have a limited lifespan, with a legal 'do not use' date. The hydrogen tanks will also have this date, but exactly how long that is a secret. With a higher pressure rating, and containing a more escapable and corrosive gas, it is likely longer than the CNG tanks.

Yeah, after we have spent billions building the infrastructure. That could become obsolete when the methanol fuel cell arrives. I'm not against fuel cells. I'm against them sans plug, and the use high pressure or liquid hydrogen to power them. Which will just lead being tied to fossil fuels.

 

What would happen to our grid, that is in need of major upgrades, if too many people started using plug-ins? Not to mention all of the fuel stations and refineries that might not be as busy? We can't have that.

 

Almost all home charging happens late at night or very early morning, which are not peak times, so there is virtually no more load on the grid from home charging. Just avoid early evening.

Charging at businesses will add some to peak load more often as one is at businesses during the business day. To avoid this, you want to charge first thing in the morning, before A/C demand climbs.

 

WHY car companies are pushing hydrogen cars (source: Autoline Daily). Basically..... they get upto 3 times more credits for a hydrogen car (as high as nine) than they get for an electric car (3).

So the EV is out of fashion (dare I say: obsolete?) due to government interference in the market making them unattractive. Plugin hybrids with partial EV capability are also being hurt:

 

Then (based on hydrogen busses costing ~ 400% more to maintain) pay a boat load more, as you keep it running - replacing the platinum stack, 10,000Lb psi tank, embrittled fuel lines, etc etc. Never mind the high cost of the vehicles & infrastructure. Have you noticed how Volt sales have dumped compared to Leaf? It's the cost. Folks don't have that kind of $$ to pay for a ride. The middle class keeps getting smaller, and costs just keep going up.
.

 

Electric cars use the most-plentiful item in the universe: Electrons. They are literally everywhere.

 

there are THOUSANDS & thousands more times the air conditioners (both central & commercial air handler type ... and I don't even bother to include window AC's) that run in excess of TEN TIMES the electricity power of my paltry 3.5kWh on board charger. Now that you grasp the real energy pigs . . . why is it that you're not all ringing your hands with worry about air conditioners ?? After all .... what's more important .... getting to work?? .... or some big fatso trying to stay cool by keeping their house at 70 degrees .

.

 

I was trying to be sarcastic.