Hydrogen availability
Discussion
Landcrab_Six said:
the cult
Sorry, but i stopped reading when i read that ^^Using that sort of words simply immediately demonstrates a werid bigotry that some people seem to have against battery electric cars? It's really strange, they are just cars? Do you hate ICEs too? or are they "ok" because they have an engine?
The simply and plan facts are as follows:
A battery electric vehicle at a FUNDAMENTAL level offers:
1) The lowest possible energy consumption for a typical passenger car
2) The cheapest cost to produce (when manufacturered in volume)
3) The lowest servicing and maintance overheads
4) The lowest cost per mile driven
5) The highest performance available in a comparable segment
6) The simplest, smoothest and quietest to drive
7) The greatest ratio of interior & luggage space to overall vehicle size/volume
8) The most agnostic dependancy on actual primary energy source (you can charge your ev from the grid, from your own solar panels, hell, even from a petrol generator if you really want!
9) The capability to act as an enabler for a highly renewable based grid, because its battery can be used to load level by that dynamic grid
FUNDAMENTALLY it's negative points are that it can't:
1) Be recharged as fast as you can fill an existing ICE car with its liquid high energy density fuel
And, er, that's it.
The other negative points much banied about are actually only temporary ones, and critically, have nothing to do with those ^^^ FUNDAMENTAL factors. They are social or market driven factors, and as such, can all be solved with the application of time and money:
RANGE: Today, our BEVs don't have that big a battery and have a short range, simply because of cost. When costs per cell fall (as they are doing and are predicted to keep doing) then there is no practical reason you can't have a BEV with the same range on a single charge as a typical ICE on a single fill.
COST: BEVs today cost more than there equivalent ICEs because they are made in the same volumes, their supply chains are immature, and because they are seen as "premium" ie the OEs can chargre more for them. We all (i hope) understand the cost vs adoption curve for new technologies, and i'm going to suggest we are near too, and certainly not far from, cost parity today, and by ~2023 it looks like it will have occurred.
CHARGING: Today, the network is immature. There are not the volumes of BEVs on our roads to drive the growth of the supporting charging network (chicken / egg). But the network is growing, and growing rapidly, and significantly, for the first time, both the major OEMs and the existing fossil fuel empires are now adding their backing to the push to expand the netowrk. With the might of people like VW and BP behind it, the investment and engineering capability are massively increased, compared to the typical small firms that have provided away-from-home charging facilities to date.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
Some key points from that .gov report ^^^
• At 1 July 2020, there were 18,265 public electric vehicle charging
devices available in the UK. Of these, 3,206 were rapid devices.
• Since 2015, the number of public charging devices has grown by
nearly fve times to July 2020, with an 11% increase in the year to
date. Rapid charging devices have also grown quickly, increasing by
363% since 2015.
There is also an interesting working paper "Quantifying the electric vehicle charging infrastructure gap in the United Kingdom"
https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publicatio...
That covers in detail the existing situation and makes some sensible projections on future requirements and capabilities.
Now, i'm going to ask: Does any ^^ of that seem "cultish"?? Do you understand the points and have you considered the validity of them? Do you disagree with any of the points?
Max_Torque said:
Sorry, but i stopped reading when i read that ^^
Using that sort of words simply immediately demonstrates a werid bigotry that some people seem to have against battery electric cars? It's really strange, they are just cars? Do you hate ICEs too? or are they "ok" because they have an engine?
It is very cult like, because any alternative discussion is shut down.Using that sort of words simply immediately demonstrates a werid bigotry that some people seem to have against battery electric cars? It's really strange, they are just cars? Do you hate ICEs too? or are they "ok" because they have an engine?
Mention human rights abuses to mine rare earth metals, it gets shut down with whataboutery.
Mention that we may have issues getting the chargers to where they're needed, and you get told that it's up to the individual to compromise their life to work around the limitations.
Mention hydrogen and, in the face of increasing investment in this technology, it's dismissed as pointless and a dead end.
As I have posted, we need a mix of solutions - a single minded focus on BEV won't fulfil our needs in years to come. Especially as almost all pro BEV arguments fail to acknowledge that what works for the UK won't work for all nations.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
And that same electricity can of course "magically" get to the electrolyser in a hydrogen plant can it?Now, there is likely to be slightly greater distribution loss for most BEV charging because the majority of charging will occur at home and hence at the "end" (lowest voltage point) of that network, whereas electrolysers are much more likely to be sited closer to the primary grid (ie taking their power feed at a higher voltage). However, we are talking about a few single percentage points difference.
Interesting report on the supply of rare earth minerals for EVs (and FCEV as it's discussing the minerals used in the motors) - https://www.edisongroup.com/edison-explains/electr...
And interesting to read how BMW have already committed to only purchasing ethically sourced lithium and cobalt. Have to admit that, given the outcry about mining methods in the DRC, it's surprising to read than only 5-10% of their output is from 'informal' sources. Still too much, but far lower than I thought.
https://airqualitynews.com/2020/05/18/the-politics...
And interesting to read how BMW have already committed to only purchasing ethically sourced lithium and cobalt. Have to admit that, given the outcry about mining methods in the DRC, it's surprising to read than only 5-10% of their output is from 'informal' sources. Still too much, but far lower than I thought.
https://airqualitynews.com/2020/05/18/the-politics...
Max_Torque said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
And that same electricity can of course "magically" get to the electrolyser in a hydrogen plant can it?Now, there is likely to be slightly greater distribution loss for most BEV charging because the majority of charging will occur at home and hence at the "end" (lowest voltage point) of that network, whereas electrolysers are much more likely to be sited closer to the primary grid (ie taking their power feed at a higher voltage). However, we are talking about a few single percentage points difference.
That's separate to and not including all the losses upstream in getting the electricity to the BEV charger point, which I hadn't mentioned yet.
Landcrab_Six said:
Max_Torque said:
Sorry, but i stopped reading when i read that ^^
Using that sort of words simply immediately demonstrates a werid bigotry that some people seem to have against battery electric cars? It's really strange, they are just cars? Do you hate ICEs too? or are they "ok" because they have an engine?
It is very cult like, because any alternative discussion is shut down.Using that sort of words simply immediately demonstrates a werid bigotry that some people seem to have against battery electric cars? It's really strange, they are just cars? Do you hate ICEs too? or are they "ok" because they have an engine?
Mention human rights abuses to mine rare earth metals, it gets shut down with whataboutery.
Mention that we may have issues getting the chargers to where they're needed, and you get told that it's up to the individual to compromise their life to work around the limitations.
Mention hydrogen and, in the face of increasing investment in this technology, it's dismissed as pointless and a dead end.
As I have posted, we need a mix of solutions - a single minded focus on BEV won't fulfil our needs in years to come. Especially as almost all pro BEV arguments fail to acknowledge that what works for the UK won't work for all nations.
And Whataboutery is an important concept! Consider your point about the impact of mining rare earth minerals. Very valid in isolation, but what matters is the overal impact. ie, yes, mining rare earth minerals (which your ICE also uses btw) is environmentally damaging, but is it more or less damagine that the mining and extraction required to provide ICE vehicles with their fuel? THAT is the real discussion. To simply say that "EVs are killing the planet and hence pointless" because they require rare earth minerals is really, really stupid, because WHATABOUT the damage caused by the extraction, refining and transport of the fossil fuels required by ICE's! The FUNDAMENTAL difference, the one that should define the discusion is the important fact that unlike ICEs EVs do not consume those rare earth elements,and hence they can be recycled and reused, and a single EV once built, uses no more rare earth elements no matter how far it is driven or how many years it lasts for (unlike an ICE that required fuel each and every tiime you drive it)
Regarding compromises, yes, some people might have to compromise, just like they do with an ICE! DO you drive a Lambo? i'm going to guess not, because you can't afford too! That's compromise? Drive a second hand car (again a compromise) Want a two seat sports car but drive a people carrier becuase you've got kids, compromise city. Owning and driving an EV is no different because (so far) yo uare not being in anyway forced to do so. Most people find that an EV actually is less of a compromise or that the benefits it brings (lower running costs, nicer drive, greater performance) outweigh the other negative factors (costs more to buy) and because today, most people with an EV only buy one if they have off street parking, the biggest "compromise" namely having to charge it, actually is not any kind of compromise at all, because its always fully charged and ready to go each morning. I've owned and driven an EV for 5 years now, and it's incredibly low effort. Yes i have a drive and a charger on the wall, but the car is insanely convienient.
So given that nobody is forcing you to buy one, how is there a compromise required? If an EV doesn't suit you, don''t buy one?
Hydrogen is a "dead end" for pass car.
It's certainly not a dead end for lots of other things, and critically, those things, like ships, trucks, trains, planes and grid scale storage are likely to be either impossible or un-economic to do with batteries. It also currently is not a Green solution. The people who make cars, the OEs have set their course, and it's (rightly) BEVs. In 50, 100 or 1000 years might things be different, might everything be powered by hydrogen? sure, it's a possibility given some sort of technological break through that renders them cost effectiive in the marketplace, but here in 2020, the next 25 to 40 years are battery powered as far as our cars are concerned.
The reason you might feel that discussion about hydrogen cars gets "shut down" is the fact that it's pretty clear to most people that they are simply not very well suited to the passenger car marketplace. When you look rationally at all the evidence, consider all the factors, then it's very easy to see why the OEMs (who as you might immagine have done all those things over the last 10 odd years) have decided that BEVs are the future.
Hydrogen will undoubtidly play a huge roll in our future energy needs, but just not in our private cars!
And finally, what seems strange to me is that hydrogen pass car advocates seem to be able to suggest that BEVS "won't work" because there is no charging infrastructure (true (ish)) today but then go on to suggest that a hydrogen pass car is viable desipte there also being no refilling infrastructure of note. If an BEV is "inconvenient for the minority" then by golly, a FCV is also "inconvenient" as well surely? This actual thread started because someone who has a FCV could find anywhere to fuel the thing up (if that were a BEV then at the worst he could have pop'd round to his neigbours with an extension lead :-)
Strange that some of the largest passenger car manufacturers in the world, such as Toyota and Hyundai, disagree with you MT.
You're mixing up the argument about charging and fuelling intrastructure too.
It is evident both systems need the improvements to the quantity of fuelling points.
It's more a discussion of the amount of work involved to do this, how it will affect our streets and our commercial premises. One system is clearly much more invasive in that respect and needs more widespread 'digging' and planning. There's also the matter of the magnitude of the numbers needed, millions of public charging points for BEV and likely low thousands for FCEV charging stations (in the scenario of 100% one or the other).
I've continually noted that you need to look way beyond averages and to look at the peaks and troughs and variance in our vehicle usage and spread of industry and population. I posed the question of how a seaside town can manage its public charging point numbers to cope with peak demand while also remaining cost effective during the fallow seasons. I have seen many responses to that on here but not one proposal that is sustainable.
In that scenario FCEV fuelling infrastructure is far superior because it offers far better throughput and can flex with seasonal demand by bringing in more hydrogen at peak times. It also places far less demand on space, which is in short supply in our resorts. Then it places less demand on the people running the beach destinations where they don't need to install any fuelling points for parked cars.
Eg Durdle Door post lockdown two. A bunfight.
You can't argue that these patterns of life don't exist and I think suggesting that seasonal highs and lows simply have to stop is really, really foolish.
You're mixing up the argument about charging and fuelling intrastructure too.
It is evident both systems need the improvements to the quantity of fuelling points.
It's more a discussion of the amount of work involved to do this, how it will affect our streets and our commercial premises. One system is clearly much more invasive in that respect and needs more widespread 'digging' and planning. There's also the matter of the magnitude of the numbers needed, millions of public charging points for BEV and likely low thousands for FCEV charging stations (in the scenario of 100% one or the other).
I've continually noted that you need to look way beyond averages and to look at the peaks and troughs and variance in our vehicle usage and spread of industry and population. I posed the question of how a seaside town can manage its public charging point numbers to cope with peak demand while also remaining cost effective during the fallow seasons. I have seen many responses to that on here but not one proposal that is sustainable.
In that scenario FCEV fuelling infrastructure is far superior because it offers far better throughput and can flex with seasonal demand by bringing in more hydrogen at peak times. It also places far less demand on space, which is in short supply in our resorts. Then it places less demand on the people running the beach destinations where they don't need to install any fuelling points for parked cars.
Eg Durdle Door post lockdown two. A bunfight.
You can't argue that these patterns of life don't exist and I think suggesting that seasonal highs and lows simply have to stop is really, really foolish.
rscott said:
Interesting report on the supply of rare earth minerals for EVs (and FCEV as it's discussing the minerals used in the motors) - https://www.edisongroup.com/edison-explains/electr...
And interesting to read how BMW have already committed to only purchasing ethically sourced lithium and cobalt. Have to admit that, given the outcry about mining methods in the DRC, it's surprising to read than only 5-10% of their output is from 'informal'
Have Shell or BP been asked to committo any ethically sources cobalt when refining oil to take sulphur out where it it’s used once, unlike the metal present in a battery? And interesting to read how BMW have already committed to only purchasing ethically sourced lithium and cobalt. Have to admit that, given the outcry about mining methods in the DRC, it's surprising to read than only 5-10% of their output is from 'informal'
Bonkers isn’t it how these point tend to manifest.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Post lockdown two is next week isn’t it? Similar logic to running out of toilet roll. Did we fix that or just realise demand was too high and hence didn’t need to change the supply mechanism significantly. I don’t really care about people going to the beach to be honest. Charge halfway there and then no need to concern a small town with destination charging.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I admire your doggedness in the face of actual evidence thats for sure! ;-)Toyota and Hyundia are backing BEV. Yes they make s couple of niche models of FCV to suit certain world markets and to get some nice R&D grants too!
by the end of 2019, toyota had sold a total of 10,250 mirai's against 7 million Prius's
Hyundia's Nexo sold about 1,500 in 2019, in the same year they sold 78,000 Kona's
there are at the current time, a total of 3 FCV available for sale to the general public:
Toyota Mirai
Hyundai Nexo
Honda Clarity
There are 82 "full sized" and 17 "microcar" and "demo fleet" pure Battery Electric Vehicles avalable: So many that i can't actually list them here and will just link to the list instead:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_production_b...
To suggest that car makers are "backing" FCVs is frankly ridiculous. I'm also going to suggest that in 3 years, there will likely be not one more FCV available and yet every single OE will have numerous pure BEV available.
"looking beyond averages" is really not the way to forecast the future. If we took outliers, then our forecasts would be ridiculously wrong and unsuitable. For example, it is suggested that deaths from toasters number some 800 people a year and yet how many people do personally know who've been electrocuted to death by one? As long as the sample size is big enough, then it is absolutely the correct method to use average data to forecast and design large scale systems especially where that system itself is capable of handling significant dynamic disturbances itself, or where it is relatively easy to include significant additional safety factor in the provision.
If you do more than average daily mileage in your street of say 100 households, pure statistics tells us that there is an extremely high probability that this is balanced by someone living in your street who either doesn't actually own a car, or who only drives with once a month. This is why we use averages in our modern world to define our requirements. (again, note that the average needs to be based on a staistically valid number of samples)
anonymous said:
[redacted]
how does that sea side town manage it's icecream distrubution and sales network? Same problem, same solutions surely? Or it's B&B provision, or it's supermarkets, taxi cabs, campsites, pubs, nightclubs, beach life guarding or any other highly seasonal demand? The answer is a balance is found, between capability and requirement. And because an electric charging point does not need an operator, it's actually pretty easy economic descision ie can this charge point deliver enough electricity (uses) during the year as a total to break even in the required amount of time to be economically viable. Seaside towns struggle with seasonal service sector demand where humans are required to supply or effect that service, because a human needs to be paid all year round. A Charge point just sits their un-used, but it doesn't care.anonymous said:
[redacted]
This is patentlybobbins. The through put of an energy supply network depends upon the total amount of energy required and the total cost of the delivery system.If a hydrogen filling station unit and a charging station cost the same, then it would be the case that the charging station was slower or more expensive per unit of energy delievered. But they don't cost the same. For the cost of a single hydrogen station unit you can probably install 20 fast chargers (no moving parts, no high pressure plumbing, no tanks, no pumps, no ssure vessels, no valves, no complex nozzles with complex sealling, only need simple safety monitoring, not much requirement for ventilation and fire suppression etc etc)
And because the hydrogen system is so much less efficient end to end, at some point it needs much electrical infrastructure (cables, transformers, inverters, contactors) per unit energy delivered. For every 1kWh of energy delivered to the user, the green hydrogen station will require 3 kWh or so flowing into it. And for that same 3kWh, the charging station can simply install two more (for a total of 3) chargers and charge another couple of cars. So now, when you can charge 3 BEVs simultaneously for less cost than you can fill a single FCV, to get the same through put, the FCV must fill 3 times quicker (which is just about what it currently does, but increasing charging rates are narrowing that margin already)
And then you look at maintainance and manning. I'm going to suggest that a H2 fillling station will require more maintance, more man power (higher labour cost), more safety checking and therefore bring a significantly higher cost per station and per unit energy delivered. With a fast charger that is all solid state (no moving parts) except for the actual charge cable, which is a simple and low cost cable with a plastic plug on the end. Replacing that every 10,000 charges (as the contacts wear out) or if someone drives over it and wrecks it, is cheap, simple, quick and easily accomplished.
I'm also going to suggest that any fault with an H2 deliver unit that leads to any kind of leak will (like petrol stations today) lead to the whole filling stationn being shut. WIth fast chargers, you just throw the circuit breaker for that unit (actually, the unit will have safed itself automatically) and the rest of the station can continue to run as normal until that single failed charger is repaired.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You are suggesting that there is a 15% direct energy loss during charging of an EV battery itself? Ie in the charger and the battery?You might want to run some numbers on that one and change your mind (or clarify exactly where the 15% you are talking about goes) because if that is what you are suggesting then my next reply, using actual verifiable physical numbers is going to make your claim look rather stupid!
JonnyVTEC said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Not everyone. Just so you can get in and back out. Don’t think halfway of a journey automatically means half the battery range. That would be really daft. Although I’d suggest doing the same with hydrogen aswell.Landcrab_Six said:
It is very cult like, because any alternative discussion is shut down.
Mention human rights abuses to mine rare earth metals, it gets shut down with whataboutery.
Mention that we may have issues getting the chargers to where they're needed, and you get told that it's up to the individual to compromise their life to work around the limitations.
Mention hydrogen and, in the face of increasing investment in this technology, it's dismissed as pointless and a dead end.
As I have posted, we need a mix of solutions - a single minded focus on BEV won't fulfil our needs in years to come. Especially as almost all pro BEV arguments fail to acknowledge that what works for the UK won't work for all nations.
I agree with your last sentence, but to be honest, what does the rest of the world have to do with what is the right approach for the UK?Mention human rights abuses to mine rare earth metals, it gets shut down with whataboutery.
Mention that we may have issues getting the chargers to where they're needed, and you get told that it's up to the individual to compromise their life to work around the limitations.
Mention hydrogen and, in the face of increasing investment in this technology, it's dismissed as pointless and a dead end.
As I have posted, we need a mix of solutions - a single minded focus on BEV won't fulfil our needs in years to come. Especially as almost all pro BEV arguments fail to acknowledge that what works for the UK won't work for all nations.
As for the ICE vs BEV tribalism.
I don't have an EV, got lots of fairly powerful ICEs though.
I also have a lengthy background in the design and development of products for transportation and energy.
I can assess for myself why the EV hand is so strong, to me it's like holding four aces to the two pair we have been holding for 100 years.
I don't see myself as a cult member or a fanboy, just someone that's well informed.
Many people seem to struggle with the idea that such a vast improvement is possible, that there must be reasons why it can't be that good.
For some they want these reasons to exist, and will invent them or blow them out of proportion.
It's almost like a guilt thing for being part of the problem.
p.s Hydrogen car = three of a kind
anonymous said:
[redacted]
That 15% loss to charge an EV seems pretty high. Or are you talking about the total losses from the power station to the car battery? If it's the latter then most of that will apply to the FCEV as well because the power feed to the electrolyser will suffer similar losses.You may well be able to improve the efficiency by going to large electrolysers but that means transporting the hydrogen. Using tube trailers will require initial compression to the tube pressure (about 250 bar iirc) with onsite compression at the fuelling station to the 700 bar delivery pressure. That will push the kWh/kg figures back up, not to mention the cost of all the kit, space requirements - with safety distances, etc..
Liquefying the hydrogen will allow larger shipments - tube trailers carry less than 1 ton - but that requires 12 kWh/kg on its own, together with onsite vapourisers and compression. That brings the power consumption back to the levels of onsite elecrolysis.
These points have been made before but somehow they don't register so I'll leave you to it.
Mike, read this.
[url]
https://www.mdpi.com/2032-6653/9/1/3/htm[/url]
The charging loss was based on INL bench testing.
With regards the efficiency, WtW, it suggests the ratio is more 2:1 but acknowledges the comparisons vary massively between 1.25:1 and 3.9:1!!!!
I would say the 2006 Ulf Bossell comparison that seems to be the Bible to BEV fanatics on here is somewhat outdated.
It also suggests that WtW comparisons don't really cater for things like cold weather efficiency losses, BEV dropping from 73% to 45% given there as an example.
Section 4.2 mentions some figures for electrolysis, kWh to kg.
[url]
https://www.mdpi.com/2032-6653/9/1/3/htm[/url]
The charging loss was based on INL bench testing.
With regards the efficiency, WtW, it suggests the ratio is more 2:1 but acknowledges the comparisons vary massively between 1.25:1 and 3.9:1!!!!
I would say the 2006 Ulf Bossell comparison that seems to be the Bible to BEV fanatics on here is somewhat outdated.
It also suggests that WtW comparisons don't really cater for things like cold weather efficiency losses, BEV dropping from 73% to 45% given there as an example.
Section 4.2 mentions some figures for electrolysis, kWh to kg.
dvs_dave said:
dvs_dave said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Please acknowledge the following:2-3:1 well-to-wheel efficiency penalty of FCEV vs BEV.
1:9-12 H2 to CO2 ratio of producing hydrogen from natural gas.
Read this.
https://www.mdpi.com/2032-6653/9/1/3/htm
It suggests it's 2:1. It also notes that the figures vary wildly from report to report, being between 1.25:1 and 3.9:1.
So is what you say FACT or is what they all say FACT?
Or is it there's so much variance and uncertainty in how things are measured and compared that it cannot yet be proven as FACT? Maybe that's more likely, isn't it Dave?
And that brings us back to the point where this is a discussion forum where opposing opinions may be offered. I am happy to disagree with you and I'm happy for you to disagree with me.
Max_Torque said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You are suggesting that there is a 15% direct energy loss during charging of an EV battery itself? Ie in the charger and the battery?You might want to run some numbers on that one and change your mind (or clarify exactly where the 15% you are talking about goes) because if that is what you are suggesting then my next reply, using actual verifiable physical numbers is going to make your claim look rather stupid!
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff