Hydrogen availability
Discussion
ruggedscotty said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
really ? how is your foot ? as i think you have just shot it.you simply cant grasp the cost of making hydrogen can you ? one method for a fuel cell was to use methane, which is a greenhouse gas. the other was to use electrolysis which is a heavy electrical consumer to get the hydrogen. so the watt per mile rate of a hydrogen car when all things considered is simply blown away by the simplicity of a BEV.
I dont know if your trolling or somehow fixated with a personal hydrogen project, or can not see the cold hard reality of hydrogen. it was always the red herring. It has succeded in wasting time and effort that could have been invested into the BEV infrastructure.
I put up the manual for maintenance on a hydrogen fuel cell, that alone gave an idea of the complexities that a fuel cell equipped vehicle has compared to a battery. that hydrogen in the car held under pressure and at a low temperature... even the safety issues with having many cars on the road with those sort of inherant safety risks... explosive gas high presures and cold temperatures. and then a fuel cell that doesnt like starting up at cold temperatures...
the hydrogen car is unviable before its even out on the road.
When you post a 20 YEAR OLD BUS maintenance guide as an example of modern and future fuel cell car maintenance I can see you're talking rubbish.
When it's known that the Toyota Mirai handles cold starting and cold weather with ease (proven) then it's clear you're stuck in the past.
When you mention cold weather and neglect to mention that BEV range drops up to 40% and FCEV range drops by a factor of only half that I know you're not speaking sense.
But keep ignoring the shortfalls and weaknesses of BEV all you like. Governments around the world know the problems with BEV. They know they need FCEV and BEV.
rscott said:
According to the RAC, it costs between £60 and £90 to fill up a hydrogen powered Hyundai Nexo with a WLTP range of 414 miles.
Nearest EV is the Model S with a WLTP range of 404 miles. Assuming some losses in charging, let's say it needs 120 KWh to charge it.
If I pay 15p a unit, that's £18 to fill it up, cheaper if I supercharge or use off peak with Octopus.
Question for you rscott.Nearest EV is the Model S with a WLTP range of 404 miles. Assuming some losses in charging, let's say it needs 120 KWh to charge it.
If I pay 15p a unit, that's £18 to fill it up, cheaper if I supercharge or use off peak with Octopus.
Supercharging the Model S to 100%, how long does that take?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
There will have to be a massive shift in FCEV pricing then - currently the two FCEV passenger cars are both between £66k and £68k, compared to £40k for an Hyundai Kona EV with 280 mile range. Yes, the Kona has a shorter range, but still enough for most real world usage (it's not that different from the range of my last 3 cars). The BEV to ICE price gap is far smaller than the FCEV to BEV gap.At present, FCEVs aren't any cheaper to run than ICE, let alone vaguely competitive with EVs. For that to happen, it'll require a large drop in hydrogen costs while taxes are also applied only to electricity...
Hydrogen production transitioning to green doesn't reduce costs at present though - given that green production methods are currently more expensive.
Interesting real worl experience here with a FCEV, showing up some of the teething problems, especially with iTM pumps. Only being able to fill the cars to 85% most of the time (and 50% on others) for example, is a pretty clear indicator that the technology is nowhere near ready for mainstream use yet. Especially when the only other pump could be 100+ miles away.
But, as you say, we should make allowances for the fact that EVs are very much in their infancy, so we'll see big improvements in both FCEV and BEV over the coming years.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Assume we fill to 97% (the most the journalist driving the Nexo to Frankfurt for Hyundai managed), then a v3 supercharger can charge a Model 3 to 97% in 54 minutes. or 80% (240 miles) in 26 minutes..Think I'd be happy to have a cup of coffee and fill up with 240 miles, given the cost saving.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
It's the ITM HGas1SP, the start of their range. Specs:Electrolyser technology PEM
Number of stacks 1
System packaging and size 2 x 20ft ISO container and external cooling equipment
Power supply 400V AC, 3 Phase, 50Hz
Control PLC
Hydrogen generation pressure (barg) 20
Hydrogen purity Up to 99.999% (ISO standard)
Maximum hydrogen production apprx (kg/h) 11
Input power at maximum apprx (kW) 700
Their quoted compressor package specs:
Linde IC 90/30-S
Pressure: < 900 bar
Fuelling rate: 28 kg/hr nominal; max 450 kg/day
Operation: 16 hrs/day; max 90 fuellings
Connected power 93 kW
Adding the two power figures gives 793 => call it 800 kW.
Interestingly I have just spotted the max fuelling rate of 28 kg/hr. So, for a 4 kg refill it will take 8-9 minutes. My 5 minutes was optimistic - not sure where I picked that up from.
My supercharger times came from the details I have picked up on here; that one supercharger can provide up to 150 kW to one car or 75 kW each to a pair of cars. Someone knowledgeable could confirm/correct those figures.
Taking the 2 car case, one hour gives each 75 kWh which I assumed would be full or close to it, giving about the same range as the 4 kg hydrogen fill (unless the batteries were the biggest and nearly empty on arrival; an unlikely scenario, imho). Hence my calculation that putting the same power as the H2 station requires into 5 superchargers would be enough to charge 10 cars per hour.
Per the update, we know the H2 system could only handle 7 per hour.
You still have not addressed the basic issue raised by your own question: how will fuelling numerous FCEVs be handled? What infrastructure will be needed? Space requirements? Power supply, esp if using electrolysers needing 11 kV? Etc.
What do you say to my first point about the CO2 footprint?
I have to say, for someone putting so much effort into championing hydrogen cars, you don't seem to have much of a grasp of your subject.
98elise said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Why are they not allowed in many tunnels then? eldar said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Actually, road pricing, so all energy inputs are taxed equally, with the more efficient benefitting.Simple, easy to administer and equitable.
It may be that the lifespan of FCEV ends up much better than BEV and the end of life implications and recyclability of BEV results in it being taxed more greatly than FCEV.
It may be that the supply of batteries and of battery materials poses geopolitical problems and the governments wish to mitigate that by focussing on less battery intensive modes.
Diesel and petrol are the glaring examples of differing economies and varying taxation.
Mikehig said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
It's the ITM HGas1SP, the start of their range. Specs:Electrolyser technology PEM
Number of stacks 1
System packaging and size 2 x 20ft ISO container and external cooling equipment
Power supply 400V AC, 3 Phase, 50Hz
Control PLC
Hydrogen generation pressure (barg) 20
Hydrogen purity Up to 99.999% (ISO standard)
Maximum hydrogen production apprx (kg/h) 11
Input power at maximum apprx (kW) 700
Their quoted compressor package specs:
Linde IC 90/30-S
Pressure: < 900 bar
Fuelling rate: 28 kg/hr nominal; max 450 kg/day
Operation: 16 hrs/day; max 90 fuellings
Connected power 93 kW
Adding the two power figures gives 793 => call it 800 kW.
Interestingly I have just spotted the max fuelling rate of 28 kg/hr. So, for a 4 kg refill it will take 8-9 minutes. My 5 minutes was optimistic - not sure where I picked that up from.
My supercharger times came from the details I have picked up on here; that one supercharger can provide up to 150 kW to one car or 75 kW each to a pair of cars. Someone knowledgeable could confirm/correct those figures.
Taking the 2 car case, one hour gives each 75 kWh which I assumed would be full or close to it, giving about the same range as the 4 kg hydrogen fill (unless the batteries were the biggest and nearly empty on arrival; an unlikely scenario, imho). Hence my calculation that putting the same power as the H2 station requires into 5 superchargers would be enough to charge 10 cars per hour.
Per the update, we know the H2 system could only handle 7 per hour.
You still have not addressed the basic issue raised by your own question: how will fuelling numerous FCEVs be handled? What infrastructure will be needed? Space requirements? Power supply, esp if using electrolysers needing 11 kV? Etc.
What do you say to my first point about the CO2 footprint?
I have to say, for someone putting so much effort into championing hydrogen cars, you don't seem to have much of a grasp of your subject.
It's more like an hour per car to 'supercharge' a model S to 100% and full range. That's because it's not deemed wise to supercharge to full strength, for risk of battery damage (too much heat, ooooh efficiency loss?), and the remaining 20% of the battery is charged at a much reduced speed . Not the half hour you're pointing at. So, whatever, don't charge it to full range but, mile for mile, you only end up coming back more times with the BEV to the charging point and further impacting the throughput capacity available.
FCEV, Toyota Mirai 2021, 5 to 10 minutes fill-up from near empty and off you go for the next 400 miles if you so wish.
Tesla model S, supercharged for an hour from near empty, off you go for the next 400 miles if you so wish.
So, by your figures that's 7 FCEV per hour, but only 5 BEV per hour.
Multiply that effect for the sheer capacity needed in the UK, and for the peaks in demand, and you see that two car advantage compounded.
You also see more FCEVers on their merry way after a shorter wait while the BEVers lose valuable travel time waiting for their car to fill up and have to comfort themselves with these snacks they seem so fond of.
But that difference in the pattern of that flow, as well as the capacity, will have very different results with the BEV pattern more prone to BOTTLENECKING.
Now that's the potential situation NOW. ITM will have judged what demand is right now for hydrogen refuelling and have their CURRENT product to suit that. You bet your ass they'll be working on improvements and enhancements to throughput and efficiency of those modules.
As others have mentioned that's not the sole way for hydrogen delivery to the tank anyway.
I think liquid form hydrogen has been looked at already and gaseous hydrogen seems to be the avenue that will be taken. People like Kubagen (working with FIAT) are involved in developing enhanced hydrogen vessel capacities for the future.
What do you think, then, about the number of public charging points the UK may need in a 100% BEV world?
I quickly estimated a hypothetical 3 million points, based on EU predictions.
That's a lot of space but yes spread them further. If that's not going to work within the scope of a traditional 'service station' then pop them in supermarket parking spaces, gym car parks, by all means. Then you've the added issue of the charge point and parking space crossover, people parking where they shouldn't, people overstaying, other people not being as efficient with their time in the space as they could be and impacting your access to the charging point, restricted by the charger plugs on offer. Parked up at for an hour at night in some supermarket car park, with no additional services, nowhere to go pee, nowhere to get the snacks to comfort yourself with!
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 27th October 14:59
I think it is a little short sighted to talk about hydrogen filling times being 5 minutes (or 10 minutes, what ever) on a thread started primarily because of a complete lack of hydrogen filling capacity. What it is now, 5 or 6 months? Longer?
Filling times as a positive for FCEV comes after a long, long list of negatives. This is what you seem to be insisting we all ignore. I mean, I could make a case that living in a tent on a street corner by my office cuts my commute to 30 seconds, instead of my 20 minute commute from a 2 bed apartment, which is true, but I would also be living in a tent on a street corner.
Filling times as a positive for FCEV comes after a long, long list of negatives. This is what you seem to be insisting we all ignore. I mean, I could make a case that living in a tent on a street corner by my office cuts my commute to 30 seconds, instead of my 20 minute commute from a 2 bed apartment, which is true, but I would also be living in a tent on a street corner.
And it's the definition of short-sighted to be thinking in terms of 6 month timescales (like you are Gregory) when it's clear it's taken 20 years for the EV charging point network to get to where it is and it's taken Telsa 17 years to get to where they are.
That's why governments, consultancies and those in related industries are talking in terms of ten year or twenty year timescales.
You know, like, that 2030 thing they're all on about.
That's why governments, consultancies and those in related industries are talking in terms of ten year or twenty year timescales.
You know, like, that 2030 thing they're all on about.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You say this as if FCEVs have just been considered today but it has been decades, and the fundamental problems haven't changed and won't change. As I say, you are holding up filling time as the be all and end all of this argument and ignoring all the massive downsides to get there.
gregs656 said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You say this as if FCEVs have just been considered today but it has been decades, and the fundamental problems haven't changed and won't change. As I say, you are holding up filling time as the be all and end all of this argument and ignoring all the massive downsides to get there.
But you keep on whining about six months if it makes you feel any better.
I've been reading the twoing and froing here, and it seems like some serious trench warfare happening here!
As a real world example, on the Tesla Model 3 thread there's a chap who did a 2000 mile round trip to the Alps and back in a Model 3 Performance (not not as good range as the LR). He categorically stated it took about 1 hour longer than the same journey in an ICE vehicle.
From that alone, and given it's a seriously infrequent requirement, I'd suggest that the BEV has already won the war?
I work with a guy who has a Model S in central London, no off street parking, no garages, just a parking permit, and just charges once a week, whilst shopping, so a bit like a petrol station.
So far, from all the comments, and statements I personally cannot see that hydrogen adds any additional benefits - and certainly doesn't add a "freedom" of movement over what already exists. All it seems to be is a conversion loss... Convert electricity to crack water to hydrogen, store hydrogen, convert hydrogen back to electricity, and a means to maintain the existing status quo with regards to petrol stations, right?
As a real world example, on the Tesla Model 3 thread there's a chap who did a 2000 mile round trip to the Alps and back in a Model 3 Performance (not not as good range as the LR). He categorically stated it took about 1 hour longer than the same journey in an ICE vehicle.
From that alone, and given it's a seriously infrequent requirement, I'd suggest that the BEV has already won the war?
I work with a guy who has a Model S in central London, no off street parking, no garages, just a parking permit, and just charges once a week, whilst shopping, so a bit like a petrol station.
So far, from all the comments, and statements I personally cannot see that hydrogen adds any additional benefits - and certainly doesn't add a "freedom" of movement over what already exists. All it seems to be is a conversion loss... Convert electricity to crack water to hydrogen, store hydrogen, convert hydrogen back to electricity, and a means to maintain the existing status quo with regards to petrol stations, right?
RemarkLima said:
As a real world example, on the Tesla Model 3 thread there's a chap who did a 2000 mile round trip to the Alps and back in a Model 3 Performance (not not as good range as the LR). He categorically stated it took about 1 hour longer than the same journey in an ICE vehicle.
I work with a guy who has a Model S in central London, no off street parking, no garages, just a parking permit, and just charges once a week, whilst shopping, so a bit like a petrol station.
It'd be useful to see the detail of the Alps trip.I work with a guy who has a Model S in central London, no off street parking, no garages, just a parking permit, and just charges once a week, whilst shopping, so a bit like a petrol station.
With regards the fella in London, yes it seems that projections suggest BEV be the better idea for short journeys within the town.
The query is how relaxed will he be if everyone in his boat was competing for the same charging point network.
I've not heard any analysis from anyone on here of what we'll need in BEV charging infrastructure if we were 100% BEV.
You'd have thought that'd been mapped out already? Nobody here, who supports BEV, seems to have a clue.
gregs656 said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
There are many, many factors *that have already* been considered, which is why it is clear to everyone who cares to check into it why FCEVs are not even in the running to replace ICE vehicles as personal transportation. anonymous said:
[redacted]
National Grid are cool with capacity for BEV's, with a little load control around peak times. They may not be so cool when 3x the energy is needed for your Hydrogen cars!People will mostly charge at home, work or shops. Basically destination charging. Where you have electricity, you can have chargers.
Hydrogen needs an entirely new infrastructure, and nobody is building it.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff