Is the Fuel Cell Vehicle a Disruptive Technology?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Apr 17, 2006
Messages
19,528
Location
Lake Forest, CA
This article is written by a man who leaded a team that developed the first hydrogen-fueled Prius some years ago.

Quote:
I had the honor of leading the team that developed the first hydrogen-fueled Prius. The South Coast Air Quality District took delivery of these cars to conduct field testing. Their real-world experience on city streets demonstrated that hydrogen-fueled cars could deliver on performance with zero tailpipe emissions.

What stopped this technology’s commercialization was the challenge of sourcing hydrogen in quantity, at competitive prices, with a lower-than-gasoline emissions footprint. Here’s what my analysis found on sourcing hydrogen


Quote:
Reformatting natural gas. This is the commercial path most likely to deliver hydrogen today. The question is: Why take natural gas and refine it further to source hydrogen? Doing so adds costs and emissions. Why not just burn the natural gas because it has a higher energy content than hydrogen?
Landfill methane.

Landfills create methane (natural gas). This more sustainable source of methane can then be reformatted to create hydrogen. But the question is whether this use of landfill methane is its best and highest-value use. The alternative is to use landfill methane to generate electricity, bypassing the hydrogen production and reformatting process.


Quote:
Solar electrolysis. This is the Holy Grail that uses solar energy to split water modules to create hydrogen. It is a renewable technology path for sustained production of hydrogen with zero emissions. But existing technology is horribly inefficient. It takes about 10 units of solar energy to produce one unit of hydrogen energy.

Nuclear power. Nuclear power plants can produce huge quantities of hydrogen at competitive marginal costs. Rather than generating electricity, these power plants could use their energy to create hydrogen by splitting water modules. While the marginal costs appears competitive, there are significant challenges tied to nuclear’s huge capital cost requirements plus the cost of long-term safe disposal of nuclear waste that has a 10,000-year half life.


Quote:
I truly wished the Miria could be a commercial success. It is fun to drive. It provides a 300-mile range between refillings.

But for the Mirai to succeed, the challenge of fuel supply has to be figured out. The closest hydrogen refueling station to my Oceanside California home is a 20- to 30-minute drive. Who wants to commute to fill up?

The bottom line is that the Mirai is a great piece of technology seeking a fuel solution. For it to be a disruptive technology, there needs to be an affordable, clean and convenient supply of hydrogen. Achieving that milestone would truly be disruptive.


http://www.triplepundit.com/2016/07/hydrogen-fueled-toyota-mirai-disruptive-technology/

According to a map that you can find retail hydrogen stations in California, if you live in San Diego you need to drive 80 miles to San Juan Capistrano to fill up. After 160 miles round trip you will be able to drive the Mirai for about 120-130 miles then another 160 miles round trip. Usable range of 120-130 miles is because you want some reserve, 20-30 miles reserve is very minimum. Just likes most people fill up their gas tanks before the low fuel warning, the low fuel warning in most cars still have about 1.5-2.0 gallons in the tank for driving another 30-40 miles before actual empty.

http://cafcp.org/index.php?q=stationmap

If you're outside California then forget the whole FCV, there aren't any hydrogen station in most states, I think there are few stations in DC.

Hydrogen stations are costly to build, about $2M. Many stations were built with state of California money.

Air Liquide Industrial US LP will receive $2,125,000 to construct a 100% renewable hydrogen refueling station in Palo Alto.
FirstElement Fuel, Inc. will receive $2,902,000 to construct two 100 percent renewable refueling stations in Los Angeles, and $24,667,000 for 17 stations in Campbell, Coalinga, Costa Mesa, Hayward, Laguna Niguel, Lake Forest, La Canada Flintridge, Long Beach, Mill Valley, San Diego, San Jose, Santa Barbara, Saratoga, South Pasadena, South San Francisco, Redwood City and Truckee.
HyGen Industries, LLC will receive $5,306,814 to construct three 100 percent renewable hydrogen refueling stations in Orange, Pacific Palisades and Rohnert Park.
Institute of Gas Technology will receive $999,677 for a mobile refueling unit.
ITM Power, Inc. will receive $2,125,000 to construct a station in Riverside.
Linde LLC will receive $4,250,000 to construct stations in Oakland and San Ramon.
Hydrogen Technology & Energy Corporation (HTEC) will receive $2,125,000 to construct a station in Woodside.
Ontario CNG Station Inc. will receive $2,125,000 to construct a station in Ontario.
 
Article pretty well answers itself why the "hydrogen economy" is a pipe dream, and only ever looks viable with some-one else's money.

Re reforming NG, gas is CH4...heat it and react woth steam, and you get CO and H2, more heat and steam, and you get the CO2 and more H2...and produces exactly the same CO2 per methane molecule as were the methane burned...but in someone elses' back yard. My town 100 years ago was heated and lit by exactly the same process, but using coal at the local gasworks.

The landfill gas...yes, it's a real issue, 20-30 times more greenhouse than the CO2 released from burning it...so while there, you really may as well generate electricity at the site.

Electrolysis...I built and Commissioned a hydrogen plant in the early 80s...nasty process...and as the article says, 10 units of electricity with one unit of hydrogen output...and with solar panel efficiencies at 20%, that's 50 units of sun energy for one unit of H2 energy.

There's better ways of doing things.

But as JHZR2 says, fuel cells aren't restricted to Carnot efficiencies, so that 1 unit of hydrogen, if used in a fuel cell is 3-5 times better utilised than simply burning the hydrogen in an engine.
 
Yeah, there just is no favorable thermodynamic pathway for producing hydrogen, plus there is really no good way to store it on a motor vehicle. A liquid is always going to win in that aspect over a gas.

Unless maybe we start natively pumping it out of the ground or build a pipeline to the sun (neither of which is going to happen for different reasons).
 
Originally Posted By: CT8
California sure rapes its taxpayers with a smile


Then they make us conserve water while they let the UC system build uncontrolled and use however much water they feel like. They also let the UCs buy local property, not pay property tax, but expect all local agencies to serve them.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Article pretty well answers itself why the "hydrogen economy" is a pipe dream, and only ever looks viable with some-one else's money.

Re reforming NG, gas is CH4...heat it and react woth steam, and you get CO and H2, more heat and steam, and you get the CO2 and more H2...and produces exactly the same CO2 per methane molecule as were the methane burned...but in someone elses' back yard. My town 100 years ago was heated and lit by exactly the same process, but using coal at the local gasworks.

The landfill gas...yes, it's a real issue, 20-30 times more greenhouse than the CO2 released from burning it...so while there, you really may as well generate electricity at the site.

Electrolysis...I built and Commissioned a hydrogen plant in the early 80s...nasty process...and as the article says, 10 units of electricity with one unit of hydrogen output...and with solar panel efficiencies at 20%, that's 50 units of sun energy for one unit of H2 energy.

There's better ways of doing things.

But as JHZR2 says, fuel cells aren't restricted to Carnot efficiencies, so that 1 unit of hydrogen, if used in a fuel cell is 3-5 times better utilised than simply burning the hydrogen in an engine.

Toyota, Honda, Hyundai and probably Mercedes-Benz invested heavily in FCV. They started fuel cell research more than 10-15 years ago, they already spent more than few billions dollar each.

Car companies can only do so much under pressure from various governments. There isn't much car manufactures can do for the fueling infrastructure.

Private business will not invest millions dollar to build hydrogen stations to serve few dozens vehicles a day.

For ordinary drivers, they like convenience they don't want to drive long distance to fill up their tank. The author's claim of 30 minutes drive from Oceanside to San Juan Capistrano is on empty I5, which is as rare as rainy days in So Cal. Normally it takes about 50-60 minutes to drive between those 2 cities.
 
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Toyota, Honda, Hyundai and probably Mercedes-Benz invested heavily in FCV. They started fuel cell research more than 10-15 years ago, they already spent more than few billions dollar each.


They may as well have burned the money instead.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Toyota, Honda, Hyundai and probably Mercedes-Benz invested heavily in FCV. They started fuel cell research more than 10-15 years ago, they already spent more than few billions dollar each.


They may as well have burned the money instead.


Another boondoggle that ignored fairly simple science...lemmings aren't a role model.

Wonder what the motivations were ?

In Oz (and OP, I know it's not the US, and therefore scarcely relevent), R and D is 100% tax deductible in the year incurred..and certain R and D (like Carbon) was getting a 2 for 1 tax credit a few years ago...they were burning MY money.
 
Originally Posted By: bdcardinal
Then they make us conserve water while they let the UC system build uncontrolled and use however much water they feel like.
They also let the UCs buy local property, not pay property tax, but expect all local agencies to serve them.

Janet Napolitano, renowned 'microaggression' fighter, current UC president and former United States Secretary of Homeland Security no doubt runs a tight ship.
Note government agencies at all levels rarely forfeit 'fees' or slush funds amongst themselves.
Witness all the 'CA exempt' vehicle plates running around town.

Upside is the taxes and tuition subsidies extorted from the rest of us to furnish and staff that beautiful UCSB campus trickles down into the coffers of your dealership(s).
Have thus far spurred little 'fuel cell vehicle' ROI, though. lol
 
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Car companies can only do so much under pressure from various governments. There isn't much car manufactures can do for the fueling infrastructure.


The fueling infrastructure is the least of the problems.
 
I operate an industrial liquid hydrogen producing plant for a living. It sucks up 40+ megawatts of juice and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of feedstock and natural gas per month to stay in production. Not counting the insane amount of money spent on distribution of the final product. Our steam-methane reformer makes about 1/3 of our product and like said above, puts out CO2 and CO as a byproduct. It's continuously monitored and regulated by permit the amount we can release.

I guess my point is, we've been at it since 1980 and nothing has gotten easier or more economical. All of what we make is used by industry.
 
Originally Posted By: JTK
I operate an industrial liquid hydrogen producing plant for a living. It sucks up 40+ megawatts of juice and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of feedstock and natural gas per month to stay in production. Not counting the insane amount of money spent on distribution of the final product. Our steam-methane reformer makes about 1/3 of our product and like said above, puts out CO2 and CO as a byproduct. It's continuously monitored and regulated by permit the amount we can release.

I guess my point is, we've been at it since 1980 and nothing has gotten easier or more economical. All of what we make is used by industry.


Yeah, but it would go into a ZEV - Zero Emission Vehicle, so everything would be splendid.
 
Fuel cells can have a place for quiet, no-nox, efficient power. As other have said, making the hydrogen, and then distributing and storing it is a challenge.

Fuel cells also don't necessarily have very good transient performance, meaning that they need stored energy along with the stored hydrogen to operate properly. A drop in for a hybrid car or a BEV "range extender"? Perhaps. The reality is that the energy density of a fuel cell with stored hydrogen is nearly an order of magnitude better than a straight up battery, meanwhile essentially as quiet as a BEV, and no need for other emissions controls.

Where I do think they make a lot of sense is as part of a bottoming cycle for another combustion based process. Use that waste heat to drive reformation (endothermic) and then generate with a baseload type operation with a lot less noise and emissions.
 
There are lots of hydrogen production methods not being discussed here. That is too bad.
 
Originally Posted By: badtlc
There are lots of hydrogen production methods not being discussed here. That is too bad.


Like what? There are lots of ways to produce hydrogen, but which ones are thermodynamically favorable?
 
Originally Posted By: PeterPolyol
Fuel Cell vehicles are a red herring IMO and will misguide a lot of automakers into foolish and costly investments.





It's good to know the new technology phobia is alive and well here.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: badtlc
There are lots of hydrogen production methods not being discussed here. That is too bad.


Like what? There are lots of ways to produce hydrogen, but which ones are thermodynamically favorable?


There are ways to do it with microbials. There are ways to do it with waste heat. There are newer high temp electrolysis technologies. There are many ways to produce hydrogen.
 
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: badtlc
There are lots of hydrogen production methods not being discussed here. That is too bad.


Like what? There are lots of ways to produce hydrogen, but which ones are thermodynamically favorable?


There are ways to do it with microbials. There are ways to do it with waste heat. There are newer high temp electrolysis technologies. There are many ways to produce hydrogen.


At what pressure? My (faint) understanding is that H2 must be compressed to high pressures in order to obtain decent energy density; and the efficiency of compression is quite low (50%? not sure how it's measured). I also recall something about hydrogen embrittlement but maybe that problem was solved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top