$2/kg hydrogen coming soon.

  • Thread starter Thread starter JyChevyVolt
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 56
  • Views Views 20K
J

JyChevyVolt

Active Member
Southern California Gas Co. (SoCalGas) is partnering with a development team to advance a new process that converts natural gas to hydrogen, carbon fiber, and carbon nanotubes. The low-emission process, selected for funding as part of the H2@Scale initiative (earlier post) by the US Department of Energy’s (DOE) Fuel Cell Technologies Office (FCTO), will create both hydrogen that can be used in fuel cell vehicles and industrial processes, as well as carbon fiber used in applications from medical devices and aerospace structures to building products.

The goal of the partnership, led by startup C4-MCP (C4), is to offset the hydrogen production expense with the sales of the carbon fiber and carbon nanotubes, reducing the hydrogen’s net cost to less than $2 per kilogram, thus helping make hydrogen fueled cars and trucks cost-competitive with conventional gasoline and diesel vehicles.

In addition, this technology will virtually eliminate CO2 emissions from the methane-to-hydrogen process. These efforts support FCTO’s focus on early stage research and development to enable innovations to be demonstrated and to help guide further early stage research strategy.

The technology commercialization team includes SoCalGas, C4, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) and West Virginia University (WVU). As a result of the DOE selection, the team will negotiate a cooperative research and development agreement (CRADA) consisting of $375,000 in prior year DOE funding and a $375,000 co-funding contribution from C4 and SoCalGas. The CRADA will fund PNNL and WVU to develop the technology.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/01/20180105-socalgas.html#comments
 
"Fool cell" fanboys and those promoting the "hydrogen economy" hoax always like to talk about some new process which will allow hydrogen to be generated cheaply. What they always ignore is that no matter how cheap it is to generate the hydrogen, that reduction in overall cost and energy will be insignificant because of all the money-wasting and energy-losing steps that hydrogen has to go through between being generated and being dispensed into a fool cell car's fuel tank.

HydrogenChart.jpg


As you can see from the above chart, if you start with renewable electricity from a power plant, then about 69% of that electricity is actually used by a battery-powered electric vehicle. By comparison, the massively inefficient process of generating, compressing, storing, transporting, re-storing, re-compressing and dispensing hydrogen into a fool cell car -- where it is burned at only ~50% efficiency -- results in the loss of about 3/4 or 4/5 of the energy it started with.

And that in a nutshell, gentle reader, is why neither you nor I will ever drive a hydrogen-powered car.

* * * * *

Will reducing the price of generating hydrogen magically cause any reduction in energy necessary to compress it? Will someone wave their magic wand and cause the hydrogen molecule to become less pernicious, and something closer to being a practical fuel? Will a new process for generating hydrogen suddenly allow use of existing natural gas or oil pipelines for distribution of compressed H2? Will that new process magically remove the need for expensive high-pressure pumps at H2 filling stations?

No, nope, nyet, nada, ain't gonna happen.

Fool cell cars actually have an expiration date! They have a date on a sticker on the car saying "DO NOT REFILL AFTER..." a given date. That's because compressed hydrogen embrittles metals that it's in contact with. And that problem is also why any metal tanks or pipes in a H2 filling station will have to be replaced every few years, driving up the already ridiculously high price for building H2 filling stations even higher!

The only way to transform compressed hydrogen gas into a practical fuel would be to repeal the laws of physics. Good luck with that, fool cell fanboys! :rolleyes:

* * * * *

Or, as one EV advocate joked:

Perhaps they could add a few extra steps:

1) Use the hydrogen in a fool cell to generate electricity
2) Use the electricity to electrolyze water to hydrogen and oxygen

Steps one and two can be repeated as many times as necessary to get to the desired level of inefficiency.​

-– John Hollenberg, comment at InsideEVs.com, September 24, 2015
 
Last edited:
Pushmi-Pullyu said:
"Fool cell" fanboys and those promoting the "hydrogen economy" hoax always like to talk about some new process which will allow hydrogen to be generated cheaply. What they always ignore is that no matter how cheap it is to generate the hydrogen, that reduction in overall cost and energy will be insignificant because of all the money-wasting and energy-losing steps that hydrogen has to go through between being generated and being dispensed into a fool cell car's fuel tank.

HydrogenChart.jpg


Will reducing the price of generating hydrogen magically cause any reduction in energy necessary to compress it? Will someone wave their magic wand and cause the hydrogen molecule to become less pernicious, and something closer to being a practical fuel? Will a new process for generating hydrogen suddenly allow use of existing natural gas or oil pipelines for distribution of compressed H2? Will that new process magically remove the need for expensive high-pressure pumps at H2 filling stations?

No, nope, nyet, nada, ain't gonna happen.

Fool cell cars actually have an expiration date! They have a date on a sticker on the car saying "DO NOT REFILL AFTER..." a given date. That's because compressed hydrogen embrittles metals that it's in contact with. And that problem is also why any metal tanks or pipes in a H2 filling station will have to be replaced every few years, driving up the already ridiculously high price for building H2 filling stations even higher!

The only way to transform compressed hydrogen gas into a practical fuel would be to repeal the laws of physics. Good luck with that, fool cell fanboys! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
PMPU, can you delete your post. This thread is about $2/kg of hydrogen. I would be upset if a fool cell fanboy started ranting on Battery technology thread.
 
JyChevyVolt said:
This thread is about $2/kg of hydrogen. I would be upset if a fool cell fanboy started ranting on Battery technology thread.
Click to expand...

What a very odd thing for you to say, after all those fool cell fanboy rants you posted just a couple of days ago, starting here:

https://insideevs.com/hyundai-shows-off-next-gen-fuel-cell-vehicle/#comment-1398567

I certainly am not going to delete any of the actual facts that I've posted refuting anyone's promotion of the "hydrogen economy" hoax. If you think this qualifies as abuse, you can use the "Report" button... just like I did yesterday in response to your extremely abusive and insulting posts in another discussion thread. Your abusive posts got removed by the moderator. Let's see if my factual ones do.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pushmi-Pullyu said:
"Fool cell" fanboys and those promoting the "hydrogen economy" hoax always like to talk about some new process which will allow hydrogen to be generated cheaply. What they always ignore is that no matter how cheap it is to generate the hydrogen, that reduction in overall cost and energy will be insignificant because of all the money-wasting and energy-losing steps that hydrogen has to go through between being generated and being dispensed into a fool cell car's fuel tank.

HydrogenChart.jpg


As you can see from the above chart, if you start with renewable electricity from a power plant, then about 69% of that electricity is actually used by a battery-powered electric vehicle. By comparison, the massively inefficient process of generating, compressing, storing, transporting, re-storing, re-compressing and dispensing hydrogen into a fool cell car -- where it is burned at only ~50% efficiency -- results in the loss of about 3/4 or 4/5 of the energy it started with.

And that in a nutshell, gentle reader, is why neither you nor I will ever drive a hydrogen-powered car.

* * * * *

Will reducing the price of generating hydrogen magically cause any reduction in energy necessary to compress it? Will someone wave their magic wand and cause the hydrogen molecule to become less pernicious, and something closer to being a practical fuel? Will a new process for generating hydrogen suddenly allow use of existing natural gas or oil pipelines for distribution of compressed H2? Will that new process magically remove the need for expensive high-pressure pumps at H2 filling stations?

No, nope, nyet, nada, ain't gonna happen.

Fool cell cars actually have an expiration date! They have a date on a sticker on the car saying "DO NOT REFILL AFTER..." a given date. That's because compressed hydrogen embrittles metals that it's in contact with. And that problem is also why any metal tanks or pipes in a H2 filling station will have to be replaced every few years, driving up the already ridiculously high price for building H2 filling stations even higher!

The only way to transform compressed hydrogen gas into a practical fuel would be to repeal the laws of physics. Good luck with that, fool cell fanboys! :rolleyes:

* * * * *

Or, as one EV advocate joked:

Perhaps they could add a few extra steps:

1) Use the hydrogen in a fool cell to generate electricity
2) Use the electricity to electrolyze water to hydrogen and oxygen

Steps one and two can be repeated as many times as necessary to get to the desired level of inefficiency.​

-– John Hollenberg, comment at InsideEVs.com, September 24, 2015
Click to expand...

You often cite efficiency but what about time efficiency? 30% of the population live in dense urban environment with no access to overnight parking.
 
JyChevyVolt said:
You often site efficiency but what about time efficiency? 30% of the population live in dense urban environment with no access to overnight parking.
Click to expand...

You mean "cite efficiency", not "site efficiency".

I'm certainly not one to claim that in this early stage of the EV revolution, a PEV (Plug-in EV) will fit everyone's life style. I have said many times that if you live where there is no reserved spot for you to park with a slow EV charger, then you shouldn't buy a PEV.

Not everyone agrees. I've gotten some arguments from apartment dwellers who think they should be able to use publicly accessible DCFC chargers to charge their car as needed.

Well, obviously I see things differently. First of all, who wants to spend hours every week waiting around for their car to charge... or arranging to get rides from that EV charger to their apartment, and then back again a few hours later? In the second place, public charging infrastructure should be used to supplement charging at home or work... not to replace it! Using public chargers for everyday charging would definitely be creating or adding greatly to the "Tragedy of the Commons" situation.
-
 
Pushmi-Pullyu said:
You mean "cite efficiency", not "site efficiency".

I'm certainly not one to claim that in this early stage of the EV revolution, a PEV (Plug-in EV) will fit everyone's life style. I have said many times that if you live where there is no reserved spot for you to park with a slow EV charger, then you shouldn't buy a PEV.

Not everyone agrees. I've gotten some arguments from apartment dwellers who think they should be able to use publicly accessible DCFC chargers to charge their car as needed.

Well, obviously I see things differently. First of all, who wants to spend hours every week waiting around for their car to charge... or arranging to get rides from that EV charger to their apartment, and then back again a few hours later? In the second place, public charging infrastructure should be used to supplement charging at home or work... not to replace it! Using public chargers for everyday charging would definitely be creating or adding greatly to the "Tragedy of the Commons" situation.
-
Click to expand...
Hydrogen fuel cell are good option for our apartment/condo dwellers.

It's a good option for those who like to take long road trips, assuming infrastructure support (like BEV).

Here's the reality of long distance road trip on a Tesla. http://jratcliffscarab.blogspot.com/2018/01/i-drove-brand-new-tesla-model-s-100d.html?m=1

Here, reality of BEV on road trips
1925 miles
60 Hrs total
2 hotel stay
16 supercharger visit
That's only 120 miles per supercharger visit.
 
Last edited:
Pushmi-Pullyu said:
Gosh yes, that must be why you took pictures of your cellphone, showing out-of-context posts of mine responding to your EV bashing, "hydrogen economy" hoax promoting FUD posts at the InsideEVs news site, and you posted those pictures in an entirely off-topic manner to one of the discussion threads on this Forum, where -- at least in theory -- discussion should be more thoughtful, with posts here remaining long-term for any to read at any time, rather than the much more ephemeral nature of comments posted to news articles at the InsideEVs news site.

Yeah, obviously you weren't trying to embarrass me. /sarcasm

But anyone can read those posts in context, along with the several EV-bashing FUD posts you wrote, which provoked my somewhat outraged responses:

https://insideevs.com/hyundai-shows-off-next-gen-fuel-cell-vehicle/#comment-1398567

You know, JyChevyVolt, when you post things which aren't true, you should try not to be so very obvious about it.
-
Click to expand...
Out of context? You called me a liar, who owned a mythical Volt and Clarity electric.

I had to grab my tablet and cell phone to take that picture in freezing 55F.
 
If theyre able to get carbon fiber, carbon nanotubes from natural gas I think that's pretty damn cool. It says right in the article they want to sell the CF and CN to subsidize the pricey H.

Oil and gas can continue just digging and burning or they can try and adapt to new technologies. If they're going to adapt then that's good in my book. We need CF and CN for new tech like lighter and stronger cars. It also says it virtually eliminates the CO2 typically produced from the H conversion process.

We get CF, we get CN, and we get cleaner and cheaper H which goes into clean cars.

How is this bad??
 
I am strongly anti-FCV, but I have to admit that this is the best news I have read about low cost production of H2 because it does not emit CO2 as a by-product. Says this will bring it competitive with gas and diesel, still 2 to 3 times cost of electricity. My main beef remains, that is the taxpayer footing the bill for H2 infrastructure. If it was paid for by the oil companies (no more subsidy than for BEVs) I would applaud this news.
 
Brilliant method to use existing gas lines to deliver hydrogen to homes and business. We already have the infrastructure to support hydrogen, just need to beef it up.

Energy networks are preparing to dilute Britain’s natural gas grid with low-carbon hydrogen for the first time in a radical bid to cut emissions from the country’s heating system.

Within weeks, a consortium of grid operators and experts will begin safety work in 130 homes and businesses before blending hydrogen into the methane-rich gas which has been used to heat British households and companies for over 50 years.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/01/06/hydrogen/

https://networks.online/gphsn/comment/1000042/hydrogen-piggyback-natural-gas-infrastructure
 
Roy_H said:
Doesn't say how efficient the process is. Needs to be more efficient than solar cells (17%) to be economically viable.
Click to expand...
They are using the sun so efficiency is not really important. Can they generate enough hydrogen to make the trip entirely on renewable?
 
Feed The Trees said:
If theyre able to get carbon fiber, carbon nanotubes from natural gas I think that's pretty damn cool. It says right in the article they want to sell the CF and CN to subsidize the pricey H...

We get CF, we get CN, and we get cleaner and cheaper H which goes into clean cars.

How is this bad??
Click to expand...

It's bad because it's just one more cynical attempt by Big Oil to promote the "hydrogen economy" hoax, the idea that hydrogen fuel could someday become a practical fuel. One of Big Oil's strategies in promoting the hoax is to keep up hope for some breakthru tech which will magically reduce the price of H2 to something reasonable.

I could explain at length just why this is both scientifically and economically impossible, but why repeat myself? I've laid it all out in detail in my essay "How to Promote the Hydrogen Economy Hoax".
 
JyChevyVolt said:
Brilliant method to use existing gas lines to deliver hydrogen to homes and business. We already have the infrastructure to support hydrogen, just need to beef it up.
Click to expand...

They're doing the same in Germany. But let's be clear: This is not delivering hydrogen fuel. This is just diluting natural gas by adding a small fraction of hydrogen by volume. It's not like they can separate the H2 back out at the other end of the pipeline! But keep in mind that H2 is a very low-energy fuel by volume; that's why it has to be very highly compressed in FCEVs. So using H2 to dilute natural gas isn't replacing volumes of gas with equal energy content; it's lowering the energy content by volume. Essentially, it's diluting the value of the fuel.

But the key question here is: what volume of H2? What percentage of the natural gas in the pipeline is going to be replace with H2?

From the ITM Power website: "Injection of Hydrogen into the German Gas Distribution Grid"

Hmm, that article says it's limited to 2% by volume. If the percentage is that low, then it's not going to have much impact on anything at all, including greenhouse gas emissions... so why bother?

On the other hand, according to this (U.S.) NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) study:

"Blending Hydrogen into Natural Gas Pipeline Networks: A Review of Key Issues"

The study says "If implemented with relatively low concentrations, less than 5% –15% hydrogen by volume..."

If I was in the UK, then I'd certainly object to lowering the heating value of a cubic meter of gas by diluting it with between 5% to nearly 15% hydrogen! They pay for natural gas by volume in Britain, don't they? Pretty sure they do.
-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top