Are hydrogen tanks superior to batteries?

bwilson4web said:
Google reports in 2013 Jerry Brown signed laws to pay for hydrogen fuel stations:
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2018/01/26/g...ission-vehicles-fund-new-climate-investments/

Today’s action builds on past efforts to boost zero-emission vehicles, including: legislation signed last year and in 2014 and 2013; adopting the 2016 Zero-Emission Vehicle Plan and the Advanced Clean Carsprogram; hosting a Zero-Emission Vehicle Summit; launching a multi-state ZEV Action Plan; co-founding the International ZEV Alliance; and issuing Executive Order B-16-12 in 2012 to help bring 1.5 million zero-emission vehicles to California by 2025.​

Also: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/comes-first-hydrogen-powered-cars-fueling-stations

  • SCOTT SHAFER:
    So, in 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed a new law that provides $20 million a year to build at least 100 hydrogen refueling stations in California by 2024. Nineteen new stations are already in development.
  • CATHERINE DUNWOODY:
    The state funding helps offset the risk to these small and medium-sized businesses to make this investment, to move forward with hydrogen fuel technology.
Sounds like we'll have to agree to disagree about tax money used to build these hydrogen fuel stations.

Bob Wilson
Click to expand...
Yes, indeed. $20M a year allocated but not necessarily spent. So far there are only ~30 H2 stations in California, each at a cost of $1M - $2 M. So not all the allocated funds were used. The number of stations are going to double by next year, making the H2 cars more accessible for even a larger number number of middle and higher class of people in California.
I live in SF bay area and the station locations are enough for me. So far in about 10 days, I don't feel a need for more stations.
As the range of H2 cars increase, there is a lesser need for too many stations. It's not like you need a 50 stall supercharger so 50 cars can sit there for hours, as each gets less charge due to sharing the same electricity supply line.
What's more important is to have the stations always operational and ready to dispense.

The AB 8 annual evaluation from CARB published Nov 2017 is worth a read for anyone who claims to be an investor gathering information from the internet. But of course, there are also the closed minded investors who pretend to listen but resist any view that is different from his own.
https://arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/hydrogen/hydrogen.htm

Fun fact: Until 2015, there wasn't even a way to measure dispensed hydrogen correctly, a prerequisite for any retail sales.
 
How long does it take to fill your car, Teslainvestor? Is it significantly longer than an ICE?

Your point about longer range increasing the distance people are prepared to drive to fill up is well made. If people are prepared to drive four miles rather than two, the number of them within that distance of the station goes up by four, not two. Trebling the acceptable distance to six miles would increase the customers in range by a factor of nine and so on.

It is quite normal for governments to invest money in new technology and countries across the developed world are happy to do it. It is almost certain that the investment will pay off in terms of the return in taxation when the technology takes off.

As to the cost of hydrogen filling stations, the belief here seems to be that $3 million is what they cost although I have seen $6 million mentioned. It seems a little overpriced to me even at $2 million, but perhaps they are rather grander than normal filling stations?
 
DonDeeHippy said:
I found this in the energy segment called cheep hydrogen energy
https://www.insideevsforum.com/community/threads/cheap-hydrogen-energy.687/

The bolt on to existing cars looks real and could be a great stop gap, and a great use for hydrogen

Its the next 2 that really interest me ,r they vapour ware or is it possible , hydrogen car running from its own production and storing in a liquid form with no big compression, they say they have a prototype and its a big *** ute as well.
Is it realistic or just like my favourite dream car the redox battery Nanoflow car Santa fee ?
Click to expand...

Hey Martin sorry to bother u again but what r your Thoughts on this stuff from Hytek real or vapour ? My knowledge of what is possible with hydrogen isn't the best
 
Martin Williams said:
How long does it take to fill your car, Teslainvestor? Is it significantly longer than an ICE?

Your point about longer range increasing the distance people are prepared to drive to fill up is well made. If people are prepared to drive four miles rather than two, the number of them within that distance of the station goes up by four, not two. Trebling the acceptable distance to six miles would increase the customers in range by a factor of nine and so on.

It is quite normal for governments to invest money in new technology and countries across the developed world are happy to do it. It is almost certain that the investment will pay off in terms of the return in taxation when the technology takes off.

As to the cost of hydrogen filling stations, the belief here seems to be that $3 million is what they cost although I have seen $6 million mentioned. It seems a little overpriced to me even at $2 million, but perhaps they are rather grander than normal filling stations?
Click to expand...

Hi Martin,
I have started a new thread here to document my experience and for others to learn/exchange information about H2 cars, as there are so few fuel cell owners, and even fewer posting on forums.
https://www.insideevsforum.com/community/threads/clarity-fuel-cell.1156/page-2#post-11953

To answer your question: It takes same time as a gas car, or may be little less. I filled 2 times by myself; actual fill up of 3.263 kg and 3.6 kg took 2-3 mins. Then, few secs to connect the hose and swipe the card and enter the zip code.

About benefit of longer range: What I meant is that with longer range, I will be filling less often. So, I have to make a detour of 2 miles every week instead of, say, every 3-4 days with a shorter range. The other thing is that the station needs to be along the commute or other frequently used route of the driver. With longer range, the chance is higher that some station is along the route that is traveled in this car. My actual detour is a mile.

BTW, I also have an 80 mile electric car. I could never use it for long distance (even 120 mile RT), since finding fast charging stations and then spending even 30 mins is too much when I am already short on time. Over the last few years, I saw its range decline from 105 miles to ~75 miles in mild weather. In winter, it is down to 70 miles. Even then, as soon as I start driving, the range drops 7 miles when I drove just 3 miles :( I still haven't sold it. It is good for nearby errands.

H2 station cost: I think it is highly dependent on source of H2 and capacity. With higher capacity, initial outlay is higher but H2 cost is lower; and vice versa. It may also depend on whether it just dispenses, or also produces its own H2.

Also, you are wrong about H2 cars costing more. The Clarity is really Acura quality on steroids. I don't feel that I'm paying more for the powertrain. Similar gas cars lease for similar prices without any incentives. But they are also more versatile (can go outside CA) and people have accepted them for decades and can fill up anywhere.
 
Last edited:
DonDeeHippy said:
Umm isn't that what Tesla did with the free supercharger network ?
Click to expand...

Not even remotely close. Between 92% and 95% of Tesla car charging is done at slow chargers, mostly at home or at work, where Tesla pays for none of the charging.

The Supercharger network was intended only to support long-range driving, and Tesla has taken steps to limit its abuse by those using it for everyday charging. To put it more succinctly: The Tesla Supercharging network was built to fight the perception of range anxiety, not to provide the equivalent of "free fuel". And it has been pretty successful at both fighting the perception of range anxiety for Tesla cars, as well as promoting sales of those cars.
-
 
Martin Williams said:
I don't believe use of terms like 'fool cell' is at all helpful.
Click to expand...

And yet, you were quite pleased to use the term "clean diesel" back when it fit your agenda. Are you actually arguing it was acceptable for you to use a dishonest, falsely positive term for one fuel type, while it's not acceptable for someone else to use an honest and accurate, if negative, label for another fuel type?

You like to use sophistry and other deceptive, mendacious, and subtly fallacious arguments, but this isn't one of your better ones.
-
 
Martin Williams said:
Well, its a bit more than that. Tesla subsidised each car to the tune of $20,000 last year. (!00,000 cars sold at a total loss of $2 billion) I don't know how that compares with three years free hydrogen, but neither is very surprising. New technology quite often requires a bit of encouragement.
Click to expand...

Here, Martin shows what his true purpose is in posting to this forum. It's not to promote EVs, it's not even pretending to promote fool cell cars; it's to bash BEVs in general and Tesla, specifically. It's the same reason he pretended to promote "clean diesel" on TheEEStory forum.

It's pure FUD to say that Tesla "subsidized" the manufacture of its cars. A much more honest, more objective (but still kindergarten-level) analysis would be that Tesla spent more on expanding its production plus its sales and service network than it earned in profits selling its cars.

It's as absurd as saying Joe the barber "subsidized" his customers' haircuts because he took out a loan to upgrade and expand his barbershop, and the loan was worth more than he earned in haircuts for the year.
-
 
DonDeeHippy said:
Its the next 2 that really interest me ,r they vapour ware or is it possible , hydrogen car running from its own production and storing in a liquid form with no big compression, they say they have a prototype and its a big *** ute as well.
Is it realistic or just like my favourite dream car the redox battery Nanoflow car Santa fee ?
Click to expand...

When reading a claim for a revolutionary new power source, our first question should always be "Where is the energy coming from?" It's very useful to think about energy in terms of thermodynamics. I find it helpful to think of the flow of energy as an analogy to water flowing always downhill, and never uphill! Just where does the energy come from; the energy used to produce H2 onboard a vehicle, and what process is used to cause that energy to "run downhill" to produce useful power?

As far as claiming they can store H2 "in a liquid form with no big compression", that's not possible if it's actually H2. Now, it might be possible to generate some sort of liquid hydrocarbon fuel onboard, or some fuel requiring only low compression (such as methane), but it's physically impossible to store H2 as a liquid without (a) cryogenic cooling, which takes a lot of energy, and (b) compression on top of that, which again takes a lot of energy.

And if you carry enough energy onboard to generate all that fuel, then why waste so much of it by using it that way? Why not use that same energy to generate electric power for an EV drivetrain? That would take your car much farther on the same amount of energy!

Without reading the details of this claim, I don't think it's fair to label it a scam; that would be jumping to a conclusion. But at best, the claim as described is highly misleading.
-
 
Last edited:
TeslaInvestors said:
Huh? You have supporting evidence for such claims?
Click to expand...

Are you actually pretending to question that California and other States have spent many, many millions of dollars to subsidize the construction of hydrogen fueling stations, just to support an absurdly small number of fool cell cars? A cost which comes to $1 million for only a dozen cars filled per day?

I think you know better. If you know enough to write intelligently about the subject, then you're just "playing dumb" here.

Here's a relevant quote:

in 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed a new law that provides $20 million a year to build at least 100 hydrogen refueling stations in California by 2024.
​
Source: A PBS News Hour article: "Which comes first, hydrogen-powered cars or the fueling stations?"

I'm sure that Big Oil is quite happy at getting the citizens of California and other States to pay many millions of tax dollars to support their "hydrogen economy" scam! :(
-
 
ekutter said:
This whole thread is getting pretty amusing. Only time will tell which technology dominates in the end. There is certainly room for both given each has its advantages.
Click to expand...

That's the fallacy of false equivalency. It's like arguing "there is room for the idea that the Earth ls flat, as well as the idea that the Earth is spherical."

No, there is no room in an educated person's mind for such science-denier claims. There is no magic way to convert the hydrogen molecule into something which will make a practical fuel.
-
 
Martin Williams said:
I thought you were as enthusiastic about the daft capacitor as you are now about battery cars. That is what you claimed here some time back.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested to see if you can find any post of mine which said that, or something close to it. I think you're mischaracterizing what I said.

Let me very clear on one thing: What attracted me to the idea of EEStor's EESU "magic supercapacitor/battery" was the claim that it would become the "holy grail" for EV battery tech. If you describe an ideal battery for BEVs, the EESU would have been pretty close to that! In a similar fashion, I am attracted to the idea of solid-state batteries, or Ionic Materials' plastic battery, or those revolutionary organic supercapacitors you recently described in glowing terms. I'm very attracted to (and "enthusiastic" about, if you want to put it that way) the idea that any of those might finally produce the "holy grail" of EV batteries!

I did spend a lot of time on TheEEStory forum arguing with those who were sure that the EESU "magic supercapacitor/battery" couldn't possibly work, just as I spent a lot of time arguing with those who were sure it did work. True skepticism, in the scientific sense, means that in absence of conclusive evidence, the scientific-minded person must -- absolutely must -- maintain a neutral viewpoint. If you were actually the scientist you claim to be, Martin, then you wouldn't need to have that explained to you!

Now, it's certainly true that I did maintain a "glass half full" viewpoint towards the EESU, as opposed to a "glass half empty" one, so long as I could justify that viewpoint in a rational manner. I thought -- and still do -- that if I was going to spend a lot of time on a forum, then it was best to adopt a positive attitude toward the subject under discussion, or at least as positive as it was possible to take while remaining skeptical about the claims.

Otherwise, Martin... I would have been posting like a curmudgeon, rejecting reasonable arguments, and stubbornly clinging to arguments even after they were utterly debunked. Rather like the guy who started this thread, innit? ;)
-
 
Last edited:
DonDeeHippy said:
Hey Martin sorry to bother u again but what r your Thoughts on this stuff from Hytek real or vapour ? My knowledge of what is possible with hydrogen isn't the best
Click to expand...

The first idea seems to be to electrolyse water and feed the resulting oxygen and hydrogen into the air intake of the engine. As well as having to provide the hardware (and the distilled water needed) to do this within the vehicle, I suspect this will take a great deal of energy. It may well clean up the emissions, but whether the energy invested in cracking the water is recoverable in improved efficiency of the engine is unknown. I suspect that there will be some degradation in mileage.

The second idea seems to involve burning hydrogen, but that would involve a bulky hydrogen tank. As this has to be high pressure it is likely to be cylindrical and will not fit into the space vacated by removing the ICEs fuel tank so incorporating it might be problematical. Also, I think burning hydrogen in air - which involves a great deal of nitrogen, may well result in NOx being generated. I don't know enough about the combustion process but as the engine is primarily designed to burn petrol, I don't know how well it will work on hydrogen or what the exhaust products will be.

The final idea of electrolysing water to produce hydrogen which can be stored to produce power later is feasible in principle, but not very efficient, so its financial feasibility depends on how often it is used. If the plant sits idle for long periods then you would need it to cost very little, and for there to be a significant difference between the cost of the power when it needed and when it isn't. Electrolysers are inherently simple, but compressors are expensive. Honda has an electrolyser capable of doing both which may make it more attractive. Hydrogen tanks tend to be pricy though. It might prove attractive to a wind-farm operator who finds that there are times when he is producing power which he cannot sell, and at other times he cannot produce power although he can get a good price for it. There are other technologies - batteries are one - which may offer better round-trip efficiency and therefore be a better bet.

Conclusion? I suspect there is a lot of vapour involved. I'd be very sceptical about it and would need a lot more technical information before putting a penny into it.
 
Pushmi is clearly a person given to getting bees in his bonnet. EEstor's magic capacitor was one, although any fool could see it was pure scam throughout. Battery cars are another. He may be a bit luckier this time, although personally, I doubt it.

At any rate, the discussion is not well served by emotive yah-boo postings in the manner of a crazed cheer-leader. Let us treat each other with respect and put our points respectfully.
 
I should add that I suspect there IS a potential market for domestic hydrogen production. If you have a solar roof, and don't use the power during the day, you are getting the power virtually free, so a domestic system consisting of Honda's electrolyser that eliminates the need for a compressor and a tank could accumulate hydrogen during the day, allowing you to fill your tank at home.

It is highly dependent on the cost of course. You would instantly invest in one if it cost $1,000 dollars, but turn it down flat at $100,000. Somewhere between the two is a figure where you are 50-50 on it! Whether the equipment can be made for that or not is a moot point. Mass production would obviously help though.
 
There are a number of battery storage systems available, now.

How many hydrogen electrolyzer storage systems are available for sale, now?
 
I don't know of any manufacturer of systems capable of storing enough energy to charge a car after a day's sunshine using batteries OR hydrogen.

There are a number of people making electrolysers albeit not for domestic use, just as there are for grid level battery systems. And there are a number of people making high-pressure hydrogen tanks. It can only be a matter of time before someone sees the logic of combining them in a domestic system.

What doesn't exist now will never exist.

Is that the point you are making, Neil?
 
I would also make the point that charging one battery in order to charge another is going to be rather inefficient. The round trip efficiency of Lithium Ion cells is about 80%. (They are optimised for energy density not round trip efficiency). So if you charge one battery, use it to charge another battery, and then measure the overall round trip efficiency and you get 64% efficiency.

Hydrogen has the advantage here as transferring the gas from one tank to another can be done by simply opening a valve, provided the pressure in the holding tank is higher, and its volume larger than the car's tank. No pumps or compressors needed at all, and no losses!
 
Charging batteries is much better than electrolysis / compression / fuel cell round trip.

The lowest wall-to-wheel efficiency is about 15%, and that includes the motor. So, a battery pack to battery pack efficiency is probably at least 90% efficient.

There are several home battery storage systems available today - the best known is the Tesla Powerwall. Your knowledge is lacking, apparently.
 
Well, charging one battery is reasonable efficient - you will lose about 20%. But charging one battery from another means you lose 20% twice. Plus losses in the DC-DC converter. This is if you use Tesla's car batteries - Lithium Ion - which are optimised for energy density rather than round-trip efficiency. You CAN do better with Lithium ion phosphate batteries. You can get 90% round trip efficiency there but they are bulkier. This probably doesn't matter in a stationary battery, but nobody is making them for a domestic application. You may be interested to learn too, that 'fast' charging is far less efficient than slow charging.

As to the famous 'Powerwall' I suppose you could charge your car from it, but it wouldn't take you very far. Probably not much further than the end of your drive.

The Powerwall battery capacity is a tiny fraction of the capacity of a car battery.

I repeat. As far as I know (and evidently as far as you know too) nobody makes a battery intended for domestic use capable of charging a car.

You have to ask how important 'efficiency' is the consumer. I suspect not very. If they can get their car charged from a battery using solar energy collected during the day they will not care two hoots about the efficiency of the process. Neither will they care two hoots if they were able to fill up with hydrogen accumulated during the day, which is probably even less efficient.

What WOULD concern them is the time taken. If filling a hydrogen tank can be done in minutes whereas battery charging takes hours then hydrogen will be preferred. People like their cars to be available for use at any time - even after a long journey.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top