How to Promote the Hydrogen Economy Hoax

As pointed out elsewhere, as filling stations exist only in California, comparing FCVs with battery cars is comparing what is sold in one state (for FCVs) with what is sold in ALL states (for battery cars).

If you want a fair idea of the popularity of FCVs, you need to multiply FCV monthly sales (about 250) by 10, for this is the ratio of Americans to Californian Americans. This gives about 2,500 a month, about an eighth of battery car sales.

My bet is that the used Mirais were abandoned by their owners switching to the Clarity FCV which seems to be a better car generally.
 
Batteries support both charge and discharging. Charged, an EV battery car can drive 25-300 miles. But they can also provide emergency house power. Not just me but several Prius owners have installed inverters driven by the traction battery for home power: http://www.priups.com

Both the Honda and Toyota fuel cell vehicles have a CHAdeMO port and Honda has shown a Power Exporter that can provide up to 9kW of house power. This is always one-way from a fuel cell vehicle.

In contrast, the Leaf can charge the battery using the same CHAdeMO because the battery is a bi-directional. So it was interesting to read Tesla's proposal to the Australian Energy Market Commission:
https://www.aemc.gov.au/sites/default/files/2018-05/Tesla Motors Australia.PDF

The existing SGA framework allows a participant to aggregate small generating units and sell the collective output directly into the wholesale energy market. However, as noted in the Directions Paper, in order to manage the requirements on the single financially responsible market participant (FRMP), the current SGA framework requires the small generating units to participate in the wholesale energy markets through a separate connection point or through managing the asset separately as an embedded generator.

This approach is appropriate for larger behind-the-meter assets, but is cost prohibitive for small scale residential and commercial assets looking to participate in virtual power plants (VPPs) or provide aggregated energy market services.​

Tesla is proposing to drive grid power support to the individual home owner and/or micro power grids. These can be powered by battery buffered, home solar roofs. Another Tesla initiative:
https://electrek.co/guides/tesla-solar-roof/
tesla-solar-roof-e1482789745324.jpg


Hydrogen fuel cell advocates appear to insist on always visiting a hydrogen filling station. There is one prototype, home hydrogen generator but it is both expensive to buy and operate.

In contrast, battery-solar systems are self-sufficient. In some places, owners are selling their excess to the grid but that is not really necessary. These are not prototypes but available today.

Bob Wilson
 
Last edited:
Your mains is evidently pretty unreliable. Fortunately, in the UK it has been a good 20 years since we experienced a power cut, which as I recall lasted less than an hour. As it happens, I have a small generator which I bought to provide temporary power in my wife's allotment. I have never had to run it to support my home power.

So as far as I am concerned my choice of car is NOT going to be predicated on worries about power cuts. I am sorry you have to think of such things.

Incidentally, I have never driven out specifically to a filling station in my life. I always call into one en route to or from some other destination. Two or three minutes in a nonurgent journey maybe once every two weeks is hardly as onerous as plugging in the car every time you park it.
 
I've been wondering why fuel cell advocates so strongly advocate for electrolysis generation versus the more affordable, steam-methane method. It turns out fuel cells are sensitive to contaminations that can deactivate them just as sugar in a gas tank can covert the engine into a useless chunk of iron:
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep07450

Low temperature fuel cells such as proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs) and direct alcohol fuel cells (DAFCs) are promising energy conversion devices and ongoing research projects for electrical vehicles and portable devices, however, carbon monoxide (CO) and sulfur poisoning deactivate the platinum catalyst utilization1,2. CO poisoning, one of the worst catalyst deactivating processes, is a crucial issue especially for platinum group metal catalysts in direct methanol fuel cells (DMFCs)3,4. During alcohol oxidation, adsorbed CO molecules generated as reaction intermediates hinder the reaction by blocking the active sites. Hence, much effort has been devoted to mitigate CO poisoning. . . .​

Electrolysis electrical power could provide 3x the miles charging battery electric vehicles. But steam-methane drives the price down about 1/3d. The problem is methane carries impurities that can poison a fuel cell. So the only way to justify a fuel cell and not kill them is the miracle of 'free' renewable electricity while ignoring the free market value of that electricity. Of course there is a simple process to solve the methane impurities.

Simply chill the hydrogen to liquid temperatures. At that point all of the ordinary, fuel cell poisons have condensed to solids at the bottom of the tank. Skim off the hydrogen and the problem is solved.

Bob Wilson
 
Last edited:
I think you are assuming the market value of electricity is constant. In fact it is likely to be extremely volatile, depending on the presence of sunlight and wind, and as these technologies become even more pervasive this volatility will increase.

A growing number of European countries are finding they are generating more power than they need with increasing frequency, and are giving it away free or actually paying other countries to take it! The logic of converting it to hydrogen is compelling, as the cost of the equipment - basically little more than electrolysers and tanks - is low, particularly if this can be sold as road fuel or used later to generate power when it is needed at a premium price.

You might be able to store electricity in batteries but you would need truly enormous ones as well as deep pockets to pay for them. Hydrogen tanks, in contrast, offer cheaper storage as their cost rises far slower than the volume they enclose. (square law as opposed to cube law)

A further factor is the carbon cost of using methane. If you tax the discharge of carbon to the atmosphere (as you should and eventually will when your cities start to become inundated) the cost-benefit of electrolysis is here already.
 
TeslaInvestors said:
Using Clarity FC's 73 mpkg EPA estimate ( ok, say 70 miles per kg conservatively, that I'm getting), it takes 171 kg for an US average of 12,000 miles/year.
So, that 53 million tonnes is enough to fuel 309 million cars.
Click to expand...

About 95% of commercially produced hydrogen comes from reforming natural gas. So that's why we EV advocates (which you quite clearly are not) call it "frackogen"; it's just a way to waste energy, which of course drives up the cost of the fuel, by converting one form of fossil fuel to another.

TeslaInvestors said:
The battery hoax will be too obvious only after billions of wasted tax dollars have been spent trying to resurrection some 100 old technology fails. I think that will take another 2-3 years to unveil.
Click to expand...

I presume you're just trolling. Surely you're not clueless enough to believe such obvious cabbage!

I'll be quite happy to see just how much of a "hoax" the EV revolution is in another 2-3 years.
:) :) :)
 
Last edited:
Martin Williams said:
Do you see hybrids as interim technology until batteries improve... ?
Click to expand...

I do see it as exactly that in first-world countries. Plug-in hybrids will likely remain the preferred tech in many less developed regions where the electrical grid either isn't widespread or isn't reliable, or both.
​
 
bwilson4web said:
The Orkney Islands are demonstrating a lot of hydrogen technology but there were (are?) only EV cars on the islands. But even their grid-based, hydrogen systems need a battery buffer. If you're going to need batteries anyway, skip the inefficient "electricity -> hydrogen -> fuel cell" path. KISS (Keep It Simple Someone).
Click to expand...

Using hydrogen generation for temporary storage of power is at best only a temporary technology, until the price of batteries drops. In fact, over the past few years the battery price has probably already dropped enough to make any further use of hydrogen generation for temporary power storage obsolete.

For grid-scale temporary power storage, there are four factors to consider:

1. Round-trip energy efficiency in storing power

2. Cost of installing the equipment, per kWh stored

3. Cost of maintenance/replacement, per kWh stored

4. Speed of response to fluctuation grid demands for power

Batteries clearly win on #1 and #4. It may be that in the past, hydrogen won on #2 and #3, but obviously the advantage there is going to shift more and more towards batteries, as the price of batteries plummets and the cost of generating / compressing / storing hydrogen can't possibly come down much, due to basic physics.

I knew the price of li-ion batteries had gone into a steep decline over the past few years, but even I was startled to see a chart of just how steep the decline has been:

BNEF_Lithium_battery_pricing.png
 
The problem is that with batteries you have to junk them and buy new every few years. That makes them a very expensive alternative.

Current high pressure hydrogen tanks are plastic lined and are not subject to the sort of embrittlement that so worries Pushmi. They last indefinitely. Also, they are not given to bursting into flame if something goes wrong and they get overcharged. A simple safety valve sorts the problem. Nor are they full of toxic and rare chemicals, and they work in all temperatures which batteries don't.

I suspect, due to LaPlace's equation, really large high pressure tanks are unlikely to be used. it will probably prove more economic to store it in liquid form above a certain quantity, but we shall see.

However, I don't think those pushing battery cars are hoaxers. They are clearly wrong, but that doesn't make them crooks. I think it's a blind alley into which the industry was directed after the financial crash, by politicians trying to rescue them from collapse and hoping to appear 'green' by subsidising battery cars. One started the movement developed its own momentum. The hoped for order-of-magnitude improvement in energy density has not materialised, however, and I suspect hydrogen cars will make further inroads followed by a big battery car manufacturer either abandoning them, switching to hydrogen or going bust. I have my own opinion as to which will happen, but I will keep it to myself for the time being.
 
Martin Williams said:
The problem is that with batteries you have to junk them and buy new every few years. That makes them a very expensive alternative.
Click to expand...

The 2000 "aught" decade called; they want their discredited EV bashing claims back!

Seriously, it's hard to believe that even a die-hard EV basher like you, Martin, would still be making that very thoroughly discredited claim. Even Leaf battery packs don't have to be replaced that often!

Of course you can point to individual cases where a BEV had to have a battery pack replacement, but you can say the same for the fuel cell stack in a fuel cell car, so certainly no advantage to FCEVs there!

Martin Williams said:
Current high pressure hydrogen tanks are plastic lined and are not subject to the sort of embrittlement that so worries Pushmi. They last indefinitely.
Click to expand...

I'll just quote what someone on another forum said in response to a comment similar to yours, Martin, claiming plastic linings in the FCEV fuel tank will prevent embrittlement:

I did not mention the tanks. Take a look inside the filler cap on a Mirai, it has a replace by date (the 2016 ones say "Do not refill after 2029"). The plumbing on these vehicles is metal, the valves are metal, the fuel cell is predominantly metal. The fuel stations themselves have metal valves and pipes, all of which are subject to embrittlement. As I said this is not a safety concern if the maintenance/replacement schedule is followed, just another burden for a hydrogen economy. Hydrogen at 700bar is not something anyone should take lightly.
​
The fuel cell stack itself develops cracks over time. The fuel tank itself might not be a problem, but other things in the fool cell energy storage system are going to become brittle, develop cracks, and need replacement if the system is going to continue to be used. Since it's unlikely to be cost-effective to disassemble the entire thing and replace all the parts individually, that means they'll have to replace the entire system every... 13 years? Or perhaps not as often, since stationary hydrogen energy storage systems don't need to use such high pressure.

Perhaps embrittlement occurs slower if the pressure of the H2 is lower? One thing is certain: We can't depend on Martin to provide us with a correct answer to the question!
​
 
Last edited:
Martin Williams said:
Current high pressure hydrogen tanks... work in all temperatures which batteries don't.
Click to expand...

The problem with fuel cell cars in cold weather is the very same as the problem with BEVs in cold weather; both depend on chemical reactions to produce electricity, and those reactions are greatly slowed in below-freezing temperatures.

To quote a recent article about pre-production testing of the upcoming Hyundai Nexo FCEV:

Durability testing has included high-altitude testing in Mount Evans, Colorado, at 14,000 feet; towing up the steep Towne Pass in Death Valley on a 127-degree Fahrenheit day; and cold starts at -22 degrees Fahrenheit in Alaska. That last point is a big deal, as fuel cell cars typically struggle to start and produce much power in cold weather. Jerome Gregeois, senior manager for eco powertrains at Hyundai America Technical Center, says the new fuel-cell crossover is ready to run in just 30 seconds in -22-degree conditions, where the Tucson needed 90 seconds to fully warm its systems. “In a matter of minutes you can have full power,” he says.”
​
In a matter of minutes, a BEV's battery pack heater can heat the batteries up to full operating temperature, too. If you don't want to have to put up with your BEV being sluggish (not immobile, just slow to accelerate) for those few minutes, better leave the car plugged in overnight so the battery heater can keep the battery from freezing.
​
 
Source: https://cleantechnica.com/2018/05/2...down-tesla-stock-dive-a-tesla-wobbling-wheel/
  • 310 miles range
  • 78.2 kWh - capacity
  • 3,838 lbs weight
    • 1,050 lbs - Model 3 battery, long range
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Mirai
  • 312 miles range
  • 83.25 kWh (net)
    • 5 kg
    • 166.5 kWh ~= 33.3 kWh/kg
    • 83.25 kWh (net) ~= 166.5 kWh * 50% efficiency
  • 4,075 lbs weight
    • 493 lbs
      • 193 lbs - tank
      • 127 lbs - NiMH buffer battery
      • 123 lbs - fuel cell
      • 50 lbs (est) - power electronics
When we compare the integrated Model 3 battery with electronics to the Toyota Mirai system, the Mirai appears to be 50% lighter. But Toyota added a minimum 237 lbs extra weight to the vehicle. In effect the fuel cell advantage is negated by the overhead and less efficient body construction.

To bring things into perspective, the range extender of BMW i3-REx is reported to be ~263 lbs versus the 237 lbs extra weight of the Mirai over the Model 3.

Bob Wilson
 
Last edited:
First batteries degrade with use. All of them do it at variable rates. The more you use them the faster they degrade.

Hydrogen in cars only at high pressure in the tank. Most of the rest of the 'plumbing' operates at far lower pressure, so hydrogen embrittlement is not a problem.

Third, the fuel cell reaction is exothermic, so it would reach operating temperature quite quickly even without batteries - maybe 30 seconds or a minute - The usual probem with them is getting rid of excess heat. The function of batteries in these cars is to make this delay imperceptible to the user. Personally, I'd be happy to wait a minute or two. You have to wonder how the batteries themselves cope with the low temperatures too. Perhaps they get heated up with current from the fuel cell...!

I imagine the 'Do not use after...' notice is intended to trigger a pressure retest. The tanks are pressure tested to significantly higher than 700 bar. If they pass they can continue to be used, albeit perhaps with a shorter time before being retested again. They are, anyway, designed to last longer than the car on average, so it's not a problem.
 
Martin Williams said:
Hydrogen in cars only at high pressure in the tank. Most of the rest of the 'plumbing' operates at far lower pressure, so hydrogen embrittlement is not a problem.
Click to expand...

Another 100% false post by Martin.

What part of "The fuel cell stack itself develops cracks over time" do you not understand?

For example: "Progression in the Morphology of Fuel Cell Membranes upon Conjoint Chemical and Mechanical Degradation"

For example: "Micro-crack formation in direct methanol fuel cell electrodes"

* * * * *

But go ahead, Martin: "Explain" to us how the "expiration date" on every fuel cell car sold does not really, truly, actually indicate that cracks develop over time in the fuel cell stack and the plumbing.

Or rather, you wish they didn't, and for you, wishful thinking trumps reality.
​
 
Fuel cell FUDsters are in full swing here! Here is AC transit bus, operating on the same stack for more than 20,000 hours! Even with just 25 mph average speed, that's over half million miles! That was 10 years ago. How is it now?

https://insideevsforum.com/communit...promote-the-hydrogen-economy-hoax.429/page-12
AC Transit Zero Emission Vehicle Sets Record for Endurance & Clean Air
A fuel cell installed in an Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) bus set a record-breaking milestone—20,000 hours of continuous operation. The fuel cell, manufactured by UTC Power, was not expected to operate beyond 5,000 hours, or about one year of service for an AC Transit bus.

With 20,000 hours of zero emission service, AC Transit’s quiet-running fuel cell bus has helped to improve the overall air quality, dramatically reducing the amount of noise and pollution in the communities it serves. By itself, the fuel cell bus has removed 1,134,000 pounds of CO2 from the atmosphere—equivalent to planting 13,189 trees or taking 108 passenger vehicles off the road for one year.

AC Transit currently operates 12 of these zero emission buses that together have logged more than 150,000 hours of service.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
"What part of "The fuel cell stack itself develops cracks over time" do you not understand?"

I don't understand why you imagine posting a four-year-old paper about fuel cells designed to run on methanol is in any way relevant to these pure hydrogen ones.

I suspect, too, that you imagine 'cracks' to imply the material falls apart. This is a perfectly understandable idea unless you have taken the trouble to look up what it means. The material's strength is reduced, but you get round that by making it a lot stronger than it needs to be. The concern is about leakage of hydrogen. At low pressures this is extremely small and is not a problem.

You might take into account TeslaInvestors reference to fuel cells lasting 20,000 hours too before launching into more abuse. The golden rule is to check your facts before typing anything. A novel idea for you it seems, but i suggest you try it.
 
TeslaInvestors said:
Fuel cell FUDsters are in full swing here! Here is AC transit bus, operating on the same stack for more than 20,000 hours! Even with just 25 mph average speed, that's over half million miles! That was 10 years ago. How is it now?
Click to expand...
Funny you should ask:
Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hydrogen-buses-struggle-with-expense/

The ministry refused an offer from the Canadian fuel-cell module provider Ballard Power Systems to run the buses for an additional five years, on account of the cost. The price tag of the completed five-year project was 89.5 million Canadian dollars, provided largely by the federal and provincial governments. The municipality of Whistler supplied CA$16.8 million of the total, which represents the estimated cost of operating 20 diesel buses over the same period.

The hydrogen buses themselves make up a large part of the cost premium. In addition, they require more frequent maintenance than their diesel counterparts. The Whistler program also used renewable hydrogen -- made from the electrolysis of water -- that had to be trucked in from Quebec, about 1,800 miles away.​

Another source:
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60603.pdf

The challenges and lessons learned so far include bus-related problems and programmatic issues, as well as market developments with manufacturers that affected the availability of parts. Bus- related challenges included issues with the air compressor, motor, and controller for the fuel cell; battery balance issues; and fuel cell balance of plant issues. Overall maintenance costs have been 58% higher for the FCEBs than for conventional diesel buses. Corrective repairs for the propulsion system account for more than half the cost.
​
Then there is this report:
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/62317.pdf

BC Transit collaborated with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to evaluate the buses in revenue service. CARB enlisted NREL to conduct a third-party evaluation of the BC Transit fleet to aid in understanding the status of the technology in transit. CARB staff has been gathering data on zero-emission buses to assess the status of the technologies as directed by its Board during the July 2009 hearing. While the BC Transit fleet is located outside of the United States, the operation of transit fleets within Canada is similar to that of fleets in the United States. The bus is designed for the North American market, and future models could be built to meet ‘Buy America’ requirements for U.S. transit agencies. NREL published its first report on the demonstration in February 2014.1 This report is an update to the previous report and covers 3 full years of revenue service data on the buses from April 2011 through March 2014.​

Of course your mileage may vary.

Bob Wilson
 
TeslaInvestors said:
Here is AC transit bus, operating on the same stack for more than 20,000 hours! Even with just 25 mph average speed, that's over half million miles! That was 10 years ago. How is it now?"
Click to expand...

If 2016 Mirais have a "DO NOT REFILL AFTER 2029" label, as reported in a citation above, then that 13 years would be entirely consistent with your claim that a FCEV bus is still running fine after 10 years.
​
 
Martin Williams said:
I suspect, too, that you imagine 'cracks' to imply the material falls apart. This is a perfectly understandable idea unless you have taken the trouble to look up what it means. The material's strength is reduced, but you get round that by making it a lot stronger than it needs to be. The concern is about leakage of hydrogen. At low pressures this is extremely small and is not a problem.
Click to expand...

You're making a large number of unfounded assumptions and writing as if those are proven fact.

1. The FCEV's plumbing -- that is, the pipes carrying H2 from the fuel tank to the fuel cell stack -- develop cracks over time. So does the fuel cell stack. You are pretending that problem doesn't exist, or trying to handwave it away by saying "Well, they can just make it thicker." I don't think you have the slightest idea how a fuel cell actually works! Making it thicker? Ummmm... no. Just no.

2. Valves controlling the flow of H2 are also made of metal, also develop cracks over time, and also are not lined with plastic.

3. You claim there's a magic plastic liner which eliminates the problem of embrittlement. Given the fact that compressed H2 leaks past all seals, that's not very believable. More reasonably, we can believe the plastic liner in the tank -- but not elsewhere -- will slow the embrittlement but not stop it entirely, and only in the tank.

4. You are assuming the H2 isn't at high pressure once it enters the plumbing, and that the fuel cell stack itself isn't exposed to high pressure H2, but you have provided no evidence for your assumption.

5. You're trying to handwave away the fact -- not opinion, but fact -- that FCEVs are sold with a "DO NOT REFILL AFTER" date on them, and the reason for that is embrittlement of metal parts exposed to high-pressure H2. No matter how hard you wish, that fact isn't going to vanish in a puff of wishful thinking.
​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top