Featured Is It Time to Give Up on Hydrogen?

yes, at least as far as tax payers are concerned

 

There may be fleet usage cases but I understand at least one early, Canadian bus experience did not work out. BEV remains the general solution and continue to improve.

Bob Wilson

 

That was one of the better pieces I have seen on hydrogen, thanks for the link
I like that they looked at lots of different possible uses for hydrogen, some where it made sense, and others where it didn't.

 

Well if at first you don't succeed.........

Toyota to introduce "Liquid Hydrogen GR Corolla" with twice the cruising range in 2023 to the race Will it appear in the official test in February next year?

So now they are thinking if compressed hydrogen only gives their GR Corolla about a 50 mile range with 4 compression tanks (unless you're racing then its about 35 miles), why not use liquid hydrogen. That way all those poor dummies who invested in compressed hydrogen filling stations now have to do a complete 180 and offer liquid hydrogen. They just have to have fuel pumps that can operate at -253ºC. Talk about divide and conquer.

Here's some translation:
"Advantages of using liquid hydrogen
　Director Takahashi once again explained the merits of using liquid hydrogen, which is also called liquefied hydrogen because hydrogen is generally gaseous at room temperature.

　First, the current hydrogen GR Corolla, which uses gas, uses extremely high-pressure hydrogen of 70 MPa. Using high pressure means trying to use as much hydrogen as possible in a small volume, but this requires special high pressure tanks and large high pressure hydrogen filling equipment. The hydrogen GR Corolla has already solved this problem by diverting the high-pressure tank, which has already been mass-produced with the new "MIRAI", and continues to prove its safety enough to be used in the race. However, as hydrogen filling work has become a hot topic, the problem of cruising range remains even with four high-pressure hydrogen tanks, and filling equipment requires a large space because it uses a special truck. .

　Takahashi says that the liquid hydrogen Corolla has merits for these problems. There are problems that need to be solved, and at the same time, we have identified challenges.

It has high volumetric energy density and extends cruising range.
→ It is necessary to keep the temperature as low as -253°C.

Hydrogen stations become more compact and can be filled in the pit (the area can be reduced to about 1/4 of the conventional area)
→Response to hydrogen that vaporizes due to the heat received inside the tank

No need to pressurize, continuous filling of multiple units is possible
→Fuel pump technology that functions in a low temperature environment of -253°C

　First of all, regarding the cruising range, the volume is about 1/800 when it is liquidized as a basic property of hydrogen. However, since it has a melting point of -259.2°C and a boiling point of -252.6°C (that is why it is commonly referred to as -253°C), it requires technology to maintain that low temperature.

　President Sato said that the method will be "corresponding with the thermos method", and the vacuum double tank liquefied hydrogen tank will be used. The liquid hydrogen stored in the tank is vaporized by heat exchange, and the gaseous hydrogen is burned in the internal combustion engine. The part that burns as gas is the same technology as the current hydrogen GR Corolla, and the liquid hydrogen GR Corolla is made possible because of the knowledge of the hydrogen GR Corolla."

Original article:
トヨタ、2023年は航続距離2倍の「液体水素GRカローラ」をレースに投入 来年2月の公式テストで登場か？ - Car Watch

 

As anhydrous ammonia, it is more practical. Farmers use it all the time.

Bob Wilson

 

Agree. They have a video on their liquified hydrogen. Their, uh, thermos tank is impressively large.

 

Liquid hydrogen tanks need to be vent to release the pressure build up. Not much of a problem for a race car. For a consumer car, well, you'll never have to worry about stale fuel. The BMW 7 bifuel hydrogen used the liquid, and the hydrogen tank could empty within a week through venting. About half the hydrogen NASA through the space shuttle missions was lost to venting and leaks.

Enough insulation to prevent the venting results in no space savings compared to the high pressure gaseous tanks. It is faster to fill, but requires a bit more energy to reach liquid state vs high pressure.

 

Many a kid on my way to school has dropped their thermos. Nothing like the sound of tinkling glass when you shake the thermos that got dropped. One wonders about the consequences of a hydrogen thermos collision. Perhaps nothing would instantly freeze on contact .... if there's a source of ignition near by. I'm sure it'd be fine.

.

 

Fuel cells for long haul road vehicles and ones not close to an outlet kind of make sense.

I'm not convinced BEV's make sense, for me anyhow. But neither do ICEV's. I guess nothing's perfect.

 

I was on board for hydrogen for cars until deeply researching it. The main problems are the energy needed to create and the cost to store it. It's best use is in massing machines on the ground (Trains, long haul trucks) or to go into outer space. Natural gas seems to work for vehicles at a similar cost to petroleum.

 

it's ALWAYS a good time to give up on hydrogen . . . . . personally, after reading up on all the potential good . . . . . and toyota's hopes? Yea . . . we gave up on hydrogen over 10 years ago . . . . even tho some government money leaches have been sucking up research dollars and making fake promises for over 50 years. But who know . . . maybe in 10 years? After all . . . profitability is what the hydrogen industry & lobbyists have been promising for at least since at least the 1980's. I'm sure it'll be fine.

.

 

We need green hydrogen to replace all the grey we are already using. That is worthwhile investment. It could lead to hydrogen displacing carbon emissions in other industries, or grid scale energy storage.

The hurdle for hydrogen in transportation is in the refueling infrastructure. Its expensive, with the issue that cars and trucks can't be sold until there is stations in place. Probably cheaper to add some steps to the green hydrogen plant and make methane, methanol, diesel, or even gasoline.

 

I'd like to see how the hydrogen experiment would go if it was to be tried again now. That was 12 years ago. Surely people have learned a thing or two.

 

It is still going on.
And people have learned a thing or two. Most learned Hydrogen is a bad choice for light transportation

 

You're correct about the storage issue, but the main problems with hydrogen are at the Point-of-Sale (POS). Everyone is pouring money into hydrogen generation or hydrogen end use (cars, SUVs, etc.). Very little R&D, and likewise the money, goes into actually getting it into cars, called CSD (compression, storage, and dispensing) costs. Attend an investors meeting for hydrogen fueling stations and you'll be shocked at the recurring costs. That's why there's always big announcements about these refueling stations going in but investors pull out. Almost the entire cost structure of using hydrogen gets pushed onto the POS which is ridiculous. Case in point, it costs less than a nickel to put a gallon of gas into a gas tank. That includes the electricity used and maintenance on the pumps, nozzles, insurance, etc. (not the cost of the fuel). Since a kg of hydrogen compressed to 70 MPa is roughly compared to a gallon of gas, it cost over $2.00 per kg to put it into a car. And that was in 2019.

 

Yeah I'm following you here. We absolutely need to expand, grow and nourish green hydrogen production.

Cars ah... may not be the best place to use the resulting energy. I'm okay with that.

Lots of things need energy and some might be a lot easier than others to supply with that green hydrogen.

We need the btus either way.

 

Vancouver Olympics had a fleet of hydrogen busses. Not exactly light vehicles. Have they sorted out the reliability issues? Cost issues? Are the systems more light weight? That's the kind of things I wanted to know.

 

You also need to get the hydrogen to the station. A focus now is in using a hydrogen carrier compound that is much easier to move around. Most of the contenders already have infrastructure in place. Ammonia is favored because it lacks carbon, but methanol and methane are also being studied for this. Get it to the station, and then strip the hydrogen off. Of course, all these compounds for consideration are fuels in and of themselves, even for fuel cells.

Most ammonia doesn't go to energy. It goes to food.

The basics.

What reliability; the fuel cell, or also the fuel system? DOE goals for fuel cell reliability was for an average voltage output loss of less than 10% after 5000hrs of use. That is roughly 100k miles in a noplug FCEV. That has been improving, maybe the current Mirai will reach it. The life span of the fuel tanks is regulatory for safety. The fuel systems outside of the tank can be at 200psi. High pressures mean higher stress and wear on parts.

Cost has improved. The barrier to affordable is mostly is production scale. If they could sell more fuel cells, the price would drop to the point they might be competitive with other EVs.

No idea how much a fuel cell weighs. Tanks have improved, but are still quite heavy for the amount of hydrogen they hold. That's just the nature of containing 10k+ psi gas.

We can get a hydrogen FCEV car, bus, or truck perfected, but it doesn't address the infrastructure for getting hydrogen to them. Fuel cells could run on other fuels, which can address the issues with infrastructure of some systems of the vehicle. Hydrogen groups are fixated on the zero emissions potential though.