GM lent me a Fuel Cell Chevrolet

That would be a good argument if it was true. It is not. usbseawolf2000 put out earlier in this thread that the weights for the highlander FCHV being 368lbs lighter than the hybrid. The battery powered vehicle would be much heavier for similar range.

I'm not sure where you are going with this, but the argument seems quite hollow and beside the point. One problem with bev is range. To extend the range heavy, large, and expensive batteries must be used, which hurt the handling and require more electricity to carry the load. Extending the range of a FCV requires volume, but materials for the tank are inexpensive, and there is very little added weight. Think about how much the leaf would weigh if it had a 500 mile range and how much bigger it would need to be. Now think about what the batteries would weigh and cost for a moving van taking a family across the country.

BEVs in some cases require more energy from source to wheel. Methanol and natural gas are more efficient being converted to hydrogen for fcv than converted to electricity then used in a bev.
Other sources are not as easy to convert and it is more efficient to convert them to electricity first, and this is where bevs show more efficiency in the total energy chain.

Choices are good, and not everyone can live with the range limitations of a BEV. The entire trucking industry would collapse. FCV show a lot of promise. If your point was that government resources would be better spent on BEVs than FCV, I agree with you. But we should not ignore the advantages of a technology just because it competes with a favored technology.

 

Generating electricity from any given power source will always be more efficient than generating electricity, using it to make hydrogen, and then turning it back into electricity again. "The Hydrogen Economy" is just more oil.

 

Batteries are large and expensive, compared to multi-million dollar fuel cells? I don't think so.

And your 'cross country' scenario doesn't make sense either. There's no way a family can drive across the country without refuelling, regardless of the fuel. This can't be done with gasoline, so why would you expect it of batteries? And how big of a hydrogen tank would you need?

 

Right, that's the dumb way to do it.

Sort of like BEV... you generate electricity (from some energy source) and convert it to chemical energy (charge battery) then convert it back to electricity.

Hydrogen can be converted from natural gas. H2 then generate electricity. Two steps instead of three.

 

Perhaps you missed this news. Honda and GM should also be working on $50k car... to compete with BEVs like Tesla Model S.

 

Does this figure include transportation and storage of the hydrogen? Do your conversion figures include the efficiency of the FC and battery?

Often these sorts of comparisons are done on an apples to oranges basis, where significant losses are conveniently omitted since they occur somewhere else up the chain. Gasoline falls into this category, where most people ignore the true costs of pumping, refining, transportation, storage, and environmental damage. Generally we just look at the pump price and say that it's not too bad.

Tom

 

The most efficient way to convert methane to electricity are through fuel cells. This process requires the production of hydrogen as an intermediate. Methane based electrical power plants burn the methane to generate electricity. This process is about 30% less efficient than fuel cells. There are transportation losses in the case of a FCEV, but there are also transportation and chemical losses associated with BEV.

Hydrogen can be derived easily from methanol in an efficient manner. Methanol is not oil the last time I checked. Hydrogen can also be derived from green energy like geothermal, solar, wind, hydroelectric, etc. Like in any BEV hydrogen can be produced from using fossil fuel conversion into electricity then into hydrogen.

I am not hyping hydrogen, but you should realize that some slanted book can give you as many misconceptions as hydrogen evangelists can over promise.

 

That's not news. It's hype.

Those same three steps are used - again - in a fuel cell. FCHVs are essentially BEVs with an onboard generator.

Yes, it can. But so can electricity. How does the addition of hydrogen to the process make it more efficient?

 

We'll see. There is a good chance that the history will repeat again. I just keep an open mind and keep up with progress on both BEV and FCHV.

 

Your second part should read:

"Hydrogen can be converted from natural gas(using oil, to create electricity, to compress the natural gas, to transport it away, to put into a processing facility [using more oil to create more electricity to convert it into hydrogen] and then [using more oil to create more electricity] compress the hydrogen gas to liquid, and then [using more oil, converted to petrol] transport the hydrogen via trucks to gas stations and then [using more oil and electricity] pump it underground and store the hydrogen [in the massive, expensive tanks which you used more oil to create more electricity to manufacture, transport, install and maintain] before you drive up and then refuel). H2 then generate electricity, which go into your traction battery ready to be used when the vehicle needs it. Twenty steps instead of three."

The first part: Burn oil/coal/gas to create electricity, transmit via grid (~90% efficient), plug in, charge, drive. Looks good.

However, Use solar/geothermal/wind/tidal to create electricity is even better. even with renewables hydrogen loses. I'm sure the number is something like 1kwh generated becomes 800wh in a BEV's battery, and about 150wh in a H2 tank. it is an EPIC fail.

 

Somehow you seem to only be reading 1/3 of what I am writing. One big problem with fcv is cost. Once the ev part of the vehicle and fc are paid for, longer range is added much easier. If you look further up the thread you will notice that Hyundai and Toyota plan on releasing $50k FCV in 2012 and 2015 respectively, and ballard's goal is to get a 100kw fc down to about $3000. The cost is too high for commercialization right now and honda is governments are really funding the $600/mo FC clarity. The multi-million dollar figure is really old and does not apply at all. One of the biggest costs of a fcv is the low volume ev that it is built on top of. This is why I agree with the DOE shift to fund ev technology over fc technology. IMHO most of this money is wasted also.

The other problem with FCV is refueling. This needs to be worked out but for vehicles carrying a payload the infrastructure problem is much worse for BEV. IMHO fcv will not become mainstream for 10-20 years as stated earlier. It will not be that costly to have hydrogen refueling stations periodically thoughout the country. Depending on refueling options 500-1000 mile range seems reasonable for interstate trucks. In these large trucks volume is not as much of a problem. Ford is releasing an BEV transit connect van for short range deliveries in a city. FCV seem like a good choice in the vehicle mix.

 

If your point is that going from electricity to Hydrogen to power a vehicle is less efficient than going from electricty to charge batteries to power a vehicle I'm in violent agreement with you. It takes about 60kwh of electricity to make a kg of hydrogen. Then the fc is only about 60% efficient to convert hydrogen to electricity.

The narrative about converting natural gas to hydrogen seems more than a little bit silly though. There is already the infrastructure to move natural gas. A gas turbine can produce both electricity directly and use the waste heat to produce steam for conversion to hydrogen and more electricity. Producing hydrogen on site greatly reduces the complexity. At refineries hydrogen is produced catylitically using much less energy for conversion of natural. This is used primarily to remove sulfur from fuels, but could also produce extra hydrogen for other purposes. Use of natural gas would help if hydrogen powered vehicles are a small part of the vehicle mix. If most vehicles converted today most of the hydrogen would need to come from less efficient sources.

 

Just because its light doesn't make it not huge - same as cng tanks. Why not post pics? I note someone DID request them days ago.
Hmmmm

 

all fuel cars i have seen are on SUV chassis's because of the size of the tanks. but that is fine. SUV's were very popular because they allowed families to do stuff. where the issue comes in is when they are used 80% for single occupancy commuting and 20% for family

 

We already know that methanol is a net energy loser which is economical only because the government pays the loss.

Natural gas is fossil fuel. Electricity can (and in the future must) be produced from renewable energy sources.

Again, you're still dependent on fossil fuel.

First of all, I don't believe the price figure. Second, fuel cells have a shorter life than internal combustion engines, so your cost per year goes up as your fuel cell stack must be replaced sooner. Third, delivering hydrogen is going to be an energy nightmare, as Flan points out so colorfully above. Fourth, as noted above, the hydrogen economy is a fossil fuel economy. Fifth, while FCVs would appear to have a slightly greater range than today's BEVs, they have a shorter range than gas cars and as yet there is no refueling infrastructure, so you still cannot go far from home in a FCV. Sixth, if you are going to use hydrogen (assuming you had the infrastructure and didn't care about getting your energy from fossil fuel) it costs a lot less to burn it in a heat engine (internal or external combustion). You don't need the fuel cell stack at all!

Hydrogen is a boondoggle to keep us addicted to fossil fuels.

 

USB... two issues with this short post:

Issue 1: This is like saying that an EV's exhaust calcs must include all of the upstream generation of electricity, and then comparing that to what comes out of the tailpipe of a gas car... ignorning the upstream pollution of making the gasoline. The weight of batteries includes storage AND the fuel. The weight of hydrogen doesn't mean much - you still have to contain it (at 10,000 psi!) and convert it to something useful before it is fed to the motor.

Issue 2: As so often happens, this is comparing a years-old, mature technology with new or even future tech. No new cars going foward will use NiMH. And certainly not NiMH from the 90's like in my car. I was using the example of my car just to show the energy discrepancy in a best-case scenario.

And bonus issue: Weight is only one small part of the equation here. I'm not sure why it is so often trotted out as something so important. Especially when we've been selling 6,000 pound SUVs as kid taxis in this country for so long...

 

Wow. That's certainly impressive. Main issue that I've not seen addressed is how to attenuate the output - in other words how to go from cruising to full acceleration and back again without using a buffer like batteries. To date I've not heard of a FCV on the road that can power the electric motor without batteries (or caps).

My point was that while Toyota correctly calls theirs a "hybrid" the other makers have not... though they use batteries just as extensively. So far all FCVs have been battery cars, where the FC stack charges the pack. Most people assume that when a car is called a "FCV" that it is NOT a battery car. And that's not been the case.

I find it odd that we're considering the gasoline hybrid version of a car to be the closest in weight to a BEV. Not sure I understand the logic. In a hybrid you've got a gas motor, fuel tank, exhaust, a way to connect the gas motor and the electric motor... none of which is needed in an electric car with "heavy" batteries. And on top of that... why again are we so concerned with weight? Are there not FAR more important aspects? Pollution? Availability? Cost? Efficiency? Proven, mature technology?

And now we're to guess the cost by comparing the not-existing battery car to the non-production FCV (also with no real knowledge of the mfg cost)... and we have to make this comparison based ONLY on something with more range than most people will need? Why? But I'm game. I'll say it will cost $750,000 for the FCV and $400,000 for the battery car. How'd I do?

From well to wheels my car can get three miles out of a kWh of sun-generated electricity (with NO other input of water, gasoline, natural gas, etc). How much will it cost to buy a FCV that can match that spec?

I don't mean to be pounding on you, USB! I hope you're taking my discussion in the manner that it is intended - where we all learn.

 

Yeah, I covered that in my reply above. You know that my argument is not true because we know how much the gasoline hybrid weighs??
1. How do we know the weight of the battery car just because we know the weight of the hybrid?
2. Is all we care about the range and weight? My Prius has more range than I've ever needed. And it weighs more than my old Honda Civic. Neither spec has impressed me much.
3. I wasn't trying to make any serious point about the weight of the vehicles with what I said. I was only pointing out that the weight of the hydrogen "fuel" on board isn't a spec that can be logically compared to the weight of batteries.

Where I was going with this is that talking about weight gets us nowhere. You claim that range is no problem for a FCV.. implying that the tanks are cheap. Wow. Have you priced one? Even the automotive-rated tanks for 6,000 psi NG are insanely expensive. But anyway... Why is the range of current (non-production, mind you) FCVs so impressive if it is so cheap and easy to increase? And why do so many people want range that they won't use? Yes, some people want/need it. GREAT! Most don't. Why are we trying to hard to get everybody to pay for it?

As for "heavy" batteries hurting handling and taking up too much room.. the Tesla Roadster (proven tech actually on the road in private hands for several years) has 2.3 times the range of the Leaf. Is the car too big? Is the performance poor? And the Roadster only costs about 1/8th what a Fuel Cell vehicle would cost (I'm going to pull prices out of my hat since it seems like fun) if sold from a private company... But then we don't have privately-owned Fuel Cell cars after all these years of promise from the big car companies. So the comaprison is very hard indeed. Out in the real world, we know what battery cars are capable of, and what they cost. We have NO idea what FCVs are capable of, nor what they really cost. Difficult to hear that we'll "soon" have FC cars on the road for under $50k. Talk is indeed cheap.

I suppose there is always at least one totally fringe case that could be made, yes. Yet nobody argues that the opposite is in fact the case in any practical, logical sense. What could the point here possibly be?

And it is more efficient to haul manuer in a pickup than in a Prius. Let's not use NG to power our vehicles. I dont. If you want the MOST efficient use of NG, then burn it directly in a CNG ICE vehicle. But that hasn't proven to be desirable for some reason. I use solar for my car. And if I had to use solar power to make H2 for my FCV, I'd need at least 3x the number of panels.

I agree. And people need to be informed of what these choices offer.

Nor can many of us live with the consequences of continuing to burn gasoline while we await the impressive range and other promises of FCVs.
Nor can many people live with the cost of a FCV.
Nor can many people live with the effort of pedalling a bicycle.

We do need choices, but pointing out how terrible BEVs are serves no benefit. BEVs are here and now. They're affordable, and proven. There is infrastructure. They give us mobility with a smaller footprint. They are not perfect.

BEVs are terrible because...

We shouldn't have such a huge trucking industry anyway! Goods should be moved long distance on electric trains! No range limitatinos, infinitely more efficient and we get the biggest menace off the roadways.

Yes, and they always have. I dare say that the challenges still outweight the promise. I've been driving the "promise" of EVs for ten years now as our primary vehicle. I fuel at home with energy that I make myself. Promise is good. We need something to drive. Now. Until such a time that we can get away from the private auto completely.

A great point. And I agree. Please know that through my eyes and ears, I've directly seen and heard the "promise" of FCVs being used to all but completely destroy the reality of EVs on the road now. And yeah... that has me more than a bit biased toward the tech that works, and against the tech that we're promised. BEV tech would be MUCH farther along today if it hadn't been for the promise of FCV putting BEVs on the back burner for ten years. So yeah... bring out the perfect FC tech. Just don't let it happen at the expense of BEV tech as has been the norm.

 

I think you are probably just playing ignorant. But here its pretty easy.

1) If you noticed the range and use some weights it should be obvious but here goes. The leaf battery pack alone is 200kg for 100 miles. If you read the description the FCV had a range of over 500 miles. Let's be kind and say that would require a 1000kg pack, even though we know it would be more. The pack would need to move itself, have more cooling, worse aerodynamics than the leaf, etc. Now we do know that even in todays backward technology the tank fuel cells and extra plumbing weigh less than 400kg full. I am not at the office so i can't give you exact figures, but it seems like there would need to be some huge breakthrough to get that range out of 400kg of batteries. There are already things out there to drop the weight of hydrogen tanks that are not included.

2) Obviously there are other considerations. I have stated these previously. Just because of these things there is no reason to believe energy density does not matter at all. You make your case worse when you ignore figures.

3) Energy density per kg is a key consideration. It should encompass the system. The key figures are range and power to weight ratio.

Somehow we are to believe hydrogen is oil from remarks of others on the thread. This also shows a lack of knowledge and perspective.

Let's let the free market move fc cars. One example you brought up is the tesla, although there was a little government money, it was small and the tesla is an example of what the free market can do. Battery tech improvements came from lap tops. Weight of other components was reduced with lightweight materials mainly CF. It showed what many of us knew that ev did not need to be slow or dorky.

 

Insults will get you nowhere fast.

No, hydrogen is not oil. But neither is it a form of energy. It's a form of energy *storage*, which is a crucial difference. Regardless of the energy source used to create hydrogen, be it green, black, or something in between, there are two phase changes that lower the overall efficiency considerably. How can this be superior to using the initial power source to create electricity directly?