Featured Solid State Battery 10 Minute Charge Toyota - Lets Go Places

I'm not sure the point. Are you saying that because battery costs have decreased much faster than hydrogen advocates predicted, and hydrogen costs have not follow their rosy predictions, we should now assume that hydrogen costs will follow battery costs?

Cost to refill | California Fuel Cell Partnership.

Now how are you going to get it much cheaper in farm land. I leave that to you to explain without massive government subsidies. Do you really think they will get much higher utilization than california?

I'm not sure what high setting means but the deere is governed at 2100 rpm. Diesels always are more efficient at partial load. Deere claims their new engine is 14% more powerful at peak and that makes their combine more efficient. That makes sense, it probably can run at a more efficient load point. Typical gas engines run best at full load and transmissions are optimized to select an rpm so required power is full load.

Google machine brings up research saying combines use 14% of their fuel in idle. Study is from latvia but using american made equipment. I don't know if that is true, but that seems much more likely than 0%.

 

If we start producing these systems in quantity, yes.

Build the systems in quantity.

High throttle

No, not always. Depends on the design.

No, that's not true either. Gas engines are almost always less efficient at full-load than part load because cars run at part load most of the time.

That's if you leave it idling. You don't have to and they rarely are left at idle these days. It used to be that diesels had to be warmed up and suffered from shutting off. Now that's not really true and many people use their machines or shut them off when not in use.

 

""The bane for hydrogen fuel cells has been the lack of delivery infrastructure," said Sossina Haile, lead author of the study. "It's difficult and expensive to transport hydrogen, but an extensive ammonia delivery system already exists. There are pipelines for it. We deliver lots of ammonia all over the world for fertilizer. If you give us ammonia, the electrochemical systems we developed can convert that ammonia to fuel-cell-ready, clean hydrogen on-site at any scale.""
New technique seamlessly converts ammonia to green hydrogen: Researchers leverage renewable electricity for widespread, distributed hydrogen fuel production -- ScienceDaily

"That's where MacFarlane comes in. For the past 4 years, he has been working on a fuel cell that can convert renewable electricity into a carbon-free fuel: ammonia. Fuel cells typically use the energy stored in chemical bonds to make electricity; MacFarlane's operates in reverse. In his third-floor laboratory, he shows off one of the devices, about the size of a hockey puck and clad in stainless steel. Two plastic tubes on its backside feed it nitrogen gas and water, and a power cord supplies electricity. Through a third tube on its front, it silently exhales gaseous ammonia, all without the heat, pressure, and carbon emissions normally needed to make the chemical."
Ammonia—a renewable fuel made from sun, air, and water—could power the globe without carbon | Science | AAAS

Plus,
Hydrogen economy with mass production of high-purity hydrogen from ammonia | EurekAlert! Science News
H2 and NH3 – the Perfect Marriage in a Carbon-free Society - Features - The Chemical Engineer
and more if you care to look.

 

There are no such thing as phev H2 cars - & that's called moving the goal post. But sure, yea, in theory, you can help most ANY vehicle efficiency by adding a battery source for energy storage, & that's going to be more efficient than just using the other 'lame' power source that it has to lug around - or you just junk the ICE or H2 & go high efficiency via just the battery

maybe look at the links how the hydrogen industry has alread LIED about build out costs, and how there's no penalty for the LIES about build costs. If the liars had to eat the expense, then sure! bring on hydrogen! But no, the taxpayers just have to pony up.
.

 

There should be. Full H2 cars are just as dumb as full BEV cars.

 

For many years we had a hydrogen fueling station where I work, for research and for fueling our fuel cell vehicles. Getting hydrogen was not difficult, storing it in a bone-stock tube trailer was not difficult, making our own hydrogen was not difficult. We pipeline hydrogen right now. We know how to transport enormous quantities of liquid hydrogen across thousands of miles for rockets (the LH2 for the Space Shuttle was made in Louisiana, if memory serves, and transported to Florida). This is simply not difficult. It's about the same level of difficulty as transporting natural gas, in some ways easier, in some ways harder.

I have done extensive research on this, I have several publications on the subject, and one patent.

 

Can you tell us the total cost of equipment and cost to produce and capacity? I'm sure California and japan would love to understand your low price per kg of 10,000 psi hydrogen.

This is what CEC put out, but they are costing more, and stations are behind.
COSTS AND FINANCING | H2 Station Maps
Latest block of california subsidies were $39M for 33 stations. The larger receiver of the grants got $38M in investments from those that want to sell hydrogen to help build those systems. That's over $1M per station subsidy and those companies need to put up something.

Of course we know how to produce large quantities of hydrogen. DOE is funding $10.8M of a project in Texas to reduce costs of renewable hydrogen and to dispense brown hydrogen in a high volume port . Hydrogen pipelines of course provide the large volumes to oil refineries on the gulf coast.

It costs $1500/kg to send things to space. A little extra cost per kg of hydrogen really doesn't matter. The problem with fcv is they do have competing technologies that people like better.

Electrolyzed hydrogen for fuel cell fork lift costs doesn't really matter much. Labor costs for charging the batteries can easily make it up. If it costs $25/kg for equipment, maintenance, and electricity you really don't use much per forklift and you only need one refueling station. Storage tank doesn't need to be big.

Why push for more than $1B more dollars in infrastructure when they still haven't figured out how to get costs bellow $10/kg for any reasonable sized network. I'm not saying the costs won't come down eventually, but the curve is not promising. Ammonia is not promising because we already have liquid fuel infrastructure. Its a lot easier to convert to methanol than ammonia.

Now battery tech - that seems to be on a 7% decline in costs per year. The reason it will likely take at least 7 more years for solid state batteries to make an impact on cars is lion technology is so good and still improving so solid state needs to actually be better for widespread adoption. Hydrogen, we have fork lifts and space missions to improve electrolyzer costs and fuel cell tech. Why force it into cars before its competitive.

 

No. It was a proprietary project.

If only.

But it wasn't expensive at all.

Because no one makes a decent FCV. It has to be PHEV.

So, time is money, huh? Why doesn't charge time of BEVs matter? Well, it does to me. My typical out-of-town fuel up takes 2 minutes. 8 if I go to the bathroom and clean the windshield. I'm amazed that people tolerate a charge that takes longer than that.

They might become cheap, but they are still low-energy, high-mass, hard-to-recycle items.

Li-ion batteries suck. They're the best we have and they still suck.

Why force batteries on cars before they are competitive?

If Elon hadn't had his head where the sun don't shine and had built a PHEV H2 vehicle with H2 FC as a range extender and made the same investment in H2 filling stations as he did in Superchargers, we'd have a far superior fleet and charging infrastructure than we have right now.

 

Toyota recently stated the new Mirai won't have a plug because it would lower demand for hydrogen, and that would slow the expansion of the infrastructure.

Personally, I think they are afraid to have an owner able to make a direct comparison between battery and fuel cell in the same car.

What about cost and losses at your work?

NASA got hydrogen cheap; because it was all steam reformed from natural gas, it was a huge order, and hydrogen for rocket fuel doesn't require the same purity as for a PEM fuel cell. Half of what they ordered was lost to venting and leaks, so the hydrogen actually used cost double. Newer storage tanks would cut down on the venting, but have higher purchase cost and ongoing electric fees.

Being able to do something doesn't make it easy or cheap. Hydrogen pipeline will cost more to install and maintain than natural gas or liquid lines. There is maybe 1600 miles of hydrogen lines in the US. There is over 60,000 miles of lines for refined petroleum. Filling that gap for hydrogen will cost trillions of dollars in the US. Trucks and rail have the styrofoam problem, hydrogen's low density means that shipping costs become a bigger part of the final price per kg the longer it is trucked.

Making the hydrogen on site means smaller, less efficient systems, and green hydrogen isn't price competitive with fossil hydrogen in large scale systems yet. Then there is the station's cost itself. Getting enough hydrogen into a car or truck to have a range equal to a BEV, or low end of an ICE, is not cheap.

Who is going to pay for all that? Japan got tired of footing the bill on its own, and has already made Toyota, Honda, and others kick into the infrastructure for a country the size of California. They aren't going to throw in a couple hundred thousand for each hydrogen station in the US.

Ammonia is much easier and cheaper to ship. A distribution system already exists, including a fleet of ships, and expanding it will be far cheaper than for hydrogen, and also cheaper per kg of hydrogen in use.. We are developing ammonia producing fuel cells that also split water for hydrogen; making it far cheaper and greener than how we make ammonia and hydrogen now. Plus, cheap ways of stripping the hydrogen off at site of use.

Pipeline Mileage and Facilities | PHMSA

Ammonia is being looked into because of the lack of carbon. Yes, make the methanol with atmospheric CO2, and it doesn't matter for emissions, but there is a higher cost to gathering up the CO2 than N2. Nitrogen concentraters are cheap enough for tire shops to have the systems.

But those doing the ammonia work, and even some of the methanol, are doing it in order to support an hydrogen economy. It is seen as a way to cheaply get hydrogen from A to B than it is with pure hydrogen. I don't see the point of shipping either around, and then pay for a hydrogen station, when either can work as a fuel on their own. Maybe for areas with bad smog, it would be worth it.

Can methanol be shipped in existing gasoline/diesel lines? I know seal and gaskets might need upgrading, but ethanol might be creating conditions that lead to galvanic corrosion of the steel itself.

The companies pushing FCEV don't want to make a plug in one.

I think Mercedes might have been planning one, but they've cancelled their personal car FCEV program.

Nissan might. Their design is a Leaf battery with a small 5 to 10 kW fuel cell, but its solid oxide and runs on ethanol. Packaging hydrogen tanks and a larger battery would be a nightmare

What response do you want?

And fuel cells and carbon tanks aren't high mass, hard-to-recycle items?
or
Yet you want to put a bigger battery in FCEV in order to make them viable.

The federal tax credit for plug ins started about a decade ago. Improvements and price reductions were better than expected. Adoption has been faster than hybrids. Tesla no longer gets the tax credit, and it appears to have no effect on sales.The market is saying they are competitive.

Tax credits for FCEVs started with the first tax credit for hybrids. The hydrogen lobby wanted the tax credit, because they insisted that cars would soon be competitive. It was $7900 back then, or at least more than $7500, and $8000 now. California also gives them a larger rebate than BEVs. Plus free fuel. For that, we refueling infrastructure mostly limited to Southern California, and just over 10k FCEV cars on the road.

A 6kW fuel cell generator retails for $27k today. How much would one cost Tesla when the Model S came out? What about the high pressure tanks? Those didn't reach their mass efficiency goals until the first Mirai came out.

A fast DC charger stall costs in the $60k to $100k range. A two dispenser hydrogen station is over a million, with ongoing electricity costs when not in use. Then Tesla would have to pay to get hydrogen there.

Tesla was just a start up back then. They used off the shelf laptop cells, because were available and cheaper than developing an automotive cell at the time. Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai were already multi-nation corporations then. Why haven't they built hydrogen refueling stations like Tesla did Superchargers?

 

Sorry this is mostly behind a paywall, but Toyota's executive leadership remains a big problem to their BEV transition, continuing with excuses and previously debunked claims and situations that do not apply currently to most of the automotive world:

Toyota Motor Corp.’s leader criticized what he described as excessive hype over electric vehicles, saying advocates failed to consider the carbon emitted by generating electricity and the costs of an EV transition.
...
“When politicians are out there saying, ‘Let’s get rid of all cars using gasoline,’ do they understand this?” Mr. Toyoda said Thursday at a year-end news conference in his capacity as chairman of the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association.
...
Advocates of EVs say they can be charged at night when electricity demand is low and, over time, can grow in tandem with other green technologies such as solar power.​

Toyota’s Chief Says Electric Vehicles Are Overhyped - WSJ

 

TLDR: If you want to cut the carbon foot print, make it viable and required to either work locally or telecommute.

I see nothing wrong with what Mr Toyoda said. Many people (especially enthusiasts) extol the virtues of a car like the Tesla Model S 90p for commuters and city drivers despite the relatively poor efficiency of 32 kWh/100 mi. The Porche Taycan is even worse at 50 kWh/100 mi. If you really cared about the environment you'd be advocating efficient cars. Oddly, the Prius Prime in electric mode is 33% more efficient than the above mentioned Tesla. I find it interesting that a Tesla S 90p in Columbus Ohio has exactly the same CO2 footprint as the Prius when it's used as a PHEV. In other words the Prius Prime when using the grid charged battery and then falling back to the ICE has the same impact as the Tesla. So why push BEVs in areas where the power sources are still decidedly not green?

He was also right on when saying “When politicians are out there saying, ‘Let’s get rid of all cars using gasoline,’ do they understand this?” . Most of the politicians were elected because of empty promises and pretty faces. The average politician has no grasp of the complexities of the power grid nor the technologies that are being used for transportation. Politicians are the ones who still think that carpool lane access should be allowed based on number of butts in a car. If they want to do it right, they should allow HOV access based on emissions per passenger mile.

But if you want to make a big dent, set up a program so that people can work locally. That would include telecommuting. If we had no commuters it would drastically cut the number of lanes needed on our super freeways. The number of trains, buses and light rail would be cut to a fraction of what we have now.

Of course, that's all off topic, but I have not seen any factual information about the Toyota solid state battery in the last 4 pages so I guess it's in the spirit of the discussion.

 

I think I have to be done with this discussion. No figures at all, no methodology, but not expensive at all. Is that $2/kg delivered, $8/kg delivered (now the 2030 goal), $13/kg delivered? Does it really matter?

Most existing infrastructure can not handle M100, only weaker blends, there are of course trucks, tankers, and pipelines designed for the stuff. Since M100 only has about half as much energy per volume as gasoline even though prices are not far off, it would be at least twice as expensive to build methanol pipelines as gasoline.

California of course built infrastructure for it, then abandoned it, I don't know how much is still there. At about $1.20/gallon retail in the US, or $2.40 for 2 gallons about the energy equivalent of gasoline, it is a tough sell with low oil prices. Renewable methanol would cost about $5 for 2 gallons. That is before any road taxes. It would take higher gasoline taxes in the US to make it work.

Of course if this was in a phev and people had the choice to buy renewable methanol, there would be takers. It would take government money or mandates to make that happen.

If PEM fuel cells get cheap, all the car companies have already built methanol reformers for a first stage. Mercedes even has one that can take flex fuel. The reformer would take about 20% of the energy, which means a 68 mpge on hydrogen would be about 54 mpge on methanol. Its not that much better than a hybrid then.

 

The delivery charge wasn't expensive. IIRC it was around $150 for a semi-sized tube trailer that held something like 120kg.

 

Indeed I am.

Question for you, which manufacture makes the most efficient BEV and BEVs?

BEV Range And Efficiency Compared For U.S. – December 15, 2020

TLDR: Tesla makes the most efficient BEV(s); officially the champion is the Model 3 LR AWD at 251Wh/mile (actually it's the 2021 Standard Range Plus, which is even more efficient, but numbers aren't out yet)

 

My 3.75 year average on my Prius Prime is 200Wh/mile.

BTW, my son thinks that's just awful and likes to use his e-bike at about 5-10 Wh/mile to avoid the high energy consumption of the Prius Prime.

 

When driving like we do in the Prius, @bwilson4web and I beat that in our Model 3 SR 3+...

 

That's over 50% highway driving, and in Colorado where I use about 160 in the summer but as much as 300 in the winter.

 

Plus burning all that gasoline. What is the efficiency of that?

 

I've consumed about 12 gallons this year. 98-99% of my in-town driving is electric only. I really only use gas on out-of-town and out-of-state trips, and those have averaged between 56 and 62mpg. All of my out-of-state trips thus far have had legs in them no EV could accomplish, including three over 600 miles between charging locations.