Hydrogen infrastructure

[MossRoad]

Watch on youtube.

Compressed Hydrogen Fires : The Canyon Incident​

 

[ponytug]

Interesting video. I hadn't thought about the effect of low density limiting the overpressuree/blast effects.

One thing about hydrogen burning is that while it is nearly invisible in the visible light spectrum (duh!), it produces a lot of UV.

All the best,

Peter

 

[rademamj1]

Though Toyota has spent Billions on fuel cell research and hydrogen management, including testing in California for a few selected volunteer customers, I understand that Toyota is moving forward very quickly into non-fuel cell based EV line of cars. They recently purchased a large share holding in Panasonic, and expect a dedicated supply of EV batteries for their future vehicles. Panasonic provided the original Tesla battery packs at cost, and even helping design the Tesla Giga-factory which now make Tesla batteries in-house. I would not be surprised to see Toyota market upto four different model EV's within the next 18 months, and in 3 years exceed Tesla annual EV sales, based on their wide ranging dealership network across the US and the world.

 

[Torvy]

Toyota, in general, is pretty smart as a company. They can see the winds shifting to EV, even though it is an inferior technology on many levels. As consumers, we don't always make great choices. By many (most?) accounts Betamax was a superior platform to VHS. The Amiga was a superior PC to the IBM and Apple offerings of the late 80s. Budweiser is not the best beer, nor the beat value...I'm sure there is a tractor example, the best I can suggest is that many become fanboys of their chosen brand, even if it is inferior. Marketing frequently sways people more than we may realize.

My point here is that for whatever reason, governments, not consumers, seem to be deciding what technology is going to be green enough. I don't think this is political because it is irrespective of country, much less party. In my experience and training, governments do a rather poor job of making market choices...even worse than the average consumer.

 

[Root Cause]

Unfortunate loss of life ^. Hopefully they can isolate the cause, but with an explosion of that scale, it may be difficult. Myself, starting into hydrogen, I'd prefer it inside an IC engine, than a fuel-cell.

An expression I heard (old Nordic attribution IIRC) years ago resonated with me then, but even more so as I got older. "You can get used to anything, even a Hanging".

A Tesla catches fire, and burns for hours - National News. Gasoline fires hardly rate any coverage, unless a whole refinery goes up - and then, you mostly hear about what the expected short-term spike in gasoline prices will be.....

Lighter-than-air: I like that characteristic of hydrogen and natgas, from a safety standpoint, esp. outdoors in open areas.

What I don't like about propane - heavier-than-air. A much bigger safety risk IMO, than the above 2. A propane depot near where I work had an outdoor fire recently - fortunately only the small (retail/industrial) tanks went up, and not their big bulk ones. Still, $1MM in damage, but amazingly no loss of life or even significant injuries that I heard of.

You're not supposed to store propane indoors...... but how many warehouse forklifts on propane get parked outside all the time ? Back to that Used to a Hanging thing again......

We all drive around modern gasoline vehicles with electric motors driving fuel pumps in the tank, and nobody thinks twice (even the few that know).....

Once a specific risk gets mitigated down to a low enough level in production, it hardly rates as background noise in the general population....... it wasn't all that long ago that lithium batteries in cell phones and laptops were going up in flames, and for that matter, in the cargo hold of an aircraft...... now people pay six-figures to get trendy cars packed full of them......

We Do, Live in Interesting Times......

Rgds, D.

No doubt that when a gas engine was first described to people, it sounded just as alarming. "The engine sucks in the air mix it with gas, and ignites it several times / second right in front of that piece of tin we call a firewall that is at your feet".

 

[Root Cause]

Toyota, in general, is pretty smart as a company. They can see the winds shifting to EV, even though it is an inferior technology on many levels. As consumers, we don't always make great choices. By many (most?) accounts Betamax was a superior platform to VHS. The Amiga was a superior PC to the IBM and Apple offerings of the late 80s. Budweiser is not the best beer, nor the beat value...I'm sure there is a tractor example, the best I can suggest is that many become fanboys of their chosen brand, even if it is inferior. Marketing frequently sways people more than we may realize.

My point here is that for whatever reason, governments, not consumers, seem to be deciding what technology is going to be green enough. I don't think this is political because it is irrespective of country, much less party. In my experience and training, governments do a rather poor job of making market choices...even worse than the average consumer.

You might know something I do not, but to date, I haven't seen the government involved except that developers and manufacturers have to follow existing safety regulations. Consumers are ready and waiting for it. Many have used it in testing.

The drivers or challenges are simply obstacles that time and money have not yet solved. Someone may have solved the issues and will announce it tomorrow. Or, it may simply be an idea that never is done cheaply and safely enough for commercial or consumer use.

Most of our goods in the US pass through the docks in California. If there was ever a government that would invest or endorse 100% steam emissions, California would be first in line. The smog that hovers over those docks is awful due to the handling of all the cargo coming from China.

China is aligned with this as well due to cost even if they don't care about being green. A battery-powered fork truck works 8 hours then charges for nearly 8 more. So a 2nd truck is needed if you work multiple shifts. A hydrogen fuel cell replacing that battery, means the company buys 1 truck and fuels it in between shifts- taking about 5 minutes to return to work. If you own more than 20 trucks and work multiple shifts, it is cost-effective now. Building a durable engine is still an issue unresolved.

(I agree that often consumers don't get to make the decision. VHS vs. Betamax is actually a good example of what you stated.

Beta was slightly better but not to the naked eye or average ear. Sony patented the technology so the others jumped on VHS and flooded the market and TV screens with their commercials.
Tape manufacturers followed their lead and flooded the shelves with VHS tapes. VHS became the clear choice if you wanted to make a purchase or rent any movie. Beta owners had a much smaller selection to choose from. Within several months, consumers really had no choice). Sony made a critical mistake that decided the outcome.

All this to say, I don't see this being political or cultural. Some problems can't be solved- at least not yet.

 

[KennyG]

We keep hearing short sighted attempts to promote hydrogen as a fuel. There is a very basic and unsolvable problem with this. You can't mine or drill for hydrogen. You have to create hydrogen either by stripping it from a hydrocarbon or using heat/electricity to separate it from water. Either approach requires lots of energy that has to come from a different source. If you use the hydrocarbon approach, you are left with a carbon rich residue that is very tempting to just burn. If you use electricity, why not just use the electricity as the energy source in the first place and avoid the inefficiency.

 

[OzarkChris]

It will be interesting to see if hydrogen fueled ICE's get a foot hold. I can see lots of safety issues with compressed gas and suspect it's a large reason why LNG or LPG (and their infrastructure) have never gained a larger popularity in the US.

I've also been hearing about ammonia fuels, specifically green ammonia. Again, I think the hazards might be their downfall.

I can possibly see many of our natural gas power plants swapping to hydrogen or green ammonia.

That being said, electric cars aren't going to work for everything, so there will need to be some type of fuel for mobile applications. Maybe gasoline and diesel won't be going away quite as soon as our politicians think.

I see the amount of infrastructure required for us to go to all electric vehicles as staggering. You're not talking about a single 30-40 amp charging station per dwelling. The reality is probably the need for 2-3 charging stations per household.

"I see the amount of infrastructure required for us to go to all electric vehicles as staggering. You're not talking about a single 30-40 amp charging station per dwelling. The reality is probably the need for 2-3 charging stations per household."

IMHO, it's going to take a whole lot more than 2-3 chargers/family. This "may" be the case in bigger cities, but where I live and my lifestyle, it will be much, much more. First, where I live, the closest town (less than 15k people. I live in a "town" that has a population of about a dozen or so folks on over 10,000 acres) is close to 50 miles away - one way - and is where we do our weekly (or more often) shopping. My understanding for the EV craze is that all cities over 100K people will be required to have several/numerous/other number of charging stations available for EV vehicles. Even if there is a charging station in the town we shop at (all at 1 or 2 stores), I don't have the time or patience to wait 3-5 hours to get enough of a charge to get home. Besides, what happens if I decide to, oh I don't know - eat dinner/supper while we are in town, guess that won't be an option if I want to make it home. Since the closest 100K population city is 150+ miles (one way) away, how do I get there? Do I have to schedule an additional 4-5 hours of "charging time" each way to get to the medical appointments I go to? We already leave at 0500 to make a 0900 appointment down there!

Those two examples are just the tip of the iceberg. When I need to take my tractor to my dealer - right @ 100 miles away, one way - I don't think one of those 100-200 mile EV's are going to be able to pull it - please correct me if I'm wrong! I did look up that new EV F150 - which won't pull the tractor & trailer safely, if at all - and it has an EPA "Estimate" of 200-300 miles/charge - depending on battery pack. But again I'm guessing that's with zero load and "city" driving. Would it make a 200 mile RT pulling the trailer? My guess would be no.

To a point, I'm a bit concerned about the environment, although I don't buy into this whole global warming/climate change/ whatever it's called this week phenomenon. I "AM" however, concerned about my checkbook balance. IF (and only if) we can produce an EV truck/car that can go from coast to coast that doesn't take much longer to charge than what it takes to fill up with current fuel, DOESN'T cost more than my house to buy AND that has a "Real" 350+ mile/charge so I don't have to worry about charging when we go to the "big" city.

As far as hydrogen electric vehicles go, I'm not so sure, as others have stated, it will catch on. I'm not aware of the whole ammonia technology.

I'll get off my soapbox, for now. But, please understand that I am opionated, more on some subjects than others. That doesn't mean I won't listen to your side, BUT, it does mean I don't have to agree with you, nor, does it mean that you (or I) are correct. It merely means we have differing opinions, and you should know what opinions are like

I really hope this doesn't take this thread in bizarre directions

 

[Root Cause]

We keep hearing short sighted attempts to promote hydrogen as a fuel. There is a very basic and unsolvable problem with this. You can't mine or drill for hydrogen. You have to create hydrogen either by stripping it from a hydrocarbon or using heat/electricity to separate it from water. Either approach requires lots of energy that has to come from a different source. If you use the hydrocarbon approach, you are left with a carbon rich residue that is very tempting to just burn. If you use electricity, why not just use the electricity as the energy source in the first place and avoid the inefficiency.

Unfortunately, it is just not that simple.

Electricity can only be stored in batteries. Those take energy and resources to make them. They are heavy requiring a larger battery to move the weight of it (so it is somewhat self-defeating) and they will only cycle so many times before they will no longer hold a charge. It is also energy loss charging a battery so everything has costs and complications associated with it. As Ozark commented, the range is still a significant challenge. it is why over 50% of current electric cars owners buy a gas-operated car when they trade in their car. That tells us that this isn't yet a clear winner either.

Hydrogen is not created. It is the most common element on our planet. Basically, there is no limit to its availability. The process has been in place for a long time. It is used in other industries. Hospitals all use this ultra-refined grade of hydrogen used today by fuel cells. It is already cost-effective where a company has more than 20 fork trucks and has multiple shifts working in succession.

And to Ozark's point, hydrogen can be pumped just like gas with a nozzle just like we use now and can fill a tank in the same amount of time. Also to Ozark's point, there would be no need to have a fueling station at home.

It isn't a hope that hydrogen is cost-effective. It is cost-effective today if you have a fleet of more than 20 vehicles running continuous shifts. And this is in its infancy.

If someone makes a robust, durable fuel cell, it will almost instantly change the pollution on ports and factories around the world before it even becomes available to cars.

This would become a huge game-changer for the world and why companies have poured billions into it.

 

[OzarkChris]

Unfortunately, it is just not that simple.

Electricity can only be stored in batteries. Those take energy and resources to make them. They are heavy requiring a larger battery to move the weight of it (so it is somewhat self-defeating) and they will only cycle so many times before they will no longer hold a charge. It is also energy loss charging a battery so everything has costs and complications associated with it. As Ozark commented, the range is still a significant challenge. it is why over 50% of current electric cars owners buy a gas-operated car when they trade in their car. That tells us that this isn't yet a clear winner either.

Hydrogen is not created. It is the most common element on our planet. Basically, there is no limit to its availability. The process has been in place for a long time. It is used in other industries. Hospitals all use this ultra-refined grade of hydrogen used today by fuel cells. It is already cost-effective where a company has more than 20 fork trucks and has multiple shifts working in succession.

And to Ozark's point, hydrogen can be pumped just like gas with a nozzle just like we use now and can fill a tank in the same amount of time. Also to Ozark's point, there would be no need to have a fueling station at home.

It isn't a hope that hydrogen is cost-effective. It is cost-effective today if you have a fleet of more than 20 vehicles running continuous shifts. And this is in its infancy.

If someone makes a robust, durable fuel cell, it will almost instantly change the pollution on ports and factories around the world before it even becomes available to cars.

This would become a huge game-changer for the world and why companies have poured billions into it.

Found this on motortrend doing their review if the hydrogen equipped Toyota Miria.

"Mirai fuel economy is measured in MPGe—Miles Per Gallon Equivalent—and the EPA gives it a 74 MPGe combined rating, but driving rapidly dropped our numbers down into the low 40s (and, on the steepest hills, down into the 20s), which has a tragic effect on range. You can hustle the Mirai, but it dramatically shortens your tether."

And it gets worse, they (MotorTrend) stated in the article that they only got 262 miles/tank. They went on to say:

"Hydrogen is expensive: We paid $16.70 per kilogram, and the Mirai's tank holds 5.6 kg. For those of you not mathematically inclined, that's a $93.52 fill-up if your Mirai is running on fumes. (Bad choice of words, perhaps. Since hydrogen is gaseous, one could say the Mirai always runs on fumes.) From three-quarters of a tank, we paid nearly $75 to fill up."

So, for a "starting" price of ~$55K and nicely equipped @ $67K and using an industry standard of ~15K miles driven/year (55-60 complete fill-ups) the fuel alone would be $5,200-5,600/year or ~$400-500/Month.

To be fair, they did note that there currently is an incentive that offers 3 years/$15K worth if free Hydrogen and that the industry is "hopeful" prices could drop to $6-8/Kg by 2024. However, another article showed that to equip a fuel station with hydrogen technology would cost the station 1.5 Million +. Unless our taxes are going to be increased to pay for this, the operator would have to recoup this amount adding back to the amount charged/Kg.

I am curious how "It is cost-effective today if you have a fleet of more than 20 vehicles running continuous shifts" with current hydrogen prices. Are these companies generating their own hydrogen? How much does a plant like that cost? Please don't include any tax or other incentives to offset the price because I know my "business" wouldn't probably be included in those offsets.

Of course, the biggest nail in the hydrogen coffin right now us the fact none of this technology is available except in California. Sorry, even though I was born there, I haven't called Cali home for 60+ years and have No want or desire to head there now.