Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicles

[renf]

Is it surprising that there is little discussion on this site on in the Detroit media about vehicles propelled by hydrogen fuel cells? The Detroit News reported this week, the Deutsche Bahn is now running local trains in Saxony powered by hydrogen fuel cells. Friends have told me that some cars are now propelled by hydrogen fuel cells in Japan and some buses in South Korea. As I understand it – and I do know very little – when the fuel cell is supplied with hydrogen and oxygen and attached to an appropriate anode, it will produce electricity which supplies an electric motor propelling the vehicle.

One advantage is that hydrogen, I believe, can readily be produced and the range of a vehicle propelled by a hydrogen fuel cell and an electric motor will be 1000 k or more. The only by-product is water.

There is a long history of manufacturing electric cars here in Detroit. Detroit Electric produced about 13,000 cars between 1907 and 1942. A couple of years ago someone tried to resurrect that company to produce new electric cars while capitalizing on the reputation of Detroit Electric but I have heard nothing about that endeavor recently.

Are there two disadvantages to fuel cell/electric vehicles? First, they produce water as a by-product of the generation of electricity. If most of us drove such cars or traveled on fuel cell trains would the humidity change upsetting the environment? I doubt it but I know little.

Second, the number of people who clearly remember the fairly recent event in northern New Jersey when the Hindenburg, with its load of hydrogen fuel, had a tragic accident leading to the deaths of more than 30 people is declining. However, some competitors could popularize the erroneous idea the hydrogen explodes easily.

[Jimaz]

...
Are there two disadvantages to fuel cell/electric vehicles? First, they produce water as a by-product of the generation of electricity. If most of us drove such cars or traveled on fuel cell trains would the humidity change upsetting the environment? I doubt it but I know little.

I doubt it too. Water is so abundant in the environment that any change due to fuel cells would be negligible, I would think. Water's about as benign as it gets until there's a flood, etc.

Second, the number of people who clearly remember the fairly recent event in northern New Jersey when the Hindenburg, with its load of hydrogen fuel, had a tragic accident leading to the deaths of more than 30 people is declining. However, some competitors could popularize the erroneous idea the hydrogen explodes easily.

The Hindenburg used diesel for fuel. Its hydrogen was just for buoyancy.

That hydrogen explodes easily is not an erroneous idea. That doesn't mean it can't be managed safely though.

The October issue of National Geographic had a couple of good articles about alternative fuels. I think their conclusion was that for large commercial aviation {and maybe large trucks?}, hydrogen would be best.

[401don]

That hydrogen explodes easily is not an erroneous idea. That doesn't mean it can't be managed safely though.

The October issue of National Geographic had a couple of good articles about alternative fuels. I think their conclusion was that for large commercial aviation {and maybe large trucks?}, hydrogen would be best.

Yes, I saw a fairly lengthy news segment a while back that stated hydrogen is cost efficient for large trucks and we would be seeing them on highways in a few years but will not be viable for smaller vehicles in the foreseeable future.

[Rocket]

There is only one Hydrogen fill station in Michigan last I looked, and you'll need to be a Ford engineer to access it.

Hydrogen almost entirely comes from Natural Gas. So the pollution just occurs elsewhere [much like electric cars, which are far dirtier than gas cars when you account for their manufacture].

The bigger issue is it's merely a storage device, not an energy source. In other words, just a VERY complicated battery, though it can have more range with less weight, which is it's appeal.

It's mostly viewed as a scam by the fossil fuel companies. A way to seem to be interested in clean energy while simultaneously increasing their sales of fossil fuels. Yes it is 'possible' to get it from water, but that takes a huge amount of energy, which is better just put into an electric car.

There is little hope of it ever reaching wide spread adoption. There are hydrogen filling stations in a number of states, mainly California, and a few companies have been selling hydrogen powered cars for some years now.

I believe Honda was first to the party with the Honda Clarity

The Toyota Mirai is another. https://www.toyota.com/mirai/

and the Hyundai Nexo


There are now 39 filling stations in the USA, about 35 of which are in Cali.


Gas-Hybrid is the way to go for cars under $50,000, and pure elec for cars costing more than that if you don't care about pollution, at least for the next 30 years.

[Jason]

Flint has been using hydrogen fuel cell buses for a while now I think. And iirc the current DDOT director oversaw the introduction of hydrogen buses in a city in California in the past.

Hydrogen was an interesting "green" idea before electric vehicles were feasible, but at this point electric buses are very straightforward to deal with.

A downside of electric buses are that they have a shorter range. Using electric buses may require transit agencies to rework their bus routes and schedules to account for range and charging time. This doesn't mean that the service becomes worse in order to accommodate electric buses, it just means that it has to be different. And battery technology is only getting better.

A downside of hydrogen buses is that the hydrogen infrastructure is somewhat specialized and hard to deal with. For hydrogen you have to order the hydrogen, have it delivered, and store it. The fueling stations are more expensive to build. With electric buses, you can put charging infrastructure anywhere fairly inexpensively.

Hydrogen fuel cells make the most sense for intercity buses [[like greyhound), or trucking, where having longer ranges, lower weights, and faster refueling time is important. It can also make sense for trains and other big vehicles. It doesn't make sense for cars, which are small and light enough that batteries work best.

As far as the environment goes, electric vehicles are much better for the environment than hydrogen fuel cel vehicles, which themselves are better for the environment than gas. Hydrogen is usually made from natural gas, so they're sort of indirectly natural gas powered vehicles. Straight electric depends on where electricity from the local grid is being made but even if it's from coal it's still good.

[JBMcB]

Hydrogen almost entirely comes from Natural Gas. So the pollution just occurs elsewhere [much like electric cars, which are far dirtier than gas cars when you account for their manufacture].

Natural gas is converted to Hydrogen, releasing carbon dioxide in the process. The benefit is, if you limit this to a few large plants, it's much easier to capture that carbon. It's not an energy storage mechanism, the hydrogen is cracked from the natural gas just like gasoline is separated from crude oil.

[Rocket]

As far as the environment goes, electric vehicles are much better for the environment than hydrogen fuel cel vehicles, which themselves are better for the environment than gas.

For each mile driven, yes. But not when you factor in the carbon footprint of manufacturing an elec car.

Electric cars are delivered to the customer with a carbon footprint that's double that of an equivalent ICE car [12 tons v.s. 6 tons]. And depending on how big the battery pack is, it takes some number of years for the elec car to become as green or greener than the ICE car.

If the elec car has a 400 mile range, then it will be equal to an ice car when both hit 180,000 miles driven, which also happens to be the average life span of a car.

And that's if none of them ever get totaled before that age. When Tesla Model-Y gets in a wreck early in it's life, the carbon footprint will be double what it would have been if it were a 6-cyl Camry.

https://youtu.be/S1E8SQde5rk?t=407

[JonWylie]

For each mile driven, yes. But not when you factor in the carbon footprint of manufacturing an elec car.

Electric cars are delivered to the customer with a carbon footprint that's double that of an equivalent ICE car [12 tons v.s. 6 tons]. And depending on how big the battery pack is, it takes some number of years for the elec car to become as green or greener than the ICE car.

If the elec car has a 400 mile range, then it will be equal to an ice car when both hit 180,000 miles driven, which also happens to be the average life span of a car.

And that's if none of them ever get totaled before that age. When Tesla Model-Y gets in a wreck early in it's life, the carbon footprint will be double what it would have been if it were a 6-cyl Camry.

https://youtu.be/S1E8SQde5rk?t=407

From your video

NOTE FROM TED: This talk only reflects the speaker's personal views and interpretation. Several claims in this talk lack scientific support. We've flagged this talk because it falls outside the content guidelines TED gives TEDx organizers.

Electric Vehicle Myths | US EPA

Fact check: Electric vehicles emit less carbon over life than gas cars [[usatoday.com)

[Rocket]

From your video


Fact check: Electric vehicles emit less carbon over life than gas cars [[usatoday.com)

That article mostly backs up what I posted, and what the guy in the video said. He mentioned some of the tricks the green deal people will use, such as comparing elec vehicles with vastly shorter ranges.

Examples they show in their graph include the Jag I-Pace, which has an as-tested range of 195 miles, as compared to the ICE version that goes about 500 miles on a tank.

Nissan Leaf does 156 miles freeway v.s. a Mazda 3 at 430 miles.
VW I.D.4 EV does 190 miles on a charge v.s. Honda CRV which does 430 miles on a tank.

If you instead compare 400 mile range versions [like the guy was doing in the video], you'll find his numbers are way closer than the United Communists Today article.

And even that article agrees with Reuters, that basically states you need to drive those 195 mile range electric cars 13,500 miles or more a year or more for it to be greener than an ice car. And of course never wreck it.

If the battery pack is bigger [say, enough to go 400 miles on a charge], that mileage crossover point goes up, to perhaps 18,000 a year?

So you need to drive a lot, and charge a lot to get to where you're greener.

And this also presumes you don't ever need to replace the battery pack, which before these cars get 15 years old is likely. And that will bump the carbon footprint by 1/3 or more in an afternoon, and at 12 years out, may cost more than the value of the car.

And even these numbers fail to account for the other environmental costs, such as strip mining hundreds of tons of earth to make a single car battery pack, the blood minerals, etc.

[Wheels]

Water is two parts hydrogen one part oxygen. Both are needed for combustion. The answer is there somewhere if we could just get back to teaching are kids math and science instead or crt and gender identity!

[Wheels]

Not to mention nobody wants to talk about long term recycling of all the batteries. Just like nuclear waist nobody has a good solution.

[Jimaz]

... Just like nuclear waist nobody has a good solution.

A Uranium diet will do that to your waist.

[Margaret's boy]

Germany taps 'boundless' fuel potential in Canadian hydrogen deal - BNN Bloomberg

[JonWylie]

Not to mention nobody wants to talk about long term recycling of all the batteries. Just like nuclear waist nobody has a good solution.

Literally everyone talks about it, you're just not listening.

Electric Car Batteries Lasting Longer Than Predicted Delays Recycling Programs [[forbes.com)

SungEel HiTech to open battery recycling facility in Georgia targeting EV sector [[ajc.com)

Posco completes EV battery recycling plant in Poland - Just Auto [[just-auto.com)

The Department of Energy wants feedback on how to recycle lithium-ion batteries - The Verge

[K-slice]

Is it surprising that there is little discussion on this site on in the Detroit media about vehicles propelled by hydrogen fuel cells?

No, because hydrogen fuel cells will never be able to compete with battery technology.

Hydrogen extraction is the main issue, as it's more energy intensive to create useable hydrogen than the energy you can then create from that hydrogen. It's like an oil pump that burns two gallons of fuel to pump one gallon out of the ground. It would never make sense and no level of process refinement will ever get it there.

[Wheels]

[QUOTE=K-slice;It's like an oil pump that burns two gallons of fuel to pump one gallon out of the ground. It would never make sense and no level of process refinement will ever get it there.[/QUOTE]

You can apply that same theory to batteries, windmills and solar panels. All are cost prohibitive and will get worse with China controlling all the raw materials. None of theses are Green to manufacture either.

[mwilbert]

It really depends on how technology develops. Using hydrogen for energy storage and delivery is absolutely possible, but it requires doing more new things than using batteries. Building a hydrogen delivery infrastructure would be expensive and take a while. Building out a green hydrogen--created from water using non-carbon electricity--production capability is going to happen anyway because there are other uses for hydrogen, and because it's a good way to store excess solar energy during the day, but what the cost ends up being is hard to say. Fuel cells also aren't cheap, and the capacity build them is pretty limited. All these things should get cheaper but for widespread use in cars, they need to. It's very likely that by the time that stuff is in place, batteries and giant production economies of scale will dominate.

None of that means there won't be hydrogen-powered cars, maybe a lot of them, but it wouldn't be surprising if there weren't either. Trucks/ships/airplanes are better candidates. Also, at some point nitrogen fertilizer production will presumably have to be moved to use hydrogen instead of natural gas. Possibly we could also use hydrogen to provide very high process heat temperatures.

But as far as cars go, one indication is that Toyota basically bet on hydrogen/fuel cells instead of battery-electric cars in the 2010s, but now they are hedging their bet. It's tough to keep up with the price/performance improvement in battery tech.

[Richard]

Fourteen hydrogen trains powered by fuel cell propulsion will exclusively run on the route in Bremervörde, Lower Saxony.

The trains, five of which which debut Wednesday, will gradually replace the 15 diesel trains that currently run on the route, with all 14 running exclusively by the end of the year. Just 1 kilo of hydrogen fuel can do the same as around 4.5 kilos of diesel.
The trains are emissions-free and low-noise, with only steam and condensed water issuing from the exhaust. They have a range of 1,000 kilometers [[621 miles), meaning they can run for an entire day on the network on a single tank of hydrogen. A hydrogen filling station has already been established on the route. The trains can go at a maximum of 140 kph, or 87mph, though regular speeds on the line are much less, between 80-120 kph.

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/c...ins/index.html

Hydrogen Can Halt The Charge To Electric Powered Cars

https://thrive50plus.com/2022/09/08/...-powered-cars/

Which is kinda true,if the politicians are throwing billions at EVs ,do they really want to entertain alternative sources?

[renf]

Thank you for the information about the hydrogen fuel cell trains
now operating in Saxony. I wonder if the research engineers working
for Amtrak or VIA Rail have comments about this development.

[Richard]

Canada Pacific is testing one and also testing for replacing the ones that run on electric,light rail,street cars.

Amtrak has a new fleet rolling out by 2024 that are diesel electric,ie the diesel runs a generator that powers the electric drive motors.

Its a $850 million contract for 75 locomotives but their speeds will be 125 mph.

They are supposed to be more efficient then the current freight locomotives which as a rule of thumb burn 1 gallon of fuel per ton of freight for every 500 miles.

The hydrogen trains being tested in Germany have a top speed of 83 mph,I think Amtrak is looking more so at working towards the high speed aspect with the 125 mph roll out.

When it comes to hybrid locomotives,diesel over electric power is pretty efficient with low emissions,like 5 times more then moving freight by truck.

I think if they can nail down hydrogen powered street cars,it would drive those costs of implementation and operating expenses.

Interesting enough,in Tampa where am at,they are now allowing the use of battery powered golf carts in the downtown,ideal if you live downtown.

They seem to be looking at hydrogen powered mass transit and other options,but to me anyways there does not seem to be a big push to actually get people out of cars in densely populated regions in the first place with expanding mass transit.

But that may harken back to the GM days of,if you give people no options they have no options.

What is really interesting is the electric bicycle manufacturers are making scooters now that look like a motorcycle,you cannot tell the difference,but because it is electric,you do not need a drivers license or license plate etc. and they go up to 50 mph and have a 4 to 5 hour charge capacity.

Its classified as a bicycle because scooters are motorized and you cannot operate a motorized on public streets without a license. I think it is kinda neat how they did that.

[renf]

Thank you, Richard, for this interesting and valuable information.