This is Davemart's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Davemart's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
This highlights how ill-advised ideologues are who support the one, the only, the true, solution in batteries. We need all the tools at our disposal to reduce GHG.
@Waltersteffe1 The gasoline energy density figure they use is a 'funny money' one, which they have messed around by putting in assumed efficiencies of 17% percent to from the ICE to electric, or the drivetrain or something or other.
gryf: I am finding it confusing what weight contribution the water makes, which provides much of the hydrogen, and also to a lesser extent the cost and energy figures as the boundaries are not always quite clear. How much would the water cannister for the Scooter/Moto weigh?
Where scooters are heavily used include many, many people in high rise apartments in densely populated cities. You don't want to be lugging a battery up and down stairs to charge it. Hence snap in cannisters are a good solution. Since the actual energy usage is so low, cost etc are very secondary consideration. That is why scooters are a chosen early application.
Thanks for the links, and the typically informed analysis, gryf SJC - as gryf has shown, discharge rates and hence power density is fine. The only think that I can add is that from the technical paper costs per kg are given as $2, and a 1kg has 1.6KWH of energy
What they have not specified is the power output, as opposed to the energy. I would have thought low power density the likely reason for the range 100W-10KW. It seems much of the energy to recycle magnesium oxide to magnesium can be concentrated solar, so at least from a GHG POV it would appear to be very attractive:
Thinking about it a bit more their using criteria which ignore hydrogen for very high volume long duration storage distorts the economics of the rest. That is because if there is very large volume storage installed anyway, then at the margin it can be utilised at zero extra cost for shorter duration storage, and less build of them would be needed. There are limits to that, as it is true that the round trip efficiency of hydrogen storage is less than some alternatives, notably batteries, and it is no more of a universal solution than batteries are. But the balance does significantly shift if it is indeed the preferred alternative for seasonal storage and will be in place anyway in several countries.
If they can get this up to 700bar it would mean that FCEV vehicles would avoid most of their present packaging hassles, and could be built on the same platforms as BEVs.
This would appear to be a heavily battery-centric paper and analysis. For hydrogen: 'For HESS, only 100 MW at a 10-hour duration was evaluated.' (page 6, of the comparative cost analysis) This is a nonsense, as the primary advantage of hydrogen is that it allows storage of vast quantities of energy for months, so for instance the salt cavern in Utah is to hold 150 times times the total capacity of all the battery parks in the US.
bman Learn something about batteries if you wish to advocate them. The weight for that range and payload would be prohibative. The engineers who specified fuel cells and hydrogen for this application to achieve ZEV flight are not morons who missed the obvious.
@Paroway I have no idea what you base your comments on, other than assuming batteries we don't have, and which even if they do arrive would be way under the energy density of alternatives. They work for trainers, two people and 30 minute flight time, but for bigger planes Zero Avia with hydrogen is already in the air with 6 people and aiming for a 300 mile flight soon, with larger planes and longer distances well within the performance envelope. For very long haul ammonia may be a better bet.
@yoatman:: I welcome alternative number based analysis. The issue is that there aren't any, just random battery good, hydrogen bad burblings without the least analysis of how to make a low carbon society work without extensive use of hydrogen. That is why all the real engineering proposals are based on that. sd: Hydrogen makes the economics of nuclear a lot better, as although modern reactors can be powered down, when their costs are mostly build not fuel, it makes little sense to do so. China is looking at HT electrolysis for their new reactor builds. I have always, or at least for the last half century and more, been a nuclear guy, and in my estimation the use of hydrogen is an enabling technology in conjunction with nuclear, and in no way opposed.
@peskanov 'That electricity is much better spent using it directly, no matter if we are talking about cooking or heating.' Sure. So stick to fossil fuels. If you want to use renewables, it is not available when you want it and needs storing. That is 'why hydrogen' You must imagine that all the engineers in all the energy authorities in the world who universally are leveraging hydrogen to enable a lot of renewables are morons. ' I have seen plenty of them through the years ' And obviously understood none of them. The 'alternative' you suppose does not exist. Show me the plan, with the numbers to decarbonise without using hydrogen. There isn't one, from any energy authority anywhere.
@peskanov That is because you are utterly ignorant of the figures behind the engineering proposals, and prefer imaginary non-solutions. The electricity does not appear by magic, and if you want a high proportion of renewables in the grid it has to be stored as chemical energy to cope with its periodicity. So Japan now has 300,000 home fuel cells running on natural gas, where the heat from reforming the gas to hydrogen to produce electricity is used for heating water, so having an overall efficiency of over 90% for thermal plus electrical, an increase in efficiency of natural gas use of around 30% against central generation and transmission. Real engineering plans as opposed to fantasy move on from that to allow a greater proportion of hydrogen in the natural gas grid, so that for instance in the UK by 2025 all gas boilers are to be compatible with 100% hydrogen. Hydrogen also provides for year round 100% renewably powered blocks of flats in northern latitudes for instance in Sweden and integrates just fine with home solar, heat pumps and so on. Here are the UK's plans out to 2035, when much of the grunt work has to be done to enable zero in 2050: If you want to critique those plans, let us see a detailed, numerical rebuttal of the relevant criteria You are fantasising. Get in touch with reality.
@Lad How is your fight against those fake moon landings going? You simply ignore the bits of reality you don't fancy. Falling costs for renewables are a fact. Falling costs for electrolysers are a fact - you can buy them right now way cheaper than a decade ago. Mixing hydrogen in NG pipelines for delivery and extracting it where needed are also facts. Hydrogen storage is orders of magnitude cheaper than batteries, and the notion that batteries alone can do the job of enabling renewables at high penetration rates is a fantasy.
@yoatman Why do you make comments without having the least idea about the technologies involved? The most favourable areas with ample solar and wind resources are miles from anywhere, which is why the land is cheap. There is no way of even using the power without turning it into a chemical of some sort, so the choice you are presenting does not exist. And as the energy authorities in every country of the world realise, decarbonisation simply can't take place without hydrogen, which is why it is such a big part of all their plans Light vehicle transport is just one small part of the puzzle, and it is ludicrous to pretend that batteries can tackle much of the rest.
@Roger 'I was discussing the US market, which seems to be the world's biggest market for FCV' Not anymore. Sales are following availabiity of the cars, and hydrogen pump installations: 'As of October 2020, the hydrogen-powered Nexo sales exceeded 10,000 units in Korea. '
@Roger Pham: You seem to be confusing the US market with the world market.
@Lad: 'I don't see H2 as practical for ground transportation' Here is the latest study showing that if the aim is to decarbonise heavy transport, the premium for using fuel cells and hydrogen is lower than trying to use batteries on most routes, and a lot more so on any longer route or one requiring more flexibility. By 2030 with their in my view very conservative assumptions they put the cost of fuel cell heavy goods vehicles as fully competitive with diesel on many routes:
@electric car insider. That is why no one, or very few people, will be buying a Mirai, when the lease arrangement works fine for them. It is Toyota's way of kick starting the market. And don't read out the present cost of hydrogen in Californian filling stations which is largely a function of the present very low volume as representative of what the cost will be in a few years time. It is easy to predict failure if all your assumptions are built on it.
@Lad ' So, the idea is to use energy to reform and compress natural gas into hydrogen and then mix it with natural gas and use the existing natural gas pipelines for distribution;' Nope. You might have a clue if you had just clicked on their website where the first thing they are talking about is hydrogen from renewables.. That is just like the plans in the UK, Germany and the Netherlands who are all moving to storing surplus renewables as hydrogen instead of simply throwing them away as they currently do. The eventual plan is to decarbonise the entire NG grid and use hydrogen from renewables in the UK. But this can deal with the initial mixes as are being trialled right now and separate them out.
Just about every country which has produced a plan for decarbonisation relies heavily on hydrogen to do so, including those such as Germany where it will have to be largely imported. Two factors are driving then ongoing cost reductions making this possible, ever falling costs for renewables and electrolysis. Without extensive use of hydrogen, and not only in high value applications, decarbonisation is just not happening, and there no country has put forward a plan which does not involve it in huge quantity. Even BEV charging certainly at fast rates needs hydrogen to provide clean power and prevent grid overloads: Personally it seems that where practicable it might be preferable to put the fuel cells in the car rather than in the recharging stations, but they will be used in both places, and we will see how it all works out.
The so-called 'impossible' barriers for hydrogen mobility are crumbling fast.
Test drives:
'The tanks are arranged in a “T” configuration, the longest running longitudinally and centrally beneath the vehicle floor, with two smaller tanks set laterally beneath the rear seats and luggage compartment. Together they can hold 5.6 kg of hydrogen, compared to 4.6 kg in the current Mirai’s two tanks. Their position contributes to the car’s lower centre of gravity and avoids compromising load space.' I am not sure where the 'about 5kg' in the article comes from, but it is a bit more than that.