Nissan & Toyota Hydrogen Fuel Cell Hybrids To Leapfrog Battery Vehicles

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--See the below link for an interesting Reuters article which reports that Nissan and Toyota will now be putting the emphasis on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars rather than Battery Vehicles.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/04/us-autos-electric-hydrogen-idUSBRE91304Z20130204

"The move was widely seen as a tacit acknowledgement by Ghosn that his all-or-nothing, multibillion-dollar bet on EVs is falling far short of his ambition to sell hundreds of thousands of battery-powered Nissan Leafs. Instead, Nissan plans to follow rival Toyota Motor Co, the world's largest purveyor of hybrids, which now is poised to leapfrog pure EVs altogether to pursue what might be the next big green-tech breakthrough: pollution- and petroleum-free fuel-cell cars that convert hydrogen to electricity. Vice Chairman Takeshi Uchiyamada, the "father of the Prius" who helped put hybrids on the map, said he believes fuel-cell vehicles hold far more promise than battery electric cars."

--With a natural gas boom virtually everywhere, obtaining Hydrogen by reforming, seems likely if Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles, should become popular. Depending of course on cost and reliability, they could be an attractive alternative to burning Coal and Petroleum.

"The language of experiment is more authoritative than any reasoning: facts can destroy our ratiocination—not vice versa."
Alessandro  Volta 1745 1827

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[SeanB]

If you have the LNG burn it direct. More energy per unit available, and a lot easier to store something that is not so small that solid steel is almost as porous as plain air. Also LNG is easier to pump as a liquid, none of the handling of cryogenic liquids needed.

[free_electron]

The key problem is the razor razorblade effect....
The powers that be want to keep selling consumables ( fuel) ...

I'm going to put my deposit in for a tesla... Comes with free charging for life at their charge stations.
I did a calc on my current car. Cost / maintenance and fuel i have spent more than what a model s costs ...

[jerry507]

My prediction is that it'll go the same way as EVs. They'll spend 5-7 years, advance the state of the art a lot and do some great things... and then nothing will happen because they can't get all the fueling stations out there.

At least these technologies are getting serious investment for the day when we finally decide to use them.

[tom66]

Hydrogen fuel cells require hydrogen, which requires crude oil to produce (it's possible but economically inefficient to do it other ways, but commercially it's done with refining crude oil.) So it's not much better -- merely moving the pollution to elsewhere in the world.

[jeroen74]

The overall problem probably never gets solved if (short/mid-term) economics keep on playing a role.

and then nothing will happen because they can't get all the fueling stations out there.

It's fairly easy to add a hydrogen tank to a fuel station. Upgrading the whole electrical infrastructure to handle the massive extra demand from EVs is not. Even if people only charge at home, the capacity of a typical home connection is insufficient to quickly charge up an EV.

And just replacing conventionally powered vehicles by electrical does not solve anything, it just moves the problem somewhere else. It's only feasible if electricity can be generated solely from renewable sources. Once those are there, hydrogen is probably very feasible too.

And does the Earth have enough natural resources to build that many battery packs?

[silicon_ghost]

I'm in the auto industry.  Fuel cell vehicles (FCV) are a bigger pipe dream than battery electric vehicles (BEV). 

Where do they get the hydrogen?  By electrolysis of water at the fuel station.  That means that the coal was burned to make electricity, then sent down a wire with a bunch of losses, then sent into water with a bunch of losses to produce hydrogen and oxygen.  You let the O2 float away and compress the H2 (more losses).  You pump that into a car at up to 5,000 PSI (more losses).  The FCV runs an onboard O2 compressor (more losses) and get the O2 and H2 to meet across a thin membrane, producing electricity and water.  Then you have electric motors (more losses) translate it into motion.

Remember where I mentioned that water?  It's in the middle of the fuel stack (giant thing in an FCV that replaces the engine but you actually sit on it since it is so big it won't fit in the old engine compartment).  What happens in the majority of the world where the temps drop below 0 degC (which is most of the first world population that has a chance of affording an FCV to begin with).  Water freezes.  Freezing water expands.  You've just destroyed a 50k to 250k USD fuel cell stack.  Just add anti-freeze I hear you say... just about anything other than O2 or H2 will permanently damage that ion membrane that is generating your electricity.

These techs are being pursued for one reason only: To meet arbitrary deadlines imposed by government.  The carrot (in the US) is leasing 1 of these cars at a huge loss allows 10 other profitable cars to be sold while not violating absolutely convoluted fuel economy laws. 

Has anyone noticed that hybrids are not really all that more efficient than the best non-hybrid cars?  Auto makers sell them for the same reason as the BEV and FCV.  Credits to offset REAL cars that make REAL profit.  Why did the government create the stupid BEV and FCV incentives?  Because they wanted to look like they are acting tough with the "evil car companies".  Meanwhile, they know the environmentalist demands are impossible to meet anytime soon.  The politicians puff out their chests and say "I'm green", the auto companies say "we're green", the car buyers pay more for the same efficiency they would have gotten anyways and say "look at me I'm green!".  And everybody is happy in the circle-jerk.

I drove an FCV many years ago.  It wasn't much bigger than a Prius and cost > US$ 300,000 to produce.  And it didn't have much in the way of creature comforts.  How many of you could afford that?

[silicon_ghost]

And does the Earth have enough natural resources to build that many battery packs?

There are many ways to store energy, not just the ones you hear about today.  The point of fuel cell vehicles is that you DON'T need a large battery pack since you have hydrogen fuel.

[EEVblog]

My prediction is that it'll go the same way as EVs. They'll spend 5-7 years, advance the state of the art a lot and do some great things... and then nothing will happen because they can't get all the fueling stations out there.

At least with EV's you can charge them at home, or anywhere else there is a power point (albeit slowly). And that's enough for plenty of users daily driving needs

At least these technologies are getting serious investment for the day when we finally decide to use them.

Agreed, it's not a bad thing.

Dave.

[EEVblog]

Has anyone noticed that hybrids are not really all that more efficient than the best non-hybrid cars?

Because non-plugin hybrid EV cars are crap.
The non plugin hybrid Prius for example is useless.

Trap for young players - when making comparisons to "hybrid" EV's, always make sure you are talking about a proper plug-in hybrid.

Dave.

[ecat]

Hydrogen. It gets complicated.

Say what you want about Wiki and take what you want from this item, it certainly covers a lot of bases:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy

I read this a while ago and don't have time to re-read it just now. From memory:

Using surplus energy from wind, tidal others to produce hydrogen as a means of short term storage is a good thing.
Shipping and using molecular hydrogen is not so good when chemically bonded hydrogen offers so many advantages.
We already need to use hydrogen to lighten some oil derivatives. We do this because? I guess we do not have sufficient reserves capable of producing the desired products.
And many other points I've forgotten.

I tracked the wiki page down while looking at this amazing stuff, instant electricity, just add water (actually, no. Not really)
http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2013/01/017.html

No mention on how much it costs to make

[justanothercanuck]

Le sigh...  hydrogen again.   

Every couple years they wave this in our face, but it never happens.  They even had the guvernator driving around in a hydrogen hummer.  I say either shit or get off the pot.

[haveissues]

The way I see it we have to start some place.  If we just say it's complicated, costly, etc, etc, etc we will never innovate and internal combustion will be the best we have.  Then one day we wake up to $20 a gallon gas and it doesn't go down.  Who knows, maybe fuel cell developement will lead to something else.  As for the cost, and I know this is greatly simplified, but I remember when the first DVD players for example were what, $500?  I bought a name brand sony DVD for my mom a few years ago for $30.  You can probably get a off brand for $15.  As it scales and matures technology inevitably gets cheaper.

[jucole]

The way I see it we have to start some place.

very true! your comment made me think of this:

The Locomotives on Highways Act 1861' The 1865 act required all road locomotives, which included automobiles, to travel at a maximum of 4 mph (6 km/h) in the country and 2 mph (3 km/h) in towns and have a crew of three travel, one of whom should carry a red flag walking 60 yards (55 m) ahead of each vehicle.

So who knows where we'll be in 150 yrs from now! it might even be a case of "Roads! who needs roads! 

[SeanB]

Fuel cells almost invariably have a catalyst of Pt or another PGM as a catalyst. While you can get away with using $10 of it in a thin film in a catalytic converter ( and it is enough to make recycling them attractive at the auto breakers) a fuel cell big enough probably uses $1000 of the metal or more, and this makes them both more expensive to make and harder to make, as if there is a sudden spike of 10 tons in demand the price will probably double. With the latest strike here the price finally went above gold again, and it is a byproduct of gold and silver/copper mines as well.

[silicon_ghost]

Has anyone noticed that hybrids are not really all that more efficient than the best non-hybrid cars?

Because non-plugin hybrid EV cars are crap.
The non plugin hybrid Prius for example is useless.

Trap for young players - when making comparisons to "hybrid" EV's, always make sure you are talking about a proper plug-in hybrid.

Dave.

The terminology you are using is incorrect; A bit like us "young EE players" using electronics terms we don't fully understand.

Hybrid vehicle: Any vehicle that has more than one primary source of energy for locomotion.  Why is this wording important?  You can have a natural-gas/hydraulic bus.  That is a hybrid and they do exist.  Slowing down stores energy in the form of high pressure hydraulic fluid and accelerating releases it.  Large flywheel designs have also been used.

HEV - Hybrid Electric Vehicle: Your typical non-plugin Prius or Ford Fusion.  Battery is on the small side and is always charged from onboard sources like an engine or regenerative braking.

PHEV - Plugin Hybrid Electric Vehicle: An HEV that has a plug to charge the battery from shore power.  Though not required, in practice these all have very large batteries to take advantage of cheaper electric shore power.

BEV - Battery Electric Vehicle: Not a hybrid.  Has a single source of power via a very large battery (far larger than a PHEV).  Biggest downside is it can leave you stranded with no viable way of recharging it.

FCV - Fuel Cell Vehicle: Not considered a hybrid since the electricity flows into the same motor.  Some electricity comes from a battery roughly the size as one in an HEV and bulk comes from fuel cell stack.  The batteries in these vehicles are akin to a capacitor and could be replaced by a suitable supercapacitor.


As you can see, use the term PHEV if that is what you really mean.  And HEV is the proper term for most passenger hybrid cars.  Ships and large land vehicles use many other hybrid technologies.