Are hydrogen tanks superior to batteries?

A suggestion, www.greencarcongress.com, has a good collection of summaries of these technologies. The last one I read involved a column of melted metals that break down methane into hydrogen and carbon that can be skimmed off.

Bob Wilson

 

That is certainly physically possible -- in a sharp contrast to most of your other comments promoting the "hydrogen economy" hoax and bashing BEVs, comments which fearlessly defy the laws of physics and economics. But one wonders: if this really is (as you claim) less expensive and simpler than the usual setup, then why isn't every H2 generation facility and every H2 dispensing station using that tech?
-

 

Near as I can tell, it is a research lab technology. Scaling up a new technology takes time and effort and much harder if there is no clear market. Steam and methane generation remains a primary industrial H{2} source which means mechanical compressors.

Bob Wilson

 

Unlike every other "magical" tech I've ever seen touted by fool cell fanboys, this looks to me like it might actually hold some promise. Sure, the market for commercial-scale H2 from electrolysis is limited; perhaps it's accurate to call it a niche market. But the market is there. For example, I've seen it claimed that the U.S. Navy has H2 generators on board some of their ships, which I suppose are used to generate fuel for the fuel cells which power the Navy's unmanned underwater drones. Unless the electrolysis device is unreasonably expensive to manufacture in small quantities, it should certainly allow an improvement in the energy efficiency of "renewable" H2. Admittedly only a small improvement, since there are so many energy-wasting steps. But if the device really is as simple and effective as Martin wants us to believe, then it should represent a significant savings in the cost (and possibly size) of a generation/ compression/ storage system for compressed H2 fuel.

Pumps which can compress H2 to 10,000 PSI are expensive! If we can eliminate (or at least significantly reduce) the need for those at the generating station, then that would be a significant lowering of costs. (That still won't eliminate the need for expensive high-pressure pumps at the dispensing station, because the H2 has to be recompressed as it's dispensed, to maintain sufficient pressure to fill the vehicle's fuel tank.)
-

 

There are several grid storage battery projects that have not been mentioned yet, that are are cheaper than lithium, and much closer to reality than any hydrogen storage system.

http://news.mit.edu/2016/battery-molten-metals-0112

http://www.ambri.com/

http://www.wbur.org/bostonomix/2017/03/27/ambri-molten-battery

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/renewables/new-sulfur-flow-battery-could-provide-affordable-longterm-grid-storage

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608273/grid-batteries-are-poised-to-become-cheaper-than-natural-gas-plants-in-minnesota/

Also, pumped hydro and trains on mountain sides, and hoist weights are other very simple, high efficiency storage methods.

 

I think you meant lower pressure, but still, just how do you think you're going to pressurize the H2 from reforming natural gas without using a compressor of some sort? The generating plant may be able to get away with using low-pressure storage -- altho that would require such large tanks that, if my understanding is correct, they generally try to use an existing underground cavern instead -- but it's still going to take a pump, and electricity to run that pump.

Furthermore, H2 produced by the usual method -- reforming natural gas -- has to be moved to the dispensing station by special tanker trucks which use cryogenics to lower the temperature of the H2 to the point that it can be pressurized enough to be liquid. What is the energy cost for all that, hmmm? And cryogenic equipment is expensive, too! Moving H2 that way must be much, much more expensive than moving gasoline or diesel by tanker truck.

It's true that an electrolyzer capable of producing H2 under high pressure won't reduce any of those costs. Since 95% of commercially produced H2 is generated by reforming natural gas, that won't impact the cost of 95% of it. But advocates of the "hydrogen economy" hoax always talk about using renewable H2, and the cost of that would be impacted by a high-pressure electrolyzer which doesn't need a special, expensive, high-pressure pump attached to it.
-

 

In the following time interval, I've driven over 1,000 battery miles:

• March 16, 2018 - Hope for battery cars? thread started
• April 16, 2018 - this post

This reminds me of a favorite song:


Or Voltaire:

• Dans ses écrits, un sage Italien
  Dit que le mieux est l'ennemi du bien.

An English version, "Never let perfect be the enemy of good enough."

The discussion has been useful if nothing else to review what is available, its cost, and progress:


Bob Wilson

 

Ridiculous. That means even more expensive, higher pressure storage tanks, even greater need for special expensive seals, even more degradation from H2 embrittling metals, and even greater loss from leakage.

I certainly cannot see things from the perspective of someone who prefers wishful thinking to reality; prefers it so strongly that he deliberately ignores clear evidence even when it's repeatedly presented to him.

I have no interest in going far enough down the rabbit hole to understand your perspective, Martin.
-

 

May the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster save us from armchair engineers who prefer wishful thinking to the Laws of Physics or practical concerns!

Martin, it's bad enough that H2 dispensing stations waste energy by pressurizing H2 to 10,000 PSI. Pumping up the pressure even higher would waste even more energy! But hey, you go ahead and send your idea to everybody running an H2 dispensing station, and let them know they're doing it wrong! I'm sure they'll get a good laugh out of your idea.

My understanding is that most if not all H2 dispensing stations use a separate tank for buffer storage to maintain the H2 at ~10,000 PSI, so it can be dispensed into a fool cell car's tank at that pressure. The bulk of the gas is maintained at a lower pressure, which is not only safer, the storage is also cheaper that way, and loses less over time from leakage. Most people, Martin, would not need to have it pointed out to them that maintaining a gas pressure in the dispensing station's storage which is significantly higher than what the fool cell car's gas tank, seals, and pipes can tolerate, would be extremely dangerous! What you propose is a recipe for disaster, and a pretty predictable one.

 

Waiting for Proton
By Samuel Beckett (edited by Bob Wilson)​

WILLIAMS "Let's go!"
PULLYU "We can't."
WILLIAMS "Why not?"
PULLYU "We're waiting for Proton."
WILLIAMS "(despairingly) Ah!"
. . .
PULLYU "Why are we here, that is the question? And we are blessed in this, that we happen to know the answer. Yes, in this immense confusion one thing alone is clear. We are waiting for Proton to come. ...We are not saints, but we have kept our appointment."

 

Hmmm, well I appreciate you making an attempt at somewhat sophisticated humor. However, I don't see much of an analogy there. If Martin wants to buy a Mirai or other FCEV, nobody is stopping him from doing so. And if anyone is saying "We can't!", it's Martin... who keeps arguing -- contrary to all evidence -- that battery tech has suddenly hit a wall and won't continue the trend of improvements we've seen over the past 35-40 years.

Sure, there is a vague analogy with "Waiting for Godot", in that we're engaged in endless discussion of minutae while waiting for that "Everyman" electric car to appear on the market; the EV analog to the Ford Model T in the motorcar revolution. The car which will convince Joe Average that EVs are better than gasmobiles, and going to make them obsolete. That hasn't happened yet, and may not for several more years.

But I'm not -- nobody is -- telling Martin that he can't run out and buy a fool cell car just because most of us are waiting for that Everyman BEV to appear on the market. Obviously Martin isn't waiting for any Everyman BEV, because he doesn't believe there will ever be one!
-

 

Going back to the old dial-up, bulletin boards and USENET, discussion groups have always had members who remain remarkable detached from an empirical universe. After making several attempts to achieve a consensus, we are reduced to: insult; ignore; flee, or; humor.

• Insult - doesn't really work but rapidly degrades to a few, Anglo-Saxon words like the ones used in Marine bootcamp (I have some experience.)
• Ignore - this can work but it leaves behind those still trying to talk sense. One-sided threads that often have unexpected humor.
• Flee - USENET is pretty much unusable.
• Humor - at least now we can grin and move on.

I've never really understood how some folks can hold to a point of view even when it means denying the advantages to themselves. Just it is how it is.

Bob Wilson

 

Whatever the cost of energy is - the cost of running battery electric cars will be about 1/6th the cost of fuel cell electric cars.

Infrastructure for hydrogen is even worse - by an order of magnitude, at least.