“Battery EV” vs “Hydrogen Fuel cell EV”

[nctnico]

What, so natural gas is a totally safe and non-explosive gas?

In comparison to hydrogen, yes. Methane in air is explosive from 5% to 17%, hydrogen 4% to 75%. In practice it means hydrogen is much more likely to make an explosive mix, even before you account for its greater tenancy to leak in the first place due to the small molecule.

OTOH hydrogen is much lighter than air (nitrogen / oxygen mix) thus more likely to dissipate than to build up in a basement like methane can do because it is heavier than air.

[TimFox]

What, so natural gas is a totally safe and non-explosive gas?

In comparison to hydrogen, yes. Methane in air is explosive from 5% to 17%, hydrogen 4% to 75%. In practice it means hydrogen is much more likely to make an explosive mix, even before you account for its greater tenancy to leak in the first place due to the small molecule.

OTOH hydrogen is much lighter than air (nitrogen / oxygen mix) thus more likely to dissipate than to build up in a basement like methane can do because it is heavier than air.

Hydrogen (H₂ in nature) has a molecular weight of approximately 2.
Methane (CH₄) has a molecular weight of approximately 16.
Nitrogen (N₂) has a molecular weight of approximately 28.  Oxygen (O₂) is approximately 32. 
Far above the boiling point, the Ideal Gas Law gives a density proportional to the molecular weight.
Therefore, as you said, hydrogen is much lighter than air, but methane is roughly half as heavy as air.

[james_s]

I remember in my chemistry class in high school we learned about that, the teacher used a pan of soapy water and methane from the gas tab on the bench to make large bubbles which floated up toward the ceiling which he poked with a flame on the end of a stick. It was a lot of fun, that teacher was well known for flames and explosions, he was very popular with students.

[PlainName]

Charging stations: they're not going to be like current filling stations since the car will need to sit for some time to charge. Currently car comes in, fills tank, gone in a couple of minutes. Once that flow is slowed down, there's a limit to how many cars can be hanging around, so throughput is going to be much lower and the filling station would need to make more profit per car (ignoring that more stations would be needed to maintain overall filling rates).

On the plus side (for the filling station) they'll have a captive audience to sell stuff to, just like the airlines get to make you walk through shopping centers en route to the aircraft (and than sit in cafes for 2 hours).

[rstofer]

On the plus side (for the filling station) they'll have a captive audience to sell stuff to, just like the airlines get to make you walk through shopping centers en route to the aircraft (and than sit in cafes for 2 hours).

I'll bet shopping malls are early adopters.  They are common at pharmacies around here.  But, really, there's nothing to do in a pharmacy.  But put them in a mall and watch sales grow.

[Miyuki]

Teslas has a usable life of 500-1000 Thousand km.

Please define "usable battery life". For you crippled downto 1/3 of initial "factory range" could be possibly OK, but for me - rather not. Disclaimer: I do not say that after 1000000 km tesla battery has 1/3 range capacity. This is rather question what remaining capacity % of tesla battery after 1000000 km is.

Here is nice picture

So even after 1000000 km should be about 2/3 of the original capacity
That is still a reasonable range to use
And no issue when used as a second car

[wraper]

Charging stations: they're not going to be like current filling stations since the car will need to sit for some time to charge. Currently car comes in, fills tank, gone in a couple of minutes. Once that flow is slowed down, there's a limit to how many cars can be hanging around, so throughput is going to be much lower and the filling station would need to make more profit per car (ignoring that more stations would be needed to maintain overall filling rates).

It the area a filling station takes, you can install many times more charging stalls. Which are also much cheaper. So throughput is not really an issue. For example, here you could easily install 20-30 charging stalls:

[Miyuki]

Charging stations: they're not going to be like current filling stations since the car will need to sit for some time to charge. Currently car comes in, fills tank, gone in a couple of minutes. Once that flow is slowed down, there's a limit to how many cars can be hanging around, so throughput is going to be much lower and the filling station would need to make more profit per car (ignoring that more stations would be needed to maintain overall filling rates).

It the area a filling station takes, you can install many times more charging stalls. Which are also much cheaper. So throughput is not really an issue. For example, here you could easily install 20-30 charging stalls:

I spotted that many of the gas stations around me start to install one or two charging spots
So you can stop for the charge, get some snacks and coffee and in 30 minutes go on

[not1xor1]

Everyone and their brother will jump on the hydrogen bandwagon these days. Doesn't mean it makes sense. Hydrogen is the new graphene.

They have been promoting the hydrogen nonsense for tens of years.
See: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.956:

Hydrogen is often viewed as an important energy carrier in a future decarbonized world. Currently, most hydrogen is produced by steam reforming of methane in natural gas (“gray hydrogen”), with high carbon dioxide emissions. Increasingly, many propose using carbon capture and storage to reduce these emissions, producing so-called “blue hydrogen,” frequently promoted as low emissions. We undertake the first effort in a peer-reviewed paper to examine the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of blue hydrogen accounting for emissions of both carbon dioxide and unburned fugitive methane. Far from being low carbon, greenhouse gas emissions from the production of blue hydrogen are quite high, particularly due to the release of fugitive methane.

Regarding the magnet free motor I was referring to:
https://www.mahle.com/en/news-and-press/press-releases/mahle-develops-highly-efficient-magnet-free-electric-motor--82368

Regarding Na-ion batteries:
https://www.reuters.com/technology/chinas-top-ev-battery-maker-catl-touts-new-sodium-ion-batteries-2021-07-29/

Biofuels already made lots of damage leading to deforestation and food price increase. Burning hydrogen in IC engines is just the last fashion in that greenwashing madness.

[not1xor1]

It the area a filling station takes, you can install many times more charging stalls. Which are also much cheaper. So throughput is not really an issue. For example, here you could easily install 20-30 charging stalls:

and there is plenty of room for solar panels 

[tom66]

So even after 1000000 km should be about 2/3 of the original capacity
That is still a reasonable range to use
And no issue when used as a second car

It's almost as if people forget that ICE engine cars don't typically last beyond 200,000 miles.

My old Ford Focus was an economical write off, the engine was burning oil at 135,000 miles.  My old Peugeot had coolant leaks in the cylinder at 115,000 miles that could be temporarily fixed with "RadSeal", but led to oil slowly making its way into the coolant.  The Japanese marques might do better, certainly.  But I still doubt they'll outlive an EV with a stable, liquid cooled battery.

[Miyuki]

So even after 1000000 km should be about 2/3 of the original capacity
That is still a reasonable range to use
And no issue when used as a second car

It's almost as if people forget that ICE engine cars don't typically last beyond 200,000 miles.

My old Ford Focus was an economical write off, the engine was burning oil at 135,000 miles.  My old Peugeot had coolant leaks in the cylinder at 115,000 miles that could be temporarily fixed with "RadSeal", but led to oil slowly making its way into the coolant.  The Japanese marques might do better, certainly.  But I still doubt they'll outlive an EV with a stable, liquid cooled battery.

Truth most modern engines need new piston rings at about 100,000 miles
And head gasket failure is in most cases a consequence of failure in the cooling system

Both are easy to repair and parts are cheap, but takes about a day or two of service work what can be an issue and not many services do this kind of work today. They do just the easy repairs 

But also there is plenty of ICE that fail to metallurgy fatigue at about 150,000-200,000
As they are engineered this way to make them cheaper while most owners do not use cars this long
ICE can be easily built to last 1,000,000 km but it does not make much economic sense as it makes it more expensive to manufacture and might slightly increase fuel consumption plus people do not like to ride in 20,30,... years old car

[Marco]

It the area a filling station takes, you can install many times more charging stalls. Which are also much cheaper.

If on demand fast chargers are supposed to be the solution for everyone without a driveway that will require a significantly higher peak power delivery from the grid and the storage, that's a lot of extra power on a Friday afternoon, not sure if it will be cheaper. In fact I suspect it would be so expensive that fast charging would be done on appointment (with on demand fast charging possible with higher cost per kwh). Either way, less convenient than just extremely high density of roadside slow chargers.

[wraper]

It the area a filling station takes, you can install many times more charging stalls. Which are also much cheaper.

If fast chargers are supposed to be the solution for everyone without a driveway that will require a significantly higher peak power delivery from the grid and the storage, that's a lot of extra power on a Friday afternoon, not sure if it will be cheaper ... certainly less convenient than just extremely high density of roadside slow chargers.

It was a reply to comparison with conventional filling stations. Show chargers should be located at places where the cars would be parked anyway for other reasons than just charging.

[PlainName]

that will require a significantly higher peak power delivery from the grid and the storage, that's a lot of extra power on a Friday afternoon

But instead of fuel tanks you could have on-site BFO batteries which charge 24/7, and the cars take their charge primarily from this on-site storage.

[Miyuki]

that will require a significantly higher peak power delivery from the grid and the storage, that's a lot of extra power on a Friday afternoon

But instead of fuel tanks you could have on-site BFO batteries which charge 24/7, and the cars take their charge primarily from this on-site storage.

Sounds like a great case for Flywheel energy storage

[nctnico]

It the area a filling station takes, you can install many times more charging stalls. Which are also much cheaper.

If on demand fast chargers are supposed to be the solution for everyone without a driveway that will require a significantly higher peak power delivery from the grid and the storage, that's a lot of extra power on a Friday afternoon, not sure if it will be cheaper. In fact I suspect it would be so expensive that fast charging would be done on appointment (with on demand fast charging possible with higher cost per kwh). Either way, less convenient than just extremely high density of roadside slow chargers.

If you ponder on this a bit; hydrogen is cheaper for long term storage and those peak loads are happening only during parts of the day. If you go a step further you could have a large tank of hydrogen next to a charging station with a hydrogen to electricity converter. But then again, why not fill a car with hydrogen and skip the stationary hydrogen to electricity conversion which needs to deliver an extreme peak power compared to a smaller fuel cell inside the car?

Roadside slow chargers are also expensive. The operator will need to do installation and maintenance as well. My estimate is that a public charger costs around 5k to 10k euro over a period of 10 years. That has to come from of the pocket of 2 or 3 users. In the Netherlands alone they estimate to need 5 million charging points. Even at 5k euro each that is a cost of 25 billion euros.

[PlainName]

Sounds like a great case for Flywheel energy storage

I wouldn't want to be living next door to it.

[tom66]

If you ponder on this a bit; hydrogen is cheaper for long term storage and those peak loads are happening only during parts of the day. If you go a step further you could have a large tank of hydrogen next to a charging station with a hydrogen to electricity converter. But then again, why not fill a car with hydrogen and skip the stationary hydrogen to electricity conversion which needs to deliver an extreme peak power compared to a smaller fuel cell inside the car?

Because hydrogen is really a last-resort fuel for applications where batteries don't have the energy density.

Sure, EVs are not suitable everywhere and there probably will be hydrogen vehicles like trucks, aircraft, boats and trains.

For cars, there is already plenty dense Li-Ion technology to get a 30kEUR car to 250 miles range.  What problem is hydrogen solving here for the enormous additional cost?  A reduction in "charging" times to 5-10 minutes in ideal conditions, but with the removal of all home charging options and a substantial reduction in overall efficiency - I don't buy it as a practical alternative.  It'll chug along for a decade or so but I reckon even Toyota will give up on it eventually.  EVs getting to 200kW+ fast charging on a 'regular' basis will completely eliminate its viability.

[PlainName]

200kW+ fast charging

I guess USB-C isn't going to cut the mustard on this one.

[nctnico]

If you ponder on this a bit; hydrogen is cheaper for long term storage and those peak loads are happening only during parts of the day. If you go a step further you could have a large tank of hydrogen next to a charging station with a hydrogen to electricity converter. But then again, why not fill a car with hydrogen and skip the stationary hydrogen to electricity conversion which needs to deliver an extreme peak power compared to a smaller fuel cell inside the car?

Because hydrogen is really a last-resort fuel for applications where batteries don't have the energy density.

Sure, EVs are not suitable everywhere and there probably will be hydrogen vehicles like trucks, aircraft, boats and trains.

For cars, there is already plenty dense Li-Ion technology to get a 30kEUR car to 250 miles range.  What problem is hydrogen solving here for the enormous additional cost?  A reduction in "charging" times to 5-10 minutes in ideal conditions, but with the removal of all home charging options and a substantial reduction in overall efficiency - I don't buy it as a practical alternative.  It'll chug along for a decade or so but I reckon even Toyota will give up on it eventually.  EVs getting to 200kW+ fast charging on a 'regular' basis will completely eliminate its viability.

You are not getting the core of the problem: unless you charge a BEV from your own outlet, it will be too expensive to operate compared to (bio)fuel and/or hydrogen. Or put differently: what is going to put a stop to BEV adoption at some point is the lack of people who can charge a BEV from their own outlets.

[tom66]

You are not getting the core of the problem: unless you charge a BEV from your own outlet, it will be too expensive to operate compared to (bio)fuel and/or hydrogen. Or put differently: what is going to put a stop to BEV adoption at some point is the lack of people who can charge a BEV from their own outlets.

I don't agree with the premise.

As I stated before the time an EV needs to spend charging is about 5% of its time spent on the road, even if it's only a 7kW post.

This can be done at work, on the street, at the supermarket, at the mall, wherever...

And 50% of those owning a car will be able to charge at home, because they have off street parking or a driveway.

It is all about providing opportunity charging.  Stop thinking about charging like it's refuelling.  It's not.  It's more like grazing for electrons.

Yes we do need thousands of chargers, but your 25 billion EUR assessment seems crazy to me.  The local council installed a small number of EV chargers and they were under the 5kEUR figure you quote for 7kW,  this was just for two at a time. Fill a car park with 40 and the cost will fall even further.

[nctnico]

Doesn't matter how or when a BEV gets charged from public chargers. Just take a piece of paper and start adding the cost for the charging infrastructure. You'll see the costs are massive and there needs to be a ROI on top at some point.

[SiliconWizard]

that will require a significantly higher peak power delivery from the grid and the storage, that's a lot of extra power on a Friday afternoon

But instead of fuel tanks you could have on-site BFO batteries which charge 24/7, and the cars take their charge primarily from this on-site storage.

True. But then you're adding one more layer, so decreased efficiency.

[tom66]

Doesn't matter how or when a BEV gets charged from public chargers. Just take a piece of paper and start adding the cost for the charging infrastructure. You'll see the costs are massive and there needs to be a ROI on top at some point.

Do you know how much a car parking space costs?

A flat tarmacked space in a standard car park is about 8000 EUR.
A multi-storey car park is close to 40,000 EUR/space.

On street is effectively 'nil' at present because we don't charge anyone to park their vehicle on the road (with some exceptions for city centres etc.)  But, if it was priced according to the road surface area, it'd probably be similar to the standard car parking space.

Of course someone pays for this - so why are you so concerned about +800-2000 EUR for a charger per space?