Daimler and Linde AG join forces to set on the introduction of hydrogen cars

[prizrak]

given time stores could offer charging stations in their parking lots.

Your stores have parking lots? Cuz lemme tell you that's not the case here even remotely. 90% of stores do not have a parking lot (we are not talking small stores here either) and those that do often have tiny parking lots. The Russian store that I go to has a 5 car parking lot, most days there is a 5 car waiting line to get into it with people parking elsewhere on the street. The absolute brilliance of ICE technology is the fact that one small fueling station can very easily accomodate a large number of vehicles because refueling times are under 10 minutes for even the biggest of cars (takes maybe 5 to fill my 17gallon tank for instance). This is something that can be easily replicated with FC and not at all with batteries.

Sockets in lamp posts could work well.

Electricity is not free, someone has to pay for it, how do you charge people for using it?

Again, just because a technology does not suit 100% of the market does not mean it should be thrown in the bin.

Why would a city spend shitload of money to integrate chargers into lamp posts if it will only be useful for a small number of people? Why would a shopping center or a parking lot owner bother installing charging stations if he knows that maybe 1% of people coming will have BEVs? Why would rest areas install chargers for long distance travelers if they know they will see 1 car a day at most that would use them?

The beauty of ICE is the fact that you can take your car to any gas station in the world and you will get the fuel there, it doesn't matter if you are driving a Dumb4None or a Lamborghini Superleggera Italia SLS 12Turbo. All you have to do is have 3 tanks for petrol and one for diesel and literally any car or truck can be filled up at your station. If you have FC only vehicles that is extremely easy to replicate, replace petrol/diesel tanks with a tank for H (and if natural gas FC will be an intermediate solution add a tank for that) or even have a pipeline going to it. If you have a mix of BEV and FCEV then it makes it more complicated as not all EV stations may have both available.

The absolute main reason why it makes no sense whatsoever to use BEV as any kind of solution is the fact that it has no real advantages over FC technology. FCEVs will 100% cover every single need of those who can be served with BEVs and will also cover needs of those who BEV doesn't work for.

I won't even go into the environmental impact of creating batteries and it is far from insignificant.

 

[narf]

Your stores have parking lots? Cuz lemme tell you that's not the case here even remotely. 90% of stores do not have a parking lot (we are not talking small stores here either) and those that do often have tiny parking lots. The Russian store that I go to has a 5 car parking lot, most days there is a 5 car waiting line to get into it with people parking elsewhere on the street.

You keep telling us that New Yorkers do not need/own a car, so it's no big surprise that there are few parking lots around.

Electricity is not free, someone has to pay for it, how do you charge people for using it?

Two solutions off the top of my head. Either you "log in" with your credit card / similar, or your car identifies itself to the system.
There already are charging stations in Germany where your car identifies itself with your account, having the power drawn billed there. Even less hassle than paying for petrol.

Why would a city spend shitload of money to integrate chargers into lamp posts if it will only be useful for a small number of people? Why would a shopping center or a parking lot owner bother installing charging stations if he knows that maybe 1% of people coming will have BEVs? Why would rest areas install chargers for long distance travelers if they know they will see 1 car a day at most that would use them?

Power companies would install chargers because they are the ones selling the electricity.
1%? Really?
We all agree that BEVs would not be viable for long distance.

The absolute main reason why it makes no sense whatsoever to use BEV as any kind of solution is the fact that it has no real advantages over FC technology. FCEVs will 100% cover every single need of those who can be served with BEVs and will also cover needs of those who BEV doesn't work for.

See a few posts above.

I won't even go into the environmental impact of creating batteries and it is far from insignificant.

What's the environmental impact of running on natural gas? Of producing hydrogen somewhere? All those are far from insignificant as well.

My point is, all these ways are worth pursuing. As of now there is no bee's knees solution.

 

[prizrak]

You keep telling us that New Yorkers do not need/own a car, so it's no big surprise that there are few parking lots around.

Wrong cause and effect. Few people own cars because owning cars comes with a lot of costs/headaches.

My point is, all these ways are worth pursuing. As of now there is no bee's knees solution.

And my point is that your point is wrong There is only one reason to have a custom solution that does not work for the general market and that reason is that the custom solution is the ONLY solution that will work for that market. As you've mentioned in another similar thread, nuclear powered seafaring ships would be one such example. FCEV can do everything that BEV can but BEV cannot do everything an FCEV can, so then what's the point?

 

[narf]

FCEVs can not do everything BEVs can, see a few posts further up.

Whether that's worth it,

 

[Mr. Nice]

What's the environmental impact of running on natural gas? Of producing hydrogen somewhere? All those are far from insignificant as well.

The environmental impact of running an FCEV on natural gas is actually very small. Drilling for the natural gas in shale, causes damage to the environment.

BEVs are a good idea, just not practical for everyone. Batteries may or may not reach a point where there will be one that will be capable of holding the amount of energy needed and be recharged quickly. With a BEV the efficiency is greater, because you aren't changing one potential energy source into another.

 

[prizrak]

FCEVs can not do everything BEVs can, see a few posts further up.

Whether that's worth it,

That's kind of my point, pedantically speaking you are right there are two things they cannot do, realistically though the number of people who would care is likely a tiny fraction of a percent.

BEVs are a good idea, just not practical for everyone. Batteries may or may not reach a point where there will be one that will be capable of holding the amount of energy needed and be recharged quickly. With a BEV the efficiency is greater, because you aren't changing one potential energy source into another.

Yep the IDEA of a BEV makes sense, you are simply holding the energy that was produced elsewhere but at the moment there are just too many trade offs. The good thing is that switching power sources in an electric vehicle is trivial

 

[narf]

The environmental impact of running an FCEV on natural gas is actually very small. Drilling for the natural gas in shale, causes damage to the environment.

That already is a common problem with ICE cars vs BEVs - with ICEs you look at tailpipe emissions, with BEVs you look at well-to-wheel emissions, making BEVs look worse than they really are. If drilling for natural gas causes much harm but the tailpipes only emit butterflies then natural gas is harmful.

 

[prizrak]

That already is a common problem with ICE cars vs BEVs - with ICEs you look at tailpipe emissions, with BEVs you look at well-to-wheel emissions, making BEVs look worse than they really are. If drilling for natural gas causes much harm but the tailpipes only emit butterflies then natural gas is harmful.

I have to say that I agree with.

I think the only somewhat logical reason for treating it this way would be the fact that we still need petrochemicals whether we use them to run our cars or not. Though at the same time I suspect we would not need nearly as much oil if we weren't using it for fuel so its a fairly weak argument.

 

[Mr. Nice]

That already is a common problem with ICE cars vs BEVs - with ICEs you look at tailpipe emissions, with BEVs you look at well-to-wheel emissions, making BEVs look worse than they really are. If drilling for natural gas causes much harm but the tailpipes only emit butterflies then natural gas is harmful.

Something around 50-54% of electricity in the USA comes from coal. In Germany, your country will be using a lot more natural gas in the future.

 

[narf]

I think the only somewhat logical reason for treating it this way would be the fact that we still need petrochemicals whether we use them to run our cars or not. Though at the same time I suspect we would not need nearly as much oil if we weren't using it for fuel so its a fairly weak argument.

Taking oil out of cars is only a small part of using it as fuel. Ships for example don't convert to BEVs easily. There's also home heating oil.

We need oil for lots of things, consumption would drop a bit but not seize.

Something around 50-54% of electricity in the USA comes from coal. In Germany, your country will be using a lot more natural gas in the future.

What's your point?

 

[prizrak]

Taking oil out of cars is only a small part of using it as fuel. Ships for example don't convert to BEVs easily. There's also home heating oil.

Ships do convert quite well to FC (IIRC Navy uses FC in some ships already, could be wrong though). AFAIK home heating with oil is decreasing, mostly because gas is cheaper and works just as well, quite a few buildings here converted and all the new construction is gas boilers.

Of course the ultimate goal would be to convert everything to electric but that would only make sense when moving to [mostly] renewable electricity.

What's your point?

I *think* he is trying to say is that if the gas will still be mined for use in power generation, there would be less negative impact on the environment if it is used directly inside of a fuel cell as opposed to using the power generated to charge a battery, as said battery is very "dirty" to produce in the first place it would be compounding the negative effects on the environment.

 

[narf]

Yeah, ships can run on FCs. Germany has just introduced the first FC U-Boote running on Hydrogen without the need to draw in Oxygen regularly. In fact, they're built right here in Kiel:

https://pic.armedcats.net/n/na/narf/2011/06/06/U_Boot_212_HDW_1.jpg

It's got Diesel power as well though.

 

[MacGuffin]

I really don't know, if bringing "Germany's building u-boats" into the discussion, is such a great idea

Let's stick with cars.

I'd like to discuss about what would have to happen to make FC cars a success on a wider scale. I mean it's clear, that Daimler and Linde cannot do it alone. Wouldn't it be logical for the big oil companies to step in, too, from a certain point on?

I know that BP and Shell are already very active in looking into renewable energies, while the American oil giants are basically relying on "We have Alaska" and probably will not look for alternatives, as long as the last drop of oil hasn't been squeezed out of the sands of Canada.

What I don't understand is, why the fuel cell seems to have so little backup from politics. Wouldn't it be much easier to "sell" FC cars to the voters, than convincing them to buy superminis with a battery and the leasing rates of a Mercedes E-Class? I mean, a fue lcell can be put into anything, from Smart to S-Class and from Mini to 40-ton truck.

Why are politics obviously preferring the battery-powered car? I just don't get it.

 

[Mr. Nice]

Gasoline has to top the equivalent of $5 a gallon in the USA for hydrogen fuel cells to be practical. Even then, if the fuel cell vehicle costs $50,000, there will be few buyers. Most will look at the cost of fuel vs. the cost of the new vehicle and stick with the conventional gasoline or diesel. Natural gas could be much more practical, since there are already companies making natural gas fuel cells which cost less to build than hydrogen fuel cells that are constructed with expensive precious metals for their cathodes and anodes. Natural gas comes out of the ground, so we don't have to go to the expense of making it and, the pipeline system for natural gas delivery can and does already exist below ground. Hydrogen currently needs to be stored and piped above ground.

Regarding the point of my statement above: Electricity in Germany will rely less and less on nuclear energy and more and more on natural gas in the coming years. The loss of electricity over power lines over larger distances is greater, thereby making a good case for the use of natural gas fuel cells in neighborhoods and/or homes. Coal is dirtier and more dangerous than natural gas, and that is what powers most of the United States of America. With a coal fired powerplant being used to charge your electric car, you would effectively be using an electrical source that causes more harm to the environment than natural gas.

 

[prizrak]

I really don't know, if bringing "Germany's building u-boats" into the discussion, is such a great idea

But it worked out so well before

Let's stick with cars.

I'd like to discuss about what would have to happen to make FC cars a success on a wider scale. I mean it's clear, that Daimler and Linde cannot do it alone. Wouldn't it be logical for the big oil companies to step in, too, from a certain point on?

I know that BP and Shell are already very active in looking into renewable energies, while the American oil giants are basically relying on "We have Alaska" and probably will not look for alternatives, as long as the last drop of oil hasn't been squeezed out of the sands of Canada.

What I don't understand is, why the fuel cell seems to have so little backup from politics. Wouldn't it be much easier to "sell" FC cars to the voters, than convincing them to buy superminis with a battery and the leasing rates of a Mercedes E-Class? I mean, a fue lcell can be put into anything, from Smart to S-Class and from Mini to 40-ton truck.

Why are politics obviously preferring the battery-powered car? I just don't get it.

I think it boils down to the internet being a series of tubes. Basically politicians don't understand how FC works and assume (correctly so) that a large number of constituents will not get it either. BEV is a very basic and obvious idea to anyone, we all at least seen RC cars before. There might also be the whole "Hydrogen go boom" issue.

since there are already companies making natural gas fuel cells which cost less to build than hydrogen fuel cells that are constructed with expensive precious metals for their cathodes and anodes.

I was reading about some discovery that allowed building of HFC's w/o the use of platinum or with very limited use of it. Don't remember the specifics but basically if the tech pans out HFC's would be cheap enough to make them a very viable alternative already.

 

[Mr. Nice]

I was reading about some discovery that allowed building of HFC's w/o the use of platinum or with very limited use of it. Don't remember the specifics but basically if the tech pans out HFC's would be cheap enough to make them a very viable alternative already.

Yes, I actually posted a thread about that maybe a month or two ago.

If that happens, it will help to alleviate at least part of what makes a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle an overly expensive proposition. What could help move hydrogen technology further forward would be finding new ways to have the high volume yields needed from electrolysis with large amounts of low-cost electricity that comes from renewables.

These things seem a little too far off at the moment. We could have affordable natural gas fuel cell vehicles much sooner, and the natural gas used to fuel them will be much less expensive. The hydrogen fuel cell should still be the goal, as it will be more efficient. Greatest efficiency should be a major goal.

 

[GRtak]

Taking oil out of cars is only a small part of using it as fuel. Ships for example don't convert to BEVs easily. There's also home heating oil.

We need oil for lots of things, consumption would drop a bit but not seize.

Ships can run on bio diesel without any modifications.


Bio diesel fuels are the only net positve we can get in a renewable resource(ie., we get more fuel/energy out than we put in), except wind.

 

[prizrak]

Yes, I actually posted a thread about that maybe a month or two ago.

If that happens, it will help to alleviate at least part of what makes a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle an overly expensive proposition. What could help move hydrogen technology further forward would be finding new ways to have the high volume yields needed from electrolysis with large amounts of low-cost electricity that comes from renewables.

These things seem a little too far off at the moment. We could have affordable natural gas fuel cell vehicles much sooner, and the natural gas used to fuel them will be much less expensive. The hydrogen fuel cell should still be the goal, as it will be more efficient. Greatest efficiency should be a major goal.

Actually I think I was reading about it in your thread

 

[narf]

Bio diesel fuels are the only net positve we can get in a renewable resource(ie., we get more fuel/energy out than we put in), except wind.

Hydroelectric power does not make more than it took to build?
Same with solar cells, given long running in decent sun they will produce more energy than it took to make them.
Biogas plants also produce more and are very renewable (you gotta take that dump some time...)

I'm sure there are more examples.

 

[prizrak]

Same with solar cells, given long running in decent sun they will produce more energy than it took to make them.

They don't, still... They will deteriorate before they get to break even point, that has been the biggest problem with them. Unless you mean 24/7 sunlight, but its not really useful.