Hyundai Motor delivers first 15 hydrogen-powered ix35 Fuel Cell in Europe (Copenhagen)

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://worldwide.hyundai.com/WW/Corporate/News/News/DF_WW_GLOBALNEWSVIEW_130603_03.html?testValue=DF_WW_RD_GLOBALNEWS&title=DF_WW_GLOBALNEWSVIEW_130603_03

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Hyundai Motor delivers first 15 hydrogen-powered ix35 Fuel Cell in Europe[/font]

No. 2013-06-03
[font size=4]

• City of Copenhagen takes delivery of first 15 Hyundai ix35 Fuel Cell units
• Vehicles to be used in municipal fleet, supporting city’s ‘carbon-neutral’ aim
• ix35 Fuel Cell is world’s first assembly line-produced hydrogen-powered car

[/font][font size=3]June 3, 2013 – Hyundai Motor Company has today delivered the first of its assembly line-produced ix35 Fuel Cell vehicles to the City of Copenhagen in Denmark. They were handed over by Hyundai Motor Europe, Hyundai Motor’s European sales subsidiary, during the opening ceremony of Denmark’s first hydrogen refuelling station.

The 15 ix35 Fuel Cell units are the first hydrogen-powered vehicles manufactured on a production line to be introduced in Europe.

Mr. Byung Kwon Rhim, President of Hyundai Motor Europe said, “Hyundai Motor is committed to hydrogen as the fuel of the future for Europe. Delivering assembly-line produced ix35 Fuel Cell is evidence that we have a realistic solution to the region’s sustainable mobility needs.”

The ix35 Fuel Cell produces no harmful tailpipe emissions – only water vapour – and so its use will help the city of Copenhagen achieve its aim of becoming carbon-neutral by 2025.

…[/font][/font]

[longship]

1. Here's a couple of pics.

The vehicle:


Under the hood:


Dashboard:


You don't want to run out of fuel on the road with one of these babies. It would be a long walk to the filling station and the fuel cans are likely to be very expensive.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. “You don't want to run out of fuel on the road with one of these babies.”

True enough, just as you don’t want to run out of charge in a battery-electric vehicle.

However:

1. The range of a hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle on a full tank is greater than the range of a battery-electric vehicle on a full charge
2. A service vehicle would be able to refill (or partially fill) your hydrogen tank much more quickly than it could recharge a battery for a comparable range.

[longship]

5. Yup. They will have to anticipate that.

It will be expensive, I would bet.

But those vehicles could be more reliable in the long run, just like any electrically powered vehicle. Also, could they have batteries as backup?

My opinion is that procedures will be in place to insure that they won't run out of fuel.

But your point is well taken.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. Most designs work like gasoline hybrids

There is a battery, which is charged by the fuel cell.

However, why have a battery backup, rather than more hydrogen capacity?

I remember the gas gauge on my VW beetle read R-1/2-1/1 (where the “R” stood for “Reserve” as in “it’s not quite empty yet…”)



Newer fuel gauges are calibrated to read “Empty” well before the tank actually is. (When did you last find yourself walking with a gas can?)


As for the expense of having a service vehicle refuel you in an emergency, I believe that would fall under the category of “emergency road service” frequently covered by insurance, or buy an organization like AAA.

[longship]

7. "Hello, AAA? I ran out of fuel. Send out a service truck with some hydrogen for me."

Yup! That's gonna work.


Just kidding. But without an infrastructure to back it up, fuel cell cars are going to be fringe, at best.

Wish that wasn't so.

Also, if it's hydrogen, the hydrogen has to come from somewhere. Pure hydrogen is not a natural element on Earth. It can be made from sea water, for instance. But that takes energy, too. More energy than is released in a fuel cell. It's those nasty thermodynamic laws again. And that says nothing about the difficulties storing hydrogen. I worked with liquid helium at my university. It ain't easy handling that stuff. Hydrogen is worse.

There are other hydrogen compounds which may be usable, though. But, again, there's always the thermodynamics question. If it takes more energy to make the fuel than is usable, what have you gained? However, if the process is carbon neutral or better, you've gained that.

Just some more idle thoughts on fuel cells.

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. How hard is it to put an infrastructure in place?

Going back to the OP for a moment. You notice they mention the fueling station.

(Here it is!)

(If you’ve got a site with a supply of electricity and water, you can put a hydrogen filling station there.)

[longship]

9. Where do you get the hydrogen?

It comes from someplace, and it isn't a natural compound on earth. It takes more energy to make molecular hydrogen (H2) than is released by burning it or using it in a fuel cell. That's basic thermodynamics.

Hydrogen is not a fuel source on Earth because it doesn't exist here. It is a fuel storage medium, however, and maybe a very good one. The easiest source may be water. But if we're going to have a fleet of hydrogen powered automobiles the infrastructure has to be in place everywhere we'd want to go.

And again, generating hydrogen takes more energy than is usable by burning it.

So for instance, if you are going to hydrolyze water, it would be stupid to do that with power from a coal-fired power plant. But if the hydrogen plant used solar, wind, or other carbon neutral generation, then you've got something.

Again, this is my point. Hydrogen by itself is not naturally available on Earth. It takes energy to make it.

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. Clearly, you didn’t watch the video closely enough

(The station produces its own hydrogen, through electrolysis.—If you’ve got a site with a supply of electricity and water, you can put a hydrogen filling station there.)

Copenhagen’s goal is to be carbon neutral, so they will be using renewable electricity to power the station.

[longship]

12. Thermodynamics, my friend.

Hydrogen's not like petroleum. We cannot just pump it out of the ground. On Earth hydrogen only exists in hydrogen compounds, for instance water.

Again, this is my main point. It takes more energy to generate the hydrogen than is released by using it as a fuel. So as an example, it's not so good if the energy to make the hydrogen fuel comes from a coal-fired power plant, is it? Well, it has to come from some place. Hydrogen is not a source of energy on Earth because it does not exist here in a pure state. That's just the basic physics of the thing.

So one cannot discuss hydrogen fueled anything without factoring in the energy needed to make the hydrogen in the first place and where that energy comes from.

[intaglio]

13. And catalysis is the answer to the thermodynamics problem

For example iron/nickel catalysts

and Nickel/phosphorus

Add in solar and wind sources for the electrical energy and your hydrogen gets really cheap.

[longship]

20. Catalysts?

Now you are sounding like those zero-point energy guys, or the ones claiming automobiles can run off of water because of the magic catalyst they've discovered.

Alas! The universe still operates by principles which humans have discovered and refined over about three centuries or so.

Here's what Sir Arthur Eddington might have once said about these catalysts you mention. (An actual quote):

If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations—then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation—well these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.

Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, Gifford Lectures (1927), The Nature of the Physical World (1928), 74.

There you go. Eddington was correct. Catalysis doesn't help one circumvent the laws of thermodynamics. It still takes more energy to make molecular hydrogen than is released by using it to generate energy. No matter what physical process one uses.

Physics 101, my friend.

So, although hydrogen is a very clean fuel, in order to make a hydrogen economy, one has to substantially replace existing power sources to also be clean because the hydrogen has to come from somewhere and the Earth has zero natural sources. And it always takes more energy to separate the hydrogen than is released by combining it again.

And catalysts do not change that inequality's truth. Sorry, my friend.

[intaglio]

23. Do you read links?

Did you notice the mention of renewables?

Obviously not ... enough said

Edit to add

Eddington was a fine scientist but his views are 85 years out of date.

[longship]

28. But he was correct about Thermo. ;-) nt

[intaglio]

33. And that analysis could equally be applied to Petroleum

and be just as fallacious.

But if the electricity is sourced from excess light and heat energy in the atmosphere and the wastage is reduced by the use of catalysis then it becomes worthwhile to extract hydrogen.

There is also the factor of "grid dumps" when too much electricity is produced. Plants using steam have to dump excess steam direct to the cooling towers but still cannot just "idle" the generator either has to be taken off line and so need several hours to bring back online or the energy produced whilst idling had to be dumped direct to earth. Wind plant can be idled by feathering the blades and solar has to dump through a resistor. In all these cases the source energy is lost.

If instead you had some handy way of using that excess like in a battery or supercapacitor or... Oh, yes! electrolysis and so storing the excess energy as hydrogen to use at other times or in other places.

[longship]

38. But it still takes more power to separate the hydrogen.

That is a fact that will never ever change no matter what.

One can make all sorts of explanations on where the power comes from, but it takes more energy to separate a hydrogen bond than you get by making another one.

That is not so true with petroleum which can be burned right out of the ground and releases quite a bit of energy when one does so. The reason is that the energy for making petroleum (and coal) from plants in the Carboniferous Era some 300 million years ago took that time to build those bonds from the living material deposited. We can now use that energy stored in those bonds over those millions of years to release it with great efficiency.

Petroleum doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics either. It releases a whole lot of energy because it took hundreds of millions of years of energy to make it in the first place. That's why it's very efficient to just pump it up, purify it and ship it to the destination.

Cannot do the same for hydrogen which only has a very simple combustion path.

2H2+O2->2H2O+energy

And releases only the energy of that reaction which is smaller than petroleum combustion by a goodly amount. Plus, you never get it all due to inefficiencies (waste heat among others). The similar process for petroleum took that 300 million years of converting those leaves and other living matter to form those complex hydrocarbons. That's the big difference.

Let's look at making the hydrogen. One of the simplest hydrogen bonds is in water.

2H2O+energy->2H2+O2

Which is simply the reverse of the combustion equation. But thermodynamically you need to waste some energy to split that bond for the same reasons as when you burn it. So what you gain when you burn it will always be less than what you put in in the first place. Always!

Therefore, hydrogen fuel must take more energy to make it than you get from using it. We don't have a reservoir of H2 to tap and we'd be making the same chemical bond that we broke in making it. You lose that battle every damned time.

Hydrogen is great if you have the infrastructure in place and if you already have clean power available to generate it. It would be fairly good in principle for storing wind and solar for off peak. And vehicles, once we solve the infrastructure problems on a large enough scale.

It's nice to see that somebody's taking a step.

[intaglio]

39. Some energy is produced for free,

Energy produced for free can be used immediately but sometimes it cannot be so used and has to be dumped

Some energy is wasted, such as steam in conventional generating capacity.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could store all that extra energy?

At the moment energy cannot be stored as a massively bulk product.

What do you want to happen to wasted energy?

Wouldn't it be nice if it could be stored!

How do you store energy?

You change it into some form that can be stored.

You can use capacitors but at present even supercapacitors are limited to the quantity of charge. Here is a link http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=50784

You can store it as mechanical energy in a great big gyroscope but you are limited by mass and structural strength. Here is a link http://www.endesa.com/en/saladeprensa/noticias/energy-storage

You can store it as chemical energy in rechargeable batteries but batteries have limited life and limited capacity but they are getting better but they are also very expensive. Here is a link to the specs for Tesla http://www.teslamotors.com/models/specs

Or you can store it as chemical energy as hydrogen.

Alternatively you could use this excess energy to power tar sands excavation and cracking so polluting land, air and water whilst further adding to the load of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

All are hugely inefficient in dear old Sir Arthur's terms.

Which do you think is the most effective, safe and price friendly at present?

[OKIsItJustMe]

16. Please, don’t patronize me.

I don’t believe there is a single regular participant on this board who believes there are hydrogen wells somewhere.

For what it’s worth, following your example, petroleum is not like petroleum, in that you cannot pump it out of the ground and into your car’s fuel tank, it must be processed into a usable form first, and not all “petroleum” is equal. “Sweet crude” from Saudi Arabia is not the same as “tar sands” oil from Canada.


I’ve already explained where the hydrogen comes from. In this instance, it is produced using hydrolysis, with renewable electricity.

[wtmusic]

25. Hydrogen from renewables will power the radio, but

what makes the car go?

[longship]

27. And where is this renewable energy in the USA?

And now I'm going to get political.

We've got a party in this country which would rather jump off a cliff than give money to finance research into renewables, let alone implement an infrastructure.

So, it's fine to wish for hydrogen fuel cell automobiles, but if they're not implemented with carbon neutral infrastructure to make the fucking hydrogen in the first place, we're not going to be very carbon neutral when much of our power comes from coal and gas.

And as others have pointed out, powering an auto with batteries shows promise as well. You correctly point out the recharge issue. Well, that is a biggie.

But so is a hydrogen-based infrastructure. Even storing the shit is difficult. We've got power everywhere already so recharging is already in place. But we have no hydrogen storage facilities on the street corners.

It's not as simple as one would like.

I apologize. Did not mean to patronize. I just wished to have a discussion about some issues with hydrogen which some advocates do not consider.

It's a very difficult problem to solve if a country the size of the USA is to implement it. And there's no political will to go down that path with an effort necessary to get er done. I wish that weren't so.

[OKIsItJustMe]

30. Actually, in our current situation, hydrogen makes even more sense

“Reforming” fuels (like natural gas or biomass) to produce hydrogen compares favorably to burning them to produce electricity for use in a battery-electric vehicle.

[kristopher]

14. If you have a site with electricity

Why bother with the hydrogen? Just put it in the batteries of the car.

[OKIsItJustMe]

17. (See above)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112746897#post2

In addition, you can completely refill a hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle at this station in “less than four minutes.” (How fast can you recharge a battery electric vehicle?)


H2 Logic suggests:
http://www.h2logic.com/com/h2station-car-100.asp

[font face=Serif][font size=3]…

The CAR-100 can be configured to provide between 50 to 100 kg of hydrogen per day at various inlet pressures, enabling additional cost optimization to fit the exact needs and available hydrogen supply. At full utilization the CAR-100 is capable of providing hydrogen for almost 200 vehicles, which is sufficient for several years to come. As fuel sales in a network grows and reach a level feasible for larger stations the CAR-100 can easily be relocated to outskirts of the network.

The CAR-100 is based on 70MPa H2Station® technology from H2 Logic that is being used on a daily basis by fuel cell vehicles from several international car manufacturers. Extensive operation results from H2Station® have shown consistent refueling times of less than four minutes in accordance with the SAE J2601 standard and reliable operation with an availability of up to 100%. [/font][/font]

[kristopher]

22. You can refill a hydrogen FCV in 4 minutes IF you had a fueling station - which you don't.

We have an electric grid that blankets the country. This already serves the overnight recharge needs with almost no modification, and adapting it for a network of fast recharge stations is a lot less complex (stress the words LOT LESS) than creating a hydrogen infrastructure.

[OKIsItJustMe]

26. You really need to think more before you post

I said: If you’ve got a site with a supply of electricity and water, you can put a hydrogen filling station there. (Referring to a hydrogen station which was put into operation in 2 days.)
You asked: If you have a site with electricity… why bother with the hydrogen?
I listed advantages of FCEV’s over BEV’s (among them, the time to refuel)
Now, you say: You can refill a hydrogen FCV in 4 minutes IF you had a fueling station - which you don't.


Copenhagen has put a hydrogen filling station in place. I know that upsets you, but you’re talking in circles.

[kristopher]

34. That's my way of saying you are glossing over the hurdle posed by building the infrastructure

Sorry to wasn't clear to you.

I'll see your "Copenhagen has put a hydrogen filling station in place" and call you with EV sales figures plus the millions of homes with adequate service to recharge EVs and I'll raise you Tesla's recent success and their plans to build a cross country network of charging stations.

You can have the last word.

[OKIsItJustMe]

36. EV sales figures…

…mean little compared to FCEV sales figures, since there are currently no FCEV’s on the market.

However, we can make a meaningful comparison to conventional vehicles, or to hybrids, both of which are outselling BEV’s by a sizable amount.

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. “Hello, AAA? My battery’s dead. Send out a service truck for me.”

(You see my point?)

In either case, if there isn’t a service vehicle equipped to refill or recharge your vehicle, then a rollback may be necessary, to take your vehicle to a suitable facility.

[kristopher]

3. Hyundai plans to sell battery-electric vehicle

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 2013



Hyundai Motor America CEO John Krafcik said Wednesday the automaker plans to sell a battery-electric vehicle in the future.

“Our primary zero-emission vehicle focus is fuel cell right now, but we will certainly field a BEV (battery-electric vehicle at some point,” Krafcik said in a Twitter chat Wednesday afternoon.

Hyundai currently sells the BlueOn compact electric car in South Korea.



http://www.electric-vehiclenews.com/2013/06/hyundai-plans-to-sell-battery-electric.html

They also just bought into an EV battery company.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. “Our primary zero-emission vehicle focus is fuel cell right now…”

Battery electric vehicles will have their niche I think. (Primarily as commuter vehicles.)

[kristopher]

15. I wonder how many BEVs they have on the road in Korea? nt

[OKIsItJustMe]

18. Is this meant to add something to the discussion?

Or are you simply throwing rocks?

[kristopher]

19. Throwing rocks?

The OP is about a roll out of 15 FC vehicles for a test. Knowing your emphasis is on this as a step to maintreaming FCVs I pointed out they are already preparing to enter the international BEV market and that they are currently selling BEVs in their domestic market. You quoted their remark that their focus is on FCV's to support the significance of the roll out of 15 FC vehicles for a test. So I asked what I think is the reasonable question of how many BEVs do you think they've put on the road in Korea.

Apparently serving an existing market for BEVs is irrelevant in your mind because one person said they are focused on FCVs while announcing they are going to enter the BEV market.

I obviously see the pieces of the puzzle coming together to form a different picture than you.

[OKIsItJustMe]

21. “Hyundai Motor America CEO John Krafcik” = “one person”

Since you were the one to cite him, it seems odd that you’re now trying to undercut him.

[kristopher]

24. You're right, I cited him

And I'm not trying to undercut anyone. I'm simply pointing out that he is one person making one statement at a presser announcing that they are going to enter the international BEV market.
And to cap that off, his statement MUST be evaluated against the reality that they are currently cultivating and serving a BEV market in Korea.

Now, to see how significant that is, it would be helpful to know how many BEV they've sold in that market. Apparently you don't agree. I think you're wrong.

[OKIsItJustMe]

29. I believe you have misrepresented what he said

Clearly, he said their priority was fuel cells.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/25/business/eco-hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Hydrogen fuel-cell cars look to overtake electric autos[/font]

By Vanessa Ko, for CNN
November 26, 2012 -- Updated 0258 GMT (1058 HKT)

[font size=3]…

"A lot of auto makers believe the fuel-cell vehicle is just a better performing vehicle and just makes more sense," said Kevin See, a senior analyst of electric vehicles at Lux Research in Boston.

A fuel-cell-powered car can travel much longer distances than battery-powered ones before needing to be refueled, and fuel cells can be more readily used in large vehicles like trucks and SUVs.

…

Byung Ki Ahn, the general manager of fuel-cell research at Hyundai, said the company's fuel-cell vehicles are not directly competing with its battery-powered ones.

"There might be some overlapping in-between, but basically, our strategy is that we are developing fuel cells for heavier and mid-size cars and (battery-powered) electric vehicles for smaller ones," he said.

…[/font][/font]

[kristopher]

31. I've suggest the same thing any number of times.

I don't think you'll see a hydrogen distribution infrastructure materialize to service it though. It will leverage off of the infrastructure for existing fossil fuel (gasoline/natural gas) and some biofuels.

[OKIsItJustMe]

32. And as I’ve said for some time

If you generate hydrogen on site, there is no need for a distribution infrastructure.

That’s what really bothers you about this station. It proves my point.

[kristopher]

35. It proves your point?

If you say so. I'm not "bothered" by this effort, I just don't think there is anything new here. You still have the poor system efficiency (and the associated large increase in required generating infrastructure) I've always cited as my primary objection to fuel cells for personal transport.

Last word is yours.

[OKIsItJustMe]

37. “poor system efficiency”

As you know, the efficiency is constantly being improved by research.

The biggest efficiency advantage fuel cell vehicles have over battery electric vehicles is their associated weights. As the range of a battery vehicle increases, the size (and weight) of the battery increases, leading to lower efficiencies, as more and more of the electricity stored in the battery is used to move the battery around.