That the German automakers are not at the forefront of plug-in vehicle technology should not be a surprise to anyone. This doesn't mean that they're not participating with plug-ins – they are – just that they are more interested in alternative fuels like wasserstoff (hydrogen).

Thus Daimler has announced it is one of many organizations – including the German Federal Ministry of Transportation, Air Liquide, Air Products, Linde and Total Germany – that has signed a Letter of Intent to spend over 40 million euros ($50.8 million U.S. at today's exchange rates) to increase the number of public hydrogen stations in Germany from 15 today to "at least 50" by 2015. That may not sound like a lot, but given Germany's smaller physical size and vehicle fleet, it's substantial. Last fall, Daimler said that a major city needs around ten hydrogen stations to adequately support fuel cell vehicles, at the beginning, at least. Hyundai has found that the hydrogen infrastructure as it exists in Europe today is already quite sufficient to drive from Norway to Monaco. Germany has the most robust H2 infrastructure in Europe, with the first public station going online in mid-2009. Daimler and Linde have been working together for a while on public H2 stations.
Show full PR text
50 hydrogen filling stations for Germany: Federal Ministry of Transportation and industrial partners build nationwide network of filling stations

Berlin, Jun 20, 2012

The German Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development (BMVBS) and several industrial companies today signed a joint Letter of Intent to expand the network of hydrogen filling stations in Germany. By 2015, Germany will have a supply network of at least 50 public filling stations.

As part of the National Innovation Programme for Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology (NIP), Germany's federal government and industrial sector are investing more than 40 million EUR to expand the country's network of hydrogen filling stations from currently 15 to 50. This will serve as a market-relevant testing of innovative filling-station technology and ensure a needs-driven supply for the 5,000 fuel cell vehicles that are expected to be on the road in Germany at that time. The expansion plan focuses on the country's metropolitan regions and the creation of corridors connecting these metropolitan regions.

The Letter of Intent was signed by Federal Minister Dr. Peter Ramsauer and representatives of the companies Air Liquide, Air Products, Daimler, Linde and Total Germany. The federal government's own NOW GmbH (National Organisation for Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology) will coordinate the construction of the filling stations.

The network of hydrogen filling stations accompanies the commercialisation of fuel cell vehicles that the automobile industry has announced for 2014/15. Mobility using hydrogen is already being extensively and successfully tested for everyday use. As the largest demonstration project in the area of hydrogen mobility, the Clean Energy Partnership (CEP) has been doing excellent groundwork since 2002 and continues to collect valuable research and practical results on filling station technology and infrastructure. The standards developed by the partnership will now be used to successfully introduce hydrogen as a fuel in Germany.

Dr. Peter Ramsauer, Federal Minister of Transport, Building and Urban Development, said: "Electric vehicles equipped with hydrogen fuel cells generate no harmful emissions. They also have a high range and can be refuelled within minutes. To facilitate their introduction to the market, we need a network of filling stations that covers the major metropolitan areas and connects them to each other. We are therefore partnering with private industry to construct a total of 50 hydrogen filling stations in Germany by the year 2015. By doing so, we create the basis for a demand-driven infrastructure for refuelling hydrogen vehicles."

Markus Sieverding, Chairman of the AIR LIQUIDE Germany GmbH management board, said: "The task at hand is no longer to realise stand-alone filling station projects. We need to develop technical standards and work together to create sensible, viable infrastructure solutions for the future. Being able to drive a hydrogen car from Munich to Hamburg or from Aachen to Potsdam should be a matter of course – that is what we are all working on!"

Ivo Bols, Vice President and General Manager Merchant Gases-Europe, on behalf of Air Products GmbH: "Germany is among the world's most active and advanced countries when it comes to using sustainable, alternative mobility solutions. As the largest producer of industrial hydrogen and a pioneer in the use of hydrogen as a fuel, Air Products supports the development of technologies that are helpful in building an economically viable hydrogen infrastructure. So we are very glad to contribute to the success of this initiative with the latest generation of our hydrogen filling stations."

Prof. Thomas Weber, Member of the Board of Management of Daimler AG, responsible for Group Research and Mercedes-Benz Cars Development: "Electric vehicles equipped with a battery and fuel cell will make a considerable contribution to sustainable mobility in the future. However, the success of fuel cell technology depends crucially on certain conditions being in place, such as the availability of a nationwide hydrogen infrastructure. Together with Linde, we took the initiative in 2011 and decided to jointly establish 20 of the H2 filling stations sponsored by the BMVBS in Germany. Because it is very customer-friendly – with its great range and short refilling times – fuel cell technology has enormous potential for massively advancing Germany on its path to becoming the lead market for electric mobility."

Dr. Andreas Opfermann, Head of Clean Energy & Innovation Management at Linde AG, said: "We are pleased that the Federal Traffic Ministry has taken Linde´s and Daimler's initiative as an occasion to broaden the initiative's base with a shared concept for establishing a nationwide hydrogen infrastructure in conjunction with other participants, thereby turning the 20 filling stations into 50. This will empower Germany to take global leadership in a particularly promising field. As a trailblazer in matters of hydrogen technology, we will continue to advance this development together with our partners. Like no other fuel, hydrogen stands for environmentally friendly, low-emissions mobility – even on long hauls."

Dr. Klaus Bonhoff, Managing Director of NOW GmbH (National Organisation for Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology), adds: "Today's agreement lays the foundation for a demand-driven supply of hydrogen as fuel for transport in Germany. When fuel cell vehicles begin to be introduced to the market in 2015, customers must be able to refuel in the metropolitan regions and along the major motorways. By building the nationwide network, Germany's government and industry is jump-starting the development of zero-emissions mobility using hydrogen."

Hans-Christian Gützkow, Managing Director of TOTAL Germany GmbH, commented:

"TOTAL has been active in hydrogen mobility research in Germany for ten years now. Already, we operate five hydrogen filling stations in Berlin, Hamburg and Munich. Since last year, we have partnered with the Brandenburg-based wind power company Enertrag to show how green hydrogen can be produced from excess wind energy. This makes hydrogen mobility a perfect complement to the shift to alternative energy, and a real opportunity for innovative companies."


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 124 Comments
      EVdriver
      • 3 Years Ago
      Uhm, no. Not at all. There is no electron economy push, as far as I know of. Besides, electric vehicles have been available for more than 100 years now. In contrast with EVs, you can't buy hydrogen powered cars at all, despite of insane hydrogen push.
      Spec
      • 3 Years Ago
      @DaveMart Not a single one of his points has been partially rebutted much less 'demolished'. Just saying that accomplishes nothing. How about addressing even just one of his points: -90+% of the hydrogen made is made by steam-reforming natural gas. How is that not a continued reliance on fossil fuels? Just saying that you can split water doesn't mean anyone will do that because it is very inefficient to do and results in a lot of wasted energy.
      DaveMart
      • 3 Years Ago
      Joe, facilities are usually sparse when they have not been built yet! Everything starts small, even an elephant! Since one of the bugaboos about fuel cells is their inefficiency relative to battery storage, then why ignore that when talking about plug-ins with an RE? The fuel cell RE will be far more efficient, and far less dependent on fossil fuels!
      skierpage
      • 3 Years Ago
      @ltaw, @krisztiant "and PHEVs will undoubtedly feature fuel cells as range extenders." Why? I maintain the market for FCVs in 2015 will be *tiny*. Their unique proposition is range with zero tailpipe emissions, but given a choice between a PHEV extended by a gasoline/diesel/biofuel engine and a FCV (plug-in or otherwise), most will pick the PHEV!! It's cheaper to buy, cheaper to run (for most driving patterns), and has far more infrastructure. Sure there will be a few long-distance drivers who really hate fossil fuel and/or don't have access to a plug who will buy FCV models, but the key word is *few*. You seem beholden to an "If car companies build it, people will buy it" teleological imperative. It doesn't work that way. In three years drivers will get to choose between established ICE, PHEV, BEV, and the first FCV models, and I just don't see the last attaining even 1% of car sales for another 5 years after that. If you think otherwise, please explain your reasoning — gasoline runs out? huge CO2 taxes? big fleet sales? Also, Daimler is the only car company in this announcement. BMW is building electric cars and VW's chairman said they're going to offer plug-in hybrids across all their models. Yeah, yeah, they still have H2 research, but they seem in no rush to compete with Daimler.
        Spec
        • 3 Years Ago
        @skierpage
        Yeah, the big advantage FCVs have over EVs is a longer range and an ability to be refilled fast. But that Volt does that today. For less than $40K. Available now. And the Volt will improve between now and 2015. How are FCVs going to present value proposition that beats the Volt? I can't see how they'll do it. I agree that there will be a niche market for it. But there is a tiny niche market for just about EVERYTHING. I'm surprised that the auto companies are still spending so much time on it . . . but I guess a miracle breakthrough could happen and make it more viable.
          Joeviocoe
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Spec
          And just wait until automakers with better skill than GM start to build PHEVs... I would imagine that by 2015 some automaker will sell a PHEV with 80+ mile AER, flex fuel.. and still be cheaper than the equivalent FCV. FCV are going to have a tough time entering the mass market. A niche, sure. But the passenger fleet has better alternatives coming a lot sooner and cheaper.
        Spec
        • 3 Years Ago
        @skierpage
        Yeah, the big advantage FCVs have over EVs is a longer range and an ability to be refilled fast. But that Volt does that today. For less than $40K. Available now. And the Volt will improve between now and 2015. How are FCVs going to present value proposition that beats the Volt? I can't see how they'll do it. I agree that there will be a niche market for it. But there is a tiny niche market for just about EVERYTHING. I'm surprised that the auto companies are still spending so much time on it . . . but I guess a miracle breakthrough could happen and make it more viable.
      Dave
      • 3 Years Ago
      Ok, lets compare current technology: Fuel cell stack (mass produced 500,000 units per year) = $51 per kw x 80 kw = $4080 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/2010_market_report.pdf 5.6 kg compressed hydrogen tank and hardware ~$3000 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/compressedtank_storage.pdf 1.5 kwh battery pack ~$600 Total ~$7680 $7680 / $400 per kwh ~ 19 kwh battery pack, approximately 58 mile range.
        JakeY
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Dave
        Apples to oranges. $400/kWh is average contract cost today. $51/kW is projected cost at 500k volume, not the average contract cost for fuel cells today. In other words, there's no where you can buy a fuel cell for $51/kW or under, while for batteries, there's plenty of places to buy a battery pack for $400/kWh or under.
        Joeviocoe
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Dave
        "lets compare current technology" "Fuel cell stack (mass produced 500,000 units per year" In what world is that 'Current' technology???? The $51 per kw is based on the assumption of volume production. Not "Current" at all.
          JakeY
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          BTW it's still not really what I want (what's the average $/kW TODAY, not projections to X volume), but it's probably the best available data right now.
          Joeviocoe
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Yes, but meeting those production levels is a huge assumption that depends on many economic factors. It may take another decade or two before automakers will even start to make 100,000 FCVs per year. Becuase it depends on the availability of an infrastructure, price of oil, costs of PHEVs, and other competing technologies. I don't care how much you think these people were "trained". They are assuming quite a bit. So we know what battery tech is "currently" since they ARE being built and sold at a known volume. about 10,000 per year right now, this year. So you use $400/kwh. Fine. But since 500,000 FCV/year CANNOT be "current" volume.. not this year, not 2013, not 2014, or even 2015. It is a B.S. comparison! It is very likely that batteries would be less than $200/kwh before FCVs are even 100,000/year.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          You take the current technology (which has a known cost) and then people who are trained in such things extrapolate what various rates of mass production would do to that per unit cost. It's a pretty common practice for manufacturers to utilize. Battery makers, for example.
          JakeY
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          @DaveMart "The batteries that Nissan/Renault are selling are almost certainly not costed at current volumes, and most particularly their factories are not being amortised on an assumed production rate of 10,000 a year." Definitely true, but Nissan/Renault has a plant that can manufacture almost 200k battery packs, which makes it easy to project costs. There is no fuel cell plant in existence that can even manufacture at that volume. Battery costs are not projected from X volume to 500k volume either. They are projected by looking at the pricing trends of current (real) battery costs. We need to have the same data for fuel cells or we are comparing apples to oranges.
          DaveMart
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          The batteries that Nissan/Renault are selling are almost certainly not costed at current volumes, and most particularly their factories are not being amortised on an assumed production rate of 10,000 a year. The prices for batteries are pretty much as assumed for a higher production level as are those of fuel cells. It is perfectly plain that the studies by the DOE and everyone else are based upon assuming no further improvements, and simply applying the cost figures, which are not as wild a guess as you seem to think, so long as the production target is indeed reached.
          DaveMart
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          The technology is current, the production levels aren't.
          DaveMart
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          'Nissan/Renault has a plant that can manufacture almost 200k battery packs, which makes it easy to project costs. There is no fuel cell plant in existence that can even manufacture at that volume.' JakeY: Nissan/Renault nor any of the other manufacturers are giving out full cots information, so analysts can no more be certain of their costs than projected ones. Even for Nissan/Renault, it is not only how many they can produce, but how many they can sell that determines unit cost, as far more chancy number to work out than manufacturing costs at a given volume. Clearly you may have a somewhat better idea once factories are up and running, but the levels of uncertainty are surprisingly close between the projected costs at a given level of manufacturing and early stage mass manufacture. Costs don't really settle down until a market is fully established, so that you have a far better idea of sales at a given price as well as costs at a given level of sales.
          JakeY
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          @Letstakeawalk The linear approximation for the first two data points in the cost graph (1000 = $219/kW, 30000 = $82/kW) is $/kWh = -0.00472*volume+223.7. Means $176/kWh for 10k. I take it you mean this Mercedes plant that can provide fuel cells for up to 10k vehicles. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/03/17/bc-mercedes-fuel-cell-burnaby.html That inflates Dave's fuel cell cost figure by $10k exactly. Gives you $17680 / $400 per kWh = 44kWh, which is more than the base Model S with 40kWh (125 miles EPA range in a large-sized luxury sedan).
          JakeY
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          @DaveMart We already have an established 18650 battery market. Analysts may not have direct prices, but they can figure out a decent approximation of contract prices (there's a battery conference every year where they announce all the battery trends and average pricing). I haven't seen anyone try even near the same thing with fuel cells.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          "There is no fuel cell plant in existence that can even manufacture at that volume." Mercedes is in the process of building a plant that can produce volumes in the tens of thousands. If you'd actually read the links posted for FC pricing projections, you'd see that a number of different volumes have been analyzed. Projections for 30,000 units per year is $82-kW. http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/11012_fuel_cell_system_cost.pdf
        Anne
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Dave
        Let's compare efficiency: Hydrogen car 1 mile per kWh, electric car 3 mile per kWh.
      goodoldgorr
      • 3 Years Ago
      Hydrogen gas at a station is not needed if the 'machine' that do hydrogen is miniaturized and put inside the car. The machine can be miniaturized because it's mainly electronics and any electronic can be build at any given size because there is few parts and complicated mecanism. It's not an inertia and burner fossil fuel machine like an ice engine that is dificult to miniaturize. Electronic is electronic and the water electrolyzer is mainly electronic. No needs to construct a huge electrolyzer like they do with the shell hydrogen station in washinton. This electrolyzer is build for minute operation so it have to be big. The miniaturized electrolyzer have to feed just one hydrogen tank that will take several days to get empty so the electrolyzer have several days to perform a fillup. All and each car engineers now know this along car managers and marketers. When they discovered this, they decided to keep their jobs instead so they 'have too' to find another inperfect method like constructing impossible batteries.
      • 3 Years Ago
      Maybe no one knows why, but somehow hydrogen became - among the majority of ABG commenters - a "swearword", which fatally threatens the battery, therefore "must die" (misbelief). It simply goes on the contrary: without fuel cell vehicles - which also need batteries - the battery tech has a substantially harder + a "long and winding road" to go. I just shared this innocent thought with the community, without diving into deeper analysis of its substance. (I let everyone figure this out by him/herself).
        Letstakeawalk
        • 3 Years Ago
        Most anti-FCV posters readily admit it isn't the cars or the technology that they have an aversion to - indeed, they readily admit that fuel cell technology has become very viable. What they absolutely despise is the continuation of the refueling infrastructure being owned and operated by the oil companies, who they see in an extremely negative perspective.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          "- Continued reliance on fossil fuels. - Poor efficiency compared to batteries. - Complications & inefficiency of transportation & storage. - Expensive infrastructure requirements will lead to a continuation of taxpayers subsidizing oil company profits." Thank you for a concise list of objections. I think DaveMart did quite well dismissing #1 - just because fossil fuels is *a* source of hydrogen doesn't mean that they will be the *only* source, or that they won't be replaced entirely. #2. Efficiency compared to BEVs isn't really the issue, since BEVs make up a very minor percentage of the auto market. FCVs merely have to be more efficient than conventional ICEs, which they are by 2-3x. BEVs and FCVs will no doubt coexist within the marketplace - and PHEVs will undoubtedly feature fuel cells as range extenders. #3. Current deployment and evaluation programs (running for years and millions of driven miles) indicate that storage and disbursement of hydrogen will not be a problem. #4. You really don't want the oil companies to make a profit - QED my original point: "What they absolutely despise is the continuation of the refueling infrastructure being owned and operated by the oil companies, who they see in an extremely negative perspective." Spec raises an interesting point about gas station ownership - one which occurred to me after I had written my post - and he is indeed correct. However, the profit margin for the station owner is razor-thin, typically they make most of their income from the food and conveniences that they sell. Certainly they can be counted upon to realize the very truly "captive" market they'd have with BEV drivers who would need a minimum of 30 minutes downtime to fill. Nonetheless. Spec, are you saying that you don't think the oil companies are motivated to sell hydrogen at all? Currently, they are required by law to produce a certain percentage of renewable fuels (or buy credits) and hydrogen is considered a renewable fuel when produced by solar/wind or by other waste reclamation (biogas).
          Joeviocoe
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          "Perhaps you would give exact links, and calculations including all assumptions for your claim that a PHEV with a large battery pack is 4 times as efficient as a fuel cell vehicle." -DaveMart Like I said, " impossible to quantify ". I could only give examples based driving habits which are not possible to know. 1) The 4 times more efficient statement was based on Pump-to-Wheels efficiency. That you shouldn't be able to argue against. 2) Well-to-Wheels efficiency varies A LOT based on feed source. So it is also not possible to quantify without making assumption for both grid power and Hydrogen production. The U.S. grid mix is averaging only 40% coal now and dropped to 36% this spring. Natural Gas is quickly on the rise, as is wind. And the new NG power plants are combined cycle getting about 60% overall efficiency. So I would argue that if Hydrogen can be made from Natural Gas... any additional power for EVs could be produced from Natural Gas as well. As long as Natural Gas production increases proportionally with BEV, PHEV or FCV consumption of that energy... all source energy can be assumed as being sourced by Natural Gas (and not Coal which is in rapid decline). https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0By4b2-v971MwV0E4ZzQzTnZiNDg/edit Open Mar 2012 http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/index.cfm 3) Just like you cannot "give an absolute figure for prospective efficiency" of FCVs. The same is true for WTW efficiency EVs. 4) You would like to use the future efficiency of HFCV from NG, based on future H2 compression, storage and tranport technology, but want to compare it to the current grid. As PHEVs and BEVs get adopted, the grid gets cleaner. New, more efficient Gas turbine power plants are being built, and just as fast as 70% efficient Steam Methane Reformers, H2 pipelines, and Super efficient H2 compressors/pumps.
          Joeviocoe
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          It is not ignored, just impossible to quantify without knowing the driving habits. PHEVs have two distinct drive trains. And only switch in between the two depending on how many miles in between charges the driver decides to drive. So OVERALL efficiency is not possible to measure. Just like the Chevy Volt can essentially get in between 37 mpg and 230 mpg, or even 1000 mpg. A PHEV with a large enough pack "can be" MUCH more efficient than a FCV that always drives on hydrogen.... and far less dependent on fossil fuels too. ♦That is because a PHEV is 4 times more efficient than a FCV over 80% - 90% of driving (if pack is large) and only 1/2 as efficient as a FCV during 10% - 20% of driving. Do the math. An 80 mile AER PHEV with a gasoline engine will be more efficient "overall" than a FCV in a normal passenger vehicle.
          Joeviocoe
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          @LTAW 1) Not really, a great example is biofuels. Gasoline and diesel substitutes COULD be made to run in modern vehicles... but why isn't done? Because it is not economic. The most economic source, wins. Petroleum based fuel is still the most economical way to fuel them... so that is what will be done. Hydrogen COULD be made with electricity, but unless you figure out a way to make Natural Gas SMR a more expensive process than electrolysis... it WILL NOT HAPPEN. So it just as accurate to say it won't be done. 2) PHEVs will undoubtedly feature fuel cells as range extenders. It could, but that makes an even worse case for building up an H2 fueling infrastructure. At the point were PHEV drivers are only needing to use fuel for 10% of their driving... their demand for that fuel is so low that any station servicing would go out of business. It is much more economic to use gasoline for PHEVs since you WANT to use existing infrastructure. Super cheap energy for most driving... super convenient infrastructure for taking trips outside a battery's range. An H2-PHEV would have a very small niche market demand. Pretty much relagated to fleet users that can produce and serve their own H2. 3) ... given enough money, nothing is much of a problem. Who do they want to pay for it.
          Joeviocoe
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          The 4:1 efficiency was actually for electrically produced, onsite at the pump, solar to battery (a house with solar panels). I confused the term Pump to Wheels, so for that, I apologize. So you're right, at best a battery electric drive train using the same feed source (natural gas) is only 1.5 times as efficient as the best SMR-FC drive train. So my point still stands (despite my cherry picking). So even with an inefficient ICE running when the driver needs to go from city to city on the interstate occasionally, driving on BEST drive train efficiency for 90% of the miles... is overall more efficient that driving on REALLY GOOD drive train efficiency for 100%. So, if Hydrogen gets to cherry pick the best, cheapest process for H2 (SMR)... that is fine, but if you do that, we can cherry pick the best source for Grid Battery power... solar, wind, hydro, etc. Making overall efficiency MUCH higher. Making overall emissions MUCH lower. And the more expensive, renewable sources are still cheaper than hydrogen per mile.
          DaveMart
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          @Joe: 'The 4 times more efficient statement was based on Pump-to-Wheels efficiency. That you shouldn't be able to argue against.' That is completely cherry picked, and still not explicit. You have managed to evade all the losses in generating the electricity in the first place, and I have no idea what you are talking about when you refer to the pump to wheels efficiency of fuel cell cars. Are you including losses from the compression of the hydrogen? From converting the hydrogen to electricity? You seem to me to have simply picked a figure from out of the hat. So please specify exactly how you have calculated the figure you presented. The point is in any case that even if you obfuscate the issue by specifying RE's, batteries can't move heavy loads long distances. That means that we will have to shift heavy transport anyway to another source of power. Your argument is based on short distances only, fudged a bit by specifying a PHEV
          DaveMart
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          Joe, Perhaps you would give exact links, and calculations including all assumptions for your claim that a PHEV with a large battery pack is 4 times as efficient as a fuel cell vehicle. That is certainly not true for much of the US grid, which operates at an efficiency of around 35% or so, and works out no more efficient than reforming NG and running it through a fuel cell. You are presumably assuming the most efficient possible gas turbine, but even then I can't come out to anything like 4 times. Twice maybe, but four times? Show us your numbers. You also seem to be assuming a relatively large battery, or not much use over long distance, which was the subject we were talking about. Sure if you don't often go a long way, your average efficiency will go up as you are using the battery, but the fact is that the efficiency of the combustion engine part of the deal is poor compared to a fuel cell, which is the point. Anything a combustion engine RE can do a FC RE can do better. Hydrogen production and fuelling is improving so fast I can't give an absolute figure for prospective efficiency, which is greatly reducing the penalties for compression and so on.
        krona2k
        • 3 Years Ago
        I don't think it's quite like that. Grandiose announcements that amount to nothing and glossing over the laws of physics tend to grate on people's nerves after a while.
        DaveMart
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Joe: 'The 4 times more efficient statement was based on Pump-to-Wheels efficiency. That you shouldn't be able to argue against.' That is completely cherry picked, and still not explicit. You have managed to evade all the losses in generating the electricity in the first place, and I have no idea what you are talking about when you refer to the pump to wheels efficiency of fuel cell cars. Are you including losses from the compression of the hydrogen? From converting the hydrogen to electricity? You seem to me to have simply picked a figure from out of the hat. So please specify exactly how you have calculated the figure you presented. The point is in any case that even if you obfuscate the issue by specifying RE's, batteries can't move heavy loads long distances. That means that we will have to shift heavy transport anyway to another source of power. Your argument is based on short distances only, fudged a bit by specifying a PHEV In addition to
        Joeviocoe
        • 3 Years Ago
        "without fuel cell vehicles - which also need batteries - the battery tech has a substantially harder + a "long and winding road" to go." No, PHEVs will advance Battery tech faster than FCVs would. A FCV cannot be sold until a H2 station exists near a potential buyer. A PHEV can be sold anywhere, right now. So more volume sales, will advance more battery tech. Also, PHEVs use more batteries, since they need 40+ AER, while FCVs will only use batteries for peak power. More batteries mean faster development.
        • 3 Years Ago
        @LTAW As you see among the replies, they have "plenty more reasons to dislike hydrogen fuel cells" and they are not willing to even consider any logical argument or the most likely scenario, that soon there will be more fuel cell cars than pure BEVs and hydrogen will be the most economically and technologically viable solution (as almost all carmakers / authorities are shifting their development / actions toward this solution due to great pressure / fear of dependence on foreign oil / air pollution / global warming / gas price etc.) They don't even bother, that FC PHEVs are the best friends of batteries (way better than gas PHEVs), which could most efficiently help battery tech progression. The unalterable mantra - no matter what - is: "hydrogen and fuel cells must die" (together with their incredibly dangerous water vapor local emissions). How can you not understand this LTAW? #justkidding
      goodoldgorr
      • 3 Years Ago
      Can they open another hydrogen filling station near where i live, it's always the same that are having the fun and i said years ago to open a station and begin selling hydrogen fuelcell cars near where i live and now i find that they do that but on another continent then mine ??? Hydrogen is the future but especially near where i live. They didn't say with what the hydrogen will be made and they didn't disclose any price for the hydrogen.
        Joeviocoe
        • 3 Years Ago
        @goodoldgorr
        "Can they open another hydrogen filling station near where i live" You will be asking that question forever.
          goodoldgorr
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Im the only one asking directly to open a hydrogen station and sell one fuelcell car near where i live. It's more effective that way, it avoid generalities. Now they will spend millions and millions instead of 60 000$ or less. I won't go to germany to buy anything. They should take account of blog instead of dubious survey's and act accordinly. Nobody i know asked for hydrogen in german blogs but here i asked a hundred time. This is the works of hackers that falsifiate internet blog spots, it dosn't make sense. They always read blogs but act with the old faschion way to protect their useless old farted jobs and they are afraid to be replaced by freebies. Insist to be able to use the best economic method and let these dinosorus die the hard way.
        Peter
        • 3 Years Ago
        @goodoldgorr
        First, you should worry about the price of the car.....it there even is one you can buy.....yeah
      Spec
      • 3 Years Ago
      It is really not rocket science. It is pretty simple: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy#Efficiency_as_an_automotive_fuel
        DaveMart
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Spec
        Run the numbers. Don't simply post a link to a large article. For the contrary position I refer you to the Library of Congress.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 3 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          The Wikipedia article isn't wrong so much as it is out of date; it doesn't reflect the current state of the technology. That's something you (and other anti-FCV posters) likewise seem unwilling to accept. For instance above, you make the comparison between buying a Volt and an FCV, and you point out there's no reason to choose the FCV since their is no infrastructure to refuel it - making you completely oblivious to the single headline of this article: the infrastructure is being slowly built out so as to coincide with the introduction of various manufacturer's FCV products. We get it Spec - you don't like hydrogen FCVs, and you'd prefer a BEV. Nobody has a problem with that. OTOH, many of us are interested in watching the progress that FCVs are making, just as we enjoyed watching the progress that BEVs made. (actually picked up a 1967 Reader's Digest today at a thrift shop - had a *wonderful* article about how everyone would be driving electric cars by 1980!)
          DaveMart
          • 3 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          See below where I have given an example of a properly constructed, referenced argument. which you are free to dispute any point of, as it is presented in a manner which enables that.
          Spec
          • 3 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          It is 3 paragraphs and drawing. You can't handle that?
          Spec
          • 3 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          You guys are really 'true believers'. A 3 paragraph Wikipedia article with links to all its sources spells it all out quite cleanly. *I* am not making the argument, the Wikipedia article is. But you just can't handle the truth. You can't handle the truth so you just deny and insult the people that present it to you. If that Wikipedia article is so wrong then why don't you try to change it and get yourself schooled by the people that maintain that Wikipedia article.
      Anne
      • 3 Years Ago
      Let's be honest. I hate fuel cell cars. They suck. They require the driver to regularly put some substance into them in a designated area called a 'gas station'. That substance will in all likelihood be produced and sold by a bunch of companies that polluted the planet and get away with it because they have bought our politicians. The hydrogen is being produced from fossil fuels and we should get rid of those for a number of reasons. I can not refuel the hydrogen car from my solar PV array, or if I wanted to, I'd need 3x as much panels. And that doesn't fit on the roof of my house. These hydrogen cars have been promised to us for for decades. Just like battery cars. But they are now for sale and the hydrogen car isn't. The hydrogen car has always gotten most attention which it didn't deserve. But mostly I hate it because it was praised on Top Gear. Only a miracle breakthrough can cure me.
        DaveMart
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Anne
        A real miracle breakthrough for you, Anne, would be realising that unless you take up night-time delivery driving or something your solar panels have very little to do with powering your car, since it is not plugged in when it is sunny most days. Actually your power sources are not that dissimilar to what it would be in a fuel cell car, ie mainly natural gas, but you also fuel it on good old, cleanly, CO2 free coal for a substantial amount of it's power, unlike hydrogen production where coal is not currently used: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/doc/factsheets/mix/mix_nl_en.pdf You do get a bit of your power from wind, but solar has little to do with it. The array perched on your roof is not powering your car, save possibly a little at weekends in the summer. Being reasonably accurate about energy flows is an essential first step to considering comparative sources, and you seem to be deliberately skipping that step.
          Anne
          • 3 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          Each kWh of clean solar energy that I feed into the grid will replace 1 fossil kWh. This will remain so at least during the lifetime of my installation. If I plug in at work, my car charges from my solar panels through the grid. PV is an excellent peak shaver, welcomed by all electric utilities since it peaks during peak demand, at the middle of the day.
          DaveMart
          • 3 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          Solar pv on your roof may be doing all sorts of lovely things. One thing it is not doing is powering your car. It becomes impossible to think accurately about energy issues if misstatements are habitually used.
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Anne
        Anne, You'll be all right. But let's break it down how, in details: "I hate fuel cell cars. They suck." - No. They don't (Simplest answer). "[FCVs] require the driver to regularly put some substance into them in a designated area..." - Not all of them. E.g. FC PHEVs don't, as they can be simply plugged in (just like any gas PHEV) and most likely the majority of vehicles will be FC PHEVs. "The hydrogen is being produced from fossil fuels" - In the beginning most of it yes, but there are several other ways - currently under advanced development - which makes the H2 production completely pollutant free. And don't forget: it's the most abundant renewable fuel, thus we'll never run out of it. "I can not refuel the hydrogen car from my solar PV array..." - As we already discussed it, you just can (FC PHEV). "These hydrogen cars have been promised to us for for decades. Just like battery cars. But they are now for sale and the hydrogen car isn't" Hmmm... I cannot really get that... so that's why you hate hydrogen cars, because they are not on sale yet. Or what? But... never mind. "The hydrogen car has always gotten most attention which it didn't deserve." Actually, e.g. the Obama administration drastically cut back support for it in favor of plug-in / BEV cars, but it is changing now (due to consumer demand etc.). And why exactly a zero emission electric vehicle (fuel cell) doesn't deserve attention. No one knows. "But mostly I hate it because it was praised on Top Gear." - Sure. "Only a miracle breakthrough can cure me." - You don't need it. It's gonna be alright!
          Anne
          • 3 Years Ago
          Nope, didn't work - still hate them ;) What I wrote were not the reasons why hydrogen cars suck. They were the reasons why I dislike them. If people want to drive hydrogen cars, by all means. If the government want to subsidise, fine. I don't think they're evil, or that the technology deserves to fail. Dunno, the technology just doesn't get my blood pumping.
      krona2k
      • 3 Years Ago
      Well it's a long story, but if this thread ends up like most of the hydrogen threads on here you'll be able to see it all for yourself. If you keep reading this blog you'll probably end up seeing the same arguments many many times. As for what I wrote, Google will probably be your best bet. You'll find many past anouncments from manufacturers about FCV cars being available in year X and then not delivering. You'll also find many references to hydrogen being a source of energy which it isn't.
      Letstakeawalk
      • 3 Years Ago
      This is further evidence of a continuing commitment to FCVs, by the German government, the German automakers, and the hydrogen providers. A project on this scale certainly takes time and coordinated planning to implement, but it appears to be moving along at a rate that will meet the 2015 timetable agreed upon in the 2009 Memorandum of Understanding.
        Joeviocoe
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Letstakeawalk
        I don't know if 50 stations in a country the size of Germany would qualify as "sufficient density". Which is what automakers are waiting for Before they start mass producing FCVs.
          Joeviocoe
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          How much has Daimler spent on building H2 stations?
          DaveMart
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Presumably it is 'sufficient density' at least for Daimler, as they are heavily involved in specifying and paying for the build. If they are happy I suspect that other FC makers such as Hyundai will be,
          Letstakeawalk
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          "...Daimler's share in this infrastructure 'investment' is mere pocket change compared to the investment of building high volume FCVs ..." No doubt. It takes $billions to produce a regular automobile for mass consumption. Why is why the infrastructure development can easily follow FCV production - it's quite cheap and quick to create the hydrogen refueling infrastructure when compared to the other costs involved (even relative to simply maintaining the current gasoline infrastructure).
          Joeviocoe
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          " it's quite cheap and quick to create the hydrogen refueling infrastructure when compared to the other costs involved (even relative to simply maintaining the current gasoline infrastructure)." No, that is not what I said or meant. I said that Daimler's share in that particular deal is very small compared with actually producing the cars. Linde and the German government are paying A LOT more than Daimler to make these 50 stations. And there is a LOT more needed. How many petrol stations in Germany? How many full sized H2 stations do you think is needed for "sufficient density" in that country? So this article states 51 million USD to build 35 new H2 stations. So that is about $1.4 million each. I personally think that a country the size and density of Germany would need over 1500 (10% of the number of petrol stations) such stations built and open for business before automakers could start selling FCVs to the public. That is A LOT of money... not counting the cost of operation and maintenance. Has Germany started selling H2 to the public at retail prices yet? If so, what $/kg USD??
          Joeviocoe
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Yeah, I'm serious. That is what I personally think. I did qualify that by saying that it is my belief. What number do you think is reasonable for Germans to start buying FCVs?
          Joeviocoe
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          How much would it cost to actually build 100,000 or more FCVs? I would wager that Daimler's share in this infrastructure 'investment' is mere pocket change compared to the investment of building high volume FCVs that they promised in the 2009 Memorandum of Understanding.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          "I personally think that a country the size and density of Germany would need over 1500..." Oh wait, you're serious? Granted, it would be quite nice to start off with that number, but seriously? You think that *that's* the minimum number of stations that need to be built before FCVs can be sold to the public?
          Letstakeawalk
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Hard numbers aren't easy to come by (maybe someone will pull up Daimler's financial paperwork) but Daimler and Linde are partners in an plan to build 20 hydrogen stations, with an investment in "tens of millions". http://media.daimler.com/dcmedia/0-921-658901-1-1397124-1-0-0-0-0-1-13471-614316-0-1-0-0-0-0-0.html Daimler's definition of "sufficient density" may be quite flexible - but it's reasonable to assume that their investment in infrastructure is a signal of their serious intent regarding commercialization of FCVs.
    • Load More Comments