Hydrogen as a fuel? Inside the technology Toyota is developing

A few years back, the town of Whistler British Columbia bought a fleet of 20 hydrogen powered buses. Correction, two levels of government paid $95 million to buy them the buses to prove to the world how green they were. But all of the fuel had to be brought in by diesel truck from Quebec where it was made from natural gas. After a few years they got rid of them and went back to conventional buses. That tells me everything I need to know about hydrogen. I think the people and companies who boost hydrogen as a fuel source either have access to government funds, or are hoping to access government funds.

Keith Tanner said:

Qaaaaa said:

In reply to Keith Tanner :

Eh, the cold starting problems are overblown. I've been running E85 all winter in Ohio, and it's been fine, just cranks a little longer some days. Probably be a lot worse if you live in a colder state, but most of the US doesn't. I only had to hit it with ether once, when it was -5F out. 

That's because you weren't really running 85% ethanol. You were running a lower percentage, to avoid problems with cold starts. You don't know this is happening, but it is. If you have a proper flex fuel car, it has an ethanol sensor to check what's actually running through the fuel lines and adjust accordingly.
https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_e85_specs.html

Get yourself some summer blend E85 and store it until winter. Then fill your tank with it and see how it starts.

The bargain in E85 is buying 85% ethanol in December & January.  $2 a gallon.  Maybe  a little more   So it's at least$  1&1/2 a gallon cheaper.  Yes in really cold weather my truck will drop down to 18mpg  with that.  But I still save money.  How much depends on what the price of gas is and how cold it is.   
     I think the coldest it's been in the morning is 18 below and it still fired right up.   Granted it's not the 40 below we've had in the past but I've had this since Feb. of 2017.  In that period it's never failed to start. 
   OK I changed my spark plugs at 60,000 miles. Maybe with 100,000 miles it might be harder to start in real sub Zero weather. 
      I understand the myth of hard starting in the cold.  Sprint cars that used to 100% methanol were pretty hard to start when the temps were down in the 30 degree area.  They are push started  and the process is put it in gear and the push truck pushes the car until oil pressure comes on the gauge.  Then the magneto is turn on.  In the mean time a lot of methanol has been pumped into the cylinder.  Basically flooding the plugs.    They might get 1/2-3/4 of a lap in before even one cylinder fires.   Once it does start running the cold formed by the evaporating alcohol is frosting up the intake and with it the injector.    Typically there isn't enough heat to melt the frost so  they have yeti come in and using a propane torch, heat up the  injector and try again.  

Having worked in refineries and hydrogen plants, I'll pass on a hydrogen power vehicle for me or my family.  Hydrogen is a tiny molecule that leaks easily and has a huge flammability range.  Its low energy content per unit volume means that it has to be compressed to tremendous pressures while still containing a fraction of the energy per unit volume vs gasoline.

I think an EV would make a neat around the neighborhood shopping vehicle.  Maybe I'll build an electric Fiat Jolly after I retire.

Read somewhere recently about adding hydrogen to current natural gas  systems to stretch the supply and burn cleaner. Same idea as E10 etc.

CNG burns so clean and has a good distribution network in place I wish that would be the alt fuel of choice, even as a stepping stone....(of course nothings 'good enough' for some points of view)

In case you missed this 

Toyoda said "I hope to dismiss the fear that we won’t be able to drive our beloved cars when we go carbon neutral. On the contrary, there is a carbon neutral path that car lovers can take.”

Did anyone else read this? "We go carbon neutral." The "we" could mean Japan. They have bullet trains. We do not. They have hotel rooms the size of a high-school locker. We do not. They will have cars that drive without CO2..... 

The basic flaw of Hydrogen as a fuel isn't the fuel.  
 It's how it's used.   
 I'm a serious gear head. I love pistons and camshafts. The more the merrier.  2 is cooler than 1, 4 is cooler than 2 6 is better than 4. 8 is better than 6 and 12 is the best.  
  Same with valves. 2 is ok  but 48 is best.   Etc. Add boost of some sort, and it's even better. 
  But  none of it is efficient.  One stroke out of 4 is a power stroke? Pistons going down stopping and coming back up? Do it again to get a single power stroke?    
  Peak torque isn't at zero RPM rather at. 4800 rpm so you need a transmission. And a clutch or toque converter. 
       Electric motors don't need that.   But to use hydrogen as a fuel that's what's required.  
 

In reply to frenchyd :

Batteries and electric motors are great for some applications. That doesn't mean they work for all applications. Batteries struggle with weight and rapid discharge while doing constant, heavy work. So hydrogen may be an option for going carbon neutral in applications like trucking, construction, agriculture, aviation, and (relevant to our interests) racing. Unless batteries get much lighter and more energy dense at the same time they're not going to be a great option for applications like the ones above.

By implementing hydrogen as a fuel in ICEs, we can get closer to carbon neutrality sooner. It's not the most efficient process possible, but it's progress. And in locations where there's support, hydrogen ICEs will likely spawn hydrogen production and infrastructure development which are necessary steps if much more efficient hydrogen fuel cells are ever going to gain widespread acceptance.

In reply to STM317 :

  Steam powered trains only operated briefly when oil was used instead of coal.  Steam simply was too high maintenance to be efficient.  The same applies to ICE   Much as I love playing with my ICE toys. There really are better ways. 
     
I have an electric toothbrush. It and a lot of battery powered products charge not by direct contact but by proximity.   So there is no risk of a shock. .        Why carry heavy. & expensive  batteries around if there are other options?   Instead of $10-30,000 batteries in the vehicles ?  The same amount is spent upgrading the public roads?   Start with the interstates first. Since that's when the highest demand is.    Eisenhower built the whole interstate system from scratch and balanced the national budget while doing it.  
  For this we don't need to start from scratch, just carve out one lane at a time.   The right carbide  will quickly grind the required groove, the right wires could be preassembled to lay in place and leads run to the shoulders to pick up voltage from  solar panels and wind generators installed at the same time.   Once in place some sort of quick hardening epoxy  or plastic  is poured in place.  Basically  say a section of the freeway loses one lane at a time for an hour?   In congested urban areas that could be done during off peak hours for minimum traffic disruption.  
      Once freeways are done, state highways, then  less densely traveled roads.    All cars should have some battery range.   But maybe 50 miles is enough to reach freeways etc?  If not 50 then 100?   Especially if charging became normal st every gas station.   If only 50 miles is required charging would be time competitive with filling  a gas tank.   
      Yes the world is changing.  Perhaps a lot of trips previously requiring cars will be  taken with drones.  Distances will be reduced to as a crow fly's.  For me instead of traveling 23 miles, much of it the wrong direction it would be a trip less than 6 miles. 
      Yes I know, a whole new navigation system created.  
  
      
         

The Hindenburg incident guarantees Hydrogen will never be a mainstream power source.

Autovelox said:

Having worked in refineries and hydrogen plants, I'll pass on a hydrogen power vehicle for me or my family.  Hydrogen is a tiny molecule that leaks easily and has a huge flammability range.  Its low energy content per unit volume means that it has to be compressed to tremendous pressures while still containing a fraction of the energy per unit volume vs gasoline.

I think an EV would make a neat around the neighborhood shopping vehicle.  Maybe I'll build an electric Fiat Jolly after I retire.

This. The tanks needed to store hydrogen from an episode of Engineering Explained detailed they need more than 5 times the storage space for the equivalent in gas, even before getting to embrittlement. The fire it makes is invisible. This is all because fuel cells so far, likely won't replace gas since they really don't last long. As this interview from Hindenburg goes:

“I see in some news they said they have 5 year stacks. My guess is they may have 2.5 or 3 year stacks. In that range. They probably have 50% [efficiency] they can reach for 3 years.”

If anything will dethrone lithium now, my money currently is on sodium-ion or the glass batteries John Goodenough is making. 

bentwrench said:

The Hindenburg incident guarantees Hydrogen will never be a mainstream power source.

Its a good reason to not fill a zepplin with one. Other than that though it is used in a lot of places already very safely. 

bentwrench said:

The Hindenburg incident guarantees Hydrogen will never be a mainstream power source.

We will note to not make hydrogen pressure vessels out of highly flammable materials in the future.