# Hydrogen Powered House



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

Ran across this story and thought I would share.

I know there are a few engineers here and students. Read the 2 page article and see if you can spot all the fairy-tales. This article comes across as science. While there is some science to it, most of it is Poppy Cock with respect to hydrogen.

Read it and see what you spot. Then I will comment and tell you some things I caught like containment vessels, weight, volume, and pressure.


----------



## rillip3 (Jun 19, 2009)

I didn't even make it to the second page before I went "wait, what?" How does he use electricity to make hydrogen, and then have water as a by-product?

WTF, how did he get $400,000 in grants/subsidies to build this thing? Glad I don't live in NJ, that's some #$^%&%^ waste of taxes right there. All so that he doesn't have to pay any bills to utilities, which are often partially government run.

WTH kind of garage does this guy have that he can fit 56 solar panels on it? Why would you pay 400,000 to take the Tahjmahal off the grid??

How is he pumping Freon around? Isn't that stuff outlawed now?

How did he hit granite at 7.8ft down?

!!! 3 million dollars for a Mercury SABLE?? I want what Ford is smoking!!

Where is gas at $4 a gallon right now? Maybe HAWAII, sure not in New Jersey!!

Ok that's all the interesting things I gleaned from it.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

rillip3 said:


> I didn't even make it to the second page before I went "wait, what?" How does he use electricity to make hydrogen, and then have water as a by-product?


I think maybe you might have misread that part. He claims to have a hydrogen fuel cell in his home to make electricity during the winter with the hydrogen he stores up in the summer. That is where I went huh? How can he contain enough hydrogen in low pressure LPG tanks that leak around 2% per day, plus battle Hydrogen Embrittlement. 19,000/ft3 of hydrogen is not very much energy, at least not a winters worth of electricity. Maybe enough for one tank full in his Mercury Sable compressed to 10,000 PSI. Hum I wonder where he gets the energy to compress it to 10,000 PSI?




rillip3 said:


> WTF, how did he get $400,000 in grants/subsidies to build this thing? Glad I don't live in NJ, that's some #$^%&%^ waste of taxes right there. All so that he doesn't have to pay any bills to utilities, which are often partially government run.


That part really frost my pumpkin as with any government subsidy for solar PV. My firm recently built a 500 KW system for Walmart in Plano TX that generates on average about 3 Mwh per day ($400 at current TX prices). Total cost to Walmart was just under $.5 M after all the subsidies tax and utility rate payers pitched in $5 M. The system will pay off in roughly in 4 years at which point that $400 per day savings goes right to Walmarts profit line at our expense. 



rillip3 said:


> WTH kind of garage does this guy have that he can fit 56 solar panels on it? Why would you pay 400,000 to take the Tahjmahal off the grid??


Yeah that is the big lie when he says he will never pay a another dime for electricity. Off-Grid battery systems will cost you a minimum of 10 times more for electricity than buying from a electric company. He failed to mention all those batteries have to be replaced every 5 years or so at a cost of around $100K or more.


----------



## sgtlethargic (Sep 17, 2010)

Sunking said:


> I think maybe you might have misread that part. He claims to have a hydrogen fuel cell in his home to make electricity during the winter with the hydrogen he stores up in the summer. That is where I went huh? How can he contain enough hydrogen in low pressure LPG tanks that leak around 2% per day, plus battle Hydrogen Embrittlement. 19,000/ft3 of hydrogen is not very much energy, at least not a winters worth of electricity. Maybe enough for one tank full in his Mercury Sable compressed to 10,000 PSI. Hum I wonder where he gets the energy to compress it to 10,000 PSI?


I did some calculations and it doesn't seem off to me. I estimated the energy density to be 0.1 MJ/L at low pressure using a graph on page 13 of this document: 
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/bulk_hydrogen_stor_pres_sandia.pdf

I could be wrong, but I came up with 15,000 kWh of energy stored in the hydrogen tanks.

Leakage shouldn't be a problem at low pressure with steel tanks.

The only concern about hydrogen embrittlement is to structural integrity. 




Sunking said:


> ...
> 
> Yeah that is the big lie when he says he will never pay a another dime for electricity. Off-Grid battery systems will cost you a minimum of 10 times more for electricity than buying from a electric company. He failed to mention all those batteries have to be replaced every 5 years or so at a cost of around $100K or more.


The above statements are very similar to arguments against battery-electric vehicles.

I believe the statement was more to the effect of not having to pay the utility company. The article seems quite open that this is a very expensive setup.

I don't see the problem, except if one has a political problem with the state's role. It sounds to me like he's got a huge PV system, a high performance (HFC)EV, and whatever it takes to get things like this done.

Maybe the issue is: "The debate boils down to whether batteries or hydrogen are a better way to store and deliver electrical energy."

Thanks,
Kurt


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

sgtlethargic said:


> I did some calculations and it doesn't seem off to me. I estimated the energy density to be 0.1 MJ/L at low pressure using a graph on page 13 of this document:
> http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/bulk_hydrogen_stor_pres_sandia.pdf
> 
> I could be wrong, but I came up with 15,000 kWh of energy stored in the hydrogen tanks.


Hey Kurt thanks for the reply. For now I will give that the benefit of a doubt, and for argument sake say OK.

So where does the 15,000 Kwh come from? Well as you read he claim he has 56 solar panels, and in June they generate 90 Kwh per day. Ok taking that at face value June in Central NJ receives at best with 0% latitude fixed orientation 6 Sun Hour Day. Completely ignoring best case efficiency of an off-grid battery solar system of 66% would require 90 Kwh / 6 h = 15 Kw solar panel array. 15 Kw / 56 panels = 270 watts per panel. Largest panel wattage I know of are around 240 to 250. If you look at the slide show you can see the panels. From the physical size I would estimate 140 watt panels.

But this is where it gets off. Factor in 66% efficiency for a FLA battery system and the panels need to generate 90 Kwh / .66 = 136 Kwh per day, and that would take a panel wattage of 136 Kwh / 6 h = 22.6 Kw at 400 watts per panel. There is no such thing as a 400 watt solar panel that I know of. 

Next thing that really tips me off is he claims he only uses 10 Kwh per day with all the luxury toys one would expect from such a monster sized home. That strikes me as very odd. How can this guy only use 1/3 of what the average home uses? Looks like he has around 4000/ft2 home. I live in an 10 inch ICF 2500/ft2 and I use almost 3 times that much energy. My home is custom designed with geo thermal heat pumps, sun light, sun tubes, ect and I cannot do that good. I just do not see it. But for argument sake lets say he is a hermit and never uses his appliances and toys. That leaves him 80 Kwh per day for a period of a few months to make hydrogen.

How efficient is is electrolysis hydrogen generator? 75%, 50% ? What percentage does he loose to compressing it?. So assuming his electrolysis machine is 100% efficient and it takes no energy to compress the gas at 80 Kwh per day production it take 15,000 Kwh / 80 Kwh/day 188 days to fill the tanks. Well he doesn't have 188 6 Sun Hour Days to work with. He only gets 6 Sun Hour days for a few short weeks in June and early July. On average through the year at best he gets 3.9 Sun Hours with a low of 2.5 hours in December and January. Bu tif he has a 10 Kwh solar panel array which is likely, and only uses 10 Kwh per day, he has no need to generate hydrogen as he is not using what he produces anyway. Strange! 

There is just too many things that don't add up in my mind. I do believe he built the system. He has the pictures to prove it. I also believe he used your money for his own profit.


----------



## Dave Koller (Nov 15, 2008)

At the very least he could have said he used _Metal Hydride Tanks for storage..

_And that he used ultrasonic preamble to his electrolysis process to aid in breakdown ...


----------



## sgtlethargic (Sep 17, 2010)

Sunking said:


> ... see if you can spot all the fairy-tales. This article comes across as science. While there is some science to it, *most of it is Poppy Cock with respect to hydrogen*.
> 
> Read it and see what you spot. Then I will comment and tell you some things I caught like containment vessels, weight, volume, and pressure.


The above, especially the part I made bold, is what I questioned initially. As to the science- there's not enough information in the article, which is probably the nature of reporting. Without enough information there are a lot of assumptions. At what pressure is the hydrogen stored in the tanks? What is the storage system in car? I made an estimation of the energy stored in the tanks to see if it seemed anywhere near reasonable. I wouldn't bet much on it, but it seems reasonable. That amount of hydrogen looks to be more than one fill-up of the car. The bigger question is why does this article bother you?



Sunking said:


> Hey Kurt thanks for the reply. For now I will give that the benefit of a doubt, and for argument sake say OK.
> 
> So where does the 15,000 Kwh come from? Well as you read he claim he has 56 solar panels, and in June they generate 90 Kwh per day. Ok taking that at face value June in Central NJ receives at best with 0% latitude fixed orientation 6 Sun Hour Day. Completely ignoring best case efficiency of an off-grid battery solar system of 66% would require 90 Kwh / 6 h = 15 Kw solar panel array. 15 Kw / 56 panels = 270 watts per panel. Largest panel wattage I know of are around 240 to 250. If you look at the slide show you can see the panels. From the physical size I would estimate 140 watt panels.
> 
> But this is where it gets off. Factor in 66% efficiency for a FLA battery system and the panels need to generate 90 Kwh / .66 = 136 Kwh per day, and that would take a panel wattage of 136 Kwh / 6 h = 22.6 Kw at 400 watts per panel. There is no such thing as a 400 watt solar panel that I know of.


Since the 15,000 is a crude estimate I think we can't base much off of it. But, your estimate of 270 W required and 140 W panels doesn't seem like a huge difference. And, maybe there was leftover hydrogen for more than one year. Again, not enough information and probably a lot of assumptions.



Sunking said:


> Next thing that really tips me off is he claims he only uses 10 Kwh per day with all the luxury toys one would expect from such a monster sized home. That strikes me as very odd. How can this guy only use 1/3 of what the average home uses? Looks like he has around 4000/ft2 home. I live in an 10 inch ICF 2500/ft2 and I use almost 3 times that much energy. My home is custom designed with geo thermal heat pumps, sun light, sun tubes, ect and I cannot do that good. I just do not see it. But for argument sake lets say he is a hermit and never uses his appliances and toys. That leaves him 80 Kwh per day for a period of a few months to make hydrogen.


It seems to me he's not wasting a lot of energy, even though his house is larger than average. 



Sunking said:


> How efficient is is electrolysis hydrogen generator? 75%, 50% ? What percentage does he loose to compressing it?. So assuming his electrolysis machine is 100% efficient and it takes no energy to compress the gas at 80 Kwh per day production it take 15,000 Kwh / 80 Kwh/day 188 days to fill the tanks. Well he doesn't have 188 6 Sun Hour Days to work with. He only gets 6 Sun Hour days for a few short weeks in June and early July. On average through the year at best he gets 3.9 Sun Hours with a low of 2.5 hours in December and January. Bu tif he has a 10 Kwh solar panel array which is likely, and only uses 10 Kwh per day, *he has no need to generate hydrogen as he is not using what he produces anyway*. Strange!


My reply of "Not enough information" seems to apply to the estimations.

The bold part is interesting. The hydrogen is an energy storage (or I've heard it called "carrier") system for the PV system. So, what's the issue with generating hydrogen to take full advantage of a PV system? My thought is that maybe the battery pack is too big and the hydrogen storage could take more of the energy storage role. What is the life cycle and overall efficiency of the battery system versus the hydrogen system? How would a fuel cell rank in there?

And, one of the points of using hydrogen on a larger scale seems to be to take better advantage of PV and other solar and renewable energies. I don't know how other storage compares. The example that comes to my mind is an elevated water tank system. 



Sunking said:


> There is just too many things that don't add up in my mind. I do believe he built the system. He has the pictures to prove it. *I also believe he used your money for his own profit.*


I'm guessing that last part is what chaps your hide the most. How much do we know about the public utility grant money?


Anyway, I find the article and your response to it interesting. I have had pipe dreams of doing something similar to the hydrogen house but on a smaller scale. One of the reasons for doing it would be to try to determine the _realities_ of hydrogen by experience.

Thanks,
Kurt


----------



## Lordwacky (Jan 28, 2009)

I agree the thing is there just isn't enough information. I find the 90kwhr/ day from the panels to be a bit aggressive, espeacialy for jersey... I usualy estimate 1kwhr/day/m2 for system. Most panels are 1 m2, so he shoudl be getting around 56kwhr/day... 90 just seems too high.

but if you take 90 kwhrs , and his quoted loads, which again seem a bit low... but maybe he doesn't do much, you don't know. factor in some system effcencies I can get around 22-23 kwhr/day of electricity stored in form of hydrogen which seems reasonable to carry him through the winter if his loads are as stated.

as far as the electrolzer goes it is a pressureized PEM electrolyzer. it produces H2 at 30 bar at approx 60-65% eff. So he can store h2 at 30 bar at 60-65% eff.. if needs to compress further to say 200 bar it would cost him about 5% of the heating value of the H2 to do that.

So, I'm going to say that this system is feasible if his stated loads and his solar production values are correct.

Also where did you get 66% eff for FLA batteries? Use FLA systems are modeled at 85%. 66% is flow battery levels and seems really low for FLA.

As far as the whole hydrgen thing goes. For all you critics out there please tell me how you can store large amounts of energy 10s-100s MWhr in a system that has no emissions and flexible enough to have the ability to be applied through out the world. Yes the effcencies of hydrogen suck, that is because you have to generate the fuel and then consume it. the Thermodynamic gods are taxing you twice, but please give me another reasonable system that can meet this need.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

Lordwacky said:


> Also where did you get 66% eff for FLA batteries? Use FLA systems are modeled at 85%. 66% is flow battery levels and seems really low for FLA.


I was being very generous with 66%.Realistically 50%

You are only considering 80% for the batteries, and ignoring the losses in wiring between the panels to charge controller, charge controller to batteries, battery to inverter, charge controller and inverter conversion efficiency. If using a MPPT charge controller, the best you can get is 66% if you utilize every watt hour generated. If you use a shunt type charge controller the best you can get is 50% as you loose 30% just as heat loss in the controller alone (Voltage drop) because input current = output current. MPPT controllers run around 95% when operating at full capacity. So when you add all the losses up in a battery system 66% is the absolute best in theory.

The best designed Grid Tied systems are only 77 yo 80% efficient.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

sgtlethargic said:


> So, what's the issue with generating hydrogen to take full advantage of a PV system?


Simple, it is a huge waste of resources. Batteries are much more efficient and much less expensive.

The problem with a hydrogen economy boils down to this. Hydrogen is only a carrier of energy, not a source of energy,and there is no free hydrogen on this 3rd rock from the sun, it must be manufactured from other elements like water or as it is today commercially 100% from Natural Gas. Therefore the Second Law of Thermodynamics cannot be worked around and hydrogen will always be a high multiple of the source fule and will always be in competition with the source fuel. Even if that source is a renewable fuel like solar or wind. As a consumer tell me which you will buy? A Kwh from the solar farm at 20-cents, or $2 from the hydrogen plant? Who will stay in business? The electric company or the hydrogen company?


----------



## roflwaffle (Sep 9, 2008)

Sunking said:


> Yeah that is the big lie when he says he will never pay a another dime for electricity. Off-Grid battery systems will cost you a minimum of 10 times more for electricity than buying from a electric company. He failed to mention all those batteries have to be replaced every 5 years or so at a cost of around $100K or more.


At a minimum off-grid systems seem to be approaching the price of grid power. LFP cells for instance are approaching ~8c/kWh stored, and in states that have good solar panel system rebates, power can be very cheap too, ~2-6c/kWh. Provided there's a bias towards staggered daytime operation of appliances and whatnot to avoid the ~8c/kWh storage cost on most of the electricity used, it may even be able to go off-grid for under the grid rates.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

roflwaffle said:


> it may even be able to go off-grid for under the grid rates.


Sorry but I design/build a lot of grid tied systems and it is not even remotely possible. More like paying 5 to 10 times more for electricity for the rest of your life unless you live like a hermit and only use 1 or 2 Kwh per day and your electric company charges you outrageous monthly minimum service and/or connect charges. 

Here is a modest model to demonstrate. A 10 Kwh off-grid battery system in Kansas City MO.

Solar panel wattage and cost = 6000 watts @ $2 per watt = $12,000
80 Amp 48 volt MPPT Charge controller = $500
5-year 50 Kwh reserve capacity FLA battery = $110 per Kwh = $5500
2000 watt True Sine Wave inverter = $2500
Miscellaneous hardware, cable, wiring, and material = $3000
Equipment cost not including any labor or permit fees = *$23,500*

OK to compare cost we look at the first 5 years because after 5 years you have to replace the batteries at even higher cost 5 years down the road. So a 10 Kwh system will generate 10 Kwh x 1825 days = 18,250 Kwh in 5 years. That gives you a cost of $23,500 / 18,250 Kwh = $1.29 per Kwh. Going rate in KCY is 12 cents per Kwh or for 5 years will cost $2,190.00. After 5 years replace the batteries of $6000. You will never break even., it is just not possible.


----------



## sgtlethargic (Sep 17, 2010)

I think it's not a simple as you're making it out to be and that you dismiss it too easily. I'm going to try to resist replying like it's an argument and do some research and get back to this whole discussion. I will add some thoughts below. I know I don't have all of the answers, but I think I bring up some good questions.



Sunking said:


> Simple, it is a huge waste of resources...


What type of resources are you talking about? Money? Energy? Time? And, why? There's absolutely no use for hydrogen as an energy carrier?



Sunking said:


> Batteries are much more efficient and much less expensive...


In the case we're discussing, it sounds to me like there is already a large battery bank. At what point do other means of storage become more beneficial? In other words, should a huge building have an equally huge battery bank?

Are batteries are universal solution? Again, how does life cycle fit into the equation?



Sunking said:


> ... The problem with a hydrogen economy boils down to this. Hydrogen is only a carrier of energy, not a source of energy,and there is no free hydrogen on this 3rd rock from the sun, it must be manufactured from other elements like water or as it is today commercially 100% from Natural Gas. Therefore the Second Law of Thermodynamics cannot be worked around and hydrogen will always be a high multiple of the source fule and will always be in competition with the source fuel. Even if that source is a renewable fuel like solar or wind. As a consumer tell me which you will buy? A Kwh from the solar farm at 20-cents, or $2 from the hydrogen plant? Who will stay in business? The electric company or the hydrogen company?


A battery is also an energy carrier, not a fuel source, and there are no free batteries, either. They are typically built from petroleum products, toxic metals and such, and then energy must be put into them. And, get this, you don't get all of that energy back!  Like I said in a previous post, there are similar arguments against batteries/EVs.

I'm not sure I'm understanding what you mean by hydrogen being in competition with the source fuel.

Are your solar farm and hydrogen plant prices reasonable? Is that choice currently available? Is economics alone the reason to do or not do something?

Thanks,
Kurt

PS- Not that I'm a moderator, but shouldn't this discussion be in Chit Chat?


----------



## sgtlethargic (Sep 17, 2010)

Sunking,
You seem to be arguing both for and against batteries. And, you make solar sound unreasonable, so why are you in that field?

Thanks,
Kurt


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

sgtlethargic said:


> What type of resources are you talking about? Money? Energy? Time? And, why? There's absolutely no use for hydrogen as an energy carrier?


All the above because there are much more economical, efficient, and les space required for other technologies including batteries. Hydrogen has a place, but a niche IMO like submarines and spacecraft.



sgtlethargic said:


> In the case we're discussing, it sounds to me like there is already a large battery bank. At what point do other means of storage become more beneficial? In other words, should a huge building have an equally huge battery bank?


In this case he has a way undersized battery bank for the amount of solar panel wattage he has. Typically in an off-grid battery system the minimum reserve capacity is 5 days and up to 10 days. This is done to so as not to discharge the batteries more than 20% in any given day, maximize battery life, and carry you through a couple of cloudy days. Batteries have a much higher power density there for not taking an acre of real estate to house all the hydrogen tanks. 



sgtlethargic said:


> A battery is also an energy carrier, not a fuel source, and there are no free batteries, either.


 well you are correct but there is a huge efficiency issue here. Current lead acid using AGM batteries is around +90%, Lithium around 90%. Plant to wheel for hydrogen is down around 5%



sgtlethargic said:


> I'm not sure I'm understanding what you mean by hydrogen being in competition with the source fuel.


Well think about it. I have a solar, wind, NG, nuucler, coal or whatever kind of plant generating electricity. To go to a hydrogen economy you are either going to have to use NG as it is done right now because it is the most efficient means to make hydrogen of around 60% to to fractor the hydrogen loose off methane. You are way better off just burning the natural gas and and make electricity. Regardless of the source of energy, the hydrogen will always be a high multiple of the source fuel. Like I said as a consumer which are you going to buy. 20-cents for a Kwh from say solar, or $2 from the hydrogen plant? It is a no brainier.



sgtlethargic said:


> Are your solar farm and hydrogen plant prices reasonable? Is that choice currently available? Is economics alone the reason to do or not do something?


Of course economics is the reason. Who wants to wreck their economy? It boils down to efficiency, higher efficiency is always better in every respect


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

sgtlethargic said:


> Sunking,
> You seem to be arguing both for and against batteries. And, you make solar sound unreasonable, so why are you in that field?


Good question. There are niche circumstances to justify off-grid battery systems just like hydrogen in space craft and submarines. That is where it is uneconomically justifiable or impossible to have commercial power installed into a site for electric power. like a remote cabin in the woods to a hermit.  In my case all the battery systems I design are for cellular telephone towers and telemetry sites in very remote areas without electrical services.


----------



## sgtlethargic (Sep 17, 2010)

The main unresolved question for me is: *How do batteries with a relatively high cost and short life cycle compare to hydrogen?* Is there a point where the battery system costs more than the hydrogen system?

The points that seem to justify the inherent losses in hydrogen for this case are that the hydrogen house is using surplus solar energy to generate hydrogen, and the fuel source is water.

For the record, this discussion and the questions I raise have been on the hydrogen house, not a hydrogen economy. I see those as two very different things.

Thanks,
Kurt


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

What I don't get is if you really are replacing the batteries every 5 years why not use lithium? They last longer, you can use a smaller pack that can be cycled more deeply than LA, and everything I've seen suggests a better charge efficiency.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> What I don't get is if you really are replacing the batteries every 5 years why not use lithium?


5 years is a middle ground number. As you know the quality of lead acid varies widely. On the low end people will go to Walmart and buy Sam's brand golf cart batteries which are a low end Interstate battery and you might get 2 or 3 years out of them, but they cost 6 to 8 cents per watt-hour. On the high end people will buy a true deep cycle battery made for renewable energy applications like a Rolls-Surrette and if properly sized and cared for you can get up to 10 years out of them (they come with a 7 year warranty) Down side is they cost 12 to 14 cents per watt hour.

But today it still really comes down to 2 things, economics and hardware. You are correct you can use a slightly smaller capacity lithium but probable not as small as you think. Minimum recommended reserve capacity for lead acid is 5 days. This gives you 2.5 days to 50% DOD before you either have to shut down, or run a generator if you have one. So minimum for lithium would be 3 days reserve capacity. Right now lithium is still not quite economical as to get the really good long lasting ones is still around $2 per watt hour last time I checked.

The other problem it is minor and easily solved is today to the best of my knowledge there are no solar or wind charge controllers made for lithium. 

With all that said I am confident that lithium will reach parity with lead acid in a few short years if not sooner. When that happens there will be a shift in the RE market. Only problem I see it will probable be a Chi-Com dominated market.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

sgtlethargic said:


> The main unresolved question for me is: *How do batteries with a relatively high cost and short life cycle compare to hydrogen?* Is there a point where the battery system costs more than the hydrogen system?


Kurt I do not have hard data to answer accurately. First thing I would need to know is how much did his electrolyzer cost him. I suspect well into 5 digits. Next how is it powered and what are the input requirements. If it is a AC powered device using high wattage, the inverter to run it can easily run into 5 digits.

But here is the deal with a properly sized solar panels and batteries, there is a huge difference in equipment cost. For example he claims to use 10 Kwh per day in NJ. So looking at NJ solar isolation all he needs is about a 4 Kw solar panel wattage to meet his needs in short winter days. He is up around 15 to 18 Kw. 4 Kw of solar panels comes out to $8000, vs $30,000 to $36,000 for what he has. 

As for batteries he would need a 50 Kwh stack at $130 per Kwh is $6500. In addition he would probable want about a 2 to 3 Kva LP powered generator for those long cloudy spells.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

What lithium cells are you looking at for $2/wh? TS should go 3000 cycles or more at 80% DOD for less than 50 cents/wh.
http://currentevtech.com/Lithium-Batteries/Thundersky/Thundersky-200ah-cell-p27.html


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> What lithium cells are you looking at for $2/wh?


A123 Systems. I am aware of Thundersky, but like you said they should last 3000 cycles, but I have been hearing a lot of mixed real life experiences. Don't get me wrong, I think Lithium is in the near future for RE applications. Heck I switched from FLA to lithium in one of my two golf carts.


----------



## roflwaffle (Sep 9, 2008)

Aren't A123 cells are only about $.7/Wh from the seller on endless-sphere? Anyway, I don't think I'd like to deal with balancing all those little cells. The big TS cells are similar in terms of lifespan (~5k cycles to 70% dod), they just can't keep up in terms of discharge rates. The only negative experiences I can think of are either from buying from shady sellers (old, possibly rusty cells) or buying the incorrect battery (The guy who bought the 12V starter batteries to use in his EV Civic).


----------



## roflwaffle (Sep 9, 2008)

Sunking said:


> Sorry but I design/build a lot of grid tied systems and it is not even remotely possible. More like paying 5 to 10 times more for electricity for the rest of your life unless you live like a hermit and only use 1 or 2 Kwh per day and your electric company charges you outrageous monthly minimum service and/or connect charges.
> 
> Here is a modest model to demonstrate. A 10 Kwh off-grid battery system in Kansas City MO.
> 
> ...


So... You design a lot of systems, but you're assuming the use of SLAs when my post explicitly mentioned using LFP cells? You also are ignoring state/federal incentives, which, again, my post mentioned.


Sunking said:


> OK to compare cost we look at the first 5 years because after 5 years you have to replace the batteries at even higher cost 5 years down the road. So a 10 Kwh system will generate 10 Kwh x 1825 days = 18,250 Kwh in 5 years. That gives you a cost of $23,500 / 18,250 Kwh = $1.29 per Kwh. Going rate in KCY is 12 cents per Kwh or for 5 years will cost $2,190.00. After 5 years replace the batteries of $6000. You will never break even., it is just not possible.


Wait a sec. Is your system 10kW or 6kW? You're bouncing around a bit. Also, you stated that your system will be $1.29/kWh. If you're calculating cost you're going to need to levelized cost, not just a snapshot, unless of course you're assuming the whole system gets tossed off a cliff after five years.

Don't get me wrong, I think you're correct that a system with no rebates or tax credits and a ton of SLA batteries being replaced every five years is more expensive than grid power, but that's not what I was referring to. For one, your reserve capacity is way too large to be cost effective, it's cheaper spend a couple grand more up front on a generator, an inverter that can control it, and a few gallons of gas per year than spending an extra couple grand on additional batteries every five years just so the owner can have four days of reserve capacity instead of one or two, not that it would be an issue in the sunnier parts of the U.S. Using SLAs is cheaper in the short run, but it's also about two times (or more) as expensive in the long run. The charge/discharge efficiency of LFP cells is better too, so that'll impact costs. Also, there's no mention of biasing appliance use towards the day when the electricity can be used w/o having to store it and incur the cost associated w/ that, nor is there any mention of state or federal rebates/tax credits, both of which drastically reduce the system cost.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

roflwaffle said:


> So... You design a lot of systems, but you're assuming the use of SLAs when my post explicitly mentioned using LFP cells? You also are ignoring state/federal incentives, which, again, my post mentioned.


I never said anything about SLA batteries. I priced it using FLA. SLA's would be substantially higher in cost.



roflwaffle said:


> Wait a sec. Is your system 10kW or 6kW? You're bouncing around a bit. Also, you stated that your system will be $1.29/kWh. If you're calculating cost you're going to need to levelized cost, not just a snapshot, unless of course you're assuming the whole system gets tossed off a cliff after five years.


I am not bouncing around. I clearly said the example is a system designed to generate *10 KWH i*n KCY which would take a* 6 Kw *solar panel wattage in KCY winter*. *Incentives and rebate doesn't matter. Cut it in half with your tax dollars and higher utility rates and it is still more expensive*. *I never said to throw the system off a cliff after 5 years, I said replace the batteries every 5 years.


roflwaffle said:


> Don't get me wrong, I think you're correct that a system with no rebates or tax credits and a ton of SLA batteries being replaced every five years is more expensive than grid power, but that's not what I was referring to. For one, your reserve capacity is way too large to be cost effective,


Well then do some homework.  5 day reserve capacity is the minimum recommended design practice as that only gives you 2.5 days capacity to hit the magic 50% DOD mark, at which point the generator is needed. At 20% daily usage you extend the life of the batteries up to 5 years or more. Go more than 20% per day and you are eating into a lot cycles. FWIW I would never use a gasoline generator. Either LPG, NG, or Diesel.


----------



## sgtlethargic (Sep 17, 2010)

What's your take on the other point?


----------



## roflwaffle (Sep 9, 2008)

Sunking said:


> I never said anything about SLA batteries. I priced it using FLA. SLA's would be substantially higher in cost.
> 
> I am not bouncing around. I clearly said the example is a system designed to generate *10 KWH i*n KCY which would take a* 6 Kw *solar panel wattage in KCY winter*.*


My bad, I misread your post.


Sunking said:


> Incentives and rebate doesn't matter. Cut it in half with your tax dollars and higher utility rates and it is still more expensive*.*


Sure they matter. Like I pointed out in below, your're assuming an extremely agressive and unrealistic amount of depreciation. The system will likely function more than just five years. If you cut the initial cost in half from incentives, the cost would be down below ~$.35c/kWh over ~25+ years. If you go w/ LFP cells and run stuff with a strong bias for daytime operation then the cells could last the entire ~25+ years w/ a net cost of ~14c/kWh, within spitting distance of the national average of ~12c/kWh. Not everyone would have the ability to put together something like this, but that doesn't make it impossible.


Sunking said:


> I never said to throw the system off a cliff after 5 years, I said replace the batteries every 5 years.


If you had just mentioned replacing the batteries every five years then your levelized cost in real dollars over something reasonable like a time period greater than the solar panel warranty (~25+ years for most). $23,500 + $22,000 (four battery replacements) / 91,250 Kwh (25 years of power) = ~$.60/kWh would be reasonable, and since the panels probably will last longer than 25 years, the net cost would probably be less than ~$.60/kWh. The only way you're going to see a cost of $23,500 / 18,250 Kwh = $1.29 per Kwh is if you don't continue to use the equipment you invested in five years ago (throw everything off a cliff). People who replace the batteries and continue to use them would see way less than ~$1.28/kWh. Besides, with LFP cells your net generation is going to be greater because LAs in general have poor charge/discharge efficiency, so you're probably going to be at or around 12c/kWh after ~25+ years w/ the system I mentioned.


Sunking said:


> Well then do some homework.  5 day reserve capacity is the minimum recommended design practice as that only gives you 2.5 days capacity to hit the magic 50% DOD mark, at which point the generator is needed. At 20% daily usage you extend the life of the batteries up to 5 years or more. Go more than 20% per day and you are eating into a lot cycles.


Speaking of homework , it may seem counterintuitive but shallow cycles can be less cost effective than medium cycles. For instance in the graph I linked, the Trojan cell can do ~1000 cycles at ~25% dod, so 1kWh of battery would store about 250kWh over it's lifespan. At 50% dod it can do ~600 cycles, so the net storage is ~300kWh, higher than if it's cycled in a shallow manner. The biggest issue w/ higher dods would be weaker cells screwing everything up, but w/ a decent BMS that shouldn't be an issue for LA/LFP/etc. Pack size really depends on what the consumer wants. Sure, you can err on the side of caution, and have to if your LAs aren't very robust or they don't have a BMS on a cell by cell basis, but that doesn't mean everyone has to do that.


Sunking said:


> FWIW I would never use a gasoline generator. Either LPG, NG, or Diesel.


It depends on the specifc engine more than anything IMO. I'd go w/ a homebrew 22R genset before I'd go with a low end diesel.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Sunking said:


> A123 Systems. I am aware of Thundersky, but like you said they should last 3000 cycles, but I have been hearing a lot of mixed real life experiences. Don't get me wrong, I think Lithium is in the near future for RE applications. Heck I switched from FLA to lithium in one of my two golf carts.


I think you're being too cautious about the Chinese prismatics. I've heard of no problems at all with the LiFePO4 cells from TS and SE/CALB. Dave Kois from currentevtech.com says some of his RAV4 conversions have been going for 5 years on TS cells with no issues. I assume the PV systems don't draw high C rates most of the time so they should last even longer in that application.


----------



## Dave Koller (Nov 15, 2008)

Google - Strizki hydrogen home

Unlike me, on dial-up, you should have no trouble seeing the videos...


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

roflwaffle said:


> Sure they matter. Like I pointed out in below, your're assuming an extremely agressive and unrealistic amount of depreciation.


We are not on the same page here  I have not even taken depreciation into the equation. I am assuming none of the panels, charge controllers, inverters, ect get replaced over the life of the system. All I am telling you is just the cost of the batteries over the life of the sytems will always be more than commercial power. If you throw in the original cost of the rest of the equipment it gets worse, which is what I did with the first 5 year cycle. So please get off the 5 year throw all the equipment away and start over routine, I never implied that. 



roflwaffle said:


> If you had just mentioned replacing the batteries every five years then your levelized cost in real dollars over something reasonable like a time period greater than the solar panel warranty (~25+ years for most). $23,500 + $22,000 (four battery replacements) / 91,250 Kwh (25 years of power) = ~$.60/kWh would be reasonable


Well the 25 year life of a solar panel is a bit deceptive in my 10 years of experience with them, Failure rate is running around 7 to 10% mostly caused from moisture penetration. The auxiliary equipment like charge controllers and inverters are not likely to ever last that long. However i have not even gone to figure those cost in.



roflwaffle said:


> u're probably going to be at or around 12c/kWh after ~25+ years w/ the system I mentioned.


Well I think you are being a little unrealistic in your expectations. Not many people stay in one home for 25 years in this day and age. Besides if you had a home with off-grid battery system, it would be extremely hard to sell especially if you neighborhood has commercial power.




roflwaffle said:


> Speaking of homework , it may seem counterintuitive but shallow cycles can be less cost effective than medium cycles.


Hey I like your graph, where did you get it. I have one of my own that I made but would like to see one with many brands and models. What your graph shows clearly to me is Trojan batteries really suk since they were bought out by private equity. I only wished your graph went up to 10% DOD as the cycles on Surrette spike way upwards.



roflwaffle said:


> but w/ a decent BMS that shouldn't be an issue for LA/LFP/etc. Pack size really depends on what the consumer wants.


Well I am glad you brought up BMS again as I was going to say something earlier but forgot. Just how much does that cost and where do you get one? Point I am making here to my knowledge there are no LFP charge controllers or BMC for solar or wind systems. I think that will change someday in the near future, but for now no demand and no product.

My whole point is it is almost impossible to ever to get ahead with a battery system. There are some niche applications where you can justify one, but for most of the public it does not apply economically. Well that change someday? Maybe, but not soon.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I would imagine any BMS that works in an EV would work for solar, and would probably have even less to do since I don't imagine you draw high currents. Cells would likely stay well balanced on their own at low C rates. Dimitri's MiniBMS costs about $12 per cell plus $30 for the control unit.


----------



## sgtlethargic (Sep 17, 2010)

Dave Koller said:


> Google - Strizki hydrogen home
> 
> Unlike me, on dial-up, you should have no trouble seeing the videos...


You're not the only one here on dial-up.


----------



## 9852 (Jan 17, 2010)

My whole point is it is almost impossible to ever to get ahead with a battery system. There are some niche applications where you can justify one, but for most of the public it does not apply economically. Well that change someday? Maybe, but not soon.[/quote]

well I think the whole reason for doing any sort of alternative power sourse for most people is to save a bit of money, not to nessiarly run the whole house. I have a small 5000w system installed in my home, but it is not a grid tie system, it is stand alone, and runs all of my 110 volt circuits in my home, just that system alone brings my bill down to 200 bucks in the summer with the ac on full here in phoenix, so it has paid for its self in the 3 years that i had it.


----------



## roflwaffle (Sep 9, 2008)

Sunking said:


> We are not on the same page here  I have not even taken depreciation into the equation. I am assuming none of the panels, charge controllers, inverters, ect get replaced over the life of the system. All I am telling you is just the cost of the batteries over the life of the sytems will always be more than commercial power. If you throw in the original cost of the rest of the equipment it gets worse, which is what I did with the first 5 year cycle. So please get off the 5 year throw all the equipment away and start over routine, I never implied that.


The $1.28/kWh is your figure, not mine.  I'm just saying that the only way someone will see that is if they buy all the stuff, install the system themselves, and stop using it after 5 years. That doesn't seem likely. Given incentives and constant use (why buy it if it isn't needed?) someone will probably see a levelized ~$.35/kWh (or higher if the charge controller/inverter fail every 15+ years or so). There's no way someone would see $1.28/kWh unless they literally stop using everything after ive years. Even if they sell the house the system will still have a lot of residual value and should be reflected in the sale price.


Sunking said:


> Well the 25 year life of a solar panel is a bit deceptive in my 10 years of experience with them, Failure rate is running around 7 to 10% mostly caused from moisture penetration. The auxiliary equipment like charge controllers and inverters are not likely to ever last that long. However i have not even gone to figure those cost in.


Hmmm... That sounds almost like neglect. Granted, I live in the desert so it's not an issue for me, but equipment still needs to be maintained depending on the location. I can't see charge controllers/inverters requiring replacement very often unless they really blow. Grid tied inverters tend to have 15 year warranties, and they'll probably last a fair bit longer than that (or else the manufacturer would be losing money hand over fist in the future).



Sunking said:


> Well I think you are being a little unrealistic in your expectations. Not many people stay in one home for 25 years in this day and age. Besides if you had a home with off-grid battery system, it would be extremely hard to sell especially if you neighborhood has commercial power.


It's not like the system has no value after it's installed. It'll still have residual value. Granted, there's no point in going w/ off-grid solar when grid-tied solar is a much better deal, but I don't think we're talking about people who can get a grid connection for free or nearly free. It's the people who will get charged thousands to run a few poles/lines who would seriously consider off-grid.


Sunking said:


> Hey I like your graph, where did you get it. I have one of my own that I made but would like to see one with many brands and models. What your graph shows clearly to me is Trojan batteries really suk since they were bought out by private equity. I only wished your graph went up to 10% DOD as the cycles on Surrette spike way upwards.


Just a g00gl3 image search. The Surrettes seem nice, but they're more than half the cost of LFP cells and I don't think they could last 5000 cycles to 70% dod.


Sunking said:


> Well I am glad you brought up BMS again as I was going to say something earlier but forgot. Just how much does that cost and where do you get one? Point I am making here to my knowledge there are no LFP charge controllers or BMC for solar or wind systems. I think that will change someday in the near future, but for now no demand and no product.


Like JRP3 mentioned, minibms would probably be fine. It would run ~$700 for a ~12 kWh pack. The voltage range of LFP cells is close enough to LA cells that integration shouldn't be a problem.


Sunking said:


> My whole point is it is almost impossible to ever to get ahead with a battery system. There are some niche applications where you can justify one, but for most of the public it does not apply economically. Well that change someday? Maybe, but not soon.


It depends on the situation. It's certainly almost impossible w/ a large FLA pack that needs replacement every five years, and it'll never compete w/ grid-tied solar given current incentives, but at least for some people a properly design off-grid system w/ LFP cells could be the same price as grid power, or maybe cheaper if the utility really wants to gouge them for running a few pole/lines. My point initially was that it's possible, even if it's not likely because of current trends.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

roflwaffle said:


> Like JRP3 mentioned, minibms would probably be fine. It would run ~$700 for a ~12 kWh pack.


I don't know what DC voltages are normal for a PV array but a 38 cell 100ah pack would give you 120V nominal and 12KWH. 38 x $13 =$494 + $30 for the control unit = $524


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> I don't know what DC voltages are normal for a PV array but a 38 cell 100ah pack would give you 120V nominal and 12KWH. 38 x $13 =$494 + $30 for the control unit = $524


Off-Grid battery systems run at 12, 24, 36, 48, aqnd a few rare 60 volt battery system.

As for the panel voltages things have changed a bit with the introduction of MPPT charge controllers. Old school 12 volt panels ran a voltage maximum power at 16 to 18 volts, and you can deduct the multiples by series connection to go up to 24, 36.... For those systems yo ran old school shunt linear type controllers which have an efficiency of 65 to 70%

Today if you spring for the extra money you can get MPPT controllers. Basically they are either switch mode, or buck-boost DC to DC converters which allow you to run up to around 150 Volts Open Circuit or around 120 Volts Maximum power to battery voltages of 12, 24,...60. Running the higher voltages yeilds less current and power losses between the panels and charge controller. In addition the controllers run as high as 96% efficiency.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

billhac said:


> well I think the whole reason for doing any sort of alternative power sourse for most people is to save a bit of money, not to nessiarly run the whole house. I have a small 5000w system installed in my home, but it is not a grid tie system, it is stand alone, and runs all of my 110 volt circuits in my home, just that system alone brings my bill down to 200 bucks in the summer with the ac on full here in phoenix, so it has paid for its self in the 3 years that i had it.


5000 watts a small battery system.?  Paid back in 3 years huh? 

Well you have done something no one else in Arizona has done so far to my knowledge. I know of many folks who have 3 to 6 Kw grid tied systems, which is about 1/2 to 2/3 the cost of a battery system. They recieved all the fed, state, and utility incentives and they are looking at 6 to 10 year ROI. You did it 3 years at even higher cost huh? Tell me your specs for this small 5000 watt system. Battery voltage? Battery capacity? How is it wired into your home wiring. Gross Cost? Out of pocket or net cost after rebates?


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Sunking said:


> Off-Grid battery systems run at 12, 24, 36, 48, aqnd a few rare 60 volt battery system.


Then the BMS would be even cheaper.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

roflwaffle said:


> Granted, there's no point in going w/ off-grid solar when grid-tied solar is a much better deal, but I don't think we're talking about people who can get a grid connection for free or nearly free..


Thank you that is what I have been driving at.  As I have said off-grid battery systems are a niche application like a home out in the sticks with no feasible commercial power available, or like what I do with remote telemetry and cell towers.



roflwaffle said:


> Like JRP3 mentioned, minibms would probably be fine. It would run ~$700 for a ~12 kWh pack. The voltage range of LFP cells is close enough to LA


Hey look I would be all for trying LFP is I could talk a clint into it, but I cannot because there are no LFP charge controllers that I know of. Inverter are no problen working at 14 volts on a 12 volt pack. Sure someong like you are I could modify a lead acid controller or even design one, but the challenge for LFP is no commercial charge controllers out there as of yet. Maybe someday I hope, but will have to wait and work with what I can.


----------



## 9852 (Jan 17, 2010)

Sunking said:


> 5000 watts a small battery system.?  Paid back in 3 years huh?
> 
> Well you have done something no one else in Arizona has done so far to my knowledge. I know of many folks who have 3 to 6 Kw grid tied systems, which is about 1/2 to 2/3 the cost of a battery system. They recieved all the fed, state, and utility incentives and they are looking at 6 to 10 year ROI. You did it 3 years at even higher cost huh? Tell me your specs for this small 5000 watt system. Battery voltage? Battery capacity? How is it wired into your home wiring. Gross Cost? Out of pocket or net cost after rebates?


 ok, come see it for your self, but it uses a midified sinewave inverter, the controller is kinda like a power transfer switch in that it uses the power from the 4 200w evergreen panels to run the inverter and charge the batteries, which allowes the inverter to make 25 amps of power for my home, it is rated for more but that 25 amps takes care of all of the 120v circuits in my home and on the off chance that its raining or when it is night it will run for 4 -6 hours on the batteries, and when the batteries get low it has a voltage monitor that will switch( hence the like a transfer switch) back to utility power untill the batteries are charged then automaticaly turn back on to battery power, total cost is around 3 grand to build, and im suprised that you havent heard of it, i sold 100 of them around the valley, even sold 2 to the owner of lopers performance center, to take both of his ac units off grid for 10-12 hours a day, they all got the state and federal incentives, but aps wont indorse it because, they dont get any of the power. it wont run the entire house it is small, but the smallest unit will take all of the 120v off of the utility bill, and I even charge my ev with it now, you can see the unit at this link http://ev.gearboxmagazine.com/2010/07/13/bill-hackneys-neon/, the problem here is too many people have been talked in to these big solar power systems that they wont see any ROI for 20 years, I offer a better alternative, so it can be done.


----------



## roflwaffle (Sep 9, 2008)

Sunking said:


> Hey look I would be all for trying LFP is I could talk a clint into it, but I cannot because there are no LFP charge controllers that I know of. Inverter are no problen working at 14 volts on a 12 volt pack. Sure someong like you are I could modify a lead acid controller or even design one, but the challenge for LFP is no commercial charge controllers out there as of yet. Maybe someday I hope, but will have to wait and work with what I can.


Lead acid charge controllers are fine for LFP cells. They're just multiples of 3.2V, so a 48V nominal system would be however many groups of 15 cells in series. The only problem I could think of would be if the charge controller overcharged the cells, but the BMS will prevent that. W/ LAs at ~55+V fully charged for a nominal 48V string, there shouldn't be any issues. A TS cell should be mostly full as it approaches 3.4V-3.5V based on their discharge curves.


----------



## sgtlethargic (Sep 17, 2010)

It's not even my thread and I feel like trying to steer it back to the original topic ... oh yeah, the hydrogen house.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

billhac said:


> the controller is kinda like a power transfer switch in that it uses the power from the 4 200w evergreen panels to run the inverter and charge the batteries, which allowes the inverter to make 25 amps of power for my home, it is rated for more but that 25 amps takes care of all of the 120v circuits in my home and on the off chance that its raining or when it is night it will run for 4 -6 hours on the batteries, and when the batteries get low it has a voltage monitor that will switch( hence the like a transfer switch) back to utility power


OK you have changed your story from a 5000 watt off-grid stand alone system to a 800 watt* hybrid system*. 

In Phoenix using the yearly average Insolation of 6.4 Sun Hours a day on a battery system accounting for losses can generate 800 watts x 6.4 hours x .7 efficiency = 3.5 Kwh per day. At current electric rates of 15 cents per Kwh works out to 53-cents per day, $16 per month, $192 per year. With $3000 initial investment you are looking at 15 years to break even. Well that is if you do not count replacing the batteries every 5 years or so for a $1000 a pop. So you can see why I am skeptical of your claims, your numbers and story do not add up.


----------



## roflwaffle (Sep 9, 2008)

sgtlethargic said:


> It's not even my thread and I feel like trying to steer it back to the original topic ... oh yeah, the hydrogen house.


On topic? What's that? 

But yeah, the big problems w/ a Hydrogen house are cost and cost. If someone goes the fuel cell route, it's way more expensive than batteries in terms of cost per kWh store/produced. Doing something like a hydrogen genset avoids that, but then efficiency is really poor, requiring about 3x-4x the number of solar panels that a normal PV/battery system would need.


----------



## zeroemission (Sep 14, 2010)

hey! how come YOU can use the hydrogen word and every time i do here i'm some kind of villain!

double standard rage... double standard rage...
i'd meditate, but if i said ohm... someone would offer resistance!
(see what i did there?) LOL


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Maybe because he's not trying to power vehicles with it and because he's mentioned the inefficiency of the process.


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

zeroemission said:


> hey! how come YOU can use the hydrogen word and every time i do here i'm some kind of villain!
> 
> double standard rage... double standard rage...
> i'd meditate, but if i said ohm... someone would offer resistance!
> (see what i did there?) LOL


 it's simple if you google you get a very limited view of the fuel cell , electrolyzers and H2 . 10 different types of fuel cells acid , koh ,etc. same for electrolyzers 50% to 95% eff , same for H2 . it started out no one knew what a fuel was , then the cal. fuel cell thing set up to kill both the ev and fuel cell tech . they used miss direction to great advantage


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

No misdirection needed to kill fuel cells for transportation uses, physics takes care of that.


----------



## roflwaffle (Sep 9, 2008)

At least w/ current PEM stuff. The DOE was shooting for ~5,000 hours off operation under widely varying conditions and ~$30/kW for FC vehicles to compete w/ conventional vehicles. Currently lifespan is ~2,000 hours and cost is ~$3000/kW. So... the best we could hope for would be a 1 kW system running at 100% (not likely, the 2000 hours was under varying loads), which would cost about $1.50/kWh to produce electricity.

Going w/ a Hydrogen genset is cheaper, but w/ efficiency of ~20% for generators and ~60% for electrolysis someone needs ~4x-6x more solar panels for that system then a LFP or FLA system.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> No misdirection needed to kill fuel cells for transportation uses, physics takes care of that.


Amen brother.


----------



## sgtlethargic (Sep 17, 2010)

JRP3 said:


> No misdirection needed to kill fuel cells for transportation uses, physics takes care of that.


Do tell ...


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

sgtlethargic said:


> Do tell ...


Second law of Thermal Dynamics. Put in laymen terms efficiency of the carrier. From plant to wheel you are looking at 5 to 10% best case.


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

come on how many hrs. did you guys read about each of the systems involved


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Not sure what you're getting at. If you are aware of existing cost effective methods of freeing up hydrogen, storing it, transporting it, storing it again in the vehicle, creating the infrastructure, building long lasting highly efficient fuel cells, you are apparently ahead of the entire industry.


----------



## sgtlethargic (Sep 17, 2010)

Sunking said:


> Second law of Thermal Dynamics. Put in laymen terms efficiency of the carrier. From plant to wheel you are looking at 5 to 10% best case.


What's the plant-to-wheel efficiency of batteries?


----------



## sgtlethargic (Sep 17, 2010)

aeroscott said:


> come on how many hrs. did you guys read about each of the systems involved


I think what he's getting at is what I've been getting at: not enough info to draw conclusions.

And I'll add that it sure is easy to dismiss things.

And, I have an unanswered question or two in this thread.


----------



## sgtlethargic (Sep 17, 2010)

Sunking said:


> Second law of Thermal Dynamics. Put in laymen terms efficiency of the carrier. From plant to wheel you are looking at 5 to 10% best case.


What's your source for this value? In layman's terms, you seem to like to put out very vague and unsubstantiated values and thoughts on a very complex issue. It's akin to saying Obama shouldn't be president because he's Muslim and a socialist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell#Efficiency


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I'd say if you have information contrary to generally accepted recent analysis the onus is upon you to provide it. Nothing I've read recently leads me to believe there has been a substantial breakthrough in all of the areas necessary for FCV's to compete with BEV's, let alone one of them.
Here are some examples of analysis:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/greendorm/participate/cee124/TeslaReading.pdf
http://www.modenergy.com/BEVs vs FCVs EavesEaves 120603.pdf


----------



## sgtlethargic (Sep 17, 2010)

JRP3 said:


> I'd say if you have information contrary to generally accepted recent analysis the onus is upon you to provide it. Nothing I've read recently leads me to believe there has been a substantial breakthrough in all of the areas necessary for FCV's to compete with BEV's, let alone one of them.
> Here are some examples of analysis:
> http://www.stanford.edu/group/greendorm/participate/cee124/TeslaReading.pdf
> http://www.modenergy.com/BEVs vs FCVs EavesEaves 120603.pdf



My point is the onus on anyone speaking in scientific terms is to substantiate their claim. Stating the second law of thermodynamics isn't a catchall.

I'm not saying I'm a proponent of hydrogen, fuel cells, and HFCEVs. Frankly, I don't know.


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> I'd say if you have information contrary to generally accepted recent analysis the onus is upon you to provide it. Nothing I've read recently leads me to believe there has been a substantial breakthrough in all of the areas necessary for FCV's to compete with BEV's, let alone one of them.
> Here are some examples of analysis:
> http://www.stanford.edu/group/greendorm/participate/cee124/TeslaReading.pdf
> http://www.modenergy.com/BEVs vs FCVs EavesEaves 120603.pdf


A very quick look at Stanford work reference 17 22% eff on electrolyzer buy GM , BP ,etc . the next study says 72%. now I know a way to make is look even worse we'll use my old solar broken solar panels @ 2.5% eff ( 72% x 2.5%= 1.8% ) no lie ! but complete bs no ! so when GM , BP say something , well show me the math . they only talk PEM cells the lowest eff , shortest life , most expensive materials and hardest to make work. KOH cells work in the 90%+ at low power drooping as you pull higher power ,but always better then PEM , they also work as an electrolyzer @90% + eff depending how hard you push them . the more amps the more heat just like a battery , the difference is we don't talk much about battery eff. at high power levels . why the different standards ! I'll bet I could push a battery or KOH fc so hard it was 1% eff then add that to my 2.5% solar = .25% (battery) . FC 2.5% (solar) x 1% (electrolyzer)x 1% (FC) = .00025% system eff. see all ev's can't work I didn't lie (BS)


----------



## roflwaffle (Sep 9, 2008)

Alkaline fuel cells are kinda like those sodium batteries. They require a minimum of ~150F (up to 400+F) to operate, so for always on apps they may be OK but they aren't suitable for consumer products w/ varying demand. Efficiency is comparable to PEM cells except PEM cells are most efficient at lower power levels.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi Guys
I will expand on Sunking's - laws of physics

Hydrogen is good stuff - combustion energy ~120 Mj/Kg (petrol 44 Mj/kg),(Gasoline)

the problem is the density -~ 0.00009Kg/L (petrol 0.71 Kg/L)

Liquid hydrogen boils at 20 degrees Kelvin (Liquid Nitrogen 77 K)
So liquefying it won't work - serious cryogenics!

Lets compress it down to , lets say 10% of the energy in petrol - so you would only need ten times as many tankers

That works out at 300 Bar (4,500 psi - need strong tankers!)

So 300 m3 of hydrogen compressed to 1 m3 
Assuming isothermal compression (least energy) you will need 4485 Mj of energy to compress the gas
300 m3 of hydrogen will mass 27 Kg and will have a combustion energy of 3267 Mj

So in order to get 3267 Mj worth of fuel I have had to add 4485 Mj of energy,
There is 42% efficiency right there!

Convert water to Hydrogen -----70%
Compress Hydrogen -----42% - no way you would get as good as this
Store/transport -----90% - it leaks like crazy - very high pressure lots of tankers
Convert Hydrogen to electricity ----------70%

Total efficiency 19%

In practice probably less than 5% 

*The problem is the density -~ 0.00009Kg/L (petrol 0.71 Kg/L)*


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

roflwaffle said:


> Alkaline fuel cells are kinda like those sodium batteries. They require a minimum of ~150F (up to 400+F) to operate, so for always on apps they may be OK but they aren't suitable for consumer products w/ varying demand. Efficiency is comparable to PEM cells except PEM cells are most efficient at lower power levels.


 they run at room temp and up , instant start up , have higher eff numbers across the range (all fuel cells and battreies are more eff. at lower numbers) PEM is never more eff at any numbers then koh (ohms)PEM's need to be heated to work .(PEM is acid ie higher ohms , koh lower ohms , some one handed you a line, maybe another BP study . 75,000 hrs demonstrated life (united technologies)


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Aero, might be helpful if you post some links to back your claims. Industry sponsored reports don't count.


----------



## rumleyfips (Oct 15, 2008)

A few things puzzle me about this thread. Why so much anger. The excuse is that the guy must be skimming ( no proof offered) although the same commenter says that because of battery replacement he will always lose money. Inconcistency questions all the other comments.

Again ; why so angry about enery use levels. The guy says he uses 10kwh/day. He must therefore be lying. My wife and I use 11.5 kwh on a year round basis. Less in the summer and 6 more in winter. Nova Scotia has a 6 month heating season and a wood furnace uses the fan about 20 hours per day. Our water heater is oil fired and wiring a switch upstairs makes it an on demand system. Its only been niutbtricoa few years since we got oil delivered, so it will take a few more to know how much we use. Probably 2-21/2 gallons a month. We have a 42" tv, a fridge full of beer, an electric range and other stuff. 10 kwh/day does not seem unreasonable to me. We have a drier but don't use it. No sacrifices, only adjustments.

Is the guy lying? I don't know : I haven't seen the system and the records. Do I think he is making a signifigant contribution? Yes. Even if the cost never rationalise, integration is the way to go. He is showing that it can be done.

The batteries for my riding mower came from a recycling depot at [email protected] They are old dual purpose batteries out of a Freightliner sleeper cab. Any problems and they scrap all four. My gain. I have put them through 150 cycles the past 2 summers. A charge mows for 1-1/4 hours. I mow my acre in three segments. This summer I built 45 volts of solar panels that have charged the batteries the past 5 months. It takes about 2 days to charge. $4 for gas, 24 cents for mains electricity, sun free.

My Suzuki Carry pickup is on the way from Japan. I have all the parts ready for an electric conversion using a GE aircraft starter generator. It will have 2 -48 volt packs, UPS batteries cycled out and bought from another recycling depot fpr [email protected] Some of these have barely been used but are cycled out on a calender basis.

96 volts in total is important for integration purposes. My wind turbine is a 96 volt system. The truck should serve as an extra battery bank for emergencies. I have about half the solar panels to charge the truck built. 120 volts should get me 12 milkes to the beer store and back once a week free. The lawnmower panels are crude, but my new design used cutdown aluminum windows, a 2x4' sheet of plywood, 42 cells annd some silicon.

You can call me an idiot and it won't help: I'll still be an idiot. Negative criticism with a reason, however, may help me avoid stupid mistakes.

My lawnmower can be found on evalbum by searching Nova Scotia, Canada.

John McManus


----------



## rumleyfips (Oct 15, 2008)

This is another way to finf me. Evalbum/3340.

John McManus


----------



## rumleyfips (Oct 15, 2008)

You can find me at evalbum/3340.

John McManus


----------



## jeremyjs (Sep 22, 2010)

What a waste of money. He can waste his money however he likes, but wasting tax payer money like that should be a crime.


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> Aero, might be helpful if you post some links to back your claims. Industry sponsored reports don't count.


this research was pre internet . some of it goes back to 60's . oh if you can find Vannortands Scientific Encyclopedia 1976 edition is the only one that was good . Just about 2 pages but it put PEM in one column and KOH next to it . That was what started may study . then Cal state library (Government / at the Capital) had a book from 1967 on fuel patents . then the colleges libraries , energy conversion conference's , NASA tech briefs , The Europeans were doing a lot of advanced FC work on KOH like 3 O ring seals for 50 year service , I'll stop buy the CAL fuel cell place and see what I can find , but I have little faith in them . One book I found at Sacramento main city library was on the air force study on fueling air craft with both LH2 and LO2 . A huge amount of work has been done it's has always been tuf to find , I hoped when the internet came on line it would be easy er , but it is not .


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

So you're referencing 40 year old work that today's fuel cell companies are some how unaware of? You're saying there are affordable highly efficient fuel cells that no one is building? Something doesn't add up.


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> So you're referencing 40 year old work that today's fuel cell companies are some how unaware of? You're saying there are affordable highly efficient fuel cells that no one is building? Something doesn't add up.


 Many things are not adding up . I did talk the smallest fuel cell company into koh system . tuck about 3 years of talking to them at the SEAR energy conference , can't remember the name ,last time I saw them was at the fuel cell partnership's grand opening in west sacramento . they made the toy fc cars and teaching aids . at the opening they said we are building koh cells . they would be cheap , stainless steel , silver and nickle catalyst . lost contact .


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Everything I've seen suggest that KOH cells operate from 150F and up, not exactly room temperature, and that they are highly susceptible to poisoning and not suitable for automotive applications.


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> Everything I've seen suggest that KOH cells operate from 150F and up, not exactly room temperature, and that they are highly susceptible to poisoning and not suitable for automotive applications.


 they did get PEM cells working with huge money and time . when they started had very low amps at a time when koh was working well .but they had to add a 30 hp air compressor to enrich the air to 95% o2 . I went for a ride / drive day in 5 fc cars and im riding in the VW at 25-30 mph and burning 70kwh , I ask are we using all this power . He says the air compressor and other supporting equipment . But it will go 500 mile per tank .now if true and you caryed o2 on board , no 30 hp air enricher or with air 20% more eff koh would lesson fuel burn . poisoning has to do with the co2 poisoning the electrolyte like it does with Edison cells or nicads great debate if this is just a mater of changing the electrolyte like a oil change . they have been having problems with needing very clean fuel with the pem system burning up the pem membrane . this membrane is the weak link , if contaminated it will burn up , hot spots like a catalytic propane heater .


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Sounds to me as if my original conclusions are quite valid, automotive fuel cells are still no where near practical after 40+ years of work, let alone the rest of the entire hydrogen chain.


----------

