Dynetek Lands C$7M Award for 700 bar Hydrogen Storage Tank Systems for DaimlerChrysler Fuel Cell Program
06 February 2007
 |
| Tank wall thickness for different pressure hydrogen storage systems. Click to enlarge. Source: Dynetek |
Dynetek Industries has accepted a purchase order representing approximately C$7 million (US$5.9 million) in sales with Magna Steyr, an operating unit of Magna International Inc.
The order involves the development, certification and supply of 700 bar compressed hydrogen fuel storage systems, including related engineering, to Magna Steyr in connection with DaimlerChrysler’s fuel cell program. Dynetek will start delivering storage systems for system and vehicle testing in 2007.
The hydrogen storage systems will undergo rigorous testing to ensure reliable operation and will be certified to the most stringent standards for worldwide operation.
The 700 bar system increases hydrogen storage capacity by approximately 70% when compared with the previous 350 bar (5000 psi) hydrogen storage cylinder with the same storage dimensions. This increased fuel storage potential extends the driving range of fuel cell vehicles (FCVs).
Dynetek’s patented 700bar cylinder valve used in the system provides additional benefits due to the very low valve-mass and integrated functionality.
This contract is a significant step forward in direction of mass production...The ultimate goal is to meet all the requirements for storage systems to support OEM plans for mass production of hydrogen powered vehicles in the near future.
—Chris Rasche, President and CEO
Dynetek is providing 30 hydrogen systems for the Citaro fuel cell buses in operation throughout Europe as part of the Clean Urban Transport for Europe (CUTE) project. It also provides on-board storage for the Ford Focus Fuel Cell vehicle, the Volkswagen type Bora, Nissan Xterra, 2000 Mercedes Benz Necar, Ford Focus FCV, Toyota FCHV and the Ford Hydrogen ICE vehicle. Operating pressures for Dynetek automotive hydrogen storage systems range are 3600 psi (250 bar), 5000 psi (350 bar) and 10,000 psi (700 bar).
Dynetek provided a 700bar system to Nissan for the X-Trail in 2005.
Resources:
Automotive Hydrogen Storage Systems (Magna Steyr)
Hydrogen Pressure Storage Systems (Dynetek / Air Liquide)
Wonder how these stack up in terms of cost and energy density compared to the latest battery / capacitor technologies?
Posted by: Erick | 06 February 2007 at 01:41 PM
I'm not exactly a fan of the proposed H2 economy, but the technologies developed for high pressure H2 tanks may have many uses. In hydraulic (and compressed air) hybrids, the high pressure reservoirs may be built similarly. Another possibility is the CNG powered transport market.
Posted by: allen_xl_Z | 06 February 2007 at 01:56 PM
If you want to compare H2 storage vs. the latest bat/cap energy storage you have the problem of deciding which ones are real (A123), which ones are overstated (EEstor?) and which ones are still on the drawing board (MIT). In addition you have the problem of knowing what is the actual mass production cost of some of the batteries (Altair). Don't forget to factor in the efficiency of the drive train that will use the energy (FC 40%, ICE 20% and electric 86%)
Posted by: Neil | 06 February 2007 at 02:34 PM
Most of Dynetek's business right now is exactly that -- cylinders for use in CNG fueled buses, predominantly Europe and California.
Nice contract for the company. Shares up 13.2% today.
Posted by: Fredrik | 06 February 2007 at 02:35 PM
What percentage of the energy contained by H2 is used in pressurizing it to 700 bar, I wonder?
Posted by: Nick | 06 February 2007 at 03:11 PM
I wonder if you could use a way to use that pressurization energy somehow?
Posted by: Neil | 06 February 2007 at 03:31 PM
As I remember it not alot. Only a fewpercent of the anergy making 700 bar fuel is used to compress it. I was rather surprised by the number because it seemed so small for 10000 psi.
Posted by: wintermane | 06 February 2007 at 04:24 PM
I suspect all this pressure is going to make for a very efficient aircon...
Posted by: Blair Anderson | 06 February 2007 at 08:17 PM
Imagine the boom that one of these will make when the car that it is in gets wiped out by a fully loaded semi.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz | 07 February 2007 at 10:43 AM
Blair -- Not nearly as efficient as liquid H2 @ -450 degrees would be.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz | 07 February 2007 at 10:44 AM
I don't know about you guys, but I can't *wait* to have a couple of these stowed under my seat. All that potential
energy fighting to get out. Oh! The frisson!
Posted by: Marshall | 07 February 2007 at 12:20 PM
Robert:
Imagine someone will put CNG car on fire, tank burst and kill someone. American lawyers and media mill make mashed potato from companies manufacturing CNG cars, even if they are 10 times safer then traditional gasoline. CNG is not for passenger vehicles. CNG is good for big vehicles operated in fleets, like buses and refuse collection trucks.
Posted by: Andrey | 07 February 2007 at 06:59 PM
Actauly because of the placement of the tanks and the design the one thing likely to survive a head on with a semi is the h2 tank.
Also the most likely rupyites of an h2 tank wouldresult in an ear splitting shreak of excaping h2 that would flare off above your head as it RAPIDLY rises.
H2 is actualy alot less explosive then gasonline.
Posted by: wintermane | 07 February 2007 at 07:14 PM
One of these days im gona finaly learn to type. Anyhow the fact is h2 is a big deal mainly because it fills in the gaps where other fuels just wont do the job or where a car or truckneeds to emit nothing but cant opperate on ev alone. Is first likely uses are sports and lux cars precisely because those are already spendy and costly to fuel anyway and because those also tend to drag down fleet averages.
Posted by: wintermane | 08 February 2007 at 08:20 AM
Traditionally, when CNG or LPG was kept in metal tank, the explosion risk is real. A defect in the metal cause propagation of crack, then the sheet metal will tear, leading to complete separation and fragmentation, hence, an explosion, kinda like a rubber balloon would explode if you poke with a needle.
However, carbon fiber tank will not explose, but only leaks or cracks, and the gaseous fuel will escape without engulfing the car's occupants. For that reason, H2 and CNG now a day in carbon fiber tank would be a lot safer than gasoline tank. The old concept is still very hard to correct!
Posted by: Roger Pham | 08 February 2007 at 03:38 PM
Well hidenburg realy wasnt a good selling ppint;/ Even tho it was the blimp falling on people not the asplosion itself that killed people.
Posted by: wintermane | 08 February 2007 at 04:58 PM
Oh and before 10k psi makes you freak out think on this . The us military is suposedly working on 15k tanks.
Posted by: wintermane | 09 February 2007 at 12:54 PM
Dr. Fred Edeskuty, the former Chief of Hydrogen Programs at Los Alamos in New Mexico, once gave this analogy; If you were driving down a two lane highway with no shoulder, just a steep 1000 ft. mountain on both sides, and coming towards you in the opposite direction were two tanker trucks - one in each lane, one hydrogen and one gasoline, and you had nowhere else to go, you are about to hit one of the trucks, there is no avoiding a crash... He said your best chance of survival would be to aim for the hydrogen truck. We rest our case. (Excerpted from posted internet article: Hydrogen: The Ultimate Fuel)
All new hydrogen regulation and industry self regulation will certainly exceed current petrol industry safety.
As an added benefit to increased safety standards,it is clear there will be some tecnological improvements as well.
One thing we can be looking forward to? No more fuel pumps in the tank to go bad. That is criminal.
As a technological, and saftey related illustration of the current status of fueling up in America, as I filled up my tank this week for $1.69 per gallon, the nozzle leaked on the ground from the time I grabbed the handle, pulled down the pump safety switch, and quickly tried to get the hose into the fill hole before too much had spilled on the ground. I didn't want to see any fuel go to waste.
There is a reason the current law says you must stay near your vehicle when fueling! Our current technology is unsafe, compared to what is coming.
My polish friend told me this week that the Polish would blame the person filling the tank for being too slow and letting it drip; the American would think first, but only momentarily on the cost of the few drips wasted, ponder the safety of the situation, then go in the store and get a coffee; the German would get to work engineering a better fueling system.
I chuckeled at this, but the point is, Americans are great consumers, but we also have an expanding appreciation of the need to move into hydrogen, and not just because of fuel pricing. The fuel paradigm has shifted, and we are just beginning to act.
We will ultimately applaud the Germans for pioneering hydrogen powered consumer driven vehicles. We expect great things!
It is very possible that my own children and their generation will ask how it was possible that the Hindenberg could have exploded at all... the safety paradigm for hydrogen has shifted already...
These tanks look as sharp as they perform...I hope everyone clicks on the link above to see them.
Robert v. Edeskuty, Contractor
Posted by: Robert v. Edeskuty | 23 November 2008 at 12:48 AM