Alright, Mark, then let's look at it from a point of view of emissions
(CO2 in particular). Do you have references showing that emissions from
producing hydrogen (from non fossil fuels) have less than emissions from
producing electricity for the same amount of traction energy?
Peri
------ Original Message ------
From: "Mark Abramowitz" <[email protected]>
To: "Peri Hartman" <[email protected]>; "Electric Vehicle Discussion
List" <[email protected]>
Sent: 23-Dec-18 11:55:15 AM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] OT: Keeping hydrogen for transportation “cleaner”
(GHG emissions) than the grid
To be clear, my interest is in emissions and not source efficiency. If you want
source efficiency, ride a horse. Even better, ride a bike. That’s not meant to
be a smart aleck response, but to point out that those are more efficient, but
don’t have a lot of the other benefits that might be needed.
For you own search about source efficiency, DOE is a good place, but not that
efficiencies (and cost and densities) are changing quickly, and aren’t always
public.
Because of all this, it makes these exercises purely academic, as well as a lot
of work to get poor data.
And environmental costs open up a whole new level of complexity, though by not
including post-life disposal and recycling, it’s a little more simple. But
still complex, particularly since there are many pathways to producing (and
using) both hydrogen and electricity.
There are many expert in pieces of this, but I’m not one of those.
But besides the main DOE website, try the sites for the DOE National Labs,
particularly NREL and Argonne. But much of that data is out of date, too.
The web sites of the California Fuel Cell Partnership (CaFCP.org) and the
California Hydrogen Business Council (californiahydrogen.org) may have pieces
of Information on them that you may find useful, with the CHBC site expecting
much more posting in the near future.
- Mark
Sent from my Fuel Cell powered iPhone
On Dec 23, 2018, at 9:06 AM, Peri Hartman via EV <[email protected]> wrote:
Mark, you're the one advocating for non fossil fuel based hydrogen generation, which is
fine. I presume you are among the most knowledgeable people of how to generate this fuel.
It would be very helpful if you could substantiate the claims being made with some
quality references, rather than asking me to "do your own homework." Actually,
I have done some looking and not found anything that shows cracking is more efficient
than using the electricity directly in BEVs.
I don't want to focus on whether BEVs are better or not than fuel cell EVs.
Just which is a more efficient usage of source energy. That could include the
environmental costs of manufacturing each type of distribution and storage
systems.
Peri
------ Original Message ------
From: "Mark Abramowitz" <[email protected]>
To: "Peri Hartman" <[email protected]>; "Electric Vehicle Discussion List"
<[email protected]>
Sent: 22-Dec-18 9:25:08 PM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] OT: Keeping hydrogen for transportation “cleaner” (GHG
emissions) than the grid
“On a path” are my words.
What *I* mean is that there are technologies existing and there are
technologies being developed and improved that can provide us with fossil-free
hydrogen AND the industry is committed to using these technologies to getting
to 100%. For several years, they’ve outperformed the grid on this metric.
As far as cracking efficiencies, just one of the technologies, efficiencies
have been improving significantly. You’ll have to do your own homework on the
rate of improvements. Just like batteries have many ways to produce
electricity, there are many path ways to produce (and use) hydrogen.
Whether batteries are *better*, my own opinion is that it depends. It’s
another way of storing energy. It depends on the use. In vehicles, it depends
on duty cycle, cost, infrastructure, a whole host of things. I don’t get too
excited over the storage method of the energy. Others are pathological over it.
I guess it’s like “Go Raiders!”
As far as infrastructure, some in the BEV industry would take strong exception
with your assertion that additional infrastructure isn’t needed. I won’t jump
into that fight.
But you are right that at least initially, there needs to be a robust fueling
infrastructure. I like the idea of replacing fossil fuel stations with
renewable energy stations.
But there is also work ongoing towards replacing the natural gas in pipelines
going to your home with hydrogen.
Lastly, as far as your point about an industry that relies on fossil fuels,
the whole point of my original post was to show that the industry is committed
to *not* using polluting fossil fuels, and to eliminate those as a source of
the product in a timeframe faster than that of the grid.
To date, they have already been surpassing the electrical grid in moving away.
Mark, you're the one advocating for non fossil fuel based hydrogen generation, which is
fine. I presume you are among the most knowledgeable people of how to generate this fuel.
It would be very helpful if you could substantiate the claims being made with some
quality references, rather than asking me to "do your own homework." Actually,
I have done some looking and not found anything that shows cracking is more efficient
than using the electricity directly in BEVs.
I don't want to focus on whether BEVs are better or not than fuel cell EVs.
Just which is a more efficient usage of source energy. That could include the
environmental costs of manufacturing each type of distribution and storage
systems.
Peri
------ Original Message ------
From: "Mark Abramowitz" <[email protected]>
To: "Peri Hartman" <[email protected]>; "Electric Vehicle Discussion List"
<[email protected]>
Sent: 22-Dec-18 9:25:08 PM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] OT: Keeping hydrogen for transportation “cleaner” (GHG
emissions) than the grid
“On a path” are my words.
What *I* mean is that there are technologies existing and there are
technologies being developed and improved that can provide us with fossil-free
hydrogen AND the industry is committed to using these technologies to getting
to 100%. For several years, they’ve outperformed the grid on this metric.
As far as cracking efficiencies, just one of the technologies, efficiencies
have been improving significantly. You’ll have to do your own homework on the
rate of improvements. Just like batteries have many ways to produce
electricity, there are many path ways to produce (and use) hydrogen.
Whether batteries are *better*, my own opinion is that it depends. It’s
another way of storing energy. It depends on the use. In vehicles, it depends
on duty cycle, cost, infrastructure, a whole host of things. I don’t get too
excited over the storage method of the energy. Others are pathological over it.
I guess it’s like “Go Raiders!”
As far as infrastructure, some in the BEV industry would take strong exception
with your assertion that additional infrastructure isn’t needed. I won’t jump
into that fight.
But you are right that at least initially, there needs to be a robust fueling
infrastructure. I like the idea of replacing fossil fuel stations with
renewable energy stations.
But there is also work ongoing towards replacing the natural gas in pipelines
going to your home with hydrogen.
Lastly, as far as your point about an industry that relies on fossil fuels,
the whole point of my original post was to show that the industry is committed
to *not* using polluting fossil fuels, and to eliminate those as a source of
the product in a timeframe faster than that of the grid.
To date, they have already been surpassing the electrical grid in moving away.
- Mark
Sent from my Fuel Cell powered iPhone
On Dec 22, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Peri Hartman via EV <[email protected]> wrote:
I, too, question the meaning of "on a path of 100% carbon-free hydrogen." It's
one thing to have a goal and another to be on a path. The latter implies that the
technology exists and needs to be scaled (and perhaps optimized).
The only technology I'm aware of is using electricity to "crack" water. It's my
understanding that the process is so inefficient that it's better to use the electricity directly
(and store it in batteries). If that's the technology behind the "path" then please
explain why that process is better than using batteries.
The other major problem is infrastructure. Unlike EVs, you can't charge at
home. So we would need to build out a filling station network equally robust as
the petrol system we have today. I suppose you could say that it's partly built
since the physical stations exist. But I expect there is extreme cost in
installing large hydrogen tanks and providing the complex tank-to-car filling
systems.
If one is looking at the benefits of hydrogen generated from natural gas,
there are some positive arguments. I won't go into that since I do not want to
support a technology that continues to depend on fossil fuels.
Since a lot of businesses and the government are on board with this, perhaps
there's something completely wrong with my assumptions. Please correct me.
Peri
------ Original Message ------
From: "Mark Abramowitz via EV" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: "Mark Abramowitz" <[email protected]>
Sent: 20-Dec-18 5:49:16 PM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] OT: Keeping hydrogen for transportation “cleaner” (GHG
emissions) than the grid
Sorry, that last part should read “though unintentionally”
- Mark
Sent from my Fuel Cell powered iPhone
On Dec 20, 2018, at 5:37 PM, Mark Abramowitz <[email protected]> wrote:
Some of you know that I’ve been an advocate for BEVs for a number of decades,
and of hydrogen fuel cell EVs (the “other” electric vehicle) for a bit less.
In my day job, I recommend and advocate major funding of both battery
electrics and hydrogen fuel cell applications.
One of my many volunteer roles (“working for free” as Bruce would put it) is
serving as Immediate Past Chair of the California Hydrogen Business Council.
As some of you may know, the renewable content of hydrogen used in
transportation exceeds that of the grid. And the industry itself is on a path
of 100% carbon-free hydrogen .
Not long ago, the Hydrogen Council, made up of the CEOs of leaders in the
industry, released a formal policy supporting 100% carbon-free in
transportation hydrogen by 2030. This is 15 years before the 100% carbon-free
grid date of 2045 adopted by the California legislature.
Tomorrow a release will go out announcing the support of this policy by the
California Hydrogen Business Council.
The adopted language follows. For those of you who have completely misstated
the facts, though intentionally, I hope that you will read it carefully.
December 18, 2018
CHBC Endorses Full Decarbonization Goal of Hydrogen in Transportation by 2030
The California Hydrogen Business Council (CHBC) on behalf of its members is
pleased to endorse the commitment of the Hydrogen Council to the goal of
decarbonizing 100% of hydrogen fuel used in transport by 2030.
The goal was announced by the Hydrogen Council on September 14, 2018 at the
Global Climate Action Summit in San Francisco, hosted by Governor Brown:
“The Hydrogen Council, a global CEO coalition bringing together 50+ leaders in
the energy, transport and industry space, is committed to an ambitious goal of
ensuring that 100% of hydrogen fuel used in different modes of transportation
is decarbonised by 2030. We are therefore calling on governments to build a
global alliance that will create the necessary regulatory frameworks to help
make this commitment a reality. Transport may be our first target, but with
right level of support we will see positive effects across many sectors. We
believe hydrogen can play a key role in the clean energy transition and we are
ready to work together with governments to help create the right technical,
financial and legislative environment that will enable decarbonised hydrogen to
scale up.”
Through this commitment to the 2030 goal, hydrogen for transportation can
achieve full decarbonization 15 years ahead of the SB 100 mandate of 100%
carbon-free electricity by 2045. Attainment of the stated goal of 100%
carbon-free hydrogen fuel by 2030 will maintain the position of hydrogen fuel
cell electric drive as the lowest-carbon alternative among electric drive
solutions.
The hydrogen industry is committed to helping California dramatically reduce
emissions despite increasing transportation demand by providing a clean fuel
that has proven itself in both on- and off-road applications and is emerging as
an important alternative to diesel in marine, rail and port applications.
- Mark
Sent from my Fuel Cell powered iPhone
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20181220/0efd6348/attachment.html>
_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20181223/beaad5f9/attachment.html>
_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
