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 But much of that data is out of date, too.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)
