Thinking about this, I know someone at UCI that may have the data that you are 
looking for - I will ask.

- Mark

Sent from my Fuel Cell powered iPhone

> On Dec 23, 2018, at 11:55 AM, Mark Abramowitz <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 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 But much of that data is out of date, too.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!”
>>> 
> 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)

Reply via email to