Here is an article published today on "Clean Hydrogen". (Not so clean,
according to the article. surprise surprise )
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/12/clean-fuel-blue-hydrogen-coal-study
From _all_ I've read, even in Scientific American, you are way ahead
simply using plain old electricity instead of hydrogen, if you wish to
curtail climate change. Electricity for running a vehicle is much more
economic, and is far more ecological than hydrogen. At least for the
foreseeable future.
All but the tiniest fraction of hydrogen produced these days comes from
fossil fuel. This is because it is by far the most economic way to
produce hydrogen. Even so, it is _still_ far more expensive to run a car
with the cheapest H2 than run it directly with electricity stored in
batteries.
Perhaps someone, somewhere, will invent some miraculous possess that
will turn the tables completely, but that simply hasn't happened yet.
The US government is going to throw another $8bn down this black hole.
If $8bn isn't enough to buy that miracle cure, then perhaps it will be
time to give H2 the last rites and finally move on.
Bill D.
On 8/13/2021 7:11 PM, Mark Abramowitz via EV wrote:
Only looking at what you posted, you draw a very false conclusion from the data.
You’ve connected fossil hydrogen with that going into a car’s tank. Well, yes,
you can do that, much like you use fossil gas or coal to produce electricity to
run a BEV. But most hydrogen in transportation is not fossil-derived, and the
entire industry is moving towards 100% “decarbonized” hydrogen, with most
believing that “green” hydrogen will be everywhere very soon.
I haven’t looked at the “blue hydrogen” data, so can’t critique it, but the use
of colors really confusing things because if you are looking for GHG impacts,
the most direct measure is a CI score.
Many incentives are there in transportation for 100% Renewable H2, and while I
get 90% renewable hydrogen when I fill my fuel cell electric vehicle (they
*are* electric), I look at the grid numbers and see renewable numbers of as low
as 11%, depending on the time of day. The rest is fossil.
So who is putting out more GHGs?
This is the problem with analysis that don’t analyze the real world as most
would view the data.
- Mark
T INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
_______________________________________________
Address messages to [email protected]
No other addresses in TO and CC fields
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
ARCHIVE: http://www.evdl.org/archive/
LIST INFO: http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
