> You’ve completely ignored what I said - did you even read it? Yep, every word of it. Yes of course, hydrogen will have a role to play, but there is no getting around the fact that using Renewables to make electricity to drive cars is 10 times more efficient to drive a BEV directly (5% loss from wind/solar to the car.) compared to the 50% energy loss in making hydrogen from the same electricity.
That ten times inefficiency is what makes hydrogen unsuitable as a general replacement for cars. It is just centralized big (oil) companies continuing to push their centralized big company monopolies and control of distribution and perpetuating their TANK model. With 400 mile EV's now (for those that need it) and 150 mile EV's for those that don't, there is no need for the huge wastefullness of hydrogen (except for maybe long haul pre-developed trucking between major distribution centers. and ONLY when we get to the 5-times oversuppply of wind/solar such that there is FREE electricity to dump into hydrogen on peak days instead of curtailing it. The high cost and inefficiency of FCEV's make little sense for general use. Bob > As far as the economics, not only will it not take a miracle to make “green” > hydrogen more economical than fossil hydrogen, but at least one company is > building production plants that they say will make it competitive in cost, > and then improve it further. The technology is improving quickly, and as the > cost of renewables drop, the production costs also drop, as that is the > biggest driver of costs. > > As far as your comment of being ahead with electricity being stored in a > battery, I think your looking at it the wrong way in two (if not more) > important ways (and I won’t even get into battery production and recycling > issues that don’t get taken into account). First, a battery doesn’t meet all > duty cycle needs, which is why for some uses you need hydrogen even if you > prefer batteries. The alternative is fossil fuel combustion in an IC engine. > That’s why most of see fuels cell electrics as complementary to BEVs, not > either/or. Secondly, and maybe more to your point, electricity, like > hydrogen, gets produced in many ways. The GREET model, which is generally > accepted as the gold standard for calculating GHG comparisons, If I’m > remembering correctly, shows both BEVs and FCEVs reducing GHGs as compared to > fossil combustion ICEs, no matter the input energy. > > - Mark > > Sent from my Fuel Cell powered iPhone > > > On Aug 13, 2021, at 5:14 AM, Bill Dube via EV <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
