Peri, You raise good points.
I promised myself that I was going to avoid debating the question of what is better (except to say that both are), and only correct easily correctable wrong information. But I will comment on your concern about hydrogen subsidies creating an incentive to produce H2 from fossil natural gas. I think that there is actually no need to worry. But I find the question fascinating. Sorry for not hitting everything. I completely agree with you that you want to avoid incentives for using fossil natural gas, and going further, eliminate subsidies completely. Last point first. This is something I’ve already addressed in this thread. Someone else mentioned it would take 10 years for self-sufficiency. That’s pretty much about the stations. The report I referenced also talked about self-sufficiency. But I think that we also need a self-sufficiency pathway for charging infrastructure. That is very important. You need a self-sustaining charging industry, and as far as I know, there is no pathway from the industry of how to get there. Your other point on subsidies. First, and for background, understand that right now, hydrogen used in transportation is mostly NOT fossil natural gas. California state law required a minimum 33% renewable content (the only fuel to have such a requirement) which I think is now 40% , a requirement created when the grid was about 19% renewable (maybe less). The actual performance was probably 40-45%, but in recent times, it has been, according to CARB, over 90%. Some station operators have reported 100%. But will it happen in the future? And how to hydrogen incentives impact that? These were your questions as I understand it. So let’s look at the drivers towards renewable and green hydrogen. One is customer demand, and how the companies are responding. When I chaired the California Hydrogen Business Council several years ago, at one of our board meetings, the OEMs that were present said that they wanted hydrogen to be “green” because the environmentally oriented customers that were going to buy their cars demanded it, so they were going to demand it. The IGCs in the meeting, who I thought would object, were in agreement. Now that and $5 will give you a cup of coffee. But the industry followed up with a declaration that their goal was 100% decarbonized hydrogen by 2030, which was *15* years before the grid would be decarbonized. Okay, that’s intent. But it’s dollars that are where the rubber meets the road. In California, there are a number of incentives that drive things towards renewables versus fossil. I heard one company say that with the incentive structure, you would be crazy to go in any direction, but renewables. But putting aside these incentives, and maybe even more to your point - production. Will subsidies push generation of fossil over renewables and green hydrogen? Earlier in the thread I partially addressed this. I pointed out that Plug Power (which *is* a client of mine) were building a number of electrolyzer hydrogen production plants. This is all public information, and on their website. Their CEO has said numerous times that at 3¢/kWh they can produce hydrogen that competes with fossil natural gas-produced hydrogen. They are building these plants NOW. So given green hydrogen that is cost-competitive with what you don’t want, what will a buyer choose? Hint: Not the fossil version. Over the next few years, the cost of production is expected to improve even more. Note also that it is widely known that renewables have become the cheapest new energy, over fossil. So the cost of producing the green hydrogen *is* coming down, as the cost of renewables drop AND as the efficiency of electrolyzers increases (which is happening), and cost of those electrolyzers drop. That is why I think the incentive is NOT to produce hydrogen from natural gas. Hope that helps, and thanks for such a interesting question that I’ve never been asked before. - Mark Sent from my Fuel Cell powered iPhone > On Aug 25, 2021, at 8:16 PM, Peri Hartman via EV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mark, let me expound on this a bit. First, you have provided some facts and > I thank you. But you are ignoring the elephant in the room, namely the > inefficiency of producing hydrogen. > > Let me put it this way. If you have a 1GW solar farm, should you use that > electricity to power homes and battery EVs or waste 50% of it to produce H2, > meanwhile powering those homes from coal- or natural gas-generated electricty > ? > > Or, let me put it another way. On a small scale, subsidies (whether from > government or from a manufacturer, e.g. Toyota) are fine and an excellent way > to promote and test new technology. However, in large scale, those subsidies > must mostly go away or taxpayers will revolt. In the case of fuel cell EVs, > if many people were to already own one, the incentive to produce H2 from > natural gas would be overwhelming. (There might not be a subsidy on the H2 > itself but, clearly, there are subsidies for the cars and the 3 years of free > fuel.) > > Let me put it a third way. If solar panels were so cheap that building out > solar farms for the sole purpose of producing H2 were feasible, why isn't it > also feasible to build out solar farms to replace natural gas and coal > generation of electricity ? It's happening, but at a significant cost > investment. > > ---------- > > Here's a few more details on the cost of H2 in california. > > According to wikipedia > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy > a fuel cell can deliver about 33 kWh per kg of H2. > > From an earlier post, "the average price of hydrogen in California is $16.51 > per kg." That means electricity from the fuel cell costs $0.50 / kWh. Maybe > that's not too bad, but it's still about 2.5 times the cost of electricity on > the grid in California. > > Further, that reference > https://cafcp.org/content/cost-refill > doesn't say the source of the "average" hydrogen - solar with hydrolysis or > natural gas with steam ? But, I found that California law mandates that 40% > of H2 for fuel cell EVs be produced from renewables, published recently: > https://www.sierranevadaally.org/2021/05/05/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-are-building-momentum-in-california/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20consulting%20firm%20Wood%20Mackenzie%2C%20almost%20all%20hydrogen,hydrocarbon%20source%20material%20and%20energy > > What is the cost per kWh for the 40% ? That is the only way to understand the > current true cost of kWh / kg of H2. $16.51 per kg is a irrelevant number > since it is including nonrenewables. > > --------- > > Mark, in order for you to gain credibility from me on this topic, you need to > address this issue. I'll readily accept that the cost of fuel cells will come > down and that, maybe, the cost of fueling stations can come down when done at > large scale. But there's nothing that I'm aware of that will significantly > bring down the cost of generating H2. Long term, that's the crucial element > from a customer point of view and, if electricity from H2 is significantly > more expensive than electricity from a battery, it will not gain public > acceptance for large scale usage. > > Peri > > << Annoyed by leaf blowers ? https://quietcleanseattle.org/ >> > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Alan Brinkman via EV" <[email protected]> > To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Alan Brinkman" <[email protected]> > Sent: 25-Aug-21 13:06:48 > Subject: Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen vs Battery Power > >> Hello EVDL, >> >> The draw of Hydrogen is that using it produces H2O, water. What a great >> exhaust product. But the energy to separate Hydrogen out of H2O to produce >> it is too great. It is better to use that energy to charge batteries and >> drive an EV. >> If you want to spend money on researching how to produce Hydrogen using >> much less energy, that is a good idea. A catalyst or unique process would >> be good. >> Just switching from petroleum fuels to Hydrogen at the current time is not >> a great benefit. EV's are the tool. >> >> Make it a great day! >> Alan >> >>> On Wed, Aug 25, 2021, 10:48 AM Willie via EV <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On 8/25/21 11:10 AM, Robert Bruninga via EV wrote: >>> >>> ...by Electrify America, they said that they charge 31¢/kWh. >>> > I have seen rates as low as 3 cents per kW >>> > for EV charging off-peak for those that sign up for a TOU plan >>> > (includes much higher peak rates) >>> > >>> > "Hydrogen Fool cell" is a reasonable moniker. >>> > >>> > Wont this thread ever die? >>> >>> ->I<- think it is time for it to die. >>> >>> Much discussion back and forth. Little logic. Little promise for the >>> future. Not a single example of FCEV advantage over BEV. I say at risk >>> of appearing to gang up on Mark. Even though I have resisted giving >>> that appearance. >>> >>> > OOps, forgot. My home solar makes the EV charging free... >>> > (Well, no, with Grid tie it costs me 14 cents per kWh >>> > because that is what each kW is worth that I push back >>> > into the grid so using it to charge an EV is 14cents/kWh lost). >>> >>> Your utility seems to be giving you a GREAT deal. Though it makes your >>> charging appear more expensive than with a lesser deal. I buy at >>> $.10/kwh and sell at $.06/kwh which makes my charging $.06. OTOH, my >>> utility is willing to buy (pay cash) for as much as I can manage to >>> produce. Even at only $.06, I think my payback period is in the range >>> of 6-8 years. >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> <http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20210825/1fb485a3/attachment.html> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
