Comment on Hydrogen Policy’s Narrow Path: Delusions And Solutions

lnxtx@feddit.nl ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• lnxtx@feddit.nl ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Light-duty vehicles = Terrible

  I can read:

  • FCEVs currently outperform BEVs on range and refueling speed.
    However, 96 percent of LDV trips are less than 125 miles, meaning BEVs can complete most trips on a single charge. [^66]

    • main advantage, look like not actually needed

   

  • BEVs are much more efficient, requiring two to three times less clean electricity than FCEVs using electrolytic hydrogen. [^63]

    • efficiency; but we have excess on a windy or sunny day

  [^66]: Amol Phadke et al., “The 2035 Report: Plummeting Costs and Dramatic Improvements in Batteries Can Accelerate Our Clean Transportation Future” (University of California, Berkeley, April 2021), 25 [^63]: Sam Wilson, “Hydrogen-Powered Heavy-Duty Trucks,” 9–10.

  source

  • silence7@slrpnk.net ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Yes, there are times when there is excess, but big capital expenditures like an industrial-sized electrolyzer come with ongoing interest payments, so there’s a huge financial incentive to run them 24/7. Running it only sometimes means sharply higher capital costs for each mole of hydrogen produced. It’s a nasty balancing act.

    source

    • gandalf_der_12te@slrpnk.net ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      actually, that’s not true. I built a hobby-grade hydrolysis machine in my garage for a total of $3. I can’t imagine hydrolysis machines to be significantly expensive in general.

      The reason why they’re expensive today is because they’re completely over-engineered. But that’s not physics’ fault. It’s just someone seeking the “highest-quality product” instead of one that makes economic sense.

      source