You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
2 points

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. [1]

    • 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. [2]

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

  1. 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 ↩︎

  2. Sam Wilson, “Hydrogen-Powered Heavy-Duty Trucks,” 9–10. ↩︎

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Green Energy

!energy@slrpnk.net

Create post

Everything about energy production and storage.

Related communities:

Community stats

  • 1.6K

    Monthly active users

  • 415

    Posts

  • 1.6K

    Comments