Hydrogen policy that isn't carefully designed can reverse, delay, or raise emission reduction costs while failing environmental justice goals, potentially dooming the hydrogen industry.
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
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 ↩︎
Sam Wilson, “Hydrogen-Powered Heavy-Duty Trucks,” 9–10. ↩︎
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.
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.
Full report here, remember to check Download without registering.
I can read:
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 ↩︎
Sam Wilson, “Hydrogen-Powered Heavy-Duty Trucks,” 9–10. ↩︎
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.
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.