Spyke
lnxtx (xe/xem/xyr)reply
feddit.nl

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

Footnotes

  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. ↩

2
silence7reply
slrpnk.net

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.

3
gandalf_der_12tereply
slrpnk.net

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.

1

You reached the end

Hydrogen Policy’s Narrow Path: Delusions And Solutions | Spyke