> > 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.
The majority of the Public EV charging infrastructure is connected to the electrical grid, if the grid goes green then the chargers AUTOMATICALLY go green. There is no need for a separate pathway. This is a win/win, chargers are available now, allowing us to move away from petroleum powered transportation. This lowers pollution RIGHT NOW, even if the electrical power in a particular area comes from fossil fuels. As the grid transitions to green energy NOTHING needs to change at the public charging stations, they simply continue to work. These claims of "self sustaining" Hydrogen stations are nothing but green washing. It would be 4x as effective at reducing pollution to simply connect those renewable energy generating systems to the grid instead of wasting them on Hydrogen production. > > 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%. That same green energy, if connected to the grid instead and used to power BEVs, would allow 4 times as many BEV miles per generated kWh Dedicating that energy to Hydrogen production is a waste of energy. > 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. As pointed out above, connecting those same green energy sources to the grid, instead of wasting them on Hydrogen production, would reduce pollution 4 times as much as "green hydrogen", even if the grid isn't fully decarbonized. Not only that, but by using them on the grid (where they are 4 times as effective) would bring the grid to 100% decarbonize years before doing it your way. You keep ignoring the inefficiency of green hydrogen and pretending it doesn't matter, but it does. Energy is energy, wasting energy is wasting energy. If we lived in a magical world were we could instantly replace all of the petroleum transportation with either hydroen FCEV or electric BEV, FCEVs would require four times as much green energy production. Producing those green energy generators (PV, Windmills, etc.) has an environmental impact. Doing it your way would have four times the environmental impact. But it's worse than that. Even if nobody charged at home and had to use public chargers, the materials in all of those public chargers would be a fraction of the materials needed for the hydrogen generation and storage facilities. So again, FCEV have a significantly large environmental impact than BEVs. Given that the majority of BEV drivers charge at home using level-1 or level-2 chargers whcih require only a fraction of the materials used in DC fastchargers, means that BEVs will require only a fraction of a fraction of the support infrastructure of FCEV. FCEV might be better than petroleum vehicles, but that is irrelevant. The comparison should be FCEV to BEV, and in that comparison Fool cells lose. You keep ignoring that and trying to distract with comparisons to diesel, etc. NOBODY on this list cares. _______________________________________________ Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org 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
