Nicely said Peter.Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------From: Peter VanDerWal via EV
<ev@lists.evdl.org> Date: 8/26/21 9:17 AM (GMT-08:00) To: Electric Vehicle
Discussion List <ev@lists.evdl.org> Cc: Peter VanDerWal <e...@vanderwal.us>
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Hydrogen vs Battery Power > > 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 kWhDedicating 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
e...@lists.evdl.orgNo other addresses in TO and CC fieldsUNSUBSCRIBE:
http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usubARCHIVE:
http://www.evdl.org/archive/LIST INFO:
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20210826/824a7bfb/attachment.html>
_______________________________________________
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
