3 ms·

Hydrogen is less efficient than batteries and we already have a the infrastructure for normal overnight charging for battery electric vehicles where the vehicle

Hydrogen is less efficient than batteries and we already have a the infrastructure for normal overnight charging for battery electric vehicles where the vehicle can be parked of the road. The only time I need to use a fast charger is when I am on a long trip. Normal commuting, shopping, day trips, works perfectly well charging at home on a 230 V, 16 A circuit (Tesla S 70D). I agree that there must be more fast chargers but municipalities should concentrate on making it practical for people who live in blocks of flats to charge overnight. Just put a couple of normal Schuko sockets on every lamppost with a simple network controlled contactor. Insist that all parking spaces have such a connector. Also: > Also know that there is up to 50% loss of electricity when transporting over long distances (like from wind-farm to the city). This affects the cost of production of hydrogen just as much as it does the charging of batteries so what is the relevance?

neals 7y ago
Yes, I agree that you describe a use case that works and is solved for you and many other early adopters. Which is great for the overall acceptance of BEV driving. Also great to hear you live in a home where you can actually park your car close enough to the building to have the luxury of charging it through your own infrastructure. I too have these benefits, and, probably like you, I too drive a Tesla vehicle cheaply, thanks to tax incentives and company benefits. Now let's look at the other 99% of the world: If you look at the totals, the situation you describe won't hold up in a full electric future. The sum of the energy requirement for all miles driven, against the opportunity to upgrade the network to meet demand, especially in zones where cars usage is dense (cities) and room for net-expansion is difficult or extremely costly (cities).. there is a huge deficiency. The transportable and storable nature of hydrogen might come as a solution. Also, I mention the electricity loss on the network because this actually is not well known. This discussion would likely have started with 'with hydrogen, 50% is lost' if I hadn't mentioned it. That's a go-to counter argument for hydrogen, but one that we should not be focusing on.
- matthewdgreen 7y ago
  Seems like both hydrogen and electric charging at large enough scale require infrastructure upgrades. However, there's a huge difference: there are zero hydrogen stations I can find in my state, which makes early adoption impossible. Whereas BEV charging infrastructure exists today at my house: this means there's an easy on-ramp for millions of early adopters, and the future infrastructure upgrades are understood because we've been dealing with industrial-scale electric deployment for decades. Hydrogen cars can't even get to "early adoption" for most people until the infrastructure has been massively built out, but this probably won't happen once BEVs cruise past a certain threshold.

neals 7y ago

Yes, I agree that you describe a use case that works and is solved for you and many other early adopters. Which is great for the overall acceptance of BEV driving. Also great to hear you live in a home where you can actually park your car close enough to the building to have the luxury of charging it through your own infrastructure. I too have these benefits, and, probably like you, I too drive a Tesla vehicle cheaply, thanks to tax incentives and company benefits. Now let's look at the other 99% of the world: If you look at the totals, the situation you describe won't hold up in a full electric future. The sum of the energy requirement for all miles driven, against the opportunity to upgrade the network to meet demand, especially in zones where cars usage is dense (cities) and room for net-expansion is difficult or extremely costly (cities).. there is a huge deficiency. The transportable and storable nature of hydrogen might come as a solution. Also, I mention the electricity loss on the network because this actually is not well known. This discussion would likely have started with 'with hydrogen, 50% is lost' if I hadn't mentioned it. That's a go-to counter argument for hydrogen, but one that we should not be focusing on.

matthewdgreen 7y ago
Seems like both hydrogen and electric charging at large enough scale require infrastructure upgrades. However, there's a huge difference: there are zero hydrogen stations I can find in my state, which makes early adoption impossible. Whereas BEV charging infrastructure exists today at my house: this means there's an easy on-ramp for millions of early adopters, and the future infrastructure upgrades are understood because we've been dealing with industrial-scale electric deployment for decades. Hydrogen cars can't even get to "early adoption" for most people until the infrastructure has been massively built out, but this probably won't happen once BEVs cruise past a certain threshold.