4 ms·

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/03/07/stop-comparing-number-gas-stations-ev-charging-stations/ https://cleantechnica.com/2018/03/07/stop-comparing-number-g... :

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/03/07/stop-comparing-number-gas-stations-ev-charging-stations/ https://cleantechnica.com/2018/03/07/stop-comparing-number-g... : Dividing 270 million autos by 1,200,000 pumps = a ratio of 225 autos per available pump. https://www.bcg.com/publications/2019/costs-revving-up-the-grid-for-electric-vehicles https://www.bcg.com/publications/2019/costs-revving-up-the-g... : We found that the representative utility, depending on charging patterns, will need to invest between $1,700 and $5,800 in grid upgrades per electric vehicle (EV) through 2030. So if this and further improvements can get the cost down to about $800k per pump you're at the order of magnitude where they're equivalent, and that's without factoring in the charging stations or home chargers (or the cost of batteries or fuel cells, etcetera, etcetera). https://h2stationmaps.com/costs-and-financing https://h2stationmaps.com/costs-and-financing I'm seeing between $2 and $3.2 million in ~2014 dollars per hydrogen fueling station before this particular efficiency gain is factored in. : As the global demand for hydrogen increases, the economies-of-scale cost reductions will be triggered. NREL projects a cost per station similar to other alternative fuels within 10 years. In addition, lessons learned about design, engineering, and construction will help reduce non-equipment costs.

DoesntMatter22 3y ago
> I'm seeing between $2 and $3.2 million in ~2014 dollars per hydrogen fueling station before this particular efficiency gain is factored in. Yes, as I said. Millions of dollars for a fuel station. When every home owner already has an electric "Fuel station". This is the most comical and impractical way to fueling a car. Take electricity, lose nearly 50% of all your electric capacity spend converting to hydrogen, and then fuel your car. All with a vehicle that has a mini bomb on it, where if it does explode, even if it's extremely unlikely, you are burning with an invisible flame. There is no scenario in which hydrogen will take off. It's like saying you are going to create a competitor to an air plane that is a box with wings. Could that fly? Yes. Does it make any sense? No. Electricity is everywhere and growing in generating capacity rapidly all the while battery prices are dropping dramatically. There is no scenario where Hydrogen catches up. There is no infrastructure, no desire by consumers, no feasible way to implement, no one to realistically invest in the infrastructure. It's just a complete no go.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  > Take electricity, lose nearly 50% of all your electric capacity spend converting to hydrogen, Nothing needs to be converted (except transportation and mining costs, and costs of running the fueling stations) for geologic hydrogen. I made this clear with the first links. And there are economic synergies with also using geologic hydrogen as a replacement for natural gas in electricity generation and home heating. > All with a vehicle that has a mini bomb on it, where if it does explode, even if it's extremely unlikely, you are burning with an invisible flame. Hydrogen needs oxygen to "explode" in flames. There's a limit to how fast the oxygen in the air can mix with compressed hydrogen to fuel burning. The majority of the hydrogen is going to escape the area before interacting with oxygen. The autoignition temperature of hydrogen is 500C, so it would need a spark to burn. And that burning spark would need to both spread over the entire escaping hydrogen and also not be extinguished as the thousands of PSI of hydrogen rapidly equilibriate to 15 PSI (additionally, as anyone who has used an aerosol can knows, rapid decrease in pressure results in a rapid temperature drop, reducing the chance of autoignition). And electricity has it's own issues as the cause of major fires (both from battery fires on the local scale and from downed power lines on the larger scale). Burying power lines is an expensive process. And for battery fires, unlike hydrogen, the fuel doesn't fly off into the upper atmosphere, but stays in place until it is all burned up. Yet people still buy battery powered transportation in large numbers. > There is no infrastructure, no desire by consumers, no feasible way to implement, no one to realistically invest in the infrastructure. Initial infrastructure already exists for alternate fuel fleets of waste trucks and the like. It can grow from there. It's feasible to implement as people already are implementing it, and to an extent can share lines already used by natural gas, the investments have already started (from the government and from automotive and energy companies, such as the energy company in my earlier link).
  - DoesntMatter22 3y ago
    > Nothing needs to be converted (except transportation and mining costs, and costs of running the fueling stations) for geologic hydrogen. Nothing needs to be done except everything! This is never going to happen. People have electric already piped into their house. You are talking investments in the hundreds of billions of dollars vs virtually no investment at all. This will never work.

DoesntMatter22 3y ago

> I'm seeing between $2 and $3.2 million in ~2014 dollars per hydrogen fueling station before this particular efficiency gain is factored in. Yes, as I said. Millions of dollars for a fuel station. When every home owner already has an electric "Fuel station". This is the most comical and impractical way to fueling a car. Take electricity, lose nearly 50% of all your electric capacity spend converting to hydrogen, and then fuel your car. All with a vehicle that has a mini bomb on it, where if it does explode, even if it's extremely unlikely, you are burning with an invisible flame. There is no scenario in which hydrogen will take off. It's like saying you are going to create a competitor to an air plane that is a box with wings. Could that fly? Yes. Does it make any sense? No. Electricity is everywhere and growing in generating capacity rapidly all the while battery prices are dropping dramatically. There is no scenario where Hydrogen catches up. There is no infrastructure, no desire by consumers, no feasible way to implement, no one to realistically invest in the infrastructure. It's just a complete no go.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
> Take electricity, lose nearly 50% of all your electric capacity spend converting to hydrogen, Nothing needs to be converted (except transportation and mining costs, and costs of running the fueling stations) for geologic hydrogen. I made this clear with the first links. And there are economic synergies with also using geologic hydrogen as a replacement for natural gas in electricity generation and home heating. > All with a vehicle that has a mini bomb on it, where if it does explode, even if it's extremely unlikely, you are burning with an invisible flame. Hydrogen needs oxygen to "explode" in flames. There's a limit to how fast the oxygen in the air can mix with compressed hydrogen to fuel burning. The majority of the hydrogen is going to escape the area before interacting with oxygen. The autoignition temperature of hydrogen is 500C, so it would need a spark to burn. And that burning spark would need to both spread over the entire escaping hydrogen and also not be extinguished as the thousands of PSI of hydrogen rapidly equilibriate to 15 PSI (additionally, as anyone who has used an aerosol can knows, rapid decrease in pressure results in a rapid temperature drop, reducing the chance of autoignition). And electricity has it's own issues as the cause of major fires (both from battery fires on the local scale and from downed power lines on the larger scale). Burying power lines is an expensive process. And for battery fires, unlike hydrogen, the fuel doesn't fly off into the upper atmosphere, but stays in place until it is all burned up. Yet people still buy battery powered transportation in large numbers. > There is no infrastructure, no desire by consumers, no feasible way to implement, no one to realistically invest in the infrastructure. Initial infrastructure already exists for alternate fuel fleets of waste trucks and the like. It can grow from there. It's feasible to implement as people already are implementing it, and to an extent can share lines already used by natural gas, the investments have already started (from the government and from automotive and energy companies, such as the energy company in my earlier link).
- DoesntMatter22 3y ago
  > Nothing needs to be converted (except transportation and mining costs, and costs of running the fueling stations) for geologic hydrogen. Nothing needs to be done except everything! This is never going to happen. People have electric already piped into their house. You are talking investments in the hundreds of billions of dollars vs virtually no investment at all. This will never work.