• lnxtx@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      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

      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. ↩︎

      • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

        • gandalf_der_12te@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.