Not sure this 200 euro/kW will be reached as mentioned and that they will last 10 years but electrolysis is clearly getting pretty cheap in the future (as expected).
(10 cents/kg of H2 = 0.3 cents per kWh)
Imagine a super sunny place with cheap land produce solar at 1 cent per kWh. For 1 kg of H2 you would need around 50 kWh costing 50 cents.
If electrolysis costs only 10 cents extra that together would only be 60 cents.
There's lot's of other costs but that's just ~2 cents/kWh.
If we ever reach 2 euro per kg of H2 at the end customer, it would cost only 6 cents per kWh and outcompete gasoline and LNG in terms of cost per unit of energy before tax at the pump.
And that's before we start taxing the CO2 in gasoline, diesel and LNG.
It could even become an interesting competitor to battery electric vehicles. If you include the losses of the fuel cell you are left with 10 cents per kWh before taxes.
That's more than the production and transport cost of electricity but not by much. Interesting times!
Just to be clear: I still think it's a colossal waste to throw away 2/3rd of the energy by using H2 instead of batteries unless there is ample renewable energy.
And cars is one of the least useful applications of H2.
Just marvelling at the price decrease of electrolyzers.
I have to further qualify my enthusiasm. After doing some calculations I think the costs of batteries to equalize the day-night cycle would exceed the cost of electrolyzers. Installing the entire system including capital costs could double its cost. And storage is expensive...
What we might be seeing here is that electrolyzers simply aren't going to remain the as big a of a cost problem as I and many others thought. But now the cost emphasis shifts to other parts of the system.
It's still very good news for fully renewable energy systems though!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I agree there is a place for hydrogen in mobility.
I just think it's probably a very small place.
I think this piece of @Toyota chief scientist Gill Pratt is heavily skewed toward hydrogen in order to make it seem more important. Let me show you. medium.com/toyotaresearch…
Charging speed is limited by the so called C rate of battery cells.
Simply put: larger vehicles with more cells can stomach bigger chargers.
So big trucks will charge just as fast as small cars.
And of course 90% of charging is done while parked so speed isn't an issue there.
I remember how better place imagined that we would swap batteries to overcome charging time. These days are gone and 60 minutes is simply BS. I think in 2030, new EVs coming out can charge 80% of their range within ten minutes. For something you do occasionally that's a non issue
@MLiebreich Honest question Michael: are you sure that blue hydrogen subsidies will include all fugitive emissions and exclude SMR?
I've read some intentions but nothing close to assurances. Mostly silence which leaves the door wide open for abuse.
@MLiebreich I also think we should take a system perspective, just as we do with electricity. So no designating either coal or solar to EVs and no designating cleanest or dirtiest gas to blue hydrogen but taking the average.
@MLiebreich At the moment blue hydrogen reminds me of FCEVs that are cleaner than BEVs because H2 is produced next to the windmill and BEVs get the average mix or worse, while the same H2 windmill could have powered twice the amount of BEVs.
NEW argument from combustion engine fans:
move PV from Germany to Africa and make eFuels there: then we can drive just as far.
BUT PV isn't the problem.
IF it was you should still use a power line or hydrogen.
SO the combustion engine is still roadkill
🧵 frontier-economics.com/de/de/news-und…
It is true that a solar panel produces up to 5x more energy in the Sahara and that there's plenty of room there. But that doesn't negate the fact that these engines still make cities unhealthy (noise & ozone or NOx) and are expensive and maintenance prone.
On top of that these giant eFuel installations in Africa are just an expensive pipe dream of combustion engine lovers. So it's a highly theoretical debate.
And even IF we were to produce large amounts of eFuels in the Sahara, they should be used where they are most useful.
I think prioritizing GDP over happiness is obvious insanity and and refusing to nudge people away from mindless overconsumption is an intellectually lazy surrender to Mammon (hypercapitalism).
And that's before we go down the rabbit hole of entropy pessimism espoused by economists who fancy themselves engineers without understanding entropy and using tortuous mathematics to avoid straightforward observations of energy abundance. innovationorigins.com/en/tomorrow-is…
Research from @TheICCT proving once again electric tractor-trailers are viable. Over 50% of road transport CO2 comes from these big rigs aka 18 wheelers and the share is growing. (More than either all airplanes or all shipping.) Electrifying these beasts is crucially important!
Have been saying this for at least five years (several master students, keynotes, and a set of blogs in 2017: elaad.nl/news/auke-hoek…) but this analysis is GOOD.