Hydrogen availability
Discussion
SWoll said:
He's taking the EU requirement for chargers in countries with poor infrastructure, little ability to provide home charging and widely spread population areas and applying it to the UK.
But let's not forget, as already pointed out - we are a bit of a unique case in Europe, and maybe even globally. What works for the UK does not work for most of Europe and certainly doesn't work for North America.Even Japan is looking at FCEV rather than BEV and they are centered around dense population centres along the coastlines.
We will follow the global market, which probably isn't as heavily biased towards BEV as our circumstances favour.
If the Brexiteers can look past the fact that the UK is still listed as a member state in this EU report, it suggests 500,000 points in the UK by 2030. If 15:1 is the 'mature' value to use then it's 2 million points for 30 million cars. The chart on page 16 shows that 80% are single-phase. If that ratio remains then the number of three-phase installations will be < 500,000.
https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/file...
The report also states that compared to the current rate of investment in road transport infrastructure, investment in public charging infrastructure would represent 1% the total in 2020, increasing to 3% of the total in 2025 and 5% in 2030. And in 2025 it would represent 3% of fossil fuel subsidies.
Should we really be that concerned about the cost?
https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/file...
The report also states that compared to the current rate of investment in road transport infrastructure, investment in public charging infrastructure would represent 1% the total in 2020, increasing to 3% of the total in 2025 and 5% in 2030. And in 2025 it would represent 3% of fossil fuel subsidies.
Should we really be that concerned about the cost?
Edited by GT119 on Friday 30th October 00:06
SWoll said:
Willow1212 said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I don’t get where you have got this 3 million number from. How, with 60% of people doing the vast majority of their charging at home, can you justify needing 20 times as many EV chargers as you think we would need for hydrogen, where no one can fuel at home?3 million is 12 chargers for every mile of road in the UK!?
My experience is similar to others have said in here. In 2 years of EV ownership I’ve used public chargers 4 times. And two of those were just to try it out, I didn’t really need it. So that’s probably about an hour per year.
Assuming every car was BEV by 2030, why would we need a public charger for every 10-15 vehicles when the majority can charge at home and don't cover significant mileages on anything like a regular basis? It also doesn't account for any improvements in efficiency/battery technology over the next decade that could conceivably mean many owners would only have to charge once or twice a month even if they relied solely on public charging.
The minute you venture further than half your car's range from your home, just once, you'll need access to one! Apply that rule to everyone with a BEV and you'll see why they need to be everywhere. Otherwise you're locked to a certain geographical area. Who lives their entire lives within such a small space?
What about tourists? Those without off-street charging of their own?.........
I remember earlier in the thread, someone suggested to me the one time you needed to go further you'd hire another vehicle that could go the distance. In cuckooland you might, but meanwhile in the real world!
It seems that sometimes people try so hard to disbelieve something that they lose all sense of perspective and reason.
Landcrab_Six said:
SWoll said:
He's taking the EU requirement for chargers in countries with poor infrastructure, little ability to provide home charging and widely spread population areas and applying it to the UK.
But let's not forget, as already pointed out - we are a bit of a unique case in Europe, and maybe even globally. What works for the UK does not work for most of Europe and certainly doesn't work for North America.Even Japan is looking at FCEV rather than BEV and they are centered around dense population centres along the coastlines.
We will follow the global market, which probably isn't as heavily biased towards BEV as our circumstances favour.
We're one of the larger populations in the EU (well, before we left!) so there's no reason to think the numbers needed are offset or skewed by other nations.
If it was averaged out per nation we'd need a number of chargers at the average or higher.
So we've established that we need a lot of charging points for 30 million cars.
Why don't we examine, for a minute, what happens if we opted instead for 30 million HFCVs, and ignoring infrastructure spend differences for now.
Instead of 9 GW of power, we now need something like 24 GW, and a much larger increase in installed capacity.
And if you want to put a cost on that, each GW costs around £1 billion for a year's supply. So we just increased our electricity bill by £15 billion every year.
Remind me again how important we think efficiency is?
Why don't we examine, for a minute, what happens if we opted instead for 30 million HFCVs, and ignoring infrastructure spend differences for now.
Instead of 9 GW of power, we now need something like 24 GW, and a much larger increase in installed capacity.
And if you want to put a cost on that, each GW costs around £1 billion for a year's supply. So we just increased our electricity bill by £15 billion every year.
Remind me again how important we think efficiency is?
In reality it'd be a mix of the two.
One thing about hydrogen is we'd still need it for other things anyway and it'd be a prime candidate to utilise slack in the suggested downturn in petroleum refining (which hydrogen is utilised in anyway I think), piggybacking off existing infrastructure that's already in place and taking up vacant space that's already set aside for similar work. Eg Teeside.
That could ease the need for expensive new works and upgrades on localised electrical infrastructure for BEV charging points because some of the local population could have FCEV and hydrogen could be transported in for them.
The choice would be what best suits their needs. People will weigh up how much they travel, where they tend to go, how far they travel, what they travel for, if they have home charging........
One thing about hydrogen is we'd still need it for other things anyway and it'd be a prime candidate to utilise slack in the suggested downturn in petroleum refining (which hydrogen is utilised in anyway I think), piggybacking off existing infrastructure that's already in place and taking up vacant space that's already set aside for similar work. Eg Teeside.
That could ease the need for expensive new works and upgrades on localised electrical infrastructure for BEV charging points because some of the local population could have FCEV and hydrogen could be transported in for them.
The choice would be what best suits their needs. People will weigh up how much they travel, where they tend to go, how far they travel, what they travel for, if they have home charging........
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Would you agree that the cost analysis is turning out to be quite heavily weighted towards EV?The energy cost difference between the two technologies is around £600 average per year per car.
For every 15 cars that are chosen as BEVs Over HFCVs, we have £9k per year to pay for another charging point. That tells me the payback for installing a single phase socket for these 15 cars will be measured in months.
And that ignores the avoided cost of hydrogen infrastructure, for both the plant and the upgrades to the grid over and above what the EV infrastructure requires.
Regarding the second paragraph, go back and look at the discussion about the cost of transporting hydrogen.
It is extremely difficult to paint any kind of rosy picture for hydrogen, technical or financial, but by all means keep trying!
In response to GT.
You spoke of a 'mature' figure of 15 BEVs to 1 public charging point - was that in the report or did you suggest that ratio yourself?
The energy cost difference you suggest will end up being mitigated by adjustment to grants and taxation, with ease.
I don't believe it wise to think that night time domestic electricity costs to the consumer won't increase significantly when it becomes evident that we're drawing so much more overnight than we have done traditionally.
The report I posted, and others too, project the TCO of FCEV to converge with the TCO of BEV by 2030 and to then dip beneath it.
That's the TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP. That's why I say you can't just look at the current difference in overall efficiency as that soon becomes a mere technicality when all factors are weighed in.
Futhermore, talk of the environment, I've seen a breakdown of greenhouse gas emissions that shows BEV manufacturing emissions being way above the greenhouse gas emissions of FCEV manufacturing. That'll be the batteries. Even when the greenhouse gas emissions of the fuel source were added on the BEV mode did not look good overall, either with renewable or fossil fuel powered energy generation. It's no good to assume that BEV will all be renewably sourced and FCEV not so, it's an unreasonable comparison.
With regards hydrogen transportation-
What's good about hydrogen transportation is that there isn't one single method of getting it from the generation source to the filling point. It can be taken via tube trailer. That could be transported by rail or road to the filling point. It could be generated at the filling point. It could be piped. We already produce hydrogen for industrial use elsewhere, such as in the petroleum refinement process, in food production, for example. It's not as if we're not moving the stuff already and this will bring in economies of scale as it's scaled up. As much as each method has its own costs now there are developments, such as Kubagen's method of increasing hydrogen storage capacity while reducing the energy needed to cool the hydrogen, using a known scientific method called Kubas binding. While there may be high costs associated with some of these methods then there will be savings in other areas by using them.
The other thing to consider about BEV charging is the public's desire for convenience and how much the charging point network will be weighted towards the faster charging points.
People like convenience. It's what's driven the online economy. Now we're at the point of realisation that millions of public points will be needed, it shows that BEV is not just a 'charge at home' mode. Convenience will probably shift the power rating of the public charging points upwards. The big cost implications here are not strictly energy related but the costs of the work to be done and the equipment costs to make them work.
On with BEV charging points still(!) There is a catch 22 risk with BEV charging points where if you don't have enough then the system will fail and customers lose convenience. But it could become evident that some are underutilised and not profitable. Siting them will be a minefield and the only way of the providing company making it profitable, when considering the costs to get the underutilised ones installed in the first place, would be to increase the charging cost to the consumer across their network.
You spoke of a 'mature' figure of 15 BEVs to 1 public charging point - was that in the report or did you suggest that ratio yourself?
The energy cost difference you suggest will end up being mitigated by adjustment to grants and taxation, with ease.
I don't believe it wise to think that night time domestic electricity costs to the consumer won't increase significantly when it becomes evident that we're drawing so much more overnight than we have done traditionally.
The report I posted, and others too, project the TCO of FCEV to converge with the TCO of BEV by 2030 and to then dip beneath it.
That's the TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP. That's why I say you can't just look at the current difference in overall efficiency as that soon becomes a mere technicality when all factors are weighed in.
Futhermore, talk of the environment, I've seen a breakdown of greenhouse gas emissions that shows BEV manufacturing emissions being way above the greenhouse gas emissions of FCEV manufacturing. That'll be the batteries. Even when the greenhouse gas emissions of the fuel source were added on the BEV mode did not look good overall, either with renewable or fossil fuel powered energy generation. It's no good to assume that BEV will all be renewably sourced and FCEV not so, it's an unreasonable comparison.
With regards hydrogen transportation-
What's good about hydrogen transportation is that there isn't one single method of getting it from the generation source to the filling point. It can be taken via tube trailer. That could be transported by rail or road to the filling point. It could be generated at the filling point. It could be piped. We already produce hydrogen for industrial use elsewhere, such as in the petroleum refinement process, in food production, for example. It's not as if we're not moving the stuff already and this will bring in economies of scale as it's scaled up. As much as each method has its own costs now there are developments, such as Kubagen's method of increasing hydrogen storage capacity while reducing the energy needed to cool the hydrogen, using a known scientific method called Kubas binding. While there may be high costs associated with some of these methods then there will be savings in other areas by using them.
The other thing to consider about BEV charging is the public's desire for convenience and how much the charging point network will be weighted towards the faster charging points.
People like convenience. It's what's driven the online economy. Now we're at the point of realisation that millions of public points will be needed, it shows that BEV is not just a 'charge at home' mode. Convenience will probably shift the power rating of the public charging points upwards. The big cost implications here are not strictly energy related but the costs of the work to be done and the equipment costs to make them work.
On with BEV charging points still(!) There is a catch 22 risk with BEV charging points where if you don't have enough then the system will fail and customers lose convenience. But it could become evident that some are underutilised and not profitable. Siting them will be a minefield and the only way of the providing company making it profitable, when considering the costs to get the underutilised ones installed in the first place, would be to increase the charging cost to the consumer across their network.
The UK TCOs for HFCVs will never be able to catch up to BEVs, simply because the investment to support that many vehicles will never be made.
My understanding is that the DoT is publishing a UK master plan next year that will set out how hydrogen can be used to power buses, HGV, rail, maritime and aviation transport, but there is no mention of passenger cars in that list.
My understanding is that the DoT is publishing a UK master plan next year that will set out how hydrogen can be used to power buses, HGV, rail, maritime and aviation transport, but there is no mention of passenger cars in that list.
GT119 said:
The UK TCOs for HFCVs will never be able to catch up to BEVs, simply because the investment to support that many vehicles will never be made.
My understanding is that the DoT is publishing a UK master plan next year that will set out how hydrogen can be used to power buses, HGV, rail, maritime and aviation transport, but there is no mention of passenger cars in that list.
That will be interesting! My understanding is that the DoT is publishing a UK master plan next year that will set out how hydrogen can be used to power buses, HGV, rail, maritime and aviation transport, but there is no mention of passenger cars in that list.
I think that passenger cars deserve their own consideration but I'd bet that reference to them will be made in the plan. I think there'll be a unitary EV plan.
It brings me back to my first post on this thread:
"Investment in technology and infrastructure on the freight side will eventually increase the potential for the fuel to be used in cars".
I think you disagreed because you thought the interface for HGV filling wouldn't be compatible with passenger cars.
Interesting little opinion piece on the truck side.
Obviously a different market to the passenger car market but there will be considerations that are shared.
https://www.transportdive.com/news/electric-truck-...
Obviously a different market to the passenger car market but there will be considerations that are shared.
https://www.transportdive.com/news/electric-truck-...
GT119 said:
The UK TCOs for HFCVs will never be able to catch up to BEVs, simply because the investment to support that many vehicles will never be made.
My understanding is that the DoT is publishing a UK master plan next year that will set out how hydrogen can be used to power buses, HGV, rail, maritime and aviation transport, but there is no mention of passenger cars in that list.
Well that's handy, because no OE is, or is going too, make one!My understanding is that the DoT is publishing a UK master plan next year that will set out how hydrogen can be used to power buses, HGV, rail, maritime and aviation transport, but there is no mention of passenger cars in that list.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You raise an interesting point (my bold ^^ )The concept of people having free and extremely low cost access to long distance transport is actually a rather recent phenomina! For the majority of human existance, people were born, lived and worked and then died within a circle of about 20 miles. We have got used to being able to travel long distances very cheaply, but we are increasingly coming to undertsand that this capability has come at what could be an enourmous long term cost to our very existance.
Without wanting to get into a long and tedious debate on climate change, then may i simply suggest that at some point in the future, perhaps not that far in the future, we could actually be prevented from undertaking long distance travel in order to limit the environmental impact of that travel? Here, driving you private car 500 miles to scotland could, if not actually banned, be extremely heavily taxed indeed. So if you want to go to scotland, you drive your EV to the train station (short distance) get the train to scotland (long distance) and then pick up a hire EV at that station.
You may scoff at the thought, but imagine what happens the day sea level rise over comes the Thames barrier and floods london (and the houses of parliment...) I'm willing to bet that very soon after that event, the laws and rules of our country will change, and we may indeed loose some of our fossil fuel driven "freedoms"........
Max_Torque said:
GT119 said:
The UK TCOs for HFCVs will never be able to catch up to BEVs, simply because the investment to support that many vehicles will never be made.
My understanding is that the DoT is publishing a UK master plan next year that will set out how hydrogen can be used to power buses, HGV, rail, maritime and aviation transport, but there is no mention of passenger cars in that list.
Well that's handy, because no OE is, or is going too, make one!My understanding is that the DoT is publishing a UK master plan next year that will set out how hydrogen can be used to power buses, HGV, rail, maritime and aviation transport, but there is no mention of passenger cars in that list.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Physical interface, safety protocols*, location of filling points (en-route vs at-base), number of filling stations UK-wide, number of filling points per station, total capacity of each filling station.- I think there is merit is keeping filling points well away from the full spectrum of the general public (punters/scrotes/kids/pensioners, etc), and limiting the number of people/vehicles that can be in close proximity at any one time, e.g. large passenger carrying vehicles can only be filled when empty, etc.
leef44 said:
It will depend on how good the tax incentives/ government subsidies/grants will be.
it will depend on the buisness case. The problem with tax incentives & subsidies is that these are market place specifc and the OEs are pretty much global now. So a specific tax incentive in say the UK is unlilkely to swing an entire global platform into a viable business case on a world wide basis.Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff