Too hard to monetize the most prolific substance in our solar system?
How could anyone ever think an energy storage method that loses 70% of the energy could compete with one that loses 12%?
~2.5X more energy per mile.
1. Hydrogen Storage Pathway
Renewable energy → Electrolysis → Compression/Liquefaction → Storage → Fuel Cell → Electric Motor
1. Electrolysis Losses (~30%)
• Splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen using electricity is only about 65–75% efficient.
2. Compression/Liquefaction Losses (~10-30%)
• Hydrogen is stored as a compressed gas (~90% efficiency) or a cryogenic liquid (~70% efficiency). Energy is lost during compression, cooling, and maintaining storage conditions.
3. Fuel Cell Conversion Losses (~40%)
• Hydrogen is converted back into electricity in a fuel cell, typically with 50–60% efficiency.
4. Power Electronics & Motor Losses (~10%)
• The electricity from the fuel cell is converted and supplied to the electric motor, with additional inefficiencies in the inverter and motor itself.
Overall Efficiency:
• The combined efficiency from renewable electricity to motor output is around 25–35%.
2. Battery Storage Pathway
Renewable energy → Battery Charging → Battery Storage → Discharge → Electric Motor
1. Battery Charging & Storage Losses (~10-15%)
• Charging a battery has inefficiencies, with lithium-ion batteries typically achieving 85–90% efficiency.
It’s simply cost.
Not just the atrociously low well-to-wheel efficiency which makes fueling them expensive but also the significantly higher cost of the infrastructure which has to be recouped via a higher price at the pump…as well as the higher maintenance cost of hydrogen trucks.
Cars live and die by overall cost. Trucks *much* more so.
Hydrogen will fail in *any* energetic application: Cars, trucks, energy storage, heating, …
We can already see how truck are using EV charging infrastruture for cars without many issues. No need for expensive hydrogen filling stations. Simplicity wins.
4 comments
Too hard to monetize the most prolific substance in our solar system?
How could anyone ever think an energy storage method that loses 70% of the energy could compete with one that loses 12%?
~2.5X more energy per mile.
1. Hydrogen Storage Pathway
Renewable energy → Electrolysis → Compression/Liquefaction → Storage → Fuel Cell → Electric Motor
1. Electrolysis Losses (~30%)
• Splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen using electricity is only about 65–75% efficient.
2. Compression/Liquefaction Losses (~10-30%)
• Hydrogen is stored as a compressed gas (~90% efficiency) or a cryogenic liquid (~70% efficiency). Energy is lost during compression, cooling, and maintaining storage conditions.
3. Fuel Cell Conversion Losses (~40%)
• Hydrogen is converted back into electricity in a fuel cell, typically with 50–60% efficiency.
4. Power Electronics & Motor Losses (~10%)
• The electricity from the fuel cell is converted and supplied to the electric motor, with additional inefficiencies in the inverter and motor itself.
Overall Efficiency:
• The combined efficiency from renewable electricity to motor output is around 25–35%.
2. Battery Storage Pathway
Renewable energy → Battery Charging → Battery Storage → Discharge → Electric Motor
1. Battery Charging & Storage Losses (~10-15%)
• Charging a battery has inefficiencies, with lithium-ion batteries typically achieving 85–90% efficiency.
It’s simply cost.
Not just the atrociously low well-to-wheel efficiency which makes fueling them expensive but also the significantly higher cost of the infrastructure which has to be recouped via a higher price at the pump…as well as the higher maintenance cost of hydrogen trucks.
Cars live and die by overall cost. Trucks *much* more so.
Hydrogen will fail in *any* energetic application: Cars, trucks, energy storage, heating, …
We can already see how truck are using EV charging infrastruture for cars without many issues. No need for expensive hydrogen filling stations. Simplicity wins.
Comments are closed.