Also, one of the major advantages of a BEV for me is the ability to charge at home, possibly from energy generated by my own panels. Even if there were solutions for me to generate my own hydrogen, I'd rather lose 20-30% of that energy with a BEV than lose 70-75% with a FCEV.

[–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I've provided a rebuttal for the other replies which you might find interesting.

In a scenario where you're considering using roof-top solar to produce hydrogen for your car then yes, the inefficiency of cracking hydrogen from water makes it unappealing.

The thing is, I don't think most of the world has access to roof-top solar and the portion that does will diminish as population and population density increases.

If you consider for example this project in Western Australia covering 15,000km2 it makes a lot more sense. The land (and associated sun light) is practically free. Hydrogen is a far more cost effective method of energy storage to get the energy from middle-of-nowhere-west-aus to market.

I guess one way to look at it is that hydrogen is a better option if the cost of the solar energy is less than a third of what it would be if you produced it nearby.

[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Counterpoint, most of the world does not have access to "middle of nowhere" regions with lots of sunlight, that is just Australia and a few places near major deserts.

[–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If only there was some way we could transport energy from these areas of the world with cheap land and plentiful sunlight to those areas where the energy was required.

[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, ideally a way that doesn't leak out of pretty much anything like hydrogen does.

[–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 5 months ago

Embrittlement is a problem but it can be mitigated with careful selection of materials and ceramic coatings et cetera.