JBChiangRai

McKinsey & Co. see Hydrogen being involved in transport for long haul operations accelerating in 2040, in their recent Hydrogen Outlook report they talk about how it will be produced. Pink Hydrogen (Nuclear) doesn't figure in their forecasts at all, it is almost exclusively expected to be green hydrogen produced through electrolysis of water. You begin with electricity and after 80% losses it's turning the motor in your car, lots of investment will never bring this below 50% losses and it is for that reason that BEV's will be the premium product, they will cost between 20%-50% per mile to fuel. Pink Hydrogen is prohibitively expensive. Global Energy Perspective 2023: Hydrogen outlook | McKinsey

Funny, I'm laughing.

He does have a knowledge of fires... I think it is something to do with Pants On Fire.....

He was talking about you!

Not when that conduit is road going tanker

Your assumption Thailand will follow, is I believe, false. Two completely separate markets with separate circumstances. What kickstarted the EV revolution here was BYD & GWM. MG not so much. The UK is just getting these cars albeit with tariffs which we don't have. We also enjoy a superb charging network, the UK motorway charging network is abysmal. We don't have Rishi Sunak backpedaling on EV targets, we have a target that hasn't moved. There is no evidence to suggest EV adoption will stall here.

I am going to go back to the analysis by McKinsey previously posted. They do say Hydrogen will start to be used for transportation "from 2040", they also say it will be "fuel cell electric vehicles in long-haul". These guys are experts and they have done the analysis, they do not think it's going to be general passenger cars. They also say that the transition is entirely across to clean hydrogen, mostly green hydrogen i.e. electrolysis. On the subject of losses, yes the grid has losses. but you do magically put electricity in at one end and it comes out at the other (minus the losses), it's instantaneous. Hydrogen is part of the battery in a FCEV, the other part is the Fuel Cell, in a BEV it's the battery alone. I have explained the losses in powering a FCEV, they are significantly more than a BEV, and since the starting point for both types of vehicle is Electricity and so is the ending point, that is why Hydrogen has to be more expensive. Many countries consumers have trialed Hydrogen and they don't like it. Your article about pink hydrogen from Nuclear, McKinsey aren't forecasting any of that in their Hydrogen Outlook, I think they know something...

Sunlight can be converted into electricity, it goes straight into your car. Sunlight can be converted to electricity, it is then used to make Hydrogen Let's shorten those to Sunlight can be converted into electricity, it goes straight into your car. Sunlight can be converted to electricity, it is then used to make Hydrogen Remove the commonalities Electricity goes straight into your car (no more steps after this) Electricity makes Hydrogen (lots more steps after this) I never said Nuclear Energy was not viable. I said Hydrogen produced through nuclear energy is not viable (to be precise I said too expensive), actually it doesn't exist anywhere yet either. I have already posted my sources, try reading them, you are clutching at straws. One of the sources I posted said In the race toward a more sustainable future, there is a burgeoning demand for clean fuels, with green hydrogen taking center stage. “The Green Hydrogen Market, valued at $676 million in 2022, is anticipated to experience an extraordinary CAGR [compound annual growth rate] of 61.0% from 2022 to 2027,” Shubhendu Tripathi, a senior research analyst at MarketandMarkets, told POWER. It's clear to me you are being obtuse, I have posted expert opinions, the sources they came from and yet you go round in circles. You're trolling. I've separated your points. first point, an EV uses on average 4 kWhrs of electricity per day, it's not very much. If you deliver new EV's at the rate of demand, there is no issue in the grid coping, it's being expanded all the time. Second point. You are missing the point, how does the hydrogen get into your car? (A) With a BEV it goes through the grid. Hydrogen has to be made thru (Bi) Electrolysis (Bii) compressed at point of source and (Biii) pumped into road/train freight. They have to be (Biv) driven to fuel stations. It has to be (Bv) pumped into storage tanks. It has to be (Bvi) compressed with pumps to get it into your car. At this point (Bi+Bii+Biii+Biv+Bv+Bvi) it's the same result of the BEV (A alone) we just described.

What do you start in BEV, you start with electricity and it is not converted into anything else before you use it. Electrons in, electrons out, no electrolysis, no compression, no vehicles to transport it, not fuel stations to store it, no pumps to compress it into your car, none of that, zilch, nada I agree Hydrogen will not remain static, but there are limits to efficiency. There are always going to be losses, Fuel Cells produce heat, you can't get round that, electrolysis uses 1/3 of the energy to make Oxygen. But the big issue is customers. They have tried it & rejected it. They did once with electric cars because they used Lead-Acid batteries. That could change with Hydrogen, subsidise it and make the storage & retrieval of it more feasible and it could take off. There are a lot of if's there.

Taking your points one by one You claimed nuclear power was not viable. McKinsey & Powermag said the only viable H2 option is blue & green, blue is polluting. References already posted. You implied it took 25 years to build and nuclear power plant. You're American right? United States: Reactor construction times in the U.S. averaged almost 43 years Other countries have done better. Add in the time to industrialise the Hydrogen process which is currently only experimental, we can only guess at that but it's years not months. When asked about your claim of 25 years to develop pink hydrogen and the cost, you waffled and claimed it would not be developed in 25 years. Nonsense, I said that was my opinion as an engineer by training and qualification. When ask what experts you refer to when you claim "most" agree, you make a glib comment and provide a google search. Nonsense, I used artificial intelligence to the analysis and have since provided links to the expert sources. All my claims have been substantiated. Now, you tell me how Nuclear Hydrogen is going to be made cheaply? Where is it currently being made? What is the planned production volume and amortised cost of the plant across the gas per liter? Nuclear plants are very, very expensive.

Repeated nonsense, I've answered all of that, you clearly don't like the answers. welcome to reality.

Nonsense, I just posted the references AI used.

I never said I knew what pink hydrogen would cost, I said it costs approaching 2/3 of green hydrogen using the levelised cost of hydrogen model. Planning and building nuclear reactors and testing and industrialising the process of building reactors to produce pink hydrogen will in my opinion will take 25 years. I gave an AI opinion, it did the analysis and the sources it used were Global Energy Perspective 2023: Hydrogen outlook | McKinsey and Understanding Future Prospects for Hydrogen, Energy Storage, and Renewables (powermag.com) amongst others, I'll list them here since you're apparently incapable of performing the same search. Firstly, this topic is electric vehicles in Thailand where there are no nuclear reactors, many countries have no nuclear reactors. But more importantly, nuclear is years off, Lithium type batteries will dominate the market long before Hudrogen gets there. Norway had a trial of Hydrogen cars, it failed, there was even a Toyota Mirai left abandoned at one of the hydrogen stations. There are 2 barriers for Hydrogen cars, the first is cost of Hydrogen, currently it is too expensive, you start with electricity and end up with electricity, will all kinds of losses in-between. Nuclear could change that, but we're still at the laboratory change and few countries can do it. Nuclear plants are very expensive and building a plant to produce hydrogen is just too expensive. Secondly storage. Currently the only viable alternative is to compress it and the Toyota Mirai proves that is impractical. There are experiments going on like you mention, but that's all they are, experiments. No statement has been made about it's practicalities or the efficiency losses in storing & recovering it from the medium. I also feel there is a place for Hydrogen vehicles, but in my lifetime they will be fueled by expensive green hydrogen. if the cars cost more to run than a BEV then they will have to be cheaper. If there is a shortage of materials for BEV's then BEV's will be more expensive making H2 cars cheaper. I don't believe there is a shortage of Lithium, but I do believe there are bottlenecks in scaling it up to replace ICE cars. I agree with you that Nuclear (Pink) Hydrogen is prohibitively expensive, it's a pink red herring. And that is the rub. Hydrogen cars are inefficient. That's fine if you can magic up free or dirt cheap Hydrogen, but it's not happening anytime soon.

You can't realistically expect me name articles I have read over the last 2 years and remember who wrote them. What I have done is asked AI "What are the experts predicting as most likely source of Hydrogen" and this is the reply In summary it's blue & green hydrogen, not nuclear (pink) hydrogen Hydrogen, as a clean energy carrier, holds significant promise for decarbonizing various sectors. Let’s explore what experts predict as the most likely sources of hydrogen in the next 20 years: Grey Hydrogen: Current Dominance: Grey hydrogen, produced from natural gas via steam methane reforming (SMR), currently dominates the market. Projected Decline: However, demand for grey hydrogen is expected to decline as cleaner alternatives gain traction. Role in Transition: Grey hydrogen may play a role during the transition phase, especially in existing applications like fertilizer production and refining1. Blue Hydrogen: Low-Carbon Variant: Blue hydrogen is produced from natural gas with carbon capture and storage (CCS). It reduces emissions compared to grey hydrogen. Growing Demand: As CCS technology improves, blue hydrogen demand is projected to increase. Industrial Applications: Sectors like ammonia production and refining may adopt blue hydrogen1. Green Hydrogen: Renewable Production: Green hydrogen is produced via electrolysis using renewable electricity (e.g., wind or solar). Rising Importance: Experts anticipate green hydrogen to play a crucial role in the future. Challenges: Scaling up green hydrogen production and reducing costs are key challenges. Emerging Applications: New sectors (e.g., steel, synthetic fuels, heavy transport) may drive green hydrogen demand1. Geologic Hydrogen: Natural Deposits: Geologic hydrogen occurs naturally in subsurface deposits formed by reactions between rock and water. Potential: While still in early stages, geologic hydrogen could be a future source of green energy2. Other Sources: Biomass Hydrogen: Hydrogen from biomass (e.g., agricultural waste) could contribute. Nuclear Hydrogen: Nuclear reactors could produce hydrogen via high-temperature electrolysis. Solar and Wind: Direct electrolysis using excess solar and wind power may become more common3. In summary, the transition toward clean hydrogen involves a shift from grey to blue and green hydrogen. The exact mix will depend on technological advancements, policy support, and market dynamics.

No those sponsored by Toyota! Seriously though, most experts believe electrolysing water is the way to go. We may well have Pink Nuclear Hydrogen, but not in my lifetime and i hope to be here 20-25 years. Maybe @Lacessit will give us his opinion

And let’s not forget, almost all the cars sold in half that time will be BEV, and they will all be EV.

The legalized cost of pink hydrogen through nuclear is about 2/3 of the cost of it being produced by water electrolysis. It’s still expensive, it doesn’t currently exist and there is too much objection to nuclear for it to happen. I agree with the experts, electrolysis will be how Hydrogen will be produced. Nuclear Pink Hydrogen is at least 25 years away, if it ever happens, which I doubt.

Then somebody will have to subsidise it, I don't think that is going to happen. I stand by what I said. Most experts think electrolysing water is the way to go and 33% of the energy IS wasted producing Oxygen (2 of H2 and 1 of O2 produced from each molecule, this IS the science). Hydrogen cars will be cheaper and the premium option will be a BEV.

Yes I did, like I said it's pie in the sky. Nuclear production will never be viable, most countries don't have them anyway and it's anything up to 25 year lead time on new ones. It's not going to happen. Postcript, I wrote Pie in the Sky after I quoted the Nuclear article, for some reason I'm not seeing it in my post.

Hydrogen is always going to cost more per mile than a BEV, currently at least 5 times more, it will never be better than twice as much. Whilst there is H2 underground, it's neither accessible nor economic to frack it. The only sustainable way to produce it is to electrolyse water. 33% of the energy used to produce it is wasted producing Oxygen (which you can produce far cheaper), it is mathematically impossible to improve on that figure which assumes 100% efficiency in the electrolysis which is also impossible. Then we have to compress it and distribute it to fuel stations and finally use it in the car, presumably a H2 Fuel Cell which is unlikely to be ever more than 65% efficient as heat is produced as a waste product. I believe you will see H2 cars but they will cost more to run so they will have to be cheaper to buy or people won't buy them. The other issue is time to refuel, it currently takes 10 minutes to refuel H2 for 300km, it will be no faster than future BEV's which may well be shorter.

With advances in battery technology, it will happen easily

The extra blink is broken, it's on the blink

I think PHEV helps to give those that think Thailand is not ready for EV's, the confidence to think about full EV later. Some drivers can operate in EV mode almost all the time. You can thank electric aircon compressors for that A weird approach, but it does lend itself to HEV mode or full BEV mode by simply replacing the ICE generator with a battery. Insanity if you ask me, but to be expected from a company who S & P rate their credit as "Junk".

I accept that, but I don't really have the interest to dive into RY this or RY that, what interests me is the growth in car sales overall and EV's to ICE (I prefer to keep HEV classified as ICE). I don't really have the inclination to dive deep into figures, a summary suits me just fine, but I appreciate others may enjoy a deep dive.

I don't think people make a choice to choose HEV, the model they like just happens to be HEV or it's the top model in the range that they would buy anyway. I think PHEV is sometimes a choice. Often it's not a choice and some people who buy PHEV never plug them in, what I find interesting is customer behaviour. When Mercedes opened a new dealership in Chiang Rai, I went to the opening and the CEO of MB Thailand was there and we talked about this, he was disappointed that most MB PHEV buyers don't plug them in and he was pleased that I ran mine in EV mode as often as possible. Yes and you have the option to drive a decent distance in EV mode. I like the KISS methodology (Keep It Simple, Stupid).