… collaboration with NREL, Honda, Shell, Toyota and Air Liquide. Money from the Department of Energy’s Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office helps fund the work to support the energy department’s goal for using clean hydrogen across multiple applications and sources.
Ultimately, researchers are working to match the time it takes a trucker to fuel a diesel truck, about 10 minutes. According to NREL, that requires an average hydrogen gas mass flow rate of 10 kilograms per minute, and 20 kg per minute peak, based on a maximum vehicle storage potential of 100 kg hydrogen gas. Such a rate is some 10 times the average mass flow rate now used for light-duty fuel cell EVs.
In April, researchers exceeded the goal, accomplishing an average mass flow rate of 14 kg per minute with a fill of 40.3 kg into a bank of 8 storage tanks in 2.87 minutes. Ultimately the researchers are working to fill 60 kg to 80 kg in under 10 minutes.
In the short term, industry executives see the sweet spot for hydrogen in long-range, heavy-duty trucks. Those using lithium-ion batteries would take two hours or more to charge. Hydrogen, especially with the work being done at NREL, looks like a faster way to stay on the road.
Europe is closer to adoption. Air Liquide and the Port of Rotterdam are working to deploy 1,000 fuel-cell trucks by 2025, and another agreement signed on by some 60 industrial firms looks to have up to 100,000 trucks deployed by 2030.
Air Products has announced plans to build a hydrogen hub in Arizona to supply the market in California. Several companies see hydrogen as the future and are investing.
Air Products has announced plans to build a hydrogen hub in Arizona to supply the market in California. Several companies see hydrogen as the future and are investing.
Several companies see hydrogen as the future and are investing.
I believe there are multiple parallel futures, hydrogen might be one of them. Currently EVs have the lead.
There are several kinds of investors
Angel investors and venture capitalists get in early, take huge risks, lots of the deals go broke but a few make it all worth while.
Growth investors look for high growth and pay more attention to what the future might bring than to past profits.
Value investors look for reliable profits based on past performance.
For individual investors, angel and venture investing is just too risky. As growth investors they should look for technologies that have “Crossed the Chasm.” In practical terms leave hydrogen to angel and venture investors and put your money in EVs instead.
There are too many innovation corpses in the Chasm but we only hear about the post Chasm survivors.
I suspect the answer is green hydrogen made by electrolysis of water using solar power. Lots of sun and available land. Easy access to California.
Air Products is probably the leading supplier of hydrogen. The most experience with handling it safely. And an extensive distribution network. They even make liquid hydrogen.
You can ask if that moat is wide enough if oil or natural gas pipeline companies decide to participate.
Maybe the same reasons why so many businesses are moving out of California?
Lessee.
Building a hydrogen plant in AZ makes some sense. Separating hydrogen out from whatever it’s bonded to takes a fair amount of energy. Electric rates in AZ are lower than in CA. So locating the plant close to CA, but outside of it, makes a lot of sense.
So are businesses moving out of California because it’s expensive to produce hydrogen there? Or, more seriously, because electric rates are somewhat higher in CA?
So are businesses moving out of California because it’s expensive to produce hydrogen there? Or, more seriously, because electric rates are somewhat higher in CA?
The two largest costs are food and the processing charges (basically slaughter and cutting into saleable portions). At half of those costs are the initial cost of the piglets. Half again is the labor to raise the pigs. And about 20% of that is the cost of utilities.
The cost of utilities is around 1% of the total costs of raising pigs. ($180 out of $17,400 total costs in this sample budget.)
While this Monroe is probably correct in his statement, the conclusion that this is the reason they closed the plant does not follow. Much more likely is that the feed and labor are cheaper out of state. Labor at the CA plant averaged $21 per hour. I have no doubt that the labor in the Midwest is cheaper. The pig feed is likely cheaper as well, as the feed is probably grown much closer to their Midwest facilities, making the transportation costs of the feed significantly lower.
But blaming the move on utilities is some lazy reporting at best, and disingenuous at worst.
But blaming the move on utilities is some lazy reporting at best, and disingenuous at worst.
What the article said was: “Monroe said operating costs in California are much higher than in other areas of the country”. That includes meeting the new California hog raising regulations.
I focused on the cost of utilities because a poster had written “electric rates are somewhat higher in CA” and, to me, 3.5 times higher is more than ‘somewhat’.
I focused on the cost of utilities because a poster had written “electric rates are somewhat higher in CA” and, to me, 3.5 times higher is more than ‘somewhat’.
The cost of utilities is around 1% of the total costs of raising pigs. ($180 out of $17,400 total costs in this sample budget.)
If the cost is about 1%, and it is 3.5X in CA, then it might be about 3.5% in CA. If their margins are slim, let’s say 10%, then they are losing about a third of their margin to the higher costs in CA.
So are businesses moving out of California because it’s expensive to produce hydrogen there? Or, more seriously, because electric rates are somewhat higher in CA?