ICCT Insists That Massive Thumb On The Scale Favoring Hydrogen For Trucking Is Acceptable

Not too long ago the Worldwide Council on Clear Transportation (ICCT) printed a whole value of possession report on trucking decarbonization which discovered that vitality prices for battery electrical vans and inexperienced hydrogen gas cell vans would have nearly similar vitality prices per mile in 2050. Clearly there was a methodological challenge, as no less than 3 times as a lot electrical energy is required for a similar ahead movement as with batteries. Now they’ve asserted that their alternative was deliberate and methodologically sound to the numerous detriment to their credibility.

Vitality worth per kilometer ought to be at minimal 3 times extra for the hydrogen pathway, however as an alternative was solely 70% extra in 2030 and 10% extra in 2050. Additional, the report claimed that hydrogen gas cell vans can be value aggressive with diesel vans in 2030. All outcomes confound essentially the most fundamental of comparability logic.

There are numerous methods during which this consequence might need been reached, and so I got down to assess what they’d completed to reach at this fully inaccurate consequence. Potentialities included centralized inexperienced hydrogen manufacturing in excessive renewables areas in northern Africa with pipeline transmission and distribution with inaccurate manufacturing and transmission prices, a confusion over blue hydrogen versus inexperienced hydrogen costs or an inaccurate assumption of the vitality necessities and value of producing hydrogen from water and electrical energy. I assessed it and printed on this a couple of days in the past with a name for a retraction of their faulty report.

The final risk turned out to be the case adopted carefully by not aligning assumptions throughout situations. That they had relied on an earlier ICCT evaluation report which assessed manufacturing hydrogen at truck refueling stations from inexperienced electrical energy and water and located it was the most cost effective pathway. Nevertheless, that report had a major flaw in that it assumed {that a} small scale MW electrolyser on the station can be powered by wholesale prices of electrical energy with solely minor  adders from the ability buy agreements for wind and photo voltaic.

There are a number of flaws with this which can be value calling out.

Electrolyzers are costly items of equipment. Amortizing that value throughout the decrease value kilograms of hydrogen requires excessive utilization with firmed electrical energy. That’s very true for main industrial scale electrolysis services and it’s if something extra true for much less environment friendly tiny electrolysis services. The wholesale value of electrical energy is just not what anybody pays who needs to run their facility 60% of extra of the time.

Any facility wishing firmed electrical energy finally ends up paying the equal of grid industrial prices of electrical energy as they’ve to purchase both pay electrical utilities for the firming providers or purchase storage themselves or scale back utilization and improve prices. Assuming a MW scale electrolyzer facility can be establishing important extra contractual agreements and infrastructure for that is additionally problematic.

I think about that earlier report naive and that the findings aren’t supportable.

After which to the full value of possession report. They used the native manufacturing value of hydrogen from the sooner report with out disclaimers about its assumptions on the worth of electrical energy. They assumed a situation the place this was put in place and electrical energy on the refueling station was certainly being paid for at wholesale charges.

Then for battery electrical vans at precisely the identical location utilizing electrical energy from the identical wires, they assumed that the electrical energy can be at industrial charges, 3-4 occasions the charges for the hydrogen manufacturing.

To the credit score of the analysts, they nonetheless discovered that battery electrical trucking was cheaper than diesel or hydrogen in all situations, however the printed value of vitality per mile for the hydrogen situation was each a fraction of any real looking situation and had very completely different assumptions for in any other case similar situations.

That is a simple error to make. The ICCT has traditionally, in my view, tried to be a good and sincere analyst of transportation. I assumed that they might settle for their mistake, appropriate it and transfer on rapidly.

Sadly, that’s not what has transpired. First, they had been silent for a number of days after the error was identified to them. Then, earlier immediately, six days after the primary identification of the error in a communication with one of many lead authors, the opposite lead writer knowledgeable me that they had been standing by their report with its grossly inappropriate comparability and conclusion, and additional that they wished to publish a rebuttal in CleanTechnica. I’ve linked them to CleanTechnica’s editorial employees so it might floor.

The total textual content of the communication from Felipe Gonzales is:

“Thanks to your feedback and persistence whereas we completely reviewed our work in response. We take this criticism critically. It’s refreshing to see such thorough scrutiny slightly than a flat-out dismissal of the findings. It’s this type of engagement that enriches scientific discourse.

In short, we stand firmly by our findings and strategies. Your analogy factors to a possible bias in our methodology. Relaxation assured, our alternative of ‘apples’ for hydrogen and ‘oranges’ for batteries was deliberate and methodologically sound. To the touch on a couple of key factors:

➡ We selected PPAs for our 1 MW electrolyzer to make sure the usage of renewable electrical energy, important for genuinely inexperienced H2. We merely can not mannequin grid-mix right here
➡ Our method makes use of the identical construction of grid charges and taxes for inexperienced H2 manufacturing and charging. Nevertheless, there might be variations in demand charges as a result of completely different load profiles (steady 1 MW for inexperienced H2 vs peaky 20 MW for the charging hub)
➡ The grid upgrades wanted for a 20 MW charging hub will affect the electrical energy value that the CPO sees
➡ The infrastructure value of the MW charging hub, particularly given its low utilization, impacts the electrical energy worth that the trucker sees. That is the charging worth we reported.

Our report encompasses varied situations (pessimistic, central, optimistic) that differ in a number of parameters, with the price of electrical energy on the meter being simply one among them. We report right here our central situations, that are at all times within the vary of these within the scientific literature. Nonetheless, given the curiosity this has aroused, we plan to increase our evaluation with a further situation in an addendum the place a PPA for the MW charging hub is introduced.”

That is, after all, errant nonsense that’s so closely weighted to attempt to justify hydrogen as an choice that it’s exhausting to lend it credence. To paraphrase, what the ICCT is saying is:

There’s completely no technique to make hydrogen on the refueling station with out additive inexperienced electrical energy, so the one mechanism that will be supported is with PPAs which justifies the price level. It’s a very unrealistic and flawed situation, however they’re appropriate that it’s the just one that’s remotely credible as a decarbonization technique.

Then again, they are saying that utilizing grid electrical energy in batteries straight is totally viable and value efficient with out PPAs as a decarbonization technique and in order that’s what individuals will do. That’s additionally true. However additional they are saying that the identical PPAs can’t be used for battery electrical automobiles.

They ignore the price of firming for hydrogen after which assert that the a lot decrease value of firming a 3rd of the electrical energy with batteries isn’t fully viable. This burdens the electrical energy case and unburdens the hydrogen case inappropriately. Additional, they ignore each locality and temporality. The three ideas are vital for manufacturing really inexperienced hydrogen as in any other case no matter carbon footprint the electrical energy has is multiplied by an element three to 4.

Briefly, additionality requires {that a} inexperienced electrical energy client purchase as a lot electrical energy from specifically constructed wind or photo voltaic farms which can be including low carbon electrical energy to the grid as they devour. Temporality requires that the electrical energy consumed by the tip consumer be matched to the era of the wind and photo voltaic farms (firming) or marginal new excessive carbon electrical energy might be demanded and therefore be offered. Locality requires that the wind and photo voltaic farms be pretty shut in geographical phrases to the demand for hydrogen, in any other case the excessive carbon native electrical energy might be expanded with a serious new demand supply.

Of the trio of necessities, solely the primary is met. In consequence, they may arrange a hydrogen refueling station in Poland with its 80% coal grid and construct a wind farm in Spain that manufactures low-carbon electrical energy with none temporal connection to their hydrogen manufacturing, and be rising coal demand regionally. That may imply {that a} kilogram of hydrogen put right into a truck in Poland wouldn’t be inexperienced or low carbon, however pitch black.

At current, Poland’s grid depth is 635 grams of CO2e per kWh, down 20%. Together with compression, removing of water vapor, storage and pumping into vans, roughly 60 kWh of electricty is required per kilogram of hydrogen. Meaning the carbon depth of a Polish kilogram of hydrogen would have a carbon debt of 38 kilograms of CO2e. That’s nicely above the carbon depth of an vitality equal mass of diesel with it’s roughly 10 kilograms of CO2e.

They’re certainly appropriate that utilizing unabated grid electrical energy to fabricate hydrogen is just not a viable resolution, however don’t lean into what which means sufficiently with temporality and locality, because of this their value figures are vastly beneath actuality.

By comparability, Germany’s grid depth of 333 grams of CO2e per kWh leads to double the carbon debt for a similar vitality as diesel. France’s nuclear heavy grid has a low carbon depth of round 70 grams of CO2e per kWh and so hydrogen manufactured there’s solely 40% of the carbon depth of diesel.

Clearly, battery electrical vans have a 3rd to 1 / 4 of the carbon depth per kilometer with grid electrical energy as hydrogen gas cell vans do, so they’re clearly the good choice and that ratio will merely proceed, not change.

The reply to this conundrum isn’t to construct 3 times the wind and photo voltaic to massively lengthen hydrogen demand, however to cut back hydrogen demand as a lot as doable as rapidly as doable and to construct as a lot wind and photo voltaic to decarbonize all grid electrical energy quickly. It’s unclear why hydrogen for vitality advocates discover this obscure, and it’s unclear why they suppose that purchasing wind vitality in Spain is especially helpful when they’re including demand in Poland.

The ICCT has considerably weakened its credibility. Discussions I’ve had with a worldwide set of vitality and decarbonization analysts over the previous week have left us scratching our heads. Whereas I had given the Council the good thing about the doubt earlier, assuming that they’d made an sincere mistake, now it’s clear that contained in the ICCT there are robust pro-hydrogen factions and stakeholders who’ve warped the organizations’ discussions and evaluation.

Whereas the ICCT has rejected retraction, I name once more for doing so. Additional, I feel that they need to retract their earlier and naive inexperienced hydrogen and rework with it temporality and locality necessities that will trigger the price per kWh to rise to roughly the identical as industrial charges of electrical energy. Lastly, they clearly have an inside drawback with institutional bias that’s impacting their governance. I’d advocate that they make a severe effort to redress that, which could embrace modifications in senior management, mandates and requirements.