GRA wrote:Good. Energy (in a usable form) should never be or be thought of as 'free'. And the QC infrastructure will only grow rapidly if it can be made profitable while also competitive with gas prices. We still don't have the ability to do this, as it requires renewables plus much cheaper storage to eliminate demand fees, but it's essential if ICEs are to be replaced by BEVs (absent BEV ranges so long that recharging times don't matter).
That's right, GRA: Fight the good fight against free fuel!
But ONLY fight that fight when that free fuel is electricity. When the fuel being provided for free is hydrogen gas, remain completely mute on this important issue of free fuel, even when the problem is pointed out to you by other posters on this forum: 1
, and 8
I didn't even mention the MANY occasions where you quoted another reference on the internet here in which they pointed out that hydrogen was being provided for free yet you managed to restrain your righteous indignation and said nothing about it in ALL cases.
As I've often pointed out, H2 will only succeed when it's cost-competitive with gas. If companies and governments wish to subsidize it in the early stages of deployment, okay, but that inevitably means roll out will be very slow, as is the case with Tesla's SCs and public charging deployment. Gas stations proliferated rapidly because lots of people were willing to build and operate them as a business, as they were profitable. No one (to my knowledge) is doing that yet with either public charging or H2, as they both remain dependent on public subsidies (or corporate, in the case of Tesla/Toyota/Honda/Hyundai). Only when those are no longer needed will we see rapid growth of public charging or H2 fueling infrastructure. As to 'free' H2, see below.
Instead, I see that your indignation is reserved for companies which dare to charge enough money for their hydrogen products to attempt to cover their costs and make a profit
GRA wrote:The station's right on Norris Canyon Road, a double-sided dispenser with 350 bar on the north side and 700 bar on the south side. But the price is $20.16/kg.! They've got to be kidding!
GRA wrote:After three years of $0.00/mile H2, see what the current price of H2 is. If it isn't competitive with gas, turn the car in and lease again if you choose, getting another three years free (or more likely, a lower level of subsidy to make it competitive, if H2 has come down in price but is still more expensive than gas).
So, does everyone get it now?
- When ELECTRICITY is free: "Energy (in a usable form) should never
be or be thought of as 'free'."
- When HYDROGEN is free: "After three years of $0.00/mile H2, see what the current price of H2 is. If it isn't competitive with gas, turn the car in and lease again if you choose, getting another three years free..."
See above. Everyone's aware that H2 remains too expensive and is being subsidized, and the amount of that subsidy ($15k total, provided by the auto manufacturer rather than the government) is known. No one thinks that it's really free, only that it's being subsidized so that a limited quantity is provided to the consumer, essentially as part of their total payment. I'm against any imputation that usable energy for transport is free - it always costs something to put it into usable form. I was against Tesla's Free Supercharging for life for the same reason (along with the fact that it was unsustainable if they wanted to move into the mass market), and was much happier when they said they were changing that to a yearly allowance plus costs for any extra, which is essentially the method now being employed for H2; straight payment per use is even better.
I'd hope/expect that Toyota et al would reduce the amount of the subsidy for second leases, as the car itself should be less expensive. My personal preference for handling energy subsidies is that you'd be always be paying out of pocket for any refueling/recharging using say a company-issued credit card, but the company would pay some amount per kg or kWh and you'd be on the hook for the rest. That way everyone would have a direct reinforcement that energy is never free, and it would encourage people to shop around for the least expensive energy. Of course, given the limited deployment of both public charging and (even more so) H2 stations now, there often isn't enough competition in many areas to make shopping for price a viable option yet.
As to Linde's price in San Ramon, it's liquid H2 transport which is supposed to be cheaper to transport than gaseous, yet it's priced $3.38/kg. MORE than First Element's gaseous H2 in the Bay Area ($16.78/kg.), not to mention the $9.99 that Air Products is charging at their stations in SoCal for their gaseous H2, so I do find that outrageous. As the San Ramon station is at Toyota's HQ, I suspect that the high price may be designed to reduce some of the subsidy in a back door way, by Linde kicking something back to Toyota.
H2 will only succeed if they can reduce the price to be competitive with gas, and the same goes for electricity. The recent increase in gas prices in California (avg. $3.474 for regular today), along with eVgo's decrease in their prices, make both public charging and H2 more competitive with gas, although the latter still has a ways to go. The question is whether companies like eVgo or the H2 providers can be profitable at those prices.