Ultimately the consumer pays for everything, though presently there are various schemes offered by car manufacturers and the government to help towards teh cost of installing the charge point at your house.
There is no change to the electrical supply to your property, and so the charger current available at your charger would be unlikely to exceed 7.5kw.
If you wanted a more powerful charger, you would have to fund the uprating of your domestic supply. Some people may run some form of business from their home and may already have a 3 Phase supply which will allow a more powerful charger to be fitted.
Bearing in mind the average commute in the UK is a round trip of about 30miles a single phase charger will easily supply enough to recharge overnight.
There are very few situations with domestic ground floor dwellings where a charger could not be fitted.
The principle reason the government is pushing this is to improve air quality by reducing the quantity of emissions produced by road vehicles. Initially this will will enacted for private cars and light vans, but progressively it will will expand include all major forms of road transport. I also suspect it will spill over into other forms of transport such a rail and water and Agriculture and Civil Engineering, and there are already practical examples of where Battery driven tractors and earth movers are being manufactured and sold.
The background to this is how efficient a vehicle is at deriving motive power from the energy it
is supplied with. The government
https://www.google.com/search?q=ene...33i22i29i30.7951j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 points to figures like :-
Internal combustion engines typically 13%
Hydrogen powered 22%,
Battery-Electric 73%,
What I don't know is if this represents when the vehicles are moving or where it also includes stop start conditions. but despite this uncertainty there is a very clear picture that EV's have a distinct advantage overall.
It's worth noting teh inherent inefficiency of ICE would be the same if petrol or diesel were replaced by Hydrogen, so the hydrogen line refers to a fuel cell approach.
So just on vehicle energy efficiency EV's win.
But there are other considerations also:-.
No one has yet devised a simple and cheap way of producing hydrogen in the quantities that are needed to run a car. Presently it has to be done on an industrial scale, and the technology needed to compress and distribute hydrogen to filling stations where it needs to be stored is vastly expensive. Currently it is uneconomic, though that might change if there are any breakthroughs in producing Hydrogen, and I know there companies who are continuing to look at this.
It is possible to fuel an ICE type with hydrogen, but by doing so you still have all the moving mechanical parts of an engine with there frictional losses and lubricants and thermal considerations and their liability to failure just as much as a petroleum based engine. Another advantage of EV is the reduction of moving parts both in the motor and in the transmission. These typically need far less servicing, and run at lower temperatures, and don't produce any waste gasses or liquids.
It is comparatively easy to produce regenerative braking in an EV, something you can't do with ICE or a fuel cell. unless they use hybrid technology.
Hydrogen might have a place for fleet services such as busses or postal deliveries or taxi's where they operate from a central garage, but the cost of installing the hydrogen infra-structure, will be beaten every time by the lower cost of installing charging points for battery drives.
Until there is breakthrough in Hydrogen production and storage costs, I do not see a widespread future for Hydrogen private travel.
Facebook
Twitter