I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: most new hydrogen technology is snake oil.
Its main source right now is as a byproduct to petrochemical processing, so a lot of the motivation behind it is really about maintaining these production lines, rather than “going green”.
Some things do require hydrogen, eg science applications. Hydrogen can be made using green electricity, but the energy cost is incredibly high. In order to fulfill just the things that require hydrogen, where there is no other alternative, we would need 3x the global renewable capacity solely dedicated to hydrogen production. If we start adding mass transport into that mix, or things like this hydrogen heating system, then we’re only exacerbating the problem.
We need our renewable electricity to power things that already use electricity. We don’t have enough capacity to be pouring it away into all the potential uses for hydrogen - which are often far less efficient. You lose so much energy creating hydrogen (as well as losses due to leaks) that you may as well just power it with electricity directly.
This is anti-hydrogen propaganda. It is basically a marketing spiel for the battery industry. In reality, hydrogen is going to power nearly all transportation, mainly because batteries are not a sustainable solution.
And the notion that we can't build enough renewable energy capacity is a classic climate change denial argument. People who say this are unknowingly (or sometimes knowingly) trying to get everyone back onto fossil fuels.
Absolutely, I see no problem with using excess energy to produce hydrogen or other stuff. Maybe it’s arguably better to put that into battery storage or something, but it takes time to build all of that, and diversity isn’t a bad thing in most cases.
Like I said, we do need hydrogen for some things - what I’m saying is that we should be focusing on using it for things that have no other option, rather than trying to grow the hydrogen consumption market by moving anything that can be over to it, regardless of whether or not that is a good idea. Particularly if we’re basing long term predictions on the current rates of hydrogen production, primarily black hydrogen ie produced from petrochemicals, which would be expected to decline and rise in price alongside a decline in petrochemical use.
And where did I say we can’t build enough renewable capacity? I said we would need at least 3x the current renewable capacity dedicated to producing hydrogen to meet our current demand with green hydrogen for things that have no other option. The point I’m making is that running everything on hydrogen will drastically increase this demand, thus delaying the path to net zero as we’ll need to use fossil fuels for longer while we build even more renewables than if we were just aiming to meet our current, essential hydrogen demand.
If you are totally honest, you'd admit that for a huge percentage of the transportation, we don't have any real option other than hydrogen. That's certainly the case for many types of commercial vehicles, ships and airplanes. But it is also true for a large percentage of passenger cars. Not everyone can accept a battery powered car in their lifestyle. So it is inevitable that transportation is part of what hydrogen is good for. And once we start using hydrogen for this, batteries quickly become the odd-man out. After all, why spend trillions on a highly destructive and arguably unsustainable technology that will have to be replaced anyways?
The reason why it is a climate change denial tactic is that it completely ignores the fact that we can easily build enough renewable energy for pretty much whatever we want. It is thousands of times more plentiful than fossil fuels, and won't run out either. So even if we accept your claim of needing 3x more capacity, that is still no problem. However, it won't actually need that, since renewable energy requires vast amounts of energy storage to be viable. That storage is most easily done using hydrogen. So in reality, hydrogen is pretty fundamental to renewable energy altogether.
We do have another option: electric vehicles. Looking at cars, a hydrogen fuel cell car uses 3.2x as much energy and costs over 5.4x as much per mile driven vs electric. The cost difference is huge, one that no one can ignore. If people can’t stand the charge times, then we’ll start swapping out batteries - this has already been proven successful in some Asian countries with scooters.
Aircraft is another matter, as current batteries are too heavy, but even then hydrogen is worse than conventional combustible fuels. Pending significant advances in battery technology, we’ll probably use biofuels. It would be more efficient to convert hydrogen and CO2 to e-fuels than to use hydrogen directly - airlines prioritise efficiency.
We can easily build renewable technology (I’ve spent the last 7 years building windfarms) but the issue is speed. We need to get off fossil fuels now, or failing that as quickly as possible.
It’s not that we need 3x our current capacity, it’s that we need 3x our current capacity just foressentialhydrogen, on top of all the rest of the capacity that renewables have yet to meet. Bear in mind, when a country claims to have “100% of their demand met by their renewable generation” there’s a lot of statisical fiddling involved, where they ignore that they still generate a significant amount through fossil fuels and that they are net exporters to other countries. We have a long way to go to meet even our current electrical demand with renewables, let alone any extra.
Energy storage with hydrogen is not easy. It’s hard, and even if it’s perfect it is still woefully inefficient. Batteries are the best long term bet there, however it’s still a very new sector in the energy market, so it has a ways to go. Elevated water storage is another good one, but the installation costs are pretty high (though not as high as nuclear).
Overall, our current goal should be to phase out fossil fuels as quickly as possible. The best way to do that is to go hard on current renewable technology, over all else. This includes sidelining nuclear, as it takes a long time to build nuclear and we’ll use more fossil fuels waiting for it than we would subsidising renewables when they’re not available. Nuclear also takes finite funding away from renewables, where it would be more effective.
Similarly, hydrogren detracts from these efforts, as it pushes the bar that renewables have to meet even higher. A large growth in hydrogen consumption, beyond that which genuinely requires hydrogen, will only prolong our reliance on fossil fuels.
For millions of people, that is not an option. And I'm assuming you mean "BEVs" not electric vehicles. FCEVs are also electric vehicles. Furthermore, the claims of the BEV industry are not to be trusted. It is no different than citing the oil industry's claim that BEVs cost the the equivalent of $17/gallon to drive.
Battery swapping will explode the logistical and resource requirements of BEVs. It makes the problem even worse.
Airplanes will probably use some combo of e-fuels or LH₂ setup. The latter is doable via a new type of airframe like a blended wing body.
If speed is important, you'd support the rapid adoption of hydrogen, not oppose it. These are not credible arguments unless you do not actually believe in climate change.
Renewable energy is leading to vast curtailment and excess production. That energy is pretty much wasted. Turning it into hydrogen will not cost that much money nor require that much more generation capacity.
Large scale storage of hydrogen is done with natural occurring salt caverns. These cost far less than just about anything else ever conceived.
Again, if the goal is to phase fossil fuels, you would go hard in favor of green hydrogen, alongside many other ideas. You would not oppose any green energy ideas.
The claims of most commercial industries should not be trusted. I prefer academic sources, or at least those that are more energy agnostic.
Battery swapping will explode the logistical and resource requirements of BEVs. It makes the problem even worse.
I’m sure people said the same about gas stations.
Airplanes will probably use some combo of e-fuels or LH₂[^1] setup.
[^1]: Dammit, for a moment there I thought you’d done some funky new markdown code to write “LH₂”. But I bet you didn’t know about the citation function that lemmy has - which apparently even works out of order (check the comment source).
I disagree with the latter part of that. I’m sure LH₂ will be tried, and it might temporarily prove effective under current conditions (with cheap, untaxed black and brown hydrogen) but as soon as you start trying to fulfill that with green hydrogen it just won’t be efficient enough.
Who knows though. Hydrogen right now is mainly a byproduct, so maybe there is some scope for that excess cheap hydrogen to be used in the short to medium term.
Renewable energy is leading to vast curtailment and excess production.
That is exactly what we should be aiming for. It might be slightly less commercially palatable for renewable generation businesses to be running at curtailment, but what we need right now is to build a large excess of renewable generation. The wind is always blowing somewhere, and (during the day, when most power is used) the sun still shines through the clouds.
Extrapolating from the latest UK National Grid’s Future Energy Scenarios report[^2], we need to focus on building an excess of renewable generation as quickly as possible to get off fossil fuels as quickly as possible. Once we have the excess, we can pad out our generation portfolio with nuclear. Then, when the nuclear is ready to start generating, there is every likelihood that demand will have grown to the point that our excess renewable generation will have become the current requirement.
The report[^2] does include significant use of hydrogen, but that is focused on heating and high energy applications. Transportation is a ridiculously large sector that does not benefit from the inefficiencies of hydrogen.
Large scale storage of hydrogen is done with natural occurring salt caverns. These cost far less than just about anything else ever conceived.
That’s a new thing to me, I’ll have to read up on that. I’d appreciate any sources you could offer.
My blind guess is that it is similar to elevated water storage in feasibility, though. In particular, investors might not be interested in developing the technology.
Again, if the goal is to phase fossil fuels, you would go hard in favor of green hydrogen, alongside many other ideas. You would not oppose any green energy ideas.
I’m all for green hydrogen production. The issue I take is with the reckless expansion of hydrogen consumption. More specifically, I feel that many people who work with hydrogen are too keen to expand the consumption market, because doing so benefits their industry commercially.
Edit: Damn, just saw you’re on kbin, which doesn’t have the citation function. If you click the 3 dots and select “copy url to fediverse” you can see what I see, or alternatively click here.
Edit2: I just realised that we’re commenting on an article about hydrogen heating, and that coincides with my main source saying that hydrogen heating should be developed. Maybe I should give the article and its heating technology more leeway. Nonetheless, I remain firm that hydrogen in transportation is not really a viable solution, all things considered.
A lot of those "agnostic" sources are secretly working for the BEV companies. There's a lot of misinformation out there. Anyways, given that a fuel cell is vastly more efficient than a conventional ICE, there shouldn't be an issue on efficiency. FCEVs are more than good enough. Anyone bringing this issue up as a problem is either confused or has an agenda. After all, FCEVs are also EVs.
Gas stations are much cheaper than battery swapping. In fact, that is the main argument in favor of FCEVs. Replacing existing gas stations with hydrogen stations is a much cheaper solution than putting up millions of charging stations, battery swapping stations, DC fast charging stations, etc.
I'm on Kbin FYI. It mostly works for my needs.
Excess green energy will likely flood the system. We will have an overabundance of all types of green energy, including hydrogen, in the long-run.
Critics of hydrogen are basically contradicting themselves. If you admit the need for energy storage in the form of hydrogen, you are also admitting the existence of very cheap hydrogen. That will be available for a variety of tasks. It will become the go-to solution for anything that needs a chemical fuel. If it is cheap enough for heating or steel production, it will be cheap enough for transportation solutions too.
A lot of those “agnostic” sources are secretly working for the BEV companies.
The kind of agnostic sources I was referring to are like the one I provided - system operators, who don’t really care what provides the generation or what uses it, but instead try to optimise the network.
Yes, there is misinformation out there. Just like your claim that FCEV’s are more efficient - they’re more efficient at the end stage of converting a fuel into motion, but the overall process including hydrogen production and getting the fuel cell ready to use is far, far less efficient. It’s more efficient to pull oil out the ground, process it and then run a car on it than it is to run an FCEV. Spinning up renewable generation to charge a battery requires more energy than using current oil infrastructure, but is definitely more efficient than FCEV, even when accounting for the production and lifecycle of a current battery. Oil only wins on efficiency right now because the infrastructure is already there, and because the fuel was made over millions of years prior.
Yes, it would be cheaper to adapt current gas stations to hydrogen. My point was referring to the time before gas stations were built - back then, it would have been cheaper to stick with horses than to move to widespread adoption of the new technology. Models for adapting current gas stations to hydrogen also typically ignore the cost of green hydrogen, and instead assume it will continue to be as cheap as it is now while it is produced by fossil fuel processes.
Hydrogen is cheap right now because it is a byproduct of dirty fuel production. If we stop using dirty fuel, we will stop having cheap hydrogen, and then all the people who invested in hydrogen because it was cheap will be left holding the bag. This is why I referred to it as “snake oil” in my initial comment.
I realised you were on kbin, hence my edits :o) I did also contradict myself, but clarified my objection to hydrogen consumption. The edits probably didn’t make it through to kbin that quickly, but they seem to be there now.
Excess green energy will likely flood the system. We will have an overabundance of all types of green energy, including hydrogen, in the long-run.
That’s wild speculation, there. We need to focus on the big problem right now, not the long-run. Right now, we need to get off fossil fuels as quickly as possible - trying to ease the transition with similar technologies (particularly ones focused on a byproduct of and reliant on current technology) will only slow things down by furthering demand for the existing infrastructure.
Thank you for the link, however pv-mag is a source I am very skeptical of. They’re very focused on the growth of their industry, and generally give a marketeer’s approach to things rather than an objective technical view. Hell, the first source link in that article is supposed to be about the Jülich Institute for Energy and Climate Research, but instead links to another one of their own articles that has little if anything to due with the institute or the topic of your article. pv-mag spew a lot of hyperbole, in my experience.
The source paper isn’t so bad, though, and has been widely cited. I remain skeptical about the commercial viability of it (in particular, they seem to give no consideration to the risk of explosion when filling a cavern with hydrogen), but it still sounds like a cool technology.
Yet in some places there’s an excess of wind production at times and it’s economically viable to throw it into hydrogen and ammonia production. Do you think Maersk is designing ammonia powered ships for nothing?
Production and consumption are two different things. We need more green hydrogen production (currently at 0.1% of all hydrogen production), and we need to heavily tax black and brown hydrogen to balance the environmental cost against the low price of dirty production.
With hydrogen consumption, we already have a significant demand for scientific and other uses that have no alternative. This currently relies on black and brown hydrogen, but will eventually need to be fulfilled by green hydrogen. If we throw anything and everything that could use hydrogen on top of that, then we’ll be using fossil fuels for even longer while we build enough renewable generation capacity for it all to be provided by green hydrogen.
Also, the vast majority use scenarios proposed for hydrogen could be fulfilled directly by electricity at a much greater overall efficiency. Maybe hydrogen would be cheaper right now, while it’s all produced by petrochemicals, but when you factor in the cost of green hydrogen the long term projections simply do not work.
Do you think Maersk is designing ammonia powered ships for nothing?
I think Maersk is designing ammonia powered ships because they’re not far removed from conventional ICE’s, which they’re already proficient in. They’re less concerned with what is the best solution overall, but which is the most profitable to them right now.
Lol you caught me out, I skimmed over most of the article. I’ve also realised later down the thread that one of my main sources actually includes hydrogen for heating as a viable use case.
I still stand by my claim that most hydrogen consumption proposals are snake oil, which would be better served by using electricity directly (particularly in transport), but perhaps this could be good.
They don’t actually say what the efficiency of it is, only that the inneficiency is mainly heat and “70% of home energy needs are for heat” which makes sense in Scandinavia but makes less and less sense the further South you are, plus it massivelly depends on being able to capture and use that heat (can you use it for cooking or only for environmental heating?).
Ultimatelly efficiency and price are what makes almost all the difference.
That said, I hope this turns out to be a proper solution: we definitelly need home energy storage solutions which have much higher energy density and lower cost per mWh that the ones we have now.
I don’t want my house to be self-sufficient. I want my street and neighborhood to be self-sufficient. I already use my neighbors excess solar for reasonable prices.
My city wants to be off natural gas in 2030 and my neighborhood is in the pilot to transition first. I don’t necessarily want a huge heat pump attached to my house, and I don’t want a huge energy storage solution in my small garden.
There is city land around our housing block with plenty of room for a solution that can serve the whole street. I hope the city is going to propose something like that for us.
Agreed. Not that i dislike people doing stuff by themself on a small scale, but i really wish the focus would be more on larger scale projects and giving people easy access to invest in those.
Dont make everyone get a small solar panel and a tiny battery in their house. Let them invest in something like a large wind turbine in their area and maybe directly reap some of those benefits.
How far way is that city land? When a house has a natural gas explosion, it takes out the house. When you have a hydrogen explosion it potentially could take out the block.
This will hopefully be something like district heating, so a central heat pump that distributes hot water. I don’t think hydrogen in on the table. They could add a flow battery to capture more solar energy locally but I don’t think that’ll be on the cards early on.
But in reality it’ll probably be a heat pump per home and a big energy bill for us. Our street was built over 50 years ago when natural gas was plenty and cheap so insulation wasn’t much of a concern. We’ve added insulation under the floors and in the walls, but it’s never going to be as well insulated as a modern home.
We already have efficient enough solar panels to make our homes self sufficient, we just can’t afford to buy them.
Even if we could, the power supply industry would see it happening, bribe and persuade the government to make it illegal to go off grid (I’m sure their solicitors would come up with “good” reasons that we should be stopped), to save their poor little shareholders.
No way will they go down without a fight. Would I love to go off grid? Sure. If I had a few grand of spending money I could easily do it. But that’s just one person, no way they’d let the entire country do it.
We are 90% there already. In many states, solar panels and usage have extra taxes. Most solar installations are grid tied and electricity sale prices to the company are fixed at a small fraction of their sale prices from those companies. Worse, if power goes out, you can’t use solar to stay electrified because electricity would leak out and potentially electrocute nearby line men.
All mains connected solar has an inverter. Hell, most wind is part or fully converted, to smooth out the raw waveform, and thus is inverter driven.
Where I’m from your “interlock switch” would be called “island mode”. It can be a thing, but distribution network operators have a legal obligation to maintain supply (or else they face harsh financial penalties) and as such they are reluctant to allow even the possibility of unintentional backfeed to their network, especially when they need to work quickly to keep supplies up. Safely regulating every single household is just too burdensome, not without extensive modification that no one wants to pay for.
Worse, if power goes out, you can’t use solar to stay electrified because electricity would leak out and potentially electrocute nearby line men.
Your info is a bit out of date. With a single battery you can use nearly any solar system to generate and consume that energy during a grid outage. With a couple brands of gear (such as Enphase IQ8) you don’t even need any battery to generate and consume energy from solar during a grid outage. The term to look for for batteryless is called “self grid forming”.
Grid forming typically refers to inverters connected to a large electricity network. What you’re talking about is islanding, ie running a system separate to the grid when it would normally be grid following. The principles are similar, in that both involve using internal voltage measurements to control the generation output (rather than externally chasing the grid voltage), but the practical nature is different - grid forming systems have to deal with large fluctuations from the network, well beyond what you would see in a domestic system. The terminologies overlap a lot, but grid forming specifically refers to large scale systems and more complicated networks.
Worse, if power goes out, you can’t use solar to stay electrified because electricity would leak out and potentially electrocute nearby line men.
Has this… really ever been true? We’ve had gas powered generators people can plug into their homes for a rather long time now, and they would be doing the exact same thing as solar installations.
It depends on where you are mainly, but I do believe the kit that prevents what you describe, is functionally mandatory to have for solar. Not certain on that, and it definitely still depends on locale, but I haven’t seen any without that lockout in a loooonging time.
Yes any professionally installed solar kit is going to have that liability prevention included with the design. That person is just spouting bullshit from some half-learned information.
I built my own solar offgrid power station, and I didn’t install that protection, but it’s also a completely off the grid power source so it doesn’t matter. I installed a dedicated ground and breaker for it and it works as a standalone power source.
There’s a very good reason you don’t want the entire country to go off-grid, and that net-metering is a plague that only serves as a wealth transfer from the poor to the rich.
A large chunk of electric costs are fixed costs. Wiring, power station upkeep, more wiring, transformers, storm damage, etc. Whether you personally use twice or half as much power as the median household does not matter for this. So every net-metered kWh you send on the grid, everybody ELSE ends up ponying up the infrastructure costs for (nevermind the enormous production-side costs of fighting against the duck curve).
A partial solution to make this fairer is therefore to either tax solar installations, use non-net-metering (with digital meters), or make grid connectivity a fixed cost in the electric bill.
For people who are completely off-grid (meaning not only do they not pull any electricity from the grid ever, they are not connected AT ALL and therefore do not incur infrastructure cost on everyone else), it’s not as bad but sill not great because the grid operates on economies of scale. So in (semi-)urban areas it’s still a net loss for society when someone goes off-grid.
I wish they went into more deatil about what kind of solid fuel cell system they’re working with - they say they’re trapping hydrogen molecules in some kind of molecular lattice, i.e. a crystal of some sort perhaps?
Anyway, I hate patents but understand why you need them… They just seems to slow down progress.
Patents trade public disclosure of technology for a limited time exclusive use of the technology. Without them companies are less likely to publicly disclose any technologies they develop.
It enables generic medicine - as patented medicine needs to publicly disclose methods. It also allows the public to know what is in the patented product because it is public info.
It also makes iteration easier, as everyone can build off and on top of the patent info.
However, patent abuse is a real issue. Using patents to stifle others innovation and create monopolies. Also patents that come about from publicly funded research often give private companies exclusive rights to profit from work funded by the public.
Mickey mouse is copyright, which is a different beast. It’s also good because it protects people producing easily copied work such as writing, music and images. However, the mouse has lobbied his way into making the copyright protection excessively long. It should be much shorter, 30 years since publication would be reasonable - it would be a tremendous victory if we got it down to 50.
The company’s website quotes a storage density of 3.5 kWh/kg and a storage system taking up 3 cubic meters beving able to store 100,000 kWh: www.photoncycle.com/technology
I tried to find the patent but it sounds like the application process isn’t complete yet.
These are the kind of claims you hear from a startup seeking its next round of funding. I’d take it with a huge grain of salt.
Well, I’m still waiting for the graphene solar panels, cold fusion, flying cars, drone deliveries, metal nanoparticle engines, healing nano bots and what not.
I wonder if we’re going to build a Dyson sphere before some of those other things become a reality.
Drone deliveries seemed promising with Amazon, but the core company is so toxic that any tangible product that didn’t come from Lab126 is doomed. Zipline actually has a shot and is actively operating at a massive scale in Rwanda.
@ooli tl/Dr "Photoncycle
Brandtzaeg holds up a chalk-looking substance: “With this, you can store electricity 20 times as densely as in a lithium battery.”
“We're locking up the hydrogen molecules in a solid to basically fix them. We're using a reversible, high-temperature fuel cell, so we're assisting a fuel cell which both can produce hydrogen and electricity in the same cell,” he says.
That means no need to cool the hydrogen down, making it non-flammable and giving it a higher density than an ion-lithium battery"
The article is light on details, but it claims they’re storing the hydrogen as a solid - not as a gas. Solids are generally about a thousand times more compact than a gas.
That’s hardly a revolutionary thing - there are hydrogen powered cars on the road and those don’t use hydrogen as a gas either. Those cars don’t make much sense compared to lithium, but mostly only because there’s almost nowhere in the world you buy hydrogen for your car. That’s not an issue if you’re producing your own hydrogen at home.
They don’t? When the Toyota hydrogen cars were introduced here around 2015, one of the issues were that a full tank of gas would dilute through the tank walls within a week. From the marketing material of the latest Toyota Mirai, it seems that they still use Hydrogen stored in gas form, boasting improvements in a 3-layer tank that is tested for 235% of the pressure that the gas is stored at, compared to 150% for regular gas containers.
Yeah and what does that have to do with the Hydrogen being stored in gas form? The fuel cell converts it, it isn’t a storage mechanism. Hydrogen has a boiling point of -253C, are you saying that Hydrogen powered cars are fitted with a power hungry cryo chamber to cool down the fuel to a liquid form?
Since it’s solid hydrogen I think it’s to be expected, however I didn’t see any information regarding energy losses which I imagine would be quite high when you have those kinds of cooling requirements.
This is why I hate marketing pushes. If they’re a good-faith business, the efficiency needs to be within shooting distance of reasonable against costs. But as we learned from the artificial meat industry (that ultimately admitted we’ve already probably reached lifetime price/quality/scale limits from the methodologies they’re using) brutal honesty doesn’t get you investors.
Add comment