Why not use lecky ? Hydrogen is pretty expensive to produce and to store.
Why not just use electricity.
Hydrogen could be useful for aircraft or off grid situations.
this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2023
13 points (88.2% liked)
Hydrogen
74 readers
1 users here now
A community about hydrogen and its use as a way to fight climate change.
founded 1 year ago
With some nuclear capacity, electric heating makes the most sense. Just let off-peak boilers use that off-peak nuclear electricity.
The problem is, a lot of people want to push 100% renewables.
Solar overproduces in summer and wind has strong days and weak days. Batteries are economically great for short term energy storage (i.e. charging and discharging at least once a day and profiting off of those arbitrages), but they will always be way too expensive for seasonal or multi-day storage. Imagine paying a very cheap $50 for a kWh battery in 2030 and only cycling it 50 times a year. Over a decade, that's an insane 10c per kWh just for the battery, excluding all other generating and financing costs.
The only way out is to have the windmills generate hydrogen on windy days and then push the hydrogen through the old natural gas pipelines.
And you'll have to subsidize it, because economically it will never be very competitive.
Nothing is too expensive. The amount of money that is wasted as astronomical. Think some could be put to good use.
Good fo some things for hydrogen or use those extra days to charge Evs and charge all the home batteries.
Plenty things they could charge
I, for one, am not happy with the way energy prices are going.
Wat too expensive for my taste. A quadrupling in a decade for me.
What are you saying? You want more coal ?.
If the goal is just making heat, there's little difference between the two.
Well now no. That's dumb. I can burn humans to make heat. I can burn coal. The point is the least amount of damage to the planet and the things on it ?
Us
Both are zero emissions. Neither of which does much harm to the planet.
Hydrogen can be produced from fossil fuels though. Unfortunately no way to say hydrogen was produced through green means
That's true of electricity too. There's no way of telling fossil fuel from green electricity.
This is true. Which is why you remove fossil fuels from the grid. Why add extra costs and infrastructure for hydrogen. Just use electricity for heating and hydrogen for planes maybe long haul truckers and sea freight
The infrastructure cost for hydrogen is much cheaper than the cost of expanding the grid. We simply start making a lot of green hydrogen and that will displace fossil hydrogen. Even the grid will rely on hydrogen for backup power generation.
The grid needs upgraded though. So they a moot point. The grid wasn't built for renewables and it wasn't built to deal with the way we currently need it. It's also underdeveloped and underfunded.
So no I hear you disagree.
Hydrogen is expensive to contain and to transport. It has its uses but it's really not necessary. If we use solar and wind correctly. We need batteries. And we don't even need that. We can just use pumped systems and other systems to use power.
Not the case. A hydrogen infrastructure allows us to scale back the grid, or at least limit how much bigger it needs to get.
A lot of the anti-hydrogen rhetoric is marketing BS. We can handle hydrogen just fine. We can even put hydrogen in natural gas pipelines and reuse much of that infrastructure. Also, once we have hydrogen we don’t really need batteries, or at least much less of them. Hydrogen stored in underground salt cavern exceeds the capacity of any other kind of energy storage. So all of the other energy storage ideas become obsolete or much less important once hydrogen shows up.
All electrical grids need to be upgraded. Maybe you could cheap out by doing a smaller upgrade and using hydrogen to offset it. Still needs the upgrade regardless.
The cost of hydrogen is astronomical. It's highly explosive it needs to be pressurized and it's just a bitch. I think you are underestimating the cost of a hydrogen to roll out.
German Japan and Australia have all scaled back. It's mega expensive.
The data on hydrogen gas mix is pretty clear. It's not cost effective and it's a bad idea. Nobody is doing that.
I would love to see that happen. Can you send me a few links on that concept. I've heard of pumped hydro and the crane one. Never seen hydrogen in salt caverns. How would that work for the world? I doubt everywhere has salt caverns.
It's an idea but in terms of logistics. Time will tell
We can keep the grid upgrades to a minimum.
It is far cheaper to move hydrogen in pipelines than to build its equivalence in wires. In reality, the hydrogen infrastructure saves us money. A lot of what you read is just pro-BEV propaganda. They are just lying about which is more expensive.
No one is scaling back hydrogen investment. Just recently, the US put billions into the idea. Many other countries are following suit or even already started.
Oh fo sure. It's all a conspiracy against "clean hydrogen" bull fucking shit.
So everyone is out to get hydrogen. It isn't that it's actually incredibly expensive and just as dirty as fossil fuels. Think you are the one pushing misinformation here
America. A country built on propaganda and corruption. Im sure they would be for green
Again, it’s just marketing BS. You are aware that companies can lie about the benefits of their products?
The only conspiracy theorists are those who think there is a conspiracy pushing hydrogen. In reality, it’s just the superior green energy solution compared to batteries. And you are getting close to being that kind of conspiracy theorist.
Yeah don't think it is. If you can provide evidence to your point that would be great. Why are other companies lying but hydrogen isn't ? What makes it the superior product?
Pretty sure a mix of energy is best. Some are suited to different needs. A good mix of solar, wind, hydro, geo, tidal, nuclear and bio is probably pretty good.
But keep being a spokesperson for hydrogen.
I think it's pretty niche and only really use is in shipping and aerospace.
And that's untill we find something better
It's far cheaper to move hydrogen in pipelines than electricity in wires: https://www.brinknews.com/could-hydrogen-replace-the-need-for-an-electric-grid/
Sure, it is going to be a mix. In fact, hydrogen will be made from whatever energy source is available. It is identical to electricity in that respect.
I don't think you grasp what you're even criticizing. I support hydrogen because it is the better energy carrier. It is fundamentally necessary in many, many sectors. Even if there were viable alternatives, you still have to support a huge expansion of hydrogen simply because of that. And in many sectors, there are no viable alternatives.
There is no "something better." Hydrogen is the end of the line when it comes to chemical energy storage. Fuel cells are simply another word for metal-air batteries, and as a result, hydrogen fuel cells have the highest energy density of any possible battery.
So the article is written by a person on the hydrogen board. Literally couldn't get any more propaganda than that.
It's not movement of hydrogen it's storage. Storage is the key to hydrogen and it's incredibly expensive to pressurize it.
Quote from article ". In comparison, the typical loss from transferring electricity over wires to a charging station is just 5%, so you still have 95% left"
So no idea where you are getting your info
"https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmorris/2021/02/06/why-are-we-still-talking-about-hydrogen/?sh=585a44097f04"
Even applications where hydrogen has typically been considered to have a major advantage are suffering. One of those usually suggested is trucks, where range and weight capacity are paramount. But here cracks also seem to be forming in the resolve of former backers. Volkswagen’s Scania truck brand has discontinued H2 development, arguing that hydrogen is too inefficient and expensive. Previously, Scania had been one of the leading vendors of hydrogen-powered trucks. But the tripling of energy needed to propel a vehicle the same distance with hydrogen compared to batteries was the nail in the coffin for the Swedish company.
There are always alternatives. Theyight just be more spendy.
No you are naive to think this js the best humanity has to offer. You'd be saying the same thing 100 years ago.
And 100 years ago before that.
We are not the best at everything. Hydrogen has a place. But it is niche
All of your own sources are written people directly or indirectly associated by people working for the battery industry. If you are willing to go there, then I'll just accuse your sources of being total propaganda too.
Hydrogen has the lowest storage cost of any system. You store in underground salt cavern at extremely low cost. It is the cheap solution out there.
At the time of that article, VW was ran by a BEV nutcase. He has since been fired. VW is now investing in hydrogen technology. Expect a total about-face in the near future.
Hydrogen has the highest energy density of any possible energy storage technology (ignore nuclear or whatever). As a result, you cannot come up with a better idea. It is the final conclusion of energy storage systems. Everything else is inferior. Therefore, logic dictates it will eventually be the dominate solution.
Exactly. So sources are very much the crux. Although some of my sources are EU and so have slightly more cred than a professor who works for hydrogen company.
That is bullshit and you know it. Storage is expensive. Not everyone has salt caverns. And even then you need to transport it to hubs for use. So you can't store it in the middle of nowhere.
Sure I'll wait on future proof of points.
Kool you sound you've lost the battle of logic. All else is inferior. Sound argument. With no backing or proof.
Goodbye
No they aren't. They are working for the battery industry.
You're wrong again. Nearly everyone has salt caverns. It is how we store natural gas today. It is vastly cheaper and more effectively than any of the alternatives. Again, hydrogen pipelines are cheaper than wires by an order of magnitude. Moving hydrogen around is the easy part.
It's already starting to happen. But we will what VW will do in the future.
It is self-evident that hydrogen has the highest energy density of any possible chemical energy storage system. There is no way of challenge this fact. Doubting it just means you have idea what you're talking about.
Mate. Read the information. Stop spewing the same rhetoric. It's been debunked. Get on with life aye. Pointless
Sorry, but you are just proving to be a liar. And breaking the rules.
Don't be sorry. A liar. What are you on about. You spew words with no backing, yet I provided sources to back up my claims. What rules? Are you a child or ?
The "watchdog" in question is basically the marketing wing of the heat pump industry.
I’m not sure we read the same article!
The “watchdog” is the UK’s National Infrastructure Commission, which is staffed entirely by civil servants, and whose remit covers far more than domestic heating. Not sure I see a link to the heat pump industry.
If anything, the opposite is true - the Energy and Utilities Alliance (who are quoted as being pro-hydrogen) is an industry body comprised of gas companies and boiler manufacturers, some of whom are selling boilers branded as “hydrogen mix ready” despite the UK having little to no infrastructure to distribute hydrogen at scale.
The "watchdog" group is an organization founded by Tories, and the lead guy is probably there just because he's tall. It's not a credible organization.
Look at the list of commissioners and their credentials. Many are economists but there are several civil engineers and even an Oxford professor who is a former director of the Environmental Change Institute. Mostly they seem legit.
I’m as happy to go Tory-bashing as most, but let’s at least make our disdain evidence-based.
Look at the guys comment history, he's fucked up about hydrogen lol.
Not everyone is on the same page as the leadership of that group. I'm sure if they did a real poll of all experts there, many will disagree with the leadership.
Hydrogen for heating is incredibly stupid and will never happen. The only reason why this option exists is to sell outdated technology.
It is happening. Don't let the competing industries tell you differently.
Show me where it is happening? Like actually and not on paper.
We've already tested the idea. Even in the UK: https://envirotecmagazine.com/2020/11/16/uks-first-hydrogen-heating-demonstration-takes-place-in-northumberland/
We know that it works.
Of course it works. It is just expensive as fuck.
Everything gets cheaper over time. If that's all you can say, then you are admitting that eventually it will be cheap enough for mass deployment.
🤦♂️