3 ms·

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S036031991000340X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03603... The best case scenario

• danans 6y ago
  > FYI, 80% is already being hit by real world normal electrolysis reactions. Not in a fuel-cell running in reverse in a car, though, which is what the GP was referring to. > especially considering that green hydrogen is around $2-3/kg today More like $3-7 per kg today [1]. And as that article (which is less than 1 month old) points out, producing green hydrogen would require an absolutely massive buildout of renewables, which would better be put to direct use without the conversion penalty to hydrogen. Hydrogen energy storage will still have its niche applications on the margins, but it is unlikely to catch up to the cost and availability advantages of batteries for cars in places where the existing electric grid reaches. 1. https://www.rechargenews.com/transition/a-wake-up-call-on-green-hydrogen-the-amount-of-wind-and-solar-needed-is-immense/2-1-776481 https://www.rechargenews.com/transition/a-wake-up-call-on-gr...
  • Hypx 6y ago
    > Not in a fuel-cell running in reverse in a car, though, which is what the GP was referring to. It would make more sense to have a separate electrolyzer. This way, you can have a tank of hydrogen sitting around that can refuel your car in minutes, not hours. The original scenario is actually a bad idea. > More like $3-7 per kg today [1] You're rounding up to $3-7. It specifically refers to $2.50-6.80. Those higher figures aren't really going to stand for long as cheap green hydrogen displaces expensive green hydrogen. > producing green hydrogen would require an absolutely massive buildout of renewables, But we are massively building out renewables. In fact, we're building too much. During peak production times, renewable energy is literally just grounded since there is no use for it all. > Hydrogen energy storage will still have its niche applications on the margins, Hydrogen can be stored in salt domes in extraordinary quantities.[1] A single cavern can store 150,000 MWh of energy, and one formation in Utah can contain 100 caverns. That's something like 200 million BEVs worth of energy storage! As a niche, it's dominant one, and frankly hydrogen is easily going to be bigger in absolute metrics on that fact alone. > but it is unlikely to catch up to the cost and availability advantages of batteries for cars in places where the existing electric grid reaches. This is not a race. Fuel cell technology will still advance regardless of what happens of battery powered cars. Furthermore, nothing is close to the internal combustion engine in terms of marketshare. If it were a race, ICEVs are way ahead and neither BEVs nor FCEVs are anywhere close to winning. 1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/mitsubishiheavyindustries/2020/03/13/in-utah-hydrogen-and-a-massive-salt-dome-are-winning-the-west-for-renewable-energy/#8bcb09e5c52f https://www.forbes.com/sites/mitsubishiheavyindustries/2020/...
    • danans 6y ago
      > It would make more sense to have a separate electrolyzer. A separate electrolyser and hydrogen storage at the household level just to fill up your car? It's doubtful that will make financial sense anytime in the near future, vs a plug. > It specifically refers to $2.50-6.80. You quoted $2-3 - in whole dollars - which are undoubtedly rounded figured themselves. How else would express $2.50-6.80 in whole dollars than $3-7? > But we are massively building out renewables. Not nearly enough to power ground transportation on green hydrogen, which was the point of the article I linked. On top of that, the tank-to-wheels efficiency of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles is 1/2 that of BEVs, which implies double the renewable electricity needed for green hydrogen vs directly using electricity in BEVs. It's better to keep ground transport as efficient as possible by using BEVs, and use the remaining electricity to synthesize fuels for applications like aviation that don't lend themselves to batteries due to weight constraints. > A single cavern can store 150,000 MWh of energy, and one formation in Utah can contain 100 caverns. There's a lot of "can" in that, similar to initiatives pushing carbon-capture from coal plants. I applaud it if it eventually works, but that article is a paid marketing release (note the "Mitsubishi Heavy Industries BRANDVOICE| Paid Program" at the top). > This is not a race. Fuel cell technology will still advance regardless of what happens of battery powered cars It is a race to which tech has a market viable product for cleanly fueled road transportation. Battery tech isn't sitting still either, especially on the rapid charging and range front. It's totally possible that hydrogen tech will come through with a series of breakthroughs that mitigate its current issues with cost, lack of distribution infra, but projections like the one in the article I shared put that out 10-20 years, and predicting anything past 10 years is a crapshoot anyways. > If it were a race, ICEVs are way ahead and neither BEVs nor FCEVs are anywhere close to winning. It's a race for the transportation tech of the future. Obviously ICEs are the majority of vehicles now, but that's hardly interesting to the debate about FCEVs vs BEVs, except in the matter of how much the gap between either of the new technologies and ICEs closes on the consumer price level.
      • Hypx 6y ago
        > A separate electrolyser and hydrogen storage at the household level just to fill up your car? It's doubtful that will make financial sense anytime in the near future, vs a plug. It will likely be akin to those people who put solar panels on their roofs and have backup power storage. Probably not for everyone, but for some groups of people it could make sense for them. > Not nearly enough to power ground transportation on green hydrogen, which was the point of the article I linked. On top of that, the tank-to-wheels efficiency of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles is 1/2 that of BEVs, which implies double the renewable electricity needed for green hydrogen vs directly using electricity in BEVs. It's better to keep ground transport as efficient as possible by using BEVs, and use the remaining electricity to synthesize fuels for applications like aviation that don't lend themselves to batteries due to weight constraints. If we’re already hitting majority renewable energy at their on peak on the grid, then we’re already on the verge of making too much. There are still huge solar and winds projects still being built, so it’s a guarantee we’ll make too much. Furthermore, we need backup energy storage to smooth out the intermittency. This is already being developed on using hydrogen. Finally, I do hope you understand what synfuels are. They’re basically made from H2 and CO2, and having a huge H2 economy is a prerequisite to making them. > There's a lot of "can" in that, similar to initiatives pushing carbon-capture from coal plants. I applaud it if it eventually works, but that article is a paid marketing release (note the "Mitsubishi Heavy Industries BRANDVOICE| Paid Program" at the top). We were already storing hydrogen in this way for decades. This is a definite certainty that it can work. The question is whether there will be enough renewable hydrogen to fill the facility, not that it can’t work. > It is a race to which tech has a market viable product for cleanly fueled road transportation. Battery tech isn't sitting still either, especially on the rapid charging and range front. It's totally possible that hydrogen tech will come through with a series of breakthroughs that mitigate its current issues with cost, lack of distribution infra, but projections like the one in the article I shared put that out 10-20 years, and predicting anything past 10 years is a crapshoot anyways. > It's a race for the transportation tech of the future. Obviously ICEs are the majority of vehicles now, but that's hardly interesting to the debate about FCEVs vs BEVs, except in the matter of how much the gap between either of the new technologies and ICEs closes on the consumer price level. The point being that BEVs can succeed, and still be displaced when FCEVs reaches a certain point. Moreover, neither are in any position to displace ICEVs yet. The most economical car you can by is some kind of ICEVs, especially if it is a hybrid of some sort. I want to add that there are many sectors, such as large trucks, trains, ships, etc., that we are quite certain that batteries will never make sense in all likelihood. This pretty much requires we go the hydrogen route on them. That also makes refusing to invest in hydrogen equivalent to just giving up on reducing GHG in those sectors. So fuel cell technology is a necessary investment and not really optional.