11 ms·

Japan's New Hydrogen Project

84 points by dnetesn 6y ago

bsradcliffe 6y ago
The first picture is giving me Akira vibes for some reason. Hope this doesn't destroy Neo-Tokyo.
- jayd16 6y ago
  Just in time for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, as Akira predicted.
  - rangibaby 6y ago
    Akira managed to predict the Tokyo Olympics and them being delayed / cancelled!
epistasis 6y ago
For hydrogen skeptics, here's an excellent but long two part series about Europe's massive investment in hydrogen, starting at 40GW and ~30B$, and moving on to $500B after that. Part 1, EU hydrogen supply: https://about.bnef.com/blog/liebreich-separating-hype-from-hydrogen-part-one-the-supply-side/ https://about.bnef.com/blog/liebreich-separating-hype-from-h... Part 2, EU hydrogen demand: https://about.bnef.com/blog/liebreich-separating-hype-from-hydrogen-part-two-the-demand-side/ https://about.bnef.com/blog/liebreich-separating-hype-from-h... And Spain is already focusing 800MW directly into fertilizer production (usually the hydrogen comes from natural gas): https://www.iberdrola.com/press-room/news/detail/iberdrola-fertiberia-place-spain-forefront-green-hydrogen-europe-with-1-8-billion-investment-projected-2027 https://www.iberdrola.com/press-room/news/detail/iberdrola-f... And as noted in the Part 1 article, China is making massive investments in hydrogen. The US effort is orders of magnitude smaller than others efforts, about $50M/year: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/h2scale https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/h2scale Our oil and gas sector is also far too focused on fracking, a business that wasn't making money even before the crash in oil prices that have refocused capital from companies like Exxon to extractors with super low costs in the Middle East. The US is often viewed as being late to the party, but a big player when it finally arrives. However I fear that the business competition in the EU and China will be too strong for us unless we start focusing ping term investment in these areas soon. Every bit of news I see makes me feel like we are getting further and further behind, which will leave us far more strategically weak than if we don't have, for example, semiconductor fabs.
- ricw 6y ago
  This still misses the primary reason why hydrogen won’t ever be useful, where lithium-ion batteries can do the job. Hydrogen is just too energy inefficient from an end-to-end efficiency perspective. Lithium-ion achieves a 80%+ efficiency from energy input to usage via an AC motor, or more if DC is usable. Hydrogen fuel cells only achieve 40-60% efficiency, and that’s just one step (converting it back from storage to electric energy, not even the motor itself). No matter how much is being invested, this can’t just be wished away and effects how expensive something is per kWh. On top of that, there’s a massive Li-ion R&D and production train already under way that will be hard if not impossible to catch up with. In short, right now it looks like this will only be useful for a few edge cases that battery electric can’t feasibly support.
  - philipkglass 6y ago
    If we stop using fossil fuels to make chemicals and materials, we'll need vast quantities of electrolytic hydrogen. Ammonia production alone was about 175 million tonnes in 2016, requiring 31 million tonnes of hydrogen. At 50 kWh per kg of hydrogen, that would be roughly 177 GW of electrolyzer capacity working at a 100% duty cycle. Using hydrogen in place of coal for reducing iron ore would consume even more hydrogen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia_production Japan is interested in it as fuel, despite the well known drawbacks, because Japan has such limited domestic energy resources.
    - omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
      There's also been work on getting solar thermal to the point where heat alone could be used at input into an industrial process. https://www.fastcompany.com/90477609/this-startup-uses-mirrors-to-create-solar-powered-1800-degree-heat-for-industrial-factories https://www.fastcompany.com/90477609/this-startup-uses-mirro...
    - wil421 6y ago
      What if we lived in a world where EVs are ubiquitous and they are powered by lithium ion batteries charged by renewable energy and/or nuclear. Specialized plants can still exist in this scenario to provide hydrogen and even diesel for industrial processes. The existing gas and coal plants wouldn’t be used for powering the general population anymore and would become more specialized producers.
alex_young 6y ago
I really don’t understand the attraction of hydrogen as a fuel source. Currently it’s a byproduct of fossil fuels, and while you can produce it via electrolysis, it doesn’t seem like a super high efficiency conversion chain if you already have electricity.
- mlindner 6y ago
  Indeed. You'd have to legislate that hydrogen for vehicles could not be produced by steam reforming and add lots of regulation around tracking the origin of all hydrogen that reaches the vehicle. Otherwise people will just use the cheapest source of hydrogen, and presuming the demand for other fossil fuels is going down at the same time, that's going to be exclusively very cheap methane feed stock.
  - lambdatronics 6y ago
    Or we could just tax carbon. sigh
- barney54 6y ago
  Batteries are not well suited for medium and heavy duty trucking (or trains or long distance marine) because the weight of the batteries is too great. These are areas where hydrogen can be better than batteries.
  - guiriduro 6y ago
    Specifically rail lines are candidates for electrification, and batteries need only be large enough to cover non-electrified sections and outages. In terms of overall freight movement, more can certainly go over electrified rail. Last mile bulk delivery by road (truck), whether BEV or biodiesel ICE would still represent an overall significantly lower carbon footprint. The FCEV hydrogen lobby mistakenly assumes long-distance trucking is a non-disruptable and necessary part of freight delivery.
    - adrianN 6y ago
mlindner 6y ago
The article has mistakes from the get go. Hydrogen is not a "fuel" as it's not found in nature except in small quantities mixed with hydrocarbons or given off by radioactive sources. Hydrogen is an energy storage mechanism. All Japan is investing in here is "burning lignite coal with extra steps". Not at all green or energy efficient.
anewguy9000 6y ago
hydrogen: aka coal, with a nicer more futuristic ring to it
niftich 6y ago
Hydrogen allows energy to be stored and moved in bulk, in physical space, and at the point of final consumption it will not produce carbon emissions. These are desirable properties for a country that imports most of its energy from far away, and for a producer that's awash in energy but has limited options in exporting it out. In the short term, this also greenwashes Japan's energy situation at a glance, by shifting more of the emissions to Australia away from Japan compared to simply shipping solid coal around. It also keeps Australia's fossil fuel extraction sector going. Critics of hydrogen are right to point out that some of the most vocal proponents of hydrogen are fossil fuel producers, and that an overwhelming majority of today's hydrogen is produced from fossil carbon fuels. In the long term, those who built out hydrogen infrastructure will be at an advantage if hydrogen production from electricity ever becomes economical, for two reasons: First, if electricity is abundant, electricity will consequently capture a larger share of total energy consumption, leaving only those uses where electricity is impractical (e.g. airplanes, hypermobile vehicles, off-the-grid storage, long-distance transfer, open flames). Hydrogen presents a useful answer to many of the applications where electricity won't work well. Second, momentary surplus electricity should be consumed in an electricity storage mechanism from which a portion of the input can be recovered, but most other electricity storage mechanisms are stationary installations that can only time-shift, but not space-shift. Hydrogen storage can be used to time-shift like any other, or space-shift to move it out of the source grid entirely.
- Reason077 6y ago
  > "most other electricity storage mechanisms are stationary installations that can only time-shift, but not space-shift" Time shifting is the difficult part of the problem. "Space shifting" is pretty easy to solve by extending and interconnecting the grid. HVDC cables can move energy instantaneously, in much greater volumes, and with much higher efficiency than with hydrogen. Here is one ambitious project to do exactly that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia–ASEAN_Power_Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia–ASEAN_Power_Link
  - Danieru 6y ago
    At greater cost for lower loses yes. Meanwhile hydrogen gives both space and time shifting. Yet also what I think is the biggest aspect: a competitive market. Japan being poor in all resources must constantly maintain relations with their oil suppliers. Right now, and for the past 40-50 years this means Saudi Arabia. Before that it was the US. Right now Japan may import most oil from Saudis, but thanks to the tradablity of oil they do buy from elsewhere. Most important: they can easily switch. Japan maintains enough slack in the supply line to fuel the country for half a year. Thus if the Saudis cut off japan today, they have 6 months to piece together new supply contracts. Thus HVDC is nice, and part of the future, but it cannot replace the security aspect for Japan. Hydrogen promises so much for Japan. Such 75% is wasted, but Japan already has the most expensive electricity in the world. So much so that fueling a BEV is not much cheaper than gasoline. A hydrogen economy for Japan would mean energy security through diversified suppliers. It would allow Japan to stock pile energy. All this plus: Japan's ministry of economics has been championing hydrogen tech for over a decade. Unlike the US this implies more than press releases. Japan has been maintaining a consistent policy of subsidizing fuel cell production and prioritization. Already Japan has the world's largest install base of fuel cell's for residential use. If Hydrogen plays any part in the world's future energy mix then Japan wins big. The sorts of tech Hydrogen requires is surprisingly complex and diverse. Did you know a hydrogen flame is invisible to the human eye? One can only imagine how dangerous that is, fire without flames. But fear not: Panasonic can supply hydrogen flame detecting cameras and alarm systems. All else equal Hydrogen makes a flood of sense for Japan. Decades ago Japan pioneered liquid natural gas. Now they want to pioneer the hydrogen economy.
dimitar 6y ago
I see there is a lot of hostile reaction to HEVs as either a distraction from EVs or some fossil-industry plot. The thing is, we cannot really predict the future and every possible use for EV, ICE, ICE-hybrids and HEVs. That is why it is important that every country adopts carbon taxes and caps to keep incentives aligned for a diversity of approaches of reducing carbon emissions. Picking winners in the technology space is not something that governments have been good at historically. I think we need hydrogen over the long term - it allows technologies like airplanes powered by renewable energy. There is a case to be made that we need to be on the experience curve early even if it means that it relies on fossil fuels in the first years. This is also true for battery-powered electric vehicles by the way - the electricity is often sourced from fossil fuels.
- integer42 6y ago
  I agree we can't predict the future, so why hydrogen is the only synthetic fuel being discussed. There is a laundry list of contenders. Each with different properties, some exceeding hydrogen in terms of energy density, ease of storage, efficiency of production, and so on. Methanol, dimethyl ether, etc. Manufacture of synthetic fuels pairs nicely with overproduction of cheap renewable energy sources, and some amount of it is necessary for a niche of applications that require energy density or other aspects of combustion. So, exactly as you said, why should we pick winners wrt hydrogen vs any other synthetic fuel?
Indy9000 6y ago
I love this article because it is well written and clear.
Yizahi 6y ago
Carbon capture to be considered "green" is such a sham. Could someone please show me all these so called carbon capture efforts on this graph? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Mauna_Loa_CO2_monthly_mean_concentration.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_at... PS: I support developing of liquid hydrogen technologies in general. It's just the naming coal burning as "green" that puts me off.
Reason077 6y ago
OK, neat, so they're going to produce green hydrogen using Australia's abundant solar? Not perfect since shipping will involve some carbon emissions, but still, will be better than making it from natural gas. "The hydrogen will be produced and liquified in the Australian state of Victoria, where it will be extracted from a type of coal known as lignite." "But every tonne of hydrogen produced from coal emits 20 tonnes of carbon dioxide, more than double the CO2 emissions created when hydrogen is produced from natural gas." Oh.
- Qwertious 6y ago
  "Not perfect since shipping will involve some carbon emissions, but still, will be better than making it from natural gas." If they're shipping hydrogen, it wouldn't be that hard to include a fuel cell and power the ship via hydrogen. It might not be cost-effective yet but it would be more environmentally friendly, and would likely simplify logistics.
- pjc50 6y ago
  > Commercial-scale hydrogen production from coal without carbon-capture would be "climate vandalism", he said. Yup. It's a scam to keep Australia's coal industry going when the world needs it to close.
hikerclimb 6y ago
Hopefully it goes

84 points by dnetesn 6y ago

bsradcliffe 6y ago

The first picture is giving me Akira vibes for some reason. Hope this doesn't destroy Neo-Tokyo.

jayd16 6y ago
Just in time for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, as Akira predicted.
- rangibaby 6y ago
  Akira managed to predict the Tokyo Olympics and them being delayed / cancelled!

epistasis 6y ago

For hydrogen skeptics, here's an excellent but long two part series about Europe's massive investment in hydrogen, starting at 40GW and ~30B$, and moving on to $500B after that. Part 1, EU hydrogen supply: https://about.bnef.com/blog/liebreich-separating-hype-from-hydrogen-part-one-the-supply-side/ https://about.bnef.com/blog/liebreich-separating-hype-from-h... Part 2, EU hydrogen demand: https://about.bnef.com/blog/liebreich-separating-hype-from-hydrogen-part-two-the-demand-side/ https://about.bnef.com/blog/liebreich-separating-hype-from-h... And Spain is already focusing 800MW directly into fertilizer production (usually the hydrogen comes from natural gas): https://www.iberdrola.com/press-room/news/detail/iberdrola-fertiberia-place-spain-forefront-green-hydrogen-europe-with-1-8-billion-investment-projected-2027 https://www.iberdrola.com/press-room/news/detail/iberdrola-f... And as noted in the Part 1 article, China is making massive investments in hydrogen. The US effort is orders of magnitude smaller than others efforts, about $50M/year: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/h2scale https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/h2scale Our oil and gas sector is also far too focused on fracking, a business that wasn't making money even before the crash in oil prices that have refocused capital from companies like Exxon to extractors with super low costs in the Middle East. The US is often viewed as being late to the party, but a big player when it finally arrives. However I fear that the business competition in the EU and China will be too strong for us unless we start focusing ping term investment in these areas soon. Every bit of news I see makes me feel like we are getting further and further behind, which will leave us far more strategically weak than if we don't have, for example, semiconductor fabs.

ricw 6y ago
This still misses the primary reason why hydrogen won’t ever be useful, where lithium-ion batteries can do the job. Hydrogen is just too energy inefficient from an end-to-end efficiency perspective. Lithium-ion achieves a 80%+ efficiency from energy input to usage via an AC motor, or more if DC is usable. Hydrogen fuel cells only achieve 40-60% efficiency, and that’s just one step (converting it back from storage to electric energy, not even the motor itself). No matter how much is being invested, this can’t just be wished away and effects how expensive something is per kWh. On top of that, there’s a massive Li-ion R&D and production train already under way that will be hard if not impossible to catch up with. In short, right now it looks like this will only be useful for a few edge cases that battery electric can’t feasibly support.
- philipkglass 6y ago
  If we stop using fossil fuels to make chemicals and materials, we'll need vast quantities of electrolytic hydrogen. Ammonia production alone was about 175 million tonnes in 2016, requiring 31 million tonnes of hydrogen. At 50 kWh per kg of hydrogen, that would be roughly 177 GW of electrolyzer capacity working at a 100% duty cycle. Using hydrogen in place of coal for reducing iron ore would consume even more hydrogen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia_production Japan is interested in it as fuel, despite the well known drawbacks, because Japan has such limited domestic energy resources.
  - omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
    There's also been work on getting solar thermal to the point where heat alone could be used at input into an industrial process. https://www.fastcompany.com/90477609/this-startup-uses-mirrors-to-create-solar-powered-1800-degree-heat-for-industrial-factories https://www.fastcompany.com/90477609/this-startup-uses-mirro...
  - wil421 6y ago
    What if we lived in a world where EVs are ubiquitous and they are powered by lithium ion batteries charged by renewable energy and/or nuclear. Specialized plants can still exist in this scenario to provide hydrogen and even diesel for industrial processes. The existing gas and coal plants wouldn’t be used for powering the general population anymore and would become more specialized producers.

alex_young 6y ago

I really don’t understand the attraction of hydrogen as a fuel source. Currently it’s a byproduct of fossil fuels, and while you can produce it via electrolysis, it doesn’t seem like a super high efficiency conversion chain if you already have electricity.

mlindner 6y ago
Indeed. You'd have to legislate that hydrogen for vehicles could not be produced by steam reforming and add lots of regulation around tracking the origin of all hydrogen that reaches the vehicle. Otherwise people will just use the cheapest source of hydrogen, and presuming the demand for other fossil fuels is going down at the same time, that's going to be exclusively very cheap methane feed stock.
- lambdatronics 6y ago
  Or we could just tax carbon. sigh
barney54 6y ago
Batteries are not well suited for medium and heavy duty trucking (or trains or long distance marine) because the weight of the batteries is too great. These are areas where hydrogen can be better than batteries.
- guiriduro 6y ago
  Specifically rail lines are candidates for electrification, and batteries need only be large enough to cover non-electrified sections and outages. In terms of overall freight movement, more can certainly go over electrified rail. Last mile bulk delivery by road (truck), whether BEV or biodiesel ICE would still represent an overall significantly lower carbon footprint. The FCEV hydrogen lobby mistakenly assumes long-distance trucking is a non-disruptable and necessary part of freight delivery.
  - adrianN 6y ago

mlindner 6y ago

The article has mistakes from the get go. Hydrogen is not a "fuel" as it's not found in nature except in small quantities mixed with hydrocarbons or given off by radioactive sources. Hydrogen is an energy storage mechanism. All Japan is investing in here is "burning lignite coal with extra steps". Not at all green or energy efficient.

anewguy9000 6y ago

hydrogen: aka coal, with a nicer more futuristic ring to it

niftich 6y ago

Hydrogen allows energy to be stored and moved in bulk, in physical space, and at the point of final consumption it will not produce carbon emissions. These are desirable properties for a country that imports most of its energy from far away, and for a producer that's awash in energy but has limited options in exporting it out. In the short term, this also greenwashes Japan's energy situation at a glance, by shifting more of the emissions to Australia away from Japan compared to simply shipping solid coal around. It also keeps Australia's fossil fuel extraction sector going. Critics of hydrogen are right to point out that some of the most vocal proponents of hydrogen are fossil fuel producers, and that an overwhelming majority of today's hydrogen is produced from fossil carbon fuels. In the long term, those who built out hydrogen infrastructure will be at an advantage if hydrogen production from electricity ever becomes economical, for two reasons: First, if electricity is abundant, electricity will consequently capture a larger share of total energy consumption, leaving only those uses where electricity is impractical (e.g. airplanes, hypermobile vehicles, off-the-grid storage, long-distance transfer, open flames). Hydrogen presents a useful answer to many of the applications where electricity won't work well. Second, momentary surplus electricity should be consumed in an electricity storage mechanism from which a portion of the input can be recovered, but most other electricity storage mechanisms are stationary installations that can only time-shift, but not space-shift. Hydrogen storage can be used to time-shift like any other, or space-shift to move it out of the source grid entirely.

Reason077 6y ago
> "most other electricity storage mechanisms are stationary installations that can only time-shift, but not space-shift" Time shifting is the difficult part of the problem. "Space shifting" is pretty easy to solve by extending and interconnecting the grid. HVDC cables can move energy instantaneously, in much greater volumes, and with much higher efficiency than with hydrogen. Here is one ambitious project to do exactly that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia–ASEAN_Power_Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia–ASEAN_Power_Link
- Danieru 6y ago
  At greater cost for lower loses yes. Meanwhile hydrogen gives both space and time shifting. Yet also what I think is the biggest aspect: a competitive market. Japan being poor in all resources must constantly maintain relations with their oil suppliers. Right now, and for the past 40-50 years this means Saudi Arabia. Before that it was the US. Right now Japan may import most oil from Saudis, but thanks to the tradablity of oil they do buy from elsewhere. Most important: they can easily switch. Japan maintains enough slack in the supply line to fuel the country for half a year. Thus if the Saudis cut off japan today, they have 6 months to piece together new supply contracts. Thus HVDC is nice, and part of the future, but it cannot replace the security aspect for Japan. Hydrogen promises so much for Japan. Such 75% is wasted, but Japan already has the most expensive electricity in the world. So much so that fueling a BEV is not much cheaper than gasoline. A hydrogen economy for Japan would mean energy security through diversified suppliers. It would allow Japan to stock pile energy. All this plus: Japan's ministry of economics has been championing hydrogen tech for over a decade. Unlike the US this implies more than press releases. Japan has been maintaining a consistent policy of subsidizing fuel cell production and prioritization. Already Japan has the world's largest install base of fuel cell's for residential use. If Hydrogen plays any part in the world's future energy mix then Japan wins big. The sorts of tech Hydrogen requires is surprisingly complex and diverse. Did you know a hydrogen flame is invisible to the human eye? One can only imagine how dangerous that is, fire without flames. But fear not: Panasonic can supply hydrogen flame detecting cameras and alarm systems. All else equal Hydrogen makes a flood of sense for Japan. Decades ago Japan pioneered liquid natural gas. Now they want to pioneer the hydrogen economy.

dimitar 6y ago

I see there is a lot of hostile reaction to HEVs as either a distraction from EVs or some fossil-industry plot. The thing is, we cannot really predict the future and every possible use for EV, ICE, ICE-hybrids and HEVs. That is why it is important that every country adopts carbon taxes and caps to keep incentives aligned for a diversity of approaches of reducing carbon emissions. Picking winners in the technology space is not something that governments have been good at historically. I think we need hydrogen over the long term - it allows technologies like airplanes powered by renewable energy. There is a case to be made that we need to be on the experience curve early even if it means that it relies on fossil fuels in the first years. This is also true for battery-powered electric vehicles by the way - the electricity is often sourced from fossil fuels.

integer42 6y ago
I agree we can't predict the future, so why hydrogen is the only synthetic fuel being discussed. There is a laundry list of contenders. Each with different properties, some exceeding hydrogen in terms of energy density, ease of storage, efficiency of production, and so on. Methanol, dimethyl ether, etc. Manufacture of synthetic fuels pairs nicely with overproduction of cheap renewable energy sources, and some amount of it is necessary for a niche of applications that require energy density or other aspects of combustion. So, exactly as you said, why should we pick winners wrt hydrogen vs any other synthetic fuel?

Indy9000 6y ago

I love this article because it is well written and clear.

Yizahi 6y ago

Carbon capture to be considered "green" is such a sham. Could someone please show me all these so called carbon capture efforts on this graph? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Mauna_Loa_CO2_monthly_mean_concentration.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_at... PS: I support developing of liquid hydrogen technologies in general. It's just the naming coal burning as "green" that puts me off.

Reason077 6y ago

OK, neat, so they're going to produce green hydrogen using Australia's abundant solar? Not perfect since shipping will involve some carbon emissions, but still, will be better than making it from natural gas. "The hydrogen will be produced and liquified in the Australian state of Victoria, where it will be extracted from a type of coal known as lignite." "But every tonne of hydrogen produced from coal emits 20 tonnes of carbon dioxide, more than double the CO2 emissions created when hydrogen is produced from natural gas." Oh.

Qwertious 6y ago
"Not perfect since shipping will involve some carbon emissions, but still, will be better than making it from natural gas." If they're shipping hydrogen, it wouldn't be that hard to include a fuel cell and power the ship via hydrogen. It might not be cost-effective yet but it would be more environmentally friendly, and would likely simplify logistics.
pjc50 6y ago
> Commercial-scale hydrogen production from coal without carbon-capture would be "climate vandalism", he said. Yup. It's a scam to keep Australia's coal industry going when the world needs it to close.

hikerclimb 6y ago

Hopefully it goes