4 ms·

Why do you think countries investing in it would make me not a skeptic? I'm a skeptic because of the technology being a bad idea pushed originally by oil compan

Why do you think countries investing in it would make me not a skeptic? I'm a skeptic because of the technology being a bad idea pushed originally by oil companies. Hydrogen is only green if you produce it yourself by green electricity by electrolysis which is quite inefficient and then convert that energy back into electricity with another quite inefficient process. Now as to the reason why Japan has been investing, it's because the actual way Hydrogen is produced is from fossil fuels. It's done by taking methane and other hydrocarbons and pulling the hydrogen off and expelling the CO2 (ideally capturing it). This process is called steam reforming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming This is the sweet lie people aren't told when hydrogen is brought up. Japan happens to have extensive offshore methane clathrate deposits on the sea floor and if they can make a hydrogen economy happen then those clathrates may become economical to mine.

AtlasBarfed 6y ago
Remember George Bush pushing hydrogen? The big problem with hydrogen is that it currently is a smokescreen for a certain industry that has a ton of hydrogen attached to carbon atoms desperate to maintain relevance in the "green" energy revolution. It is staring down a massive economic challenge as well, shared with any new five-year nuclear reactor project or similar cutting edge power generation scheme, is that solar/wind/storage is in the prime curve of double-digit improvements to various aspects of cost, scale, storage, performance every year. BEVs are poised to undercut ICEs fundamentally in cost and simplicity. Solar/wind is about to drop under even natural gas in LCOE for even installed turbines. All of those have three year projections of continued double-digit percentage drops in cost and massive increases in scale. Even worse for hydrogen, most of that is using existing infrastructure for transmission, so while charging stations need to be built out for EVs, it is far easier to do that than put in hydrogen storage / transport infrastructure. So even if some hydrogen article targets a certain cost on the batteries / EVs / power transmission lines, in five years things will look completely different. Maybe aviation?
- lambdatronics 6y ago
  >The big problem with hydrogen is that it currently is a smokescreen for a certain industry that has a ton of hydrogen attached to carbon atoms desperate to maintain relevance in the "green" energy revolution. I see this attitude often and I think it's detrimental. If 'blue' hydrogen (ie, extracting hydrogen from natural gas & storing the carbon) provides an economical stepping-stone toward a fully fossil-free energy system, why not take it? If the only comeback is reflexive disdain for incumbent technologies, give me a break. Your points on battery vehicles vs hydrogen vehicles are in agreement with in the second Bloomberg article linked by the GP.
  - Animats 6y ago
    an economical stepping-stone toward a fully fossil-free energy system That's a PR phrase from the oil industry. The people who brought you "mild hybrids" and such. Full electrics are getting cheaper each year. And bigger. The battery-powered Ford F150, Jeep Wrangler, Tesla's Cybertruck, and, of all things, the GMC Hummer, are all going to be out for 2022. That's going to totally change the way people look at electric vehicles.
    - lambdatronics 6y ago
      >PR phrase from the oil industry Doesn't mean it's not true. I take your point that batteries are a better option for personal automotive applications. However, there are other applications where hydrogen does have advantages. In those cases, using 'blue' hydrogen (A) kick-starts the technology, because it is currently cheaper than 'green' hydrogen (B) is carbon-neutral if done correctly. For instance, consider how a renewable-heavy grid relies on gas turbines to step in when there is a 'drought' in renewable production. Using 'blue' hydrogen to replace the natural gas for those turbines would immediately get a fully reliable, zero-carbon-emission grid. Then as renewable prices continue to fall, 'green' hydrogen can close the loop & eliminate fossil fuels altogether.
      - Qwertious 6y ago
        "For instance, consider how a renewable-heavy grid relies on gas turbines to step in when there is a 'drought' in renewable production. Using 'blue' hydrogen to replace the natural gas for those turbines would immediately get a fully reliable, zero-carbon-emission grid. Then as renewable prices continue to fall, 'green' hydrogen can close the loop & eliminate fossil fuels altogether." To be fair, in that instance the blue hydrogen would crowd out other battery investment, delaying cost reductions in actually renewable batteries.
lambdatronics 6y ago
I think the 1st pair of articles is more addressed to your skepticism. I recommend them -- they are not merely boosterism. The author provides a thorough rebuttal of the hype around hydrogen for cars & home heating. 'Blue' and 'grey' hydrogen (from fossil fuels with or without carbon capture) are addressed. The upshot is that carbon tax would be necessary to shut 'grey' hydrogen out. After that, initially 'blue' hydrogen would win on cost, but 'green' hydrogen could eventually become cheaper.
senectus1 6y ago
Would you be happier if there was a way to grab that water, and split the hydrogen from it by using green energy? Would that massively change your interest?
- pjc50 6y ago
  Yes. But that's not what these projects are in practice.
lucioperca 6y ago
Why it is a bad idea? We all agree releasing massive amounts of gases with greenhouse potential is a very bad idea. But reducing the energy consumption drastically is not a good idea either as this is tightly coupled with the welfare of humantiy (ok there is some potential here which needs to be tapped in but Jevons paradox is waiting for it). We might could use all the energy of the oil, coal and gas fields without releasing CO2: https://www.rechargenews.com/transition/low-cost-clean-hydrogen-from-underground-oil-fires-could-kill-off-green-h2-sector/2-1-752473 https://www.rechargenews.com/transition/low-cost-clean-hydro...
baybal2 6y ago
Indeed, the point is countries have a good track record of investing billions of tax money in cuckoo projects. Massive investments are by far are not an indication of a future success, nor can they influence it. In this case, no amount of money can do anything about the thermodynamics of the process.

AtlasBarfed 6y ago

Remember George Bush pushing hydrogen? The big problem with hydrogen is that it currently is a smokescreen for a certain industry that has a ton of hydrogen attached to carbon atoms desperate to maintain relevance in the "green" energy revolution. It is staring down a massive economic challenge as well, shared with any new five-year nuclear reactor project or similar cutting edge power generation scheme, is that solar/wind/storage is in the prime curve of double-digit improvements to various aspects of cost, scale, storage, performance every year. BEVs are poised to undercut ICEs fundamentally in cost and simplicity. Solar/wind is about to drop under even natural gas in LCOE for even installed turbines. All of those have three year projections of continued double-digit percentage drops in cost and massive increases in scale. Even worse for hydrogen, most of that is using existing infrastructure for transmission, so while charging stations need to be built out for EVs, it is far easier to do that than put in hydrogen storage / transport infrastructure. So even if some hydrogen article targets a certain cost on the batteries / EVs / power transmission lines, in five years things will look completely different. Maybe aviation?

lambdatronics 6y ago
>The big problem with hydrogen is that it currently is a smokescreen for a certain industry that has a ton of hydrogen attached to carbon atoms desperate to maintain relevance in the "green" energy revolution. I see this attitude often and I think it's detrimental. If 'blue' hydrogen (ie, extracting hydrogen from natural gas & storing the carbon) provides an economical stepping-stone toward a fully fossil-free energy system, why not take it? If the only comeback is reflexive disdain for incumbent technologies, give me a break. Your points on battery vehicles vs hydrogen vehicles are in agreement with in the second Bloomberg article linked by the GP.
- Animats 6y ago
  an economical stepping-stone toward a fully fossil-free energy system That's a PR phrase from the oil industry. The people who brought you "mild hybrids" and such. Full electrics are getting cheaper each year. And bigger. The battery-powered Ford F150, Jeep Wrangler, Tesla's Cybertruck, and, of all things, the GMC Hummer, are all going to be out for 2022. That's going to totally change the way people look at electric vehicles.
  - lambdatronics 6y ago
    >PR phrase from the oil industry Doesn't mean it's not true. I take your point that batteries are a better option for personal automotive applications. However, there are other applications where hydrogen does have advantages. In those cases, using 'blue' hydrogen (A) kick-starts the technology, because it is currently cheaper than 'green' hydrogen (B) is carbon-neutral if done correctly. For instance, consider how a renewable-heavy grid relies on gas turbines to step in when there is a 'drought' in renewable production. Using 'blue' hydrogen to replace the natural gas for those turbines would immediately get a fully reliable, zero-carbon-emission grid. Then as renewable prices continue to fall, 'green' hydrogen can close the loop & eliminate fossil fuels altogether.
    - Qwertious 6y ago
      "For instance, consider how a renewable-heavy grid relies on gas turbines to step in when there is a 'drought' in renewable production. Using 'blue' hydrogen to replace the natural gas for those turbines would immediately get a fully reliable, zero-carbon-emission grid. Then as renewable prices continue to fall, 'green' hydrogen can close the loop & eliminate fossil fuels altogether." To be fair, in that instance the blue hydrogen would crowd out other battery investment, delaying cost reductions in actually renewable batteries.

lambdatronics 6y ago

I think the 1st pair of articles is more addressed to your skepticism. I recommend them -- they are not merely boosterism. The author provides a thorough rebuttal of the hype around hydrogen for cars & home heating. 'Blue' and 'grey' hydrogen (from fossil fuels with or without carbon capture) are addressed. The upshot is that carbon tax would be necessary to shut 'grey' hydrogen out. After that, initially 'blue' hydrogen would win on cost, but 'green' hydrogen could eventually become cheaper.

senectus1 6y ago

Would you be happier if there was a way to grab that water, and split the hydrogen from it by using green energy? Would that massively change your interest?

pjc50 6y ago
Yes. But that's not what these projects are in practice.

lucioperca 6y ago

Why it is a bad idea? We all agree releasing massive amounts of gases with greenhouse potential is a very bad idea. But reducing the energy consumption drastically is not a good idea either as this is tightly coupled with the welfare of humantiy (ok there is some potential here which needs to be tapped in but Jevons paradox is waiting for it). We might could use all the energy of the oil, coal and gas fields without releasing CO2: https://www.rechargenews.com/transition/low-cost-clean-hydrogen-from-underground-oil-fires-could-kill-off-green-h2-sector/2-1-752473 https://www.rechargenews.com/transition/low-cost-clean-hydro...

baybal2 6y ago

Indeed, the point is countries have a good track record of investing billions of tax money in cuckoo projects. Massive investments are by far are not an indication of a future success, nor can they influence it. In this case, no amount of money can do anything about the thermodynamics of the process.