4 ms·

>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 mai

>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.
    - Animats 6y ago
      With lithium-ion batteries you get back about 95% of the energy you put in. If you're starting from electricity, a water to hydrogen to power system gets maybe a third or a half of that.[1] [1] https://insideevs.com/news/406676/battery-electric-hydrogen-fuel-cell-efficiency-comparison/ https://insideevs.com/news/406676/battery-electric-hydrogen-...
    - lambdatronics 6y ago
      I'm not buying it. The lower round-trip efficiency of hydrogen means you only use it where batteries can't do the job (chemicals, air/sea travel, long-term grid storage). Batteries and hydrogen might both be competitive in certain niches (long-haul trucking, short-haul air/water, some train routes). As batteries continue to improve, they will actually cut into the addressable market for hydrogen, at least in mobility (chemicals and long-term storage are safe though).
pjc50 6y ago
> extracting hydrogen from natural gas & storing the carbon This is what's promised. In practice it turns into "extracting the hydrogen and dumping the CO2 into the atmosphere". There are very few operating CCS schemes.
- lambdatronics 6y ago
  That might still be a net win for the environment, if (A) the efficiency of the end-use is higher (eg, fuel-cell cars) or (B) even 'grey' hydrogen could help solve the chicken/egg dilemma of hydrogen infrastructure while we're waiting for the price of 'green' hydrogen to come down. To ensure that the fossil hydrogen is 'blue' and not 'grey,' we'd need carbon tax or some other legislative action.

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.
  - Animats 6y ago
    With lithium-ion batteries you get back about 95% of the energy you put in. If you're starting from electricity, a water to hydrogen to power system gets maybe a third or a half of that.[1] [1] https://insideevs.com/news/406676/battery-electric-hydrogen-fuel-cell-efficiency-comparison/ https://insideevs.com/news/406676/battery-electric-hydrogen-...
  - lambdatronics 6y ago
    I'm not buying it. The lower round-trip efficiency of hydrogen means you only use it where batteries can't do the job (chemicals, air/sea travel, long-term grid storage). Batteries and hydrogen might both be competitive in certain niches (long-haul trucking, short-haul air/water, some train routes). As batteries continue to improve, they will actually cut into the addressable market for hydrogen, at least in mobility (chemicals and long-term storage are safe though).

pjc50 6y ago

> extracting hydrogen from natural gas & storing the carbon This is what's promised. In practice it turns into "extracting the hydrogen and dumping the CO2 into the atmosphere". There are very few operating CCS schemes.

lambdatronics 6y ago
That might still be a net win for the environment, if (A) the efficiency of the end-use is higher (eg, fuel-cell cars) or (B) even 'grey' hydrogen could help solve the chicken/egg dilemma of hydrogen infrastructure while we're waiting for the price of 'green' hydrogen to come down. To ensure that the fossil hydrogen is 'blue' and not 'grey,' we'd need carbon tax or some other legislative action.