4 ms·

If the point of hydrogen is just to store the energy for use on days when renewable capacity is limited, can't it can spend its whole life in the huge long term

If the point of hydrogen is just to store the energy for use on days when renewable capacity is limited, can't it can spend its whole life in the huge long term facility, from generation to use in a turbine at the point of generation? Why does it need to be transported?

pfdietz 5y ago
It doesn't need to be transported, but it's interesting to consider how it could be. When you make hydrogen you can get several bites at the apple: storing that hydrogen near the point of generation, transporting the hydrogen in a pipeline, and storing it again at the end of the pipeline. This is what's done with natural gas, and it allows pipelines to be sized for average rather than peak loads, even in the face of unsteady supply and demand. The cost of making the hydrogen is amortized over all three use cases. Compare this to electricity, where batteries and energy conversion would be needed at both ends of a transmission line.
rob_c 5y ago
Producing hydrogen and storing at point of use is an option but it opens up a different problem. With regard to efficiencies you lose several bites of the apple by taking this approach. The whole hydrogen battery chain then becomes; electrical -> stored chemical -> mechanical (via combusion) -> electrical. I would strongly argue a gravitational battery would be more efficient (and simpler to construct) at scale for large energy storage. i.e. electrical -> motor (pump water up into a dam) -> motor spins (via release of water from dam) -> electrical (or bricks if a dam can't be built efficiently) And with the latter you need a hydrogen burning plant with variable capacity which is designed to be largely on standby throughout its serviceable life. I'm not arguing against hydrogen cars, or hydrogen gas home heaters (the latter being great, thermal -> thermal for water heating is better than electrical -> thermal). I just don't see it playing a major industrial component of energy storage due to these shortcomings.

pfdietz 5y ago

It doesn't need to be transported, but it's interesting to consider how it could be. When you make hydrogen you can get several bites at the apple: storing that hydrogen near the point of generation, transporting the hydrogen in a pipeline, and storing it again at the end of the pipeline. This is what's done with natural gas, and it allows pipelines to be sized for average rather than peak loads, even in the face of unsteady supply and demand. The cost of making the hydrogen is amortized over all three use cases. Compare this to electricity, where batteries and energy conversion would be needed at both ends of a transmission line.

rob_c 5y ago

Producing hydrogen and storing at point of use is an option but it opens up a different problem. With regard to efficiencies you lose several bites of the apple by taking this approach. The whole hydrogen battery chain then becomes; electrical -> stored chemical -> mechanical (via combusion) -> electrical. I would strongly argue a gravitational battery would be more efficient (and simpler to construct) at scale for large energy storage. i.e. electrical -> motor (pump water up into a dam) -> motor spins (via release of water from dam) -> electrical (or bricks if a dam can't be built efficiently) And with the latter you need a hydrogen burning plant with variable capacity which is designed to be largely on standby throughout its serviceable life. I'm not arguing against hydrogen cars, or hydrogen gas home heaters (the latter being great, thermal -> thermal for water heating is better than electrical -> thermal). I just don't see it playing a major industrial component of energy storage due to these shortcomings.