4 ms·

Why would you want to introduce complex, hard to move storage technology that produces and consumes enormous amounts of explosive gas, and has much, much higher

by bborud 5y ago

Why would you want to introduce complex, hard to move storage technology that produces and consumes enormous amounts of explosive gas, and has much, much higher energy loss than both thermal and electrical storage? Whenever hydrogen turns up in discussions about energy storage people tend to forget physics and the infrastructure reality of dealing with electrolysis, compression and liquefaction and powercells ... which ultimately charge batteries so you can buffer energy to deal with varying consumption.

nix23 5y ago
>which ultimately charge batteries so you can buffer energy to deal with varying consumption. It's just one thing, storage huge amounts of energy in liq. hydrogen is easier then in batteries (who are explosive as well) and heavy. But again...i would not use one of those technologies at all in a War-zone..all of them are way too complex for the field.
- bborud 5y ago
  No, it isn't easier. Which you would know if you had bothered actually reading up on the matter.
  - nix23 5y ago
    So at tank is more complicated than a battery...tell that ~every single rocket.
    - bborud 5y ago
      Storing energy as hydrogen involves a lot more than just a tank. Again, you obviously didn't bother reading up on this and you are guessing how hydrogen based energy systems work. You clearly don't.
      - nix23 5y ago
        BS, for liq. hydrogen you need to perfectly isolate it and that's it, the Adrianne rocket could achieve that with a 1.3mm think tank. And storing compressed hydrogen needs nothing more then a Gas tank like the one under your Grill. You even use compressed hydrogen for welding. Again, you know nothing and try to blind everyone with your highly secret knowledge. https://energies.airliquide.com/resources-planet-hydrogen/how-hydrogen-stored https://energies.airliquide.com/resources-planet-hydrogen/ho... >>For example, the tanks on the Ariane launcher, designed and manufactured by Air Liquide, contain the 28 tons of liquid hydrogen that will provide fuel to the central engine. These tanks are a genuine example of technological prowess: they weigh only 5.5 tons empty and their casing is not more than 1.3 mm thick.
        bborud 5y ago
        There is nothing "secret" about the challenges of turning energy into hydrogen and then back into heat or electricity. The challenges of each step along the energy chain are pretty well understood. You make the naive assumption that you temporarily storing hydrogen in a tank with 1.3mm thick walls that needs to last for, at most, a couple of days, has any relevance for permanent energy installations. If you are going to argue for an energy storage technology you have to consider what it would actually look like in practice. And since you only want to consider one part of the chain: I suggest you look into what it takes to safely store hydrogen in a vehicle and how this compares to your naive belief that hydrogen behaves like liquids that you have an intuitive understanding of. (Spoiler: you'd have a hard time convincing authorities to let you drive around traffic with a 1.3mm thick tank in the back of your car). Then again, I don't think you want to actually know anything about this. I think you only want to argue and you are annoyed that someone called you out.
        nix23 5y ago
        >Storing energy as hydrogen involves a lot more than just a tank. The 1.3mm example was to prove that it's technological possible to isolate liquid hydrogen with such a tank. In a car you don't use liq nitrogen[1]. You just shift the usage-surrounding to make your point, it's like saying "but using kerosene in a rocket needs some additional measures too", true. Exactly like using a toilet in space needs some additional measures too. [1] https://www.ieafuelcell.com/fileadmin/_processed_/e/e/csm_fcto_storage_phys_storage_h2_tank_credit_ANL_4ec83ff016.png https://www.ieafuelcell.com/fileadmin/_processed_/e/e/csm_fc...

by bborud 5y ago

nix23 5y ago

>which ultimately charge batteries so you can buffer energy to deal with varying consumption. It's just one thing, storage huge amounts of energy in liq. hydrogen is easier then in batteries (who are explosive as well) and heavy. But again...i would not use one of those technologies at all in a War-zone..all of them are way too complex for the field.

bborud 5y ago
No, it isn't easier. Which you would know if you had bothered actually reading up on the matter.
- nix23 5y ago
  So at tank is more complicated than a battery...tell that ~every single rocket.
  - bborud 5y ago
    Storing energy as hydrogen involves a lot more than just a tank. Again, you obviously didn't bother reading up on this and you are guessing how hydrogen based energy systems work. You clearly don't.
    - nix23 5y ago
      BS, for liq. hydrogen you need to perfectly isolate it and that's it, the Adrianne rocket could achieve that with a 1.3mm think tank. And storing compressed hydrogen needs nothing more then a Gas tank like the one under your Grill. You even use compressed hydrogen for welding. Again, you know nothing and try to blind everyone with your highly secret knowledge. https://energies.airliquide.com/resources-planet-hydrogen/how-hydrogen-stored https://energies.airliquide.com/resources-planet-hydrogen/ho... >>For example, the tanks on the Ariane launcher, designed and manufactured by Air Liquide, contain the 28 tons of liquid hydrogen that will provide fuel to the central engine. These tanks are a genuine example of technological prowess: they weigh only 5.5 tons empty and their casing is not more than 1.3 mm thick.
      - bborud 5y ago
        There is nothing "secret" about the challenges of turning energy into hydrogen and then back into heat or electricity. The challenges of each step along the energy chain are pretty well understood. You make the naive assumption that you temporarily storing hydrogen in a tank with 1.3mm thick walls that needs to last for, at most, a couple of days, has any relevance for permanent energy installations. If you are going to argue for an energy storage technology you have to consider what it would actually look like in practice. And since you only want to consider one part of the chain: I suggest you look into what it takes to safely store hydrogen in a vehicle and how this compares to your naive belief that hydrogen behaves like liquids that you have an intuitive understanding of. (Spoiler: you'd have a hard time convincing authorities to let you drive around traffic with a 1.3mm thick tank in the back of your car). Then again, I don't think you want to actually know anything about this. I think you only want to argue and you are annoyed that someone called you out.
        nix23 5y ago
        >Storing energy as hydrogen involves a lot more than just a tank. The 1.3mm example was to prove that it's technological possible to isolate liquid hydrogen with such a tank. In a car you don't use liq nitrogen[1]. You just shift the usage-surrounding to make your point, it's like saying "but using kerosene in a rocket needs some additional measures too", true. Exactly like using a toilet in space needs some additional measures too. [1] https://www.ieafuelcell.com/fileadmin/_processed_/e/e/csm_fcto_storage_phys_storage_h2_tank_credit_ANL_4ec83ff016.png https://www.ieafuelcell.com/fileadmin/_processed_/e/e/csm_fc...