5 ms·

It should be noted that using hydrogen for steel or fuel production lead almost directly leads to some kind of hydrogen storage. If you can make that much hydro

• ncmncm 5y ago
  I don't doubt that, once hydrogen becomes heavily used as a fuel--exclusively for aviation, I expect--it will then also become useful, secondarily, as a storage medium for utility power. But the first condition is barely even in planning stages, if there. By the time hydrogen as bulk fuel does happen, other storage for utility power will be very mature, and hydrogen will need really compelling advantages to be able to compete in places where it is not already being stored as aviation fuel. The cited article points out that utility-grade storage in salt caverns is still a wholly hypothetical possibility, and speculates on problems that might yet render it impractical.
  • Hypx_ 5y ago
    It's advantage is that fact that it stores multiple orders of magnitude more energy than anything else, at a cost level that is orders of magnitude cheaper too. It's a matter of when, not if, hydrogen becomes the primary energy storage mechanism. Storing hydrogen underground has existed for decades. It's already been accepted by people in the industry that this is a solved problem.
    • ncmncm 5y ago
      Yet, the article you cited yourself says the opposite: that it needs study to determine its practicality. I don't doubt that whatever problems turn up will be solved, in time. Underground storage of liquified hydrogen, rather than gas under high pressure, seems like a great idea, since earth is such a good insulator, but they don't seem to be talking much about LH2. The methods used to oxidize H2 seem to produce a great amount of waste heat. If you have uses for the heat, that may be not so bad. But producing power from stored H2 at GW rates would produce more heat than is easily used on the same schedule as the power is demanded. The heat could also be banked underground, maybe, but there remains the problem of delivering it where it is actually needed.
      • Hypx_ 5y ago
        I don't think you are even trying to read what they are saying. All they're testing is how well the hydrogen will stay underground and how tight the seal is for all of the various formations. We already know it works.
        • ncmncm 5y ago
          The only GW-scale H2 storage I find is the project in Utah, which starting 2025 and for the foreseeable future will be used to augment CH4 combustion to drive turbines.
          • Hypx_ 5y ago
            It's the only one with real notoriety right now. But there are many projects. For example: https://www.business-live.co.uk/economic-development/equinor-sse-announce-humber-hydrogen-21055202 https://www.business-live.co.uk/economic-development/equinor...
            • ncmncm 5y ago
              These appear to be carbon-capture CH4 extraction projects. And, as in Utah, they seem to be planning to burn the hydrogen mixed into CH4 to drive turbines. The storage appears to be pumping H2 into existing CH4 wells, although it is hard to tell. I am anyway still not seeing any big H2 fuel cell projects, never mind solar/wind -> H2 -> fuel cell.
              • Hypx_ 5y ago
                All of this is part of a large program by the UK to switch to hydrogen: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-hydrogen-strategy https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-hydrogen-strat... What you're doing is just concern trolling, and suggesting that just because a program won't instantly get to zero emissions it is somehow not real. Meanwhile, electric cars are still being charged up mostly by fossil fuels, a fact that cannot change on the large scale without green hydrogen. Somehow, this fact is never brought up in every anti-hydrogen attack. A gas turbine can get you up to 60% efficiency BTW. While fuel cells are arguably the better idea in the long run, it is not a huge problem to use gas turbines for now.