4 ms·

Energy storage: there is a gorilla in a corner of the room, see https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360319919347299 https://www.sciencedirec

Energy storage: there is a gorilla in a corner of the room, see https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360319919347299 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03603... Solar and wind often overproduce (leading to negative prices). This (otherwise useless energy) will be used to produce dihydrogen (water electrolysis), which will be stored, then used to produce electricity (fuel cell).

catlikesshrimp 5y ago
Although I love the concept, it seems hydrolisis isn't very efficient transforming electrical energy to chemical energy. Until it is ready, it is not ready. Canadian politicians are pledging to develop blue hydrogen in Alberta. That means transforming hydrocarbons into hydrogen. Yep, it is as stupid as it sounds. Consume fossil fuels to produce hydrogen and label it blue energy.
- natmaka 5y ago
  We are not embarked in a race on efficiency. A system able which is: - able to store otherwise is wasted energy - affordable (the total price of this storing-then-reconversion into electricity is OK) is adequate - storing in adequate volumes is adequate, even if its total efficiency is below .01 Blue hydrogen isn't good (emission-wise), but may be used as a way to evaluate and enhance what will ultimately be a green (electric energy only produced by renewable used to obtain dihydrogen) system. Moreover there are quick and decisive progress towards better efficiency.
- adrianN 5y ago
  Electrolysis is decently efficient (>70%), but turning the Hydrogen back to electricity loses quite a bit. Nevertheless, the real question is cost, not efficiency. As you noted during peak production the electricity is essentially free. If it's cheaper to use existing NG infrastructure to store Hydrogen and run gas turbines with it than building an equivalent amount of batteries, then we should go for it. Given that world lithium battery production is insufficient right now, and different battery chemistries are still experimental, proven technology like electrolysis+gas turbines seems like a good idea.
jcampbell1 5y ago
If you take $1 of electricity and water, you can convert it to $.50 of hydrogen bond energy, and then you can take the hydrogen run it through a fuel cell and get $.25 of electricity. It’s never going to be an alternative to battery chemistry which yields $.95 back. Salt cavern storage doesn’t change the math.
- natmaka 5y ago
  Please read my other reply published nearby: we are not embarked into an efficiency race. Efficiency (of any renewable-source based system) is a mean, not an end. As for efficiency: https://www.vicat.com/news/vicat-schlumberger-new-energy-cea-and-partners-announce-formation-genvia-clean-hydrogen https://www.vicat.com/news/vicat-schlumberger-new-energy-cea... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610212014725 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187661021... > Salt cavern storage doesn’t change the math "Total on- and offshore European hydrogen storage potential estimated at 84.8 PWhH2." is pretty significant and pertinent.

catlikesshrimp 5y ago

Although I love the concept, it seems hydrolisis isn't very efficient transforming electrical energy to chemical energy. Until it is ready, it is not ready. Canadian politicians are pledging to develop blue hydrogen in Alberta. That means transforming hydrocarbons into hydrogen. Yep, it is as stupid as it sounds. Consume fossil fuels to produce hydrogen and label it blue energy.

natmaka 5y ago
We are not embarked in a race on efficiency. A system able which is: - able to store otherwise is wasted energy - affordable (the total price of this storing-then-reconversion into electricity is OK) is adequate - storing in adequate volumes is adequate, even if its total efficiency is below .01 Blue hydrogen isn't good (emission-wise), but may be used as a way to evaluate and enhance what will ultimately be a green (electric energy only produced by renewable used to obtain dihydrogen) system. Moreover there are quick and decisive progress towards better efficiency.
adrianN 5y ago
Electrolysis is decently efficient (>70%), but turning the Hydrogen back to electricity loses quite a bit. Nevertheless, the real question is cost, not efficiency. As you noted during peak production the electricity is essentially free. If it's cheaper to use existing NG infrastructure to store Hydrogen and run gas turbines with it than building an equivalent amount of batteries, then we should go for it. Given that world lithium battery production is insufficient right now, and different battery chemistries are still experimental, proven technology like electrolysis+gas turbines seems like a good idea.

jcampbell1 5y ago

If you take $1 of electricity and water, you can convert it to $.50 of hydrogen bond energy, and then you can take the hydrogen run it through a fuel cell and get $.25 of electricity. It’s never going to be an alternative to battery chemistry which yields $.95 back. Salt cavern storage doesn’t change the math.

natmaka 5y ago
Please read my other reply published nearby: we are not embarked into an efficiency race. Efficiency (of any renewable-source based system) is a mean, not an end. As for efficiency: https://www.vicat.com/news/vicat-schlumberger-new-energy-cea-and-partners-announce-formation-genvia-clean-hydrogen https://www.vicat.com/news/vicat-schlumberger-new-energy-cea... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610212014725 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187661021... > Salt cavern storage doesn’t change the math "Total on- and offshore European hydrogen storage potential estimated at 84.8 PWhH2." is pretty significant and pertinent.