3 ms·
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. Ca
by 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 agoWe 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 agoElectrolysis 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.