6 ms·

Wind and solar have phases of overproduction and hydrogen generation seems sensible here, especially if you scale up generation, the article is wrong here. If

Wind and solar have phases of overproduction and hydrogen generation seems sensible here, especially if you scale up generation, the article is wrong here. If you should wait for a hydrogen car instead of a battery one is indeed questionable. I also think that storing hydrogen will always be difficult. But as a fuel cell it might have its uses. This isn't about either/or. Far more cultish is the idea that says otherwise.

drcongo 5y ago
Forbes is just a vanity blog at this point, I've no idea why it keeps getting posted here.
jacquesm 5y ago
Wind and solar over production can be stored in superconducting loops (this is pretty common in places where the grid is weak and large amounts of windpower are connected), batteries, pumped storage, supercaps and a whole host of other possible storage methods. Compared to those Hydrogen production and subsequent conversion back into energy is pretty clunky.
- adrianN 5y ago
  It may be clunky, but is it more expensive? Other than pumped storage, the options you listed sound expensive per Watthour, and pumped storage is not available everywhere. Hydrogen should have around 50% round trip efficiency from electricity back to electricity and it can (partially?) reuse existing infrastructure for natural gas.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Yes, compared to generation they are very expensive. But so is a hydrogen installation of any capacity. The trick is to have enough of it to be able to level the peaks in both demand and surplus production. You're not going to store days or weeks worth of capacity like that, the function is closer to a capacitor than it is to a long term storage medium.
  - masklinn 5y ago
    > Hydrogen should have around 50% round trip efficiency from electricity back to electricity and it can (partially?) reuse existing infrastructure for natural gas. It can't though, not without significant studies and possibly rebuilding them entirely: the temperatures and / or pressures involved are different orders of magnitude, and nat gas does not embrittle. Industries have started trying to blend hydrogen and natural gas to transport the hydrogen, and even that's turning out to be rather risky[0] unless the line was designed specifically with that use in mind. [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452321618302683 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S245232161...
    - adrianN 5y ago
      That's unfortunate. I guess one has to upgrade the hydrogen to Methane to be able to seamlessly use the existing infrastructure. That lowers the efficiency a bit and increases capex. I'd like to see some studies that try to estimate end to end cost for Power-to-Methane systems, but I'm not aware of any.
- DnDGrognard 5y ago
  You don't have to drown entire valleys and their communities to build gasometers.
- pjc50 5y ago
  > superconducting loops (this is pretty common Is it? I'm not aware of any such installations, this sounds pretty cool.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    First time I saw this was in 2006 in a US based windpark. What really struck me is how small that solution was compared to anything else that would store the same amount of power. I still have a picture somewhere, I really should dig that up.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Depends on the energy. Back into electrical energy would be a waste in many cases (exceptions like cars occur). Pumps are maintenance parts and you need a a fitting landscape. Batteries are a solution, but having billions of them isn't viable as well, especially not under ecological considerations. Superconducting storage are only energy efficient if you neglect the required cooling, otherwise they can only fulfill their function as a small short time buffer. I don't want advertise hydrogen, but it is the most simple form of potential energy in our atmosphere and I have the impression that fans of the accumulator feel threatened somehow. Sure, investments in hydrogen technology should not negatively affect research in batteries. But since they already have real economical applications, I don't see any issue here. There are numerous interests that would want more powerful batteries.
- ephbit 5y ago
  > Wind and solar over production can be stored in superconducting loops ... Superconducting loops are definitely not the storage technology that will economically scale far enough to store weeks worth of energy usage of the attached electrical grid. But weeks worth of storage (of energy, not necessarily electricity) is exactly what is needed to enable a stable grid based upon 100 % renewable electricity generation.
hannob 5y ago
The article itself is more balanced than the headline. In the second half it explains that hydrogen should be used in no-regret sectors where there's no good alternative and points to Michael Liebreich's hydrogen ladder, which identifies more and less useful sectors for hydrogen. It's not advocating for a firm "No" on hydrogen.
martythemaniak 5y ago
There was a period, up until the late 00s or so, where it was genuinely unclear whether FCEVs or BEVs would make more sense. Waiting for a hydrogen car today is not "questionable" it's kind of insane. As in, your worldview has greatly diverged from reality, it's time for a big rethink.
- ephbit 5y ago
  Hydrogen car ... not likely at all to become relevant. FCEV Methanol car ... much more likely to become relevant. The simple evidence that leads me to this conclusion is: battery powered electric trucks ... as far as I know these are highly unlikely to become relevant (as in getting a significant market share of all trucks). Methanol fuel cell powered trucks (and not only trucks, but also ships and airplanes) appear to be a very relevant field of interest for companies at the moment. As soon as methanol fuel cell powered vehicles become economically viable, battery powered electric vehicles will have a hard time competing with them except for specific niches.
masklinn 5y ago
> Wind and solar have phases of overproduction and hydrogen generation seems sensible here Is it though? The round-trip efficiency of batteries is 70-95%, for flywheels it's 90%, for hydrogen it's under 50, and all the usual problems of hydrogen (danger, absolute pain in the ass to store, embrittlement) remain.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  Wind and Solar production are literally free though. So why do you care about efficiency? In practice, the price of electricity swings roughly 300% during a given day in California. At 12pm, there's so much solar power that most people's panels are turning off and electricity is damn near free. At 7pm, there's so little energy on the grids (and the Peaker plants are having such a hard time keeping up with the "duck curve"), that the price of electricity skyrockets. --------- Unless you plan to have your electric car charge at exactly 12pm every single day to take advantage of that excess solar energy (while also negotiating to participate in the raw electric energy market), all of that free solar energy is basically worthless to you. In contrast, something like Hydrogen storage can "store" electricity by just creating more hydrogen. ----- Perhaps you think that void can be filled by Li-ion batteries. But that comes down to a Li-ion vs Electrolysis question, and its almost undeniable that concrete-and-steel for storage is cheaper to build out than buying Lithium-ion / Cobalt / SiC MOSFETs / etc. etc. What we want are machines that can suddenly grab all the free electricity off the grids at 12pm, and then they turn off by 7pm (for the duck curve), and then maybe turn on again at night (depending on the price of electricity). A "reverse peaker plant" if you will, that only uses electricity when the prices of electricity are cheap. Hydrogen works for that. Li-ion is too expensive for this still.
  - masklinn 5y ago
    > Wind and Solar production are literally free though. So why do you care about efficiency? Because there are competing storage solutions and the question is if hydrogen is actually "sensible here? If you're wasting half your storage in round-trip costs, you're losing half your money during peak hours. > In contrast, something like Hydrogen storage can "store" electricity by just creating more hydrogen. In the same way something like a flywheel can "store" electricity by just spinning faster. > Perhaps you think that void can be filled by Li-ion batteries. I'm mostly pointing out that hydrogen is (currently at least) a very inefficient method of storage, on top of being an actively dangerous and problematic one. > its almost undeniable that concrete-and-steel for storage is cheaper to build out than buying Lithium-ion / Cobalt / SiC MOSFETs / etc. etc. it really is not though, you're not storing hydrogen (especially not safely) safely in a tub. > Hydrogen works for that. So you state, with no evidence to back it up.
hulitu 5y ago
There is no way to reasonably charge a battery in a couple of minutes. Also the electric grid will not be able to sustain battery charging for all cars at night. Last but not least, carrying a ton (1000 kg) of fuel ( battery ) is not a very clever idea. That's why, at least at the moment, hydrogen is the future.
ephbit 5y ago
> ... storing hydrogen will always be difficult. Yes. Which is why synthesis of liquid fuels from renewable electricity might become the better alternative to hydrogen. Methanol as an example ... eMeOH ... Economics & carbon dioxide avoidance cost of methanol production based on renewable hydrogen and recycled carbon dioxide – power-to-methanol https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2018/se/c8se00032h/unauth https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2018/se/c8se0...

drcongo 5y ago

Forbes is just a vanity blog at this point, I've no idea why it keeps getting posted here.

jacquesm 5y ago

Wind and solar over production can be stored in superconducting loops (this is pretty common in places where the grid is weak and large amounts of windpower are connected), batteries, pumped storage, supercaps and a whole host of other possible storage methods. Compared to those Hydrogen production and subsequent conversion back into energy is pretty clunky.

adrianN 5y ago
It may be clunky, but is it more expensive? Other than pumped storage, the options you listed sound expensive per Watthour, and pumped storage is not available everywhere. Hydrogen should have around 50% round trip efficiency from electricity back to electricity and it can (partially?) reuse existing infrastructure for natural gas.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Yes, compared to generation they are very expensive. But so is a hydrogen installation of any capacity. The trick is to have enough of it to be able to level the peaks in both demand and surplus production. You're not going to store days or weeks worth of capacity like that, the function is closer to a capacitor than it is to a long term storage medium.
- masklinn 5y ago
  > Hydrogen should have around 50% round trip efficiency from electricity back to electricity and it can (partially?) reuse existing infrastructure for natural gas. It can't though, not without significant studies and possibly rebuilding them entirely: the temperatures and / or pressures involved are different orders of magnitude, and nat gas does not embrittle. Industries have started trying to blend hydrogen and natural gas to transport the hydrogen, and even that's turning out to be rather risky[0] unless the line was designed specifically with that use in mind. [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452321618302683 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S245232161...
  - adrianN 5y ago
    That's unfortunate. I guess one has to upgrade the hydrogen to Methane to be able to seamlessly use the existing infrastructure. That lowers the efficiency a bit and increases capex. I'd like to see some studies that try to estimate end to end cost for Power-to-Methane systems, but I'm not aware of any.
DnDGrognard 5y ago
You don't have to drown entire valleys and their communities to build gasometers.
pjc50 5y ago
> superconducting loops (this is pretty common Is it? I'm not aware of any such installations, this sounds pretty cool.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  First time I saw this was in 2006 in a US based windpark. What really struck me is how small that solution was compared to anything else that would store the same amount of power. I still have a picture somewhere, I really should dig that up.
raxxorrax 5y ago
Depends on the energy. Back into electrical energy would be a waste in many cases (exceptions like cars occur). Pumps are maintenance parts and you need a a fitting landscape. Batteries are a solution, but having billions of them isn't viable as well, especially not under ecological considerations. Superconducting storage are only energy efficient if you neglect the required cooling, otherwise they can only fulfill their function as a small short time buffer. I don't want advertise hydrogen, but it is the most simple form of potential energy in our atmosphere and I have the impression that fans of the accumulator feel threatened somehow. Sure, investments in hydrogen technology should not negatively affect research in batteries. But since they already have real economical applications, I don't see any issue here. There are numerous interests that would want more powerful batteries.
ephbit 5y ago
> Wind and solar over production can be stored in superconducting loops ... Superconducting loops are definitely not the storage technology that will economically scale far enough to store weeks worth of energy usage of the attached electrical grid. But weeks worth of storage (of energy, not necessarily electricity) is exactly what is needed to enable a stable grid based upon 100 % renewable electricity generation.

hannob 5y ago

The article itself is more balanced than the headline. In the second half it explains that hydrogen should be used in no-regret sectors where there's no good alternative and points to Michael Liebreich's hydrogen ladder, which identifies more and less useful sectors for hydrogen. It's not advocating for a firm "No" on hydrogen.

martythemaniak 5y ago

There was a period, up until the late 00s or so, where it was genuinely unclear whether FCEVs or BEVs would make more sense. Waiting for a hydrogen car today is not "questionable" it's kind of insane. As in, your worldview has greatly diverged from reality, it's time for a big rethink.

ephbit 5y ago
Hydrogen car ... not likely at all to become relevant. FCEV Methanol car ... much more likely to become relevant. The simple evidence that leads me to this conclusion is: battery powered electric trucks ... as far as I know these are highly unlikely to become relevant (as in getting a significant market share of all trucks). Methanol fuel cell powered trucks (and not only trucks, but also ships and airplanes) appear to be a very relevant field of interest for companies at the moment. As soon as methanol fuel cell powered vehicles become economically viable, battery powered electric vehicles will have a hard time competing with them except for specific niches.

masklinn 5y ago

> Wind and solar have phases of overproduction and hydrogen generation seems sensible here Is it though? The round-trip efficiency of batteries is 70-95%, for flywheels it's 90%, for hydrogen it's under 50, and all the usual problems of hydrogen (danger, absolute pain in the ass to store, embrittlement) remain.

dragontamer 5y ago
Wind and Solar production are literally free though. So why do you care about efficiency? In practice, the price of electricity swings roughly 300% during a given day in California. At 12pm, there's so much solar power that most people's panels are turning off and electricity is damn near free. At 7pm, there's so little energy on the grids (and the Peaker plants are having such a hard time keeping up with the "duck curve"), that the price of electricity skyrockets. --------- Unless you plan to have your electric car charge at exactly 12pm every single day to take advantage of that excess solar energy (while also negotiating to participate in the raw electric energy market), all of that free solar energy is basically worthless to you. In contrast, something like Hydrogen storage can "store" electricity by just creating more hydrogen. ----- Perhaps you think that void can be filled by Li-ion batteries. But that comes down to a Li-ion vs Electrolysis question, and its almost undeniable that concrete-and-steel for storage is cheaper to build out than buying Lithium-ion / Cobalt / SiC MOSFETs / etc. etc. What we want are machines that can suddenly grab all the free electricity off the grids at 12pm, and then they turn off by 7pm (for the duck curve), and then maybe turn on again at night (depending on the price of electricity). A "reverse peaker plant" if you will, that only uses electricity when the prices of electricity are cheap. Hydrogen works for that. Li-ion is too expensive for this still.
- masklinn 5y ago
  > Wind and Solar production are literally free though. So why do you care about efficiency? Because there are competing storage solutions and the question is if hydrogen is actually "sensible here? If you're wasting half your storage in round-trip costs, you're losing half your money during peak hours. > In contrast, something like Hydrogen storage can "store" electricity by just creating more hydrogen. In the same way something like a flywheel can "store" electricity by just spinning faster. > Perhaps you think that void can be filled by Li-ion batteries. I'm mostly pointing out that hydrogen is (currently at least) a very inefficient method of storage, on top of being an actively dangerous and problematic one. > its almost undeniable that concrete-and-steel for storage is cheaper to build out than buying Lithium-ion / Cobalt / SiC MOSFETs / etc. etc. it really is not though, you're not storing hydrogen (especially not safely) safely in a tub. > Hydrogen works for that. So you state, with no evidence to back it up.

hulitu 5y ago

There is no way to reasonably charge a battery in a couple of minutes. Also the electric grid will not be able to sustain battery charging for all cars at night. Last but not least, carrying a ton (1000 kg) of fuel ( battery ) is not a very clever idea. That's why, at least at the moment, hydrogen is the future.

ephbit 5y ago

> ... storing hydrogen will always be difficult. Yes. Which is why synthesis of liquid fuels from renewable electricity might become the better alternative to hydrogen. Methanol as an example ... eMeOH ... Economics & carbon dioxide avoidance cost of methanol production based on renewable hydrogen and recycled carbon dioxide – power-to-methanol https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2018/se/c8se00032h/unauth https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2018/se/c8se0...