3 ms·

We have lots of "solutions" (e.g., conventional batteries, flywheels, pumped hydro, etc), the critical question is cost. Where are the proven economical, grid-s

We have lots of "solutions" (e.g., conventional batteries, flywheels, pumped hydro, etc), the critical question is cost. Where are the proven economical, grid-scale deployments of hydrogen storage? Last I checked, they were in their infancy, so while I'm rooting for it, characterizing hydrogen as a solution is facile.

pfdietz 5y ago
There exist underground hydrogen storage caverns already. One was referenced elsewhere in the comments (supplying hydrogen to industrial users in the gulf states.) So, the technology exists. The major block for green hydrogen storage was the cost of electrolysers, but that is crashing now as well: China is selling alkaline electrolysers for under $300/kW. The hydrogen would be used in combined cycle plants. Hydrogen-burning combustion turbines have been available for 30 years. You might be misled by the apparent absence of installations for hydrogen grid storage, but understand that as long as natural gas is being used, it makes little sense to use hydrogen instead. That doesn't mean hydrogen can't work, it just means that natural gas (without CO2 charges) is for the moment cheaper.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  I'm aware of some storage caverns and have no doubts that the technology works, but everything I'm aware of suggests it's experimental with respect to the economics.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Experimental technology does not get billion-dollar orders. Factories for iron-air storage are being built today, to start supplying grid-scale storage in 2023. Everybody knows the demand is there and will remain there, so there is plenty of capital for anything known to work. But it takes time to build out. After costs shake out, build-out will concentrate on the cheapest alternatives, but everything already built will still work, and still be used, because the cost is capital cost. It will be a long time before the storage market is saturated and storage providers have to compete on prices.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    It will be ready and waiting when the economic incentives needed to put it into place are there. These incentives by all evidence will be less than what would be needed to put nuclear into its place. BTW, if you object to hydrogen on these grounds, you must also object to nuclear on these grounds, and more strongly. This is especially the case if you imagine a nuclear powered world economy. You need to imagine a jump in technology more radical than for hydrogen storage -- either massive scale up of seawater uranium extraction (many orders of magnitude, from gram scale to megaton scale) or use of breeder reactors instead of burner reactors.
mrep 5y ago
If you want proven tech, methane isn't much worse efficiency.

pfdietz 5y ago

There exist underground hydrogen storage caverns already. One was referenced elsewhere in the comments (supplying hydrogen to industrial users in the gulf states.) So, the technology exists. The major block for green hydrogen storage was the cost of electrolysers, but that is crashing now as well: China is selling alkaline electrolysers for under $300/kW. The hydrogen would be used in combined cycle plants. Hydrogen-burning combustion turbines have been available for 30 years. You might be misled by the apparent absence of installations for hydrogen grid storage, but understand that as long as natural gas is being used, it makes little sense to use hydrogen instead. That doesn't mean hydrogen can't work, it just means that natural gas (without CO2 charges) is for the moment cheaper.

throwaway894345 5y ago
I'm aware of some storage caverns and have no doubts that the technology works, but everything I'm aware of suggests it's experimental with respect to the economics.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Experimental technology does not get billion-dollar orders. Factories for iron-air storage are being built today, to start supplying grid-scale storage in 2023. Everybody knows the demand is there and will remain there, so there is plenty of capital for anything known to work. But it takes time to build out. After costs shake out, build-out will concentrate on the cheapest alternatives, but everything already built will still work, and still be used, because the cost is capital cost. It will be a long time before the storage market is saturated and storage providers have to compete on prices.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  It will be ready and waiting when the economic incentives needed to put it into place are there. These incentives by all evidence will be less than what would be needed to put nuclear into its place. BTW, if you object to hydrogen on these grounds, you must also object to nuclear on these grounds, and more strongly. This is especially the case if you imagine a nuclear powered world economy. You need to imagine a jump in technology more radical than for hydrogen storage -- either massive scale up of seawater uranium extraction (many orders of magnitude, from gram scale to megaton scale) or use of breeder reactors instead of burner reactors.

mrep 5y ago

If you want proven tech, methane isn't much worse efficiency.