4 ms·
storage in hydrogen and allow a 80% devaluation of the energy that was used. That doesn't matter because the energy would be thown away otherwise like it is tod
by chess_buster 5y ago
storage in hydrogen and allow a 80% devaluation of the energy that was used. That doesn't matter because the energy would be thown away otherwise like it is today.
- adrianN 5y agoElectricity->Hydrogen->Electricity loses about 60%, not 80%.
- tuatoru 5y agoElectricity -> gasoline or kerosene has lower losses, easier transport, and safer storage.
- adrianN 5y agoI doubt the efficiency, do you have sources? What are the chemicals you start with?
- namibj 5y agoEasier transport than existing gas pipelines and existing/to-be-built gas caverns?
- adrianN 5y agoYou need to upgrade those to be able to use hydrogen, but you don't lose a lot more efficiency if you upgrade the hydrogen to methane afaik.
- namibj 5y agoDepends on how decentralized you can inject hydrogen from overflowing renewables, then. If you could do so at the city's connections to the main long-distance network, it might not be economical to have the infrastructure to create methane from it, and, on top, the hydrogen fraction would be CO2-free even if burnt in a normal boiler/stove. I wonder what upgrades would be needed, though? Are they not already using one of the steel alloys that is resistant to hydrogen embrittlement?
- imtringued 5y agoAre you talking about renewable assisted oil extraction? There are some oil extraction methods that have a EROI below 1 which can ironically only be powered by renewables.
- chess_buster 5y agoeven better!
- zardo 5y agoI mean that's a technology that could be used, but I don't see mention of it in the article. Is it in the law?
- yodelshady 5y agoYeah, hydrogen's the only storage medium that makes sense at that scale. I'd expect some - actually probably quite a lot - of excess CAPEX on wind+solar, and some deficit (less CAPEX, but buying some electricity at retail) so you don't have electrolysers and thermal plants just lying around. You're still stuck with the investment issue: either you pay (Hinckley-scale!) fees to providers to just lie around, or the public sector runs it itself, and the "private more efficient" bollocks is exactly that, because the private sector isn't providing the value. The people providing SLAs are.
- tuatoru 5y ago> hydrogen's the only storage medium that makes sense at that scale. There's more hydrogen in a liter of gasoline than in a liter of liquid hydrogen. Electricity to gasoline produces a safe product that is easily storable for years and easily transportable requiring only minor safety precautions. Not something that can be said for hydrogen.
- yayachiken 5y agoThe point of hydrogen is not mainly energy storage but hydrogen is the only viable way to clean up two of the most carbon intensive industrial processes: steel smelting and ammonia (fertilizer) synthesis. Smelting steel requires coal to reduce the oxygen from raw iron to carbon dioxide. The coal can be replaced by hydrogen, which will then react to water vapor. Synthesizing ammonia needs elemental hydrogen which is as of now extracted from methane (natural gas) using steam reformation. This leads to CO2 as waste product whereas electrolysis crates hydrogen and oxygen directly/cleanly from water. You need huge amounts of "base load" hydrogen generation capacities for these industries alone. Flexible generation, i.e. produce more to soak up excess renewable energy which you can then export or turn back into electricity (at a huge loss) later, is just the cherry on top. The initial funding will absolutely come from the steel and chemical industry (and also government subsidies to get the transformation started).
- panick21_ 5y agoHydrogen is not at all required for steel melting. Look at Boston Metal. In fact I would argue its the worst solution of the two by a big margin. For ammonia this will eventually be required.