4 ms·

Why are we all wrapped up with hydrogen when we already have a perfectly adequate hydrocarbon infrastructure? Sure, digging up old buried hydrocarbons and bur

Why are we all wrapped up with hydrogen when we already have a perfectly adequate hydrocarbon infrastructure? Sure, digging up old buried hydrocarbons and burning them isn't good, but couldn't we start synthesizing light hydrocarbons using green technology, so at least those usages are carbon neutral?

cagenut 4y ago
All of the synthetic light hydrocarbons (e-fuels) involve extra energy on top of the hydrogen production. Its pretty much right there in the name (hydro carbon). So for instance, we could make a ton of hydrogen and then burn it for energy, or we could make a ton of hydrogen, add in a few hundred kilos of carbon and more energy to produce e-fuels that we then burn for energy. For logistics reasons it will almost certainly have its place, but because by definition it takes a greater energy investment than just the hydrogen, it will economically come after hydrogen production has been scaled to solve the cases where it is not logistically constrained.
- oh_sigh 4y ago
  Right, but the problem is really with hydrogen handling, and all the complexities that would be pushed onto, say, every vehicle. Keeping a hydrocarbon in a container is much, much easier than keeping a single hydrogen atom in a container.
  - cagenut 4y ago
    once again we are not talking about cars
    - oh_sigh 4y ago
      Who isn't? I'm talking about cars(among other things). I know the article discounts cars as being solved by lithium ion batteries, but there is still a huge group pushing for hydrogen vehicles.
- worik 4y ago
  Energy is plentiful, but it is not in the right places. So surely the economics of transporting energy are going to count transmission/transport costs/efficiency not production efficiency? Some form of synthetic fuel made from Hydrogen plus CO2 has a very good chance of being a winner here, given the extensive infrastructure we have for liquid (and gaseous) fuels. I am no expert but this seems very clear to me. What do I have wrong?
goethes_kind 4y ago
That's really the same bag as hydrogen. Once you have hydrogen, you could then use power-to-gas technologies to get a more stable fuel. Of course you lose energy in the process, so you only do this if you need to.
bryanlarsen 4y ago
Yes, I believe that this has a lot more promise than using hydrogen directly. It's even less efficient than hydrogen, but there are tons of use cases where the cost of replacing old infrastructure is more expensive than the efficiency gains from electrification. Or if your rocket runs on methane. https://terraformindustries.com/ https://terraformindustries.com/ is just one example of companies going after this market. SpaceX is also getting into it.
hannob 4y ago
Sure we can, but a) all processes synthesizing hydrocarbons start with hydrogen, so you'll need cheap green hydrogen to begin with, and b) it takes a lot of energy.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Capturing CO2 to crack and attach to that hydrogen is itself expensive. But there are places where nothing but hydrocarbons will do. Your old chainsaw, and all existing airliners, e.g. So, we will capture CO2, and turn some of it into hydrocarbons and re-exhaust it. Hopefully not most of it.

cagenut 4y ago

All of the synthetic light hydrocarbons (e-fuels) involve extra energy on top of the hydrogen production. Its pretty much right there in the name (hydro carbon). So for instance, we could make a ton of hydrogen and then burn it for energy, or we could make a ton of hydrogen, add in a few hundred kilos of carbon and more energy to produce e-fuels that we then burn for energy. For logistics reasons it will almost certainly have its place, but because by definition it takes a greater energy investment than just the hydrogen, it will economically come after hydrogen production has been scaled to solve the cases where it is not logistically constrained.

oh_sigh 4y ago
Right, but the problem is really with hydrogen handling, and all the complexities that would be pushed onto, say, every vehicle. Keeping a hydrocarbon in a container is much, much easier than keeping a single hydrogen atom in a container.
- cagenut 4y ago
  once again we are not talking about cars
  - oh_sigh 4y ago
    Who isn't? I'm talking about cars(among other things). I know the article discounts cars as being solved by lithium ion batteries, but there is still a huge group pushing for hydrogen vehicles.
worik 4y ago
Energy is plentiful, but it is not in the right places. So surely the economics of transporting energy are going to count transmission/transport costs/efficiency not production efficiency? Some form of synthetic fuel made from Hydrogen plus CO2 has a very good chance of being a winner here, given the extensive infrastructure we have for liquid (and gaseous) fuels. I am no expert but this seems very clear to me. What do I have wrong?

goethes_kind 4y ago

That's really the same bag as hydrogen. Once you have hydrogen, you could then use power-to-gas technologies to get a more stable fuel. Of course you lose energy in the process, so you only do this if you need to.

bryanlarsen 4y ago

Yes, I believe that this has a lot more promise than using hydrogen directly. It's even less efficient than hydrogen, but there are tons of use cases where the cost of replacing old infrastructure is more expensive than the efficiency gains from electrification. Or if your rocket runs on methane. https://terraformindustries.com/ https://terraformindustries.com/ is just one example of companies going after this market. SpaceX is also getting into it.

hannob 4y ago

Sure we can, but a) all processes synthesizing hydrocarbons start with hydrogen, so you'll need cheap green hydrogen to begin with, and b) it takes a lot of energy.

ncmncm 4y ago
Capturing CO2 to crack and attach to that hydrogen is itself expensive. But there are places where nothing but hydrocarbons will do. Your old chainsaw, and all existing airliners, e.g. So, we will capture CO2, and turn some of it into hydrocarbons and re-exhaust it. Hopefully not most of it.