4 ms·

> Or maybe I'm wrong and somebody comes up with an easy and cost effective way to store significant amounts of hydrogen. That would be a wonderful way to be wro

> Or maybe I'm wrong and somebody comes up with an easy and cost effective way to store significant amounts of hydrogen. That would be a wonderful way to be wrong. Liquefaction is the way. We already do it for natural gas (LNG), we just need to build similar infrastructure for LH2.

tonmoy 4y ago
Since this article talks about using renewable electricity to produce hydrogen, the H2 storage and distribution has to be more efficient and safer than transmission lines + Li ion batteries. Note Li ion battery technology is likely to keep improving for the next decade as well
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Batteries will not be used in energy transport. Transmission lines will be favored for up to 2000 km, ships full of liquified ammonia much beyond that. Far northern cities without reliable transmission lines will get regular ammonia shipments from solar farms in the tropics, just as they get LNG today.
gruez 4y ago
>> Or maybe I'm wrong and somebody comes up with an easy and cost effective way to store significant amounts of hydrogen >We already do it for natural gas (LNG), we just need to build similar infrastructure for LH2. That doesn't address the "easy and cost effective" part. Current estimates say that the energy required is 30% of the energy value of the hydrogen itself. >But whereas liquefying natural gas only requires temperatures of -160°C, to liquefy hydrogen you need refrigeration systems capable of getting down to -253°C. That is an expensive proposition. Using current technologies the energy required is 30% of that in the hydrogen being liquefied. https://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2022/06/23/making-natural-gas-emissions-free-will-be-a-challenge https://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2022/06/23/ma...
- ncmncm 4y ago
  When the energy going in is cheap, efficiency can become the least important concern. LH2 is the obviously correct fuel for future aviation. But probably few other places.
Reason077 4y ago
> ”Liquefaction is the way. We already do it for natural gas (LNG), we just need to build similar infrastructure for LH2.” It take a lot more energy to liquify hydrogen compared to natural gas. At least 10 kWh per kg. And storing/transporting it is expensive: you need to maintain cryogenic (-253 deg C) conditions. Even the Space industry has given up on LH2 in favour of liquid CH4, partly due to all the costs and difficulties in handling it.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  As the cost of top-line energy production falls, so does worry over inefficiencies.
cgh 4y ago
One way to "store" it is to convert it to ammonia, a pretty standard process. Then it can be easily shipped around in tankers and so forth.

tonmoy 4y ago

Since this article talks about using renewable electricity to produce hydrogen, the H2 storage and distribution has to be more efficient and safer than transmission lines + Li ion batteries. Note Li ion battery technology is likely to keep improving for the next decade as well

ncmncm 4y ago
Batteries will not be used in energy transport. Transmission lines will be favored for up to 2000 km, ships full of liquified ammonia much beyond that. Far northern cities without reliable transmission lines will get regular ammonia shipments from solar farms in the tropics, just as they get LNG today.

gruez 4y ago

>> Or maybe I'm wrong and somebody comes up with an easy and cost effective way to store significant amounts of hydrogen >We already do it for natural gas (LNG), we just need to build similar infrastructure for LH2. That doesn't address the "easy and cost effective" part. Current estimates say that the energy required is 30% of the energy value of the hydrogen itself. >But whereas liquefying natural gas only requires temperatures of -160°C, to liquefy hydrogen you need refrigeration systems capable of getting down to -253°C. That is an expensive proposition. Using current technologies the energy required is 30% of that in the hydrogen being liquefied. https://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2022/06/23/making-natural-gas-emissions-free-will-be-a-challenge https://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2022/06/23/ma...

ncmncm 4y ago
When the energy going in is cheap, efficiency can become the least important concern. LH2 is the obviously correct fuel for future aviation. But probably few other places.

Reason077 4y ago

> ”Liquefaction is the way. We already do it for natural gas (LNG), we just need to build similar infrastructure for LH2.” It take a lot more energy to liquify hydrogen compared to natural gas. At least 10 kWh per kg. And storing/transporting it is expensive: you need to maintain cryogenic (-253 deg C) conditions. Even the Space industry has given up on LH2 in favour of liquid CH4, partly due to all the costs and difficulties in handling it.

ncmncm 4y ago
As the cost of top-line energy production falls, so does worry over inefficiencies.

cgh 4y ago

One way to "store" it is to convert it to ammonia, a pretty standard process. Then it can be easily shipped around in tankers and so forth.