4 ms·

Stop with the media induced hydrogen vs electric vehicle debate. They have different use cases and value propositions. Hydrogen is a fuel that can be transpor

Stop with the media induced hydrogen vs electric vehicle debate. They have different use cases and value propositions. Hydrogen is a fuel that can be transported which has its own merits (there are always trade offs). Also it is a rocket fuel and used in a variety of crucial industrial practices. If we produce hydrogen through crack natural gas, that is a loss for us on the planet as a species. However if we use the newer cleaner mechanisms (waste reuse, electrolysis) there is value from it. Also if oil and gas majors dont reap the benefits is important as they have been bad corporate citizens over the decades. We need all technologies to move us forward in the energy future on this planet or elsewhere. Also remember that were midway through a tech tree, who knows where the other tech will come along to facilitate our research and development.

photochemsyn 4y ago
There are two main in-situ uses of hydrogen that come to mind that don't require problematic long-distance transport and storage: nitrogen fertilizer production, and hydrogen-based direct iron reduction. For example: (2021) "Green Ammonia and the Electrification of the Haber-Bosch Process Reduce Carbon Emissions" https://guidehouseinsights.com/news-and-views/green-ammonia-and-the-electrification-of-the-haber-bosch-process-reduce-carbon-emissions https://guidehouseinsights.com/news-and-views/green-ammonia-... (2022) "Hierarchical nature of hydrogen-based direct reduction of iron oxides" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359646222000720 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135964622...
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  Well, there‘s also the issue that batteries for boats or airplanes result in either a massive capacity cut, or something too big to fly, float, or fit through the Suez and Panama Canals.
  - AtlasBarfed 4y ago
    Long range shipping is more solvable than your sky-is-falling astroturfing implies: https://cleantechnica.com/2022/03/18/fleetzeros-container-ship-battery-swapping-scheme-may-help-electrify-shipping/ https://cleantechnica.com/2022/03/18/fleetzeros-container-sh... Much like 90% of BEV trips not needing 300 miles of range, most shipping routes actually don't need 1000s of miles of range, they can hopscotch between ports and swap batteries quickly at the ports with some shipping conatiner sized battery that sits on the top of the ship (presumably with some rapid swap equipment that wouldn't require docking). Hydrogen will probably rule the skies though, I'll grant you that, for any long range flights. But fuel costs dominate aviation, and if shorter ranges can be addressed with batteries and some fundamental power cost advantages, then BEVs can be applied to aviation, where appropriate.
    - bobthepanda 4y ago
      Stopping in ports costs time and money (port space is limited, mooring in open ocean isn‘t a good idea if you can help it), which was one of the big reasons ships quickly dropped coal in favor of liquid fuels. I don‘t know that putting heavy batteries on the top of the ship is a great idea. A lot of work already goes into making sure a ship is not too top heavy. Fuel costs dominate aviation and shipping. If it were physically possible to not rely on a fuel with huge price volatility it would be nice. Unfortunately battery airplanes seem right now to be limited to replacing single engine planes on small short hops like Boston to Martha‘s Vineyard.
- p_l 4y ago
  Few years ago NIST did a study on hydrogen vehicle charging stations, and they found out that the best design was to place electrolysers locally instead of transporting it. Such a station could effectively double as BEV charging station, as it's main requirements would be beefy grid connection plus water source, with tanks being used only to buffer hydrogen.
nintendo1889 4y ago
Does electrolysis require more electricity than it generates at this point?
- whatever1 4y ago
  It will always require more.
- aaaaaaaaaaab 4y ago
  No, it generates more! You just discovered the perpetuum mobile.
- pacbard 4y ago
  According to wikipedia, electrolysis has an efficiency of about 70%, with a theoretical limit of 94%. Cracking water will always require more energy than it will produce, i.e. there is no free lunch. The point of electrolysis is that it could be used as "clean energy storage" for other clean energy (e.g., solar). Hydrogen gas can be moved long distances, unlike other storage options that are more stationary (like a hydroelectric dam), and has higher energy density (120 MJ/kg for what I can find online) then even the best batteries available (2.54 MJ/kg for Lithium-ion nanowire?).
- Maursault 4y ago
  There was some very promising work done in the mid-1990s with sonoluminescence[1], but an apparent accident at the lab destroyed half of Chicago's industrial district, killing the project manager, who was the motivating force behind the project. Attempts to duplicate the work destroyed a government research facility in Leesburg, Virginia, and further efforts were abandoned as unviable. There was a documentary released soon after detailing the tragic costs of this scientific discovery and advancement.[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_of_sonoluminescence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_of_sonoluminescence [2] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115857/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115857/
AtlasBarfed 4y ago
That's the issue, the hydrogen push (especially in the media) is just oil/gas sneaking their continued fossil fuel use to the future. Has been since George Bush II was pushing hydrogen as a green alternative 10-15 years ago in his role as faithful smiling face of the fossil fuel industry. It continues today. The research at is core is valuable because of course hydrogen and fuel cells have applications. But you are correct: It's always positioned as "don't do BEVs, use hydrogen for this for EVERYTHING". Which is really "the tell" that hydrogen continues to be a trojan horse for continued carbon emissions by the oil and gas companies. If it weren't your point is precisely right: it would simply be presented as "here is a use of hydrogen in this specific use case that is useful". Granted some of this is the usual hype/lying/fraud done by some startup to garner investment, attention, and interest by any means possible. But who funds these hydrogen startups? Oh right... It's very similar to the constant barrage of nuclear stories. Both petroleum and nuclear are existentially threatened by the current (and future) economics of BEVs, batteries, solar, and wind. They aren't competitive now, and the economies of scale and technological maturity of all of those technologies is still in active improvement in terms of year-on-year 5-15% improvements. I certainly won't support any hydrogen "scheme" for a decade at least. Hydrogen is in the same boat as any nuclear startup or new project: MAYBE you have an economic case against solar/wind/battery ... based on today's prices. But they all have ten year lead times, practically speaking. Hydrogen at any scale is a huge infrastructure buildout. And their value proposition, aside from the oil/gas trojan horse of hydrogen-from-methane, is based on CURRENT solar/wind/battery prices. In the ten years between when some huge civilization push for nuclear or hydrogen comes, what will the effective price of solar/battery/wind be? NO ONE knows, but at 5-15% is probably a likely improvement curve for the next ten years, barring significant materials and approach breakthroughs like some dramatic perovskite solar cell or some phenomally good solid state battery cell hitting the market (all of which are theoretically possible). And at a minimum, if any hydrogen or nuclear boondoggle steals investment and attention and policy focus and consumers from BEVs and wind/solar, it is a win for these existentially threatened industries, likely full of executives who are riding sinking ships to retirement and stock option bonuses rather than actually migrate the companies to long term sustainability. They didn't care about the sustainability of the planet, so why would they care about their companies sustainability?

photochemsyn 4y ago

There are two main in-situ uses of hydrogen that come to mind that don't require problematic long-distance transport and storage: nitrogen fertilizer production, and hydrogen-based direct iron reduction. For example: (2021) "Green Ammonia and the Electrification of the Haber-Bosch Process Reduce Carbon Emissions" https://guidehouseinsights.com/news-and-views/green-ammonia-and-the-electrification-of-the-haber-bosch-process-reduce-carbon-emissions https://guidehouseinsights.com/news-and-views/green-ammonia-... (2022) "Hierarchical nature of hydrogen-based direct reduction of iron oxides" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359646222000720 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135964622...

bobthepanda 4y ago
Well, there‘s also the issue that batteries for boats or airplanes result in either a massive capacity cut, or something too big to fly, float, or fit through the Suez and Panama Canals.
- AtlasBarfed 4y ago
  Long range shipping is more solvable than your sky-is-falling astroturfing implies: https://cleantechnica.com/2022/03/18/fleetzeros-container-ship-battery-swapping-scheme-may-help-electrify-shipping/ https://cleantechnica.com/2022/03/18/fleetzeros-container-sh... Much like 90% of BEV trips not needing 300 miles of range, most shipping routes actually don't need 1000s of miles of range, they can hopscotch between ports and swap batteries quickly at the ports with some shipping conatiner sized battery that sits on the top of the ship (presumably with some rapid swap equipment that wouldn't require docking). Hydrogen will probably rule the skies though, I'll grant you that, for any long range flights. But fuel costs dominate aviation, and if shorter ranges can be addressed with batteries and some fundamental power cost advantages, then BEVs can be applied to aviation, where appropriate.
  - bobthepanda 4y ago
    Stopping in ports costs time and money (port space is limited, mooring in open ocean isn‘t a good idea if you can help it), which was one of the big reasons ships quickly dropped coal in favor of liquid fuels. I don‘t know that putting heavy batteries on the top of the ship is a great idea. A lot of work already goes into making sure a ship is not too top heavy. Fuel costs dominate aviation and shipping. If it were physically possible to not rely on a fuel with huge price volatility it would be nice. Unfortunately battery airplanes seem right now to be limited to replacing single engine planes on small short hops like Boston to Martha‘s Vineyard.
p_l 4y ago
Few years ago NIST did a study on hydrogen vehicle charging stations, and they found out that the best design was to place electrolysers locally instead of transporting it. Such a station could effectively double as BEV charging station, as it's main requirements would be beefy grid connection plus water source, with tanks being used only to buffer hydrogen.

nintendo1889 4y ago

Does electrolysis require more electricity than it generates at this point?

whatever1 4y ago
It will always require more.
aaaaaaaaaaab 4y ago
No, it generates more! You just discovered the perpetuum mobile.
pacbard 4y ago
According to wikipedia, electrolysis has an efficiency of about 70%, with a theoretical limit of 94%. Cracking water will always require more energy than it will produce, i.e. there is no free lunch. The point of electrolysis is that it could be used as "clean energy storage" for other clean energy (e.g., solar). Hydrogen gas can be moved long distances, unlike other storage options that are more stationary (like a hydroelectric dam), and has higher energy density (120 MJ/kg for what I can find online) then even the best batteries available (2.54 MJ/kg for Lithium-ion nanowire?).
Maursault 4y ago
There was some very promising work done in the mid-1990s with sonoluminescence[1], but an apparent accident at the lab destroyed half of Chicago's industrial district, killing the project manager, who was the motivating force behind the project. Attempts to duplicate the work destroyed a government research facility in Leesburg, Virginia, and further efforts were abandoned as unviable. There was a documentary released soon after detailing the tragic costs of this scientific discovery and advancement.[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_of_sonoluminescence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_of_sonoluminescence [2] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115857/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115857/

AtlasBarfed 4y ago

That's the issue, the hydrogen push (especially in the media) is just oil/gas sneaking their continued fossil fuel use to the future. Has been since George Bush II was pushing hydrogen as a green alternative 10-15 years ago in his role as faithful smiling face of the fossil fuel industry. It continues today. The research at is core is valuable because of course hydrogen and fuel cells have applications. But you are correct: It's always positioned as "don't do BEVs, use hydrogen for this for EVERYTHING". Which is really "the tell" that hydrogen continues to be a trojan horse for continued carbon emissions by the oil and gas companies. If it weren't your point is precisely right: it would simply be presented as "here is a use of hydrogen in this specific use case that is useful". Granted some of this is the usual hype/lying/fraud done by some startup to garner investment, attention, and interest by any means possible. But who funds these hydrogen startups? Oh right... It's very similar to the constant barrage of nuclear stories. Both petroleum and nuclear are existentially threatened by the current (and future) economics of BEVs, batteries, solar, and wind. They aren't competitive now, and the economies of scale and technological maturity of all of those technologies is still in active improvement in terms of year-on-year 5-15% improvements. I certainly won't support any hydrogen "scheme" for a decade at least. Hydrogen is in the same boat as any nuclear startup or new project: MAYBE you have an economic case against solar/wind/battery ... based on today's prices. But they all have ten year lead times, practically speaking. Hydrogen at any scale is a huge infrastructure buildout. And their value proposition, aside from the oil/gas trojan horse of hydrogen-from-methane, is based on CURRENT solar/wind/battery prices. In the ten years between when some huge civilization push for nuclear or hydrogen comes, what will the effective price of solar/battery/wind be? NO ONE knows, but at 5-15% is probably a likely improvement curve for the next ten years, barring significant materials and approach breakthroughs like some dramatic perovskite solar cell or some phenomally good solid state battery cell hitting the market (all of which are theoretically possible). And at a minimum, if any hydrogen or nuclear boondoggle steals investment and attention and policy focus and consumers from BEVs and wind/solar, it is a win for these existentially threatened industries, likely full of executives who are riding sinking ships to retirement and stock option bonuses rather than actually migrate the companies to long term sustainability. They didn't care about the sustainability of the planet, so why would they care about their companies sustainability?