4 ms·

Only consider the Levelised cost of Energy (LCOE) over the lifetime of systems, like solar+ electrical cables and night-time batteries versus solar generating h

Only consider the Levelised cost of Energy (LCOE) over the lifetime of systems, like solar+ electrical cables and night-time batteries versus solar generating hydrogen, storing plus transport plus burning or fuel cells in new locomotives. If you look at LCOE over lifetime, solar photovoltaics always wins over wind, hydro and certainly over hydrogen and nuclear. Lowest cost wins. Hydrogen made from solar electricity is around 40% efficient, so it is more than 2.5 times more expensive (expensive storage and transport) than just solar and overhead electric cable. Cheaper still because you can put solar panels along the train tracks so land use is almost free. You would have much less losses if you convert solar panel 40-60V directly into high voltage the train use.

vitiral 4y ago
... if the train only ran in the daytime, right?
dragontamer 4y ago
> and night-time batteries Why can't those night-time batteries be Hydrogen? And instead of running electrical wires, why don't we pump that Hydrogen into a pipeline that goes to the train station? That way, our energy transport uses cheap steel-and-concrete to move our energy around, rather than expensive copper and transistors. And instead of electrifying 3000 miles of track, why won't the Locomotive engine be a fuel cell that converts the H2 back into electricity on board?
- morphle 4y ago
  Because Hydrogen is too expensive. If you calculate the LCOE, you'll find that using wind at night is cheaper than hydrogen. Maybe certain batteries storing solar can beat wind at cost? My point remains, don't guess "why not use my favorite X" but calculate and simulate all alternative systems and the the lowest cost of energy ofve lifetime of systems is the winner you actually build.
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    A pipeline and a steel drum, even built to withstand 700Bar of pressure, is cheaper than 1MW circuits that you propose lining thousands of miles of rail with. Transistors, transformers, and electric wires use an incredible amount of copper.
  - ephbit 4y ago
    I think the reason why hydrogen (or derivatives such as ammonia or methanol) will become a very widespread carrier of energy in the long term is: seasonal storage of energy. There doesn't appear to be a promising solution for seasonal storage of energy other than hydrogen. Pumped hydro power is limited to certain areas and also doesn't scale in the same way that hydrogen does. Compressed air is sometimes mentioned but doesn't appear to make much progress. Since the world is going to need massive amounts of seasonal storage for the sake of the stability of the energy system (which is the backbone of society), as more and more renewables are built, there just has to be a solution. And if there's only one that scales to demand, then that's what will be built. Hydrogen (and derivatives and generally all chemical energy carriers) also have this triple synergy of huge capacity for transmission plus flexibility plus buffering. Transmission capacity of a pipeline is massively larger than any cable. Flexibility is given through the fact that hydrogen can spontaneously be transported to almost any location. Compare that to "spontaneously" building a new power line to an arbitrary location. Buffering is a byproduct. As soon as the hydrogen is produced, it acts like a buffer, whether it's inside a pipeline or some tank. Compare that to electric energy transmitted via cable .. as soon as the power plant is shut down, the lights will go out. A chemical based energy system is inherently more stable and resilient than an electrical grid, IMO.

vitiral 4y ago

... if the train only ran in the daytime, right?

dragontamer 4y ago

> and night-time batteries Why can't those night-time batteries be Hydrogen? And instead of running electrical wires, why don't we pump that Hydrogen into a pipeline that goes to the train station? That way, our energy transport uses cheap steel-and-concrete to move our energy around, rather than expensive copper and transistors. And instead of electrifying 3000 miles of track, why won't the Locomotive engine be a fuel cell that converts the H2 back into electricity on board?

morphle 4y ago
Because Hydrogen is too expensive. If you calculate the LCOE, you'll find that using wind at night is cheaper than hydrogen. Maybe certain batteries storing solar can beat wind at cost? My point remains, don't guess "why not use my favorite X" but calculate and simulate all alternative systems and the the lowest cost of energy ofve lifetime of systems is the winner you actually build.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  A pipeline and a steel drum, even built to withstand 700Bar of pressure, is cheaper than 1MW circuits that you propose lining thousands of miles of rail with. Transistors, transformers, and electric wires use an incredible amount of copper.
- ephbit 4y ago
  I think the reason why hydrogen (or derivatives such as ammonia or methanol) will become a very widespread carrier of energy in the long term is: seasonal storage of energy. There doesn't appear to be a promising solution for seasonal storage of energy other than hydrogen. Pumped hydro power is limited to certain areas and also doesn't scale in the same way that hydrogen does. Compressed air is sometimes mentioned but doesn't appear to make much progress. Since the world is going to need massive amounts of seasonal storage for the sake of the stability of the energy system (which is the backbone of society), as more and more renewables are built, there just has to be a solution. And if there's only one that scales to demand, then that's what will be built. Hydrogen (and derivatives and generally all chemical energy carriers) also have this triple synergy of huge capacity for transmission plus flexibility plus buffering. Transmission capacity of a pipeline is massively larger than any cable. Flexibility is given through the fact that hydrogen can spontaneously be transported to almost any location. Compare that to "spontaneously" building a new power line to an arbitrary location. Buffering is a byproduct. As soon as the hydrogen is produced, it acts like a buffer, whether it's inside a pipeline or some tank. Compare that to electric energy transmitted via cable .. as soon as the power plant is shut down, the lights will go out. A chemical based energy system is inherently more stable and resilient than an electrical grid, IMO.