5 ms·

Once again, I think the hydrogen ladder [0] gives a very clear and simple picture of where priorities with regard to hydrogen are. [0] https://www.linkedin.com

by patall 4y ago

Once again, I think the hydrogen ladder [0] gives a very clear and simple picture of where priorities with regard to hydrogen are. [0] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/clean-hydrogen-ladder-v40-michael-liebreich https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/clean-hydrogen-ladder-v40-mic...

bryanlarsen 4y ago
Here's another group saying much the same thing in a different way: https://h2sciencecoalition.com/principles/ https://h2sciencecoalition.com/principles/
Symmetry 4y ago
I came here to pose that same thing. Hydrogen in the creation of fertilizer? An absolute necessity, we need a good source of green hydrogen to run the Haber-Bosch process. Hydrogen production for grid power storage? Absolutely terrible idea, don't even think about it. Hydrogen for long-haul trucking? Maybe, maybe not.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  The problem with that image is it gives no reasoning for its categorization. Putting the use cases on a specific energy and energy density plot would convey that more naturally.
  - sidpatil 4y ago
    Fair point. He does describe his reasoning within the accompanying article though.
- hannob 4y ago
  > Hydrogen production for grid power storage? Absolutely terrible idea, don't even think about it. Liebreich has that as a B in the Hydrogen Ladder (for long-term storage).
- pfdietz 4y ago
  > Hydrogen production for grid power storage? Absolutely terrible idea, don't even think about it. For DIURNAL storage, certainly. For seasonal storage? For backup against rare extended dark/calm periods? There it can make much more sense.
moffkalast 4y ago
> Off-road vehicles I don't understand why this is under B while cars are under G. Is that not a type of car? Or are we talking building sized mining dumptrucks?
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  He explains what those mean. It's vehicles specialized on site-diverse way out of the city activities, like forest management and mining. Well, I personally disagree on mining, but yes, those exist, and it's very likely they will not be electric.
  - bluGill 4y ago
    Mining is actually planning on switching to electric. Mines often have underground areas where air at all is a problem, so running an engine requires extra ventilation and air quality control. Mines tend to cover limited areas, so it is feasible to have wires (either like a train where a phantograph, or drag the wire). Much of the equipment is semi-permanent so you can run fixed wires. The rest tends to run a fixed route so battery swap can be done often on schedule. Not all mines operate in that way, but a significant number do. And of course nobody said that they had to switch 100%, some equipment can switch where it makes sense while others remain diesel.
jillesvangurp 4y ago
That comes from a person named Michael Liebreich who is a British conservative politician that also founded Bloomberg's New Energy Finance. I listen to his podcast where he interviews people in the industry. He also has a nuclear physics background. In other word, he knows a thing or two about both the science and economics in this space; very well informed person. He's been very critical of the mindless arguing for a hydrogen economy making the point that there are a few very fundamental issues with hydrogen in terms of cost and physics (e.g. second law of thermo dynamics) that you can't just wave away that people tend to gloss over. Not that he's against hydrogen per se. It's just that burning it is a pretty dumb idea from a cost and efficiency point of view.

by patall 4y ago

bryanlarsen 4y ago

Here's another group saying much the same thing in a different way: https://h2sciencecoalition.com/principles/ https://h2sciencecoalition.com/principles/

Symmetry 4y ago

I came here to pose that same thing. Hydrogen in the creation of fertilizer? An absolute necessity, we need a good source of green hydrogen to run the Haber-Bosch process. Hydrogen production for grid power storage? Absolutely terrible idea, don't even think about it. Hydrogen for long-haul trucking? Maybe, maybe not.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
The problem with that image is it gives no reasoning for its categorization. Putting the use cases on a specific energy and energy density plot would convey that more naturally.
- sidpatil 4y ago
  Fair point. He does describe his reasoning within the accompanying article though.
hannob 4y ago
> Hydrogen production for grid power storage? Absolutely terrible idea, don't even think about it. Liebreich has that as a B in the Hydrogen Ladder (for long-term storage).
pfdietz 4y ago
> Hydrogen production for grid power storage? Absolutely terrible idea, don't even think about it. For DIURNAL storage, certainly. For seasonal storage? For backup against rare extended dark/calm periods? There it can make much more sense.

moffkalast 4y ago

> Off-road vehicles I don't understand why this is under B while cars are under G. Is that not a type of car? Or are we talking building sized mining dumptrucks?

marcosdumay 4y ago
He explains what those mean. It's vehicles specialized on site-diverse way out of the city activities, like forest management and mining. Well, I personally disagree on mining, but yes, those exist, and it's very likely they will not be electric.
- bluGill 4y ago
  Mining is actually planning on switching to electric. Mines often have underground areas where air at all is a problem, so running an engine requires extra ventilation and air quality control. Mines tend to cover limited areas, so it is feasible to have wires (either like a train where a phantograph, or drag the wire). Much of the equipment is semi-permanent so you can run fixed wires. The rest tends to run a fixed route so battery swap can be done often on schedule. Not all mines operate in that way, but a significant number do. And of course nobody said that they had to switch 100%, some equipment can switch where it makes sense while others remain diesel.

jillesvangurp 4y ago

That comes from a person named Michael Liebreich who is a British conservative politician that also founded Bloomberg's New Energy Finance. I listen to his podcast where he interviews people in the industry. He also has a nuclear physics background. In other word, he knows a thing or two about both the science and economics in this space; very well informed person. He's been very critical of the mindless arguing for a hydrogen economy making the point that there are a few very fundamental issues with hydrogen in terms of cost and physics (e.g. second law of thermo dynamics) that you can't just wave away that people tend to gloss over. Not that he's against hydrogen per se. It's just that burning it is a pretty dumb idea from a cost and efficiency point of view.