4 ms·
I'm CEO at a YC-backed hydrogen startup (https://phoenixhydrogen.com/ https://phoenixhydrogen.com/). Here's why I think hydrogen is cool: 1. If you believe in
by shawndrost 4y ago
I'm CEO at a YC-backed hydrogen startup (https://phoenixhydrogen.com/ https://phoenixhydrogen.com/). Here's why I think hydrogen is cool:
1. If you believe in learning curves, you believe that green hydrogen will be cheaper than fossil fuels (per BTU or per kWh) in the foreseeable future. That doesn't mean we should use it for everything -- it will mostly be cheaper to use wind and solar power directly, or through batteries -- but it does mean we're likely to use a lot of it, especially given the following additional points.
2. Hydrogen is one of very few solutions to important classes of decarbonization problems. Basically, hydrogen lets us use electricity to replace fossil fuels in places where direct electrification is difficult. To summarize, this is mostly about contexts where we use fossil fuels as a feedstock (a physical ingredient), eg fertilizers or plastics or steel, or as a high-volume fuel for transportation (eg container ships or transcontinental flights) or energy storage.
3. Speaking of energy storage. Lots of people say hydrogen is a dumb way to store energy; we should use batteries instead. I agree we should deploy more KW of batteries than KW of fuel cells or hydrogen-fired turbines, but I also believe hydrogen is the cheapest solution to seasonal power storage. (NREL also believes this.) Did you know that America uses ~2x as much energy in February vs in October? When we replace gas and coal with wind and solar (or nuclear, whatever) are we going to build enough for February or enough for October? The answer is to build enough for the average load, and to use hydrogen to store the power in vast underground salt caverns. This is much cheaper than the obvious alternatives (overbuild wind+solar+batteries). Basically, a lowest-cost fossil-free system would have more KW of battery energy storage and more KWh of hydrogen energy storage.
4. Hydrogen is transmission, and especially in the US, that means it's a solution to the #1 bottleneck that is preventing the construction of new wind and solar plants. Wind and solar energy are cheap, but there is a literal corrupt monopoly system (power utilities) which prevent it from competing fairly with fossil fuels, or from being transported from resource-rich areas to demand centers. Lots of people don't know this, but "interconnection" (the rules which allow utilities to impose delays, fees, and clandestine sabotage upon new wind and solar projects) is the #1 problem facing renewable energy projects in the US. The "interconnection queue" is like a line that wind and solar projects must wait in for years before they learn if their request will be approved, denied, charged outrageous fees, or simply deferred. In some places (MISO) regulators have approved a "pause" in the interconnection queue, meaning that nobody is allowed to get in line for the next several years. Hydrogen can help clear this up, and isn't subject to the same monopolies in the same way; one hydrogen pipeline can move as much renewable energy as 5-10 giant transmission lines, using one 50' right-of-way and no visible infrastructure (vs transmission towers, 500'-2000' of right-of-way and 100'+ tall towers).
If you're a transmission nerd and you don't already love hydrogen, be aware that we are literally planning a US supergrid today, and it will be operational by 2030. It's just pipes instead of wires; it's arguably jankier (and arguably not https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X21000444 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X2...) but definitely capable of solving the problems that make us talk about supergrids.
5. Final reason hydrogen is cool: it is not innovative. Innovation in the energy sector is very hard! If nuclear SMRs follow the optimal path, it will be 2035 before they are deployed at GW scale, and 2060 before they are deployed at TW scale. That's because innovation is about things that haven't been done before, and that means risk, which is toxic poison for infrastructure finance. Hydrogen can ramp up that same scale way way faster (electrolyzers are ramping from 1MW to 1GW in annual US deployment between 2013-2023) because it's all dumb 1950s tech that has been extensively studied.
In summary: I'm on a team called "build wind and solar fast to replace fossil fuels", and I found hydrogen in the course of studying how our team wins. It's a really cool tool! Thanks for reading my rant.
- julosflb 4y agoThe answer is to build enough for the average load Not really as the round trip efficiency of electricity to h2 to electricity again is only in the order of 30%. So it will be less attractive than that.
- senectus1 4y agoI also like that you can produce green hydrogen anywhere there are natural resources not being used. (like climate depressed developing countries... ) Places where they get lots of sun can SHIP THEIR SUN to other places in the form of green hydrogen. this is a great way to bring developing nations up in the economic world. A little infrastructure and bingo these places now have a green export.
- defrost 4y agoHere in Western Australia we already have plans onboard to produce large amounts (ie a significant increase against existing global production) of green hydrogen (not blue) and to ship it as ammonia (H3N) to Europe and Asia as a fuel to generate off (solar | wind) peak electricity generation. This seems to address most of the issues raised here in this HN thread - no hydrogen small engine issues, no hydrogen as a slippery small gas molecule issues, etc.
- ephbit 4y ago> .. one hydrogen pipeline can move as much renewable energy as 5-10 giant transmission lines, using one 50' right-of-way and no visible infrastructure (vs transmission towers, 500'-2000' of right-of-way and 100'+ tall towers). This. Most people don't seem to be aware of how massive the upgrades to a 100 % renewable electric grid would have to be. In order to always be able to transmit 100 % of available peak renewable energy from where it's produced to where it can be used. Also, an electric grid is a much more fragile infrastructure than gas pipelines, which are in themselves a large buffer.
- ephbit 4y agoI think right now, almost noone can actually grasp how valuable the stability and anti-fragility of the current hydrocarbon-based energy system is to society (with ~ 85 % of all energy still being fossil). The (necessary/inevitable) shift from that hydrocarbon system towards more and more electricity IMO will introduce more and more fragility. Strategic oil reserves and natural gas reserves can supply nations for months of heating, car/truck driving and electricity generation. Now shift all this to electric heating and EVs and the system will have a lot less buffer overall. It'll be weeks (and that's optimistic) instead of months. Yes, sounds a bit like FUD even to myself, but this is what it looks like to me, when I try to look at the energy system in a more abstract way.