4 ms·
I do think hydrogen is the answer, and I think it will be economical. Not just for energy, but for ammonia for fertilizer.
by jonnycomputer 4y ago
I do think hydrogen is the answer, and I think it will be economical. Not just for energy, but for ammonia for fertilizer.
- SyzygistSix 4y agoHydrogen is part of the answer, for steel and perhaps concrete manufacturing. And also to fuel container ships, in the form of ammonia. But as a storage medium it is not very efficient. At least not now.
- moloch-hai 4y agoRound-trip efficiency is not very important for a backup storage medium when the marginal cost to produce is zero. Other considerations drive choices, then, e.g. capex, transportability, usefulness for other processes.
- _hypx 4y agoAnd once you realize that nearly all renewable energy production has a marginal cost of zero, then it quickly becomes the overwhelmingly best idea for energy storage.
- SyzygistSix 4y agoThe infrastructure needed for hydrogen production and storage is far, far, from zero.
- moloch-hai 4y agoYet, the marginal cost of producing hydrogen using that infrastructure is zero: the only inputs are water and energy, and the marginal cost of that energy is zero.
- panick21_ 4y agoWill be fantastic when we have all those hydrogen production plants who only run with 30% utilization because they only make sense when you massively overproduce renewables.
- moloch-hai 4y agoTo "massively overproduce" renewables is cheap. Build more, get more, sell the overproduction.
- panick21_ 4y ago> To "massively overproduce" renewables is cheap. No it actually isn't really. > Build more, get more, sell the overproduction. You will have to pay to get ride of it in many places. Chemical plants want reliable electricity to have reliable production.
- moloch-hai 4y agoHint: there is no cost to disposing of excess solar and wind energy. When you produce chemicals yourself, you may operate on a schedule of your own choosing.