3 ms·
Many people in rural New England have or wish they had secondary power generation because you need that local energy more often when there are external events t
by cduzz 4y ago
Many people in rural New England have or wish they had secondary power generation because you need that local energy more often when there are external events that likely also break the grid (big snow storm).
The chain of events is "once in a gazillion century storm wipes power to huge region; millions of households are stuck without power, power company can't go out and fix all the broken things for weeks/months, many people have their houses wrecked by frozen pipes / die from running poorly improvised heat systems"
The round trip energy storage with batteries is pretty good but not terribly cheap at scale. The round trip into hydrogen, theoretically, seems pretty good but the actual "nuance" in the equation is basically a bunch of dragons waiting to eat you and everyone who ever loved you. Anyone selling a "power into hydrogen" thing is probably actually selling a "turn natural gas into hydrogen and sell that hydrogen to hippies" thing.
Maybe if you can figure out how to stick a carbon or two or three onto those hydrogens you'd be in business, but it's hard to get those carbons.
Anyhow, this is a hard problem. People have gotten used to hydrocarbons which are basically magic given their stability and energy density.
- yummypaint 4y agoIf the concern is gaurenteeing that power is always available, the answer is a backup generator. It won't consume fossil fuels unless it's actively in use (very rarely). The carbon taken out of the atmosphere by having an efficient house with solar and grid connection during the rest of the year will more than offset the generator. I contend that the unsexy combination of solar, a bidirectional grid connection, and an emergency diesel generator is more efficient and environmentally friendly than any existing system involving hydrogen or batteries.
- adrianN 4y agoHydrogen storage is not particularly cheap either. I would be surprised if a house-scale system can beat batteries in terms of cost.
- ephbit 4y ago> Maybe if you can figure out how to stick a carbon or two or three onto those hydrogens you'd be in business, but it's hard to get those carbons. Or maybe you stick three hydrogen atoms to one nitrogen atom and have ammonia. It's pretty obvious that the single most important reason why the vast majority of machines/engines runs on hydro _carbons_ instead of hydro nitrogens, is that hydrocarbons have been humanity's most important energy source for centuries. So it makes sense, everything is geared towards them. But for the future, ammonia appears to be a much better choice, because nitrogen is readily available and the only thing that's missing is matured tech that runs on ammonia. Fuel cells, engines, ... IIRC there are already container ships being built that run on ammonia.