29 ms·

Japan's hydrogen strategy does nothing for decarbonisation: study

208 points by flgb 4y ago

Maursault 4y ago
That's the beauty of it!
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
skybrian 4y ago
This article mostly quotes a report by a Tokyo-based think tank. The report is here: https://www.renewable-ei.org/en/activities/reports/20220922.php https://www.renewable-ei.org/en/activities/reports/20220922....
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  Thanks, in this day and age it's so weird to post an online article, and mention the source title without linking to it when it's also an online publication.
  - newsclues 4y ago
    Linking to source material should be a journalistic standard for online news publication.
- mistrial9 4y ago
  pdf here https://www.renewable-ei.org/pdfdownload/activities/REI_JapanHydrogenStrategy_EN_202209.pdf https://www.renewable-ei.org/pdfdownload/activities/REI_Japa...
slackfan 4y ago
Spoiler alert, this is the fate of all Hydrogen strategies not based on massive investment into nuclear. But since when did physics ever stop anybody from believing in fairy tales?
- RobertRoberts 4y ago
  This is nearly a ludicrous leap of logic with an ad hominem attack only slightly disguised.
  - slackfan 4y ago
    Call me when the energy produced by solar and wind and hydro can produce enough hydrogen to fuel the needs to even maintain the existing solar, wind, and hydro.
- fomine3 4y ago
  I think original report is written well, but it's written by pro-renewables anti-nuclear institute so they don't want to mention that nuclear is useful
- rgmerk 4y ago
  If your strategy involves massive investment in nuclear you don’t need hydrogen in Japan. Northern Europe and Canada have very seasonally-dependant energy demand that inversely correlates with solar availability. Japan has hot humid summers that require the use of air conditioners, so energy demand doesn’t vary nearly as much over the year. In most of the country you also don’t get cold enough to worry about heat pumps becoming inefficient, either. Given that, nuclear, short term storage, a bit of hydro would do the job just fine, without the round-trip losses of hydrogen. You still might well want hydrogen for other purposes (fertiliser, steel making, clean shipping, possibly long range trucks etc).
  - slackfan 4y ago
    Counterpoint, there is an argument to be made for Hydrogen-fueled IC engines. Massive investment in nuclear does not solve the issue with lithium required for batteries (nevermind the environmental impact of such). I seem to recall Mazda doing a thing around their RX-8 with dual-fueling, but that went nowhere a decade and a half ago. But hey, why go for a significantly cheaper from a cap-ex perspective option where retrofititng existing vehicles to hydrogen (which can be done), and developing that tech, instead dumping more cash into rare earth development and going about hydrogen power in the most asinine way possible, because somebody is gonna get (more) rich off of doing this.
rgmerk 4y ago
Seems like the “sunk cost fallacy” Wikipedia page might need an update. The choice to pursue hydrogen-fuelled combined heat and power is particularly mystifying, given that Japanese companies are market leaders in heat pumps. Tokyo’S climate is also ideally suited for heat pumps, given the need for air conditioning in summer and the fact they’ll heat just fine in the coldest conditions greater Tokyo ever experiences.
- kube-system 4y ago
  I suspect one man’s “sunk cost fallacy” is another man’s “attempt at regulatory capture with patents in their back pocket”.
- fomine3 4y ago
  Hydrogen cogeneration system called Ene-farm is just an efficient replacement of gas water heater. It uses only hydrogen from gas and just emit CO2. Gas company don't want to switch from gas to electric heating for obvious reason. Also there are many houses/apartments that is small so can't have heat pump water heater. It's weird solution and similar system can be built with ICE, but fuel cell is sounds clean for advertisement. I don't know is govt focused much on it.
- presentation 4y ago
  Most homes in Tokyo already are equipped with heat pump air conditioners FYI
MBCook 4y ago
Green hydrogen, blue hydrogen, grey hydrogen, clean hydrogen. I’m glad everyone agreed English words are meaningless now. It makes trying to understand articles so much more fun.
- rgmerk 4y ago
  It’s industry jargon. The IT industry has plenty of its own.
  - macintux 4y ago
    My then-wife and I had this conversation 20 years ago about IT jargon. I pointed out how many different words we have for “chair”.
- yellow_postit 4y ago
  Nothing a quick search doesn’t explain given its industry jargon and well contextualized in the article (Gray hydrogen == upstream pollution) https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/clean-energy-green-hydrogen/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/clean-energy-green-hy...
- nazgul17 4y ago
  Sabine Hossenfelder recently made a video about hydrogen. Her point is that it is not a good choice for decarbonization, but as part of the video she goes though the various "hydrogen colors" and their meaning. https://youtu.be/Zklo4Z1SqkE https://youtu.be/Zklo4Z1SqkE
cbkeller 4y ago
I'll go one further: Hydrogen does nothing. It's a bad battery. After following this for more than a decade (starting with a bit of undergrad research on possible alternative fuel cell electrode materials -- albeit not a field that I'm in any way involved with any more), it just feels like there's been very little progress on fuel cells, or on storage and transport. Meanwhile, progress on Li-based batteries has been slow but steady. It's not really clear to me what advantages H has over Li as an electron donor, at this point.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  Hydrogen is a battery with very particular uses cases. In particular: hydrogen is bad for use cases with large numbers of charge/discharge cycles, because the "cost of inefficiency" is proportional to the number of such cycles. However, for use cases with small numbers of charge cycles, like seasonal storage or backup against rare grid outages, hydrogen's big advantage -- the low cost of storing it, vs. typical short term storage technologies like batteries -- will dominate. Storing hydrogen underground in caverns has a per energy capacity capital cost of just $1/kWh, two orders of magnitude cheaper than Li-ion batteries.
  - cbkeller 4y ago
    Seasonal storage is an interesting idea. Rare grid outages seems pretty easy with batteries if the South Australia example is anything to go by though, and for medium-term storage there's also pumped hydro -- not sure where that compares in cost?
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      Rare prolonged outages are bad for batteries, since the capital cost is too high. You want something that has very low capital cost, even if it burns a fuel. Simple cycle gas turbines power plants might cost $0.50/W.
      - Retric 4y ago
        Existing battery technology works best when you don’t charge to 100% or discharge to 0%. On top of this you want oversized batteries to deal with battery degradation over time. This means any large scale battery system includes a buffer beyond normal use which you would only use if wholesale prices spiked. On top of this grid operators want generation redundancy in case an individual power plant goes offline for whatever reason. Combining both you get quite a lot of excess capacity compared to the current grid.
xt00 4y ago
I would imagine somebody has floated this idea before, but I wonder if the distraction of hydrogen rather than electric cars was a ploy by Japanese automakers to give them time to build up the cars / supply chain etc to switch to electric. Typically cars (at least in the US) take around 4-5 years of development to get to market, so rather than assuming the Japanese policy makers just made a dumb decision, it could be that they wanted to wait until domestic electric cars were widely available before pushing heavily on the transition.
- TaylorAlexander 4y ago
  I’m not sure I understand this. If you want to build up electric cars you invest in building electric cars. Investing in some other third technology does not get you to electric cars faster.
  - exac 4y ago
    I think he means that they are intentionally trying to get the government to push hydrogen for the next few years while they are secretly working on electric cars. If the government focuses on electric and spends money building electrical infrastructure, the domestic automakers stand to lose a lot of ground to foreign companies that have already developed electric technology. They don't want a repeat of Tesla installing a supercharger network and controlling the infrastructure.
    - SantalBlush 4y ago
      There's no need for that, the government can just give its domestic car industry special treatment; that's pretty common in a lot of countries and industries.
    - TaylorAlexander 4y ago
      Perhaps they are saying this but it still does not make sense to me. Nissan is a Japanese company and has been selling popular EVs since 2011. Japan built out a network of chademo chargers. I just don’t see how focusing on a bad technology could actually be a secret way to invest in EVs. Openly investing in EVs seems like the best way to do that. It just sounds like Occam’s Razor applies here: the people in charge are out of touch and made a bad call.
belter 4y ago
"Hydrogen Will Not Save Us" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34386155 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34386155
makeitdouble 4y ago
On the context of the report which this whole piece is about, skybrian linked to it, here's the english partial translation: https://www.renewable-ei.org/pdfdownload/activities/REI_JapanHydrogenStrategy_EN_202209.pdf https://www.renewable-ei.org/pdfdownload/activities/REI_Japa... I was wondering what this "renewable energy institute" was, and it's founded and chaired by Masayoshi Son, who's latest notable investments includes huge solar projects here and there. Perhaps there's a lot of valid ideas in it...and I'm all for more renewable energies, but I'd take a lot of this with a shovel of salt.
- lovemenot 4y ago
  Renewables like solar and wind could be used to charge a battery or to electrolyse H2. This report argues against the latter. Or rather, against the Japanese government's current implementation of an H2 policy. I don't think we need to be cynical here. The report can be read on its own merits.
  - makeitdouble 4y ago
    From the report: > The government’s strategy neglects green hydrogen and prioritizes fossil fuel-derived gray and blue hydrogen. It neglects the development of renewable energy sources, reflecting the government’s skewed energy strategy that has set low targets for the deployment of renewables for both 2030 and 2050. Basically, they’re saying: stop allocating resources to alternative H2 production methods, focus all the money you have on the renewables, the field we are massively investing into. On the face of it sounds like a decent argument, but I doubt the reality is as simple as they put it. In particular how much renewables will be able to cover Japan’s energy consumption is largely up for debate (the reports pans the slow pace of H2 technology research, but we’re not there yet with the renewables either). “stop diversifying your efforts and put all your eggs in one(our) basket” is always a dubious message IMHO.
    - lovemenot 4y ago
      Diversifying is worthwhile only amongst good options. It's more like "stop buying broken eggs, they are useless." The report is really all about the failure of H2 policy, and is persuasive. There may perhaps be some political story about budget allocation between alternatives, but there is little indication of that.
toast0 4y ago
Hydrogen powered vehicles are like natural gas vehicles, but worse. Pressurized fuel tanks expire, and your vehicle becomes a pumpkin, because parts+labor to replace the tank on 15-20 year old vehicle doesn't make sense. But hydrogen is even harder to work with than natural gas. And it's yet another fueling network to build.
- ryao 4y ago
  If you do not care about costs, there is no need for another network. Just attach an electrolyzer to tap water and you can get hydrogen. If you do care about costs, you would probably not be going down this road in the first place.
  - p_l 4y ago
    NIST actually figured that "electrolyzer at charging station" might actually be most cost-effective option, with combined EV/Hydrogen charging stations.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
  15-20 year old cars are already worth just a small fraction of new ones. So losing the remaining value after that time is a negligible part of the equation.
- cactusplant7374 4y ago
  Isn't 15-20 years of full capacity better than a battery that slowly degrades over time?
grahar64 4y ago
For example, Toyota makes good reliable cars, and saw massive success with the Prius because it was the only good alternative to a full internal combustion engine. Now, years after that success, Toyota has only a very limited selection of fully electric plug in vehicles, and all their competitors are a decade in front of them because they continue to chase some pipe dream of hydrogen, is just disappointing.
- rr808 4y ago
  RAV4 Prime is awesome and huge wait list. PHEV is a great solution, it doesn't require these huge heavy batteries.
  - yuppie_scum 4y ago
    But it does require hauling around an engine, transmission, gas tank, etc that you aren’t using half the time and require periodic service. The question really is, does adding that weight and complexity offset the weight and cost of moar battery? Especially as the charging infrastructure continues to improve in more populated regions?
    - rr808 4y ago
      Toyota RAV4 ICE weighs 3450 lbs, the RAV4 Prime weighs 4,250 lbs., and a Tesla Model Y long range is 4,416 lbs. Maybe ICE is best for the environment. :)
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  I'm curious how far ahead are Toyota's competitors. For instance, how many more EVs are they selling than the Toyota hybrid plugins ? (and I mean that not just in the US or Norway, but globally) To my knowledge the EV field is still a very small and restricted market, and the makers are all about the same advancement technology wise. I mean, Tesla for instance sources its batteries from Panasonic, which isn't much more advanced than Toyota I think. [edit] Panasonic is a Toyota partner in battery development https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/corporate/31477926.html https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/corporate/31477926.html
kuon 4y ago
This youtube video does a good job explaining a few problems about hydrogen in cars. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zklo4Z1SqkE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zklo4Z1SqkE
- TheRealPomax 4y ago
  Maybe, but https://www.youtube.com/@EngineeringExplained https://www.youtube.com/@EngineeringExplained is probably a better person to ask to explain why this is just not going to work, through his "The Unfortunate Truth About Toyota's Hydrogen V8 Engine" [1] and "BMW's Hydrogen V12 Engine Is A Hilarious Engineering Stunt" [2] videos. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJjKwSF9gT8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJjKwSF9gT8 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AouW9_jyZck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AouW9_jyZck
jiggawatts 4y ago
Hydrogen is 100% an attempt by fossil fuel companies to remain relevant in a "green energy" world. The primary source for hydrogen would be from methane in natural gas, and they could then sell this as a "zero pollution fuel" while continuing their non-renewable energy business as normal. If you read between the lines and look at the companies involved, they're always linked to fossil fuel companies directly or indirectly. That, or fossil fuel powered vehicle manufacturers that are reluctant to completely retool their factories. Hydrogen has a few legitimate use cases, such as iron ore refining and chemical feedstock, but that's about it. In all other scenarios, battery-based technology is vastly superior along multiple metrics.
- TheRealPomax 4y ago
  I didn't know Toyota was a fossil fuel company, or was owned by one? Japan is uniquely trying to make this thing work. They have no domestic oil production, and so few coal mines as to basically be irrelevant: all their fossil fuel is imported. Anywhere else on the planet: sure, this might be another way for big fossil to push for relevancy, but in Japan's case, hydrogen would be something that they can produce themselves, literally freeing them from fossil fuel dependency, which is a big part of why they keep trying to make it work. And yeah, the math says it's physically impossible to make it work without constant refueling, but again: it's Japan. The very idea of "my car needs to go 300 miles on one charge/tank" just isn't a thing there. Hydrogen, despite this article's claim, is actually perfect for Japan. Any tanker of import fuel saved is CO2 saved both on the tanker's transit, and on that fuel getting burned, but at the same time: it's also perfect much perfect only for Japan.
  - jfengel 4y ago
    They're a car company committed to keeping the internal combustion engine. They are market leaders in hybrid cars, but have been surpassed in all electric. So they're not a fossil fuel company but their interests are aligned.
    - jojobas 4y ago
      There's nothing wrong with internal combustion per se, if electrolysis+ICE works out cheaper than battery in terms of lithium/rare earths/whatever there is no fundamental objection to it.
lucidguppy 4y ago
I heard somewhere that trying to make hydrogen from water was like trying to make wood from ash. It doesn't make sense.
- ryao 4y ago
  You can make hydrogen from water with a simple electrolysis reaction. It happens as a side effect in gel electrophoresis. It might not be cost competitive, but it is much more doable than making wood from ash.
totetsu 4y ago
Is Japan’s political power just completely captured by industry at this point? I live here and I can often not distinguish between pr and matketing of private interests and pr and policy directions of government.. I'm not even really trying to be rhetorical here.. I want to understand this beter.
- Dr_Birdbrain 4y ago
  I wonder if it’s the other way in this case? It seems to me that Japan’s advocacy of hydrogen is geopolitical, and the corporations like Toyota are getting dragged along to make poor business decisions, favoring hydrogen over electric. Japan has no significant sources of fossil fuels or lithium (for a potentially lithium-based future), so they would prefer that the energy of the future were hydrogen, which they could produce themselves. Of course they would prefer to live in a future where they could make their own energy, rather than be at the mercy of imports. Corporations are getting dragged along to support this dream, even if it does not look like a great business decision.
rr808 4y ago
Hydrogen I think has a few good advantages over batteries. Storage is cheaper and faster. Quick charging would be good for buses, trucks and trains. The cheap storage is good for things like ships. Also long term storage for the winter - you could use sunny & windy seasons to build up gas supplies for winter months.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  But for personal cars it does not make sence, too complicated. Besides, japan has good solar illumonation all year, do theybreally need seasonal storage?
eirikurh 4y ago
Sabine Hossenfelder recently made a video on hydrogen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zklo4Z1SqkE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zklo4Z1SqkE
WheelsAtLarge 4y ago
We can't give up on hydrogen. A transfer to EV will not be practical for all current fossil fuel vehicles so we need an alternative for them. Hydrogen is not practical now but it has potential. I think electric and hydrogen are the only alternatives to fossil fuels. Are there others?
- barbazoo 4y ago
  > A transfer to EV will not be practical for all current fossil fuel vehicles so we need an alternative for them That's my impression too. It seems to be hard for some people to accept this as one solution for a narrow aspect of a complex problem. This is a problem I see a lot with "green energy" sceptics. The wind doesn't always blow, the sun doesn't always shine. If there isn't a one size fits all solution, it's not a solution at all. Almost as good as the old adage of electricity not being clean today, therefore electrifying cars doesn't make sense. Nevermind that switching to renewable energy can be achieved asynchronously and is not something we need to wait for.
- danans 4y ago
  > A transfer to EV will not be practical for all current fossil fuel vehicles But we can transfer most of them to EVs, including nearly the entire light duty vehicle fleet and short haul trucking, which is probably good enough. There will always be niche cases for ICE vehicles, like driving across Siberia, or military vehicles. But the vast majority can be electrified. Flight is a different story, perhaps hydrogen will be a viable path there.
  - runarberg 4y ago
    > But we can transfer most of them to EVs, including nearly the entire light duty vehicle fleet and short haul trucking. No we can’t. We don’t have the industrial manufacturing capability. Not even by a long shot. And even if we did, we don’t have enough minded minerals to supply the manufactures, and even if we did, we don’t have enough electrical infrastructure to charge all the electric cars. Note this also applies to hydrogen, and even if we had both, each technology relieving the stress on the manufacturing capability of the other, then we’d still need the infrastructure capable of supplying to both. The best path forward for immediate success is public transit, using whichever technology is available (hydrogen, battery, overhead wires, diesel, whatever).
richardzyx 4y ago
So fun to see hydrogen landing on the front page of HN again. We have a team of software engineers working in a hydrogen company (focused mostly in medium to ultra-heavy duty sectors). Curious if people would be interested in an AMA? For questions we don’t know the precise answers to, like the actual financial modeling for hydrogen use cases where it makes sense, we can also easily pull people sitting, virtually, across the hall.
noogle 4y ago
One thing opposition to any chemical electricity storage (hydrogen and other fuels) doesn't answer is: _how to transfer electricity across distances?_ HVDC are typically presented as the solution, but even if technically possible, they do not seem to actually materialize. Constant cooperation and reliance between countries for their energy seems like a bad idea in 2023. There are numerous solar project plans stuck because of lack of such transmission lines. We did not start our current energy infrastructure with expensive pipelines. We started with batched shipments (tankers), and when supply and demand were stable enough we built a gas pipeline. Not sure why electricity requires the optimal solution or nothing.
- mlindner 4y ago
  > One thing opposition to any chemical electricity storage (hydrogen and other fuels) doesn't answer is: _how to transfer electricity across distances?_ For some countries this isn't even a problem so it doesn't need to be talked about. For example the amount of reusable energy available in the US covers all the needs in most areas. Also you need to compare the reduced efficiency of building the renewable energy locally versus the energy lost in transporting that hydrogen and creation and use of the hydrogen. Creating the hydrogen is an especially inefficient process for example.
  - noogle 4y ago
    And the rest of the world? And when extra energy is needed because of a cold/heat-wave, new project, or just an event in a forest? These scenarios, both large and small, are covered currently by fossil fuels, and are not answered by permanent grid solutions like HVDC. The generation price of solar energy is ~$0.02/kwh. Even with 33% overall efficiency hydrogen could be very competitive at $0.06/kwh electricity. , But overall efficiency is a red-herring. The important thing is COST. With solar, the cost of energy itself is the smallest part - providing it at the desired time and place are the more expensive parts. Fossil fuels are very inefficient, yet for hundreds of years they have been a cheap option (and thus widespread). The same argument applies to hydrogen - if it's cheaper, in terms of money, time and pollution, efficiency doesn't matter a bit.
outside1234 4y ago
Hydrogen is a storage technology. When I looked at it last, it was largely planned to be produced by electrolysis, so the greenness of that depends on the power source for that operation. So it could be green if powered by solar? Or brown, if powered by coal.
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  Hydrogen can also be "reformed" from other fuels, most particularly natural gas, or through carbon capture and storage (CCS). There are trade terms that have emerged, including "black", "brown", "grey", "blue", and "green" hydrogen which ... aren't especially clear or consistent in my experience. WEF have a 'splainer, though I'm not sure the classifications are universally accepted: <https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/clean-energy-green-hydrogen/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/clean-energy-green-hy...> Apparently NG -> H2 is "grey" or "torquiose", and CCS is "blue". "Green" is hydrolysis from renewable electricity.
fwungy 4y ago
The developing world, where Toyota sells a lot of cars, isnt going to EVs anytime in the foreseeable future. It's only the G7 countries that are really pushing it. Both EVs and hydrogen fuel cells really need modern nuclear power to make sense. Hydrogen is less efficient, but storage is much cheaper and easier than it is with batteries. They're complementary technologies, not competitors. People need to get over the idea that aggressive decarbonization will ever spread past the 500 million citizens of the G7 states. That's delusional. We should really be more aggressively planning mitigation than Hail Mary green transitions with multiple substantial challenges.
- syncsynchalt 4y ago
  > Hydrogen is less efficient, but storage is much cheaper and easier than it is with batteries And storage is even cheaper and easier with gasoline and diesel. More likely that developing economies will stay on ICE engines until batteries+electricity+chargers become cheaper than ICE. Hydrogen doesn't have a future outside of location- and weight-sensitive applications like carbon-neutral air travel.
paganel 4y ago
This is the board of directors behind the entity that publishes this website [1]. I can see mostly Norwegian people, so I suspect there's Norwegian money powering this website, hence Norwegian interests. Norway is very active on the renewables energy market, i.e. it has lots and lots of interests on that market. All that to say that I wouldn't take this article at face value, just another way to try and shift opinion in order to make more money for its owners. Later edit: The chairman of the board from that website is this lady Anette S. Olsen [2], who's sole proprietor of this company/group, Fred. Olsen & Co. [3], which interests also include the energy market. The company/group is into renewables, this is their website [4], lots of wind farms on their website, I suppose they're into selling that, not hydrogen. As I said, it's easier to follow the money. [1] [1] https://www.nhst.no/en/about-nhst/board-of-directors-holdings/ https://www.nhst.no/en/about-nhst/board-of-directors-holding... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anette_S._Olsen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anette_S._Olsen [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred._Olsen_%26_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred._Olsen_%26_Co. [4] https://fredolsenrenewables.com/ https://fredolsenrenewables.com/
rich_sasha 4y ago
I find it weird how hostile to hydrogen the "renewable energy gang" is. The story of how renewables take over the world and displace fossil fuels and nuclear totally relies on storage, in some cases seasonal storage, IE overproducing in summer and holding on to the energy til the end of winter. Does hydrogen work for it? Well, maybe, it could, there are unresolved issues but hey we are trying to do science here. It's not like batteries work, they are fine for short term storage, but even then, they aren't displacing, say, pumped hydro. And yet hydrogen bad, batteries good. And don't even get me started on nuclear. It feels like the "save the planet" movement, or at least some shards of it, come with a very specific notion of how exactly it is ok to save the planet, and what fails on style points.
- eptcyka 4y ago
  Hydrogen is a less efficient energy store than a battery, requires high pressure systems, leaks are dangerously explosive, distributing it is more difficult than petrol or electricity. It has applications, but in general, its often significantly worse than any other greener alternative.
  - raverbashing 4y ago
    > Hydrogen is a less efficient energy store than a battery Less energy dense, but not less efficient
  - Mikeb85 4y ago
    Yes but batteries contain toxic materials and rare earth minerals, require lots of energy to make, lots of energy to recycle, etc... So energy to mine the materials, energy to assemble the battery, energy to recycle the battery after it's useful lifespan (5-10 years)... None of these are ever counted in people's calculations. I tried to find data on energy required to produce the batteries and they still didn't count the mining cost. I'd wager that hydrogen is more energy efficient over the entire lifespan of a vehicle. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/14/electric-cost-lithium-mining-decarbonasation-salt-flats-chile https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/14/electr... Lithium mining is expensive and you need to move a lot of dirt to get a little lithium... 100 billion tons of waste and never mind the waste aspect, it takes a lot of energy to move a ton of dirt.
idiocrat 4y ago
Here is an interesting but sad documentary from 2020. (1h40m). It addresses the concerns about hydrogen. "Michael Moore presents Planet of the Humans, a documentary that dares to say what no one else will — that we are losing the battle to stop climate change on planet earth because we are following leaders who have taken us down the wrong road — selling out the green movement to wealthy interests and corporate America. This film is the wake-up call to the reality we are afraid to face: that in the midst of a human-caused extinction event, the environmental movement’s answer is to push for techno-fixes and band-aids. It's too little, too late. " https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE
- jamil7 4y ago
  It also contains a lot of misinformation and outdated talking points, not really worth watching. A whole lot of scientists and activists have spoken out against the documentary. I'm still confused as to why Michael Moore made it.
jillesvangurp 4y ago
Michael Liebreich's clean hydrogen ladder is a good reference here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/clean-hydrogen-ladder-v40-michael-liebreich/ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/clean-hydrogen-ladder-v40-mic... It ranks hydrogen use cases by their economic feasibility. The core issue in Japan: they are focusing on things with the least economic potential at the bottom of the ladder and they are doing it with dirty grey hydrogen even. It's a double fail. Basically they are expending more carbon to magically become cleaner. Which isn't working for obvious reasons and quite obviously so. And then they are using that hydrogen for the least economical use cases. It's not an energy strategy but a let's bail out our car manufacturers strategy. This article is stating the obvious: this isn't working. Not even a little bit. There's nothing there. Hydrogen cars are a fantasy. Nobody is buying them and even the world's largest hydrogen cheer leader (Toyota) of these things is barely producing and selling any. And as reluctant as they are to produce and sell battery electric vehicles, they still sell more of those than hydrogen cars. Hydrogen for domestic use also ranks at the bottom in the hydrogen ladder for very good reasons. Yes you can do it. But it's just stupidly inefficient in terms of hydrogen generation and transport losses. These are not problems you can just wave away with some innovation magic. There is no magical solution just around the corner that will make all of this go away and improve things by 10x. The issues are pretty fundamental and have to do with hydrogen just having a very low energy density by volume (it's the first element in the periodic table), energy conversions having a cost (second law of thermodynamics), and the bonds between hydrogen and carbon or oxygen atoms being very strong. It takes more energy to break those chemical bonds than you get back in the form of hydrogen. There's a theoretical maximum efficiency to that. Once you have hydrogen, you have to convert it again to do something useful with it. That too has a maximum theoretical efficiency. These inefficiencies multiply. What happens if you multiply two fractions? You get a smaller fraction. Compressing and cooling also takes energy. And if you introduce conversion to ammonia or some other susbtance, that's another conversion, which is lossy. That just multiplies the problem. So, that means hydrogen should be prioritized for those use cases where you can minimize the losses. Anything involving transporting hydrogen over long distances is a problem. Because of the volumetric density. It's just not very efficient. You need to move a lot of volume of it. And it's a tough substance to contain. Leaky valves, boiling of liquid hydrogen to keep it cool, etc. The losses accumulate rapidly. And even when you contain that, you need to ship about 18x more of it in compressed gas form to match a single tanker of petrol or about 3x in liquid form (cooled to near absolute zero). Compression and cooling take energy btw. Because of all that, the vast majority of hydrogen produced right now, is produced and consumed on site. Mostly for things at the top of the hydrogen ladder like fertilizer production or use in various chemical processes.
cactusplant7374 4y ago
1) How would we compare Porsche's gasoline experiment [0] with Hydrogen? Because the Hydrogen article seems to suggest that it's useful just not expedient in the entire landscape of energy. 2) The hydrogen insight has what looks to be interesting articles. I'm going to read through them more. [0] https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/12/porsches-synthetic-gasoline-factory-comes-online-today-in-chile/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/12/porsches-synthetic-gaso...
sylware 4y ago
Hydrogen is just a "mobile" energy storage... but a really hard one to deal with, actually so hard it may be not worth it (too dangerous, and not long term enough) in the end. See Sabine H. video about it, I am sure she'll show you things about hydrogen storage you did not think about). Ofc, we are talking about the "lowest green-house gas produced" hydrogen (hydro/solar/wind/nuclear). That said Japan is maybe one of the only countries in the world serious and rigorous enough to pull that off.
wazoox 4y ago
Weirdly, not a single mention of the "Red Hydrogen" plans. Apparently, Japan plans to use nuclear to produce H2 at scale, and it makes lots of sense from a cost-effectiveness POV.
schwoll 4y ago
The EV push is marketing. It's someone trying to sell something. If countries were interested in solving anything they'd just install more electric trains. Even less of a commitment would be just use diesel commuter trains until the electric comes online. Until this happens everything else is just someone trying to sell stuff.
- ladyattis 4y ago
  Yeah, I think the long term solution to decarbonization is to focus on making it possible to get around without a car which includes a heavy focus on legalizing mixed-use and transit oriented development which for the United States and Canada are basically illegal last time I checked.
- jackmott42 4y ago
  This is a pretty lazy take. I could also characterize a push for trains as someone trying to sell something. Someone is going to be selling something. Does the thing reduce carbon and pollution or not, is the question. Building trains is simple, getting/forcing people to use them is the hard part. Making them viable in a lot of american cities requires a complete refactor of how the cities are laid out. Easy to say very hard and expensive to do. Americans also turn to violence at the suggestion of a paper mask, so forcing won't be simple. But if you build a badass EV, they will buy it, and pollution is reduced somewhat.

208 points by flgb 4y ago

Maursault 4y ago

That's the beauty of it!

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

skybrian 4y ago

This article mostly quotes a report by a Tokyo-based think tank. The report is here: https://www.renewable-ei.org/en/activities/reports/20220922.php https://www.renewable-ei.org/en/activities/reports/20220922....

makeitdouble 4y ago
Thanks, in this day and age it's so weird to post an online article, and mention the source title without linking to it when it's also an online publication.
- newsclues 4y ago
  Linking to source material should be a journalistic standard for online news publication.
mistrial9 4y ago
pdf here https://www.renewable-ei.org/pdfdownload/activities/REI_JapanHydrogenStrategy_EN_202209.pdf https://www.renewable-ei.org/pdfdownload/activities/REI_Japa...

slackfan 4y ago

Spoiler alert, this is the fate of all Hydrogen strategies not based on massive investment into nuclear. But since when did physics ever stop anybody from believing in fairy tales?

RobertRoberts 4y ago
This is nearly a ludicrous leap of logic with an ad hominem attack only slightly disguised.
- slackfan 4y ago
  Call me when the energy produced by solar and wind and hydro can produce enough hydrogen to fuel the needs to even maintain the existing solar, wind, and hydro.
fomine3 4y ago
I think original report is written well, but it's written by pro-renewables anti-nuclear institute so they don't want to mention that nuclear is useful
rgmerk 4y ago
If your strategy involves massive investment in nuclear you don’t need hydrogen in Japan. Northern Europe and Canada have very seasonally-dependant energy demand that inversely correlates with solar availability. Japan has hot humid summers that require the use of air conditioners, so energy demand doesn’t vary nearly as much over the year. In most of the country you also don’t get cold enough to worry about heat pumps becoming inefficient, either. Given that, nuclear, short term storage, a bit of hydro would do the job just fine, without the round-trip losses of hydrogen. You still might well want hydrogen for other purposes (fertiliser, steel making, clean shipping, possibly long range trucks etc).
- slackfan 4y ago
  Counterpoint, there is an argument to be made for Hydrogen-fueled IC engines. Massive investment in nuclear does not solve the issue with lithium required for batteries (nevermind the environmental impact of such). I seem to recall Mazda doing a thing around their RX-8 with dual-fueling, but that went nowhere a decade and a half ago. But hey, why go for a significantly cheaper from a cap-ex perspective option where retrofititng existing vehicles to hydrogen (which can be done), and developing that tech, instead dumping more cash into rare earth development and going about hydrogen power in the most asinine way possible, because somebody is gonna get (more) rich off of doing this.

rgmerk 4y ago

Seems like the “sunk cost fallacy” Wikipedia page might need an update. The choice to pursue hydrogen-fuelled combined heat and power is particularly mystifying, given that Japanese companies are market leaders in heat pumps. Tokyo’S climate is also ideally suited for heat pumps, given the need for air conditioning in summer and the fact they’ll heat just fine in the coldest conditions greater Tokyo ever experiences.

kube-system 4y ago
I suspect one man’s “sunk cost fallacy” is another man’s “attempt at regulatory capture with patents in their back pocket”.
fomine3 4y ago
Hydrogen cogeneration system called Ene-farm is just an efficient replacement of gas water heater. It uses only hydrogen from gas and just emit CO2. Gas company don't want to switch from gas to electric heating for obvious reason. Also there are many houses/apartments that is small so can't have heat pump water heater. It's weird solution and similar system can be built with ICE, but fuel cell is sounds clean for advertisement. I don't know is govt focused much on it.
presentation 4y ago
Most homes in Tokyo already are equipped with heat pump air conditioners FYI

MBCook 4y ago

Green hydrogen, blue hydrogen, grey hydrogen, clean hydrogen. I’m glad everyone agreed English words are meaningless now. It makes trying to understand articles so much more fun.

rgmerk 4y ago
It’s industry jargon. The IT industry has plenty of its own.
- macintux 4y ago
  My then-wife and I had this conversation 20 years ago about IT jargon. I pointed out how many different words we have for “chair”.
yellow_postit 4y ago
Nothing a quick search doesn’t explain given its industry jargon and well contextualized in the article (Gray hydrogen == upstream pollution) https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/clean-energy-green-hydrogen/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/clean-energy-green-hy...
nazgul17 4y ago
Sabine Hossenfelder recently made a video about hydrogen. Her point is that it is not a good choice for decarbonization, but as part of the video she goes though the various "hydrogen colors" and their meaning. https://youtu.be/Zklo4Z1SqkE https://youtu.be/Zklo4Z1SqkE

cbkeller 4y ago

I'll go one further: Hydrogen does nothing. It's a bad battery. After following this for more than a decade (starting with a bit of undergrad research on possible alternative fuel cell electrode materials -- albeit not a field that I'm in any way involved with any more), it just feels like there's been very little progress on fuel cells, or on storage and transport. Meanwhile, progress on Li-based batteries has been slow but steady. It's not really clear to me what advantages H has over Li as an electron donor, at this point.

pfdietz 4y ago
Hydrogen is a battery with very particular uses cases. In particular: hydrogen is bad for use cases with large numbers of charge/discharge cycles, because the "cost of inefficiency" is proportional to the number of such cycles. However, for use cases with small numbers of charge cycles, like seasonal storage or backup against rare grid outages, hydrogen's big advantage -- the low cost of storing it, vs. typical short term storage technologies like batteries -- will dominate. Storing hydrogen underground in caverns has a per energy capacity capital cost of just $1/kWh, two orders of magnitude cheaper than Li-ion batteries.
- cbkeller 4y ago
  Seasonal storage is an interesting idea. Rare grid outages seems pretty easy with batteries if the South Australia example is anything to go by though, and for medium-term storage there's also pumped hydro -- not sure where that compares in cost?
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    Rare prolonged outages are bad for batteries, since the capital cost is too high. You want something that has very low capital cost, even if it burns a fuel. Simple cycle gas turbines power plants might cost $0.50/W.
    - Retric 4y ago
      Existing battery technology works best when you don’t charge to 100% or discharge to 0%. On top of this you want oversized batteries to deal with battery degradation over time. This means any large scale battery system includes a buffer beyond normal use which you would only use if wholesale prices spiked. On top of this grid operators want generation redundancy in case an individual power plant goes offline for whatever reason. Combining both you get quite a lot of excess capacity compared to the current grid.

xt00 4y ago

I would imagine somebody has floated this idea before, but I wonder if the distraction of hydrogen rather than electric cars was a ploy by Japanese automakers to give them time to build up the cars / supply chain etc to switch to electric. Typically cars (at least in the US) take around 4-5 years of development to get to market, so rather than assuming the Japanese policy makers just made a dumb decision, it could be that they wanted to wait until domestic electric cars were widely available before pushing heavily on the transition.

TaylorAlexander 4y ago
I’m not sure I understand this. If you want to build up electric cars you invest in building electric cars. Investing in some other third technology does not get you to electric cars faster.
- exac 4y ago
  I think he means that they are intentionally trying to get the government to push hydrogen for the next few years while they are secretly working on electric cars. If the government focuses on electric and spends money building electrical infrastructure, the domestic automakers stand to lose a lot of ground to foreign companies that have already developed electric technology. They don't want a repeat of Tesla installing a supercharger network and controlling the infrastructure.
  - SantalBlush 4y ago
    There's no need for that, the government can just give its domestic car industry special treatment; that's pretty common in a lot of countries and industries.
  - TaylorAlexander 4y ago
    Perhaps they are saying this but it still does not make sense to me. Nissan is a Japanese company and has been selling popular EVs since 2011. Japan built out a network of chademo chargers. I just don’t see how focusing on a bad technology could actually be a secret way to invest in EVs. Openly investing in EVs seems like the best way to do that. It just sounds like Occam’s Razor applies here: the people in charge are out of touch and made a bad call.

belter 4y ago

"Hydrogen Will Not Save Us" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34386155 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34386155

makeitdouble 4y ago

On the context of the report which this whole piece is about, skybrian linked to it, here's the english partial translation: https://www.renewable-ei.org/pdfdownload/activities/REI_JapanHydrogenStrategy_EN_202209.pdf https://www.renewable-ei.org/pdfdownload/activities/REI_Japa... I was wondering what this "renewable energy institute" was, and it's founded and chaired by Masayoshi Son, who's latest notable investments includes huge solar projects here and there. Perhaps there's a lot of valid ideas in it...and I'm all for more renewable energies, but I'd take a lot of this with a shovel of salt.

lovemenot 4y ago
Renewables like solar and wind could be used to charge a battery or to electrolyse H2. This report argues against the latter. Or rather, against the Japanese government's current implementation of an H2 policy. I don't think we need to be cynical here. The report can be read on its own merits.
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  From the report: > The government’s strategy neglects green hydrogen and prioritizes fossil fuel-derived gray and blue hydrogen. It neglects the development of renewable energy sources, reflecting the government’s skewed energy strategy that has set low targets for the deployment of renewables for both 2030 and 2050. Basically, they’re saying: stop allocating resources to alternative H2 production methods, focus all the money you have on the renewables, the field we are massively investing into. On the face of it sounds like a decent argument, but I doubt the reality is as simple as they put it. In particular how much renewables will be able to cover Japan’s energy consumption is largely up for debate (the reports pans the slow pace of H2 technology research, but we’re not there yet with the renewables either). “stop diversifying your efforts and put all your eggs in one(our) basket” is always a dubious message IMHO.
  - lovemenot 4y ago
    Diversifying is worthwhile only amongst good options. It's more like "stop buying broken eggs, they are useless." The report is really all about the failure of H2 policy, and is persuasive. There may perhaps be some political story about budget allocation between alternatives, but there is little indication of that.

toast0 4y ago

Hydrogen powered vehicles are like natural gas vehicles, but worse. Pressurized fuel tanks expire, and your vehicle becomes a pumpkin, because parts+labor to replace the tank on 15-20 year old vehicle doesn't make sense. But hydrogen is even harder to work with than natural gas. And it's yet another fueling network to build.

ryao 4y ago
If you do not care about costs, there is no need for another network. Just attach an electrolyzer to tap water and you can get hydrogen. If you do care about costs, you would probably not be going down this road in the first place.
- p_l 4y ago
  NIST actually figured that "electrolyzer at charging station" might actually be most cost-effective option, with combined EV/Hydrogen charging stations.
fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
15-20 year old cars are already worth just a small fraction of new ones. So losing the remaining value after that time is a negligible part of the equation.
cactusplant7374 4y ago
Isn't 15-20 years of full capacity better than a battery that slowly degrades over time?

grahar64 4y ago

For example, Toyota makes good reliable cars, and saw massive success with the Prius because it was the only good alternative to a full internal combustion engine. Now, years after that success, Toyota has only a very limited selection of fully electric plug in vehicles, and all their competitors are a decade in front of them because they continue to chase some pipe dream of hydrogen, is just disappointing.

rr808 4y ago
RAV4 Prime is awesome and huge wait list. PHEV is a great solution, it doesn't require these huge heavy batteries.
- yuppie_scum 4y ago
  But it does require hauling around an engine, transmission, gas tank, etc that you aren’t using half the time and require periodic service. The question really is, does adding that weight and complexity offset the weight and cost of moar battery? Especially as the charging infrastructure continues to improve in more populated regions?
  - rr808 4y ago
    Toyota RAV4 ICE weighs 3450 lbs, the RAV4 Prime weighs 4,250 lbs., and a Tesla Model Y long range is 4,416 lbs. Maybe ICE is best for the environment. :)
makeitdouble 4y ago
I'm curious how far ahead are Toyota's competitors. For instance, how many more EVs are they selling than the Toyota hybrid plugins ? (and I mean that not just in the US or Norway, but globally) To my knowledge the EV field is still a very small and restricted market, and the makers are all about the same advancement technology wise. I mean, Tesla for instance sources its batteries from Panasonic, which isn't much more advanced than Toyota I think. [edit] Panasonic is a Toyota partner in battery development https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/corporate/31477926.html https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/corporate/31477926.html

kuon 4y ago

This youtube video does a good job explaining a few problems about hydrogen in cars. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zklo4Z1SqkE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zklo4Z1SqkE

TheRealPomax 4y ago
Maybe, but https://www.youtube.com/@EngineeringExplained https://www.youtube.com/@EngineeringExplained is probably a better person to ask to explain why this is just not going to work, through his "The Unfortunate Truth About Toyota's Hydrogen V8 Engine" [1] and "BMW's Hydrogen V12 Engine Is A Hilarious Engineering Stunt" [2] videos. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJjKwSF9gT8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJjKwSF9gT8 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AouW9_jyZck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AouW9_jyZck

jiggawatts 4y ago

Hydrogen is 100% an attempt by fossil fuel companies to remain relevant in a "green energy" world. The primary source for hydrogen would be from methane in natural gas, and they could then sell this as a "zero pollution fuel" while continuing their non-renewable energy business as normal. If you read between the lines and look at the companies involved, they're always linked to fossil fuel companies directly or indirectly. That, or fossil fuel powered vehicle manufacturers that are reluctant to completely retool their factories. Hydrogen has a few legitimate use cases, such as iron ore refining and chemical feedstock, but that's about it. In all other scenarios, battery-based technology is vastly superior along multiple metrics.

TheRealPomax 4y ago
I didn't know Toyota was a fossil fuel company, or was owned by one? Japan is uniquely trying to make this thing work. They have no domestic oil production, and so few coal mines as to basically be irrelevant: all their fossil fuel is imported. Anywhere else on the planet: sure, this might be another way for big fossil to push for relevancy, but in Japan's case, hydrogen would be something that they can produce themselves, literally freeing them from fossil fuel dependency, which is a big part of why they keep trying to make it work. And yeah, the math says it's physically impossible to make it work without constant refueling, but again: it's Japan. The very idea of "my car needs to go 300 miles on one charge/tank" just isn't a thing there. Hydrogen, despite this article's claim, is actually perfect for Japan. Any tanker of import fuel saved is CO2 saved both on the tanker's transit, and on that fuel getting burned, but at the same time: it's also perfect much perfect only for Japan.
- jfengel 4y ago
  They're a car company committed to keeping the internal combustion engine. They are market leaders in hybrid cars, but have been surpassed in all electric. So they're not a fossil fuel company but their interests are aligned.
  - jojobas 4y ago
    There's nothing wrong with internal combustion per se, if electrolysis+ICE works out cheaper than battery in terms of lithium/rare earths/whatever there is no fundamental objection to it.

lucidguppy 4y ago

I heard somewhere that trying to make hydrogen from water was like trying to make wood from ash. It doesn't make sense.

ryao 4y ago
You can make hydrogen from water with a simple electrolysis reaction. It happens as a side effect in gel electrophoresis. It might not be cost competitive, but it is much more doable than making wood from ash.

totetsu 4y ago

Is Japan’s political power just completely captured by industry at this point? I live here and I can often not distinguish between pr and matketing of private interests and pr and policy directions of government.. I'm not even really trying to be rhetorical here.. I want to understand this beter.

Dr_Birdbrain 4y ago
I wonder if it’s the other way in this case? It seems to me that Japan’s advocacy of hydrogen is geopolitical, and the corporations like Toyota are getting dragged along to make poor business decisions, favoring hydrogen over electric. Japan has no significant sources of fossil fuels or lithium (for a potentially lithium-based future), so they would prefer that the energy of the future were hydrogen, which they could produce themselves. Of course they would prefer to live in a future where they could make their own energy, rather than be at the mercy of imports. Corporations are getting dragged along to support this dream, even if it does not look like a great business decision.

rr808 4y ago

Hydrogen I think has a few good advantages over batteries. Storage is cheaper and faster. Quick charging would be good for buses, trucks and trains. The cheap storage is good for things like ships. Also long term storage for the winter - you could use sunny & windy seasons to build up gas supplies for winter months.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
But for personal cars it does not make sence, too complicated. Besides, japan has good solar illumonation all year, do theybreally need seasonal storage?

eirikurh 4y ago

Sabine Hossenfelder recently made a video on hydrogen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zklo4Z1SqkE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zklo4Z1SqkE

WheelsAtLarge 4y ago

We can't give up on hydrogen. A transfer to EV will not be practical for all current fossil fuel vehicles so we need an alternative for them. Hydrogen is not practical now but it has potential. I think electric and hydrogen are the only alternatives to fossil fuels. Are there others?

barbazoo 4y ago
> A transfer to EV will not be practical for all current fossil fuel vehicles so we need an alternative for them That's my impression too. It seems to be hard for some people to accept this as one solution for a narrow aspect of a complex problem. This is a problem I see a lot with "green energy" sceptics. The wind doesn't always blow, the sun doesn't always shine. If there isn't a one size fits all solution, it's not a solution at all. Almost as good as the old adage of electricity not being clean today, therefore electrifying cars doesn't make sense. Nevermind that switching to renewable energy can be achieved asynchronously and is not something we need to wait for.
danans 4y ago
> A transfer to EV will not be practical for all current fossil fuel vehicles But we can transfer most of them to EVs, including nearly the entire light duty vehicle fleet and short haul trucking, which is probably good enough. There will always be niche cases for ICE vehicles, like driving across Siberia, or military vehicles. But the vast majority can be electrified. Flight is a different story, perhaps hydrogen will be a viable path there.
- runarberg 4y ago
  > But we can transfer most of them to EVs, including nearly the entire light duty vehicle fleet and short haul trucking. No we can’t. We don’t have the industrial manufacturing capability. Not even by a long shot. And even if we did, we don’t have enough minded minerals to supply the manufactures, and even if we did, we don’t have enough electrical infrastructure to charge all the electric cars. Note this also applies to hydrogen, and even if we had both, each technology relieving the stress on the manufacturing capability of the other, then we’d still need the infrastructure capable of supplying to both. The best path forward for immediate success is public transit, using whichever technology is available (hydrogen, battery, overhead wires, diesel, whatever).

richardzyx 4y ago

So fun to see hydrogen landing on the front page of HN again. We have a team of software engineers working in a hydrogen company (focused mostly in medium to ultra-heavy duty sectors). Curious if people would be interested in an AMA? For questions we don’t know the precise answers to, like the actual financial modeling for hydrogen use cases where it makes sense, we can also easily pull people sitting, virtually, across the hall.

noogle 4y ago

One thing opposition to any chemical electricity storage (hydrogen and other fuels) doesn't answer is: _how to transfer electricity across distances?_ HVDC are typically presented as the solution, but even if technically possible, they do not seem to actually materialize. Constant cooperation and reliance between countries for their energy seems like a bad idea in 2023. There are numerous solar project plans stuck because of lack of such transmission lines. We did not start our current energy infrastructure with expensive pipelines. We started with batched shipments (tankers), and when supply and demand were stable enough we built a gas pipeline. Not sure why electricity requires the optimal solution or nothing.

mlindner 4y ago
> One thing opposition to any chemical electricity storage (hydrogen and other fuels) doesn't answer is: _how to transfer electricity across distances?_ For some countries this isn't even a problem so it doesn't need to be talked about. For example the amount of reusable energy available in the US covers all the needs in most areas. Also you need to compare the reduced efficiency of building the renewable energy locally versus the energy lost in transporting that hydrogen and creation and use of the hydrogen. Creating the hydrogen is an especially inefficient process for example.
- noogle 4y ago
  And the rest of the world? And when extra energy is needed because of a cold/heat-wave, new project, or just an event in a forest? These scenarios, both large and small, are covered currently by fossil fuels, and are not answered by permanent grid solutions like HVDC. The generation price of solar energy is ~$0.02/kwh. Even with 33% overall efficiency hydrogen could be very competitive at $0.06/kwh electricity. , But overall efficiency is a red-herring. The important thing is COST. With solar, the cost of energy itself is the smallest part - providing it at the desired time and place are the more expensive parts. Fossil fuels are very inefficient, yet for hundreds of years they have been a cheap option (and thus widespread). The same argument applies to hydrogen - if it's cheaper, in terms of money, time and pollution, efficiency doesn't matter a bit.

outside1234 4y ago

Hydrogen is a storage technology. When I looked at it last, it was largely planned to be produced by electrolysis, so the greenness of that depends on the power source for that operation. So it could be green if powered by solar? Or brown, if powered by coal.

dredmorbius 4y ago
Hydrogen can also be "reformed" from other fuels, most particularly natural gas, or through carbon capture and storage (CCS). There are trade terms that have emerged, including "black", "brown", "grey", "blue", and "green" hydrogen which ... aren't especially clear or consistent in my experience. WEF have a 'splainer, though I'm not sure the classifications are universally accepted: <https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/clean-energy-green-hydrogen/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/clean-energy-green-hy...> Apparently NG -> H2 is "grey" or "torquiose", and CCS is "blue". "Green" is hydrolysis from renewable electricity.

fwungy 4y ago

The developing world, where Toyota sells a lot of cars, isnt going to EVs anytime in the foreseeable future. It's only the G7 countries that are really pushing it. Both EVs and hydrogen fuel cells really need modern nuclear power to make sense. Hydrogen is less efficient, but storage is much cheaper and easier than it is with batteries. They're complementary technologies, not competitors. People need to get over the idea that aggressive decarbonization will ever spread past the 500 million citizens of the G7 states. That's delusional. We should really be more aggressively planning mitigation than Hail Mary green transitions with multiple substantial challenges.

syncsynchalt 4y ago
> Hydrogen is less efficient, but storage is much cheaper and easier than it is with batteries And storage is even cheaper and easier with gasoline and diesel. More likely that developing economies will stay on ICE engines until batteries+electricity+chargers become cheaper than ICE. Hydrogen doesn't have a future outside of location- and weight-sensitive applications like carbon-neutral air travel.

paganel 4y ago

This is the board of directors behind the entity that publishes this website [1]. I can see mostly Norwegian people, so I suspect there's Norwegian money powering this website, hence Norwegian interests. Norway is very active on the renewables energy market, i.e. it has lots and lots of interests on that market. All that to say that I wouldn't take this article at face value, just another way to try and shift opinion in order to make more money for its owners. Later edit: The chairman of the board from that website is this lady Anette S. Olsen [2], who's sole proprietor of this company/group, Fred. Olsen & Co. [3], which interests also include the energy market. The company/group is into renewables, this is their website [4], lots of wind farms on their website, I suppose they're into selling that, not hydrogen. As I said, it's easier to follow the money. [1] [1] https://www.nhst.no/en/about-nhst/board-of-directors-holdings/ https://www.nhst.no/en/about-nhst/board-of-directors-holding... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anette_S._Olsen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anette_S._Olsen [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred._Olsen_%26_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred._Olsen_%26_Co. [4] https://fredolsenrenewables.com/ https://fredolsenrenewables.com/

rich_sasha 4y ago

I find it weird how hostile to hydrogen the "renewable energy gang" is. The story of how renewables take over the world and displace fossil fuels and nuclear totally relies on storage, in some cases seasonal storage, IE overproducing in summer and holding on to the energy til the end of winter. Does hydrogen work for it? Well, maybe, it could, there are unresolved issues but hey we are trying to do science here. It's not like batteries work, they are fine for short term storage, but even then, they aren't displacing, say, pumped hydro. And yet hydrogen bad, batteries good. And don't even get me started on nuclear. It feels like the "save the planet" movement, or at least some shards of it, come with a very specific notion of how exactly it is ok to save the planet, and what fails on style points.

eptcyka 4y ago
Hydrogen is a less efficient energy store than a battery, requires high pressure systems, leaks are dangerously explosive, distributing it is more difficult than petrol or electricity. It has applications, but in general, its often significantly worse than any other greener alternative.
- raverbashing 4y ago
  > Hydrogen is a less efficient energy store than a battery Less energy dense, but not less efficient
- Mikeb85 4y ago
  Yes but batteries contain toxic materials and rare earth minerals, require lots of energy to make, lots of energy to recycle, etc... So energy to mine the materials, energy to assemble the battery, energy to recycle the battery after it's useful lifespan (5-10 years)... None of these are ever counted in people's calculations. I tried to find data on energy required to produce the batteries and they still didn't count the mining cost. I'd wager that hydrogen is more energy efficient over the entire lifespan of a vehicle. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/14/electric-cost-lithium-mining-decarbonasation-salt-flats-chile https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/14/electr... Lithium mining is expensive and you need to move a lot of dirt to get a little lithium... 100 billion tons of waste and never mind the waste aspect, it takes a lot of energy to move a ton of dirt.

idiocrat 4y ago

Here is an interesting but sad documentary from 2020. (1h40m). It addresses the concerns about hydrogen. "Michael Moore presents Planet of the Humans, a documentary that dares to say what no one else will — that we are losing the battle to stop climate change on planet earth because we are following leaders who have taken us down the wrong road — selling out the green movement to wealthy interests and corporate America. This film is the wake-up call to the reality we are afraid to face: that in the midst of a human-caused extinction event, the environmental movement’s answer is to push for techno-fixes and band-aids. It's too little, too late. " https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE

jamil7 4y ago
It also contains a lot of misinformation and outdated talking points, not really worth watching. A whole lot of scientists and activists have spoken out against the documentary. I'm still confused as to why Michael Moore made it.

jillesvangurp 4y ago

Michael Liebreich's clean hydrogen ladder is a good reference here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/clean-hydrogen-ladder-v40-michael-liebreich/ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/clean-hydrogen-ladder-v40-mic... It ranks hydrogen use cases by their economic feasibility. The core issue in Japan: they are focusing on things with the least economic potential at the bottom of the ladder and they are doing it with dirty grey hydrogen even. It's a double fail. Basically they are expending more carbon to magically become cleaner. Which isn't working for obvious reasons and quite obviously so. And then they are using that hydrogen for the least economical use cases. It's not an energy strategy but a let's bail out our car manufacturers strategy. This article is stating the obvious: this isn't working. Not even a little bit. There's nothing there. Hydrogen cars are a fantasy. Nobody is buying them and even the world's largest hydrogen cheer leader (Toyota) of these things is barely producing and selling any. And as reluctant as they are to produce and sell battery electric vehicles, they still sell more of those than hydrogen cars. Hydrogen for domestic use also ranks at the bottom in the hydrogen ladder for very good reasons. Yes you can do it. But it's just stupidly inefficient in terms of hydrogen generation and transport losses. These are not problems you can just wave away with some innovation magic. There is no magical solution just around the corner that will make all of this go away and improve things by 10x. The issues are pretty fundamental and have to do with hydrogen just having a very low energy density by volume (it's the first element in the periodic table), energy conversions having a cost (second law of thermodynamics), and the bonds between hydrogen and carbon or oxygen atoms being very strong. It takes more energy to break those chemical bonds than you get back in the form of hydrogen. There's a theoretical maximum efficiency to that. Once you have hydrogen, you have to convert it again to do something useful with it. That too has a maximum theoretical efficiency. These inefficiencies multiply. What happens if you multiply two fractions? You get a smaller fraction. Compressing and cooling also takes energy. And if you introduce conversion to ammonia or some other susbtance, that's another conversion, which is lossy. That just multiplies the problem. So, that means hydrogen should be prioritized for those use cases where you can minimize the losses. Anything involving transporting hydrogen over long distances is a problem. Because of the volumetric density. It's just not very efficient. You need to move a lot of volume of it. And it's a tough substance to contain. Leaky valves, boiling of liquid hydrogen to keep it cool, etc. The losses accumulate rapidly. And even when you contain that, you need to ship about 18x more of it in compressed gas form to match a single tanker of petrol or about 3x in liquid form (cooled to near absolute zero). Compression and cooling take energy btw. Because of all that, the vast majority of hydrogen produced right now, is produced and consumed on site. Mostly for things at the top of the hydrogen ladder like fertilizer production or use in various chemical processes.

cactusplant7374 4y ago

1) How would we compare Porsche's gasoline experiment [0] with Hydrogen? Because the Hydrogen article seems to suggest that it's useful just not expedient in the entire landscape of energy. 2) The hydrogen insight has what looks to be interesting articles. I'm going to read through them more. [0] https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/12/porsches-synthetic-gasoline-factory-comes-online-today-in-chile/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/12/porsches-synthetic-gaso...

sylware 4y ago

Hydrogen is just a "mobile" energy storage... but a really hard one to deal with, actually so hard it may be not worth it (too dangerous, and not long term enough) in the end. See Sabine H. video about it, I am sure she'll show you things about hydrogen storage you did not think about). Ofc, we are talking about the "lowest green-house gas produced" hydrogen (hydro/solar/wind/nuclear). That said Japan is maybe one of the only countries in the world serious and rigorous enough to pull that off.

wazoox 4y ago

Weirdly, not a single mention of the "Red Hydrogen" plans. Apparently, Japan plans to use nuclear to produce H2 at scale, and it makes lots of sense from a cost-effectiveness POV.

schwoll 4y ago

The EV push is marketing. It's someone trying to sell something. If countries were interested in solving anything they'd just install more electric trains. Even less of a commitment would be just use diesel commuter trains until the electric comes online. Until this happens everything else is just someone trying to sell stuff.

ladyattis 4y ago
Yeah, I think the long term solution to decarbonization is to focus on making it possible to get around without a car which includes a heavy focus on legalizing mixed-use and transit oriented development which for the United States and Canada are basically illegal last time I checked.
jackmott42 4y ago
This is a pretty lazy take. I could also characterize a push for trains as someone trying to sell something. Someone is going to be selling something. Does the thing reduce carbon and pollution or not, is the question. Building trains is simple, getting/forcing people to use them is the hard part. Making them viable in a lot of american cities requires a complete refactor of how the cities are laid out. Easy to say very hard and expensive to do. Americans also turn to violence at the suggestion of a paper mask, so forcing won't be simple. But if you build a badass EV, they will buy it, and pollution is reduced somewhat.