5 ms·

There are ways to work around those limitations, basically removing the "very small and very reactive" part of hydrogen. You can bind it with Nitrogen to gen am

There are ways to work around those limitations, basically removing the "very small and very reactive" part of hydrogen. You can bind it with Nitrogen to gen ammonia - which is till very dangerous, but much easier to contain or work with. The problem with H2, ammonia, biofuels and other synthetic fuels is not that they have some limitations, it's that they are not accepted by the green energy dogma. Some green energy activists would like to see the gas stations go away, for example, and that is not going to happen if you keep needing to go somewhere to re-fuel, with any fuel.

schiffern 4y ago
The problem isn't "dogma," it's inefficiency. Throwing energy away is counterproductive, and Energy-to-Hydrogen-to-Energy throws away lots of it. If there were no alternative long-term storage plans this might be acceptable, but that's simply not the case. If you're using hydrogen to smelt steel or make ammonia fertilizer, then there's no energy loss (beyond what's needed to decarbonize petrochemicals anyway). The article aptly refers to these as "no regrets" uses. Gas stations (ie ground vehicles) are fighting a losing battle. BEVs will eat the sector. They're simply so much less expensive [than hydrogen]: for the vehicles themselves, for the infrastructure, and then of course for the wasteful energy use in operation.
- theshrike79 4y ago
  > Throwing energy away is counterproductive, and Energy-to-Hydrogen-to-Energy throws away lots of it. The current process needs 55kWh of electricity to produce 15kWh of electricity on the other end. Not very efficient at all.
  - flavius29663 4y ago
    Look at how much energy is on the other end of the oil flow: 20% efficiency and still the ICE car is king, without subsidies, EVs would go nowhere. The hydrogen back and forth is still better than that. Talking about efficiency is a losing battle, people don't care about that, they care about total cost, safety and convenience.
    - WorldMaker 4y ago
      > Talking about efficiency is a losing battle, people don't care about that, they care about total cost, safety and convenience. Without subsidies it is ICE that would go away overnight on two of those three factors and then the third shortly after the market catches up to the overnight shift. EVs already have lower total cost and higher safety (than carrying around a tank of explosives and actively igniting those explosives during travel). ICE looks more convenient with current refueling infrastructure, but if ICE subsidies disappeared and demand plummeted we'd see how fast ICE range anxiety returns when companies quickly en masse decide to not sell such a low margin loss leader. (I do mean "returns", we know from history that ICE vehicles were the original range anxiety and EVs were the reliably ranged household cars until enough gas stations existed. AAA was in part founded because of ICE range anxiety.) (H2 cannot compete with EVs on any of these three. Total cost is higher. H2 tanks can dangerously explode, even if fuel cells are not themselves at least using a burning process like ICE. H2 refuelling seems convenient if you discount the fact that there's no general, ubiquitous H2 refuelling infrastructure and likely never will be, especially with how badly H2 leaks in all attempts at long distance shipping and long term storage.)
- flavius29663 4y ago
  ICE vehicles conquered the world with abysmal efficiencies, they were around 10-15% when they already ruled the roads and the world. That is after we drill for oil, ship it, refine it, distribute it. Even today, manufacturers boast about engines with 40% efficiency in ideal conditions, which still translates to a meager 20-30% in real world driving. Looking at efficiency alone is not enough. > They're simply so much less expensive Not yet they aren't. The upfront cost of an EV still makes it more expensive than an ICE vehicle. Also, they batteries are guaranteed to degrade, so the used market has very bad prices for EVs. At some point, they will probably be less expensive for most automobiles, but hydrogen can still play a part in trucking, trains, planes, boats and specialty operations. Only about 64% of oil is used for transportation [1] and out of that, only about 50% for automobiles and light trucks [2] (even though for light trucks, motorcycles and other applications, EVs are not going to win probably). So BEVs could replace about 30% of all oil usage. The rest of 70% is up for grabs, so why not pursue hydrogen investment as a possible alternative? https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/use-of-oil.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc... https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-energy/transportation-in-depth.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-energy/transporta...
  - schiffern 4y ago
    > more expensive than an ICE The (relevant) comparison was H2 versus BEVs — ie comparing decarbonized solutions apples-to-apples. I have edited to make that more clear. > why not pursue hydrogen investment as a possible alternative? Because hydrogen, for all its marketing, doesn't solve the problems people have with BEVs. Better BEVs do. I see a variety of BEV motorcycles and light trucks available. The same can't be said for hydrogen.
    - flavius29663 4y ago
      > Because hydrogen, for all its marketing, doesn't actually solve the problems people have with BEVs. Better BEVs do. I guess it depends on the definition of "people". If you mean private automobile owners, then I agree that batteries will eat hydrogen's lunch. For everything else(70% of oil use), it's an open question. In the future, you might even see a migration of H2 technology from large applications to small automobiles, like we've seen with diesel engines.
- eldaisfish 4y ago
  Isn't the whole point of cheap and plentiful renewable energy that inefficiencies in processes like this are irrelevant? Why would long-term storage matter if wind and solar can produce so much energy that we cannot feasibly consume it all? What other long-term energy storage plans are there right now? I would not write off fuel stations just yet. There may well be a future where some renewable fuel powers vehicles.
  - WorldMaker 4y ago
    Cost would be an obvious factor. An inefficient electricity derivative fuel is always going to be more expensive than charging a battery directly from all that cheap/plentiful renewable electricity eliminating the "middle fuel". Especially when vehicle usage curves have a beautiful inverse to electricity demand curves and vehicles are generally parked for hours when electricity rates are at their very cheapest.
  - schiffern 4y ago
    >Isn't the whole point of cheap and plentiful renewable energy that inefficiencies in processes like this are irrelevant? No. You're thinking of "too cheap to meter," which never came to pass, and (as it turns out) was just a marketing line. >What other long-term energy storage plans are there right now? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34429623 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34429623 There was a great article a few days ago about "factories as batteries" (pointing out that aluminum smelting is uneconomic but hydrogen works) but sadly I can't find it.
- tuatoru 4y ago
  > Throwing energy away is counterproductive, and Energy-to-Hydrogen-to-Energy throws away lots of it. Energy to plants to biofuels throws away nearly all the energy. More than all of it, by some accountings. What are the alternatives for those use cases in which batteries are infeasible?
  - WorldMaker 4y ago
    Pumped hydro (water) is about 81% efficient and easy enough to build with centuries of experience at this point. There's also battery systems outside of Lithium Ion formulations which have other use cases. Thermal batteries are an interesting alternative in some use cases, particularly where fast access to heat in addition to electricy is handy (such as in collaboration with building HVAC and water heaters). But also in general as we keep finding new density scales in the Lithium Ion formulations (and as we have hope to potentially discover even more formulations beside that) the number of use cases where batteries are infeasible keeps shrinking.
  - schiffern 4y ago
    You'll never hear me defend biofuels. The alternatives are mostly * better batteries * heat pumps to replace oil burners * methane or ammonia for the remaining uses (eg trans-oceanic); globally shipping and aviation together account for only 8% of petroleum use With a universal carbon tax everything would automatically self-organize into the most efficient solution, but of course we can't do that.
    - tuatoru 4y ago
      Off-road land use probably accounts for another few percent. It's hard to imagine heavy forestry, farming, and earthmoving equipment being powered by batteries.
      - schiffern 4y ago
        Why not? It seems like the real problem is a lack of imagination. Are there some challenges? Of course. Are they insoluble? I can't see why they would be.
ADent 4y ago
How about binding with Carbon and getting methane (CH4)?
- flavius29663 4y ago
  that's exactly what I meant by "other synthetic fuels", but I was refraining from using the explicit words, because of the stigma, and I didn't want to derail the discussion.
- 7speter 4y ago
  At that point, why not just separate the hydrogen from all the methane we seemingly produce?

schiffern 4y ago

The problem isn't "dogma," it's inefficiency. Throwing energy away is counterproductive, and Energy-to-Hydrogen-to-Energy throws away lots of it. If there were no alternative long-term storage plans this might be acceptable, but that's simply not the case. If you're using hydrogen to smelt steel or make ammonia fertilizer, then there's no energy loss (beyond what's needed to decarbonize petrochemicals anyway). The article aptly refers to these as "no regrets" uses. Gas stations (ie ground vehicles) are fighting a losing battle. BEVs will eat the sector. They're simply so much less expensive [than hydrogen]: for the vehicles themselves, for the infrastructure, and then of course for the wasteful energy use in operation.

theshrike79 4y ago
> Throwing energy away is counterproductive, and Energy-to-Hydrogen-to-Energy throws away lots of it. The current process needs 55kWh of electricity to produce 15kWh of electricity on the other end. Not very efficient at all.
- flavius29663 4y ago
  Look at how much energy is on the other end of the oil flow: 20% efficiency and still the ICE car is king, without subsidies, EVs would go nowhere. The hydrogen back and forth is still better than that. Talking about efficiency is a losing battle, people don't care about that, they care about total cost, safety and convenience.
  - WorldMaker 4y ago
    > Talking about efficiency is a losing battle, people don't care about that, they care about total cost, safety and convenience. Without subsidies it is ICE that would go away overnight on two of those three factors and then the third shortly after the market catches up to the overnight shift. EVs already have lower total cost and higher safety (than carrying around a tank of explosives and actively igniting those explosives during travel). ICE looks more convenient with current refueling infrastructure, but if ICE subsidies disappeared and demand plummeted we'd see how fast ICE range anxiety returns when companies quickly en masse decide to not sell such a low margin loss leader. (I do mean "returns", we know from history that ICE vehicles were the original range anxiety and EVs were the reliably ranged household cars until enough gas stations existed. AAA was in part founded because of ICE range anxiety.) (H2 cannot compete with EVs on any of these three. Total cost is higher. H2 tanks can dangerously explode, even if fuel cells are not themselves at least using a burning process like ICE. H2 refuelling seems convenient if you discount the fact that there's no general, ubiquitous H2 refuelling infrastructure and likely never will be, especially with how badly H2 leaks in all attempts at long distance shipping and long term storage.)
flavius29663 4y ago
ICE vehicles conquered the world with abysmal efficiencies, they were around 10-15% when they already ruled the roads and the world. That is after we drill for oil, ship it, refine it, distribute it. Even today, manufacturers boast about engines with 40% efficiency in ideal conditions, which still translates to a meager 20-30% in real world driving. Looking at efficiency alone is not enough. > They're simply so much less expensive Not yet they aren't. The upfront cost of an EV still makes it more expensive than an ICE vehicle. Also, they batteries are guaranteed to degrade, so the used market has very bad prices for EVs. At some point, they will probably be less expensive for most automobiles, but hydrogen can still play a part in trucking, trains, planes, boats and specialty operations. Only about 64% of oil is used for transportation [1] and out of that, only about 50% for automobiles and light trucks [2] (even though for light trucks, motorcycles and other applications, EVs are not going to win probably). So BEVs could replace about 30% of all oil usage. The rest of 70% is up for grabs, so why not pursue hydrogen investment as a possible alternative? https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/use-of-oil.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc... https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-energy/transportation-in-depth.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-energy/transporta...
- schiffern 4y ago
  > more expensive than an ICE The (relevant) comparison was H2 versus BEVs — ie comparing decarbonized solutions apples-to-apples. I have edited to make that more clear. > why not pursue hydrogen investment as a possible alternative? Because hydrogen, for all its marketing, doesn't solve the problems people have with BEVs. Better BEVs do. I see a variety of BEV motorcycles and light trucks available. The same can't be said for hydrogen.
  - flavius29663 4y ago
    > Because hydrogen, for all its marketing, doesn't actually solve the problems people have with BEVs. Better BEVs do. I guess it depends on the definition of "people". If you mean private automobile owners, then I agree that batteries will eat hydrogen's lunch. For everything else(70% of oil use), it's an open question. In the future, you might even see a migration of H2 technology from large applications to small automobiles, like we've seen with diesel engines.
eldaisfish 4y ago
Isn't the whole point of cheap and plentiful renewable energy that inefficiencies in processes like this are irrelevant? Why would long-term storage matter if wind and solar can produce so much energy that we cannot feasibly consume it all? What other long-term energy storage plans are there right now? I would not write off fuel stations just yet. There may well be a future where some renewable fuel powers vehicles.
- WorldMaker 4y ago
  Cost would be an obvious factor. An inefficient electricity derivative fuel is always going to be more expensive than charging a battery directly from all that cheap/plentiful renewable electricity eliminating the "middle fuel". Especially when vehicle usage curves have a beautiful inverse to electricity demand curves and vehicles are generally parked for hours when electricity rates are at their very cheapest.
- schiffern 4y ago
  >Isn't the whole point of cheap and plentiful renewable energy that inefficiencies in processes like this are irrelevant? No. You're thinking of "too cheap to meter," which never came to pass, and (as it turns out) was just a marketing line. >What other long-term energy storage plans are there right now? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34429623 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34429623 There was a great article a few days ago about "factories as batteries" (pointing out that aluminum smelting is uneconomic but hydrogen works) but sadly I can't find it.
tuatoru 4y ago
> Throwing energy away is counterproductive, and Energy-to-Hydrogen-to-Energy throws away lots of it. Energy to plants to biofuels throws away nearly all the energy. More than all of it, by some accountings. What are the alternatives for those use cases in which batteries are infeasible?
- WorldMaker 4y ago
  Pumped hydro (water) is about 81% efficient and easy enough to build with centuries of experience at this point. There's also battery systems outside of Lithium Ion formulations which have other use cases. Thermal batteries are an interesting alternative in some use cases, particularly where fast access to heat in addition to electricy is handy (such as in collaboration with building HVAC and water heaters). But also in general as we keep finding new density scales in the Lithium Ion formulations (and as we have hope to potentially discover even more formulations beside that) the number of use cases where batteries are infeasible keeps shrinking.
- schiffern 4y ago
  You'll never hear me defend biofuels. The alternatives are mostly * better batteries * heat pumps to replace oil burners * methane or ammonia for the remaining uses (eg trans-oceanic); globally shipping and aviation together account for only 8% of petroleum use With a universal carbon tax everything would automatically self-organize into the most efficient solution, but of course we can't do that.
  - tuatoru 4y ago
    Off-road land use probably accounts for another few percent. It's hard to imagine heavy forestry, farming, and earthmoving equipment being powered by batteries.
    - schiffern 4y ago
      Why not? It seems like the real problem is a lack of imagination. Are there some challenges? Of course. Are they insoluble? I can't see why they would be.

ADent 4y ago

How about binding with Carbon and getting methane (CH4)?

flavius29663 4y ago
that's exactly what I meant by "other synthetic fuels", but I was refraining from using the explicit words, because of the stigma, and I didn't want to derail the discussion.
7speter 4y ago
At that point, why not just separate the hydrogen from all the methane we seemingly produce?