3 ms·

I find there is a selective black and white perception of the world. For example, renewables right now rely heavily on quick-to-dispatch gas plants - and that'

I find there is a selective black and white perception of the world. For example, renewables right now rely heavily on quick-to-dispatch gas plants - and that's fine as a stepping stone to a carbon-free future. Though the plan fo eliminating it is still vapourware - maybe better batteries, maybe larger grids, maybe something else. But creating a hydrogen economy that somewhat relies on fossil fuels, with a clear pathway to eliminating the fossil fuel component? Anathema! I have nothing at all against renewables and batteries, it sounds neat but remains incomplete here and now. But until it's clear it can replace all our uses of energy, I remain baffled by people who would like to shoot down any potential different path to that same goal.

burkaman 4y ago
Did you read past the headline? It's not anathema because of aesthetics, it's anathema because it doesn't work. There's nothing wrong with shooting down an idea that you have studied and found to be counterproductive.
- rich_sasha 4y ago
  It doesn't say anything like it, and your comment doesn't address mine either. 1. That particular approaches don't work is irrelevant. TFA focuses on a particular Japanese policy, which may or may not be misguided. The article is light on discussion, but let's take it at face value. Should we say wind+solar is stupid because Germany is currently in an energy mess? I don't think so. 2. I don't think it's dumb at all to experiment with various synthetic fuels via fossil fuels initially. With both hydrogen and battery storage, the real devil is in the details, in particular in seasonal storage. If we can make battery, or hydrogen, or ammonia economies work, then we know how to produce things, and thanks to cheap intermittent renewables we can do it. Frankly, efficiency hardly matters at this point. If, as predicted by renewables evangelists, energy will be almost free soon, storage efficiency matters not. All that will matter is long term storage cost, an open question for any approach. 3. Regardless, my comment is aimed mostly at other comments. "Duh everyone knows batteries are better", "hydrogen is a dead end". The part of my comment you tacitly ignored is that burning fossil fuels is somehow ok en route to renewables+batteries without a viable concrete plans on how to decarbonize fully, but not for other synthetic fuels such as hydrogen.
  - rnk 4y ago
    There's one key problem, making hydrogen without creating more carbon in the atmosphere. If they solve that, then it's worth considering. If we have fusion providing endless electric energy (which could be used to split water), then we could just use it to fuel electric cars too. There's the classic problems of lack of energy density, and hydrogen fires not being visible. I think we can probably make hydrogen containment systems better, and figure out how to make fires visible. To me it all comes back to getting the fuel. When we can do that we can consider it.
    - shagie 4y ago
      https://www.powermag.com/fukushima-hydrogen-energy-research-field-demonstrates-hydrogen-integration/ https://www.powermag.com/fukushima-hydrogen-energy-research-... > For the past two years, FH2R has consistently been ranked as one of the world’s largest projects of its kind. According to project participants, FH2R uses a 20-MW solar PV array built on a 180,000-square-meter site along with grid electricity to power a single-stack 10-MW-class electrolyzer. Its developers say it can produce, store, and supply up to 1,200 Nm 3 /hr of hydrogen at rated power operation. This is a "its not completely there yet but this is where its trying to go."
rawgabbit 4y ago
You are correct. This discussion is about ideological purity. Meanwhile we are still are the experimental stage to determine what technologies will actually work in the real world. Instead of "letting a hundred flowers bloom", we are railing against those who dare to violate the "little green book". It just makes the Green movement look like extremists.
rnk 4y ago
It's not about purity, it's about removing carbon from the atmosphere. All the existing industrial scale hydrogen production gets hydrogen from carbon based fuels, using other energy. There doesn't appear to be an option at this time for producing carbon at any reasonable scale without using carbon fuel sources. If we get fusion power, really cheap power, instead of splitting water using that free energy we could just directly run electric cars. There is a cynical pushing of "green hydrogen" from the companies that want to preserve their internal combustion industrial infrastructure (notably Japan), and from carbon fuel producers but calling the result 'green hydrogen'. The issue is there is no clear pathway. When/if that happens, there's still the issue of the infrastructure to manage carrying around hydro to refuel or making it at the source. There's no there there.

burkaman 4y ago

Did you read past the headline? It's not anathema because of aesthetics, it's anathema because it doesn't work. There's nothing wrong with shooting down an idea that you have studied and found to be counterproductive.

rich_sasha 4y ago
It doesn't say anything like it, and your comment doesn't address mine either. 1. That particular approaches don't work is irrelevant. TFA focuses on a particular Japanese policy, which may or may not be misguided. The article is light on discussion, but let's take it at face value. Should we say wind+solar is stupid because Germany is currently in an energy mess? I don't think so. 2. I don't think it's dumb at all to experiment with various synthetic fuels via fossil fuels initially. With both hydrogen and battery storage, the real devil is in the details, in particular in seasonal storage. If we can make battery, or hydrogen, or ammonia economies work, then we know how to produce things, and thanks to cheap intermittent renewables we can do it. Frankly, efficiency hardly matters at this point. If, as predicted by renewables evangelists, energy will be almost free soon, storage efficiency matters not. All that will matter is long term storage cost, an open question for any approach. 3. Regardless, my comment is aimed mostly at other comments. "Duh everyone knows batteries are better", "hydrogen is a dead end". The part of my comment you tacitly ignored is that burning fossil fuels is somehow ok en route to renewables+batteries without a viable concrete plans on how to decarbonize fully, but not for other synthetic fuels such as hydrogen.
- rnk 4y ago
  There's one key problem, making hydrogen without creating more carbon in the atmosphere. If they solve that, then it's worth considering. If we have fusion providing endless electric energy (which could be used to split water), then we could just use it to fuel electric cars too. There's the classic problems of lack of energy density, and hydrogen fires not being visible. I think we can probably make hydrogen containment systems better, and figure out how to make fires visible. To me it all comes back to getting the fuel. When we can do that we can consider it.
  - shagie 4y ago
    https://www.powermag.com/fukushima-hydrogen-energy-research-field-demonstrates-hydrogen-integration/ https://www.powermag.com/fukushima-hydrogen-energy-research-... > For the past two years, FH2R has consistently been ranked as one of the world’s largest projects of its kind. According to project participants, FH2R uses a 20-MW solar PV array built on a 180,000-square-meter site along with grid electricity to power a single-stack 10-MW-class electrolyzer. Its developers say it can produce, store, and supply up to 1,200 Nm 3 /hr of hydrogen at rated power operation. This is a "its not completely there yet but this is where its trying to go."

rawgabbit 4y ago

You are correct. This discussion is about ideological purity. Meanwhile we are still are the experimental stage to determine what technologies will actually work in the real world. Instead of "letting a hundred flowers bloom", we are railing against those who dare to violate the "little green book". It just makes the Green movement look like extremists.

rnk 4y ago

It's not about purity, it's about removing carbon from the atmosphere. All the existing industrial scale hydrogen production gets hydrogen from carbon based fuels, using other energy. There doesn't appear to be an option at this time for producing carbon at any reasonable scale without using carbon fuel sources. If we get fusion power, really cheap power, instead of splitting water using that free energy we could just directly run electric cars. There is a cynical pushing of "green hydrogen" from the companies that want to preserve their internal combustion industrial infrastructure (notably Japan), and from carbon fuel producers but calling the result 'green hydrogen'. The issue is there is no clear pathway. When/if that happens, there's still the issue of the infrastructure to manage carrying around hydro to refuel or making it at the source. There's no there there.