3 ms·

A global power grid is a far greater fantasy than building hydrogen storage, just FYI.

by _hypx 3y ago

ben_w 3y ago
Only because of the politics (if Texas can't get out of its own way, what chance international coordination?), and in that regard the comparison is "why not nuclear when it works?" The tech is already known, the boring standard models of HVDC cable are good enough, the time it would take to build that capacity of cables is large but not ridiculously so.
- _hypx 3y ago
  You do realize that hydrogen storage is also already known? The boring method of storing hydrogen in underground salt domes and caverns is well understood. This is all way more practical than crisscrossing the oceans with HVDC lines. And it completely evades all of the political showstoppers that a global grid would run into.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    Hydrogen leaks, damages storage vessels and pipes, cryo more so. > The boring method of storing hydrogen in underground salt domes and caverns is well understood. This is all way more practical than crisscrossing the oceans with HVDC lines Ah, no. Salt caverns aren't available everywhere. Getting the hydrogen around isn't easier than getting the electricity the hydrogen makes around. Also storage is normally my pro-hydrogen talking point when I'm facing a hydrogen skeptic and saying why it's not the totemic bad thing you're acting like you think I'm saying it is — but grid storage is however the not the actual core issue the non-totemic skeptics in this thread actually have, they're talking about other things. (That said, props for linking to a home h2 storage solution in that other thread). Heck, when people say hydrogen can't be stored, I point at the 4 GWh hypersonic storage tube that the US government regularly built for single use. But that's not the substantive sticking point for rolling to doubt.
    - _hypx 3y ago
      For underground salt domes and caverns? Leaks and damaged vessels are a non-issue. Salt caverns are everywhere. In fact this is how we store natural gas today. And the capacity is truly insane. It is on the order of PWhs: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/06/16/hydrogen-storage-in-salt-caverns/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/06/16/hydrogen-storage-in-s... Not to mention that hydrogen pipelines move energy more cheaply than cables: https://www.brinknews.com/could-hydrogen-replace-the-need-for-an-electric-grid/ https://www.brinknews.com/could-hydrogen-replace-the-need-fo...
      - ben_w 3y ago
        > Salt caverns are everywhere. Do you have a map showing this? Because AFAICT, they're mainly found in the same places as oil reserves, which is definitely not everywhere. (PWh isn't remotely surprising for me, let alone insane; it is however necessary scale for any such storage system). > AD VAN WIJK: By pipeline. That’s the interesting thing: It is about 10 times cheaper to transport energy by a hydrogen pipeline than by an electric cable. That makes it possible to transport electricity very cheaply from somewhere like North Africa to the demand centers in Europe, for example. First I've heard of that claim; thanks!
        _hypx 3y ago
        Yes: https://energnet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/3-Hevin-Underground-Storage-H2-in-Salt.pdf https://energnet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/3-Hevin-Under... And no, they are not the same as oil reserves. And it is the only technology that can realistically scale to PWh. Which is why it is the best and arguably only viable solution to the problem.
        ben_w 3y ago
        Page 6? Your sense of scale needs recalibration; overly that with a population density map, that's showing more than half the world population is nowhere near those. > And it is the only technology that can realistically scale to PWh It's one of many. I really don't know why you are so willing to limit yourself at this stage to the best possible forecast for one of the least developed possibilities, while dismissing the ones which have both a large install base and long-term growth trends to extrapolate from. I'm not going to put all my eggs (investments, small though they are) into one basket, regarding which I expect to "win". Nothing you said caused that, because it's usually me defending H2 from people who think it "can't ever lead" when the evidence is "hasn't been leading recently". You're making just as significant error but by dismissing everything except H2. I'm reminded of the late 90s, when headlines proclaimed Wicca was the fastest growing religion, and my dad pointed out to me that going from 1 to 2 is a 100% growth rate.
ephbit 3y ago
There's a key difference between the current - mostly chemicals (coal, oil, uranium) based - system of providing people/machines/devices all over the world with energy and some proposed system where most energy is delivered in the form of electricity, generated from renewable sources. Using chemicals to transport energy immediately leads to greater resilience because these chemicals always have a buffering effect, so they can buffer shorter and longer disruptions. Many people appear to not have this in mind, when they propose a global electrical grid to power almost everything. An electrical grid is much more fragile than a chemicals based transportation system. As soon as we see the first big tankers transporting green ammonia all over the world, say from Namibia or Australia or wherever, each one of these will contain weeks worth of ammonia (for some industrial site or whatever), which will mean added resilience since there's no one pipeline that can be damaged. Ships can flexibly go from any one to any other port. But not only that. Due to the high energy density of chemicals, the chemical transportation system also has a much higher capacity than HVDC. Several ships can go from one place to another at the same time, and queue up at the point of arrival, while electricity from two sources to one destination would add up at some point in the grid. Example: > .. the vessels could carry about 58,000 tonnes of ammonia .. [1] 58,000 tonnes x 22.5 MJ/kg = 362.500.000 kWh = 362.5 GWh Assuming a power generation efficiency of 0.4 (-> 145 GWh electricity), this is roughly equivalent to a 1 GW powerplant delivering power for 6 days. Imagine trying to transport 145 GWh from Australia to Europe, or even just from windy Greece to Germany with HVDC. You'd need the 100 % capacity of a 2 GW HVDC line (1500 km long) over 3 days to transmit it all, during which this line could not be used for any other transmission purpose. [1] https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2021/08/10/10672554/japan-s-mol-places-order-for-world-s-largest-ammonia-tankers/ https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2021/08/10/10672...
- _hypx 3y ago
  Thanks. You should reply to ben_w on this topic. That person is oblivious to the challenges of his HVDC dreams.

A global power grid is a far greater fantasy than building hydrogen storage, just FYI.

by _hypx 3y ago

A global power grid is a far greater fantasy than building hydrogen storage, just FYI.

Only because of the politics (if Texas can't get out of its own way, what chance international coordination?), and in that regard the comparison is "why not nuclear when it works?" The tech is already known, the boring standard models of HVDC cable are good enough, the time it would take to build that capacity of cables is large but not ridiculously so.

_hypx 3y ago
You do realize that hydrogen storage is also already known? The boring method of storing hydrogen in underground salt domes and caverns is well understood. This is all way more practical than crisscrossing the oceans with HVDC lines. And it completely evades all of the political showstoppers that a global grid would run into.
- ben_w 3y ago
  Hydrogen leaks, damages storage vessels and pipes, cryo more so. > The boring method of storing hydrogen in underground salt domes and caverns is well understood. This is all way more practical than crisscrossing the oceans with HVDC lines Ah, no. Salt caverns aren't available everywhere. Getting the hydrogen around isn't easier than getting the electricity the hydrogen makes around. Also storage is normally my pro-hydrogen talking point when I'm facing a hydrogen skeptic and saying why it's not the totemic bad thing you're acting like you think I'm saying it is — but grid storage is however the not the actual core issue the non-totemic skeptics in this thread actually have, they're talking about other things. (That said, props for linking to a home h2 storage solution in that other thread). Heck, when people say hydrogen can't be stored, I point at the 4 GWh hypersonic storage tube that the US government regularly built for single use. But that's not the substantive sticking point for rolling to doubt.
  - _hypx 3y ago
    For underground salt domes and caverns? Leaks and damaged vessels are a non-issue. Salt caverns are everywhere. In fact this is how we store natural gas today. And the capacity is truly insane. It is on the order of PWhs: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/06/16/hydrogen-storage-in-salt-caverns/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/06/16/hydrogen-storage-in-s... Not to mention that hydrogen pipelines move energy more cheaply than cables: https://www.brinknews.com/could-hydrogen-replace-the-need-for-an-electric-grid/ https://www.brinknews.com/could-hydrogen-replace-the-need-fo...
    - ben_w 3y ago
      > Salt caverns are everywhere. Do you have a map showing this? Because AFAICT, they're mainly found in the same places as oil reserves, which is definitely not everywhere. (PWh isn't remotely surprising for me, let alone insane; it is however necessary scale for any such storage system). > AD VAN WIJK: By pipeline. That’s the interesting thing: It is about 10 times cheaper to transport energy by a hydrogen pipeline than by an electric cable. That makes it possible to transport electricity very cheaply from somewhere like North Africa to the demand centers in Europe, for example. First I've heard of that claim; thanks!
      - _hypx 3y ago
        Yes: https://energnet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/3-Hevin-Underground-Storage-H2-in-Salt.pdf https://energnet.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/3-Hevin-Under... And no, they are not the same as oil reserves. And it is the only technology that can realistically scale to PWh. Which is why it is the best and arguably only viable solution to the problem.
        ben_w 3y ago
        Page 6? Your sense of scale needs recalibration; overly that with a population density map, that's showing more than half the world population is nowhere near those. > And it is the only technology that can realistically scale to PWh It's one of many. I really don't know why you are so willing to limit yourself at this stage to the best possible forecast for one of the least developed possibilities, while dismissing the ones which have both a large install base and long-term growth trends to extrapolate from. I'm not going to put all my eggs (investments, small though they are) into one basket, regarding which I expect to "win". Nothing you said caused that, because it's usually me defending H2 from people who think it "can't ever lead" when the evidence is "hasn't been leading recently". You're making just as significant error but by dismissing everything except H2. I'm reminded of the late 90s, when headlines proclaimed Wicca was the fastest growing religion, and my dad pointed out to me that going from 1 to 2 is a 100% growth rate.

ephbit 3y ago

There's a key difference between the current - mostly chemicals (coal, oil, uranium) based - system of providing people/machines/devices all over the world with energy and some proposed system where most energy is delivered in the form of electricity, generated from renewable sources. Using chemicals to transport energy immediately leads to greater resilience because these chemicals always have a buffering effect, so they can buffer shorter and longer disruptions. Many people appear to not have this in mind, when they propose a global electrical grid to power almost everything. An electrical grid is much more fragile than a chemicals based transportation system. As soon as we see the first big tankers transporting green ammonia all over the world, say from Namibia or Australia or wherever, each one of these will contain weeks worth of ammonia (for some industrial site or whatever), which will mean added resilience since there's no one pipeline that can be damaged. Ships can flexibly go from any one to any other port. But not only that. Due to the high energy density of chemicals, the chemical transportation system also has a much higher capacity than HVDC. Several ships can go from one place to another at the same time, and queue up at the point of arrival, while electricity from two sources to one destination would add up at some point in the grid. Example: > .. the vessels could carry about 58,000 tonnes of ammonia .. [1] 58,000 tonnes x 22.5 MJ/kg = 362.500.000 kWh = 362.5 GWh Assuming a power generation efficiency of 0.4 (-> 145 GWh electricity), this is roughly equivalent to a 1 GW powerplant delivering power for 6 days. Imagine trying to transport 145 GWh from Australia to Europe, or even just from windy Greece to Germany with HVDC. You'd need the 100 % capacity of a 2 GW HVDC line (1500 km long) over 3 days to transmit it all, during which this line could not be used for any other transmission purpose. [1] https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2021/08/10/10672554/japan-s-mol-places-order-for-world-s-largest-ammonia-tankers/ https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2021/08/10/10672...

_hypx 3y ago
Thanks. You should reply to ben_w on this topic. That person is oblivious to the challenges of his HVDC dreams.