3 ms·
The article states that the capital investment cost of an electrolyzer and pipeline is lower than that of a cable and a substation. But what if you want electri
by DropPanda 3y ago
The article states that the capital investment cost of an electrolyzer and pipeline is lower than that of a cable and a substation. But what if you want electricity? If you include a fuel cell and grid connection at the end of the pipeline, is the capital investment cost still lower?
Edit: A fair comparison needs to keep the electrical power input to the grid constant. This means the calculation needs to account for both the losses in conversion to and back from hydrogen, as well as that offshore electrolysis would be able to make use of a greater share of the power during peak wind turbine output.
I want to see the math, not only an opaque claim of lower cost when one set of infrastructure delivers electricity and the other delivers hydrogen.
- scythe 3y ago>If you include a fuel cell and grid connection at the end of the pipeline, is the capital investment cost still lower? You wouldn't, though. If you are going to convert hydrogen back to electricity, it makes the most sense to do it where that electricity is hardest to obtain by any other method — say, an off-grid research station in the Yukon or something.
- DropPanda 3y agoCan you elaborate on why? Getting hydrogen to an off-grid research station in the Yukon is both difficult and a very poor business case for large-scale investments in off-shore hydrogen production.