3 ms·

A fuel cell has far less raw material needs than a li-ion battery. All of those things you described are less expensive than the comparable grid infrastructure.

by _hypx 3y ago

A fuel cell has far less raw material needs than a li-ion battery. All of those things you described are less expensive than the comparable grid infrastructure. It is ten times cheaper to move hydrogen around than electricity: https://www.brinknews.com/could-hydrogen-replace-the-need-for-an-electric-grid/ https://www.brinknews.com/could-hydrogen-replace-the-need-fo... It is pure Ludditism because you are refusing to accept the possibility of technological progress. Some of which already exist. As renewable energy scales up, it will approach the marginal cost of zero. We even see negative price electricity at times. As a result, hydrogen could also approach zero cost. $0.02/kWh is fully possible and is already realistic now: https://cleantechnica.com/2020/08/30/new-record-low-solar-price-bid-1-3%C2%A2-kwh/ https://cleantechnica.com/2020/08/30/new-record-low-solar-pr... You are the one living in the past. Imagine thinking that a fuel made from water can never catch on. This is so deep into BEV brainwashing it will be eventually talked about in the same way as bloodletting.

_aavaa_ 3y ago
Pure fantasy. Look at how people use hydrogen now, all 90 million tones a year. Do they produce it at central facility where economies of scale help them? No. They all produce it in small and expensive plants less than a 1km from where it’s used. Strange. Perhaps they simply haven’t heard the good word. Negative prices exist because power plants cannot curb their production quickly enough to match falling demand. These are not a thing for solar and wind operations since you can shut them off much faster. If their electricity is soo incredibly cheap, why in the world would we bother with all this hydrogen problems, then simply overbuilding solar and wind like crazy? It does my matter how cheap you think hydrogen is, it doesn’t produce electricity at the end of the process cheaper than what went in. Hydrogen can be made from water. But not for anywhere near the prices you discuss. Again, this is predatory detail by the fossil fuel companies. As long as they can make people believe that eventually green hydrogen will be cheap, they can build out their methane- based hydrogen infrastructure. Go read some sources which do not have a direct conflict of interest in hydrogen: https://h2sciencecoalition.com/ https://h2sciencecoalition.com/
- _hypx 3y ago
  You are just showing more of your backwards thinking and closemindedness. For starters, most hydrogen today is made from natural gas, so all infrastructure is just natural gas based. If there was a vast source of hydrogen, it will switch over to hydrogen infrastructure. This story resembles the rise of LNG and how people dismissed it as impossible for multiple years. Negative prices literally create the very incentive for cheap green hydrogen. Your dreams of overbuilding wind and solar makes this even more self-evident that green hydrogen will be nearly free. Seriously, your whole plan is to waste the vast majority of green energy, while simultaneous denying the possibility of any method of utilizing it. It is pure self-contradiction. Again, virtually free electricity will imply virtually free hydrogen made from it once it reaches mass production. This is so obvious that only people brainwashed by BEV propaganda can refuse to accept it. PS: H2 Science Coalition is a anti-hydrogen propaganda organization. It only exists to spread FUD about it.
  - _aavaa_ 3y ago
    The only close mindedness going around is your apperant fixation on Hydrogen as a goal in and of itself, rather than on producing and providng clean energy. You are seeing what you want to see. And what I see is someone showing a complete lack of knowledge about material science. > If there was a vast source of hydrogen, it will switch over to hydrogen infrastructure. The existing natural gas infrastructure will not simply "switch over" because it fundamentally is incapable of safely transporting hydrogen. You need different material properties in your metal to handle hydrogen (see hydrogen embritlement as one reason), to say nothing of the other equipment involved. These cannot be "switched over", they must be completely replaced. This in fact is the thinking that's backwards: continue to think about chemical energy carriers and moving them around in pipes. This made sense when we started with chemicals (fossil fuels), but it makes no sense when our starting point is electricity. Simply store and more that electriicty around. > Negative prices literally create the very incentive for cheap green hydrogen. > Again, virtually free electricity will imply virtually free hydrogen made from it once it reaches mass production. No it won't. It doesn't matter how many times you say it. Further, if you're buying electricity for a negative price, you're getting it from a coal/gas plant which is decidedly not green. Or if you're lucky from a nuclear plant. Very cheap electricity is a necessary condition for cheap green hydrogen, not an incentive for it. Again, cheap is not free, and at the energy requirements needed per kg of H2, even cheap adds up quickly. Further, the equipment to produce, store, and transport it are not cheap, and are certainly not free. > Seriously, your whole plan is to waste the vast majority of green energy, while simultaneous denying the possibility of any method of utilizing it. It is pure self-contradiction. All together now: the sun shines and wind blows even if you turn off your solar panels and wind turbines. Nothing is wasted. > anti-hydrogen propaganda organization. It only exists to spread FUD about it. Again, see my point about being fixated on Hydrogen as the goal rather than the means. You can label criticism as FUD but it won't make it any less true. As for the H2 Science Coalition, they clearly are not. They are very clear that hydrogen has it's uses (and its own major decarbonization problems). But that it's simply very poorly suited to be "an energy carrier".

by _hypx 3y ago

_aavaa_ 3y ago

Pure fantasy. Look at how people use hydrogen now, all 90 million tones a year. Do they produce it at central facility where economies of scale help them? No. They all produce it in small and expensive plants less than a 1km from where it’s used. Strange. Perhaps they simply haven’t heard the good word. Negative prices exist because power plants cannot curb their production quickly enough to match falling demand. These are not a thing for solar and wind operations since you can shut them off much faster. If their electricity is soo incredibly cheap, why in the world would we bother with all this hydrogen problems, then simply overbuilding solar and wind like crazy? It does my matter how cheap you think hydrogen is, it doesn’t produce electricity at the end of the process cheaper than what went in. Hydrogen can be made from water. But not for anywhere near the prices you discuss. Again, this is predatory detail by the fossil fuel companies. As long as they can make people believe that eventually green hydrogen will be cheap, they can build out their methane- based hydrogen infrastructure. Go read some sources which do not have a direct conflict of interest in hydrogen: https://h2sciencecoalition.com/ https://h2sciencecoalition.com/

_hypx 3y ago
You are just showing more of your backwards thinking and closemindedness. For starters, most hydrogen today is made from natural gas, so all infrastructure is just natural gas based. If there was a vast source of hydrogen, it will switch over to hydrogen infrastructure. This story resembles the rise of LNG and how people dismissed it as impossible for multiple years. Negative prices literally create the very incentive for cheap green hydrogen. Your dreams of overbuilding wind and solar makes this even more self-evident that green hydrogen will be nearly free. Seriously, your whole plan is to waste the vast majority of green energy, while simultaneous denying the possibility of any method of utilizing it. It is pure self-contradiction. Again, virtually free electricity will imply virtually free hydrogen made from it once it reaches mass production. This is so obvious that only people brainwashed by BEV propaganda can refuse to accept it. PS: H2 Science Coalition is a anti-hydrogen propaganda organization. It only exists to spread FUD about it.
- _aavaa_ 3y ago
  The only close mindedness going around is your apperant fixation on Hydrogen as a goal in and of itself, rather than on producing and providng clean energy. You are seeing what you want to see. And what I see is someone showing a complete lack of knowledge about material science. > If there was a vast source of hydrogen, it will switch over to hydrogen infrastructure. The existing natural gas infrastructure will not simply "switch over" because it fundamentally is incapable of safely transporting hydrogen. You need different material properties in your metal to handle hydrogen (see hydrogen embritlement as one reason), to say nothing of the other equipment involved. These cannot be "switched over", they must be completely replaced. This in fact is the thinking that's backwards: continue to think about chemical energy carriers and moving them around in pipes. This made sense when we started with chemicals (fossil fuels), but it makes no sense when our starting point is electricity. Simply store and more that electriicty around. > Negative prices literally create the very incentive for cheap green hydrogen. > Again, virtually free electricity will imply virtually free hydrogen made from it once it reaches mass production. No it won't. It doesn't matter how many times you say it. Further, if you're buying electricity for a negative price, you're getting it from a coal/gas plant which is decidedly not green. Or if you're lucky from a nuclear plant. Very cheap electricity is a necessary condition for cheap green hydrogen, not an incentive for it. Again, cheap is not free, and at the energy requirements needed per kg of H2, even cheap adds up quickly. Further, the equipment to produce, store, and transport it are not cheap, and are certainly not free. > Seriously, your whole plan is to waste the vast majority of green energy, while simultaneous denying the possibility of any method of utilizing it. It is pure self-contradiction. All together now: the sun shines and wind blows even if you turn off your solar panels and wind turbines. Nothing is wasted. > anti-hydrogen propaganda organization. It only exists to spread FUD about it. Again, see my point about being fixated on Hydrogen as the goal rather than the means. You can label criticism as FUD but it won't make it any less true. As for the H2 Science Coalition, they clearly are not. They are very clear that hydrogen has it's uses (and its own major decarbonization problems). But that it's simply very poorly suited to be "an energy carrier".