13 ms·

Well even engineers can have seriously incorrect understanding of an issue, especially if it is many years out of date. You’re argument seems to be based aroun

by _hypx 3y ago

Well even engineers can have seriously incorrect understanding of an issue, especially if it is many years out of date. You’re argument seems to be based around economically feasibility, not technical issues, right? So then you will also agree that if green hydrogen radically dropped in cost, then you will agree that it will become a viable solution? Furthermore there will be subsidies going on, that will accelerate the process. In fact, the problem might be that a combination of subsidies and cost reductions will drive the price to below $0/kg, causing market confusion: https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/energy-transition/092922-us-green-hydrogen-costs-to-reach-sub-zero-under-ira-longer-term-price-impacts-remain-uncertain https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insight... That would be an interesting outcome and it will be interest to see how it ends up. But nevertheless, super-cheap green hydrogen should quickly refute the major arguments used against it. It is a process that mirrors what happened to wind and solar energy. They too have years of FUD followed by many skeptics who denied the possibility of cheap renewable energy. But that skepticism simply fell apart because basic economics overrule outdated opinions.

lll-o-lll 3y ago
> You’re argument seems to be based around economically feasibility, not technical issues, right? Economic feasibility due to engineering problems. Just because something can be done in a lab does not mean it can be done at scale. As an example, Musk with his stupid hyper-loop. Sure it is technically possible to evacuate a tube and send a vehicle through it at high speeds. It will never be economically feasible, however. Sometimes the engineers just have to say “not going to work” to an otherwise cool idea. It’s not the cost of hydrogen production. It’s the engineering problems that pervade the rest of the handling, storage and distribution of hydrogen that look to be insurmountable.
- _hypx 3y ago
  > Economic feasibility due to engineering problems. The question then becomes, who's actually saying this? It's certainly not real engineers. In fact, real engineers have pointed out that it is much cheaper to distribute hydrogen than electricity: >BRINK: How do you move the hydrogen from the solar farms? > 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. https://www.brinknews.com/could-hydrogen-replace-the-need-for-an-electric-grid/ https://www.brinknews.com/could-hydrogen-replace-the-need-fo... And all of this is happening under the auspices of effectively free hydrogen due to a combination of subsidies and cost reduction. This should really raise the question of how any of the alternative ideas are going to compete with this, not how whether this idea can work.
  - lll-o-lll 3y ago
    > The question then becomes, who's actually saying this? It's certainly not real engineers. In fact, real engineers have pointed out that it is much cheaper to distribute hydrogen than electricity: I struggle to understand why you would say this. Here is one example. Paul Martin is a Chemical Engineer (that’s the right kind of engineering to talk about this topic). https://www.resilience.org/stories/2023-03-31/paul-martin-hydrogen-the-decarbonization-problem/ https://www.resilience.org/stories/2023-03-31/paul-martin-hy... If you actually take off the “hopium” goggles and critically evaluate the problems, I think the truth is the hydrogen solution is not only unsolved it also probably can’t be solved.
    - _hypx 3y ago
      Paul Martin is not a valid authority on this. He is a known anti-hydrogen skeptic and had made many nonsensical claims about hydrogen. The most notable is perhaps his limited understanding of how fuel cells work, and his claim that fuel cells can never dramatically exceed the efficiency of diesel engines. This is false, as fuel cells are electrochemical systems that do not follow Carnot's theorem. Which is to say that it is fully possible to build a fuel cell that greatly exceeds the efficiency of diesel engines. Not to mention that most of his claims are from some years ago, and are becoming obsolete even if they were true. He has not commented on (AFAIK) about the effects of subsidies nor admitted that costs are dropping rapidly. He just sounds like another anti-renewable skeptic similar to those that criticized wind and solar. It's worth mentioning that all of them are similar in a way: Old, retired or nearly retired, and usually coming from in the fossil fuel industry. And yes, Martin is from the fossil fuel industry, and has no experience with hydrogen beyond its existence as a feedstock for oil refining. He has never had any experience with modern hydrogen-related facilities, equipment and concepts. Engineers that actually do have experiences with those area do not agree with Paul Martin. So there are alternative viewpoints from knowledgeable people. You can look at recent statements by BMW and Bosch, including what their engineers have said. They are clearly believers of the idea: https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2022/09/01/bmw-bosch-announce-hydrogen-fuel-cell-production-plans/ https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2022/09/01/bmw-bosch-anno...

by _hypx 3y ago

lll-o-lll 3y ago

> You’re argument seems to be based around economically feasibility, not technical issues, right? Economic feasibility due to engineering problems. Just because something can be done in a lab does not mean it can be done at scale. As an example, Musk with his stupid hyper-loop. Sure it is technically possible to evacuate a tube and send a vehicle through it at high speeds. It will never be economically feasible, however. Sometimes the engineers just have to say “not going to work” to an otherwise cool idea. It’s not the cost of hydrogen production. It’s the engineering problems that pervade the rest of the handling, storage and distribution of hydrogen that look to be insurmountable.

_hypx 3y ago
> Economic feasibility due to engineering problems. The question then becomes, who's actually saying this? It's certainly not real engineers. In fact, real engineers have pointed out that it is much cheaper to distribute hydrogen than electricity: >BRINK: How do you move the hydrogen from the solar farms? > 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. https://www.brinknews.com/could-hydrogen-replace-the-need-for-an-electric-grid/ https://www.brinknews.com/could-hydrogen-replace-the-need-fo... And all of this is happening under the auspices of effectively free hydrogen due to a combination of subsidies and cost reduction. This should really raise the question of how any of the alternative ideas are going to compete with this, not how whether this idea can work.
- lll-o-lll 3y ago
  > The question then becomes, who's actually saying this? It's certainly not real engineers. In fact, real engineers have pointed out that it is much cheaper to distribute hydrogen than electricity: I struggle to understand why you would say this. Here is one example. Paul Martin is a Chemical Engineer (that’s the right kind of engineering to talk about this topic). https://www.resilience.org/stories/2023-03-31/paul-martin-hydrogen-the-decarbonization-problem/ https://www.resilience.org/stories/2023-03-31/paul-martin-hy... If you actually take off the “hopium” goggles and critically evaluate the problems, I think the truth is the hydrogen solution is not only unsolved it also probably can’t be solved.
  - _hypx 3y ago
    Paul Martin is not a valid authority on this. He is a known anti-hydrogen skeptic and had made many nonsensical claims about hydrogen. The most notable is perhaps his limited understanding of how fuel cells work, and his claim that fuel cells can never dramatically exceed the efficiency of diesel engines. This is false, as fuel cells are electrochemical systems that do not follow Carnot's theorem. Which is to say that it is fully possible to build a fuel cell that greatly exceeds the efficiency of diesel engines. Not to mention that most of his claims are from some years ago, and are becoming obsolete even if they were true. He has not commented on (AFAIK) about the effects of subsidies nor admitted that costs are dropping rapidly. He just sounds like another anti-renewable skeptic similar to those that criticized wind and solar. It's worth mentioning that all of them are similar in a way: Old, retired or nearly retired, and usually coming from in the fossil fuel industry. And yes, Martin is from the fossil fuel industry, and has no experience with hydrogen beyond its existence as a feedstock for oil refining. He has never had any experience with modern hydrogen-related facilities, equipment and concepts. Engineers that actually do have experiences with those area do not agree with Paul Martin. So there are alternative viewpoints from knowledgeable people. You can look at recent statements by BMW and Bosch, including what their engineers have said. They are clearly believers of the idea: https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2022/09/01/bmw-bosch-announce-hydrogen-fuel-cell-production-plans/ https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2022/09/01/bmw-bosch-anno...