4 ms·

Or, just use the hydrogen as-is Or, just use the solar electricity as-is. I understand the energy storage aspect here but it comes at a high cost. One batter

Or, just use the hydrogen as-is Or, just use the solar electricity as-is. I understand the energy storage aspect here but it comes at a high cost. One battery breakthrough will obsolete this entire process. Lots of time and money is being devoted to new battery technology --- very little to this. This effectively looks like a long shot effort to salvage the internal combustion engine.

ClumsyPilot 3y ago
> One battery breakthrough will obsolete this entire process Certainly, in year 2060 when it's too late. I can't help thinking that peolle who believe in Rapture have a similar thought process - if you are holding out for a miracle, it doesn't make sence to put in effort now
- jqpabc123 3y ago
  Certainly, in year 2060 when it's too late So when will this hydrogen thingy will be ready and economically viable? Don't look now but you might have just as big (if not bigger) case of religion.
  - qwytw 3y ago
    So investing it both would be the beast approach (using a ratio based cost effectiveness, viability etc. estimate)?
    - jqpabc123 3y ago
      using a ratio based cost effectiveness, viability etc. estimate Isn't this sorta how the "free market" works? People/corporations invest money based on their judgement of viability, effectiveness, etc.. Right now, the majority of the collective mind trust is betting on new battery technology. But feel free to convince them otherwise.
      - pfdietz 3y ago
        It's not as if two different storage modes, with different characteristics, cannot coexist. Batteries are short term storage; hydrogen is long term. They complement each other.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    Hydrogen geberation physically exists and works today, the cost at scale is somewhat in questions Mystery batteries that are cheaper than todays batteries do not exist even in a lab
    - jqpabc123 3y ago
      cost at scale is somewhat in questions In other words, it is not economically viable for anything beyond niche applications. Hydrogen is not a fuel. It readily reacts and forms strong chemical bonds with *everything*. It can be manufactured but not without the overall process being energy negative --- a net consumer of energy. Not many applications can realistically absorb this cost.
      - pfdietz 3y ago
        Of course hydrogen is a fuel. The implication you are trying to make there, that hydrogen is useless because its manufacture does not violate conservation of energy, is ridiculous.
benj111 3y ago
>One battery breakthrough will obsolete this Maybe this is the battery breakthrough. Further gas storage of energy is cheaper than battery storage (with a fixed cost for actually burning the stuff) Are batteries ever going to get to the point of being viable for storing a week's worth of energy? A month's worth? In a lot of the world that's what you'll need to do. Solar isn't going to cover that European January where there's no wind.
- awestroke 3y ago
  Hydrogen storage is hard to do cheaply
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    The cost of an underground cavern for hydrogen storage is as little as $1 per kWh of storage capacity. So in an application where the charge/discharge power is small compared to the amount of energy you want to store, hydrogen will be among the cheapest storage options, far better than batteries.
- suoduandao3 3y ago
  Methane storage is cheaper than batteries, but hydrogen molecules are so small that the cost of storing it is actually pretty high.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    The cost of capturing the carbon to make the methane ruins your idea.
    - suoduandao3 3y ago
      not my idea, I prefer batteries. But Methane storage would be above hydrogen storage in my hierarchy of things I'd allocate capital to. I can see why I sounded in favour of methane over batteries but I was just acknowledging the OP's point about dollers/joule stored. Batteries have plenty of other advantages that I think put them ahead despite that figure.
pfdietz 3y ago
> One battery breakthrough will obsolete this entire process. Not for rare outage backup or seasonal storage. Batteries would have to improve by two orders of magnitude in cost to achieve that.

ClumsyPilot 3y ago

> One battery breakthrough will obsolete this entire process Certainly, in year 2060 when it's too late. I can't help thinking that peolle who believe in Rapture have a similar thought process - if you are holding out for a miracle, it doesn't make sence to put in effort now

jqpabc123 3y ago
Certainly, in year 2060 when it's too late So when will this hydrogen thingy will be ready and economically viable? Don't look now but you might have just as big (if not bigger) case of religion.
- qwytw 3y ago
  So investing it both would be the beast approach (using a ratio based cost effectiveness, viability etc. estimate)?
  - jqpabc123 3y ago
    using a ratio based cost effectiveness, viability etc. estimate Isn't this sorta how the "free market" works? People/corporations invest money based on their judgement of viability, effectiveness, etc.. Right now, the majority of the collective mind trust is betting on new battery technology. But feel free to convince them otherwise.
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      It's not as if two different storage modes, with different characteristics, cannot coexist. Batteries are short term storage; hydrogen is long term. They complement each other.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  Hydrogen geberation physically exists and works today, the cost at scale is somewhat in questions Mystery batteries that are cheaper than todays batteries do not exist even in a lab
  - jqpabc123 3y ago
    cost at scale is somewhat in questions In other words, it is not economically viable for anything beyond niche applications. Hydrogen is not a fuel. It readily reacts and forms strong chemical bonds with *everything*. It can be manufactured but not without the overall process being energy negative --- a net consumer of energy. Not many applications can realistically absorb this cost.
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      Of course hydrogen is a fuel. The implication you are trying to make there, that hydrogen is useless because its manufacture does not violate conservation of energy, is ridiculous.

benj111 3y ago

>One battery breakthrough will obsolete this Maybe this is the battery breakthrough. Further gas storage of energy is cheaper than battery storage (with a fixed cost for actually burning the stuff) Are batteries ever going to get to the point of being viable for storing a week's worth of energy? A month's worth? In a lot of the world that's what you'll need to do. Solar isn't going to cover that European January where there's no wind.

awestroke 3y ago
Hydrogen storage is hard to do cheaply
- pfdietz 3y ago
  The cost of an underground cavern for hydrogen storage is as little as $1 per kWh of storage capacity. So in an application where the charge/discharge power is small compared to the amount of energy you want to store, hydrogen will be among the cheapest storage options, far better than batteries.
suoduandao3 3y ago
Methane storage is cheaper than batteries, but hydrogen molecules are so small that the cost of storing it is actually pretty high.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  The cost of capturing the carbon to make the methane ruins your idea.
  - suoduandao3 3y ago
    not my idea, I prefer batteries. But Methane storage would be above hydrogen storage in my hierarchy of things I'd allocate capital to. I can see why I sounded in favour of methane over batteries but I was just acknowledging the OP's point about dollers/joule stored. Batteries have plenty of other advantages that I think put them ahead despite that figure.

pfdietz 3y ago

> One battery breakthrough will obsolete this entire process. Not for rare outage backup or seasonal storage. Batteries would have to improve by two orders of magnitude in cost to achieve that.