3 ms·
> why not just use hydrogen directly and skip the inefficiency and cost of direct air capture of CO2 and of making methane? Because hydrogen sucks. Specifical
by outworlder 3y ago
> why not just use hydrogen directly and skip the inefficiency and cost of direct air capture of CO2 and of making methane?
Because hydrogen sucks. Specifically, storing it sucks.
You'll either compress or liquefy. That costs energy. It leaks and embrittles containers. One of the best ways of storing it in a stable manner is to combine with carbon atoms. Voila, natural gas.
- pfdietz 3y agoYou repeat some of the anti-hydrogen memes. Hydrogen is actually quite storable, certainly much more easily stored than energy in batteries. The cost of underground storage caverns for hydrogen is two orders of magnitude cheaper than the cost of batteries storing the same energy.
- aldonius 3y agoThat's great, but how do I take one of these underground caverns around with me? :P More seriously, I'm sure hydrogen will make a valuable contribution to the stationary grid-level energy storage situation. I'm not convinced about other applications.
- pfdietz 3y agoYou don't, just as you don't take massive takes of compressed methane around with you (I know about CNG cars; they're not competitive with BEVs or liquid fueled cars.) Methane and hydrogen are competing in stationary applications.
- woeirua 3y agoGuess what the cost of an underground storage cavity is for natural gas? Very cheap, because they're everywhere.
- pfdietz 3y agoYes, but hydrogen has the advantage of not requiring CO2 to either be acquired or recovered.