5 ms·

This "race" is being fueled by oil giants who can reuse much of their infrastructure. The extraction of hydrogen is environmentally destructive just as it is fo

This "race" is being fueled by oil giants who can reuse much of their infrastructure. The extraction of hydrogen is environmentally destructive just as it is for natural gas. The energy required for extraction is intensive, resulting in far overhyped claims of how clean hydrogen is as a fuel (this is "blue hydrogen", the kind most monied interests are pursuing). There is "green hydrogen" built from splitting water molecules, but that's only a clean energy if the energy we use to split the water molecules is itself clean. Hydrogen is not a path to clean energy, it's a sideshow for an ostensibly-but-not-in-fact clean energy alternative by the oil and gas industry.

rini17 2y ago
OK so where is the path? Electrification of everything requires at least 2x more copper than we have in circulation (official IEA estimate), while all existing/planned mines only produce very low grade ore. So the mining will result in environmental destruction either, or won't happen at all due to local resistance. If this can be alleviated by reusing some oil infra for hydrogen, is that really so evil? Whether it is actually possible and not just gaslighting like promises of plastics recycling, that's another question. Hydrogen has different properties, requires different materials and lower energy density than gas.
- j4mie 2y ago
  Do you have a source for your statement about copper? The closest I can find is [1] "The expansion of electricity networks means that copper demand for grid lines more than doubles over the same period". That's a doubling of demand, not of total current circulation. [1] https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions/executive-summary https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in...
  - rini17 2y ago
    Sorry not in circulation, my bad. The discrepance between required(for net zero) and planned mining is still worrying. Other metals like cobalt can be substituted by something else but not copper. https://www.iea.org/reports/copper https://www.iea.org/reports/copper
- gadders 2y ago
  There currently isn't one that doesn't cause wrecking economies. But that doesn't matter because if you wreck your economy and crater your GDP the economy becomes more green because you are doing less. /s
542354234235 2y ago
>Hydrogen is not a path to clean energy I agree for blue hydrogen, but for green I think that depends on what/how you use it. WE have two current problems that lend themselves to green hydrogen. The problem of de-carbonizing heavy transport and the problem of energy storage as more energy is coming from variable renewable sources. Creating green hydrogen at times of excess power generation, instead of load shedding or attempting large scale battery storage, and using it to fuel long haul trucking or trains would help solve both issues. Hydrogen powered vehicles don’t work for personal vehicles, since there is no infrastructure for convenient refilling, but the logistics of heavy transport already have central hubs where hydrogen stations could be installed.
gadders 2y ago
It could be part of incremental steps, rather than trying to speed run from Oil and Natural Gas to Solar and Wind before it is ready.
ViewTrick1002 2y ago
The Hydrogen Ladder by Michael Liebreich is a good take on it. For must use cases Hydrogen is overhyped by the fossil industry. But for some use cases like fertilizer and fuel for jet aviation and ocean going shipping it is the only realistic pathway we see today. Now that renewables deliver cheap energy it is time to spend the big bucks to enabling the decarbonization of the use cases not solved by batteries. https://mliebreich.substack.com/p/hydrogen-ladder-version-50 https://mliebreich.substack.com/p/hydrogen-ladder-version-50
- user_7832 2y ago
  How credible is this gentleman’s experience? He says: > Anything with a piston currently, plus a whole new slew of VTOLs and STOL aircraft, will go electric, so Light Aviation remains way down the ladder on Row F. From all that I have heard from aviators as well as manufacturer side, electric crafts seem highly unlikely beyond small/unmanned vehicles or research prototypes. As much as I would love electric planes, I wonder what’s the veracity of his data (or expertise).
Kon5ole 2y ago
Of course it is a path to clean energy. It's basically a perfect solution if you consider the whole cycle. We have increasingly longer periods of surplus electricity from solar and wind. So much so that getting rid of the surplus is a growing problem! Splitting water to hydrogen using this surplus electricity would basically be "free energy" that can be stored for years. And when you consume it, the emissions are clean water! Sunshine becomes free energy and clean water. What could possibly compete with that? I believe the main problem is that it will disrupt the current revenue structures in the energy industry, which makes it hard to get the ball rolling. Anyone currently making money from selling electricity will lose if it gets cheaper, and hydrogen can only make it cheaper.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- HelloMcFly 2y ago
  > Splitting water to hydrogen using this surplus electricity would basically be "free energy" that can be stored for years. If we're using renewables to generate the hydrogen then I 100% agree. We probably won't be doing that though, and that certainly isn't what the Oil & Gas industry, the proponents behind hydrogen's push into the mass market, are trying to accomplish.
- pjc50 2y ago
  Important problem: the equipment used to do the splitting is not free. For the platinum catalyst process it's quite expensive. The alkaline is cheaper, but you've still got a lot of chemical plant to have around. This has a capital cost, as well as all the permitting and staffing and safety around handling explosive gases. What do you do with the spare oxygen? Obviously when you have more than you can sell you dump it back in the atmosphere, but you have to be careful with the dilution because pure oxygen is an extreme fire hazard. I'm not sure we're ever going to see cheap hydrogen.
GlibMonkeyDeath 2y ago
Indeed I agree with everything you said, although permit me to clarify one thing: "reuse much of their infrastructure" Despite the rosy predictions of the gas companies, I doubt this is true in practice for most existing natural gas pipelines. https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/can-we-use-pipelines-and-power-plants-we-have-now-transport-and-burn-hydrogen-or-do-we-need https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/can-we-use-pipelines-and-pow... I used to do experiments with high-pressure hydrogen. It is a lot harder to get leak-free seals, and hydrogen is so small it can actually penetrate certain metals leading to embrittlement. The nice mercaptan we use so humans can sensitively detect leaks with their noses also won't be as effective any more (it's way too big.) I am not aware of a substitute. Mass-scale deployment of hydrogen is just not going to happen.
- jfengel 2y ago
  Isn't mercaptan also much bigger than methane? Do we not have similar issues with natural gas, with gas escaping though holes that mercaptan can't?
  - GlibMonkeyDeath 2y ago
    Methyl mercaptan is slightly larger, but H2 is way smaller than either methane or methanethiol
2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
> oil giants who can reuse much of their infrastructure. Sounds like a good thing?
tim333 2y ago
> this is "blue hydrogen" I think in most definitions blue hydrogen that is produced from natural gas and carbon captured and stored, which is a bit iffy. The hydrogen they are talking about in the article gets called white hydrogen - natural hydrogen found in the ground. It's probably a good thing if they can find lots.

rini17 2y ago

OK so where is the path? Electrification of everything requires at least 2x more copper than we have in circulation (official IEA estimate), while all existing/planned mines only produce very low grade ore. So the mining will result in environmental destruction either, or won't happen at all due to local resistance. If this can be alleviated by reusing some oil infra for hydrogen, is that really so evil? Whether it is actually possible and not just gaslighting like promises of plastics recycling, that's another question. Hydrogen has different properties, requires different materials and lower energy density than gas.

j4mie 2y ago
Do you have a source for your statement about copper? The closest I can find is [1] "The expansion of electricity networks means that copper demand for grid lines more than doubles over the same period". That's a doubling of demand, not of total current circulation. [1] https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions/executive-summary https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in...
- rini17 2y ago
  Sorry not in circulation, my bad. The discrepance between required(for net zero) and planned mining is still worrying. Other metals like cobalt can be substituted by something else but not copper. https://www.iea.org/reports/copper https://www.iea.org/reports/copper
gadders 2y ago
There currently isn't one that doesn't cause wrecking economies. But that doesn't matter because if you wreck your economy and crater your GDP the economy becomes more green because you are doing less. /s

542354234235 2y ago

>Hydrogen is not a path to clean energy I agree for blue hydrogen, but for green I think that depends on what/how you use it. WE have two current problems that lend themselves to green hydrogen. The problem of de-carbonizing heavy transport and the problem of energy storage as more energy is coming from variable renewable sources. Creating green hydrogen at times of excess power generation, instead of load shedding or attempting large scale battery storage, and using it to fuel long haul trucking or trains would help solve both issues. Hydrogen powered vehicles don’t work for personal vehicles, since there is no infrastructure for convenient refilling, but the logistics of heavy transport already have central hubs where hydrogen stations could be installed.

gadders 2y ago

It could be part of incremental steps, rather than trying to speed run from Oil and Natural Gas to Solar and Wind before it is ready.

ViewTrick1002 2y ago

The Hydrogen Ladder by Michael Liebreich is a good take on it. For must use cases Hydrogen is overhyped by the fossil industry. But for some use cases like fertilizer and fuel for jet aviation and ocean going shipping it is the only realistic pathway we see today. Now that renewables deliver cheap energy it is time to spend the big bucks to enabling the decarbonization of the use cases not solved by batteries. https://mliebreich.substack.com/p/hydrogen-ladder-version-50 https://mliebreich.substack.com/p/hydrogen-ladder-version-50

user_7832 2y ago
How credible is this gentleman’s experience? He says: > Anything with a piston currently, plus a whole new slew of VTOLs and STOL aircraft, will go electric, so Light Aviation remains way down the ladder on Row F. From all that I have heard from aviators as well as manufacturer side, electric crafts seem highly unlikely beyond small/unmanned vehicles or research prototypes. As much as I would love electric planes, I wonder what’s the veracity of his data (or expertise).

Kon5ole 2y ago

Of course it is a path to clean energy. It's basically a perfect solution if you consider the whole cycle. We have increasingly longer periods of surplus electricity from solar and wind. So much so that getting rid of the surplus is a growing problem! Splitting water to hydrogen using this surplus electricity would basically be "free energy" that can be stored for years. And when you consume it, the emissions are clean water! Sunshine becomes free energy and clean water. What could possibly compete with that? I believe the main problem is that it will disrupt the current revenue structures in the energy industry, which makes it hard to get the ball rolling. Anyone currently making money from selling electricity will lose if it gets cheaper, and hydrogen can only make it cheaper.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
HelloMcFly 2y ago
> Splitting water to hydrogen using this surplus electricity would basically be "free energy" that can be stored for years. If we're using renewables to generate the hydrogen then I 100% agree. We probably won't be doing that though, and that certainly isn't what the Oil & Gas industry, the proponents behind hydrogen's push into the mass market, are trying to accomplish.
pjc50 2y ago
Important problem: the equipment used to do the splitting is not free. For the platinum catalyst process it's quite expensive. The alkaline is cheaper, but you've still got a lot of chemical plant to have around. This has a capital cost, as well as all the permitting and staffing and safety around handling explosive gases. What do you do with the spare oxygen? Obviously when you have more than you can sell you dump it back in the atmosphere, but you have to be careful with the dilution because pure oxygen is an extreme fire hazard. I'm not sure we're ever going to see cheap hydrogen.

GlibMonkeyDeath 2y ago

Indeed I agree with everything you said, although permit me to clarify one thing: "reuse much of their infrastructure" Despite the rosy predictions of the gas companies, I doubt this is true in practice for most existing natural gas pipelines. https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/can-we-use-pipelines-and-power-plants-we-have-now-transport-and-burn-hydrogen-or-do-we-need https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/can-we-use-pipelines-and-pow... I used to do experiments with high-pressure hydrogen. It is a lot harder to get leak-free seals, and hydrogen is so small it can actually penetrate certain metals leading to embrittlement. The nice mercaptan we use so humans can sensitively detect leaks with their noses also won't be as effective any more (it's way too big.) I am not aware of a substitute. Mass-scale deployment of hydrogen is just not going to happen.

jfengel 2y ago
Isn't mercaptan also much bigger than methane? Do we not have similar issues with natural gas, with gas escaping though holes that mercaptan can't?
- GlibMonkeyDeath 2y ago
  Methyl mercaptan is slightly larger, but H2 is way smaller than either methane or methanethiol

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago

> oil giants who can reuse much of their infrastructure. Sounds like a good thing?

tim333 2y ago

> this is "blue hydrogen" I think in most definitions blue hydrogen that is produced from natural gas and carbon captured and stored, which is a bit iffy. The hydrogen they are talking about in the article gets called white hydrogen - natural hydrogen found in the ground. It's probably a good thing if they can find lots.