5 ms·

People looked at how the cost of wind and solar went down and made a assumption that green hydrogen would follow. The reasoning was that the cost of green hydro

by belorn 8mo ago

People looked at how the cost of wind and solar went down and made a assumption that green hydrogen would follow. The reasoning was that the cost of green hydrogen was energy, and thus at some point green hydrogen would be too cheap to meter. The whole energy plan of central/northen Europe, especially Germany, was built for the last several decades on the idea that they would combine wind, solar and cheap natural gas and then replace the natural gas part with green hydrogen. In Sweden there were even several municipalities that spear headed this by switching mass transportation and heating towards hydrogen, initially with hydrogen produced through natural gas, as a way to get ahead on this plan. The more sensible project were the green steel project. As experts in green hydrogen said consistently said through those decades, is that green steel would be the real test to make green hydrogen economical. The economics of burning it for energy or transportation would come several decades later, if ever. The green steel project however has not ended up as planned and gotten severely delayed and has seen a cost increase by an estimated 10x. municipalities are now giving up the hydrogen infrastructure and giving it an early retirement, as maintenance costs was significantly underestimated. There is very little talk now about replacing natural gas with green hydrogen, and the new plan is instead to replace the natural gas with bio fuels, hinted at carbon capture, at some unspecified time.

aunty_helen 8mo ago
Good context. It's a shame none of these people did high school chemistry. I do remember there being some news about the steel manf. I wonder if further advancements in rocketry are adding H2 tech that could help us manage the difficulties of dealing with the stuff. It still only makes sense in very specific circumstances. Like when you need energy in tank form. But I think battery / biofuel is the future.
throwaway473825 8mo ago
Sweden has very little natural gas in its energy mix: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?stackMode=absolute&country=~SWE https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-sou... I highly doubt that hydrogen heating was ever considered. It's usually pushed by the gas lobby (since most hydrogen comes from gas), and Sweden doesn't have a strong gas lobby.
- belorn 8mo ago
  Most of the current energy production in Sweden was built starting 50 years ago, which can be seen in the graph. Since the early 1990s the combination of hydro power and nuclear has had an almost static production rate, and hydro power in particular has been maxed out. Oil was and is still used as the reserve energy, through new plants currently being built are based on natural gas rather than oil. The political statement is that the goal is that bio fuels should be used, but that the mix will be based on the market and the economical viability of different compatible fuels. The green party has been pushing the green hydrogen goals for decades. Use google translate on https://www.mp.se/politik/energi/ https://www.mp.se/politik/energi/ or look at archive.org for historical goals. https://www.mp.se/just-nu/mer-el-och-gron-baskraft/ https://www.mp.se/just-nu/mer-el-och-gron-baskraft/ is more of the same. If you want something more official, here is a discussion within the Swedish government and by the largest political party: https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/webb-tv/video/interpellationsdebatt/ansvarig-myndighet-for-vatgas_hc10138/ https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/webb-tv/video/interpellationsdeb...
jacquesm 8mo ago
That was extremely stupid of them then. Hydrogen has been very good at one thing: subsidy extraction. But I don't think it was or ever will be a viable fuel for planetary transportation.
scraptor 8mo ago
The idea was to transition from coal to natural gas while using solar and wind to reduce fuel consumption, thereby significantly reducing CO2 emissions. Any claims of hydrogen being burned were either lies to the public to get the gas plants built despite the non-green optics or lies to investors as part of a fraud scheme.
- pfdietz 8mo ago
  Hydrogen burning could have a place in an all-renewable grid: it could be much more economical for very long duration storage than using batteries. The last 5-10% of the grid becomes much cheaper to do with renewables if something like hydrogen (or other e-fuels) is available. A competitor that might be even better is very long duration high temperature thermal storage, if capex minimization is the priority.
  - crote 8mo ago
    > it could be much more economical for very long duration storage than using batteries Yes, but that's not the only option you have. With the absolutely awful efficiency of burning hydrogen you'd need to be building a massive amount of additional wind and solar - which in turn means you'll also have additional capacity available during cloudy wind-calm days, which means you'll need to burn substantially less hydrogen to generate power. This leads to the irony that building the power-generation infrastructure for generating enough hydrogen means you won't even need to bother with the hydrogen part: you're basically just building enough solar that their overcast supply is enough to meet the average demand. As a bonus, you've now got a massive oversupply during sunny winter days and even more during summer days, so most of the year electricity will essentially be free.
    - pfdietz 8mo ago
      Efficiency is not very important for very long duration storage. What's important is minimizing cost, which is dominated by capex, not by the cost of the energy used to charge the storage system. Paying more to charge it can make sense if that greatly reduces capex. So, yes, more input energy is needed. So what?
dotancohen 8mo ago
I had to Google what is green hydrogen. It is hydrogen produced by electrolysis. If you've already got the electricity for electrolysis, would it not be more efficient and mechanically simpler to store it in a battery and power an electric motor?
- overfeed 8mo ago
  Before the introduction of 800V charging architectures, long charge-time for EVs was a big con. Hydrogen Cell vehicles were supposed to be EVs with drastically faster fill-up times. The tradeoff was more complex delivery infrastructure.
  - xxs 8mo ago
    Yet, most of the world has had 3 phase (400V phase to phase) for ages. At the wall.
    - overfeed 8mo ago
      I don't know why you prefixed with "Yet" when I clearly spelt out the trade-offs and contrasts in distribution between H2 and electricity. The Mirai goes from empty to full in 5 minutes or less - which compares very well with fossil-fuel burners. Now that every OEM has abandoned battery-swapping, how fast can EV batteries be safely charged with the said 3 phases? How long were the charging time when the Mirai was debuted? That was the trade-off Toyota was hoping to fall on the good side of, nevermind the Japanese government bet on hydrogen and whatever incentives are available for Toyota.
      - xxs 8mo ago
        >with "Yet" when I clearly spelt out the trade-offs It was with regard that 800V was the driving factor, it'd be possible to have 'fast' charging earlier with existing infrastructure, even home. >be safely charged with the said 3 phases? The limiting factor for charging would be charging current in lots of cases. Getting 60% of 75kWh battery, it's 45kWh to charge in 20mins, the output should be ~150kW (90% efficiency) or 325A (on 400v), 4x 12-15mm wires. Note about 'home' charging - three phase 32A is widely available domestically or around 6-8h to fully charge
ACCount37 8mo ago
Agreed on "green steel". In general, "green hydrogen" makes the most sense if used as a chemical feedstock that replace natural gas in industrial processes - not to replace fossil fuels or be burned for heat. On paper, hydrogen has good energy density, but taking advantage of that in truth is notoriously hard. And for things that demand energy dense fuels, there are many less finicky alternatives.
panick21 8mo ago
> , and thus at some point green hydrogen would be too cheap to meter. Even if you assume that is true. It will always be more expensive then straight electricity. > The more sensible project were the green steel project. Not sure I agree. I think Boston Metal solution is better long term carbon free steel solution. > natural gas with bio fuels There was a huge 'bio' fuels hype around like 15-20 years ago if I remember correctly. Huge amount of controversy and false claims with politicians support. Funny how this now comes back again and nothing was learned.

by belorn 8mo ago

aunty_helen 8mo ago

Good context. It's a shame none of these people did high school chemistry. I do remember there being some news about the steel manf. I wonder if further advancements in rocketry are adding H2 tech that could help us manage the difficulties of dealing with the stuff. It still only makes sense in very specific circumstances. Like when you need energy in tank form. But I think battery / biofuel is the future.

throwaway473825 8mo ago

Sweden has very little natural gas in its energy mix: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?stackMode=absolute&country=~SWE https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-sou... I highly doubt that hydrogen heating was ever considered. It's usually pushed by the gas lobby (since most hydrogen comes from gas), and Sweden doesn't have a strong gas lobby.

belorn 8mo ago
Most of the current energy production in Sweden was built starting 50 years ago, which can be seen in the graph. Since the early 1990s the combination of hydro power and nuclear has had an almost static production rate, and hydro power in particular has been maxed out. Oil was and is still used as the reserve energy, through new plants currently being built are based on natural gas rather than oil. The political statement is that the goal is that bio fuels should be used, but that the mix will be based on the market and the economical viability of different compatible fuels. The green party has been pushing the green hydrogen goals for decades. Use google translate on https://www.mp.se/politik/energi/ https://www.mp.se/politik/energi/ or look at archive.org for historical goals. https://www.mp.se/just-nu/mer-el-och-gron-baskraft/ https://www.mp.se/just-nu/mer-el-och-gron-baskraft/ is more of the same. If you want something more official, here is a discussion within the Swedish government and by the largest political party: https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/webb-tv/video/interpellationsdebatt/ansvarig-myndighet-for-vatgas_hc10138/ https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/webb-tv/video/interpellationsdeb...

jacquesm 8mo ago

That was extremely stupid of them then. Hydrogen has been very good at one thing: subsidy extraction. But I don't think it was or ever will be a viable fuel for planetary transportation.

scraptor 8mo ago

The idea was to transition from coal to natural gas while using solar and wind to reduce fuel consumption, thereby significantly reducing CO2 emissions. Any claims of hydrogen being burned were either lies to the public to get the gas plants built despite the non-green optics or lies to investors as part of a fraud scheme.

pfdietz 8mo ago
Hydrogen burning could have a place in an all-renewable grid: it could be much more economical for very long duration storage than using batteries. The last 5-10% of the grid becomes much cheaper to do with renewables if something like hydrogen (or other e-fuels) is available. A competitor that might be even better is very long duration high temperature thermal storage, if capex minimization is the priority.
- crote 8mo ago
  > it could be much more economical for very long duration storage than using batteries Yes, but that's not the only option you have. With the absolutely awful efficiency of burning hydrogen you'd need to be building a massive amount of additional wind and solar - which in turn means you'll also have additional capacity available during cloudy wind-calm days, which means you'll need to burn substantially less hydrogen to generate power. This leads to the irony that building the power-generation infrastructure for generating enough hydrogen means you won't even need to bother with the hydrogen part: you're basically just building enough solar that their overcast supply is enough to meet the average demand. As a bonus, you've now got a massive oversupply during sunny winter days and even more during summer days, so most of the year electricity will essentially be free.
  - pfdietz 8mo ago
    Efficiency is not very important for very long duration storage. What's important is minimizing cost, which is dominated by capex, not by the cost of the energy used to charge the storage system. Paying more to charge it can make sense if that greatly reduces capex. So, yes, more input energy is needed. So what?

dotancohen 8mo ago

I had to Google what is green hydrogen. It is hydrogen produced by electrolysis. If you've already got the electricity for electrolysis, would it not be more efficient and mechanically simpler to store it in a battery and power an electric motor?

overfeed 8mo ago
Before the introduction of 800V charging architectures, long charge-time for EVs was a big con. Hydrogen Cell vehicles were supposed to be EVs with drastically faster fill-up times. The tradeoff was more complex delivery infrastructure.
- xxs 8mo ago
  Yet, most of the world has had 3 phase (400V phase to phase) for ages. At the wall.
  - overfeed 8mo ago
    I don't know why you prefixed with "Yet" when I clearly spelt out the trade-offs and contrasts in distribution between H2 and electricity. The Mirai goes from empty to full in 5 minutes or less - which compares very well with fossil-fuel burners. Now that every OEM has abandoned battery-swapping, how fast can EV batteries be safely charged with the said 3 phases? How long were the charging time when the Mirai was debuted? That was the trade-off Toyota was hoping to fall on the good side of, nevermind the Japanese government bet on hydrogen and whatever incentives are available for Toyota.
    - xxs 8mo ago
      >with "Yet" when I clearly spelt out the trade-offs It was with regard that 800V was the driving factor, it'd be possible to have 'fast' charging earlier with existing infrastructure, even home. >be safely charged with the said 3 phases? The limiting factor for charging would be charging current in lots of cases. Getting 60% of 75kWh battery, it's 45kWh to charge in 20mins, the output should be ~150kW (90% efficiency) or 325A (on 400v), 4x 12-15mm wires. Note about 'home' charging - three phase 32A is widely available domestically or around 6-8h to fully charge

ACCount37 8mo ago

Agreed on "green steel". In general, "green hydrogen" makes the most sense if used as a chemical feedstock that replace natural gas in industrial processes - not to replace fossil fuels or be burned for heat. On paper, hydrogen has good energy density, but taking advantage of that in truth is notoriously hard. And for things that demand energy dense fuels, there are many less finicky alternatives.

panick21 8mo ago

> , and thus at some point green hydrogen would be too cheap to meter. Even if you assume that is true. It will always be more expensive then straight electricity. > The more sensible project were the green steel project. Not sure I agree. I think Boston Metal solution is better long term carbon free steel solution. > natural gas with bio fuels There was a huge 'bio' fuels hype around like 15-20 years ago if I remember correctly. Huge amount of controversy and false claims with politicians support. Funny how this now comes back again and nothing was learned.