'Blue' Hydrogen Is Worse For the Climate Than Coal, Study Says (arstechnica.com) 134
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Most hydrogen today is made by exposing natural gas to high heat, pressure, and steam in a process that creates carbon dioxide as a byproduct. In what's called "gray" hydrogen, all that carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere. In "blue" hydrogen, facilities capture the carbon dioxide and sell it or store it, usually deep underground. Blue hydrogen is viewed by some as a bridge fuel, a way to build the hydrogen economy while waiting for green hydrogen prices to come down. In the meantime, blue hydrogen is also supposed to pollute less than gray hydrogen, natural gas, or other carbon-intensive fuel sources. Except blue hydrogen may not be low-carbon at all, according to a new peer-reviewed study. In fact, the study says the climate may be better off if we just burned coal instead.
There are essentially two ways to make blue hydrogen, and both rely on steam reformation, the process of using high heat, pressure, and steam that cracks methane and water to produce hydrogen and carbon dioxide. For both approaches, carbon dioxide from steam reformation is captured and stored or used. The difference between the two is whether carbon dioxide is captured from the generators that power the steam-reformation and carbon-capture processes. When you add it all up, capturing carbon from all parts of the process -- steam reformation, power supply, and carbon capture -- eliminates just 3 percent of greenhouse gas emissions compared with only capturing carbon from steam reformation. The lowest-carbon blue hydrogen had emissions that were just 12 percent lower than for gray hydrogen. Blue hydrogen's Achilles' heel is the methane used to produce it. Methane is the dominant component of natural gas, and while it burns more cleanly than oil or coal, it's a potent greenhouse gas on its own. Over 20 years, one ton of the stuff warms the atmosphere 86 times more than one ton of carbon dioxide. That means leaks along the supply chain can undo a lot of methane's climate advantages.
In the new study, Robert Howarth and Mark Jacobson, the paper's authors and two well-known climate scientists, assume a leakage rate of 3.5 percent of consumption. They arrived at that number by scouring 21 studies that surveyed the emissions of gas fields, pipelines, and storage facilities using satellites or airplanes. To see how their 3.5 percent rate affected the results, Howarth and Jacobson also ran their models assuming 1.54 percent, 2.54 percent, and 4.3 percent leakage. Those rates are based on EPA estimates at the low end and, at the high end, stable carbon isotope analysis that isolated emissions from shale gas production. No matter which leakage rate they used, blue hydrogen production created more greenhouse gas equivalents than simply burning natural gas. And at the 3.5 percent leakage rate, blue hydrogen was worse for the climate than burning coal. "Combined emissions of carbon dioxide and methane are greater for gray hydrogen and for blue hydrogen (whether or not exhaust flue gases are treated for carbon capture) than for any of the fossil fuels," Howarth and Jacobson wrote. "Methane emissions are a major contributor to this, and methane emissions from both gray and blue hydrogen are larger than for any of the fossil fuels."
There are essentially two ways to make blue hydrogen, and both rely on steam reformation, the process of using high heat, pressure, and steam that cracks methane and water to produce hydrogen and carbon dioxide. For both approaches, carbon dioxide from steam reformation is captured and stored or used. The difference between the two is whether carbon dioxide is captured from the generators that power the steam-reformation and carbon-capture processes. When you add it all up, capturing carbon from all parts of the process -- steam reformation, power supply, and carbon capture -- eliminates just 3 percent of greenhouse gas emissions compared with only capturing carbon from steam reformation. The lowest-carbon blue hydrogen had emissions that were just 12 percent lower than for gray hydrogen. Blue hydrogen's Achilles' heel is the methane used to produce it. Methane is the dominant component of natural gas, and while it burns more cleanly than oil or coal, it's a potent greenhouse gas on its own. Over 20 years, one ton of the stuff warms the atmosphere 86 times more than one ton of carbon dioxide. That means leaks along the supply chain can undo a lot of methane's climate advantages.
In the new study, Robert Howarth and Mark Jacobson, the paper's authors and two well-known climate scientists, assume a leakage rate of 3.5 percent of consumption. They arrived at that number by scouring 21 studies that surveyed the emissions of gas fields, pipelines, and storage facilities using satellites or airplanes. To see how their 3.5 percent rate affected the results, Howarth and Jacobson also ran their models assuming 1.54 percent, 2.54 percent, and 4.3 percent leakage. Those rates are based on EPA estimates at the low end and, at the high end, stable carbon isotope analysis that isolated emissions from shale gas production. No matter which leakage rate they used, blue hydrogen production created more greenhouse gas equivalents than simply burning natural gas. And at the 3.5 percent leakage rate, blue hydrogen was worse for the climate than burning coal. "Combined emissions of carbon dioxide and methane are greater for gray hydrogen and for blue hydrogen (whether or not exhaust flue gases are treated for carbon capture) than for any of the fossil fuels," Howarth and Jacobson wrote. "Methane emissions are a major contributor to this, and methane emissions from both gray and blue hydrogen are larger than for any of the fossil fuels."
Clean coal part deux (Score:5, Insightful)
Brought to you by the marketing departments of biggest oil and gas companies to lobby for yet another pollutant.
Re: (Score:3)
simple.
filtering water from sea water.
filtering hydrogen from water.
using the sun.
and using the wind.
is way to complicated for billionaires.
and that is sad.
this crop of billionaires looked promising
Not complicated, just inefficient (Score:4, Informative)
So starting with a given amount of energy an EV will travel 2-3 times further than a hydrogen powered vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes please buy all the electric cars now until we pollute everything with lithium mining and battery creation, then we will publish the study that says hydrogen is better, then buy all the hydrogen cars.
Profit.
Re: Clean coal part deux (Score:2)
Green hydrogen is also suboptimal (Score:5, Interesting)
If you use electrolysis, it takes about 50 kWh to create 1 kg of hydrogen, and another 15 kWh to compress it to the density you need for mobile applications (700 bar). The Toyota Mirai fuel-cell vehicle uses about 1 kg/100 km. A BMW Hydrogen 7 (with a V12 internal combustion engine) gets around 25 km/kg.
If you use that same 65 kWh to charge an EV, you get 300 km of range. So for many applications, hydrogen doesn't make sense until you have such an abundance of electricity that you don't care about efficiency any more. We're a long way away from that.
It may find niche applications where electric power isn't available or batteries are too heavy, e.g. JCB is working on hydrogen-powered construction machinery.
But that niche will get split further: hydrogen takes up a lot of space, so it's almost unusable for aviation. So that industry will look for other alternatives (synthetic fuels, probably), and that industry is large enough that synthetic fuels might end up being cheaper and more convenient than hydrogen.
Re:Green hydrogen is also suboptimal (Score:4, Interesting)
"So for many applications, hydrogen doesn't make sense until you have such an abundance of electricity that you don't care about efficiency any more."
No, we are not a long way from that. Remember that solar only produces electricity when the sun is shining and wind only produces electricity when the wind is blowing. If you want a very large percent of your electricity produced renewably then you need massive overcapacity of solar and wind generating facilities (this is a cheaper approach than storage which is horribly expensive). Thus if you have massive overcapacity then most of time you are just wasting this overcapacity (losing 100% of the energy is worse than losing 67% of the energy--which you might get with the hydrogen conversion). And note that the media is regularly posting articles that on specific days all of electricity was produced renewably.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There's a machine in your house whose energy supply is very spotty. It only rarely has access to its energy supply, but when it does, it recharges at 2-5 kW depending on model and charging method.
Its idle power consumption is around 75 W, but its demand can spike to 1 kW or more for brief intervals.
Sounds like an engineering nightmare, right? But they work fine than
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Green hydrogen is also suboptimal (Score:4, Informative)
Grid scale storage costs dropped from $2150/kwh in 2015 to $625/kwh in 2018, the last years for which data is available. That company that announced its iron-air battery technology is aiming for $20/kwh and expects to have its first installation operation some time in the next two years.
If that kind of price reduction works out, it'll be a game changer, not just for renewables, but also for nuclear and grid stabilization.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want a very large percent of your electricity produced renewably then you need massive overcapacity of solar and wind generating facilities (this is a cheaper approach than storage which is horribly expensive).
Storage is not expensive, definitely not horribly expensive.
Storage, at present costs, 140 $/kWh is cheaper than building natural gas powered "peaker" powerplant. In seven years storage will be 70 $/kWh. It will stabilize the electricity prices so much, there will be no "spot" market, where prices surge all the way to 9 $/kWh like it did in the Texas grid failure. There will be enough time to assess the demand, send out bids and award contracts. 30 min to 1 hour initially, later days and even possibly week
Re:Green hydrogen is also suboptimal (Score:4, Insightful)
We are already building these natural gas plants to replace coal.
The strategy should be to retire them from regular service and keep them as back-ups for the infrequent periods where continent wide wind plus solar is not able to provide the needed power. Certainly some modification would be needed to convert them to low maintenance back-up plants, but that is lots cheaper than building new ones from scratch. But these plants won't really be needed until the renewable portion of the grid is pretty high - 75% or more.
Re: (Score:3)
We are committing to 100% emission neutral electricity by 2035. If you use natural gas for the dunkelflautes, you'll need massive scale carbon capture projects by 2035. In my opinion hydrogen conversion of natural gas powered turbines and seasonal hydrogen storage is more realistic by 2035 than carbon capture.
There's not a lot of time to solve all these problems, 2035 is very close. Whether it be nuclear, carbon capture or hydrogen ... government needs to start budgeting trillions for megaprojects right no
Nuclear (Re:Green hydrogen is also suboptimal) (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether it be nuclear, carbon capture or hydrogen
Why is hydrogen in this list? Nuclear is an energy source, so is fossil fuels with carbon capture, but hydrogen is not an energy source. Maybe there are some forms of hydrogen production that are energy sources, such as steam reforming, but that's just fossil fuels with carbon capture or something else where the energy source is obfuscated by calling it "green hydrogen" or "blue hydrogen" or whatever other color of hydrogen.
Hydrogen is a means to store and distribute energy, just like electricity and batteries, or synthesized hydrocarbons. We don't consider batteries an energy source, and we don't consider synthesized hydrocarbons an energy source.
You are correct that we need to explore all options, which needs to include nuclear fission, or we will not find the best option. We need to start now in building things, and we need to stop declaring options nonviable before we even gave them a chance. The energy policies of the UK was mentioned and it is quite clear that the UK needs nuclear fission or it will have an energy supply problem very soon. They will be building more nuclear power plants because they are running out of options. Their own studies tell them that in the future offshore wind will cost more than nuclear fission.
Of those three options only two are actual energy sources. In a nation like the UK with limited fossil fuels available, and getting smaller every year, that means nuclear power is the only option left.
Re: (Score:2)
Their own studies tell them that in the future offshore wind will cost more than nuclear fission.
The UK government's own report seems to contradict what you are saying.
The latest report from the UK government's Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy was published in August 2020. Among its conclusions:
Offshore wind projects which come online between now and 2030 will produce power at an average cost of £47 per megawatt-hour over the course of their lifetime. BEIS’s previous forecast had placed the figure at £103 per megawatt-hour.
In comparison, BEIS is forecasting that the levelised cost of energy (LCOE) for new gas will reach £82 per megawatt-hour by 2030 and that the LCOE for new nuclear will reach £93 per megawatt-hour within the same timeframe.
The report is published here on the UK government's website:
https://www.gov.uk/government/... [www.gov.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrogen with subterranean storage provides seasonal storage, nuclear doesn't need seasonal storage, carbon capture lets you use fossil fuel. They all solve the issue of large scale dunkelflaute in their own way and they all have their own problems.
Hydrogen will be expensive, nuclear will require the west rediscovering how the hell to build nuclear power plants, carbon capture is the least mature technologically.
Re: (Score:2)
New nuclear is getting more expensive and offshore wind is getting cheaper, according to the government's latest report that I linked to below.
Nuclear £93/MWh
Offshore wind £47/MWh
You don't seem very keen to address this, for some reason ...
Re: (Score:2)
You appear to have confused my post with someone else, and you also seem to have confused offshore wind costs with onshore wind costs. I don't know what report you are referring to but use of pounds as the monetary unit suggests UK. Here's one such chart from a UK government report: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Offshore wind averages £102/MWh while nuclear PWR fission averages £93/MWh. That price is from the most expensive structure built on Earth, Hinkley Point C, with only t
Re: (Score:2)
It's my understanding (not necessarily correct) that nuclear plants are becoming progressively more expensive to build and operate due to (perfectly reasonable IMO) regulatory compliance, site-specific design changes (particularly mid-construction), and logistics.
https://arstechnica.com/scienc... [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It's my understanding (not necessarily correct) that nuclear plants are becoming progressively more expensive to build and operate due to (perfectly reasonable IMO) regulatory compliance, site-specific design changes (particularly mid-construction), and logistics.
No, these are not reasonable added regulatory expenses.
The regulatory compliance is built on risks to safety being ALARA, as low as reasonably achievable. This assures that every reactor is FOAK, first of a kind, because as soon as someone somewhere comes across some means to improve safety then that must be incorporated in the design. That means it is impossible for costs to come down because it is impossible to plan for the next reactor as that one will not be like that last one, it is also FOAK. Every
Re: (Score:2)
Gee, you seem to have missed/ignored both the posts I made quoting this report.
https://www.gov.uk/government/... [www.gov.uk]
Their (the UK government) own studies tell them that in the future offshore wind will cost more than nuclear fission.
It's pretty clear now that you have no way to refute the fact that the UK government believes that offshore wind farms are coming down in price, and the costs of new nuclear are rising.
Try sticking to the facts next time instead of inventing non-existent "studies" that supposedly support your viewpoints.
Re: (Score:2)
Gee, you seem to have missed/ignored both the posts I made quoting this report.
Yes, I missed it. Now I'm ignoring it.
It's pretty clear now that you have no way to refute the fact that the UK government believes that offshore wind farms are coming down in price, and the costs of new nuclear are rising.
No, it's not that I have no way to refute it, it's that I have no idea where you expect me to look in that long document.
Try sticking to the facts next time instead of inventing non-existent "studies" that supposedly support your viewpoints.
Try making posts that link to something I can read in a minute or three, I'm not going to spend my time looking through documents that may or many not support your claims. Try not spamming me demanding I read a boring 50 page report. From now on expect me to ignore you.
Re: (Score:2)
Their own (the UK government's) studies tell them that in the future offshore wind will cost more than nuclear fission.
I suppose ignoring me would be better for your reputation and your ego than admitting you lied.
Lied about the existence of the UK government studies you referred to.
Where are the studies? Where's the link?
Liar.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I'll repeat my previous post that you ignored:
Their own studies tell them that in the future offshore wind will cost more than nuclear fission.
The UK government's own report seems to contradict what you are saying.
The latest report from the UK government's Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy was published in August 2020. Among its conclusions:
Offshore wind projects which come online between now and 2030 will produce power at an average cost of £47 per megawatt-hour over the course of their lifetime. BEIS’s previous forecast had placed the figure at £103 per m
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I'll repeat my previous post that you ignored:
While I have a habit of replying when I'm addressed directly I'm not always going to respond. This may be because I didn't see it, or it may be because I don't care enough to respond. Demanding I respond may discourage me from responding.
The UK government's own report seems to contradict what you are saying.
No, it does not.
The report is published here on the UK government's website:
That is a long paper and I could not find what you are referring to in it with my quick perusal. Unless you can point to where I should be looking I'll stand by my prior statement.
Re: (Score:2)
Chart 4.5 of page 29 shows estimated Offshore Wind costs at £47/MWh by 2030. The cost of new nuclear is £93/MWh, as per Hinckley Point C.
Now, you said that there were UK government studies that proved "that in the future offshore wind will cost more than nuclear fission." Can you provide a link to one of them, please?
If not, anyone reading this will correctly assume that there aren't any such studies.
Re: (Score:2)
A mature forest is carbon neutral, you can bury the tree but then you are burying all the other nutrients with it. To use bio mass for carbon capture you will need to be able to separate mostly pure hydrocarbons to put under ground, so you can put all the other nutrients back in the soil. Also there's the problem of limited arable land and water resources.
Re: (Score:2)
My point is that you can plant only one forest on a given piece of land an when it's grown that's all the sequestration you're going to get out of that land if that's all you do, that's not enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Carbon Capture isn't, itself, an energy generation method.
But, like planting trees, it's a form of offset for other power sources that aren't CO2 neutral.
Correct, carbon capture does not necessarily imply coincidental use of fossil fuel. I still feel it appropriate to make that assumption. The reason to perform carbon capture is to sequester it so as to justify continued use of fossil fuels, or to use in producing synthesized fuels and close the carbon loop on those fuels. Either way I'm seeing this as implying some continued use of carbon containing fuels.
If we are going to pick that nit then we should also note that hydrogen use does not necessarily imp
Re:Green hydrogen is also suboptimal (Score:4, Interesting)
... hydrogen takes up a lot of space, so it's almost unusable for aviation...
Citation needed. Liquid hydrogen has about four times the volume for the same amount of energy as jet-fuel. This makes for bigger fuel tanks, but airliners have a huge amount of volume by their very nature (people are extremely low density cargo).
It would be helpful to review some basics about aircraft fuel tanks [wikipedia.org]. Yes, they use "wet wings" now since the space in wings in otherwise unused, but it is common to have fuel tanks in the fuselage as well. If the cryogenic fuel tanks need to go in the fuselage, that's where they will go, with the necessary expansion of volume.
In designing airliners they worry much more about weight than volume and liquid hydrogen weighs only 40% as much as jet fuel, so the switch to hydrogen would mean an increase in airplane volume, but a drastic reduction in fuel weight, which is a huge win. Cryogenic insulation is mostly empty space so it does not add a lot of weight. 40% of the max take-off weight for a 787-8 airliner is fuel, so cutting that to 10% would be a huge win. So rather than "almost unusable for aviation" it is instead extremely usable for commercial aviation.
The large size of commercial aircraft and industry and high degree of centralization at major airports make this far easier to arrange than trying to create nationwide hydrogen fueling systems for cars or houses. I imagine standarized hydrogen electrolysis plants will be deployed at the airports to produce aviation fuel on-site and will operate to fill the holding tanks normally when power surpluses are available.
Re: (Score:3)
A quick calculation about aircraft and fuel volumes.
A standard 787-8 has a fuselage volume is already about 1550 cubic meters, its current fuel volume is 125 cubic meters. Quadrupling that adds 375 cubic meters. Lengthening the fuselage by 14 meters from the current 56.7 m to 70.7 m makes up that difference. And the 787-10 stretch version already comes close to that -- it is 68.3 m. So there is plenty of volume that can designed in accommodate LH2 fuel. Far from being "almost unusable" it does not present a
Re:Green hydrogen is also suboptimal (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you skipped some critical variables:
WHERE do these FOUR times bigger fuel tanks go?
> Currently the fuel is in the wings in space unusable for cargo.
WHAT are your hydrogen tanks made of?
> Existing jet fuel tank materials can not withstand the required pressure and are quite permeable to Hydrogen.
WHAT do these new tanks weigh?
> Extra weight and volume reduce the useful cargo capacity, 'lengthening' enough to gain enough volume to match the original design means you've added tons of weight which, you already know, reduces performance and cargo capacity.
---
You're not retrofitting existing aircraft, you need all new wing designs for the Hydrogen tanks, and I'm just warming up. So I'll stop here.
Sorry for the interruption.
TANSTAAFL
Re: (Score:2)
So I agree with the above post tha
Re: (Score:2)
than trying to create nationwide hydrogen fueling systems for cars or houses.
Those exist. They're called gas stations. Right now they can serve gasoline and diesel fuel. Some even have a liquefied gas called propane. If you think they can't easily sell a fourth type of fuel, even a liquefied fuel, you need to step out of the conversation. This is the biggest no brainer of the whole thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Those exist. They're called gas stations.
Gas stations are connected to a hydrogen grid and have hydrogen tanks and hydrogen pumps?
Re: (Score:2)
Gas stations are connected to a hydrogen grid and have hydrogen tanks and hydrogen pumps?
Gas stations have electrical wires, water lines, and natural gas lines to them. With electricity and water they can produce hydrogen on site. A natural gas line can be used to carry hydrogen, or more likely a mix of hydrogen and other gases. With wind, solar, or micro-nuclear power they would not even need electrical wires. For an example of micro-nuclear see KRUSTY/kilopower: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Electric vehicles, hydrogen vehicles, or anything other than hydrocarbon vehicles will have a "
Re: (Score:3)
You need about 4 times more energy, and much more money and more equipment, to do hydrogen fueling as you describe than you would just installing EV fast chargers.
There is no way you're going to make hydrogen fast enough on-site without massive upgrades to the electrical service - exactly the kind of upgrades that people say make BEVs untenable - and you're going to have to do it to a higher degree because hydrogen as an intermediate is about a quarter the overall efficiency compared to batteries.
To mitigat
Re: (Score:2)
You need about 4 times more energy, and much more money and more equipment, to do hydrogen fueling as you describe than you would just installing EV fast chargers.
Which is why we will see synthesized fuels before we see hydrogen cars. The point is that it is possible to run the necessary equipment if we choose to use hydrogen, just as it is possible for conversion to EV chargers. Which is more practical in the long run remains to be seen.
This is not actually a real problem in practice, and since there's a good chance you'll be waiting 30+ minutes for a partially full tank of hydrogen you can also wait ~30 min for a nearly recharged battery.
Which is why we will see synthesized fuels become a more acceptable solution over hydrogen or electric vehicles.
You demonstrated that hydrogen is not likely to be practical. It's not impossible for them to be practical, but highly
Re: (Score:2)
Gas stations have electrical wires, water lines, and natural gas lines to them. With electricity and water they can produce hydrogen on site.
Sure, if you upgrade those stations for multi-megawatt lines. ALL of them. Something like 2 MW per pump, if you want to refuel one hydrogen car every ten minutes or so.
We currently have a problem with BEVs and finding places to charge them up.
No, we don't. They plug into normal sockets, of which there are several per capita in any developed country.
Re: (Score:2)
If you live in a home with a garage, sure.
My apartment block has 6 car parking spaces for 12 apartments. The other residents with cars park on the street. I have yet to see any of them plug in a 50m extension cable to charge their vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> My apartment block has 6 car parking spaces for 12 apartments. The other residents with cars park on the street. I have yet to see any of them plug in a 50m extension cable to charge their vehicle.
I mean, the "smart" solution in the short term would be to realize that none of you will need to be charging every single night, and to share the parking spots. A competent EV will get about 30 miles of range per hour of charging on a standard Level 2 source (Not a fast charge, just a normal 208-240 volt sing
Never been in Alaska or North Dakota then? (Score:2)
I've lived in an apartment like that. I plugged in in both Alaska and North Dakota, and while it isn't quite 50m, I have a 100 foot extension cord in my truck for that purpose.
And oddly enough, there is a battery charger in my setup, along with the oil pan and engine core heaters.
Besides, acting like they can't install outlets once there's enough pressure to do so(to wit, people start declining to rent with them because they can't charge there), they'll retrofit.
Re: (Score:2)
No, we don't. They plug into normal sockets, of which there are several per capita in any developed country.
I agree. Plugging into a "normal socket" means needing to stop for hours to wait for enough charge to get to the next stop. The problem is fast chargers to allow getting even close to the convenience of a hydrocarbon burner. I'll have idiots talk about how people need to stop to fill their stomach and empty their bladder which somehow in their fevered minds means no change in behavior. I can get over 300+ miles on a tank with may gasoline burner on the highway, nearly 400 miles if I have the wind at my
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is a lack of fast chargers where they are needed for drives on some of the most direct routes.
The number of high-power charging stations that you need to build is decreased proportionally to the share of mileage of trips that can be served with home charging. If for example 90% of all trip mileage could be served by home charging, only one high-powered charger would need to be built per ten existing gasoline pumps to serve the remaining 10% of trip mileage. Compared to that, hydrogen pumps would have to be built in a 1:1 ratio or close to it (depending on the ratio of pumping speeds) since they don'
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'm just tired but that made no sense. What does one charger per ten gasoline pump have to do with making it to your destination in a BEV? Either there is a charger on your route before your battery runs dead or not. As it is there are many stretches of interstate with no chargers in range of anything but the most energy conscious BEV drivers. Even then that might not work.
The problem is not that there is a shortage of chargers. The problem is a lack of chargers on major routes spaced within rang
Re: (Score:2)
Moot point (Re:Green hydrogen is also suboptimal) (Score:2)
The point is that you need a fraction of high-power chargers compared to the required number of hydrogen pumps.
I'm not seeing it. It would take more than a couple paragraphs on a thought experiment to convince me. If we are talking about some future "hydrogen economy" then why would we not see hydrogen service to the home for filling up cars, heating water, furnaces, and stoves? We do that now with methane, so why not hydrogen? We know why.
The reason hydrogen is not likely to be piped into homes, businesses, factories, or our vehicles, is because hydrogen is a gas that is very difficult to deal with. So difficu
Re: (Score:2)
Those exist. They're called gas stations. Right now they can serve gasoline and diesel fuel. Some even have a liquefied gas called propane. If you think they can't easily sell a fourth type of fuel, even a liquefied fuel, you need to step out of the conversation. This is the biggest no brainer of the whole thing.
The "no brainer" is to use carbon neutral hydrogen to produce carbon neutral hydrocarbon fuels for sale at existing filling stations to be used in existing cars and trucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What problem of air quality? In the USA the tailpipe emissions are tightly controlled, as is fuel quality when it comes to additives and contaminants like sulfur and lead. Air quality is not a problem, and a switch to synthesized fuels means even cleaner air because the fuel will be cleaner.
Re:Green hydrogen is also suboptimal (Score:4, Informative)
Citation needed. Liquid hydrogen has about four times the volume for the same amount of energy as jet-fuel.
Sorry, no citation needed. The higher energy per mass and the easy combustion are all the advantages going for hydrogen. All other points are disadvantages, some of them huge.
Take storage. You can either cool it down to less than 33 K at 13 bar but need to keep it there for tens of hours. While rockets can tolerate cryogenic storage since they burn up their fuel within minutes (and still have to vent all which boils off), airplanes lose all mass advantage by needing more structural mass to keep cryogenic hydrogen within their structure.
Next, hydrides. I guess this doesn't need to be looked at in detail when only 7.4% of mass is useable hydrogen in the most efficient compounds like sodium tetrahydroaluminate.
That leaves us with compression at 700 bar. Did you ever look at the mass of pressure vessels which keep gas at 700 bar? In the 2014 Toyota Mirai, a full tank contains only 5.7% hydrogen, the rest of the weight being the tank. The larger tanks of airliners will have better ratios, but still their tanks will be much heavier than the hydrogen they hold. Again, all mass advantage is lost and those tanks need to be carried all the way to the destination while fuel is burnt, making the airplane lighter during its trip. Also, compressing hydrogen will make it no longer behave like an ideal gas. You can only reduce volume to one fifth even at 700 bar due to real gas effects, so hydrogen density at 700 bar is still only 5% of that of kerosene.
The conclusion is simple: Hydrogen is uniquely unsuitable for airplane propulsion, even Zeppelins used liquid fuel (except for LZ 127 which used Blaugas).
No: Green hydrogen Optimal (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrogen is a bitch to handle safely even in a first world nation. Places without electricity where people still use kerosene lanterns and stoves for light and heat will not switch to hydrogen easily. Kerosene needs only a steel can or plastic jug to store and transport it. Hydrogen needs pressurized tanks if compressed and even more complex handling if liquefied. Kerosene burns with a visible flame and smoke to show where it is but hydrogen does not, that alone is a major safety hazard. Maybe somethin
E-fuels (Re:Green hydrogen is also suboptimal) (Score:2)
So for many applications, hydrogen doesn't make sense until you have such an abundance of electricity that you don't care about efficiency any more. We're a long way away from that.
There are other ways to produce hydrogen than electricity. There are thermal processes that can produce hydrogen, useful if you have an abundance of high temperature heat from molten salt concentrated solar, or molten salt nuclear fission. This is more efficient than electrical hydrogen production because it cuts out the conversion from heat to electricity, a process that wastes half that heat energy that was started with.
It may find niche applications where electric power isn't available or batteries are too heavy, e.g. JCB is working on hydrogen-powered construction machinery.
The places where batteries or hydrogen is too heavy are far more numerous than where
Electrolysis (Re:Green hydrogen is also suboptimal (Score:2)
If you use electrolysis...
Then don't use electrolysis. We have other means of producing carbon neutral hydrogen than electrolysis of water.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand all the hostility towards hydrogen. Yes its efficiency isn't competitive with PV and batteries right now. But neither was the efficiency of PV and batteries competitive with fossil fuels three decades ago. If we had used that as an excuse to halt all
Musk was right (Score:5, Insightful)
A few years ago, I saw a quote from Musk saying that SpaceX chose methane as the most environmentally friendly and efficient rocket fuel - I'm trying to find a reference to it without any luck.
Methane being environmentally better didn't made sense as I thought that hydrogen would be the better fuel in terms of efficiency and for the environment but that isn't true. There isn't a viable high volume/industrial method of electrolyzing water to get hydrogen and the steam reformation process, outlined in TFA, generates a lot of CO2 and requires a lot more energy than is produced.
Secondly, hydrogen in whatever form is a bitch to work with. Plumbing and machinery handling is always going to be more difficult because of the size of the hydrogen molecule and "hydrogen embrittlement" happens when metals absorb hydrogen atoms so the machinery will have to be replaced relatively often.
Compressed hydrogen doesn't have a very high energy density and liquid hydrogen is incredibly cold (33K). Liquid methane can be stored/used at roughly the same temperature as liquid oxygen and can be used basically from the ground (or where ever) without any processing other than liquefaction.
It's amazing that something that seems like the right answer (hydrogen and oxygen combining to provide energy with just pure water as the byproduct) really isn't the best approach for quite a few reasons.
Mars ISRU tech on Earth (Re:Musk was right) (Score:3)
Methane being environmentally better didn't made sense as I thought that hydrogen would be the better fuel in terms of efficiency and for the environment but that isn't true.
The big problem with hydrogen fuel today is that the lowest cost means to get it is with steam reformed methane. Methane has many advantages over hydrogen as discussed by Chris Dodd on his Everyday Astronaut YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
As a fellow Midwesterner and space exploration advocate I am a huge fan of Dodd and his work.
Compressed hydrogen doesn't have a very high energy density and liquid hydrogen is incredibly cold (33K). Liquid methane can be stored/used at roughly the same temperature as liquid oxygen and can be used basically from the ground (or where ever) without any processing other than liquefaction.
It's amazing that something that seems like the right answer (hydrogen and oxygen combining to provide energy with just pure water as the byproduct) really isn't the best approach for quite a few reasons.
The use of nuclear power and synthesized fuels is often mentioned as a means to get rockets from Mars or the moon back to Earth. Much of this is because of ho
"Coal study says" (Score:2)
That's what I read. ;)
It's ye olde strawman argument poisoning again:
"The version of the technology that we're currently using is shit,
therefore the entire technology is forever shit.
Let's keep the status quo, which is even worse,
but nevermind, cause we get to steal people's money!"
Re: (Score:2)
That is not what straw man means.
Straw man (Re:"Coal study says") (Score:3)
That is not what straw man means.
Then please define it for the rest of the class.
Here's how I've heard it defined, someone can't win the argument directly so they dress up a false argument like the real thing (the straw man, or straw soldier) to appear like the real argument and then refute the false argument as if they refuted the actual argument. Indications of a straw man argument is often when people start off with, "So, what you are saying is..."
This is a straw man to say that X will not be better than Y because X has not ever been b
Re: (Score:3)
"The version of the technology that we're currently using is shit,
therefore the entire technology is forever shit.
Let's keep the status quo, which is even worse,
I think the point of the study is to highlight that hydrogen is not currently a viable clean fuel for cars since the vast majority of hydrogen generation is "blue" hydrogen. EVs are a much better technology and we should pursue it instead of hydrogen cars.
Re: (Score:2)
EVs are a much better technology and we should pursue it instead of hydrogen cars.
BEVs are better than hydrogen vehicles, and synthesized fuels are better than BEVs. Affordable and low CO2 hydrogen is one small step from affordable and low CO2 hydrocarbon fuels. Plans to go to Mars and the moon to stay includes new technologies to produce methane and oxygen for rockets from the surface into interplanetary space. Once in interplanetary space we will be using nuclear powered rockets and habitats, technologies we can also use on Earth to free ourselves from fossil fuels. Elon Musk is a
Re: (Score:2)
When we have excess electricity that doesn't pollute in "the future" then more things are possible but right here and now we have a massive ecological problem which is why hydrogen isn't going to cut it since the market favors polluting.
You are doing it wrong (Re:"Coal study says") (Score:2)
The problem of thermodynamic efficiency on hydrogen today is from using electrolysis and we have other means to produce hydrogen than electrolysis. The problem with steam reforming of fossil fuels is the CO2 produced, and we have low CO2 processes to replace that too.
What we have are thermochemical processes to investigate and develop. According to the US Department of energy there are over 300 such processes under investigation right now.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fu... [energy.gov]
As much as the US DOE likes to tal
Hydrogen is a sandbag for oil (Score:5, Insightful)
Coal? (Score:2)
Given how blue hydrogen wasn't at all supposed to solve or compete with coal as an energy source in any application, what was the purpose of this study?
Don't tell us about coal, tell us about aluminium smelting. Tell us about long haul trucking. And while some advocates exist for aviation, you can skip that one, that's an obviously bad idea.
Or are we suggesting that all long haul trucks run coal gassifiers as their energy source?
Re: (Score:2)
And while some advocates exist for aviation, you can skip that one, that's an obviously bad idea.
So obvious that you can't cite a reason? Is the "because it is much bulkier than RP-1?" reason? See my posts up-thread where I point out that this nonsense. Hydrogen is actually an excellent idea for commercial aviation.
Re: (Score:2)
False, is highly polluting, moreso than coal means moreso than kerosene.
Re: (Score:2)
The hydrogen economy tards are ignoring this elephant in the room. Hydrogen is dirty. Hydrogen cars are dirty. Hydrogen rockets are dirty (and burn nitrogen making Nox pollution too)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. You're just being dishonest with the word "dirty" when you're not comparing it to anything. Hydrogen is dirty compared to what? Shutting down transportation? A completely non-existent and practically impossible electrification of road haulage?
Join me in the conversation. Hydrogen is dirty. But is it more dirty compared to the current status quo of refining diesel and setting it on fire?
You seem to think the hydrogen economy is some kind of "all in on hydrogen for every application" thing. That's
The author is a conman. (Score:5, Interesting)
Links inside: (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
further read:
https://www.pnas.org/content/1... [pnas.org]
https://www.pnas.org/content/1... [pnas.org]
https://www.latimes.com/busine... [latimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. Interesting. He sorta reminds me of Drake and his equation. While a useful mental tool, so many of the variables are tenuous at best and speculation at worst.
One snippet "emissions associated with civil nuclear energy should, in the upper limit, include the risk of carbon emissions associated with the burning of cities resulting from a nuclear war aided by the expansion of nuclear energy and weapons to countries previously without them" may be a valid variable, but how does one get a value? Yeah, I
Problem with snippet (Score:2)
At least Drake admitted that his variables were, at least at the time, completely unknown.
In the case of the snippet, I have to point out that the risk of nuclear was as a result of the expansion of use of civilian nuclear power is not necessarily positive. It could actually reduce the risk.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a website dedicated to showing how Mark Z Jacobson fails to provide a working solution to our energy problems: http://www.roadmaptonowhere.co... [roadmaptonowhere.com]
This is how the book in web format starts...
A word before we begin
This book is not an argument against renewable energy.
It's an argument against a particular idea that many people believe about renewable energy, which doesn't seem to square with the facts:
The idea that renewables could actually power the entire nation â" electricity, heating, transportation, industry, shipping, the works â" and do it so well that
we won't need power plants that run on actual fuel.
Since our preferred source of clean energy is nuclear fuel, we framed our rebuttal by comparing an all-renewables grid with an all-nuclear grid.
Both, of course, are hypothetical scenarios, since neither grid will ever exist in its pure form. In the real world, and in the very real future, nuclear will be the best option for some scenarios, and renewables for others.
So just to be clear: we don't have a beef with renewables. Other than the claim that they can be scaled up to power the entire national grid.
The solution to our energy problems will be a mix of nuclear energy and renewable energy. Given recent trends in costs of these energy sources the best options will be a mix of onshore wind, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear fission. We will likely rely on natural gas for some time as a transition fuel until we can f
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrogen is not renewable resource (Score:2)
Hydrogen is not a sustainable resource. Really, it is, no joke. This is basically because of the fact hydrogen is a light gas, so that any hydrogen released ends up irretrievably escaping into the upper atmosphere. This is why most hydrogen you find on earth is bound to water in H20, which increases the weight. It has the same problem as helium. You might think thats not really a problem but it is, especially had industrial scales over long periods of time it could destroy the biosphere trying to use this a
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrogen is not a sustainable resource. Really, it is, no joke.
You say this is no joke, but I am not convinced.
A hydrogen economy does have a large scale hazard, but that hazard is exactly why your argument (ironically) falls to the ground.
When hydrogen reaches the ozone layer, where free radical oxygen exists, it will be immediately oxidized to water, so none of it escapes to space from this process - as in zero. The Earth already loses hydrogen in small amounts by water being split by UV above the ozone layer, but this will not add to that at all. But the real proble
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think for renewable energy its best to go with solar technology
We are not getting energy from hydrogen, there are no hydrogen mines for the reason you describe. At least, not on this planet. We are storing energy by producing hydrogen gas, that's very different. The whole point of hydrogen is that it's proposed as a way to store solar and wind-derived electrical energy instead of batteries.
Re: (Score:2)
As they say, today's solution creates tomorrow's problem. Besides space leakage, I also wonder what would billions of H-engines spitting water would do to the environment? At first glance, it seems it might actually be a good thing. But, I often miss things on the first glance.
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrogen is not a sustainable resource. Really, it is, no joke. This is basically because of the fact hydrogen is a light gas, so that any hydrogen released ends up irretrievably escaping into the upper atmosphere.
I don't get that argument. You don't release the gas into the atmosphere. You store it, then use it, in fuel cells or for combustion. Any gaseous fuel will be wasted if it is released into the atmosphere without being used. Propane is heavier than air, but if you let it out, I don't see any way to get it back.
The Conclusion of this Research is ... (Score:2)
What you do with the methane is secondary, as long as you flare it, burn it, crack it, etc. Just don't vent it.
Re: (Score:2)
You're hilarious, the Earth vents it and you might as well talk about plugging up all ant hills.
"full stop" after spewing something ridiculous, kids these days....
Re: (Score:2)
Humans are responsible for around 60% of methane emissions, and it is a very potent greenhouse gas. The EPA says 16% of US-caused global warming is from methane. Agriculture is responsible for more methane emissions (36%) than the energy sector's 30%, but even so it's definitely worth reducing leaks.
Re: (Score:2)
No worries, soon the frozen stuff bubbling out of the waters and tundra will make man made percent will plummet, and there won't be a way to plug it, that's why it's so funny.
Make the H2 at the CH4 source (Score:2)
So the obvious place to build the hydrogen facilities is right next to the gas fields. If those just happen to be in sunny regions where PV systems can power the other ancillary equipment then so much the better. Provided of course, they can get t
And pump up the water (Score:2)
We need to stop burning things for energy! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is it not clear enough to people: we need to stop burning things to produce energy. We need to find other ways to do that.
We will need to keep burning things because hydrocarbons are such useful fuels with no equal. Diesel fuel will cool and lubricate pumps, and provide protections against corrosion of metals, it is liquid at most temperatures and pressures seen on this planet, contains nearly incredible amounts of energy per mass and volume, and offers many other benefits over alternatives. Gasoline, kerosene, propane/butane/LPG, and other fossil fuels have many useful properties too and many of which is shared with diesel
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... because I'm 100% correct and everyone else is 100% wrong.
If I agree with you then am I still 100% wrong?
We need to stop burning things to generate power, clearly, objectively, logically, rationally, and you cannot change my mind on this, not ever...
I've been following this clearly, objectively, rationally, and logically for longer than I care to admit. Logically we need to burn fuels or we won't be able to keep airplanes flying, keep putting rockets into space, or keep so many things we have come to expect in our lives.
This cannot be refuted.
I can refute your claims. It's hard to tell if you are being sarcastic or not.
We can look at what people are planning on future missions to the moon and Mars, where people go there and c
Hydrogen = Oil companies continue to dominate (Score:2)
The major difference between EVs and "blue" Hydrogen is: you can charge at home, but you need an industrial plant to synthesize your own H2 fuel.
Forget about efficiencies or pollution, they are sidetracks. As long as the energy companies can convince people to depend on them, then can repurpose existing gas stations to sell H2 gas instead of petroleum, and still use the (probably highly refurbished) fleet of trucks and pipelines to distribute it.
However with EVs (regardless of energy source, including coal
I thought I knew stuff but ... (Score:2)
... guess not.
I thought I knew about hydrogen. Now I find out it has colours and its creation is a problem when cracking a 'fossil' fuel. I think I know that the huge amounts of energy required to create it via electrolysis isn't good either but I'm hoping I'm wrong.
I thought we shouldn't store radioactive waste underground because it will contaminate the ground water and come back to the surface eventually. I guess that doesn't happen with carbon dioxide like, it will never come back to the surface or
Odd, I don't see that mentioned (Score:2)
Nowhere do I see Natural Gas being called a "type" of hydrogen. While Hydrogen is Hydrogen, categorizing it as a "type" based on generation method - Electrolysis from Water, from NG via steam reformation, or from NG via steam reformation with carbon capture, is a perfectly valid thing to do. If you aren't being pedantic, you get what they're talking about.
And, absolutely, examining the production systems to determine whether any given generation method is actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions is vali
Re: (Score:2)
Assertions without evidence (Score:2)
1. How do you know that "green" hydrogen is better than "trillions of dollars of new electrical grids"?
2. How do you know that it will take "trillions of dollars" in new electrical grids, as opposed, to say, mere billions of upgrades done mostly during regular maintenance and refurbishment cycles?
3. How do you know they're ignoring battery cars? China is big on EVs. Battery cars don't actually NEED grid upgrades until you have huge numbers of them(unless you don't have something worthy of being called
Re: (Score:2)
If we are unwilling to use nuclear, we are probably hosed. Renewables will not save us and fusion is always 10 years out.
According to a scientist working on ITER fusion is 30 years out. Maybe he's right, and if so then we have a path to energy that is zero carbon, abundant, and low cost. In case he's wrong we need to develop nuclear fission.
Renewables will not save us, that is true. Comments above mentioned an all renewable energy plan from Mark Z Jacobson and company. This plan will not survive scrutiny. It's so bad that using the numbers from the paper they present shows it will not work.
I did see a rather honest prese