Submitted by alex20_202020 t3_yobd6l in Futurology
vVWARLOCKVv t1_ivdg02e wrote
Why do they want to change? Is it cheaper than natural gas, more renewable, better for climate change, or something else?
The_RealKeyserSoze t1_ivdybmt wrote
Most hydrogen made now comes from natural gas, but you can make it from water using clean energy sources. And when you burn it you get water not CO2.
So it is much cleaner than natural gas. The challenge is distribution. Hydrogen leaks out of everything and makes metal brittle/weak. It’s generally just a huge pain to work with. Also round trip efficiency is low at maybe 70%, so you need more energy to produce the hydrogen than you get out of it as heat. Which means it will likely cost more than natural gas, but if you factor in externalities (air pollution deaths/damages, climate change, etc) it is likely cheaper than natural gas.
Another option is heat pumps, which run on electricity (easy to distribute/can be clean) and achieve ~300% efficiency by moving rather than producing heat. Their main drawback is high fixed cost of installation.
Bewaretheicespiders t1_ivfpv6q wrote
>but you can make it from water using clean energy sources.
Which is incredibly dumb when you could be heating the house directly with those energy sources instead of the huge loss, cost and safety issue to turn it into hydrogen.
cyberFluke t1_ivgl8yu wrote
Hydrogen is just acting as the battery in this case.
It comes down to how economically hydrogen can be stored and moved compared to storing the electricity directly.
You're right at a physics level, but the economics of energy storage might play out differently.
Bewaretheicespiders t1_ivgooew wrote
Terrible for storage, both long term because of the leaks and boiloff, and on the short term because of the conversion losses. This is just a way to keep europe dependant on gas without calling it gas.
The_RealKeyserSoze t1_ivi36fe wrote
Its easier to move electricity than hydrogen. So hydrogen would have to make sense due to storage, for cars/transport it clearly does make sense. For heating idk, the low round trip efficiency of hydrogen would likely favor heat pumps running on electricity instead.
CriticalUnit t1_ivf1l6y wrote
> And when you burn it you get water not CO2.
But you do still get NOx emissions....
The_RealKeyserSoze t1_ivh9z09 wrote
That’s true, but its still a massive improvement compared to what we currently use (oil and gas). Heat pumps would be ideal.
CriticalUnit t1_ivj33ow wrote
Sure green hydrogen is better than what we currently use in terms of emissions. The problem is that it's not the best option available to replace what we currently use.
Omateido t1_ivfay6m wrote
From burning H2?
realityChemist t1_ivfg3ij wrote
Yes.
If you burn hydrogen in pure oxygen you won't get any, but typically we burn things in air. Air is about 78% nitrogen, and even though N2 is pretty damn unreactive when you have so much of it hanging around in a hot flame, some of it will get oxidized. The hotter the flame, the more you get (and hydrogen burns very hot).
My understanding is that you can burn H2 with about 2x the theoretically required amount of air to reduce the amount of NOx emitted to basically nothing, but that's also going to reduce the efficiency of your boiler, so it's a tradeoff.
MilkshakeBoy78 t1_ivfc0aq wrote
h2o, is 2 hydrogens and one oxygen. doesn't h2o becoming hydrogen just split the hydrogen and oxygen. how is nitrogen or no emitted?
CriticalUnit t1_ivixq7f wrote
beauty_secret_keeper t1_iwu5yeh wrote
lol i thought you mentioned another cleanenergygroup firstly
And yes, this is proven information, I can sign up for this (:
[deleted] t1_ivetm1a wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ivf3wgr wrote
[deleted]
The_RealKeyserSoze t1_ivhaa4n wrote
Hydrogen can be produced from the electrolysis of water (which can be powered by any electricity source, ideally renewables). It can also be thermochemically produced from water potentially with thermal energy from nuclear power plants but that is not currently done.
Neither method requires any natural gas or direct CO2 emissions.
[deleted] t1_ivi88bq wrote
[removed]
The_RealKeyserSoze t1_iviis0n wrote
You said you “need to get the H from natural gas” which just isn’t true. And I think I stated that hydrogen is not particularly efficient. Heat pumps are better but hydrogen still has the potential to be clean.
[deleted] t1_ivjharu wrote
[removed]
The_RealKeyserSoze t1_ivji9cl wrote
It certainly doesn’t seem like that, especially since I had already addressed it. There is a bit more nuance to it and I tried to mention all of the pros and cons.
[deleted] t1_ivjieqp wrote
[removed]
The_RealKeyserSoze t1_ivjj78u wrote
Perhaps you should read my original comment again or even the section you originally quoted as I did not “ignore” the problem you refer to.
And it is clear from your follow up that you still don’t understand the situation.
>”If you then use the H2 to produce electricity, you're just wasting 20% of the electricity.”
This is about using H2 to produce heat, not electricity. There is a very big difference.
>”And solar and wind are very clearly not up to that task.”
Citation needed.
[deleted] t1_ivnjbur wrote
[removed]
The_RealKeyserSoze t1_ivo2x21 wrote
No one is talking about making electricity with H2, read.
[deleted] t1_ivqauuv wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ivfgc83 wrote
[deleted]
DonQuixBalls t1_ivg3ki6 wrote
If you have the power, just use it to heat the homes. Extra steps are waste.
cyberFluke t1_ivgll92 wrote
Storing the power however isn't as simple. Hence converting energy to hydrogen and storing that. Maybe. That's the point of the pilot projects, to see how the economics could scale for storage.
HardCounter t1_ivekakd wrote
Heat pumps are generally not good in extreme temperatures either, unless i'm mistaken. If there's practically no warm air outside to draw from they're not going to get much. It's best in well above freezing temperatures. Probably shorts weather in Denmark.
The_RealKeyserSoze t1_ivesv2b wrote
They work just fine in cold environment and there was a recent paper in Nature that found heat pumps already outperform current methods of heating using existing electricity mix for 95% of the worlds demand. They are so efficient that they can outperform oil/gas when electric grids are still running on a majority oil/gas.
HardCounter t1_ivgtmlp wrote
I guess people saw the link and didn't bother to check it because it doesn't say that at all. This paper relates to direct emissions. It's behind a paywall and says only this in the abstract, portions of which are utter bullshit and relate only to emissions:
> The electrification of passenger road transport and household heating features prominently in current and planned policy frameworks to achieve greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. However, since electricity generation involves using fossil fuels, it is not established where and when the replacement of fossil-fuel-based technologies by electric cars and heat pumps can effectively reduce overall emissions. Could electrification policies backfire by promoting their diffusion before electricity is decarbonized? Here we analyse current and future emissions trade-offs in 59 world regions with heterogeneous households, by combining forward-looking integrated assessment model simulations with bottom-up life-cycle assessments. We show that already under current carbon intensities of electricity generation, electric cars and heat pumps are less emission intensive than fossil-fuel-based alternatives in 53 world regions, representing 95% of the global transport and heating demand. Even if future end-use electrification is not matched by rapid power-sector decarbonization, it will probably reduce emissions in almost all world regions.
Let me highlight a part
> We show that already under current carbon intensities of electricity generation, electric cars and heat pumps are less emission intensive than fossil-fuel-based alternatives in 53 world regions, representing 95% of the global transport and heating demand.
The_RealKeyserSoze t1_ivh9spv wrote
Not sure which portions you think are “utter bullshit” but here is a link to the full text. If you have your own source you could provide it, but Nature is not known for publishing “utter bullshit”.
And carbon emissions was the metric I was using for the comparison, if I didn’t make that clear. In terms of carbon emissions heat pumps are lower emission than current sources of heating (mainly gas and oil) and that will only improve as electric grids gain higher proportions of clean energy.
[deleted] t1_ivhcprs wrote
[removed]
The_RealKeyserSoze t1_ivhdtp3 wrote
>”They do not work in freezing temperatures.”
They do work in freezing temperatures. In fact you have a heat pump working in your freezer right now. You seem to have just made up this false claim and are now claiming Nature is not a credible source ???
In order for heat pumps to beat current heating sources in terms of emissions they have to function and still be very efficient.
>”They didn't used to be, but what gets published in many journals lately is highly politicized. I'm certain they would not publish an equally valid study that says something different when accounting for more factors. It's a bit off topic but: everything is agenda driven in the world right now because that's where the money is and it's seriously affecting scientific honesty. If nobody gets published for a study discrediting a certain idea then nobody is going to do that study, and even if they did nobody would believe it and/or be aware of it because it wasn't published.”
Source? Sounds like you got lost on your way to r/conspiracy
Derkxxx t1_ivets4i wrote
Netherlands is not a country of extreme weather, it is very temperate. Mild summers, mild winters. Mostly just very wet and quite windy. Besides that, heat pumps generally have an option to heat additionally electrically or in a hybrid system with natural gas if more heat is needed. Great thing about heat pumps is that they can cool as well through ventilation.
HardCounter t1_ivgqzib wrote
> Besides that, heat pumps generally have an option to heat additionally electrically or in a hybrid system with natural gas if more heat is needed.
This portion is a heater, not a heat pump. The statement i'm responding to was about heat pumps, not heaters.
pichael288 t1_ivf4344 wrote
Sort of. But it doesn't have to be well above freezing, it just has to be above freezing. And even they they make ones with a heating element that will function in colder weather.
HardCounter t1_ivgu3y2 wrote
The energy loss in greater temperature differentials is very high. Sure, if it's 40 degrees outside and you set your thermostate to 43 you're going to get a good return, but you probably want it nearer to the 60s or 70s and that's where they get you.
chin-ki-chaddi t1_ivdr569 wrote
Excess wind/solar can be stored as hydrogen, at much lower cost compared to batteries (although in a much larger volume if we're talking about low pressure safe storage). It can then be fed into the local heating grid. Unsure about long distance supply since Hydrogen makes steel pipes brittle.
HolyPommeDeTerre t1_iveepzr wrote
I don't remember where in UK/Ireland/Scotland but there was this infrastructure moves a while ago to change pipes from steel to plastic based which support hydrogen transport from what I remember. The results where good but the investment is massive iirc.
HardCounter t1_ivejmxi wrote
Yeah, but it's a terribly inefficient storage medium when compared to batteries. Works fine, i guess, but you're losing a lot of power and it'd be best to use short term while mass battery manufacturing gets into place and can be leveraged.
Even then, the sunk cost in the infrastructure for hydrogen might not be worth it over more expensive batteries, because then you need far more power generators to make up the power difference alone. This doesn't include retrofitting homes for hydrogen usage over electricity, the infrastructure for which is already in place.
Gasa1_Yuno t1_iveokkn wrote
Family are in this industry.
There is definitely a market for production of hydrogen in cheap areas and transport via tanker to other countries as a method for moving green energy around.
HardCounter t1_iveozeo wrote
Must be some expensive equipment to either contain the pressure or maintain the liquid state. The same with in-home equipment. Honest question: do you know how much investment was made in just the hydrogen portion of the transport? Not the regular truck parts, but the cost of just the hydrogen containment.
Another commenter was talking about retrofitting the gas lines, which would also be a pain.
DonQuixBalls t1_ivg3riv wrote
>stored as hydrogen, at much lower cost compared to batteries
It can't. Storing hydrogen is complicated and expensive.
lxer t1_ive9rpp wrote
... but there is no excess wind or solar energy in NL.
ten-million t1_ivegofz wrote
I think you are being a little too obvious here in your trolling. Was not sure if you were being sarcastic.
[deleted] t1_ivfjuz5 wrote
The energy used to electrolyze has to come from somewhere. Likely requiring more methane produced energy on the grid.
ten-million t1_ivfvpfu wrote
I don’t get why when they say “hydrogen produced with renewables” you think that involves methane. It’s electrolysis of water.
[deleted] t1_ivglzv8 wrote
Because that’s not how the grid works. Are they adding new capacity to electrolyze with? No they aren’t, they are drawing from a grid that is not 100% renewable currently.
The overwhelming majority of H2 production uses either methane or coal, less than 2% is green hydrogen. You have to ask yourself who benefits here?
ten-million t1_ivgqzkn wrote
here’s another article about it They are using green hydrogen. If you know anything about the Dutch you would know they are not going to forget about using renewable energy to power electrolysis.
[deleted] t1_ivguc06 wrote
The marketing is working on you. Are you also a fan of “self charging” hybrid cars?
ten-million t1_ivh5nki wrote
I get that you are cynical but did you read the linked article? This is a pilot project to see if “green hydrogen” could be a viable option in Europe. Maybe if you followed the news you would realize there is a big push to wean themselves off Russian gas/methane. They are going to try to use water as a hydrogen source and renewable energy because that is a native source of energy.
Maybe realize your cynicism comes from a different kind of marketing. Who benefits when people discount the possibility for change? Oil companies love people like you.
[deleted] t1_ivh89na wrote
I admire your confidence.
[deleted] t1_iveb9d0 wrote
[removed]
Cerberusz t1_ivdnwp7 wrote
Three things:
-
Europe has a systemic risk for energy dependence right now. They cannot bet their futures/economies on Russia. However, they don’t have many other options. Europe is not a particularly windy nor sunny place, so it’s not a very good place for renewables.
-
The Netherlands in particular is losing a huge natural gas field. The extraction of the gas has been causing sinking of homes and small earthquakes, so they need to shut this down.
-
Hydrogen generation through electrolysis is now cheaper than natural gas.
CriticalUnit t1_ivf2cua wrote
> Europe is not a particularly windy nor sunny place, so it’s not a very good place for renewables.
"Europe" is actually a fantastic place for wind energy. Solar is mixed, because 'europe' is a large area. Southern Europe has quite good Solar potential.
Overall Europe is a pretty good place for renewables.
[deleted] t1_iver3au wrote
[deleted]
lxer t1_ive9n3v wrote
Lolno. Hydrogen is created using natural gas. And it is losing 60% of its energy in the process. That is why oil companies like Shell are involved, it increases their demand (and it is subsidized)
Cerberusz t1_iveb2a1 wrote
Cespa and Rotterdam have signed a memorandum of understanding to create a renewable hydrogen corridor between Spain and the Netherlands.
This hydrogen is produced by electrolysis using renewable energy such as wind or solar.
lxer t1_ivecoog wrote
Only a stupid person would believe that.
Cerberusz t1_ivecyhq wrote
[deleted] t1_iveetah wrote
[removed]
HardCounter t1_ivekhj8 wrote
Just from the title i can see some key words you seem to be glossing over:
>project
>aims to
As in not currently the case.
ten-million t1_ivegcnq wrote
weirdly against renewable hydrogen...
checks comment history.....
oddly in favor of Russian gas....
Troll!
HardCounter t1_ivekvsa wrote
I just checked his comment history. Where are you seeing that? He only mentions gas once outside of this post and it was two months ago.
Pretty easy to see who the troll here is mr. misinformation. Do you just make up comment histories of people you disagree with to discredit their opinion? Pretty bad faith man.
Gnollish t1_ivec4k9 wrote
In the current testing phase, before mass roll out, yes, hydrogen is made with natural gas. Obviously every party involved realises this isn't a long term solution, it isn't intended as such, and nobody is pretending it is.
Once we know what we're doing with hydrogen, it will be created with excess wind power from the north sea.
lxer t1_ived0oj wrote
No once the subsidies end the project simply stops, like almost all hydrogen projects.
It is too much wishful thinking by activists and naieve politicians who give taxmoney to companies.
alex20_202020 OP t1_ivdkhdt wrote
Well, valid question. I can only think of availability of hydrogen in homes to fill balloons (dangerous toys).
vVWARLOCKVv t1_ivdkme7 wrote
I see that the tank says "Zero Emissions" now, so I guess better for the climate.
CriticalUnit t1_ivf23lw wrote
That's only true for CO2.
Burning hydrogen does release other emissions. Especially NOx
>Burning H2 does not produce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. >That is good news for the climate.
>However, hydrogen combustion produces other air emissions. And that scientific fact is the untold story in this aggressive industry plan, one that could turn green H2 into ghastly H2.
>The bad news is that H2 combustion can produce dangerously high levels of nitrogen oxide (NOx). Two European studies have found that burning hydrogen-enriched natural gas in an industrial setting can lead to NOx emissions up to six times that of methane (the most common element in natural gas mixes).[17],[18] There are numerous other studies in the scientific literature about the difficulties of controlling NOx emissions from H2 combustion in various industrial applications.[19],[20]
>Even the Trump Administration’s Department of Energy “Hydrogen Program Plan” identifies H2 combustion as a significant problem. It states that additional research is needed on a host of emissions control issues around H2 combustion. The point DOE makes is that at very low levels of H2 blending, the NOx emissions levels might be controllable. But at higher levels, it is not only difficult to control NOx emissions, but the technologies that have been developed to attempt to control those higher NOx levels remain unproven.[21] That research is years off.
-The_Blazer- t1_ivflvwf wrote
One of the main advantages of hydrogen (or generally any other renewable gas) is that, to a degree, it can be pumped through existing methane infrastructure. In my country there was a pilot project making 10% of gas hydrogen without changing anything in the distribution.
Querch t1_ivft8t3 wrote
>Is it cheaper than natural gas
Last I checked, the cost to produce green hydrogen is somewhere north of EUR 6.00/kg, translating to a cost of EUR 152.26/MWh (HHV when assuming a condensing boiler). The spot price of methane, at the time of posting, EUR 109.683/MWh LHV. The HHV number would be a tad lower.
So yeah, hydrogen for heating isn't looking to be a competitive option to natural gas. IMO, it'd be better to look towards district heating using waste heat, district heating using geothermal energy, water-sourced heat pumps and air-sourced heat pumps first. Green hydrogen can take a niche supporting role in the form of hydrogen-fired peaking power plants.
[deleted] t1_ive0nob wrote
The plan pretty much worldwide is to switch from natural gas, which creates CO2 when burned, to Hydrogen which only creates water. So it’s much better for the environment. In order to be entirely climate friendly the Hydrogen needs to be made from water using renewable energy like wind or solar.
maniakjob t1_ivfhikc wrote
Look at it as a giant battery, in the Netherlands we occasionally have an energy surplus, we are sometimes even required to shut of our solar panels during peak hours. If we could store all of that extra power, we would need less natural Gass or other grey energy sources.
[deleted] t1_ivfjik1 wrote
The something else part, it’s a distraction and a lifeline for oil and gas.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments