Submitted by alex20_202020 t3_yobd6l in Futurology
Comments
[deleted] t1_ivg3da3 wrote
In English we just call that explosive. You would never mix those.
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.
lawndartgoalie t1_ivdjeme wrote
Big energy doesn't like hydrogen because it has the potential to destroy the need for the current energy distribution model: powerlines, fuel trucks, gas lines, gas stations could all be replaced.
With improvements in technology homes, neighborhood's and communuties could generate their own hydrogen. Heat their homes, run their cars, and generate electricity.
I'm not anti fossils fuel, but big energy has a death grip on the current production and distribution monopoly and big change requires big ideas that are a win for the consumer.
SweetBiscuit t1_ivdq49n wrote
>Big energy doesn't like hydrogen because it has the potential to destroy the need for the current energy distribution model: powerlines, fuel trucks, gas lines, gas stations could all be replaced.
Meanwhile reddit doesn't like hydrogen because they think it's a scam pushed by big energy (which they heard from a reddit post).
Green hydrogen is going to be huge, the reason big energy companies are starting to push it is because they already have the infrastructure, skilled workforce, and money to make it happen - something which green energy startups are lacking.
CAElite t1_ivea6oz wrote
Always amazes me particularly in the mass transportation debate over BEV vs HEVs.
A couple of petrochemical companies fund studies being complimentary over hydrogen, that’s the view of it tainted forever.
Government which owns 80% of the worlds lithium reserves constantly hypes up BEVs, must be entirely legitimate!
To anyone with any engineering sense, hydrogen makes sense, it’s lighter, more recyclable (carbon fibre tanks vs rare earth metal batteries), more similar to current usage cases, doesn’t require the rebuilding of power grids and has huge propensity for energy independent production. The only hurdle currently with green hydrogen is it’s energy requirements, which are A. Always falling as innovations occur and B. And relatively easy hurdle to overcome with green energy.
SweetBiscuit t1_ivecz66 wrote
Not just that, but the relentless criticism of hydrogen for not immediately being green.
Case in point, we had a proof of concept tanker ship transport hydrogen from Australia to Japan recently, and most of the comments were attacking it because the hydrogen was made via fossil fuels rather than focusing on the feat itself (and at the same time they're still making posts about it being impossible to transport?)
Redditors seem completely fine accepting that batteries are currently charged with electricity from fossil fuels, and that eventually it will all be renewables - and that's 100% ok, but why is hydrogen not allowed the same grace period?
The money is in green hydrogen, all the big companies know that. But first they need to test the logistics of it all using what we currently have (brown/blue hydrogen).
My other pet peeve is how Reddit will steer every argument back to small passenger cars, BEV vs FCEV. Cars are only one piece of the puzzle, and hydrogen is not competing with your teslas
TG-Sucks t1_ivflzuy wrote
Make a post anywhere, futurology, science, doesn’t matter, that has anything to do with hydrogen technology, and watch the armchair scientists of Reddit gather with their pitchforks and rehashed, tired arguments. You can set your clock to it. It’s absolutely absurd, every year there’s more and more money invested in hydrogen technology, including by some of the biggest companies in the world, yet these idiots think they are sitting on some deep insight that CTO’s and top engineers all over the world are just missing, because they watched some video on YT.
Doesn’t matter, hydrogen tech is coming either way, but 40 years from now these people will still maintain that they’re right and it’s all just a scam.
SweetBiscuit t1_ivgnk1n wrote
Summed it up perfectly, thanks
YpsilonY t1_ived72w wrote
>The only hurdle currently with green hydrogen is it’s energy requirements
Disagree on that. I think this is the major issue with hydrogen and the reason it's not competitive with BEV's and never will be. You speak about the availability of green energy as it that wasn't a major issue that we are already decades behind on. What matters now is that we reduce the amount of fossil fuel usage as fast as possible. There are two tools for that: 1. Increasing green energy generation 2. Reducing demand through more efficient usage. HEV's are, by their very nature, less efficient in terms of kwh/km than BEV's.
There are applications where using hydrogen makes sense. Personal vehicles are not one of them. Using our precious green energy for it is a waste.
CAElite t1_ivee2ow wrote
I simply disagree, we do not have an availability issue with green energy, we have a geographic issue with green energy, in that it simply isn’t produced where people need it. You can see examples of this all over the world.
To cite my home country, Scotland, where our highlands produce over 200% of their energy requirements from wind & hydro. However where these sites are population is extremely sparse, meaning there are massive grid transmission issues getting the power to where it is needed. There’s a great video on this here highlighting Orkney https://youtu.be/8UmsfXWzvEA.
To cite a larger more relevant example to global warming, China, who currently have both the largest expansion of coal power with the largest expansion of wind & hydro. The problems they are facing is their green energy is situated predominantly in the sparsely populated west, with their industrial power houses being along the eastern coast, needing supplemented by coal generation, as China does not have adequate gas sources for cleaner generation (https://youtu.be/GBp_NgrrtPM here’s a good more in depth documentary on Chinese energy infrastructure). They are experimenting with extremely high voltage transmission lines however they are still problematic with the huge distances involved.
Grid transmission is a massive issue, and one that is being exacerbated by BEV usage, home chargers are already a huge grid issue we are seeing here in Scotland with the stress of substations and dated residential transmission lines, we have seen a 200-300% uptick in localised grid demand in affluent areas here, and that is even with our very small <5% EV adoption.
This is where many hydrogen schemes come in, it can be produced in large volumes at green energy production sites, and shipped or piped out, the same way gas & oil production happen today. Without requiring a near rebuilding of our energy grid. Where there’s losses on on paper efficiency, which is ever reducing with Japanese firms predicting an 80% production efficiency in the next 5 years (up from 30-40% in the last 5) there is potential to save billions on grid infrastructure. If you want a good video on Japans hydrogen development I think this is a good one: https://youtu.be/8UmsfXWzvEA although it’s focusing in a big way on the nuclear production of hydrogen, which is a fairly new concept, conventional production is being helped lately with the advent of carbon nano fibre filters & catalyst bases.
CriticalUnit t1_ivf2zj5 wrote
> To cite my home country, Scotland,
Where 5 million people live and little to no heavy industry is.
You might have well suggested that the entire world follow the example of Iceland or Costa Rica.
>we do not have an availability issue with green energy
We have an OVERALL energy availability issue. Or have you been asleep this decade? To say we do not have an availability issue with green energy is just pure ignorance about energy in general
CAElite t1_ivf3p7v wrote
Did you bother reading the rest of my post where I literally said China was a larger more relevant example that experiences the same issues.
There is not an availability issue of green energy in most of the world, however there are geographic and transmission challenges.
I can’t recall a good source of the studies but there was a lot of feasibility studies done on Saharan solar energy to be exported to industrialised Europe/Turkey, but the transmission is an astronomical barrier.
CriticalUnit t1_ivf4kf7 wrote
> China was a larger more relevant example
Yes, they still have blackouts and industry shutdowns due to lack of electricity, green or otherwise.
This dream of shipping hydrogen isn't going to help, because you need 3x the energy to be generated and massive transportation needed to get it where the demand is. (in a situation where there is already not enough TOTAL energy)
You may not think it, but the reality is that it's easier to just build more grid transmission than roll out the rube goldberg hydrogen infrastructure needed.
>There is not an availability issue of green energy in most of the world
Again, this is 100% wrong. There is a massive lack of green energy generation happening. Now there is no lack of green energy POTENTIAL in most of the world, but we are significantly lacking in actual production.
>the transmission is an astronomical barrier.
Transportation of hydrogen is an astronomical barrier too. But you conveniently ignore that.
EDIT: Downvote all you want. It doesn't change the reality.
SweetBiscuit t1_iveepxe wrote
>the major issue with hydrogen and the reason it's not competitive with BEV's and never will be.
Even if this were true (it's not), small passenger vehicles are just a small piece of the decarbonisation puzzle, it's extremely narrow minded to keep coming back to this argument.
>Using our precious green energy for it is a waste.
The fact is, green energy is not precious in some places. We have vast solar and wind arrays in the Australian desert that make green energy out the wazoo, but getting that energy to where it's needed is a different story.
They actually make so much excess green energy that they're mining bloody cryptocurrency with it.
From the above article:
"Renewable energy projects are already not being allowed to connect to the grid due to curtailment and others are suffering heavy losses when they switch off at times of low consumption,” he said. “We keep using the power 24/7 and that’s a huge benefit to the renewables developers, it makes their projects more financially viable. “We are basically like a sponge. We soak up the excess that’s not used.”
What the plan is - is instead of letting crypto grifters use it to make imaginary internet coins, we use it to make green hydrogen on site, which can then be loaded onto ships and shipped anywhere in the world, particularly places like Japan with very little access to their own wind and solar.
And this is what's happening now here in Western Australia. The projects are already underway, the infrastructure is being built, and the contracts with Japan already signed. None of this is hypothetical.
So why fight it? Green energy, exported to the world. Should be right up /r/futurology 's alley.
stu54 t1_ivee4fm wrote
Also, storage is a problem. Natural gas can be liquefied and fed into a distribution system as needed. Hydrogen requires much more extreme pressures and temperatures for that.
You might think hydrogen could just be produced on demand then, but on demand power is already the biggest problem with post fossil fuel energy systems.
SweetBiscuit t1_iveei0r wrote
>Also, storage is a problem.
It's really not, this argument is very outdated. We've shipped hydrogen from Australia to Japan already, and our existing LNG pipelines can handle hydrogen just fine with zero leakage.
The simple solution to the temperature issue is converting to ammonia, which will be happening anyway because we need it for fertiliser.
stu54 t1_iveh0ci wrote
I don't think you are being honest with yourself about the costs of hydrogen compression or conversion to ammonia. Both options require substantial energy. Just because storage and transport has been done doesn't mean it wasn't expensive.
SweetBiscuit t1_ivelf4i wrote
>Both options require substantial energy. Just because storage and transport has been done doesn't mean it wasn't expensive.
That's...pretty much how all new technology works. It's prohibitively expensive until eventually it's not.
The companies funding these hydrogen projects are throwing billions of their own money at the problem. If they thought that the price would always be an issue, they wouldn't even waste their time.
But they've done their homework, hired people much smarter than you or I to do feasability studies, and believe cheap green hydrogen is possible within the next few years.
So what could possibly be the point of attacking them for trying? It seems to be an almost personal issue for redditors on /r/futurology
[deleted] t1_ivhap2m wrote
[deleted]
SweetBiscuit t1_ivhh73f wrote
>Improved hydrolyzers,
The supply of hydrolysers is really the bottleneck here, and that problem is rapidly being solved as new electrolyser factories come online. One of the biggest in the world finishes construction within the next 6 months, almost doubling the global supply
lxer t1_ivea1x5 wrote
Not true. Hydrogen is not a energy source. It is for energy storage (like a battery). You clearly have no idea what hydrogen is, or even know that it is made using mostly oil and gas.
alex20_202020 OP t1_ivdecov wrote
Emphasis mine:
> A pilot project in which central heating boilers in homes run on hydrogen was authorized to continue. The project, run by grid operator Liander, is the first of its kind in the Netherlands.
> Ten existing homes in the Lochem project will be fitted with a combination boiler that runs on hydrogen instead of gas. From now on, the gas pipes to those houses will be used to supply hydrogen.
> At the moment there is no legislation regarding hydrogen projects. ACM has drawn up temporary rules to safeguard the rights of consumers. For example, households should be able to decide for themselves whether they will participate in a pilot project and there should be no difference for consumers between heating on gas and hydrogen. There must also always be sufficient hydrogen and the costs must be clear to consumers.
Taxoro t1_iveje02 wrote
Hydrogen heating seems kinda shite.
Almost all hydrogen is produced from natural gas or coal. This process removes a good portion of both the available energy, and increases volume thus making transportation harder. And almost all hydrogen produced from fossil fuels don't store the carbon but release it.
​
Renewable hydrogen from electrolysis -> heating will have an energy loss of like 60-70%, why not just use electric heaters at that point? Sure you could store hydrogen but thats a pipedream.
WaitformeBumblebee t1_ivkidrg wrote
I agree, only green H2 from renewables should be considered together with fuel cells that produce waste heat but also electricity to drive heat pumps or supplement the local grid when renewables are short.
Taxoro t1_ivlexjm wrote
That is a better option for sure. Although storing hydrogen without losing a lot of its energy is difficult. Right now the focus should be on producing green hydrogen for use in fertilizers etc. instead of using dirty hydrogen.
WaitformeBumblebee t1_ivoxi05 wrote
Yes, just replacing dirty hydrogen will take a very long time and effort. Burning green H2 that could replace gray H2 in chemical processes is criminal at this stage.
[deleted] t1_ivdmy1d wrote
[removed]
sudormrf7 t1_ivfgwr4 wrote
A safety advantage is that the hydrogen disperses quickly and is lighter than air.
A safety shortfall is that a flame burns invisible if there is any leak. You need either a thermal camera or a lost limb to find it.
How are they going to deal with that risk among a non-professional user base?
alex20_202020 OP t1_ivi7y0b wrote
> You need either a thermal camera
how does it find the leak? H2 infrared is significantly different in magnitude?
sudormrf7 t1_ivoc4co wrote
It's the wavelength of the flame that messes us up. It's very blue, with large parts of the energy placed in the invisible UV-range. (It's also strong in the IR range due to water.)
alex20_202020 OP t1_ivrecjb wrote
Ah, it is only when leak is burning. What does it mean "due to water"? AFAIK thermal shows IR so that is the relevant part.
sudormrf7 t1_ivsbdv3 wrote
When hydrogen is burning, water is formed.
Rossdog77 t1_ivdha3i wrote
Well it is the most abundant thing in the universe so yea....
WaitformeBumblebee t1_ivf3wpc wrote
Using H2 in a boiler is such a waste and produces NOx, total non-starter.
OTOH having distributed electricity generation with Fuel Cells fed by green H2 could be valuable for grid resilience and to lower total costs of the system and district/residential heating is just an add-on benefit at that point.
Orisose t1_ivfeema wrote
This seems rather inefficient. Why not focus on electrical storage or generation and use the electricity you would have used to produce the hydrogen instead for direct heating? Hydrogen is such a pain to work with and leaks out of literally every material known to man. I Feel like the only advantage hydrogen fuel ever has is energy density, but that usually is only valuable for vehicles that would struggle to make the switch to electric due to the poor energy density of batteries.
UzumakiYoku t1_ivfz4j1 wrote
Isn’t hydrogen extremely flammable? Are there any safety concerns with this?
FuturologyBot t1_ivdi4b2 wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/alex20_202020:
Emphasis mine:
> A pilot project in which central heating boilers in homes run on hydrogen was authorized to continue. The project, run by grid operator Liander, is the first of its kind in the Netherlands.
> Ten existing homes in the Lochem project will be fitted with a combination boiler that runs on hydrogen instead of gas. From now on, the gas pipes to those houses will be used to supply hydrogen.
> At the moment there is no legislation regarding hydrogen projects. ACM has drawn up temporary rules to safeguard the rights of consumers. For example, households should be able to decide for themselves whether they will participate in a pilot project and there should be no difference for consumers between heating on gas and hydrogen. There must also always be sufficient hydrogen and the costs must be clear to consumers.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/yobd6l/dutch_pilot_project_for_hydrogen_heated_homes/ivdecov/
[deleted] t1_ivetf2x wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ivfvm5j wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ivgfawv wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ivghact wrote
[removed]
Talenduic t1_ivgtkwm wrote
One of the stupidest thing to come out of this sub, renewable H2 is a precious reductor for vital chemical engineering in fertilizers and metallurgy and a high density fuel for long distance travel. Space heating and bath water can be produced directly from renewable electricity instead of : renewable electricity -> water electrolysis -> hydrogen burning.
[deleted] t1_ivh6uzk wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ivio4ow wrote
[removed]
Loki-L t1_ive8kfr wrote
Fun Fact:
The Dutch word for a mix of oxygen and hydrogen is "Knalgas", literally "bang-gas".