Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

TheNotSoEvilEngineer t1_j5rmtqu wrote

So, it's using electrolysis, aka splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen. Now outside of this year, unless they were desalinating at the same time, they would be competing with agriculture and residential for water. Historically southern Cali water was a problem. Yes, not right now, but the past decade they've been in drought.

19

FormABruteSquad t1_j5sxleg wrote

This plant would use less water than a single California pistachio farm.

12

dontpet t1_j5sqe8l wrote

I'm guessing the water used would be minimal compared to that used by agriculture. Even in a large production plant.

3

Ruben-Tuggs t1_j62b109 wrote

So you distill the salt water and send it to the pistachio farm

1

ForHidingSquirrels OP t1_j5qk5xz wrote

I’m still not sold on hydrogen being used for electricity or heating, but long distance trucking maybe. Definitely things like fertilizer, and industrial uses. I’m not certain who odd buying this hydrogen, so can’t secular there yet. But it’s in Lancaster which has a lot of industry, and it’s very near farm stuff too.

This project will be incentivized by the Inflation Reduction Act.

10

bubba-yo t1_j5rq6eu wrote

UC Irvine has been supplementing its campus power generation using green hydrogen for about 6 years now. They got approval to expand that throughout the campus gas infrastructure and are implementing it now.

Now, there's a few ways this can be used. The campus has something over 4MW of solar installed, and has on-site electrolysis facilities to convert excess into hydrogen. That can simply be pushed into the gas pipeline and burned as part of existing boiler operations. The hydrogen burns more cleanly than natural gas and increases the overall efficiency of the system, though there is still some carbon emissions this way. The pipeline also serves as a form of storage. Ideally you put the hydrogen into on-site fuel cells for power generation, and that too is happening, with only surplus from that operation (and from the on-campus hydrogen fueling station) being added to the natural gas feed. The campus also has things like large scale thermal storage so boiler operations that benefit from solar peak energy can be averaged into non-solar generation hours, etc.

There's a fair bit of industrial scale fuel cell out there, so there is demand. Companies like Apple and Google power their data centers off of solar + fuel cell, often using biofuel. Those fuel cells are largely identical to those that can operate off of hydrogen. So there is production capacity out there and I can see many of the manufacturing or distribution in that area being converted to that.

The question is how will that hydrogen be transported. Are they injecting into the large gas pipelines in the state, is it going into yet to be built dedicated hydrogen pipelines (we have some in CA, but none near Lancaster to my knowledge) or in some other way - such as solid state hydrogen storage from any of the companies working on that?

5

planko13 t1_j5roga6 wrote

Agreed, hydrogen actually fills a really sketchy gap (industrial feedstock) in a fossil fuel free modern society. However, as long as we continue to not price carbon release in the atmosphere, the economics will require heavy subsidies. This plant is really only useful for proof of concept.

Its really kinda stupid for energy production though.

2

dontpet t1_j5sqn9a wrote

I thought hydrogen with renewables is meant to get cheap enough to outdo conventional hydrogen. Headlines have been saying 2030 2035, without subsidies.

With the current range of American subsidies one informed podcaster said that hydrogen will cost $0 in a couple of years. I can imagine that being unpopular!

2

CriticalUnit t1_j5taual wrote

> one informed podcaster said that hydrogen will cost $0 in a couple of years.

  1. This is not accurate.

  2. Delivery costs are also high, meaning even if it was 'free' to produce it would still be expensive to use.

1

dontpet t1_j5ueh2p wrote

1 was Shayle Kann, doing the Katalyst podcast. I was taken aback when he said that, so I hope he covers what he meant in a coming episode.

2- both conventional and green hydrogen have to be transported.

1

CriticalUnit t1_j5xrt4j wrote

  1. He's incorrect

  2. Conventional hydrogen also isn't cheap

1

TotallyInOverMyHead t1_j5vlweq wrote

I think it may be easier/cheaper /ecologically more beneficial to store hydrogen than electricity long term.

1

Bewaretheicespiders t1_j5qr684 wrote

You'ld be better off making methane of a number of other fuels. People are pumping hydrogen to create an infrastructure and a market that will be fulfilled by dirty hydrogen surplus from gas extraction.

0

netz_pirat t1_j5sucaa wrote

If you want to make methane, you'll need hydrogen as a precursor anyway.

2

Bewaretheicespiders t1_j5ubk6y wrote

But you should make it at the same facility as you make methane, not store and transport it with at huge losses.

0

kaibae19 t1_j5qsmow wrote

I think this project is the other half of the which Heliogen's solar installation was announced for Lancaster last November. They'll use the concentrated solar system from Heliogen to power the hydrogen production being announced in this release.

7

gerkletoss t1_j5qfn0i wrote

How much of energy that it took to make the hydrogen is recovered when it's used in a fuel cell?

1

mhornberger t1_j5qgd3f wrote

I don't think efficiency matters as much when we're talking about sunlight. The sun was going to shine anyway. When burning fuel efficiency matters more, since you're consuming a resource that you had to extract and refine. Not saying efficiency means nothing here, just that it might take a backseat to the importance of reducing the burning of fossil fuels.

10

wwarnout t1_j5qijjz wrote

Here's a thought:

Using solar directly is more efficient that using it to extract H2, which is subsequently used for essentially the same purposes.

However, there are times when solar or wind have to be turned off, because they are producing more energy than can be used at the time, and storage is still not well developed.

So, rather than turning the renewables off, they could redirect the energy to extracting H2. This would make much more sense than using solar for H2 extraction instead of using it on the grid.

9

Surur t1_j5qrvic wrote

That logic especially holds when you overbuilt solar and have masses of excess solar that would otherwise go to waste.

7

Nah-vi t1_j5qy4y0 wrote

Couldn't you collect the water after using the fuel to drink or at the very least water plants also? Meaning even if it isn't efficient ad a fuel source it has other valuable benefits.

1

Ps1on t1_j5so25a wrote

Yes, but then you have to be able to have sufficient storage of H2. I'm not sure if that's there yet. It's a highly flammable, very light gas that needs to be stored in obscene quantities over a period of months.

1

cybercuzco t1_j5qozy4 wrote

Sure but if you are going to convert that H2 back into electricity you will get more electricity back if you store it in batteries.

0

killcat t1_j5r64k6 wrote

As a percentage, yes, but it comes down to energy density per dollar of storage cost, and there are applications for Hydrogen gas that raw electricity can't do.

3

cybercuzco t1_j5qokoj wrote

It does matter because if this is just being used as an energy storage mechanism there are probably more efficient means of storing that electricity (batteries). If they are making process hydrogen that is replacing a natural gas source then you’re right efficiency doesn’t matter.

1

martinstoeckli t1_j5qt3wz wrote

Converting electricity to hydrogen and back to electricity is one of the cleanest ways to store energy, this has the potential to reduce the summer/winter differences.

3

johnpseudo t1_j5tzkj4 wrote

Batteries are only more "efficient" than hydrogen when their duty cycle is relatively high. For seasonal balancing (with a duty cycle of ~1/year), hydrogen is significantly cheaper because of the lower storage costs.

For example this study:

>For storage durations longer than approximately 36 h, technologies with very low storage costs, such as geologic hydrogen storage and natural gas with CCS, offer the least-cost options for LDES and low-emission power generation capacity.

>These results share some similarities with those of previous studies while also offering unique insights. Schmidt et al.11 similarly demonstrated that hydrogen storage and CAES have the lowest costs for seasonal storage in the near term, with hydrogen becoming the least-cost technology for seasonal storage in the future. The present analysis, however, introduces a lower-cost HDV-PEM fuel cell system compared with the stationary fuel cell system considered in Schmidt et al.11 The HDV-PEM system in this analysis provides both a lower power capital cost by using the HDV-PEM fuel cell as well as a lower energy storage capital cost by using a salt cavern. These cost reductions are slightly offset by the lower capacity factor modeled for HDV-PEM systems because of their lower round-trip efficiency, but the results still indicate that HDV-PEM|Salt systems achieve the lowest LCOE at durations as low as 36 h in the future scenario, much lower than the duration estimated by Schmidt et al.11 when including all technologies.

1

cybercuzco t1_j5u7epc wrote

Right but what that study fails to mention is that we don’t need seasonal storage if we are using combined wind and solar, because wind produces more in the winter and solar produces more in the summer. source

1

johnpseudo t1_j5uids4 wrote

Obviously it'll depend a lot on location and availability of long-distance transmission.

1

gerkletoss t1_j5qgr4c wrote

It would certainly affect whether it's preferable to biofuels

0

mhornberger t1_j5qh99h wrote

Plant-based biofuels are land- and water-intensive. Putting aside recent rains, CA has been facing serious drought issues. Plant-based biofuels are just not that great.

If we scaled algae-based biofuels that picture might be different.

7

gerkletoss t1_j5qijno wrote

Solar power is land-intensive.

Hence why a trade study is needed.

−4

mhornberger t1_j5qixij wrote

Solar can coexist with agriculture on the same land via agrivoltaics, and also with wind turbines. PV can also go on rooftops, over reservoirs, etc. Studies have already been done showing that, per acre, PV generates more energy than plant-based biofuels. "But they both use land" doesn't make them equal.

10

gerkletoss t1_j5qlgv7 wrote

May I see some of these studies?

Regardless, when it comes to load-following power plants or airplanes, the balance does shift.

−1

expertestateattorney t1_j5qtokg wrote

I have been through that area. There are immense tracts of unused desert land.

2

gerkletoss t1_j5r03w5 wrote

A) deserts have important ecology

B) we're not just talking about this one site

−1

SandAndAlum t1_j5sc769 wrote

The worst areas are within easy transmission range of somewhere with a winter capacity factor over 8%.

Power density is around 1MW/ha nameplate when land optimized. This is under 70m^2 (8m x 8m) per person to provide world final energy of around 10TW. This land can coexist with many other uses (such as roofs, car parking, and agrivoltaics)

The fact that you're pearl clutching over this, but not over the average 8 car parks per person at 40m^2 each or the land required to support eating beef makes your motivations fairly clear.

1

gerkletoss t1_j5skjo1 wrote

I don't need a lecture from someone who can't even keep track of what I'm talking about trading.

2

SandAndAlum t1_j5smffo wrote

You only dog whistled it but it's obvious nonetheless.

You're talking about more land, more pollution and more long term costin the form of gas.

0

gerkletoss t1_j5smw7i wrote

I could make up far worse lies about you but it would only make me look like more of a moron than you and I'd probably get banned for it.

Maybe if you pull you head out of your ass you'll figure out that deserts are real places with real environmental impact and while they're certainly not bad places for solar installation care must be taken to avoid erosion problems due to construction and lack of plants.

1

SandAndAlum t1_j5sbjym wrote

Solar uses less land than coal extraction or the largest uranium mines per unit power. There is no choice with lower impact.

1

gerkletoss t1_j5skgn8 wrote

If you look back three comments you'll see that I wasn't comparing to any of those.

>There is no choice with lower impact.

For many applications there are. For instance, it's better to run my blender off the grid than to use solar hydrogen.

2

[deleted] t1_j5sky5m wrote

[removed]

1

[deleted] t1_j5smloa wrote

[removed]

1

SandAndAlum t1_j5smwv0 wrote

No. You were repeating fossil fuel propaganda unrelated to the issue at hand.

1

gerkletoss t1_j5sn5my wrote

They use real concerns in their propaganda because it's effective

But you'll note that I only mentioned carbon-neutral alternative technologies here, which terrifies the fossil fuel industry. Or maybe not. My hopes aren't high.

1

SandAndAlum t1_j5sniku wrote

Except it's not a real concern when its less bad than any other option. By all means push for less land use, but pick the low hanging fruit first.

1

gerkletoss t1_j5snsqw wrote

The other carbon-neutral options are what I was talking about you reactionary hero

1

SandAndAlum t1_j5snx6r wrote

You continue to dog whistle gas with carbon capture (which is fictional) whilst not being brave enough to say it out loud.

1

gerkletoss t1_j5so2bi wrote

Yes, carbon capture is on the list of things I didn't say.

1

SandAndAlum t1_j5so76s wrote

Which continues to be fossil fuel propaganda.

1

gerkletoss t1_j5sohfm wrote

Fossil fuel propaganda would be accusing everyone who asks questions about hydrogen generation compared to other carbon-neutral technologies of being shills regardless of whether they're suggesting that it's probably great for certain applications in other contexts and were doing so before you made your accusation.

2

SandAndAlum t1_j5sp0hl wrote

You're attacking solar derived energy and dog whistling fossil fuel hydrogen. The motivation is obvious. This 'just asking questions' act fools nobody.

0

Jorbam t1_j5qi5nk wrote

Electrolysis ranges in efficiency from about 65% to 75% depending on the equipment used. Then a fuel cell is about 40% to 60% efficient.

So with green energy cars its pick your poison. Expensive ass batteries that take ages to charge or expensive ass fuel with very few filling stations.

We need to build the infrastructure for one or both of them.

3

cybercuzco t1_j5qp3pl wrote

We need more ass fuel rather than expensive ass fuel.

3

mhornberger t1_j5qino3 wrote

I'm honestly more interested in hydrogen as a feedstock to make ammonia, for seasonal storage. BEVs are moving quickly, both in market share and also the technology moving forward. I'm not opposed to fuel-cell cars, but I don't see a robust network of filling stations being built out. Not where it could compete with the charging network+home charging.

2

gerkletoss t1_j5qlxcw wrote

Cars aren't the only possible application for hydrogen fuel. Aircraft are going to have a very difficult time using batteries.

3

mhornberger t1_j5qneix wrote

There's also synfuel, also called electrofuel. Prometheus Fuels and multiple other companies are working on synthesizing jet fuel (and diesel, and everything else we get from fossil fuels now) from air-captured CO2. It won't be as efficient or cheap as electrified planes, but as you say, electrifying aviation won't be easy.

I have more confidence in this synthetic jet fuel, mainly because it works in planes we already have now. Not hypothetical future designs that use only hydrogen.

2

gerkletoss t1_j5qnp8m wrote

You also have efficiency gains from not having to carry a heavy battery through the air though lift induced drag is way worse than rolling resistance. And that could potentially be the best way to do it indefinitely as long as we get carbon neutral, especially for military applications.

1

bubba-yo t1_j5rne8a wrote

With the most efficient fuel cells and electrolysis processes, about 75%.

But that misses the point. California is currently working to address some of the problems associated with large scale solar production. Because demand for power doesn't move in alignment with production, each additional megawatt of generation you add reduces its efficiency because you are also adding production at times when there's no demand. There's a few ways of mitigating this, such as batteries, but also by adding demand. As such, in a configuration like this, the hydrogen is a battery, and how efficient of a battery depends on how this plant is being operated. Without mechanisms to either add demand during peak power times, or mechanisms to bank it, the efficiency of the solar infrastructure will continue to decline as it builds out.

CA is currently curtailing about 2TWh of renewable power annually. That's solar/wind that has an efficiency rating of 0%. Using it for literally anything is an improvement.

3

gerkletoss t1_j5rtodz wrote

>But that misses the point.

Does it? 75% is already much better than iron-air batteries, so that's pretty good before even considering this other stuff.

2

bubba-yo t1_j5s6wsg wrote

The problem with batteries is that their capacity and throughput are basically the same thing. Capacity is VERY expensive with batteries.

With hydrogen it's different - throughput is the cost of the fuel cell, but capacity is just the tank you store the hydrogen in. You can grow capacity for a LOT less money than throughput. So for short term storage, battery is great. For longer term storage, it falls off.

Iron air is designed to fill that gap a bit - really cheap, but pretty shit efficiency. But you can package them up, slap one under every solar panel, and get a huge gain. Hydrogen still needs distribution, and all that, or getting a reversible fuel cell down in cost enough to compete so you can slap them down as frequently. That's probably not going to happen.

But in both cases, these things are trying to convert a 0% efficiency due to oversupply into something positive. Almost anything is a gain.

FWIW, some breakthroughs in iron air has gotten their efficiencies up over 65%, so given their costs, they're pretty viable. Not useful for transportation applications though, where hydrogen is. Solid state hydrogen energy density is upwards of double that of lithium ion.

2

Fiskifus t1_j5r2zpz wrote

What's the energy cost of extracting materials, processing them, producing, shipping, installing and maintaining all that solar panel infraestructure which will need to be renewed and therefore spend again the same energy every 30 or so years?

There's one thing we need to realise: there's no such thing as clean energy, all energy production and use has a material cost (and every material extraction, production, and use has an energetic cost), it's the laws of thermodynamics.

There are energies that are cleaner and more efficient, sure, but if the objective is perpetual growth and not sustainability, cleaner energies will just buy us some time, but the limits will catch us eventually (sooner rather than later seeing how that climate collapse thingy is coming along).

In fact, in a growthist economic system such as capitalism, any improvement in efficiency results in not a lower, but a greater use of energy and materials, hence, the more exploitation and consumption of resources, the economist William Stanley Jevons discovered this paradox in 1865 with improvements in steam engines and coal extraction and consumption, look it up, it's fascinating... American slaves also lived this paradox in their own skins with the invention of the cotton gin, which was invented to ease the work of the slaves, and hence reduce slavery, and the result was the complete opposite, increasing by orders of magnitude the enslavement of human beings.

−1

CriticalUnit t1_j5tcvlx wrote

> What's the energy cost of extracting materials, processing them, producing, shipping, installing and maintaining all that solar panel infraestructure which will need to be renewed and therefore spend again the same energy every 30 or so years?

Than than the energy cost of current Fossil Fuel solutions

1

Fiskifus t1_j5tfh02 wrote

Both are a meaningless waste of resources only in service of the never satisfied monster of economic growth.

1

CriticalUnit t1_j5ttagz wrote

Sure, but those are much deeper fundamental problems with how our Economies are organized, not technologial problems.

Barring a complete economic and financial revolution, Some options are less harmful than others. So lets Deploy those.

1

Fiskifus t1_j5u81ib wrote

I think it's better to get an economic and financial revolution rolling, because if not deploying those less harmful solutions will be as harmful in the long run.

Do you what's use to extract the materials, minerals and rare earth to build solar panels? Fossil fuels.

Do you know what's used to build and ensemble those solar panels? Fossil fuels.

Do you know what's used to ship solar panels around? Fossil fuels.

The more solar panel use, the more fossil fuel use, because you can't get the sort of energy needed for mines, factories, and transport from solar, wind and other "less harmful" options

0

CriticalUnit t1_j5xrqcl wrote

> The more solar panel use, the more fossil fuel use,

Sure, currently most manufacturing and extraction runs on FF. But that Is also changing.

>deploying those less harmful solutions will be as harmful in the long run.

This is blatantly false.

More solar panel use means LESS Fossil fuel use vs not using the solar panels. Each electron produced by solar displaces electrons made from fossil fuels. How are you not understanding this? It's a transition process. It doesn't happen from one day to the next. The transition will take decades.

>I think it's better to get an economic and financial revolution rolling,

Sure, lets see your plan for that. I'm interested how you expect to do that.

1

Demfer t1_j5tbu6e wrote

Hydrolysis is inefficient, the main source of hydrogen for fuel is obtained from natural gas- it’s hilarious.

Also nitrogen is really tiny, like the smallest element! Image the seals you will need to trap the hydrogen! Imagine if it leaks! 💥 💥 💥

−1