Yesterday the power grid in europe nearly failed after a nuclear power plant in France suddenly stopped producing electricity after a failure.
Renewables had to solve it as they can switch on production the fastest - it was a windy day and a lot of wind power plants were regulated down.
But wind power is supposed to be the problem for quite some people.
https://aut.social/@Netzfrequenzinfodienst/111352334576608164
@mxey this argument has some merit when you see it through the eyes of classical power production where you have 100% capacity but never need more - but also have production costs.
It will not work with renewables if you build up only 100% capacity, you likely will have to build up more.
Gladly renewable power is meanwhile cheap to build - cheaper than all other power sources. And it has a nice extra feature which will change power markets - no production costs.
You get a power production that has another feature - very fast regulating speeds. Solar power can be switched on when there's sun instantly. Wind power plants can be switched on in less than a minute - something most classical power production systems can't do. We rely on the rotation momentum of the turbines + generators there.
At the moment we have even the problem that slow nuclear + coal powers press renewables or of there markets as they just can't regulate fast enough. Coal and nuclear plants count in hours in regulating power output in larger jumps.
@mcfly
Honestly, i don't think H2 will play any major role in vehicles. it is to heavy/dangerous for planes, and way to expensive for anything that can be heavier, even ships.
It will have an urgent need in industry and to power high efficient gas plants, and to my information (please update) all the hydrogen facilities planned worldwide can only supply 10 % of germanys demands.
@zem @Hypx @mxey Well Hydrogen is complicated and noone has a glass sphere.
I think the first misunderstanding is "green Hydrogen will be expensive as brown hydrogen is expensive"
The Port of Rotterdam plans to go BIG into the green hydrogen production for multiple reasons.
First - we have a lot of unused electricity on the Maasvlakte which we can't get rid of easily.
The Offshore Windparks in the west of the Netherlands land here.
The power lines are too small to get the power East to germany and rest of the Netherlands. The Offshore Wind power is growing faster than the powerlines are growing.
We also have a lot of consumers of Hydrogen. A lot of H2 is used in the Hydrocracking process. There is a Hydrogen Pipeline network in the Port already, there are some hydrogen storage facilities, the chemical industry here would like to have that. (There's also a consumption of O2 which changes the calculation noticable).
So i think (!) the first thing that green hydrogen will replace is brown hydrogen as that stuff is expensive to make.
The idea of the Hydrogen project here aims to replace coal in chemical functions - Steel ovens and cement plants
But there's also the option to use CO2 (wich we also have a pipeline network for here) with hydrogen to form methane.
As said, its a glass sphere and i think noone knows what the future really will bring.
@mcfly
@Hypx @mxey You are absolutely right no one has a glass sphere, but you can make some asumptions.
My main asumption is that green hydrogen will most certainly have a slightly higher price per KW/h than the electricity used to create it. For the electricity prices the investments and maintenance are the key factor for their pricing, especially if you can put each and every, not anymore overproduced, kw/h in hydrogen anyway to meet demands.
@mcfly @Hypx @mxey With this asumption made, you can have a look at efficiency and feasibility, there is a hell lot of it out there, but it all studies show that battery powered cars are at a factor of about 3 times more effective than hydrogen powered ones. Which means 4 times the price.
I would not bet that you can get hold of any hydrogen cheaper than electricity even if it is your own electrolysis plant it will be cheaper to just charge a battery with it!
@mcfly @Hypx @mxey Oh you sure can do both, and I may have to remember you that it was Geman Minister Wissing who added the last minute option to run on E-Fuels in the EU parlament.
But it makes a difference to you if your car is using 4 l/100km or 8 l/100km, and it will be the same difference on the free market: The more efficient cars will sell, unless you have a really good argument that fits your wallet.
@Hypx @mcfly @mxey What experts say that? First of all the last FCEVs all had a buffer battery inside, and their ranges where lower than Battery powered cars. Even though a cell can reach 62 % under labor conditions, in the field those cells don't reach 50%. The fireproof storage units are causing additional losses.
The battery powered car, I have ordered, will charge itself full over the period of one week and will have about 70% efficiency from the charger to the wheel.
@Hypx @mcfly @mxey Don't forget to count in additional losses on the FCEV battery. Then you are at 35%. Of course you also have losses at hydrogen generation, storage and transport that I have not accountedm, but people have done that. All in 10-15%
Current FCEV do not drive as far as those with batterie it would make them too heavy!
If I can drive 20% cheaper with a car that costs me less to buy I would consider waiting 10 minutes longer to charge.
@zem @mcfly @mxey Now you are making shit up. The fuel cell can directly power the wheels. The electrical grid is not 100% efficient either. The real difference in efficiency between BEV and FCEV is small.
FCEVs are lighter than BEVs, especially for long ranges. This is just another example of BEV marketing.
The point is that FCEVs will be much cheaper to manufacture. You won't save that amount of money via driving. BEV companies don't want people to hear about FCEVs, so they lie about them.
@Hypx @mcfly @mxey No I am not making it up there is a Study that has calculated the losses to 15%, and I have not claimed the grid losses to be 0%.
But let us stick to what is available on the market: Toyota Mirai, 60000 Euro 500 km range, 1.9 tons, fuels in 15 minutes using 26-29 KWh/100 km. Same weight same price way higher fuel consumption.
And yes you are right those numbers are a more promising that I was aware but the battery still the battery wins the efficiency race.
@zem @mcfly @mxey It should be $50,000, 650km range, and refuels in 5 minutes.
Regardless, given how small of a production run it is, this is already well past the desired amount of needed cost reduction. More mass production will reduce price to that of existing ICE cars. BEVs will lose competitiveness.
@zem @Hypx @mxey That's the point. The electricity is not produced as alternative and does not have production costs.
This over-electricity problem will get worse in the future as the growth in electricity production is a lot bigger than we're building power lines. That's the same in north germany than on the Maasvlakte in Rotterdam.
For the current plans for the next 10 years the production rises 3 times faster than the power line construction.
This will NOT be a problem that goes away over time in the forseeable future. Like how long we live.
Brown hydrogen is btw waaaaaaaaay more expensive.
But to be honest - i don't think the Hydrogen will be used for driving. There's just too many other lucrative alternatives like producing Iron or Cement where the hydrogen replaces the coal as chemical compound, not as energy carrier.
The calculation above for car propulsion is only true if electricity has the same price for a battery car charge and the hydrogen production. The hydrogen production can move, the battery filling not. If the hydrogen electricity is less than 1/4 the price than the electricity used for charging the car it suddenly is worth it.
The network share is today already higher than the proctuction share of the electricity price.
@zem @Hypx @mxey To put overproduction of electricity into numbers: West Holland offshore windfarms are throtteled on 300 days a year. On windy and sunny days we're throtteling by a 2 digit numbers of GW.
It really is A LOT of electricity that at the moment we don't use.
In general that's the same in north germany.
@mcfly @Hypx @mxey At the moment, yes maybe. A 2 digit number of GW is a monmentary load, how much is that in GW/h per year, that is the interesting number!
So far all factors indicate that we will use each and every bit of energy. In 2022 germany needed 1449 TWh natural gas, just saying. My thumb says you need about another 400 of those stations and offshore parks to meet demands for Germany.
And now what does the market do with the price again if something is not available?
@zem @Hypx @mxey Every unit of those hydrogen hydrolyse units is 200MW. 10-20 go into one factory. There's supposed to be several factories.
And they are also not supposed to run all the time - ONLY in situations where the power cannot be moved away.
So its a bit complicated to say beforehand and a bit of learning as we go.
At the moment we have the situation that offshore windparks are not being set up with the speed that's possible as atm there's just no way to get rid of the electricity.
Upgrading the power grid is just waaaaaay slower than setting up wind farms.
@mcfly @Hypx @mxey Yes this is a hell lot of work! I have no job worries during the next couple of decades.
It is interesting that renewables are still cheaper than fossil energies despite of the fact that we are not able to use up all the power yet.
I am really happy to see that energy change is finally picking up it is about time!
@mcfly @Hypx @mxey But to pick up my initial statement: If all of this new energy system is up and running, you have a relatively fixed demand throughout the year, and we will produce that demand. Which results in a price, although you may assume a cheaper price for the energy hydrogen production you also have factors like investment costs and earnings and transport that might ultimately lead to a similar price per KW/h than electricity.
For vehicle use it must be 3 times cheaper due to losses.
The Toyota Mirai has a 5.6kg H2 capacity. At the recent price of $36/kg in California that's $201 for a range of 312 miles.
Home EV charging in California would cost between $13 - $29 depending on your tariff for the same range.
Hydrogen is definitely NOT the cheap option.
Let's not also forget that 99+% of hydrogen available globally today isn't green, it's dirty.
@mackaj @zem @mcfly @mxey That's 400 miles, FYI. The current pricing is a specific local shortage of hydrogen. If anything, it is showing demand is growing faster than supply. This is a repeat of when PV panels got really expensive, and critics concluded that it was the death of certain types of PV cell. But it was just a minor setback, and the critics got egg on their faces in the end.
In California, it is legally required to have a certainly percentage of green hydrogen.
That's Toyota's official range, but Autocar only managed about 300 miles of real world range per tank.
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/toyota/mirai/353754/new-toyota-mirai-2021-review
If demand for H2 is outstripping supply that demand isn't coming from FCEVs. The sales numbers are pitiful and dropping. More likely it's being diverted to industrial uses where it's a higher priority and actually needed.
Hydrogen for light to medium transport is a dead end use case.
@mackaj @zem @mcfly @mxey You can say that about any car. Reviewers get different mileage from official numbers.
You are creating your own alternative reality here. Hydrogen car sales are growing and hitting records:
https://mitechnews.com/update/us-hydrogen-fuel-car-sales-set-second-quarter-record/
California isn't the world. Total global sales are on the slide 🧐
@mackaj @zem @mcfly @mxey The supply shortages are in California.
And "global decline" is really just South Korea alone, likely due to Hyundai scaling back Nexo production in favor of next year's model. Even then, that is only looking at passenger cars. FCEVs in total probably went up once all vehicle types are included.
At a $62,000 starting price the Hyundai Nexo isn't going to do much to rescue sales. #BEV cars are cheaper to buy, cheaper to run, faster, more exciting and better looking. And there aren't even any Teslas in this picture 😄
@mackaj @zem @mcfly @mxey In the US, you basically cannot find them at the lower prices. Sometimes, there are massive dealership markups. It is simply how it is.
Several companies including Toyota and Hyundai have announced big reductions in cost for the next-gen fuel cell designs. It is happening whether you like it or not.
Nope. The 2024 model has a (delayed) upgraded fuel cell. Don't expect another redesign just one year later.
https://europe.autonews.com/automakers/hyundai-delays-launch-upgraded-nexo-hydrogen-car-report-says
You're wrong about the mark up, see the prices at this LA dealer.
https://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/new-cars/hyundai/ioniq-5/los-angeles-ca
Their 2024 SE models are $43k and their long range SEL models are $47k.
Dealers are selling the 2024 Nexo for $65k. No comparison!
FCEV car prices won't come down. It's a chicken v egg scenario. They need volume sales to drive down prices. Fierce competition from BEVs + high prices + poor H2 fuel infrastructure will prevent that from ever happening. They're a dud.
@mackaj @Hypx @zem @mxey can you take me out of your pointless fight over which car will win in the future which is COMPLETELY USELESS as neither of you can look into the future and both cars are CO2 free.
Really i don't care for anyone's of your opinions on that as you have gone down to the point just calling each other wrong. Neither one of you reacts on each others arguments (or others), you just list the same arguments over and over again.
I really don't care who buys which car as long as it does not exhause CO2.
If the hydrogen that went into them was mostly green I wouldn't have a problem. But it isn't. Pushing FCEVs now only benefits the fossil fuel industry and is anti-climate.
It's not an extension, it's the core. You pretend hydrogen production is clean and ignore the fact it isn't.
People aren't always aware of hydrogen's dirty secret, but I'll take every opportunity I get to educate them about it. Until the situation changes of cause - if it does.
Ok I'll drop you from future replies, and everyone else too.
You said you'd muted this conversation so I wasn't thinking about it.
PS. Both cars are not CO2 free, not when 99+% of hydrogen is produced from methane or coal.
I'd also recommend watching this video for some expert opinions on the use of hydrogen.
He's a chemical engineer with 30 years experience working with hydrogen and syngas. He's probably forgotten more about hydrogen that you'll learn in your lifetime.
That's your MO to a tee. Every time a subject expert says something that contradicts you, you always go for the ad hominem angle to try and discredit them.
It's not working.
@mackaj You dismissed every expert that promotes hydrogen. Including whole companies' worth of experts. Your hypocrisy is laughable here.
Meanwhile, you really are citing a oil engineer on this subject. A totally non-credible individual.
Brown hydrogen will not exist anymore in 5 years.
Why?
All countries with costs put wind farms into the water - offshore wind parks.
This generates the problem that the power needs to land. I work at the port of rotterdam (in the software development) and all offshore windparks in the west of the netherlands land their electricity at the Maasvlakte.
On around 300 days a year we need to throttle those offshore windfarms as we can't get rid of the power they generate.
Building land lines takes a lot longer and has a lot more NYMBY problems than those offshore windfarms. The problem will get bigger for the forseeable future. We therefore need to do something with this nearly free electricity.
nearly free?
Yes, nearly free. As the alternative is to just switch off the wind farms and they don't have production costs. For windfarms the capital costs are completely independend from their production.
If that thing is on or off - does not make a difference at all.
You have probably heard that in wind- and sun-rich times electrical power has meanwhile a negative price - so you get paid when you consume it.
Hydrogen electrolysis plants are super cheap. You need water, 2 electrodes and ways to transport off the hydrogen and the oxygen.
At the Port of Rotterdam we have a lot of (petro-) chemical industry.
They consume huge ammounts of hydrogen for the hydrogen cracking process - so there is a huge industry for brown hydrogen and we have pipeline network for hydrogen (and oxygen btw which is also used a lot).
Brown hydrogen is super expensive (and around 15-20% of the CO2 emmisions of normal benzin fuel) and as said used in huge ammounts for the hydrocracking process.
At the moment the project of hydrogen-electrolyse that generates green hydrogen wants to take that market first.
That's why i say brown hydrogen will just not exist anymore in scale in 5 years.
The next markets are steel and cement. In both cases hydrogen is supposed to replace coal and oil as chemical compount, not as energy carrier.
Iron ore is basically rust. You use the coal to pull away the oxygen from the rust to become CO2 - which leaves raw iron (hugely simplified). An alike chemical process happens in the production of cement which is one of the main resaon on why concrete is so CO2 intensive.
Those fall under the topic of decarbonisation of core industries.
The pipeline network that the Port of Rotterdam is connected to the german pipeline network.
@mackaj Most of the german LNG is (at the moment still) landed at the Port of Rotterdam. We'll add around 30 volume-% of the hydrogen to the gas and even - with CO2 which is produced as byproduct at a lot of places in the chemical processes on the area of the Port - make green methane out of it.
And there's the point. Some of that will be used for cars and other vehicles as soon as its availible. That's not the core market of the green hydrogen market but as soon as its availible some people and orgs will use it for other stuff. Like driving cars.
Sure not at the moment - and that's imho the reason why H2 cars sell bad - but that will change as soon as green hydrogen is around.
So - how big is this green hydrogen production?
Big, really big. but tiny compared to the needs that if we all drive hydrogen cars. Just won't be enough.
But at the moment we switch off at least 1GW of electricity for 300 days and >10 GW of electricity on more than 200 days a year.
At the moment the plans are to build around 20GW of hydrogen electrolysis capacity alone in the port of Rotterdam. Probably up to 80 GW capacity.
And as said the problem of missing power lines will become bigger as offshore wind is being build faster than power lines are being build. And offshore wind is so cheap that with an uptime of 30% its already worth it.
@mackaj All of that has been mentioned in this thread before. The point that brown hydrogen is bad but will dissapear as its just too expensive.
The point that it does not matter what kind of car you drive as long as its CO2 free - and electric cars and hydrogen cars both are.
The point that battery vehicles are a lot more efficient compared to hydrogen cars which is relevant as long as the electricity has the same price for both. But if not - and in coastal areas electricity is a lot cheaper - that argument is also not really valid anymore.
The point that a lot of people repeat the same arguments over and over again.
And noone has a glass sphere. Noone knows if the decarbonisation of cement and steel will work (and therefore create a huge demand on green hydrogen).
If it does there's not really any green hydrogen left to power cars.
If it fails we'll have a shitton of hydrogen left that should be used somewhat. Likely we'll burn it then for some use (which is the least desirable way to use it even if just water is created then).
@mackaj The main problem there is indeed that we don't have power lines to transport off the electricity inlands would be an argument and that would be true in a world where you'll build electrical production capacity of 100% of the maximum electrical consumption. We're way past that point, all electrical power producing plants are way above 100%.
In the european grid we're at around 180% at the moment and if solar and wind buildup speeds will keep this way we'll within some few years be at >250% production capacity compared to peak consumption.
And as said - most renewables don't have production costs, they only have investment costs. Solar cells degrade with teh same speed if they are used or not, same for windmills.
This creates marginal costs of 0 for electricity and that is already changing teh electrical market massively.
We will have huge overcapacities of electricity - we actually have them already, its the reason why we need sometimes negative electricity prices. We'll also need to use the electrolyse plats as electrical power sinks to stabilize the grid.
So please - each of you in this discussion - check if your arguments are still true in a world where the economical rules are so drastical changing.
If power prices are zero or negative it does not matter if a process is efficient.
And it does not matter that brown hydrogen emmits CO2 as brown hydrogen will be the first victim of green hydrogen.
And that's good this way. We need less CO2 emmisions.
The man asked to be taken out of replies. Show some respect.
It's the laws of economics that are keeping FCEV prices high.
Keep on dreaming though.
@mackaj Keep believing what you want then. It is clear your mind is already made up.
The rest of us can look at progress in all green technologies and make their own conclusions.
mc.fly
mxey
zem
Hypx
Mackaj
