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.
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.
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.
He's not an oil engineer, that's just your usual smear tactics.
And I don't pay attention to your so called 'experts' when they deliberately ignore or try to disguise hydrogens links to fossil fuel production. Just like you do.
@mackaj Sure, he's a "chemical engineer." But he doesn't tell people that he worked mostly with oil companies. After all, how else do you get 30 years of experience working with syngas?
Nearly all of the experts I cite actually work for the green energy sector. You're just projecting on this one.
As I've said, ad nausium, 99% of hydrogen comes from fossil fuels and has done for decades. So who do you think is going to have more exposure, experience and expertise in dealing with hydrogen?
Let that sink in for a moment.
That doesn't address my point that those who have worked in the sector that produced almost all the hydrogen for the past 30 years are the ones who have the most expertise in it. Paul Martin's credentials in this area are indisputable.
Does hydrogen behave differently if it's made from fossil fuels or electrolysis? Is it chemically different? Does it compress, freeze, store, travel or burn differently?
The answer is NO to all those questions.
A hydrogen expert is a hydrogen expert.
Again, you attack the person because you can't handle his expert knowledge.
@mackaj LOL he's a oil guy that is incapable of believing in renewable energy, or at least thinks it is hopelessly expensive.
Look, I get it. You want to believe that green hydrogen is impossible somehow. And you're willing to find anyone that can give the answer you want to hear. But you're making a fool of yourself. Just be aware of where you're really going.
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.
mc.fly
mxey
zem
Hypx
Mackaj
