David HoI’m a bad person
Sevoris@davidho No natural gas, only goose.
phi1997
Bob Davidsonhydrogen barks!
Mark
Raglan Niall 
Duncan@davidho 100% but if you used renewable energy to make hydrogen then it would be a viable part of the solution wouldn’t it? It wouldn’t take much to modify jet engines to run on hydrogen and completely decarbonise air travel. Ditto the internal combustion engine
Steffi@Psychonaut @davidho Hydrogen for air travel is not feasable, because its low density requires huge tanks, and/or thick and heavy cryogenic tanks. Same reason it never caught on in cars despite beeing available.
And most hydrogen is made by splitting methane into hydrogen and CO2, using lots of energy, and releasing the CO2 in the atmosphere. That is what "blue hydrogen" is. It produces even more CO2 than burning the methane directly.
And most hydrogen is made by splitting methane into hydrogen and CO2, using lots of energy, and releasing the CO2 in the atmosphere. That is what "blue hydrogen" is. It produces even more CO2 than burning the methane directly.
@stefanie @davidho appreciate the input but I feel you’re being defeatist. Forget blue hydrogen, focus on an environmentally sound method (electrolysis?). Isn’t it literally rocket fuel? How can it be feasible for space flight but not air travel? It might be difficult but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it. “We choose to do it not because it is easy but because it is hard” to paraphrase JFK
@Psychonaut @davidho It is used on only one active rocket, the Delta IV. A rocket is only fueled once, directly before launch, and it costs many millions to build.
That is why they can deal with the extremely expensive and almost impossible to contain cryogenic liquid hydrogen.
But think of it this way:
Liquid hydrogen is available. Hydrogen engines are available. Hydrogen fuel cells are available. Why is none of it widely used?
Because hydrogen is just too impractical to handle at scale.
charles@Psychonaut @stefanie @davidho cryogenic hydrogen is loaded onto the rocket minutes before launch and burned as fuel before it can boil off. Pressure tanks would be prohibitively heavy. I wonder if some combination of vacuum insulated tank and hydrogen-fuel-cell powered cryogenic cooling system could work...
@charles @Psychonaut @davidho I just did some searching, and it seems the highest efficiency of electrolysis in a lab is 89%, with 50-83% in realistic scenarios.
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352484722020625)
Now, lets say you put in 1 kWh in electricity, and get 0.85 kWh worth of hydrogen. You have to spend more energy compressing it, and transporting it. And then you burn it in an engine with maybe 50% efficiency and get maybe 0.4 kWh of energy on your tires.
👇
@charles @Psychonaut @davidho
If you used the same 1 kWh to charge a battery, you loose about 10%, and electric motors are around 90% efficient. So for the same 1 kWh of energy put in, you get ~ 0.8 kWh on the wheels.
There are very, very few scenarios where hydrogen would make any sense.
If you used the same 1 kWh to charge a battery, you loose about 10%, and electric motors are around 90% efficient. So for the same 1 kWh of energy put in, you get ~ 0.8 kWh on the wheels.
There are very, very few scenarios where hydrogen would make any sense.
@charles @Psychonaut @davidho But it is very useful for fossil fuel companies. Because the promise of hydrogen keeps people from implementing already available alternatives right now.
And it gives them an avenue to sell their dirty hydrogen from methane, thus keeping their business going as usual.
Hydrogen can not an will not save us.
@Psychonaut @stefanie @davidho I'm cautiously optimistic that if the technology to practically use hydrogen in cars emerges, the technology for small scale decentralized production and real energy market competition will follow. Imagine, making your own hydrogen fuel from solar power at home! Of course, public transportation and reduced consumption is obviously better, but it's an interesting possibility.
@charles @Psychonaut @davidho For me personally, I don't see a single use case where I couldn't just use the electricity from the solar panel directly.
@Psychonaut @charles @davidho Maybe, but that depends on efficient electrolysis and hydrogen storage.
And those are not readily available, let alone affordable.
On the other hand, a solar panel and a bunch of car batteries are cheaply available everywhere and can drive an electric heater easily.
That is the whole reason behind the hydrogen hype. To delay the adoption of already available alternatives.
Why not implement solar+batteries *now*, and talk about hydrogen again once it is affordable?
@stefanie @charles @davidho it needs to be mostly wind in the UK I think. But EVs can be a big part of the storage solution. Who uses their car more than 20% of the time? The rest of the time they’re just batteries on wheels. Plug them in and use them as part of the grid. Would need some investment in infrastructure, subsidies for EV purchases and probably free or heavily subsidized fuel for everyone.
@Psychonaut @charles @davidho I would argue for decentralized energy production. As in, if you buy a EV and also install solar on your roof for charging, you get a big subsidy or loan from the gov't.
That would take load off the grid and make it more resilient against power outages at the same time.
And in times of rising terror threats, removing single points of failure from critical infrastructure should be a major plus for any country.
Hypx@stefanie @Psychonaut @charles @davidho A decentralized grid can only work if we use hydrogen for grid energy storage and energy distribution. A simplistic concept of using only solar panels and batteries will lead to both curtailment and shortages at different periods. It will always need centralized power generation to be stable.
Only hydrogen can solve this problem. In fact, all of the 100% renewable grid proposals involve using hydrogen in vast quantities.
@Hypx @Psychonaut @charles @davidho Yeah, and the fact they are all just proposals and will stay proposals, because it isn't practical at all.
Meanwhile, battery storage in the 100s of Megawatts are readily available.
Meanwhile, battery storage in the 100s of Megawatts are readily available.
@stefanie @Psychonaut @charles @davidho They are not proposals anymore. You are not up to date with recent events. There are massive energy storage systems being built involving hydrogen.
@stefanie @Psychonaut @charles @davidho Of course, I have links. What's weird is how you can speak at such length about hydrogen and yet be totally unaware of such projects.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/12/climate/green-hydrogen-climate-change.html
@Hypx @Psychonaut @charles @davidho Oh, look. It's a Chevron, the oil industry promising hydrogen yet again!
And nice how they put the important part all at the bottom. The first batch of 40 electrolyzers, each 100 tons in mass.
And even IF this thing ever gets finished, it will be only 30% as efficient as if they had just put batteries there.
And nice how they put the important part all at the bottom. The first batch of 40 electrolyzers, each 100 tons in mass.
And even IF this thing ever gets finished, it will be only 30% as efficient as if they had just put batteries there.
@stefanie @Psychonaut @charles @davidho Of course, you will resort to guilt by association. And you are also moving the goalpost. You clearly didn't even think such a program existed until now.
All you are proving is that you are some kind of battery salesperson or promoter. You clearly have zero understanding of the situation. You are not a serious person in the slightest.
@stefanie @Psychonaut @charles @davidho The process of using solar power to make hydrogen is functionally the same idea as using solar+batteries. The difference is that you avoid needing vast quantities of batteries.
The latter being a massive resource burden. In reality, batteries are just a transitional idea. It will inevitably give way to truly sustainable energy storage ideas. Most anti-hydrogen rhetoric is just propaganda from the battery industry and is false or extremely exaggerated.
@Hypx @Psychonaut @charles @davidho The process of using solar to make hydrogen is woefully ineffective, losses to boil off and permeation are huge, and the back conversion to electricity is even more inefficient.
Hydrogen tech is science fiction, while batteries are here, now.
Hydrogen tech is science fiction, while batteries are here, now.
@stefanie @Psychonaut @charles @davidho Again, you are stuck in the past. You are so out of date, you won't even google basic facts about hydrogen. This is willful ignorance.
Wilfried Klaebe@Psychonaut Wrong. Watch https://youtu.be/DTsQjiPlksA (and his other vides regarding heat pumps) for explanations.
@Psychonaut @davidho @stefanie yeah that makes sense, just for cars, the batteries are super heavy, so it takes more energy to move the car. If a hydrogen fuel cell system could provide greater energy density, that could reduce overall energy consumption. Add quick refueling, and it becomes a pretty attractive proposition.
@charles @Psychonaut @davidho You are right. If fuel cells and hydrogen storage become advanced and efficient enough to overtake batteries, that would be great.
But why wait for that and keep burning oil&gas?
Battery EVs are more efficient and cheaper to drive, right now.
They keep dangling the promise of hydrogen just a few years in front of us. Just to keep us waiting and their business going as usual.
But we need change NOW, not maybe in a decade or so if the technology is ready.
But why wait for that and keep burning oil&gas?
Battery EVs are more efficient and cheaper to drive, right now.
They keep dangling the promise of hydrogen just a few years in front of us. Just to keep us waiting and their business going as usual.
But we need change NOW, not maybe in a decade or so if the technology is ready.
@charles @Psychonaut @stefanie @davidho but that's exactly where batteries are great!
Aside from the hydrogen I've been doing that for the last 10 years- making my own energy from solar panels and powering my house & car from it. As already pointed out I get much better efficiency without bringing the danger & complexity hydrogen into the equation.
@stefanie @charles @Psychonaut @davidho False. And diametrically opposed to reality.
ONLY hydrogen can save us. All other claims are lies. If not oil & gas propaganda (a long running tactic of claiming all alternatives are either just fossil fuels or impossible), or recently battery propaganda. A tactic where only batteries are “efficient” enough to work. But in reality, batteries are hopelessly resource intensive and don’t scale.
@Hypx @charles @Psychonaut @davidho You are the propaganda account. But we all know that it is the oil and gas industry promoting hydrogen, because they are the ones producing and selling it.
But hydrogen is almost uncontainable. While batteries scale perfectly well in vast ammounts with minimal losses.
But hydrogen is almost uncontainable. While batteries scale perfectly well in vast ammounts with minimal losses.
@stefanie @charles @Psychonaut @davidho Again, you are diametrically opposed to reality right now.
The problem is that you are totally out of date. You are spreading oil & gas propaganda from decades ago. Battery propaganda from 20 years ago. It's runaway ignorance.
@Hypx @charles @Psychonaut @davidho No.
Google "hydrogen tank" and see what you can buy.
Google "battery" and see what you can buy.
Google "Fuel Cell" and see what you can buy.
One is real, available and affordable right now. The other is expensive and inefficient.
@stefanie @charles @Psychonaut @davidho You literally won't even google those very words you just wrote!
How about YOU google those things! The expected results come up immediately and quickly answers your own questions.
@Hypx @charles @Psychonaut @davidho I did so yesterday. A 100W fuel cell is 1400€. A car battery can deliver 1000W and costs 100€.
@stefanie @charles @Psychonaut @davidho Then you are going out of your way to find the most expensive figures you can find. You can find vehicular grade fuel cells for around $20k. These are already in the realm of cost competitiveness. You are clearly not trying to be serious about your answers.
@Hypx @charles @Psychonaut @davidho Ok, compare your 20k fuel cell that still needs a heavy hydrogen tank to the 16k a tesla battery costs, and that one doesn't need a tank, because it IS the tank.
@stefanie @charles @Psychonaut @davidho Hydrogen tanks of the required nature cost in the range of a few thousand dollars to buy. A viable FCEV would cost broadly in the same range as a Tesla.
This is clearly a feasible technology. What's holding back is the ignorance of the public and among policymakers. That is going to change, once out-of-control battery promotion loses its steam.
@Hypx @charles @Psychonaut @davidho The technology might be feasable, but useless. You get 80% of your electricity on the road with batteries, while the needless step to hydrogen and back will have around 40% loss overall.
@stefanie @charles @Psychonaut @davidho Again, more oil & gas and battery propaganda.
Apparently, no one seems to care that solar power is only 15-20% efficient. Clearly, efficiency is not a problem. It is just a form of propaganda to make it a problem to deny the existence of alternatives to batteries.
@Hypx @charles @Psychonaut @davidho Aw, now you come with the efficiency of the solar cells. Of course you hope the reader won't immediately notice that you also proposed using them, which makes your proposal even worse in comparison.
But what I argue for is this: Everyone get what they can get right now. And for 90% of people, that is batteries, not hydrogen.
@stefanie @charles @Psychonaut @davidho Which isn't true either. Solar thermal could make hydrogen at well beyond 20% efficiency. So could photocatalytic systems. But the main point is that once you are no longer limited by nonrenewable resources, efficiency is much less relevant.
Right now, BEVs are impossible for the vast majority of the population. ICE cars dominate the market. BEVs won't replace them. In fact, this delusion seems to be falling apart as we speak in many countries.
@stefanie @charles @davidho I don’t think it’s the answer on its own but it can be part of the solution. If the UK produced 400% of its energy needs from wind, stored a big portion via gravity storage (weights in disused mine shafts) and EVs then the excess could be converted to hydrogen and exported, generating around $250bn per year in government revenue. This assumes wind turbines generate 40% of the time and 70% efficiency generating hydrogen
Tobias Denkinger@stefanie @charles @Psychonaut @davidho
https://www.transportenvironment.org/discover/renewable-electricity-must-decarbonise-land-freight-transport/
https://www.transportenvironment.org/discover/renewable-electricity-must-decarbonise-land-freight-transport/
Renewable electricity is a must to decarbonise land freight transport - Transport & Environment
This is the fifth in a series of eight snippets about how to decarbonise land freight by 2050. Based on a new T&E study, the series will culminate in a public debate in Brussels in September.
xrvs@stefanie @charles @Psychonaut @davidho people seem to forget that hydrogen molecules are the smallest there is, which means that it always leaks. and efficiency aside, you don’t want your fuel to leak
@xarvos @charles @Psychonaut @davidho Also hydrogen brittleness. Hydrogen atoms are small enough to literally permeate through solid metal, damaging the crystal structure in the process.
Ecomate@Psychonaut @davidho Right! -and green hydrogen is really important. Its main applications include:
- Heavy industry: High-temperature processes, feedstock for green ammonia and organic chemicals, and an alternative to coal-derived coke for steelmaking.
- Long-haul transport: Shipping, aviation, and heavy goods vehicles.
- Long-term energy storage
Example:
https://www.everfuel.com/
Dewi Ioan@Webwasp @Psychonaut @davidho shipping is definitely a good one, they currently use the cheapest dirtiest bulk fuel they can get
Hydrogen if they can refuel as quickly would be ideal
But for aviation it's too bulky and the containers are too bulky and heavy ... And are likely to remain so
Hydrogen if they can refuel as quickly would be ideal
But for aviation it's too bulky and the containers are too bulky and heavy ... And are likely to remain so
@DewiIoan @Webwasp @Psychonaut @davidho Production of synthetic fuels (aka e-fuels, synfuels, or SAF), would still require vast quantities of hydrogen for that purpose. So in aviation, there is really only option, just with different number of steps.
@Webwasp @davidho if you put up 300k wind turbines on 35k km2 (15% of uk land area) you could, conservatively, generate 400% of the uk’s energy needs. The 300% excess could be converted to hydrogen and exported. That’s around 5,000 TWh of energy, equivalent to around 3bn barrels of oil, worth about $250bn per year. It would cost about $1.5 trillion and take about 12 years but it would pay for itself in about 6 years.
Ehproque has moved@Psychonaut @davidho it'd still need a shitload of energy that could be used in other things that don't have an obvious, much lower emission alternative
@ehproque @davidho if you put up 300k wind turbines on 35k km2 (15% of uk land area) you could, conservatively, generate 400% of the uk’s energy needs. The 300% excess could be converted to hydrogen and exported. That’s around 5,000 TWh of energy, equivalent to around 3bn barrels of oil, worth about $250bn per year. It would cost about $1.5 trillion and take about 12 years but it would pay for itself in about 6 years. We just need to solve hydrogen
Bruce Heerssen 
BP would prefer to get the hydrogen from the hydrocarbons in the ground. And if you remove the hydro from hydrocarbons, you are left with... Well, you get the idea.
Senator Fivey@Psychonaut most hydrogen is made from methane.
Tesmaia@davidho Also, how much are they leaking it?