After many false starts, hydrogen power might now bear fruit • Hacker News Board

Re: After many false starts, hydrogen power might now bear fruit

#311

Post by manfredo » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 9:27 PM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #310

manfredo wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I said the PER ENERGY CAPACITY part of hydrogen storage was cheap. And it is! It's like 200x times cheaper than the same aspect of battery storage. So if we get into a situation where the per-energy capacity costs are really import (such as, long term storage), hydrogen beats batteries. Right, and this claim is totally false. It's not cheaper than batteries, let alone 200x cheaper. Where are you getting this figure…

> Right, and this claim is totally false. It's not cheaper than batteries, let alone 200x cheaper. Let's look at a source of numbers, shall we? Go to https://model.energy/ and click on "Show advanced assumption settings". Now scroll down a bit: Battery energy capital cost: 142 Euro/kWh Hydrogen energy capital cost: 0.7 Euro/kWh What's the ratio of those? About 200! It should be really clear why these numbers are what…

> Go to https://model.energy/ and click on "Show advanced assumption settings".

> Now scroll down a bit:

> Battery energy capital cost: 142 Euro/kWh Hydrogen energy capital cost: 0.7 Euro/kWh

> What's the ratio of those? About 200!

You realize that this site is a calculator, right? It's a calculator used to calculate how much energy would cost for the cost values supplied. You can put whatever you want for that field. This site isn't a study. The value for this figure comes from an external pay walled link. And it looks like that link isn't even talking about storing hydrogen, but storing methane produced from hydrogen gas (power to gas). Methane is much easier to store and is more energy dense by unit of volume, as well as makes use of existing natural gas transportation infrastructure. But power to gas needs an external source of carbon dioxide.

And this isn't the actual cost of hydrogen storage, only the capital cost of constructing a storage container. Which is kind of a ridiculous figure to provide for storing gas in a cavern: the storage container is already built for you. But this goes back to the problem of geographic limitation: you can only store hydrogen in a limited set of places. This is like saying we should just power all our energy needs with hydroelectricity and geothermal power.

Re: After many false starts, hydrogen power might now bear fruit

#312

Post by tuatoru » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 9:28 PM UTC

svara wrote: post #217

tuatoru wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the point (one of the points) that Vaclav Smil makes about renewables: abysmal energy density of production (in Watts/square meter: more like 'intensity' than 'density' to me). The only thing that beats oil is nuclear fission. With everything else, production takes up land that could be used for something else, or isn't being used for something else because it has problems such as distance or inhospitable cli…

What you're calling "energy intensity of production" doesn't look like a very important parameter. There's plenty of unused land that could host solar or wind installations and transporting electricity really is a solved problem. I understand the impulse to defend nuclear power against seemingly irrational criticism, but that shouldn't distract you from the incredible advances that other technologies have been making…

> Even if you can completely rule out catastrophic failure, you still have a bunch of people who need to go to work every day and work with radioactive materials.

This is argument from extremes.

Coal plants kill a lot more people simply by operating: they release radioactivity (and toxic heavy metals, and PM2.5 particulate).

Gas extraction, processing, and transport also kill people (often the people who were occupying the land that the gas drillers want.) Ditto for oil. Wind turbine construction and maintenance also kills people. Solar panel construction involves working with toxic chemicals in far greater quantities than nuclear fission.

You expose fewer people to smaller risks with nuclear than with its alternatives.[1]

Also, wind and solar are dependent on either storage, for which we have no good grid-scale, months-long options yet, or globe-spanning petawatt transmission networks, if you're not going to accelerate climate change.

Don't get me wrong. I love solar PV - the only energy production method that relies on modern physics. I love wind, too, because it doesn't involve boiling water to make steam to drive turbines, which seems hopelessly steampunk to me these days. I'd also love to see a worldwide transmission network - that level of international co-operation would be awesome.

[1]. Gawd, I sound like a shill for nuclear. 2002 me would be horrified. But learning about climate change (and wanting industrial civilization to continue) forced me to confront my priors.

Re: After many false starts, hydrogen power might now bear fruit

#313

Post by pfdietz » Sun, Jul 05, 2020, 10:41 PM UTC

manfredo wrote: post #311

pfdietz wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Right, and this claim is totally false. It's not cheaper than batteries, let alone 200x cheaper. Let's look at a source of numbers, shall we? Go to https://model.energy/ and click on "Show advanced assumption settings". Now scroll down a bit: Battery energy capital cost: 142 Euro/kWh Hydrogen energy capital cost: 0.7 Euro/kWh What's the ratio of those? About 200! It should be really clear why these numbers are what…

> Go to https://model.energy/ and click on "Show advanced assumption settings". > Now scroll down a bit: > Battery energy capital cost: 142 Euro/kWh Hydrogen energy capital cost: 0.7 Euro/kWh > What's the ratio of those? About 200! You realize that this site is a calculator, right? It's a calculator used to calculate how much energy would cost for the cost values supplied. You can put whatever you want for that field…

It's a site that gives references to where it got the data. And it's more than a calculator -- it's an optimizer, that gives the most economical mix of generation and storage to supply a constant power output, using real weather data. Those optimization results show that hydrogen beats batteries for long term storage.

> And this isn't the actual cost of hydrogen storage, only the capital cost of constructing a storage container.

Of course. If you had been reading what I wrote, you would know I know that. The total cost in the model is obtained by adding the energy related cost and the power related cost (as well as the cost of the input energy). And no, the cavern is not already built for you, it's produced by solution mining of an existing salt formation.

Follow the NREL link if you want data that's not behind a paywall. Their numbers are even lower.

But anyway, the basic point I've been making is extremely elementary, and it's remarkable and more than a little appalling that you are unable to understand it. You need to step back and stop embarrassing yourself.

Re: After many false starts, hydrogen power might now bear fruit

#314

Post by Jedd » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 12:32 AM UTC

labawi wrote: post #292

Jedd wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pakistan's big deployment is one example .. A valid example of what can go wrong when you pick the wrong technology, don't do small scale trials first, and rely on government oversight. (Refer the Background & Operation section of the wikipedia article -- toe-curlingly alarming, yet ultimately unsurprising.) They almost definitely should have pursued concentrated solar thermal. It partly solves the 'storage problem…

> doesn't need more water >improves magnificently with high temperatures Thermal solar is a solar heat energy source + classic steam turbine. The efficiency of a thermal->electric converter (turbine) is largely governed by the difference between the hot and cold side. Increasing both the hot and cold side temperatures equally would not increase efficiency, AFAIK it would actually decrease efficiency, and without lots…

> Increasing both the hot and cold side temperatures equally would not increase efficiency ...

Hence the C in CSP.

Contemporary molten salt CSPs operate at ~700C, so the difference between the concentrator and ambient air temperature would be 3% (at 25C) and 6% (at 45C).

In other words, a 3% difference. Perhaps measurable at the output, but certainly not significant.

New CSP designs are coming along that are working around 1000C, which would render that delta even more negligible.

In contrast, while PV cells vary, I believe max power temperature coefficients of around 0.4% / 1C is a standard figure.

That means at 25C your panels are losing 10% of max capacity, but at 45C that number goes up to 25%.

A massive reduction in capability.

Re: After many false starts, hydrogen power might now bear fruit

#315

Post by smegger001 » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 12:56 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #268

svara wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of the things you're saying aren't correct, see my other comment (sibling to yours) for references. Nuclear is not cheap compared to photovoltaics, wind and hydro. Since the former two are bursty, overcapacity in them leads to cheap excess energy at times, which needs to be stored. Which storage method is the best depends on multiple factors, particularly on the duration of storage, capacity required and frequen…

I thought hydrogen was very difficult to store long term because it leaks through most anything.

Yeah hydrogen is pipe dream. Hydrogen enbrittlement destroys it's containers and it leaks out between the atoms. If we could ever make bulk graphene that could contain it but very little progress on that front. As for producing the fuel it cost more energy to produce hydrogen than we get back burning it. Plus it is more explosive and dangerous to handle than current fossil fuels. Pretty much the only thing going for it is that it is clean if you don't ask where the energy to make it came from.

Re: After many false starts, hydrogen power might now bear fruit

#316

Post by smegger001 » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 12:59 AM UTC

weswpg wrote: post #94

xyzzyz wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, from food waste through yeast and other methods. How is it better than generating biogas from biomaterial, something we already do at industrial scale? What’s the advantage of biohydrogen over biomethane?

isn't methane much worse for the environment than generating power from hydrogren?

Not in the case of bio-gas, as it uses carbon already in the carbon cycle. If you pipe it out of the ground then yes.

Re: After many false starts, hydrogen power might now bear fruit

#317

Post by manfredo » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 1:11 AM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #313

manfredo wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Go to https://model.energy/ and click on "Show advanced assumption settings". > Now scroll down a bit: > Battery energy capital cost: 142 Euro/kWh Hydrogen energy capital cost: 0.7 Euro/kWh > What's the ratio of those? About 200! You realize that this site is a calculator, right? It's a calculator used to calculate how much energy would cost for the cost values supplied. You can put whatever you want for that field…

It's a site that gives references to where it got the data. And it's more than a calculator -- it's an optimizer, that gives the most economical mix of generation and storage to supply a constant power output, using real weather data. Those optimization results show that hydrogen beats batteries for long term storage. > And this isn't the actual cost of hydrogen storage, only the capital cost of constructing a storag…

> And no, the cavern is not already built for you, it's produced by solution mining of an existing salt formation.

This plan is to repurpose existing mines. Yes the cavern is already built for you as far as the cost estimates are concerned.

> But anyway, the basic point I've been making is extremely elementary, and it's remarkable and more than a little appalling that you are unable to understand it. You need to step back and stop embarrassing yourself.

And by resorting to insults you've demonstrated that you are not interested in participating in good faith. This is the exact opposite of what you want to do if you want to convince someone that your claims are correct.

Re: After many false starts, hydrogen power might now bear fruit

#318

Post by manfredo » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 1:21 AM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #206

manfredo wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if we assume that the production capacity will continuously increases at the predicted rate, think you missed the part where that was just the US's storage requirements. Global electricity consumption annually was 22.3 PWh in 2017, yielding 61TWh per day. And while battery production increases, so too does electricity demand. Even if we assume that battery production increases to 1TWh-2TWh per year by 2030 as pe…

I didn't miss that. Why do you think global manufacturing capacity will stop when it reaches what the US needs, and not expand to satisfy the global market? You think the manufactures are going to leave sales and profits on the table for no good reason? The growth in production is being controlled by the growth in the market. New factories can be added at very high rate if needed. You are treating the manufacturing c…

> Consider that natural gas used to be though of as rare and limited, so much so that its use for power production was outlawed in the US!

Where are you getting this information? Natural gas has been widely extracted for much of the last century [1], and made up substantial portion of electricity generation as early as the 1960s and 1970s [2]. Where did you read that its use for power production was banned?

It became preferable in late 20th and early 21st century for power generation because of stricter emissions standards. Burning methane is cleaner than burning coal, and technology developed to the point that building gas infrastructure was not cost prohibitive.

Natural gas is not an example of a previously rare natural resource suddenly becoming common. And even if it were, there's no guarantee that lithium is going to follow the same fate. Simply assuming that there are always more mineral reserves than is estimated is an easy way to end up with a shortage.

1. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9050us2a.htm

2. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=34172

Re: After many false starts, hydrogen power might now bear fruit

#319

Post by DaiPlusPlus » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 2:24 AM UTC

admax88q wrote: post #37

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that different from criticism of BEVs when they’re used in areas with coal-based electricity?

My understanding is moving electricity into a battery is much more efficient than using it to break water into hydrogen.

It’s an engineering-tradeoff. The efficiency losses in hydrogen production are offset by the ability to refuel a hydrogen tank in under a minute compared to the hours it takes to safely[1] recharge a BEV. Plus, if hydrogen fuel production is powered by environmentally friendly electricity then the efficiency losses should only worry people concerned about the heat-death of the universe (and it’s no worse than the 20% efficiency of an ICE engine. “Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good”, etc)

[1] While Tesla’s V3 Superchargers are amazing in that charging stops can now be as short as 10-15 minutes to for 100+ miles of range - Superchargers should not be used for day-to-day charging because it wears out the battery too much (hence the hype over the new generation of Lithium cells, that “million-mile battery”, but for the rest of us using current-gen Lithium batteries (myself included, I drive a Tesla too) I don’t want to have to drop $20k+ for an out-of-warranty battery replacement).

Re: After many false starts, hydrogen power might now bear fruit

#320

Post by ncmncm » Mon, Jul 06, 2020, 6:23 AM UTC

xyzzyz wrote: post #296

godelski wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also depends where the hydrogen comes from. If you produce it from water, your byproducts are oxygen. If you produce it from methane, your byproducts are carbon dioxide. Issue is that water has 2 hydrogens and methane has 4, so typically it is produced by using methane.

Issue is that water has 2 hydrogens and methane has 4, so typically it is produced by using methane. It’s not really about that, we don’t lack water or methane. The issue is rather about the energy required to produce given amount of hydrogen. Electrolysis requires 2-3 as much energy as steam methane reforming already if you just look at energy of chemical reactions, and moreover, steam reforming requires just heat,…

1. Electricity is getting cheaper all the time. The cheapest forms, wind and solar, involve no detour through heat. Anything that uses electricity instead of something that produces CO2 is a big net win.

2. Huge efficiency gains are to be had, in electrolysis, via catalytic action, needing only transition from lab to production funded by sufficient demand for the hydrogen.

3. There has been great success with direct solar -> H2, needing, again, only sufficient demand for the hydrogen produced to be made industrially practical.