Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Japan's hydrogen strategy does nothing for decarbonisation: study

hydrogeninsight.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 454 posts

Re: Japan's hydrogen strategy does nothing for decarbonisation: study

#391

Post by rawgabbit »

rich_sasha wrote: post #331
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the article was fairly to the point: > There is a “common understanding worldwide that hydrogen should be limited to applications where it would be difficult to achieve decarbonisation with other methods”, says the report by the Tokyo-based non-profit think-tank Renewable Energy Institute (REI), but Japan has instead laid out a vision of a “hydrogen society where hydrogen is used in every sector”, while pro…

I find there is a selective black and white perception of the world. For example, renewables right now rely heavily on quick-to-dispatch gas plants - and that's fine as a stepping stone to a carbon-free future. Though the plan fo eliminating it is still vapourware - maybe better batteries, maybe larger grids, maybe something else. But creating a hydrogen economy that somewhat relies on fossil fuels, with a clear path…

You are correct. This discussion is about ideological purity. Meanwhile we are still are the experimental stage to determine what technologies will actually work in the real world. Instead of "letting a hundred flowers bloom", we are railing against those who dare to violate the "little green book".

It just makes the Green movement look like extremists.

Re: Japan's hydrogen strategy does nothing for decarbonisation: study

#392

Post by dgroshev »

moloch-hai wrote: post #389
dgroshev wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are more expensive only when compared to a marginal kWh put at time of solar/wind’s convenience into the grid that is stabilised by other means (mostly fossils). Look up how much electricity went up in Texas last time the generation dropped by iirc just ~20%; solar goes to zero every night, and wind regularly dies down across Western Europe for days or even weeks. In those circumstances and without fossils to fa…

The "stable grid" argument is well past its sell-by date. In the future we will need to build out storage. Before there is enough renewable generation to charge storage, building it would be foolish. After, we will need storage, and build it. And, we will always need liquid fuel. As cost for renewables continues exponentially downward, ammonia synthesized at solar farms in the tropics will undercut NG. In the meantim…

I don't understand why do you think it's "past its sell-by date". The wealthiest country in the world had a statewide blackout when generation dropped really mildly compared to intra-day, intra-month, and intra-season variability of solar/wind, and you just dismiss it? On what basis?

If the storage will need to be built out, then your argument about costs is disingenuous in the world without fossils, because those costs are currently masked by fossil generation.

Re: Japan's hydrogen strategy does nothing for decarbonisation: study

#393

Post by moloch-hai »

dgroshev wrote: post #392
moloch-hai wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "stable grid" argument is well past its sell-by date. In the future we will need to build out storage. Before there is enough renewable generation to charge storage, building it would be foolish. After, we will need storage, and build it. And, we will always need liquid fuel. As cost for renewables continues exponentially downward, ammonia synthesized at solar farms in the tropics will undercut NG. In the meantim…

I don't understand why do you think it's "past its sell-by date". The wealthiest country in the world had a statewide blackout when generation dropped really mildly compared to intra-day, intra-month, and intra-season variability of solar/wind, and you just dismiss it? On what basis? If the storage will need to be built out, then your argument about costs is disingenuous in the world without fossils, because those co…

Texas, artificially cut off from the wider grid, exhibited its domestic governance failings once again. This has no wider implications for energy policy than that grid connectivity covers for multiple sins.

Need for fossil generation backing will decline naturally as storage is built out, but will take a long time to go to zero. Pretending otherwise makes bad policy. Building storage without renewable capacity to charge it from would be stupid because charging storage by fossil fuel burning would be monumentally stupid.

Re: Japan's hydrogen strategy does nothing for decarbonisation: study

#394

Post by panick21_ »

moloch-hai wrote: post #352
Ensorceled wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It feels like the "save the planet" movement, or at least some shards of it, come with a very specific notion of how exactly it is ok to save the planet, and what fails on style points. This has always been a pain point for me. If you feel the world is facing an existential crisis (and I do), then it seems weird to go down the list of possible ways of avoiding utter catastrophe like you're at a sushi bar: Solar: Ah…

It is not "tone policing". That is an accusation guaranteed to derail any discussion. Nukes and geothermal simply cost more than solar and wind: nukes, many, many times more. Spending a billion dollars gets you N GW of solar or wind, and N/M, M>>1, of others. Generally, if you need a steam turbine to keep working, you will trail behind anything with zero opex. Hydrogen has a plausible place in long-term (i.e. strateg…

Funny somehow France had green energy decades ago and France had low energy prices for decades. Really crazy how expensive nuclear is.

Specially now where you have Germany who spend lots on renewables using many 100s of billions to buffer the impacts of their policies. For that price they could have just transformed to nuclear.

Germany could literally have spent the same amount of money over the last 20 and next 5 years and have done what France did in the 70/80s and they would be almost 100% green by now. But nuclear is expensive of course.

And of course those reactors would work for the next 80-100 years, but I guess its much better to rebuild wind turbines 4 times over during that time.

> in steel refining

Far better to use the technology the Boston Metal uses.

> in the future direction of aviation

Questionable. Either use batteries or just go with full synfuels.

Re: Japan's hydrogen strategy does nothing for decarbonisation: study

#395

Post by panick21_ »

tuatoru wrote: post #360
moloch-hai wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not "tone policing". That is an accusation guaranteed to derail any discussion. Nukes and geothermal simply cost more than solar and wind: nukes, many, many times more. Spending a billion dollars gets you N GW of solar or wind, and N/M, M>>1, of others. Generally, if you need a steam turbine to keep working, you will trail behind anything with zero opex. Hydrogen has a plausible place in long-term (i.e. strateg…

It ain't the money cost, we have money coming out our ears. It's the time cost. Nuclear takes far too long; geothermal merely takes too long. Same with fancy long-distance HV transmission proposals. Can it be built and commissioned in a year? Do it.

> Nuclear takes far too long;

And yet nuclear is the only tech that has proven to decarbonize a major industrial economy within just a few decades. But of course it takes to long.

When in reality it has not been proven that anybody has ever used solar and wind to de-carbonize a major economy. But somehow everybody knows that it is 'fast'.

Germany could have literally gone to 100% nuclear within the last 20 years and it would likely have cost them 250 billion $ or less. Reliable energy for 100 years. Almost no cost for the grid because you can just build nuclear plants next to coal plants.

> Can it be built and commissioned in a year? Do it.

What is this obsession with short term thinking? When you build major long term infrastructure like trains tunnels, you simply don't do it in a year.

If France could do something in the 70/80s, finishing nuclear reactors multiple reactors every year. Germany could have done the same and they would be done by now.

Re: Japan's hydrogen strategy does nothing for decarbonisation: study

#396

Post by moloch-hai »

panick21_ wrote: post #394
moloch-hai wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not "tone policing". That is an accusation guaranteed to derail any discussion. Nukes and geothermal simply cost more than solar and wind: nukes, many, many times more. Spending a billion dollars gets you N GW of solar or wind, and N/M, M>>1, of others. Generally, if you need a steam turbine to keep working, you will trail behind anything with zero opex. Hydrogen has a plausible place in long-term (i.e. strateg…

Funny somehow France had green energy decades ago and France had low energy prices for decades. Really crazy how expensive nuclear is. Specially now where you have Germany who spend lots on renewables using many 100s of billions to buffer the impacts of their policies. For that price they could have just transformed to nuclear. Germany could literally have spent the same amount of money over the last 20 and next 5 ye…

France is better known for high taxes than for low energy prices... Maybe there is a connection. No one, anywhere in the world, has ever fielded a nuke not massively propped up by public money.

Germany would today be in a much worse position if they had spent what they did on renewables on upgrading their ramshackle old nuke contraptions instead. France, notably, imported power through summer.

Re: Japan's hydrogen strategy does nothing for decarbonisation: study

#397

Post by ryao »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #190
ryao wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hydrogen automotive technologies are a research scientist’s dream. Basically, it represents life long employment with no need to produce useful results. Management at many automotive companies likely love it for that reason too, since putting money into it makes it look like they are doing something to change when in reality they are not doing anything at all. Here is a neat fact about hydrogen vehicles. Fueling them…

this is conspiratorial - businesses place big bets on projects that might go nowhere, but they're not trying to burn money to look busy What researcher wants to accomplish nothing?

It is an observation and it fits the data very well. Automotive use of hydrogen has severe feasibility problems and no amount of research is likely to fix them. Not only does it require conversion of useful energy into it at a loss, but it’s transport, storage and use is extremely expensive. You are basically fighting physics to try to get a sane result. Meanwhile, we have a very promising results in battery electrics that far exceed the best case results from hydrogen, yet people want to continue pouring money into the money hole that is a hydrogen economy. Hydrogen’s best attribute in automotive applications is that it will go nowhere.

As for accomplishing nothing, if it put food on the table, it certainly did accomplish something, just not what was being promised to the people who funded it.

Re: Japan's hydrogen strategy does nothing for decarbonisation: study

#398

Post by dgroshev »

moloch-hai wrote: post #393
dgroshev wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why do you think it's "past its sell-by date". The wealthiest country in the world had a statewide blackout when generation dropped really mildly compared to intra-day, intra-month, and intra-season variability of solar/wind, and you just dismiss it? On what basis? If the storage will need to be built out, then your argument about costs is disingenuous in the world without fossils, because those co…

Texas, artificially cut off from the wider grid, exhibited its domestic governance failings once again. This has no wider implications for energy policy than that grid connectivity covers for multiple sins. Need for fossil generation backing will decline naturally as storage is built out, but will take a long time to go to zero. Pretending otherwise makes bad policy. Building storage without renewable capacity to cha…

It is a nice demonstration of an impact of a fairly mild unexpected drop in generation. Renewables, as things stand, are that, all the time, on steroids.

You don't need as much storage if you have nuclear and you can't compare the two without accounting for (potentially weeks or months of) storage. "Building out storage" is not an unavoidable expense that just happens automatically, it's a requirement to have a reliable greed that is mostly based on non-dispatchable renewables, and thus a part of their cost.

Seeing how you outright ignore this point, I suspect you are arguing in bad faith.

Re: Japan's hydrogen strategy does nothing for decarbonisation: study

#399

Post by moloch-hai »

panick21_ wrote: post #395
tuatoru wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It ain't the money cost, we have money coming out our ears. It's the time cost. Nuclear takes far too long; geothermal merely takes too long. Same with fancy long-distance HV transmission proposals. Can it be built and commissioned in a year? Do it.

> Nuclear takes far too long; And yet nuclear is the only tech that has proven to decarbonize a major industrial economy within just a few decades. But of course it takes to long. When in reality it has not been proven that anybody has ever used solar and wind to de-carbonize a major economy. But somehow everybody knows that it is 'fast'. Germany could have literally gone to 100% nuclear within the last 20 years and…

... and would be in the position France is in now, with a fleet of obsolete contraptions that will cost further billions to decommission, and with nothing on the horizon to replace them.

Re: Japan's hydrogen strategy does nothing for decarbonisation: study

#400

Post by moloch-hai »

dgroshev wrote: post #398
moloch-hai wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Texas, artificially cut off from the wider grid, exhibited its domestic governance failings once again. This has no wider implications for energy policy than that grid connectivity covers for multiple sins. Need for fossil generation backing will decline naturally as storage is built out, but will take a long time to go to zero. Pretending otherwise makes bad policy. Building storage without renewable capacity to cha…

It is a nice demonstration of an impact of a fairly mild unexpected drop in generation. Renewables, as things stand, are that, all the time, on steroids. You don't need as much storage if you have nuclear and you can't compare the two without accounting for (potentially weeks or months of) storage. "Building out storage" is not an unavoidable expense that just happens automatically, it's a requirement to have a relia…

Seeing how you are promoting instead a thoroughly dead alternative that no one will ever again spend another cent of their own money on...

Good day, sir.

Post reply on HN