Japan's hydrogen strategy does nothing for decarbonisation: study • Hacker News Board

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

#321

Post by ZeroGravitas » Mon, Jan 23, 2023, 2:21 PM UTC

rob74 wrote: post #318

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…

The "vision of a hydrogen society where hydrogen is used in every sector" is probably motivated by a desire to become technological leaders in this field. Japan has fallen behind in battery technology, and Toyota was an early leader with its hybrid vehicles, but when it comes to fully electric cars, Japanese car makers are also falling behind. So I suspect they are trying to find a niche where they can develop techno…

This was a plan from 2017, before (and possibly part of the reason) they missed the chance to lead on battery vehicles. So it just needs updated, as the article suggests:

> The report outlines three key areas where the government’s strategy is severely flawed:

1) The selection of low-priority applications;

2) Prioritisation of fossil-fuel-based grey and blue hydrogen; and

3) The lack of focus on domestic green hydrogen production, leaving Japan lagging behind other nations.

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

#322

Post by prennert » Mon, Jan 23, 2023, 2:23 PM UTC

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #282

rich_sasha wrote: post #210

I find it weird how hostile to hydrogen the "renewable energy gang" is. The story of how renewables take over the world and displace fossil fuels and nuclear totally relies on storage, in some cases seasonal storage, IE overproducing in summer and holding on to the energy til the end of winter. Does hydrogen work for it? Well, maybe, it could, there are unresolved issues but hey we are trying to do science here. It's…

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…

But pumped hydro schemes are targeted at frequent charge / release cycles (like once a day). I think what the post you answered to you pointed out is that Hydrogen could be used as long-term storage (storing overproduction from summer to be consumed in winter). This is where batteries are maybe not the best way forward.

I have not looked too deeply into Hydrogen myself, but even this [0] fairly critical post classes longterm storage as a B (scale A: very good, G: absurd). Even though there is other alternatives that are mentioned.

[0] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/clean-hydrogen-ladder-v40-mic...

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

#323

Post by landemva » Mon, Jan 23, 2023, 2:34 PM UTC

jnsaff2 wrote: post #276

landemva wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That just compared coal 'to produce energy once' to batteries which have no inherent energy. These are different things. Coal is an existing form of energy reserve which has stable long-term storage and can be consumed once. Batteries are not native energy, though batteries can be manufactured and then charged to temporarily time-shift energy.

Sure, same goes for hydrogen. I don't think there are any hydrogen deposits that can be readily used. But important distinction nonetheless.

Yes, I also see hydrogen as a energy storage medium. Compressed air and pumped hydro and hydraulic accumulators have similar functions.

Sometimes the media conflates energy production, storage, and transport. This leads to confusing arguments.

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

#324

Post by flavius29663 » Mon, Jan 23, 2023, 2:35 PM UTC

theshrike79 wrote: post #307

schiffern wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem isn't "dogma," it's inefficiency. Throwing energy away is counterproductive, and Energy-to-Hydrogen-to-Energy throws away lots of it. If there were no alternative long-term storage plans this might be acceptable, but that's simply not the case. If you're using hydrogen to smelt steel or make ammonia fertilizer, then there's no energy loss (beyond what's needed to decarbonize petrochemicals anyway). The ar…

> Throwing energy away is counterproductive, and Energy-to-Hydrogen-to-Energy throws away lots of it. The current process needs 55kWh of electricity to produce 15kWh of electricity on the other end. Not very efficient at all.

Look at how much energy is on the other end of the oil flow: 20% efficiency and still the ICE car is king, without subsidies, EVs would go nowhere. The hydrogen back and forth is still better than that.

Talking about efficiency is a losing battle, people don't care about that, they care about total cost, safety and convenience.

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

#325

Post by schiffern » Mon, Jan 23, 2023, 2:36 PM UTC

flavius29663 wrote: post #311

schiffern wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem isn't "dogma," it's inefficiency. Throwing energy away is counterproductive, and Energy-to-Hydrogen-to-Energy throws away lots of it. If there were no alternative long-term storage plans this might be acceptable, but that's simply not the case. If you're using hydrogen to smelt steel or make ammonia fertilizer, then there's no energy loss (beyond what's needed to decarbonize petrochemicals anyway). The ar…

ICE vehicles conquered the world with abysmal efficiencies, they were around 10-15% when they already ruled the roads and the world. That is after we drill for oil, ship it, refine it, distribute it. Even today, manufacturers boast about engines with 40% efficiency in ideal conditions, which still translates to a meager 20-30% in real world driving. Looking at efficiency alone is not enough. > They're simply so much…

> more expensive than an ICE

The (relevant) comparison was H2 versus BEVs — ie comparing decarbonized solutions apples-to-apples. I have edited to make that more clear.

> why not pursue hydrogen investment as a possible alternative?

Because hydrogen, for all its marketing, doesn't solve the problems people have with BEVs. Better BEVs do.

I see a variety of BEV motorcycles and light trucks available. The same can't be said for hydrogen.

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

#326

Post by Schroedingersat » Mon, Jan 23, 2023, 2:38 PM UTC

Mikeb85 wrote: post #314

Schroedingersat wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So energy to mine the materials, energy to assemble the battery, energy to recycle the battery after it's useful lifespan (5-10 years)... None of these are ever counted in people's calculations. I tried to find data on energy required to produce the batteries and they still didn't count the mining cost. This is a standard component of LCA databases and puts the ESOI in the 50-100 range for the first generation of b…

> This is a standard component of LCA databases and puts the ESOI in the 50-100 range for the first generation of batteries. Subsequent generations are higher. Yes that's the number I found WITHOUT accounting for mining the materials... Just manufacturing the battery. > Electrolysers also require mining, as do fuel cells, as does any source of heat for reverse gas shift or similar. Yes but there's far less of those m…

> Yes that's the number I found WITHOUT accounting for mining the materials... Just manufacturing the battery.

Are you sure you are reading the study right 'manufacturing' in standard LCA methodology also includes embodied enery/carbon of the ingredients?

You can also fermi analyse it. The absolute cheapest form of energy is lignite burnt at the mine front which is about $5/MWh. Before shortage induced price hikes, the 100 or so grams of lithium in a 1kWh battery was worth $1-2. The battery can store around 5MWh in its lifetime. This puts a fairly hard upper bound of 4-8% of the cycled energy. Phosphorus and iron are less scarce, copper might be significant. Any cost that isn't the cheapest possible energy pushes the lower bound down.

Green hydrogen is fine in niches where it's suited, but most of the hydrogen-for-everything schemes rely heavily on fossil fuel derived hydrogen whenyou look under the hood and ignore the amount of methane, CO2, and H2 that will escape at various stages. H2 is not a greenhouse gas on its own, but it makes methane much worse.

> Yes but there's far less of those materials required than the sheer amount of battery cells being produced for automobiles.

And if you look at the quantities required to replace the role of BEVs rather than as an adjunct, it's worse.

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

#327

Post by flavius29663 » Mon, Jan 23, 2023, 2:44 PM UTC

schiffern wrote: post #325

flavius29663 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ICE vehicles conquered the world with abysmal efficiencies, they were around 10-15% when they already ruled the roads and the world. That is after we drill for oil, ship it, refine it, distribute it. Even today, manufacturers boast about engines with 40% efficiency in ideal conditions, which still translates to a meager 20-30% in real world driving. Looking at efficiency alone is not enough. > They're simply so much…

> more expensive than an ICE The (relevant) comparison was H2 versus BEVs — ie comparing decarbonized solutions apples-to-apples. I have edited to make that more clear. > why not pursue hydrogen investment as a possible alternative? Because hydrogen, for all its marketing, doesn't solve the problems people have with BEVs. Better BEVs do. I see a variety of BEV motorcycles and light trucks available. The same can't be…

> Because hydrogen, for all its marketing, doesn't actually solve the problems people have with BEVs. Better BEVs do.

I guess it depends on the definition of "people". If you mean private automobile owners, then I agree that batteries will eat hydrogen's lunch. For everything else(70% of oil use), it's an open question. In the future, you might even see a migration of H2 technology from large applications to small automobiles, like we've seen with diesel engines.

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

#328

Post by seanmcdirmid » Mon, Jan 23, 2023, 2:44 PM UTC

ruchir wrote: post #222

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EV batteries are recycled quite easily. The lithium alone makes recycling worth it, but pretty much everything about it can be recycled.

that's like saying plastics can be recycled quite easily. only in theory - the real effects on the environment are staggering.

But in this case recycling is straightforward and incentivized enough that it happens in almost all cases. If the battery is still in working condition, it will be repurposed. Otherwise it will be broken down to get at the precious metals and used in a new battery production. Yes, this requires energy and materials are invariably lost, but it doesn’t get more ideal than a battery from a recycling perspective.

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

#329

Post by sandworm101 » Mon, Jan 23, 2023, 2:46 PM UTC

rich_sasha wrote: post #210

I find it weird how hostile to hydrogen the "renewable energy gang" is. The story of how renewables take over the world and displace fossil fuels and nuclear totally relies on storage, in some cases seasonal storage, IE overproducing in summer and holding on to the energy til the end of winter. Does hydrogen work for it? Well, maybe, it could, there are unresolved issues but hey we are trying to do science here. It's…

Because decarbonization is being combined with all number of other social and technological changes. For instance, there is a strong connection between those who promote EVs and those promoting self-drive cars (ie Tesla). And there are connections between EV proponents and those who want to see fewer cars on the road. (Interesting doublethink there as reducing the cost of owning/operating a car won't exactly reduce their use.) The anti-nuclear crowd is tied up with many who simply want to reduce all forms of energy use. They generally dislike all large projects and want us all to run our own off-grid solar systems. I've even heard people rant about nuclear from a purely anti-mining perspective, not to mention those who cannot envision much difference between nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs.

Hydrogen is coming, just maybe not directly to cars for a while. The airline industry (big planes, not Cessnas) sees hydrogen as one of two options, the other being zero-emission hydrocarbons (fuel from air). Every airline exec dreams of the day they might generate their own fuel from water at plants right beside the planes. Airbus is working on a hydrogen demonstration rig inside an A380. Once airlines start generating their own hydrogen supplies locally at airports, a hydrogen fueling infrastructure for cars might just appear overnight.

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

#330

Post by automatic6131 » Mon, Jan 23, 2023, 2:48 PM UTC

rich_sasha wrote: post #210

I find it weird how hostile to hydrogen the "renewable energy gang" is. The story of how renewables take over the world and displace fossil fuels and nuclear totally relies on storage, in some cases seasonal storage, IE overproducing in summer and holding on to the energy til the end of winter. Does hydrogen work for it? Well, maybe, it could, there are unresolved issues but hey we are trying to do science here. It's…

>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

Yes, it does. It a very thinly veiled anti human movement. Ultimately, there is a loud sub section of environmentalists whose only acceptable solution will be "less humans" and they dupe a number of their fellow travellers with endless "but what about X" problems so that realistic solutions to climate change and pollution will not be enacted, and thus the only outcome left will be "fewer humans".

They are despicable people. Also, they can safely be ignored. Anyone who's anti human does not have your best interests at heart, and thus shouldn't be listened to.