- cross-posted to:
- til
- cross-posted to:
- til
ich habe das jetzt auf englisch geschrieben und möchte es nicht auf deutsch übersetzen. hoffe das stört euch nicht.
jedenfalls zusammenfassung: ich bin gegen einen “europäischen strommarkt” weil die übertragungskosten nicht zu unterschätzen sind. stattdessen wäre es möglich, zur fernübertragung die energie zuerst in wasserstoff umzuwandeln und dann dieses zu übertragen; das hat ab einer gewissen reichweite (von ein paar hundert kilometer) signifikant niedrigere kosten. dementsprechend bin ich dann für einen “europäischen (wasserstoff-)gasmarkt”.
nebenbei interessant finde ich auch wie vergleichsweise günstig wasserstoff gespeichert werden kann. link dazu ist unten; der trick ist, unterirdische kavernen zu nutzen, die heute für erdgas genutzt werden. in einer tiefe von 2000 m ist das entweichen von wasserstoff durch die tankhülle ( = 2000 m gestein, größtenteils) kein problem.
so the goal is to transport renewable energy from the point of production (e.g. coastline for offshore wind) to the point of consumption (e.g. big factory 300 miles from the coast).
what is the cost of doing this? when comparing different technologies. i.e. you can just build a cable and transport the electricity through that, or you convert the energy into hydrogen at the point of production, then pipe that hydrogen gas through a pipeline to the point of consumption. many big consumers can naturally consume hydrogen instead of electric power anyways, for example large steel mills. they require power for heating and reduction, but in both cases, both power sources can be used (for reduction, electrolysis vs. chemical reduction).
it’s well-known that the LCOE (levelized cost of electricity) for solar and wind is around 6 ct/kWh (citation needed, i’m citing from memory). so what is the cost of transporting that electric power over 300 miles? according to the diagram, it’s 4 ct/kWh over 1000 miles, so probably 1.33 ct/kWh over 300 miles using wires. so it makes a small part of the cost.
meanwhile if you use hydrogen, you have around a 70% conversion+storage efficiency (electric power -> hydrogen, plus storing it in an underground cavern) (source: this paper and german wikipedia about hydrogen storage). so to produce 1 kWh hydrogen, you need 1.4 kWh electricity at the cost of 1.4 * 6 ct/kWh = 8.4 ct/kWh. transmitting it over the pipeline, meanwhile, costs almost nothing, as seen in the diagram.
so in summary, producing+storing+transmitting hydrogen is slightly more expensive than just producing+transmitting electric power, but that already includes the storage cost. for electric power, you need additional batteries which i’m too lazy to write about now. just to give you an idea.


and apparently it’s a bit costly compared to transmitting fluids (gar is a fluid). Of course all that REALLY matters is total cost along with other practical factors to decide what is the best way to store and transfer energy and ultimately use it. Grid storage and aircraft propulsion have VASTLY different requirements and will need their own solutions. This of course isn’t new information.