- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Countries and companies are now preparing and forming international coalitions to position themselves for the green hydrogen future.
You must log in or register to comment.
No it won’t. Too expensive to store and too expensive to transport.
I wouldn’t be so sure.
It’s both easier and cheaper to store at large scale than electricity, as well as there being indicators that fossil gas infrastructure can be converted for usage with H2.
Advancement in technology and economies of scale will ensure it will be very cheap in the long-run. People who doubt this are just repeating the same arguments used against renewable energy in general. We were told many times that it was “impossible” for wind and solar to be cost effective, until they did.
Same thing could be said for Hydrogen tech?
I think the key advantages with hydrogen is cheaper construction of large storage, ease of long-distance transportation and long-term storage.
Thing is that current battery tech is fundamentally incompatible with large scale application. It’s been challenging to use it effectively even on the scale of vehicles - and gridscale is magnitudes larger. From the numbers I’ve seen (correct me if there’s newer data) it isn’t even competitive with pumped hydro.
Btw, the problem with variable renewables isn’t the cost-effectiveness in electricity generation, it’s their inability to guarantee a stable energy supply on their own without incurring huge overhead costs (a problem that still hasn’t been solved).
Making renewable energy reliable will require hydrogen as an energy storage mechanism. Except for a few special cases, 100% renewable grids are impossible without it.
There are many chemosynthetic pathways to smooth intermittent supply from renewable energy sources. Electrolysis is only one of them.
It certainly isn’t “impossible” without hydrogen.
They all basically require hydrogen. E-fuels or green ammonia all require water electrolysis. Attempts at alternatives inevitable up trying to make crazy ideas work, like burning sodium or boron or whatever. Those ideas are pretty much all nonstarters.
Definitely agree, at least if seeking a cost-effective solution.
I expect an optimized clean electricity system would see renewables built to a ratio of hydro availability (35-50% of renewable production being hydro, depending on longitude, climate and storage investments), and the rest being some mix of nuclear, biomass & situational options (such as geothermal or regional interconnects).
It has to be frozen to quite low temp.s to make storage possible and it leaks out of virtually anything.
There isn’t enough pump hydropower for all energy storage needs. And it is very geographically limited too.
You’re just proposing gravitational energy storage. This is many orders of magnitude smaller than what is doable with chemical energy storage systems. Frankly, you are trolling now.
Oh for sure. Only problem is that pumped hydro is already matured. We won’t see any real future cost savings there, and it’s too expensive to be practical for mass adoption. We need something cheaper, which hydrogen might be.
My link was just to highlight that H2 doesn’t need to be frozen for grid-scale storage, and leakage is less of an issue there.
Hydrogen is simply too expensive to store for any real mass power use. H2 is nothing more than the latest fantasy of folks trying to find a reason to avoid investing in solar.
Green hydrogen is made via electrolysis using renewable energy. You’re simply repeating the same language of the oil and gas industry by suggest new green technologies are just fantasies.
Grid-scale energy storage is a requirement to reduce volatility in any system with a large reliance on VRE.
Not compared to batteries
Hydrogen is multiple orders of magnitude cheaper than batteries at store energy for long durations.
This is what i’m trying to convey too
So let’s campaign against using it before it takes off any more.
