Grid concerns will likely be one of the factors that determines the energy carrier of the future.
I seriously doubt this. Hydrogen is notoriously difficult to work with and also, it has no natural source. It has to be generated from some other energy source.
However, there are quite a few existing Diesel engines in the developing world where the grid isn’t as sorted.
Now, I don’t know if hydrogen distribution would be a bigger challenge than just solving electrical distribution. But it does seem like this is a technology that could have some purpose. I mean, what about retrofitting diesel backup generators?
It's because hydrogen has some serious problems as a power storage and recuperation medium. To the point where it has already lost. But there's some big reasons why the fossil fuel industry keeps pushing it. So yeah, you will keep seeing the same objections.
If people kept pushing the idea of heating our homes by clapping our hands you would also see the same reasons that won't work brought up.
"Due to its relatively low volumetric energy density, transportation, storage and final delivery to the point of use can be one of the significant costs and energy inefficiencies associated with using hydrogen as an energy carrier." https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/delivery.html
"Natural gas stored at 20.78 MPa (3000 psig) and 21.1°C (70°F) contains five times as much energy as hydrogen stored under the same conditions." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/036031...
Battery electric vehicles, by comparison, are vastly more efficient.
Its also completely green.
there is nothing you can do to or with LNG that makes it green, and it's locked behind geographical locations and political lines that are costly and dangerous to work with an be relied upon.
Efficiency needs to be calculated from a clean (green) slate. you cannot evaluate oil/gas in the same way because you're conveniently ignoring the dirtiness and powerbases of it.
Battery has very similar issues with the rare earth problems, but its also no good for things like big aircraft.
There is no silver bullet, batteries/hydrogen/pumped hydro/molten salt etc are all pieces of the puzzle that fit TOGETHER... not in exclusion of each other.
Utterly false. The elements needed for Li-Ion batteries are very much "in abundance" on Earth. Elements like lithium can be extracted from seawater around the world in quantities far in excess of what humans will ever use. It's just a little less economical than current sources.
Which gets us right back to hydrogen! There's no limit on the amount of hydrogen you can make, but YOU CAN'T MAKE IT ECONOMICALLY. Dismissing eminently practical, extremely efficient battery electric vehicles in favor of an insanely impractical, uneconomical, and thoroughly insane hydrogen economy that is going to vastly increase greenhouse gas emissions in the near future is utterly absurd.
> but its also no good for things like big aircraft.
Neither is hydrogen! Not a snowball's chance in hell of a hydrogen 737 or A320. The fuel tanks would need to be vastly too large and too heavy.
Li-Ion is practical for small, short-hop aircraft TODAY. Short-hop aircraft could gradually reduce the need for larger aircraft (e.g. two short hops instead of one non-stop flight), etc.
And there is absolutely potential for battery electric large aircraft in the not-too-distant future. Lower speed, propeller based flight increases efficiency. Flying wing aircraft designs can reduce power consumption by about 1/3rd. And finally, high power battery chemistries like lithium-air[1] actual have the same energy density as gasoline, BUT batteries/motors get ~90% conversion efficiency instead of the measly ~40% conversion efficiency of current turbofans!
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium%E2%80%93air_battery
Also, a fuel cell is a battery. In fact, a lithium-air battery is a fuel cell. If you are bringing up lithium-air batteries, you are unwittingly admitting that hydrogen fuel cells are a viable technology for transportation purposes.
Lithium seawater extraction is much more likely than a green hydrogen economy! In practice, it gets more practical as you couple lithium extraction with other processes, like desalination. In fact, if you manage to get hydrogen production from seawater going, extracting Lithium from the byproducts will be quite economical.
> You have swallowed myths and fantasies of your own.
I pointed it out only as a response to your equally absurd statement that hydrogen fuel is "fully renewable and in abundance". Clearly, Lithium fits just as well.
> you are unwittingly admitting that hydrogen fuel cells are a viable technology for transportation purposes.
Certainly not. Fuel cells could certainly become practical for transportation, but HYDROGEN is not, with or without use in a fuel cell, and that's true for the several reasons I've already very clearly outlined.
> Certainly not. Fuel cells could certainly become practical for transportation, but HYDROGEN is not, with or without use in a fuel cell, and that's true for the several reasons I've already very clearly outlined.
That's completely gibberish, and you are utterly contradicting yourself. If you believe "batteries" are future because of efficiency, then you are also admitting that hydrogen fuel cells are just as efficient.
Honestly, given the obvious lie that you swallowed (lithium can be extracted from seawater), it's time reassess your "knowledge." You clearly do not understand the problem(s) at all.
You've pulled that delusion out of thin air. Fuel cells aren't batteries. Li-Ion gets ~90% conversion efficiency while fuel cells may get ~60%.
And with hydrogen that's only if you use it right after you've generated it. As soon as you need to compress and transport it, you're losing a lot more. Batteries charge from the grid, which itself has single-digit percentage losses. Hydrogen fuel cells can't do that, they have tremendous inefficiencies as the Department of Energy quote already stated.
Hydrogen fuel cells are far more expensive and vastly less efficient than batteries. There's absolutely no reason to continue to push the former when the latter is immensely practical and available today.
But you seem to ignore all information that doesn't bode well for your hydrogen dream, so I expect you'll find yet another reason to disregard this as well.
Farewell.
https://www.startupdaily.net/topic/climate-tech/elon-musk-be...
This basically special pleading, and it is pure nonsense. You must accept hydrogen fuel cells as both viable and cost effective if you ever advocate for any type of metal-air battery.
Batteries have their limitations, they require specific materials, slow to charge, and difficult to recycle. Hydrogen is the most abundant substance in the universe, and just needs to be crested and stored.
We will eventually get to point with solar that we will have excess energy that needs to be used but nothing to consume it. Modern hydrogen electrolysis is about 80% and once the hydrogen is stored, using a hydrogen fuel cell to generate electricity is about 60% efficient. That’s a 48% efficient process which is still better than 0% by letting that energy go unused.
This space has not seen significant innovation because it has not been a major focus. Given a significant political or economic force, we can bring the efficiency up, waste down, and standardize hydrogen containment and pressure systems. Complaining that a solution is inefficient, which has not been innovated on, is small-minded thinking.
There will come a time where we have excess power to burn but the fleeting nature of renewables will require that we store this energy somehow, which I fully believe that hydrogen will play a role in as you are able to create it at a rate proportional to energy you put in, which is more important that efficiency. Batteries will not scale to our needs at more than a micro-grid level. Scaling hydrogen production will bring down the marginal cost of producing each unit.
Remember that current battery tech was not as easy to produce as it is today for precisely the same reasons I am hypothesizing that fuel cell technology will become easier and cheaper to produce and more efficient in its operation so I will just reiterate this from my post:
> Complaining that a solution is inefficient, which has not been innovated on, is small-minded thinking.