For all other applications hydrogen is a lost cause pushed by the fossil industry.
See the "Hydrogen Ladder" for more information.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/clean-hydrogen-ladder-v40-mic...
In reality, hydrogen is guaranteed to win this. BEVs are unsustainable and the whole conversation is based on the delusion of people who have invested too much on that side.
Imagine accepting that hydrogen is fundamental to aviation or shipping, but somehow believing that it is an elaborate conspiracy by the oil companies to push it in cars. That is beyond ludicrous. It is painfully obvious that BEV fans have gone off the deep end and are failing to realize that technology is moving beyond batteries.
https://thedriven.io/2023/05/26/tesla-model-y-overtakes-coro...
Again, more BEV propaganda and more promotion of unsustainably dumb ideas. A completely waste of time and ultimate missing the point: It is about stopping climate change, not about sales numbers. A point that Tesla fanboys consistently fail to grasp.
Batteries, meanwhile, are rapidly advancing, and while they are heavy they offer good economics through very high grid-to-wheel efficiency.
Then you can surely point out some peer-reviewed articles detailing this. Merely confidently stating something doesn't make it true.
> Hydrogen storage is a solved problem.
Awesome, I'm happy to hear about these recent breakthroughs I must have missed. Can you provide references please?
> In reality, the whole thing is a disruptive technology to BEVs since it fundamentally solves the weaknesses of BEVs. It is entirely a matter of when it displaces BEVs, not if.
If we could figure out how to store hydrogen cheaply with decent energy density, and cheap high efficiency electrolyzers and fuel cells, hydrogen would be an obvious winner. But so far it seems we haven't figured out answers to these questions, despite decades of research. But maybe you can provide references to research breakthroughs I have missed?
> This will become more obvious when hydrogen cars become no more expensive than ICE cars.
Sure. In the meantime it seems BEV's are on track to become cheaper than ICE cars within a decade or so, so while we wait for the hydrogen revolution we can at least decarbonize large parts of road transport.
The main thing to note is that fuel cell cars already exist. They already are cars that can be bought now and already drive like real cars. That alone debunks a vast number of supposedly unsolved problems.
Meanwhile, electrolysis approaches 100% efficiency: https://www.inceptivemind.com/hysatas-record-breaking-electr...
The most you can say is that BEVs are a solution for right now. Even then it's a pretty bad one since PHEVs exist and arguably far more practical. But hydrogen will displace it in the future.
Am I? Looking back at my posts above it seems my main claims are:
- Hydrogen storage isn't a solved problem, unless there's some recent breakthrough I'm not aware of.
- Fuel cells remain expensive, and don't have particularly high efficiency.
- Electrolyzers still need to come down in cost and increase in efficiency.
AFAIU this is largely the consensus position of people who research the energy transition professionally. You're the one with outrageous claims, thus you're the one who needs to provide evidence for those claims in order to be taken seriously.
> There is not one science article that pushes back on every one of your points.
If you read my posts above you'll see that I never demanded everything should be published in one single articles. Multiple articles are fine, you're free to provide references to multiple articles corroborating your claims!
> The main thing to note is that fuel cell cars already exist.
So far it seems they are outrageously expensive. Not a very convincing alternative to BEV's so far. Which might be why several orders of magnitudes more BEV's are taken into use every year than the total number of FCEV's on the planet (I vaguelly remember figures like 70k FCEV's globally vs. 1.4M BEV's sold per year, but I'm too lazy to dig up the exact numbers).
> That alone debunks a vast number of supposedly unsolved problems.
I don't think anyone has claimed that FCEV's would be impossible to make. Just that they're much inferior to BEV's, barring some major breakthroughs that you claim have been done but for some reason refuse to share with us.
> Meanwhile, electrolysis approaches 100% efficiency:
Awesome. And better, in that press release there's even a link to the actual article, which, even better, is open access: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28953-x
Of course, this is a lab result. Hope they manage to scale it up. And one might note that even if FCEV's are a failure, there's certainly a lot of use for low cost green hydrogen in decarbonizing ammonia and steel production as well as other industrial processes.
1) Hydrogen storage is a solved problem. We have no issue storing it in pressurized tanks, or cryo tanks if necessary. We already have cars that work on both ideas, especially cars that you can buy and drive like normal cars. There are no serious issues found. No one is aware of any unsolved problems.
2) No. They are rapidly falling in price and are quickly become a cost effective solution. Fuel cells are not expensive anymore.
3) Same story as above. Also, we are seeing nearly 100% efficient electrolyzers now. This is also a solved problem for the most part.
That consensus is not real; it contains many people who have a vested interest in not seeing hydrogen succeed. This is analogue to the rise of wind and solar power, where many "analysts" systemically demonized the technology. This continue even after they reached large-scale production and low cost.
You can come up with a list of rebuttals to most of that. The reader needs to be able to parse the data and recognize how it debunks most of the gish-gallop style attacks, although not every single thing can be refuted:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/ac-transits-fuel-cell-program-br...
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2022/03/20220321-hysata.htm...
https://www.thedrive.com/tech/42448/bmw-is-stress-testing-it...
https://www.thedrive.com/tech/26050/exclusive-toyota-hydroge...
The fundamental advantage with fuel cell cars is that they do not have the huge raw material needs of BEVs. As a result, they should be much cheaper. In fact, they should cost no more than ICE cars. In reality, hydrogen is the much cheaper and more practical solution. And since it refuels so fast, it is inevitable that millions of people will have to buy a hydrogen car and not a BEV.
That last part should be self-evident. But we live in a world of BEV propaganda, and people regularly show up with their brains filled with gish-gallop style nonsense arguments. It is simpler to just point out that they were lied to and have a total misunderstanding of the situation, rather than debunk multiple and sometimes dozens of ridiculous unfounded assertions. People do not have infinite time to do this.
This is simply a lazy troll argument, and literally a repeat of old anti-BEV arguments.
FYI, the figures are well into the hundreds of billions of dollars of total investment. It is a repeat of wind and solar, and the naysayers are just concern trolling or even outright denying its existence.
The more it's happening, the easier that request should be.
(And, after being told that "troll" is not a valid argument, immediately returning to "troll" is not a good look. It makes it appear that you don't have anything else.)
The facts are so far into the realm of "it's already happening now" that what you're asking is akin to demanding proof that Russia is at war with Ukraine right now.
> Vassilenko cited the data that in 2022 the global green hydrogen market was valued at $4.02 billion
Second:
> Originating out of a reference economic model of the Green Kochi Hydrogen Hub (GKH2), the plan was prepared as a 50:50 public-private Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) with a 150 megawatt (MW) electrolyser capacity, storage and evacuation infrastructure, renewable energy inputs, green ammonia production plants and off-take by industrial and mobility users, with a $468m CAPEX outlay over a 20-year project period.
Third said this, but there's a "but" coming:
> In 2022, over $240 billion was invested in more than 680 global hydrogen projects, marking a 50 per cent increase in investments compared to the previous year.
The document it linked to actually starts with:
> 680 large-scale project proposals worth USD 240 billion have been put forward, but only about 10% (USD 22 billion) have reached final investment decision (FID). While Europe leads in proposed investments (~30%), China is slightly ahead on actual deployment of electrolyzers (200 MW), while Japan and South Korea are leading in fuel cells (more than half of the world's 11 GW manufacturing capacity).
These would be a great start if not for the fact that we've been hearing about how hydrogen cars will replace ICE since before Tesla became newsworthy.
I want this to succeed, I really do — even if it only works for planes and some chemistry, that's fantastic! — but this isn't like Russia being at war, it's like pointing to the continuing existence of Cuba and saying "Look! Communism works!"
This is exactly the example of denial I am referring to. You are literally reading an article that describes exactly what I am saying, and yet somehow your conclusion that this is all imaginary. It is a near perfect parallel to those anti-solar people, who continuously denied the rapid growth of solar power even after witnessing years of it first hand.
My impression from you is that's rhetorical, not sincere. Is my impression correct?
If not, if you're really curious: Cuba's GDP is $107 bn, making it about x5 global green hydrogen.
(Edit: had previously said $250 bn, that's PPP not nominal)
> and yet somehow your conclusion that this is all imaginary
That's not what I said. I am denying it's "at scale" which is not at all synonymous with claiming "it's imaginary", it would have to grow by a factor of a thousand — three orders of magnitude — for me to say "Yay, finally! What took y'all so long?"
World annual investments on energy was about 2.5 trillion last year for new stuff plus 4 trillion going to oil and gas producers[0].
Here's what that looks like:
$22bn: ■ $6.5tn:
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■
Even PV, which is also growing fast and is much larger than your headlines for new investments ($22bn, and they won't all happen, and those which do are not all in the same year), is only about 6% of global electricity.
And worse, the quantities that matter are energy and power, which are again "that's an interesting proof of concept" level, not "wow, fantastic, this has really changed things" (much as I want it to).
What you have with hydrogen — and remember, I like hydrogen, and have made some myself even back when I was a single-digit age — is still smaller than the current annual production of just batteries, which you dismiss.
If the batteries were bad for the reasons you gave in some of your other comments, hydrogen would be a joke. I don't think hydrogen is a joke, but the evidence is that it's still niche rather than a general solution with all current tech.
[0] https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-investment-2022/ove...
PV is doing the same. It is also growing exponentially. There was a time when investment in PVs was also in the single-digit billions. Now it is a lot more. If something grows rapidly enough, it will quickly catch up to the competition.
Finally, you’ve picked a source that is fairly conservative on all this. I mean, Japan alone is exceeding that: https://japantoday.com/category/tech/japan-earmarks-107-bill...
Other countries will follow, so you can expect global investment to be much higher.
Ironic given you keep parroting phrases from everyone you reply to with the same tone on your part.
And yes, the real meaning of the word irony.
> At 50% YOY growth, it will catch up to everything else in a handful of years. And this is your source, not mine. You are basically rejecting the conclusion of the source you found.
Nah, you're the origin of the string "50% YOY" as far as I can tell. (Or did you misread the bit where the 240 bn, which is the closest I got, was from a news story that did not correctly quote its own linked source document?)
My link, I just searched it, has this to say about 50%:
> Lithium-focused companies increased their spending by 50% to record highs.
I want hydrogen growth to sustain that rate. I don't see any reason to expect this to be sustained, but I want it to.
> Finally, you’ve picked a source that is fairly conservative on all this. I mean, Japan alone is exceeding that
(1) Over 15 years, (2) reaching 15 million tons per year, which is 1% of their average primary energy usage.
Again, this is like using Cuba as an example of how Communism will take over real soon now: not a good one.
This is from your previous post:
> In 2022, over $240 billion was invested in more than 680 global hydrogen projects, marking a 50 per cent increase in investments compared to the previous year.
Hence 50% YOY growth.
And if you understand exponential growth, you'd know that this is extremely fast and it can quickly catch up to whatever target you're dreaming of.
That is about one country's policy. And it was literally announced days ago, meaning that this is a regular occurrence globally. You are intentionally missing the point I was making. Like I said, this is a major current event and guys like you are demanding proof of a massive global event that everyone should be aware of.
And was for one specific year.
So in addition to "being false" and "you were so busy being angry you didn't bother to read", it's not even a reasonable claim to be exponential.
Normally I wouldn't mind rolling with that as a hope for what might come, but you're being everything you're accusing everyone else here of being.
> That is about one country's policy
Policy? That actually makes it worse, because it implies Japan will not meet more than 1% of its demand that way.
> Like I said, this is a major current event and guys like you are demanding proof of a massive global event that everyone should be aware of.
Which in total is next to nothing: 1% over 15 years, if everyone matches Japan's proposal.
And everyone else was telling you to actually dig up a link.
Getting the link from you was like blood from a stone.
And YOY means year-over-year, so if it's 50% over last year, then it's 50% YOY. You can interpretate that as exponential growth unless you are expecting growth to stall.
I don't see anywhere in that article that suggests this is just 1% of Japan's energy need. It should be a very significant portion.
Again, this is a major current event. You expect people to be aware of it, or can do the most basic of googling. A lot of people here apparently either are profoundly ignorant or totally in denial that it is happening.