News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Google Funding Construction of Seven U.S. Nuclear Reactors by pfdietz on Monday October 14, 2024 @05:04PM (#41841976)
Assuming only batteries are used for storage is one of the common bullshit arguments against renewables. It's bad strawman engineering.

What works much better is a combination of batteries and an e-fuel like hydrogen. Batteries handle most of the stored energy flow; hydrogen handles the rarer long term storage needs. They complement each other, in a way like cache memory and RAM complement each other.

Re:Google Funding Construction of Seven U.S. Nuclear Reactors by schainks on Tuesday October 15, 2024 @01:01AM (#41845104)
The cost per KW or hydrogen needs to be below $1000/Kwh for your statement to be true.

It’s not there yet. CAES is cheaper than hydrogen today at grid scale, generally speaking : https://www.ctc-n.org/technologies/compressed-air-energy-sto...

Re:Google Funding Construction of Seven U.S. Nuclear Reactors by pfdietz on Tuesday October 15, 2024 @07:45AM (#41847515)
CAES stores much less energy than hydrogen per unit of storage volume. So, for sufficiently long storage times, hydrogen is far better than CAES. For those long storage times, there are proportionally fewer charge/discharge cycles, so the cost of the hydrogen itself becomes proportionally less important.

CAES is likely going to be squeezed out by batteries, but hydrogen addresses the extreme storage use case (just a few cycles/year) where both batteries and CAES are unsuitable.

The pacing technology for green hydrogen is low capex electrolysers. China, as usual, is leading the charge on this. I understand 4% of hydrogen production in China is now from electrolysis.

Re:Google Funding Construction of Seven U.S. Nuclear Reactors by schainks on Monday October 28, 2024 @03:01AM (#41968398)
It's about cost per Kwh stored β€” hydrogen does indeed have better energy density, but if it costs 10 times more than CAES to store one megawatt hour of energy, no one will finance it. Do some money calculations with some basic assumptions for a utility, and you'll see why they are very hesitant to build anything that isn't a moneymaker immediately (CAES included!).

CAES is interesting because you can recycle some (keyword, SOME) existing mines for enormous energy stores, and the hardware needed to build CAES on said mine is not particularly special and easily understood for engineers, and therefore cheap, and also easy to handle safety-wise. Air that leaks makes only noise. Hydrogen that leaks tends to catch fire, and burn with a non-colored flame that is hard do see, and therefore a large safety challenge.

To compress hydrogen beyond the energy density of CAES or petroleum products, you still need comparatively expensive hardware. I think the price of these things will come down, as you pointed out, but I have a hard time seeing hydrogen electrolysis tech ever being grid scale. Maybe you'll have one attached to your house like the Tesla batteries, though, paired with solar panels.

> For those long storage times, there are proportionally fewer charge/discharge cycles, so the cost of the hydrogen itself becomes proportionally less important.

The key with large scale energy storage is to do price arbitrage β€” store energy when it is cheap (e.g. at night), sell it when energy is expensive. A utility won't sit on a large (say, 300 megawatt hours) hydrogen store for long, because once the cost to sell it exceeds the cost to store it, they are looking to put that energy back on the grid, even if it is for a specific use case like peak shaving. Grid scale projects need to be financed and paid off in 30-50 year timescales, usually. The main sources of cheap hydrogen (as in, cheaper than bulk liquid natural gas) are industrial processes that produce hydrogen as a byproduct.

Re:Google Funding Construction of Seven U.S. Nuclear Reactors by defrost on Monday October 28, 2024 @03:23AM (#41968506)
In current pragmatic engineering projects today green hydrogen alone is rarely the product, for many of the reasons you cite.

Ammonia and methanol are seen as better products from large scale PV farms as the storage and transport is easier than for pure hydrogen.

eg. In the container shipping domain: https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/transport/why-shipping-is-op...

( an article that highlights progress to date and challenges to overcome )

Re:Google Funding Construction of Seven U.S. Nuclear Reactors by schainks on Tuesday October 29, 2024 @06:26PM (#41990069)
Yes, exactly! It seems like people overlook the tools and processes that currently exist and how we can integrate those into hydrogen ambitions.
Re:Google Funding Construction of Seven U.S. Nuclear Reactors by Moldoteck on Tuesday October 15, 2024 @05:02AM (#41846534)
hydrogen generators either use a mix with gas or pure h2 that has huge nox emissions. And the problem is that green h2 isn't economical now and even if it'll be someday - the plant will still need subsidies always due to low usage
Re:Google Funding Construction of Seven U.S. Nuclear Reactors by pfdietz on Tuesday October 15, 2024 @07:26AM (#41847392)
Green H2 isn't competitive with cheap NG unburdened by CO2 taxes.

Realize that global H2 production is enormous -- 75 million tons/year for pure H2, another 24 MT for hydrogen in mixed gas streams -- and much of this needs to be produced even when we're entirely off fossil fuels. Green hydrogen is not an optional thing. So all the problems of making and storing it are going to have to be solved. Once that's done, adding some turbines (very much like existing ones; it's likely possible to just retrofit existing NG turbines with new combustors) is not a large additional step. These turbines already have an after stage that reduces NOx back to N2.

Re:Google Funding Construction of Seven U.S. Nuclear Reactors by Moldoteck on Tuesday October 15, 2024 @07:48AM (#41847534)
It's not that easy https://power.mhi.com/special/hydrogen as you make it sound