Hydrogen vs. Battery

[dgatwood]

Really? Our server rooms are down right frigid. (I have to wear a jacket when go in there, in addition to hearing protection.)

I guess it depends on the company, but once the BackBlaze folks concluded that temperature and reliability weren't correlated for hard drive reliability, a lot of folks cut back.

Hard Drive Temperature—Does It Matter?

How much does operating temperature affect the failure rates of disk drives? Not much. The unlimited online backup service provided by Backblaze requires

www.backblaze.com

 

[Electroman]

The U.S. made a breakthrough battery discovery — then gave the technology to China

Taxpayers spent $15 million on research to build a breakthrough battery. Then the U.S. government gave it to China.

www.npr.org

"Chinese news reports say the country is about to bring online one of the largest battery farms the world has ever seen. The reports say the entire farm is made up of vanadium redux flow batteries"

Why is Tesla not considering, 'Vanadium Redox Flow' batteries for grid storage?

 

[JRP3]

The U.S. made a breakthrough battery discovery — then gave the technology to China

Taxpayers spent $15 million on research to build a breakthrough battery. Then the U.S. government gave it to China.

www.npr.org

Why is Tesla not considering, 'Vanadium Redox Flow' batteries for grid storage?

My understanding is that the flow batteries are less efficient and not able to discharge at high rates. Tesla is also working with Prof. Jeff Dahn who recently gave a talk about 50-100 year lithium ion batteries for grid storage.

 

[SageBrush]

European politicians have been effectively lobbied by and in the pocket of some interest groups who were seeking government money wasted on hydrogen. Mission accomplished - money wasted. Surprisingly, I find the US government resistance to hydrogen hype as a rare example of US policy superiority.

Not at all, it just has a different name. Now Billions are being wasted on 'Blue Hydrogen.'
It is true that personal transport fueled by hydrogen is quiet now, but you only have to go back to li'l Bush to read mountains of the same rubbish.
And while CARB is not the Federal Govt, it does have the clout of a major economy and it continues to poor money into the Hydrogen car dream.

My primary objection to @Guy V's stance is that he ignores opportunity cost. Hundreds of Billions wasted on 'blue hydrogen' are hundreds of Billions that could have built PV and wind.

 

[SageBrush]

But look, far be it by me to argue against investing in hydrogen research.

I don't argue against basic research, but there is a very slippery slope here that industry and its lobbyists have turned into an expensive mess. Is a massive, federally funded infrastructure of 'blue' hydrogen "research" ? I say no -- that should stand on its own economic and environmental merits. Industry has managed to turn 'expensive and highly likely to fail' into "research."

 

[Guy V]

I don't argue against basic research, but there is a very slippery slope here that industry and its lobbyists have turned into an expensive mess. Is a massive, federally funded infrastructure of 'blue' hydrogen "research" ? I say no -- that should stand on its own economic and environmental merits. Industry has managed to turn 'expensive and highly likely to fail' into "research."

That's a distraction. They don't need research on blue hydrogen, they know exactly how to do it and have been doing it. Research and development in how to store, transport and most appropriately and efficiently use it will apply equally to green hydrogen, so it's a net win. It's the same issue as sourcing electricity for EVs, get the product delivered and continue to work on eliminating fossil fuels as the production source.

 

[dpeilow]

When your loaner Mirai test accidentally uncovers the truth...

As soon as a few cars need to use a station, it all goes wrong. I can't agree with his conclusion either as a) some EVs now can do 10-80% in the time he is waiting in line, b) You can build a 20-bay supercharger for the cost of one of these pumps and c) I can plug in and get a coffee instead of inching forward each time someone in front finishes.

 

[dgpcolorado]

What we need is more hydro pump storage, as in pipeline from the Mississippi and flood plains into the Colorado River which then can produce power at Lake Powell and Lake Mead.

The irony is that we currently do the opposite!

I suppose it isn't widely known outside of Colorado, but water from the Colorado River is currently pumped through tunnels in the mountains and discharged into the South Platte River. This water is for the use of Denver (Denver gets about half of its water from the Colorado River on the west side of the Continental Divide) but it does mean that more water flows in the South Platte River into Nebraska (else farmers and sandhill cranes in Nebraska would be quite annoyed). The Platte River is a tributary of the Missouri River, which flows into the Mississippi River.

So, in effect, we actually move water from the Colorado River to the Mississippi River. Just so you know...

For more information, search Lake Dillon (near Keystone Ski Area) and the Roberts Tunnel.

 

[21EV]

Fascinating topic and admittedly I haven’t even scratched the surface of reading this thread. I did heard a talk recently that stated that gas powered vehicles will be battery powered and diesel will be hydrogen powered in the future though any prediction comes with many caveats and assumptions.

Hydrogen, specifically the blue and green variety, might also play a larger factor in aviation and in industrial applications but has challenges as a transportation fuel and in power generation.

I’m always okay with researching many different things, renewable power, nuclear power, hydrogen, batteries, etc. As an example, try looking up all of the different attempts at finding something like our lithium ion battery chemistry before settling on what we have now and also look at the different iterations it’s taken since it was originally developed.

 

[dpeilow]

Fascinating topic and admittedly I haven’t even scratched the surface of reading this thread. I did heard a talk recently that stated that gas powered vehicles will be battery powered and diesel will be hydrogen powered in the future though any prediction comes with many caveats and assumptions.

I think that is already disproven by the fact that battery has already won in the bus market where battery buses number in the tens of thousands (there are some small hydrogen bus projects but they are pretty much all subsidised with public money) and battery is ahead in the truck market as well, although the numbers for both truck types are still pretty low.

Hydrogen, specifically the blue and green variety, might also play a larger factor in aviation and in industrial applications but has challenges as a transportation fuel and in power generation.

The problem with using hydrogen for aviation is that the energy demands are huge. For example the entire UK grid peaks at about 50 GW and you'd need the same again just to supply Heathrow on a like-for-like basis with green hydrogen. And that's before you add in other airports. If you wanted to convert that hydrogen to e-fuel synthetic hydrocarbons, multiply by 2. I don't see a huge rush to roll out nuclear or large windfarms just to support this.

I’m always okay with researching many different things, renewable power, nuclear power, hydrogen, batteries, etc. As an example, try looking up all of the different attempts at finding something like our lithium ion battery chemistry before settling on what we have now and also look at the different iterations it’s taken since it was originally developed.

Unfortunately this is the playbook by which the oil industry has been kicking the can down the road for decades. It can be shown empirically that hydrogen takes much more resource and longer for the fleet to reach zero emissions, yet governments on both sides of the Atlantic have thrown billions at it with very little to show. That money would have been better used on supporting BEVs get established, a fact that was known 20 year ago. It was kind of the point of this thread.

 

[21EV]

I think that is already disproven by the fact that battery has already won in the bus market where battery buses number in the tens of thousands (there are some small hydrogen bus projects but they are pretty much all subsidised with public money) and battery is ahead in the truck market as well, although the numbers for both truck types are still pretty low.

The problem with using hydrogen for aviation is that the energy demands are huge. For example the entire UK grid peaks at about 50 GW and you'd need the same again just to supply Heathrow on a like-for-like basis with green hydrogen. And that's before you add in other airports. If you wanted to convert that hydrogen to e-fuel synthetic hydrocarbons, multiply by 2. I don't see a huge rush to roll out nuclear or large windfarms just to support this.



Unfortunately this is the playbook by which the oil industry has been kicking the can down the road for decades. It can be shown empirically that hydrogen takes much more resource and longer for the fleet to reach zero emissions, yet governments on both sides of the Atlantic have thrown billions at it with very little to show. That money would have been better used on supporting BEVs get established, a fact that was known 20 year ago. It was kind of the point of this thread.

It seems like we mostly agree except on the point that winners have already been chosen.

 

[Guy V]

I think that is already disproven by the fact that battery has already won in the bus market where battery buses number in the tens of thousands (there are some small hydrogen bus projects but they are pretty much all subsidised with public money) and battery is ahead in the truck market as well, although the numbers for both truck types are still pretty low.



The problem with using hydrogen for aviation is that the energy demands are huge. For example the entire UK grid peaks at about 50 GW and you'd need the same again just to supply Heathrow on a like-for-like basis with green hydrogen. And that's before you add in other airports. If you wanted to convert that hydrogen to e-fuel synthetic hydrocarbons, multiply by 2. I don't see a huge rush to roll out nuclear or large windfarms just to support this.



Unfortunately this is the playbook by which the oil industry has been kicking the can down the road for decades. It can be shown empirically that hydrogen takes much more resource and longer for the fleet to reach zero emissions, yet governments on both sides of the Atlantic have thrown billions at it with very little to show. That money would have been better used on supporting BEVs get established, a fact that was known 20 year ago. It was kind of the point of this thread.

The problems of using hydrogen for aviation may be huge but not as huge as trying to use batteries. The problems of continuing to use fossil fuels are catastrophic. If you don't see a huge rush to roll out wind farms you are simply not paying attention, but those are still not the only ways to produce clean energy. Green hydrogen is doable, we have to continue R&D to make it economically practical. It will not be all on the cost side because the overall costs on the opposing fossil fuel side become ever more untenable, and the basic energy to weight ratio for aviation does not favor batteries.

 

[JRP3]

Creating synthetic fuels and bio fuels for aviation may be more viable than hydrogen. They would use existing infrastructure and be a drop in replacement.

Sustainable Aviation Fuels

The U.S. Department of Energy Bioenergy Technologies Office work on the potential for sustainable biofuels produced for the aviation industry to help enable the growth of an advanced bioeconomy.

www.energy.gov

 

[Guy V]

Creating synthetic fuels and bio fuels for aviation may be more viable than hydrogen. They would use existing infrastructure and be a drop in replacement.

Sustainable Aviation Fuels

The U.S. Department of Energy Bioenergy Technologies Office work on the potential for sustainable biofuels produced for the aviation industry to help enable the growth of an advanced bioeconomy.

www.energy.gov

May be. That's exactly why we need to research all avenues. I am not a hydrogen advocate; I am an opponent of those pushing don't waste money looking at anything but my favorite solution, and heaping derision on everything else. It's a fact of history that game-changing breakthroughs happen, they happen because of wide-ranging research, and we need some very much, right now.

 

[JRP3]

The basic physics of hydrogen cannot be researched away. That's why I'm against it.

 

[eevee-fan]

The basic physics of hydrogen cannot be researched away. That's why I'm against it.

Never say never... seems AI is discovering new physics. I doubt it but how many times have civilizations been proven to be wrong?

Artificial Intelligence Discovers Alternative Physics

A new Columbia University AI program observed physical phenomena and uncovered relevant variables—a necessary precursor to any physics theory. But the variables it discovered were unexpected. Energy, Mass, Velocity. These three variables make up Einstein’s iconic equation E=MC2. But how did Alber

scitechdaily.com

 

[Guy V]

The basic physics of hydrogen cannot be researched away. That's why I'm against it.

But the basic physics say hydrogen can do the job, it already does do the job economically in the right circumstances. The issues to be researched are how to produce, store and transport it more economically without dirty energy source inputs. Economic efficiency is not the same as physics efficiency, as the economics of ICE vehicles clearly demonstrates.

We do not have to make green hydrogen more cheaply than making blue hydrogen for example, since we need to decide to stop using fossil fuels because the ultimate consequences are too costly, which leaves "less efficient" green hydrogen as a viable alternative. We need to learn how to do that best.

 

[eevee-fan]

But the basic physics say hydrogen can do the job, it already does do the job economically in the right circumstances. The issues to be researched are how to produce, store and transport it more economically without dirty energy source inputs. Economic efficiency is not the same as physics efficiency, as the economics of ICE vehicles clearly demonstrates.

We do not have to make green hydrogen more cheaply than making blue hydrogen for example, since we need to decide to stop using fossil fuels because the ultimate consequences are too costly, which leaves "less efficient" green hydrogen as a viable alternative. We need to learn how to do that best.

Well, it only makes sense in situations where simply charging will not work. This supports your 'economics' argument but we have to ask whether there are collateral costs not included in the product - the fallacy of fossil fuel.

pv magazine International: Australian solar park could generate hydrogen for less than $2/kg.
Australian solar park could generate hydrogen for less than $2/kg

 

[Guy V]

But the basic physics say hydrogen can do the job, it already does do the job economically in the right circumstances. The issues to be researched are how to produce, store and transport it more economically without dirty energy source inputs. Economic efficiency is not the same as physics efficiency, as the economics of ICE vehicles clearly demonstrates.

Well, it only makes sense in situations where simply charging will not work. This supports your 'economics' argument but we have to ask whether there are collateral costs not included in the product - the fallacy of fossil fuel.

pv magazine International: Australian solar park could generate hydrogen for less than $2/kg.
Australian solar park could generate hydrogen for less than $2/kg

We always have to ask that and determine how to manage them. That, after all, applies to every energy solution, including batteries. And every solution is of course situational. What matters is replacing as many fossil fuel use cases as possible with clean ones. The more tools at our disposal the better.

 

[Electroman]

Well, it only makes sense in situations where simply charging will not work. This supports your 'economics' argument but we have to ask whether there are collateral costs not included in the product - the fallacy of fossil fuel.

pv magazine International: Australian solar park could generate hydrogen for less than $2/kg.
Australian solar park could generate hydrogen for less than $2/kg

The real question is, what is the cost of per kg of H2 compressed to the required PSI.