Hydrogen vs. Battery

[Guy V]

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

Not really. The real question is how to make it economically competitive. Compressed hydrogen is not the only way to store and release it. Productive research on that is already being applied in multiple cases.

Getting down to the very fundamentals, we should be learning as much as we can about how to utilize the most readily abundant resources available to us: sunlight, hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen/oxygen combination is extremely versatile. You can burn it for heat, explode it for compression force, and combine it in reactions to produce electricity. Hydrogen is also effective in other chemical reactions. In fact, if we could just learn how to manage nuclear fusion most all of our energy problems would be solved.

 

[SVMike]

Not really. The real question is how to make it economically competitive. Compressed hydrogen is not the only way to store and release it. Productive research on that is already being applied in multiple cases.

Getting down to the very fundamentals, we should be learning as much as we can about how to utilize the most readily abundant resources available to us: sunlight, hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen/oxygen combination is extremely versatile. You can burn it for heat, explode it for compression force, and combine it in reactions to produce electricity. Hydrogen is also effective in other chemical reactions. In fact, if we could just learn how to manage nuclear fusion most all of our energy problems would be solved.

It is a fallacy to say that hydrogen is a readily available resource. Hydrogen atoms are abundant. H2 is not.
You might as well say that electrons are readily available, so we should use more of them.

 

[Electroman]

It is a fallacy to say that hydrogen is a readily available resource. Hydrogen atoms are abundant. H2 is not.
You might as well say that electrons are readily available, so we should use more of them.

Ha ha.. good analogy. Love it..

it is the act of sequestering the electrons to one end of the battery and holding it there is where the real challenge is. The same with Hydrogen. It is everywhere, ubiquitous. But not a) in the form of H2 and b) in the density that is useful for transportation needs. There in comes the cost and inefficiency challenges.

 

[Guy V]

It is a fallacy to say that hydrogen is a readily available resource. Hydrogen atoms are abundant. H2 is not.
You might as well say that electrons are readily available, so we should use more of them.

That makes no sense at all. You can't say it isn't readily available at the same time you say it is abundant. Not only is it abundant, it is immediately at hand. Our job is to process it into its most useful forms for our various needs. We know multiple ways, research is finding more and working to make them more economically competitive. And of course we should be making better use of electrons in any number of ways, you know, like your beloved batteries.

 

[Guy V]

Ha ha.. good analogy. Love it..

it is the act of sequestering the electrons to one end of the battery and holding it there is where the real challenge is. The same with Hydrogen. It is everywhere, ubiquitous. But not a) in the form of H2 and b) in the density that is useful for transportation needs. There in comes the cost and inefficiency challenges.

That is the challenge of every fuel source. That is the purpose of R&D. I question why anyone would insist on closing off any avenues.

 

[Takumi]

That is the challenge of every fuel source. That is the purpose of R&D. I question why anyone would insist on closing off any avenues.

We're not closing off any avenues. It's more like don't throw MY money into that money pit.

If someone else wants to throw their money into that pit, by all means have a go at it. Just don't use mine (tax). I worked hard for that.

 

[Guy V]

We're not closing off any avenues. It's more like don't throw MY money into that money pit.

If someone else wants to throw their money into that pit, by all means have a go at it. Just don't use mine (tax). I worked hard for that.

I'm glad they are using a bit of mine. More for clean energy research of all kinds would be better for everyone. It is extraordinarily provincial of a clean energy advocate of one form to be an obstacle to others. I'm sure that sort of bickering tickles the fossil fuel industry with the same delight as Joe Manchin's maneuverings, but at least he has the motivation of being one of their own.

 

[Electroman]

I'm glad they are using a bit of mine. More for clean energy research of all kinds would be better for everyone. It is extraordinarily provincial of a clean energy advocate of one form to be an obstacle to others. I'm sure that sort of bickering tickles the fossil fuel industry with the same delight as Joe Manchin's maneuverings, but at least he has the motivation of being one of their own.

While we are at that, I wish we can throw some R&D money on alchemy. Just imagine if they can convert Carbon to Gold or Lithium or Cobalt. More alchemy research would be better for everyone.

 

[Guy V]

While we are at that, I wish we can throw some R&D money on alchemy. Just imagine if they can convert Carbon to Gold or Lithium or Cobalt. More alchemy research would be better for everyone.

Well, if you have some good alchemy proposals you should write them up and submit them. Transmutation is a viable avenue of research, but while I don't see how it applies to clean energy solutions to replace fossil fuel use, if you have a case for it you definitely should make it.

 

[Electroman]

I think you are clueless

 

[Takumi]

Guy, what is THE question that hydrogen is supposed to answer?

 

[Guy V]

I think you are clueless

Me clueless? I wasn't the who thought alchemy was a relevant argument. Research on hydrogen as a clean fuel is real and productive, you just don't like it, a personal bias you haven't been able to justify so you stoop to name calling.

 

[Guy V]

Guy, what is THE question that hydrogen is supposed to answer?

Wow, you really need help with that? A clean fuel to replace use of fossil fuels.

 

[SVMike]

That makes no sense at all. You can't say it isn't readily available at the same time you say it is abundant. Not only is it abundant, it is immediately at hand. Our job is to process it into its most useful forms for our various needs. We know multiple ways, research is finding more and working to make them more economically competitive. And of course we should be making better use of electrons in any number of ways, you know, like your beloved batteries.

H2 is not abundant and immediately at hand. In fact it requires more energy to "get" it than you get back. True?
Meanwhile, oil, coal and NG are relatively abundant and you get more energy out of them than is required to go and collect them.
Even if you have to drill a hole a mile deep to start the collection process.
(I'm not in favor of continuing this, BTW. I drive an EV and have solar PV for electricity and solar thermal for home heating)
I'm also in favor of doing H2 and fuel cell R&D.
But let's not oversell it by saying hydrogen is abundant and everywhere.
We have lots of hydrogen atoms and about zero hydrogen gas ready to go collect...and it requires more energy to get H2 than you get back.

 

[Guy V]

H2 is not abundant and immediately at hand. In fact it requires more energy to "get" it than you get back. True?
Meanwhile, oil, coal and NG are relatively abundant and you get more energy out of them than is required to go and collect them.
Even if you have to drill a hole a mile deep to start the collection process.
(I'm not in favor of continuing this, BTW. I drive an EV and have solar PV for electricity and solar thermal for home heating)
I'm also in favor of doing H2 and fuel cell R&D.
But let's not oversell it by saying hydrogen is abundant and everywhere.
We have lots of hydrogen atoms and about zero hydrogen gas ready to go collect...and it requires more energy to get H2 than you get back.

No, hydrogen really and truly is abundant and everywhere around us, mostly locked with oxygen as plain water. That's a really great thing, because unlike the fossil fuels you mention, which we need to replace with clean fuels, the hydrogen separation and recombination process is endlessly recyclable. We are never going to run out. Neither will we run out of the primary free power source to drive it, or at least when our sun does fail we aren't likely to be worried about other energy problems.

And there you have it. The inefficiency doesn't matter if the power source is cheap and unlimited. Of course we can also use any other clean energy source that proves practical: wind, hydro, geothermal, tidal. Just like batteries, hydrogen is an energy store-and-release chemical cycle. It is one with different properties, different advantages and constraints. That's a good thing. We would be foolish to limit ourselves solely the capabilities of batteries storing electricity for every application and purpose. That won't fly, pretty much literally in practical air transport terms.

 

[transpondster]

Everyone tries to tell you that electrolising and running back via fuel cell is waste of energy, so using it for transportation currently means more fosil fuel, maybe in some very distant future it will make sense

 

[ZsoZso]

No, hydrogen really and truly is abundant and everywhere around us, mostly locked with oxygen as plain water. That's a really great thing, because unlike the fossil fuels you mention, which we need to replace with clean fuels, the hydrogen separation and recombination process is endlessly recyclable. We are never going to run out. Neither will we run out of the primary free power source to drive it, or at least when our sun does fail we aren't likely to be worried about other energy problems.

And there you have it. The inefficiency doesn't matter if the power source is cheap and unlimited. Of course we can also use any other clean energy source that proves practical: wind, hydro, geothermal, tidal. Just like batteries, hydrogen is an energy store-and-release chemical cycle. It is one with different properties, different advantages and constraints. That's a good thing. We would be foolish to limit ourselves solely the capabilities of batteries storing electricity for every application and purpose. That won't fly, pretty much literally in practical air transport terms.

I highlighted the problem where you run into fundamental physics limitation, specifically the 2nd law of thermodynamics. That "separation and recombination process" is not a source of energy, on the contrary, it requires (read wastes) energy! No amount of R&D will change that fact.
Current fuel cells are around 40% efficient, electrolysis also has efficiency losses, so is compression of H2 gas. Full roundtrip efficiency of the process around 20%, i.e. no better than fossil burning ICE. Using batteries and electric motors we have around 90% roundtrip efficiency. That is a giant gap to fill with R&D.

 

[Electroman]

maybe in some very distant future it will make sense

Even in the distant future it wont make sense for personal transport. It takes energy to make H2 from H2O, and then it takes energy to compress that H2. And then when you get it back as electricity you only get a fraction of the energy spent. Instead use that energy and store it directly in a battery.

It would make sense in some use cases - rockets, big rigs (may be).

 

[Guy V]

I highlighted the problem where you run into fundamental physics limitation, specifically the 2nd law of thermodynamics. That "separation and recombination process" is not a source of energy, on the contrary, it requires (read wastes) energy! No amount of R&D will change that fact.
Current fuel cells are around 40% efficient, electrolysis also has efficiency losses, so is compression of H2 gas. Full roundtrip efficiency of the process around 20%, i.e. no better than fossil burning ICE. Using batteries and electric motors we have around 90% roundtrip efficiency. That is a giant gap to fill with R&D.

All energy storage processes waste energy. There is waste in all of our transport of it, in all of our use of it. Look at the horrendous waste of ICE. That obviously is not the sole deciding factor whether their use is economically practical. Or it should be obvious at any rate.

Waste is a broad term with multiple variations of meaning. You are falsely trying to apply a strict narrow physics definition to real-world economic analysis, and to one segment of the whole. There is absurdity in that. In one perspective we are wasting all the solar and other renewables that we fail to capture. So there is no good reason not to capture and store it as fuel whenever and however economics justify.

You have similar tunnel vision regarding the research. Improving efficiency of the conversion process in not the primary focus. All aspects of production, storage, transportation and utilization are open to improvement through R&D. And as with other major research endeavors, the benefits of advancements will not be confined to applied hydrogen use.

 

[transpondster]

I highlighted the problem where you run into fundamental physics limitation, specifically the 2nd law of thermodynamics. That "separation and recombination process" is not a source of energy, on the contrary, it requires (read wastes) energy! No amount of R&D will change that fact.
Current fuel cells are around 40% efficient, electrolysis also has efficiency losses, so is compression of H2 gas. Full roundtrip efficiency of the process around 20%, i.e. no better than fossil burning ICE. Using batteries and electric motors we have around 90% roundtrip efficiency. That is a giant gap to fill with R&D.

I think fuel cells are in upto 60% efficiency while roundtrip in 30-40% range, not counting compression and transportation