Hydrogen vs. Battery

[dhrivnak]

...

Batteries are in limited supply and expensive. Electrolyzers and fuel cells are in even shorter supply and probably equally expensive and fuel cells have a shorter service life than even batteries. And while battery storage just requires batteries, H2 storage requires electrolyzers to convert the electricity into H2, very expensive very high-tech tanks to store it, compressors to get it into those tanks, energy to run the compressors, and fuel cells to convert it back to electricity. And to do that on a grid scale, the electrolyzers, compressors, and fuel cells would have to be massive!

H2 as storage for an intermittent electrical supply is a fail on so many levels that the only reason it's even on the table is because H2 is a ploy to keep using fossil fuel.

I was not talking about Electrolyzers as I would burn H2 in peaker plants similar to natural gas. We have the infrastructure and green hydrogen would be far cleaner than fracking for more natural gas.

 

[nwdiver]

You are just too narrow-minded, oops sorry, I mean tightly focused. Things will progress as they always do, when demand and creativity drive countless small steps of technological improvements and innovative breakthroughs that sidestep the narrow paths of obstacles that you see in the laws of physics. Perhaps someone will develop an inexpensive way to chemically release hydrogen power by direct sunlight, they are working on that. Perhaps someone will be able to cheaply store and release hydrogen chemically by photo/electrical trigger, they are working on that. LOL, maybe we will actually get compact cold fusion generators in our basements. Of course you would give us numbers that show there are not enough basements.

As to paying off credit card balances, I believe what works best is to get that good job you were pursing and then be able to get a low-interest loan to pay them all off at once. On the other hand perhaps you get an inheritance, win the lottery, marry someone wealthy,... You would probably quote odds against each of those, but all of those things DO HAPPEN. Most people are looking for career advancement of some kind, a lot of folks will be getting that inheritance as us boomers die off, and a lot of young folks, older ones too I suppose, are out there looking for a well-off spouse.

The thing is, the naysayers do not help, they just get in the way and make things that much harder for those who are looking for solutions.

You keep claiming that more demand is somehow good. If I needed 2x more energy I could just 'magic' 2x more solar. What's the limit? Is there one? So if H2 cars used 3x more H2 that's somehow better? 4x? 5x? Enlighten me. Why is demand for H2 from FCEVs different from all the other things we need H2 for? Why can't using it for ammonia drive more green H2? Why does it have to be FCEVs? H2 is H2.

I believe what works best is to get that good job you were pursing and then be able to get a low-interest loan to pay them all off at once.

??? If you can't consolidate all your debt there's no point in paying down any? Not even the 15% card?

Why wouldn't the same principle apply to FCEVs? They'll make sense when we win the energy lottery and can produce all the ammonia, steel and aviation fuel we could ever use. When we can 'pay it all off at once' , when we're 'Flooded with clean energy'.

BUT.... if we can't 'pay it all off at once' does it not make sense to put limited resources where they can do the most good first because math?

 

[mblakele]

Also the fact that there is no green hydrogen now nor will there be in the near future. We'll increase battery supply faster than we'll create enough green hydrogen to matter.

Broadly agree, but there may be non-zero amounts of green hydrogen around already and more soon. Not enough to be significant, and I think you're right about growth.

CARB claims to have non-zero renewable hydrogen in its refueling network — although it's couched in such dense bureaucratese that I can't be certain. Air Liquide has also been making the right noises and is shooting for "a total of 3 GW electrolysis capacity by 2030". Anyone know if HyGreen Provence is on schedule for EOY 2021?

Meanwhile "CEA data shows a 24% increase in the lithium-ion battery deployment worldwide, from 17 GWh in 2019 to 21 GWh in 2020" and is expected to exceed 2500-GWh by 2025.

But... GW aren't GWh. Anyone know how to compare 3-GW of green hydrogen capacity to 2500-GWh of battery production capacity?

 

[nwdiver]

But... GW aren't GWh. Anyone know how to compare 3-GW of green hydrogen capacity to 2500-GWh of battery production capacity?

Depends on the capacity factor. If it's 90% (0.9)(24)(365) = ~7884 GWh/yr

 

[dgpcolorado]

Long term storage of hydrogen has it's own issues, it likes to escape containment. Plus the further efficiency loss of burning hydrogen in peaker plants. Also the fact that there is no green hydrogen now nor will there be in the near future. We'll increase battery supply faster than we'll create enough green hydrogen to matter.

This. H2 is the smallest molecule there is — two protons, two electrons, less than one Å in diameter — making it difficult to contain and transport. The existing natural gas infrastructure won't work without massive modification and methane leaks are already a major problem at present; methane is a larger molecule than H2. Other issues with "green" hydrogen as fuel include:

• H2 is reactive and causes containers, especially steel, to become brittle. Means limited life for containers and expensive testing for safety.
• H2 is difficult to compress, meaning that the process is energy-intensive (more efficiency losses for using H2 as a fuel). Using H2 gas without compression (at one atmosphere) is impractical because of the size of storage needed.
• H2 is not energy dense, either as a compressed gas or liquid, so it doesn't compare well with existing liquid hydrocarbon fuels. (My guess is that H2 fueled airplanes will prove difficult and that biofuel kerosene will be the green jet fuel of the future.)
• My understanding is that H2 from electrolysis requires very pure water, so no simple electrolysis from "seawater" (as some like to suggest). First the water has to be purified, an energetically expensive process, to put it mildly. Otherwise the contaminants will destroy the electrolysis apparatus.
• Electrolysis is difficult to scale up. It would require a lot of equipment and space. That is a technical problem that might be solvable.
• H2 fires are colorless, making for a safety issue when leaking hydrogen ignites.

 

[SageBrush]

The one thing I see missing from this discussion is a VERY good use for green hydrogen and that is in peaker plants. I think we can all agree solar and wind do have intermittency issues. While batteries can work they are in short supply and expensive. So store green hydrogen from some excess solar and wind production to use when needed. We can use a good part of the natural gas assets making this conversion relatively easy. For cars I believe batteries have a huge advantage over a very expensive infrastructure needed to support it and the higher conversion costs. But hydrogen can be a great way to bridge cloudy and/or windless days.

My comments are restricted to hydrogen combustion or fuel cell cars. I agree that it may have a future in energy storage

 

[Guy V]

You keep claiming that more demand is somehow good. If I needed 2x more energy I could just 'magic' 2x more solar. What's the limit? Is there one? So if H2 cars used 3x more H2 that's somehow better? 4x? 5x? Enlighten me. Why is demand for H2 from FCEVs different from all the other things we need H2 for? Why can't using it for ammonia drive more green H2? Why does it have to be FCEVs? H2 is H2.

You're not paying attention, that's more demand for more projects that will move the technologies forward so that we can produce more at less cost. This is exactly what has happened with renewables such as wind and solar. It is what has happened with battery technology, the use cases have driven the research and development processes. The primary factors are that more funding based on demand leads to more experts engaged in addressing the the issues and opportunities, and ongoing cost reductions through experience and scale.

I've been trying to enlighten you but you just seem stuck on only the pieces that matter to you and physics efficiency numbers do not have to correlate to cost numbers as you seem to think they do.

That's exactly what I've been telling you, demand for hydrogen from vehicles isn't essentially different from all other things we need H2 for. It should not be denigrated as you keep doing, insisting it should not be pursued until all other needs are satisfied. ALL demand available should be encouraged and harnessed to support green hydrogen development, wherever we can get the money and other resources to make that happen. Optimistically, success in one area will trigger success in others and open up use potential we do not even see yet.

 

[nwdiver]

You're not paying attention, that's more demand for more projects that will move the technologies forward so that we can produce more at less cost.

OK.... so we should go back to incandescent lightbulbs and stop insulating our homes? More demand is good... right?

That's exactly what I've been telling you, demand for hydrogen from vehicles isn't essentially different from all other things we need H2 for.

So..... why do we need FCEVs to drive demand for H2 then? Isn't H2 for Ammonia driving demand just fine? What's the point of a FCEV? More demand? Should we use fuel cells instead of faucets to get water? Imagine how much demand for H2 that would create!

But.... if demand alone is such a great driver.... why is RE ~3.5% and Green H2 <5%? And... if doubling demand doubles RE... isn't that still just the same percentage?;;;;; Wait.... need to stop being so narrow minded. 'Poof!' 'Magic!' Double demand and you're 100% RE.... It's a miracle of non-sense!

 

[Guy V]

OK.... so we should go back to incandescent lightbulbs and stop insulating our homes? More demand is good... right?

Backwards yet again. The demand for better energy-efficient lighting to save consumers money drove the development first of improved fluorescents and ultimately the highly versatile LEDs that we all love. All this in spite of naysayers telling us LED technology was too expensive for ordinary lightbulbs and physics limitations on spectrum and intensity would never let it be practical except for limited special use.

 

[nwdiver]

Backwards yet again. The demand for better energy-efficient lighting to save consumers money drove the development first of improved fluorescents and ultimately the highly versatile LEDs that we all love. All this in spite of naysayers telling us LED technology was too expensive for ordinary lightbulbs and physics limitations on spectrum and intensity would never let it be practical except for limited special use.

And you don't think the demand for better energy-efficient cars to save consumers money will drive the development of BEVs over FCEVs? LEDs never had a physics problem. There is no law of physics saying they could not produce light indistinguishable from an incandescent bulb. There IS a law of physics saying a FCEV will ALWAYS use ~2x more energy than a BEV.

Incandescents had a physics problem. There's a limit to how efficiently you can convert heat into light. LEDs had a technology problem. There's no limit to the spectrum of light you can make with diodes. See the difference? LEDs reduced demand for clean energy. Is that bad?

 

[Guy V]

And you don't think the demand for better energy-efficient cars to save consumers money will drive the development of BEVs over FCEVs? LEDs never had a physics problem. There is no law of physics saying they could not produce light indistinguishable from an incandescent bulb. There IS a law of physics saying a FCEV will ALWAYS use ~2x more energy than a BEV.

But LEDs reduced demand. That's bad right? So why aren't LEDs bad?

I think it insanely short-sight to limit the search for better green energy vehicles to one alternative. I told you I am not advocating hydrogen vehicles over battery, but I am also not advocating battery as the only avenue over every other possibility as you are.

LEDs didn't reduce demand for electricity, they just freed it up to move toward other things, including other uses of LEDs, like massive video displays and our electric cars. We are not using less electricity overall, we are saving money on better lighting.

If you are so insistent on your priority uses for green hydrogen why are you not out there drumming up demand and funding to support it? Why are you trashing other people's efforts as if that will somehow make your own goals more achievable?

 

[eladts]

If you are so insistent on your priority uses for green hydrogen why are you not out there drumming up demand and funding to support it? Why are you trashing other people's efforts as if that will somehow make your own goals more achievable?

Because green hydrogen is much more expensive than dirty hydrogen. Therefore, any increase in demand will just increase the production of dirty hydrogen. That's how the economy works.

 

[nwdiver]

LEDs didn't reduce demand for electricity, they just freed it up to move toward other things, including other uses of LEDs, like massive video displays and our electric cars.

So why don't you apply the same principle to FCEVs? They're not REALLY reducing demand for H2 then.... they're just freeing it up to move toward other things, including ammonia, steel and jet fuel.

If you are so insistent on your priority uses for green hydrogen why are you not out there drumming up demand and funding to support it? Why are you trashing other people's efforts as if that will somehow make your own goals more achievable?

I am. I install solar panels. But it's pointless to make Green H2 from electricity to reduce CH4 use if we're still using so much CH4 to make electricity. Need to clean the grid before making more Green H2 makes any sense and need to clean up H2 before FCEVs make any sense because that's how physics works. I'm working to pay down the 30% card before we can even think of starting to pay down the 20% card.

 

[Guy V]

Because green hydrogen is much more expensive than dirty hydrogen. Therefore, any increase in demand will just increase the production of dirty hydrogen. That's how the economy works.

You realize that's what they always said about renewables, right?

That's the entire problem, you should be working to get that fixed rather than naysaying folks who are.

 

[nwdiver]

You realize that's what they always said about renewables, right?

And that was absolutely true until renewables were cheaper. More electric demand DID mean more dirty electricity UNTIL renewables were cheaper. Same is true for H2 UNTIL green H2 is cheaper than dirty H2 increasing demand for H2 WILL increase demand for dirty H2 NOT green H2.

 

[miimura]

1. Things are always expensive in prototype stage, economies are produced at scale and as that drives cost-reduction efforts. Do you think 100,000+ gas stations weren't expensive? But we have them.

2. Zero carbon hydrogen is only as expensive as the the energy inputs. I have also read of research on direct generation of hydrogen by sunlight, bypassing the need for electricity production and hydrolysis. And that's just one possibility.

3. Fuel Cells are no more expensive than batteries. Hydrogen does not have to be stored as a compressed gas. It can also be bonded and released chemically.

You can see my Tesla and solar panels in my profile picture, and I am currently waiting for my Cybertruck, but I've lived long enough to be fed up with the endless technology naysaying. I have seen so much of it proven pathetically wrong, again and again and again. I live my life surrounded by technological "impossibilities". I've read science fiction all my life and am absolutely amazed at how much of it has been made real, and to a significant extent I believe it's because young people read it and grew up to give those fantasies substance. Elon Musk of course is one of them.

1. If you analyze the equipment required for every filling station, it will always be an expensive installation. The infrastructure cost will always be far in excess of a Supercharger for the same number of miles per hour of dispensing.
2. I admit that there is some progress in direct solar hydrogen generation by "photosynthesis-like" process. However, nobody has come up with a set of materials that will last even a fraction of a year, when we really need something that lasts 5-10 years to be practical. The equipment available today for electrolysis is expensive enough that it contributes significantly to the $/kg of hydrogen produced. This is one reason that deploying that equipment and only using it with "surplus" renewable energy is also not practical.
3. You would have to provide some support for the assertion that "fuel cells are no more expensive than batteries". I have my doubts. Yes, technically, hydrogen can be stored in other ways besides as a compressed gas. However, any other method is much heavier per net kg of H2 than compressed gas and their associated tanks, so they are unlikely to be practical for passenger automobiles that would be sensitive to the system's weight.

I never said that hydrogen fuel cells are "impossible". I said that they are impractical, especially for privately owned passenger automobiles. The reason is not for lack of trying, but rather that physics is a fundamental obstacle. Elon is against it because he looked at the problem from a "First Principles" analysis. Battery technology had a fundamental path to lower cost and viability against ICE while HFCV really does not have a chance against BEV in light passenger vehicles. Other transportation markets may be more suitable for HFC.

 

[Guy V]

And that was absolutely true until renewables were cheaper. More electric demand DID mean more dirty electricity UNTIL renewables were cheaper. Same is true for H2 UNTIL green H2 is cheaper than dirty H2 increasing demand for H2 WILL increase demand for dirty H2 NOT green H2.

Backwards, backwards, backwards.

Renewables didn't just magically become cheaper, people have had to work on that for decades, driven by demand from whatever use cases would fund them. Not all use cases need to be practical, actually most probably aren't. They only need to be cost-effective for their target use, whether you happen to approve of it or not.

What practical need is satisfied by a Tesla Roadster? Do I actually need to pay for internet access, home wifi, a HUE lightbulb and an Amazon Echo to tell my bedroom light to turn blue from the kitchen? I am saving 80% of the cost of electricity for that lightbulb and I probably won't have to change it for years. but look how much I am spending powering all that other stuff.

 

[SageBrush]

Backwards yet again. The demand for better energy-efficient lighting to save consumers money drove the development first of improved fluorescents and ultimately the highly versatile LEDs that we all love. All this in spite of naysayers telling us LED technology was too expensive for ordinary lightbulbs and physics limitations on spectrum and intensity would never let it be practical except for limited special use.

You are confused by the difference between technology limits and physics limits

Here is a physics limit:
If you start with electricity, and your choices are to either make hydrogen to do work or use the electricity directly to do work, it will ALWAYS be true that more work is accomplished using electricity directly. No amount of technological innovation will change that fact.

Clean hydrogen usage via fuel cells is up against hard core technological and financial barriers, but there is at least a theoretical chance those barriers will be overcome. The physics barrier will remain, no matter how long you wait, how much you demand it be otherwise, or how many science fiction books you read.

 

[Guy V]

1. If you analyze the equipment required for every filling station, it will always be an expensive installation. The infrastructure cost will always be far in excess of a Supercharger for the same number of miles per hour of dispensing.
2. I admit that there is some progress in direct solar hydrogen generation by "photosynthesis-like" process. However, nobody has come up with a set of materials that will last even a fraction of a year, when we really need something that lasts 5-10 years to be practical. The equipment available today for electrolysis is expensive enough that it contributes significantly to the $/kg of hydrogen produced. This is one reason that deploying that equipment and only using it with "surplus" renewable energy is also not practical.
3. You would have to provide some support for the assertion that "fuel cells are no more expensive than batteries". I have my doubts. Yes, technically, hydrogen can be stored in other ways besides as a compressed gas. However, any other method is much heavier per net kg of H2 than compressed gas and their associated tanks, so they are unlikely to be practical for passenger automobiles that would be sensitive to the system's weight.

I never said that hydrogen fuel cells are "impossible". I said that they are impractical, especially for privately owned passenger automobiles. The reason is not for lack of trying, but rather that physics is a fundamental obstacle. Elon is against it because he looked at the problem from a "First Principles" analysis. Battery technology had a fundamental path to lower cost and viability against ICE while HFCV really does not have a chance against BEV in light passenger vehicles. Other transportation markets may be more suitable for HFC.

1. You can't predict that definitively, one thing being worked on is economical small scale point of use generation of hydrogen, such as at fueling stations.

2. "nobody has come up with" YET. There is no restriction on generating hydrogen only from surplus renewable. There is no reason not to build as much additional renewable energy production as meets your overall cost requirements. More of that for multiple purposes provides additional synergies.

3. You are over-reaching. You are making claims about "any other method" which you logically can't support because you can't know of every other method and how they may be pursued.

Finally, you overlook that practicality is not a necessary criteria, or we wouldn't have Tesla in the first place. Most of what humans pursue has little basis in practicality. The goal here is to stop doing the things that we know threaten our continued existence.

 

[Guy V]

You are confused by the difference between technology limits and physics limits

Here is a physics limit:
If you start with electricity, and your choices are to either make hydrogen to do work or use the electricity directly to do work, it will ALWAYS be true that more work is accomplished using electricity directly. No amount of technological innovation will change that fact.

Clean hydrogen usage via fuel cells is up against hard core technological and financial barriers, but there is at least a theoretical chance those barriers will be overcome. The physics barrier will remain, no matter how long you wait, how much you demand it be otherwise, or how many science fiction books you read.

ROFLMAO That's what they always say.

Seriously, financial restrictions depend upon the cost-effectiveness of the entire use case, not a single link in the chain.