Hydrogen vs. Battery

[ecarfan]

The emission free power backup at data centers is such a small use case. Without a larger hydrogen economy, it would be too expensive.

And storage is only one of the problems hydrogen has. The other is the making and transport of it.

Agreed. I think there are potential use cases for hydrogen but they are minor. Without a massive market it seems unlikely that hydrogen can compete against other renewables because it is energy intensive to create and difficult to store and transport.

 

[Guy V]

The emission free power backup at data centers is such a small use case. Without a larger hydrogen economy, it would be too expensive.

And storage is only one of the problems hydrogen has. The other is the making and transport of it.

So, you don't agree with the article that it is a key pioneering project, a culmination of important research and proving the utility and feasibility of hydrogen systems replacing the many, many, many diesel backup generation systems? Why is that?

I am fine with the arguments here against the practicality of hydrogen at current state of development, but I am appalled by those arguing against investing in the research. We cannot afford to close off any potential avenues of clean energy use.

And please note that the second article I posted is regarding research that addresses storage and transportation concerns that you cite. Let's keep it coming.

 

[JRP3]

When I post anything pro-hydrogen that doesn't agree with the shut-it-down consensus I get accused of trolling, but:

Because it still ignores the impracticality and inefficiencies of the entire hydrogen fuel cell infrastructure. All hydrogen comes from NG and will for a long time and it's always less efficient to use electricity to split water to free up hydrogen than just charging batteries. Every cent spent on hydrogen and fuel cells could produce batteries today that are far more efficient and useful.

 

[eevee-fan]

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.

 

[Cosmacelf]

So, you don't agree with the article that it is a key pioneering project, a culmination of important research and proving the utility and feasibility of hydrogen systems replacing the many, many, many diesel backup generation systems? Why is that?

First, a pioneering project only means something if there is a big market to pioneer to.

Second, for the pioneering project to get any sort of traction, it has to be a lot better than what it is replacing. You've seen how hard it was for EVs to get going (and they are still are a small part of the market) EVEN THOUGH they had massive advantages over ICE cars. Hydrogen power backup does not have massive advantages, in fact, the exact opposite. Power backups MUST work. What do you do when your very hard to store Hydrogen leaks out and you need a refill during a massive power outage? The reason diesel is used for power backup is that the liquid is ubiquitous - you can get it anywhere in any circumstance.

I am fine with the arguments here against the practicality of hydrogen at current state of development, but I am appalled by those arguing against investing in the research. We cannot afford to close off any potential avenues of clean energy use.

It's kinda like investing in fusion research. If you actually research the technical problems that must be overcome for fusion, you realize that it is a fool's errand. You are literally wasting money. Not everything that someone dreams up is practical.

But look, far be it by me to argue against investing in hydrogen research. If you want to spend your money there, go for it. I'll put my money into other research areas that I think have a much higher chance of being useful (as I recently posted here).

 

[dgatwood]

The emission free power backup at data centers is such a small use case. Without a larger hydrogen economy, it would be too expensive.

On the contrary. When used for backup power, they're almost certainly talking about reversible fuel cells, which means the fuel cells are producing hydrogen during the charging phase and consuming it during the discharging phase. They're a self-contained system, and the only loss is energy, i.e. they don't consume hydrogen any more than your air conditioner consumes refrigerant. So the hydrogen economy is largely meaningless for that use case, beyond the theory that a larger hydrogen economy might drive down the purchase price of the hardware or whatever. And even that would probably always have been a pipe dream, because AFAIK none of the car companies building vehicles with fuel cells were making use of reversibility anyway.

The thing is, fuel cells are not nearly efficient enough to replace batteries for cars. But for occasional use, e.g. for powering a data center during a power outage, losing 40% of the power you put in isn't a big deal, because you aren't going to be using it often enough to matter, and the damage you do to a battery (backup systems almost always use sealed lead acid batteries) keeping it charged long-term will destroy the battery before it even gets used (other than during the occasional ten second self tests) more often than not.

So a fuel cell UPS is an absolutely excellent idea, and I'd love it if they can get the size down to the point where I can stop throwing money away replacing all of my consumer-sized APC lead acid UPS batteries every two or three years. Then again, I'd love it if someone could build a lithium ion UPS that doesn't cost almost an order of magnitude more than an equivalent lead acid UPS.

This is a very, very different use case powering cars.

 

[JRP3]

and the damage you do to a battery keeping it charged long-term will destroy the battery before it even gets used

This is false. If you don't fully charge batteries you can greatly extend their life and Prof Jeff Dahn has shown how easy it is to extend the life of cells by tweaking additives and keeping them at a lower voltage, he's talking about 50-100 year batteries. Basically you build for extended life by not trying to maximize energy density.

 

[dgatwood]

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.

Ostensibly, yes, the best pumped storage gives you almost half again more power back than the best reversible fuel cell approach, which is a big difference. Unfortunately, pump-based storage requires specific geological structures to make sense (two lakes at different levels), and the cost of building that, along with the amount of space required, makes it impractical to use in most parts of the country.

And the *huge* increase in methane emissions from building a giant lake likely more than negate the reduction in CO2 emissions caused by the differences in efficiency. So pump-based storage is likely to be extremely non-green unless you already have to build those reservoirs for some other reason, such as water storage for human consumption or flood control.

 

[dgatwood]

This is false. If you don't fully charge batteries you can greatly extend their life and Prof Jeff Dahn has shown how easy it is to extend the life of cells by tweaking additives and keeping them at a lower voltage, he's talking about 50-100 year batteries. Basically you build for extended life by not trying to maximize energy density.

That's about lithium-ion batteries. UPSes almost always use lead acid batteries (like your car battery). It's an entirely different chemistry. I've added a note to my post to clarify that I'm talking about SLAs.

No lead acid battery has ever lasted 50 to 100 years. After single-digit years, with or without charging, they're toast. The design life is only 5 years.

 

[eevee-fan]

Ostensibly, yes, the best pumped storage gives you almost half again more power back than the best reversible fuel cell approach, which is a big difference. Unfortunately, pump-based storage requires specific geological structures to make sense (two lakes at different levels), and the cost of building that, along with the amount of space required, makes it impractical to use in most parts of the country.

And the *huge* increase in methane emissions from building a giant lake likely more than negate the reduction in CO2 emissions caused by the differences in efficiency. So pump-based storage is likely to be extremely non-green unless you already have to build those reservoirs for some other reason, such as water storage for human consumption or flood control.

Yes, I am saying the hydropower dams are already in place. Use wind power from the windy Midwest to bring water into the Colorado.

 

[JRP3]

After single-digit years, with or without charging, they're toast. The design life is only 5 years.

Deep cycle lead cells are designed to last much longer than that, especially if not deeply cycled. I have Odyssey AGM's I originally put in my 6x6 in 2009 and 3 of them are still in good shape. I've even had regular car batteries last 10 years. Cooler climate makes a big difference.

 

[dgatwood]

Deep cycle lead cells are designed to last much longer than that, especially if not deeply cycled. I have Odyssey AGM's I originally put in my 6x6 in 2009 and 3 of them are still in good shape. I've even had regular car batteries last 10 years. Cooler climate makes a big difference.

Yes, and UPSes tend to be used in server rooms, which are the exact opposite of a cool climate.

In cars, what will kill lead acid batteries quickly is vampire drain in an ICE car that's parked. Single-digit months.

 

[MP3Mike]

Yes, and UPSes tend to be used in server rooms, which are the exact opposite of a cool climate.

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

 

[Guy V]

Because it still ignores the impracticality and inefficiencies of the entire hydrogen fuel cell infrastructure. All hydrogen comes from NG and will for a long time and it's always less efficient to use electricity to split water to free up hydrogen than just charging batteries. Every cent spent on hydrogen and fuel cells could produce batteries today that are far more efficient and useful.

No, that's blatantly false, all hydrogen does not come from natural gas.

It is also not true that it is always less efficient to produce hydrogen, even intermediately via hydrolysis from electricity. It depends on the source of the power and uses of the hydrogen.

Neither is the implication that money spent on hydrogen would otherwise be spent on batteries. That's ludicrous misdirection, like saying money spent on batteries could instead be spent on food for starving children.

If you want to argue the merits, try real facts, truth and reason.

 

[JRP3]

No, that's blatantly false, all hydrogen does not come from natural gas.

Effectively. What percentage does not?

It is also not true that it is always less efficient to produce hydrogen, even intermediately via hydrolysis from electricity. It depends on the source of the power and uses of the hydrogen.

Explain how any source of electricity changes the efficiency of hydrogen generation compared to battery storage.

Neither is the implication that money spent on hydrogen would otherwise be spent on batteries. That's ludicrous misdirection, like saying money spent on batteries could instead be spent on food for starving children.

Invalid comparison since both batteries and hydrogen can store energy and have nothing to do with feeding children.

If you want to argue the merits, try real facts, truth and reason.

Indeed you should. So far you have not.

 

[Guy V]

First, a pioneering project only means something if there is a big market to pioneer to.

Second, for the pioneering project to get any sort of traction, it has to be a lot better than what it is replacing. You've seen how hard it was for EVs to get going (and they are still are a small part of the market) EVEN THOUGH they had massive advantages over ICE cars. Hydrogen power backup does not have massive advantages, in fact, the exact opposite. Power backups MUST work. What do you do when your very hard to store Hydrogen leaks out and you need a refill during a massive power outage? The reason diesel is used for power backup is that the liquid is ubiquitous - you can get it anywhere in any circumstance.



It's kinda like investing in fusion research. If you actually research the technical problems that must be overcome for fusion, you realize that it is a fool's errand. You are literally wasting money. Not everything that someone dreams up is practical.

But look, far be it by me to argue against investing in hydrogen research. If you want to spend your money there, go for it. I'll put my money into other research areas that I think have a much higher chance of being useful (as I recently posted here).

Every single polluting, climate-wrecking diesel, gasoline and natural gas backup generator is the target market. Batteries can only provide power short term compared to stored liquid or gas fuel, that hours compared to days or even weeks if necessary.

I am surprised, even cheered, though still skeptical, that you are not one of the many here arguing against any funding for green hydrogen.

 

[Guy V]

Effectively. What percentage does not?


Explain how any source of electricity changes the efficiency of hydrogen generation compared to battery storage.


Invalid comparison since both batteries and hydrogen can store energy and have nothing to do with feeding children.


Indeed you should. So far you have not.

The percentage does not make your statement other than false. And the percentage is climbing, which is the whole point of investment and research.

The efficiency and effectiveness of the overall use case is all that matters practically and economically. If the power to produce green hydrogen is convenient to where it will be used, is cheap and abundant and extensive, and extended storage is necessary then it can be the ideal solution. By the way, research now shows that hydrogen can be produced from solar directly without intermediate production of electricity, which could be a game changer if commercializable. That's the sort of thing investment in R&D is for.

Is a perfect comparison because claiming money spent on hydrogen would be otherwise is spent on batteries is just as insupportable, even when you hedge by saying "could" rather than "would".

Unlike yours, my claims are supported by evidence of work actually being done, not opinions stated as fact.

 

[JRP3]

The percentage does not make your statement other than false.

Tokenism.

The efficiency and effectiveness of the overall use case is all that matters practically and economically. If the power to produce green hydrogen is convenient to where it will be used, is cheap and abundant and extensive, and extended storage is necessary then it can be the ideal solution

It can't if there are more efficient methods, and there are.

Is a perfect comparison because claiming money spent on hydrogen would be otherwise is spent on batteries is just as insupportable, even when you hedge by saying "could" rather than "would".

Ridiculous. Research into power storage has no connection to food.

Unlike yours, my claims are supported by evidence of work actually being done, not opinions stated as fact.

Hardly, as I've explained.

 

[Guy V]

Tokenism.


It can't if there are more efficient methods, and there are.


Ridiculous. Research into power storage has no connection to food.


Hardly, as I've explained.

False is false, you know, the opposite of true. Ever increasing amounts of green hydrogen are being produced. I realize that galls you, but denial, as with climate change, isn't going to help.

Again, claims without supporting facts. Two factors are what matter. First, does it replace fossil fuel use, and second, can a cost-effective use case be made. As I posted, Microsoft has made one.

And that's an analogy to showing use of money for one good purpose does not preclude use of money for another. Enjoy your batteries but don't stand in the way of green hydrogen, or any other clean energy solution.

You've explained nothing with facts, only opinion stated as fact.

What is really hard to comprehend is why anyone wouldn't want green hydrogen or as many other renewable alternatives as possible to relieve the pressure and bottlenecks of materiel sourcing for batteries.

 

[ecarfan]

https://news.stanford.edu/2022/04/20/reversible-fuel-cells-can-support-grid-economically/

A few companies already produce integrated, reversible power-to-gas systems. These are an advance over the systems in the earlier study, which have separate machines for producing hydrogen from electricity and for electricity from hydrogen. These modular systems produced hydrogen economically, but the reverse conversion did not make sense economically.

Reichelstein and Glenk think that the cost effectiveness of such systems will improve as the technology matures, as happened with wind turbines and solar panels. The reversible systems can be built to almost any scale, they add, so they can be used by individual companies or small communities as well as by large urban power grids.

Over the coming years, says Glenk, reversible power-to-gas systems could bring down the cost of carbon-free hydrogen and spur its wider use as a fuel. Steel producers, for example, are actively looking at hydrogen as a substitute for coal or natural gas.

“At the same time, lower prices for hydrogen will allow integrated, reversible power-to-gas systems to more often switch to power generation,” says Glenk. “The inherent flexibility of such systems may be a game changer.”

So, not there yet, but maybe in the future.