Renewable + conventional trends

[johnhemming]

You can power an ICE from hydrogen if you are happy to accept ICE levels of efficiency.

[dspp]

You can power an ICE from hydrogen if you are happy to accept ICE levels of efficiency.

john,
The round trip efficiency for hydrogen tends to be far worse than 'standard' ICE. And the costs are of course disastrous. I am sure you know this, but the others may not.

What's the issue with hydrogen, except for it's flammability? In my opinion it would be appear to be a superb energy storage medium for daytime wind and solar energy generated surpluses.

Matt

Do remember that for over a century we used town's gas, which had a high percentage of hydrogen in its composition. It has been used for vehicle traction, and my grandfather ran a printing works powered by a single cylinder engine, running on town's gas, driving the overhead shafting system.

TJH

matt, tjh,
There is almost nothing that is good about hydrogen as a medium. Hard to store, low density (so even stored it is bulky), poor $$$ economics, poor industrial efficiency, costly. And far worse than the dominant competitor in most respects for most applications in most places. Oh, and with a worse learning curve / technology improvement curve.

It does give politicians wet dreams about porkies.

regards, dspp

[Sorcery]

hydrogen sucks ...... but Johnson's cronies would get rich pumping taxpayer pork into it ........

- dspp

What's the issue with hydrogen, except for it's flammability? In my opinion it would be appear to be a superb energy storage medium for daytime wind and solar energy generated surpluses.

Matt

Hydrogen difficult to store in a form that's energy dense. Let's imagine it was as easy to compress as air, 12 litres of air at 220 bar weighs around 2750g from my diving days. Hydrogen at 1 bar and 20 degrees C weighs 84g per m3, so 12 litres of hydrogen at 220 bar weighs 221.76g which won't get anybody very far. Materials in contact with hydrogen also suffer from embrittlement. Hydrogen molecules are so small, they leak relatively easily.
Metal Hydrides may be a better storage. Using Carbon to carry hydrogen as in say methane or octane seems ideal except for the pesky fact that that means we are back to burning carbon again.

https://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenan ... cm01r0.pdf

[johnhemming]

Using Carbon to carry hydrogen as in say methane or octane seems ideal except for the pesky fact that that means we are back to burning carbon again.

If, however, you can sustainably create the hydrocarbon then it is a different issue. However, there are still lots of issues even with things like biofuels.

[Sorcery]

Using Carbon to carry hydrogen as in say methane or octane seems ideal except for the pesky fact that that means we are back to burning carbon again.

If, however, you can sustainably create the hydrocarbon then it is a different issue. However, there are still lots of issues even with things like biofuels.

Methanol is the obvious answer to my mind. Though I see little about it these days. As a bonus, it's made from CO2 and H2. (CH3OH).

RVF

Ammonia NH3 is also being considered as a shipping fuel and as a means of transporting hydrogen.
https://safety4sea.com/cm-the-case-of-a ... rine-fuel/

I don't know if there is a simple way to strip Ammonia of its hydrogen atoms that might be suitable for a car (fuel cell or an ICE). Direct ammonia combustion produces N0 (another greenhouse gas) and N02 (less damaging). Ammonia is toxic and corrosive in the event of an accident however.

[Sorcery]

NH3 is a gas at normal temperatures too, as a potential mass market fuel it's very unpleasant indeed. Methanol? Can be supplied using existing infrastructure. Not really sure why methanol isn't a popular option as a potential alternative store of energy these days. Not glamorous/sexy enough perhaps?

RVF

Methanol is toxic too but not as bad as NH3 to people, not sure about how easy it vapourises and how much liquid/vapour would harm a person or make them incapable.
That said it does have a lot of advantages and is still being researched, This may be of interest :
https://www.methanol.org/wp-content/upl ... -Fuel-.pdf

[TheMotorcycleBoy]

I am aware of the flammability, density of hydrogen.

However I'm also sure that there are many different ways that it, and similar products derived from it can be utilised. The first one that ever came into my mind was actually something like this:

We rejuvenate these gasometer things:


with modern technology to reduce possibility of leaks. Perhaps flame retardants could be added the gas to make safer. Then electrolyse water on site with the surplus from solar/wind. Then on demand the electricity is pushed back to the grid using fuel cells. I appreciate that the volumes (i.e. of gas) would probably be vast.

I admit that one could temporarily achieve a similar effect with the vast array of Li batteries. But presumably there would be maintenance requirements, i.e. the need to swap out defunct cells, which may limit the packing of units.

Vast Hydrogen storage would however be very vulnerable to attack by terrorists however!

Matt

[johnhemming]

I am aware of the flammability, density of hydrogen.

The reason why it is not a good idea for government to invest taxpayers money into the flavour of the month or whatever their cronies come up with is that the decisions are frequently technically complex.

A good test as to whether an investment is a good idea is whether or not someone is willing to invest their own money in it. If all they are doing is putting in seed funding in order to get government pork then it is a waste of taxpayers money.

The Hydrogen Economy is a perfect example of why the government should not be doing this sort of thing.

[TheMotorcycleBoy]

To be quite blunt here, your post demonstrates a breath taking lack of understanding of the fundamental issues being discussed about hydrogen.

That's a little rude.

I can assure you the running and maintenance of electrolysis plants is orders of magnitude more complex than running large scale battery arrays.

I believe you. I was prepared to discuss the complexities thereof, instead of being cast off with a veiled insult.

Matt

[johnhemming]

I believe you. I was prepared to discuss the complexities thereof, instead of being cast off with a veiled insult.

I think suggesting reusing the gasometers probably stirred up the emotions.

If we look we can see the government spending a lot of our money on preparing for "The Hydrogen Economy." However, there is not really that much uncertainty about the complexities.

Personally I am quite happy to use hydrogen as a fuel in a fusion reactor as long as we keep it at least 90 million miles away from Earth. Beyond that there is not a lot of new science.

The second Law of thermodynamics will become more important over time. I have seen government reports which say that we have no problems powering electric cars by comparing oil usage to electricity usage. We all know what when you convert the chemical energy in oil into electrical power there are losses. Some power generation keeps that down to just under 50%, but it still means the figures are not comparable.

[jackdaww]

To be quite blunt here, your post demonstrates a breath taking lack of understanding of the fundamental issues being discussed about hydrogen.

That's a little rude.

I can assure you the running and maintenance of electrolysis plants is orders of magnitude more complex than running large scale battery arrays.

I believe you. I was prepared to discuss the complexities thereof, instead of being cast off with a veiled insult.

Matt

I apologise for being a little terse. You join our esteemed Prime Minister and many others if you champion a wholesale shift from natural gas to hydrogen without understanding anything about the practicalities of what's really involved. Not in my lifetime is this going to happen. At the periphery we may see some applications but the bulk hydrogen used today across the world is made from reforming natural gas and that isn't going to change any time soon.

PS - There is no new technology involved here. None, it's all been done before around the world for more than 100 years.

RVF

==================================

i understand that Invinity Energy Systems vanadium redox flow systems will generate hydrogen .

[TheMotorcycleBoy]

To be quite blunt here, your post demonstrates a breath taking lack of understanding of the fundamental issues being discussed about hydrogen.

That's a little rude.

I can assure you the running and maintenance of electrolysis plants is orders of magnitude more complex than running large scale battery arrays.

I believe you. I was prepared to discuss the complexities thereof, instead of being cast off with a veiled insult.

Matt

I apologise for being a little terse. You join our esteemed Prime Minister and many others if you champion a wholesale shift from natural gas to hydrogen without understanding anything about the practicalities of what's really involved.

The first sentence was an improvement. But the second one promptly returned the discussion back to the personal.

PS - There is no new technology involved here. None, it's all been done before around the world for more than 100 years

Including PEM?

OOI the team which apparently includes our PM, has many members. Lots of Germans and Chinese.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy ... facturing/

So perhaps it would be more polite and constructive to forget about UK politics and talk science.

Matt

[dspp]

That's a little rude.


I believe you. I was prepared to discuss the complexities thereof, instead of being cast off with a veiled insult.

Matt

I apologise for being a little terse. You join our esteemed Prime Minister and many others if you champion a wholesale shift from natural gas to hydrogen without understanding anything about the practicalities of what's really involved.

The first sentence was an improvement. But the second one promptly returned the discussion back to the personal.

PS - There is no new technology involved here. None, it's all been done before around the world for more than 100 years

Including PEM?

OOI the team which apparently includes our PM, has many members. Lots of Germans and Chinese.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy ... facturing/

So perhaps it would be more polite and constructive to forget about UK politics and talk science.

Matt

Matt,
On this thread (and the related one down in PD&etc) there were science-based reasons as to why hydrogen is not a good pathway. If you ignore them and put up pictures of gasometers then that indicates that you have not understood the science. Ordinarily I observe that posters lead folks repeatedly back to the relevant science, patiently. However when that has already been done, and the student is missing the point, then it is understandable - perhaps even necessary - to make the point slightly more firmly and so I think that what RVF said was well-aimed and has had the required result.

All,
The existing hydrocarbon storage facilities around the world, some in particular, are already thoughtfully protected against terrorist (etc) actions. Hydrogen ones would in that sense be no different. Generally one tries to keep the nasty people several thousand miles away Failing that, if you notice an LNG tanker close inshore in some particular locations you will observe some of the more visible close security aspects. There are others you won't see.

Putting small quantities (up to 15-22% from memory) of hydrogen into the existing CH4 gas network is reasonable with some minor adaptation, though I am personally unsure of the extent to which that will become a widespread practice. We will see - most likely in the areas immediately adjacent to the major heavy chemicals complexes of the world.

RVF, etc,
Methanol has been largely set aside as a fuel cell fuel. The C in methanol still gets released to atmosphere, so global warming is still a problem. The C and other impurities still cause fouling of the cells and reformers (for those that were trying the DMFC pathway). So the fuel cell efforts have largely switched to hydrogen, or more fundamentally most fuel cell efforts have nigh-on halted as it is patently obvious to the researchers & investors that lithium batteries are the more fruitful pathway. That is why Ballard et al are pretty much absent from the debate, (they are one of the main PEM cell protagonists). I used to run/integrate/design systems with PEM cells in them, the DMFC type from memory.

By the way methanol is problematic when it comes to firefighting at large scale, I was very glad that I was never responsible for a facility with methanol-based processes as opposed to methane, glycol (TEG, MEG), steam, etc.

The ammonia solutions look interesting for deep sea shipping. I watch those with interest, but am not yet convinced. I think that we will not be tackling shipping in any meaningful way for 20-years, and technology availability in 15-years time will be very different than it is now, and I don't think we as investors can sensibly position ourselves now, for the then. Am I missing something here ?

regards, dspp

[tjh290633]

The scientific point has been missed. We used to use 50% hydrogen in the town gas network, which ran at low pressure because of the manufacturing process. That was why we used the large gasholders. Natural gas came at high pressure, and there is no reason why the same network and inherent high pressure storage should not be used for hydrogen, if required. The local distribution network works at low pressure and could be used for hydrogen distribution, as it was in the past.

There are a lot of red herrings being thrown into this discussion.

TJH

[johnhemming]

So perhaps it would be more polite and constructive to forget about UK politics and talk science.

As a first order approximation (ie ignoring any capital costs or energy costs of creation) what is the energy efficiency of your suggested solution compared to a battery?

These things really do come down to hard numbers.

[dspp]

The scientific point has been missed. We used to use 50% hydrogen in the town gas network, which ran at low pressure because of the manufacturing process. That was why we used the large gasholders. Natural gas came at high pressure, and there is no reason why the same network and inherent high pressure storage should not be used for hydrogen, if required. The local distribution network works at low pressure and could be used for hydrogen distribution, as it was in the past.

There are a lot of red herrings being thrown into this discussion.

TJH

tjh,
Please explain the system you are proposing, as opposed to dining a la carte. Then it can be reasonably critiqued in both technical and investment terms, which is the point of this board. Otherwise we are are reduced to "yes, but" commentary which is tedious;

as in, yes but, those gasometers leaked like sieves, and were introduced as part of town-based coal-derived gas, with gas composition depending on coal feedstock and reformer conditions, and with low volumes and low flowrates and high costs ....... which is why they were converted to first become buffers on the network and then deleted as buffering was done through high pressure linepack, all at lower cost, and in a way that cannot be done at high pressure with 50% H2 in a cost-effective manner.

regards, dspp

[johnhemming]

The scientific point has been missed. We used to use 50% hydrogen in the town gas network...

and dspp said the current gas network would cope with 15-22%.

However, we are still coming down to the question of what to use hydrogen for. With Town Gas we used hydrogen because that is what the process produced.

For space heating you could, for example, generate some hydrogen through electrolysis and pump it around to people's houses and they could burn it, but why is that better than electrical space heating or having electrically powered hobs on a cooker?

[TheMotorcycleBoy]

The scientific point has been missed. We used to use 50% hydrogen in the town gas network...

and dspp said the current gas network would cope with 15-22%.

However, we are still coming down to the question of what to use hydrogen for. With Town Gas we used hydrogen because that is what the process produced.

For space heating you could, for example, generate some hydrogen through electrolysis and pump it around to people's houses and they could burn it, but why is that better than electrical space heating or having electrically powered hobs on a cooker?

The whole point is to use it as an energy storage mechanism. The idea being that it is converted back into electricity using fuel cells, a point which I made in an earlier post.

As I pointed out earlier many are pursuing the idea

https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy ... facturing/

regardless of it's bubble status.

Matt

[TheMotorcycleBoy]

When it comes to the transport of hydrogen, energy ministers highlighted “the opportunities for repurposing of the existing interconnected European natural gas networks and storage infrastructure,” saying Europe’s existing pipelines could “potentially provide the basis for a trans-European hydrogen infrastructure”.

In July this year, a group of eleven European gas infrastructure companies presented plans to create a dedicated “hydrogen backbone” to connect future hydrogen supply and demand centres across Europe.

According to those plans, 75% of the network will consist of retrofitted natural gas pipelines – which are gradually expected to become redundant as volumes of natural gas decrease in the future.

“We see in all analyses that gas infrastructure reduces the cost” of producing, storing or transporting hydrogen, regardless of the energy carrier – be it electricity or natural gas, said Torben Brabo, president of Gas Infrastructure Europe (GIE), a trade association.

“And the mix of those makes the transition even cheaper,” he said at a EURACTIV event last week supported by GIE.

from
https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy ... en-market/

[scotview]

Could hydrogen not be stored centrally in large , safe containment facilities and used to generate electricity using hydrogen/gas turbo generators. Solves the localised containment issues and would be good for peak lopping ?