A possible future for it might be for large planes, boats, etc. that would really need the higher energy density of hydrogen vs batteries. The inefficiency is of course not going to be great, but it means those could possibly use renewable sources (depending on hydrogen production). Or maybe some major battery advancements come before that and make energy density less of an issue ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
IMHO synthetic methane or synthetic liquid fuel based od captured CO2 is a better option.
Special storage requirements are certainly something to considering especially with high pressures typically involved for gas storage or cryogenic temperatures for liquid. Although it's not as though other fuels have no special storage requirements - it's just that we're used to their complexities
[1] 120 MJ/kg for hydrogen versus 44 MJ/kg for gasoline https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-storage
[2] 8 MJ/L for hydrogen vs 32 MJ/L for gasoline
There a plenty of uses of hydrogen, and they won't stop with electrification. But we probably won't be using them as fuel any time soon (except where its energy density is important enough to override price, flexibility and some safety concerns).
Hydrogen will be extremely important in a decarbonized economy, e.g. as a chemical feedstock or as a reduction agent for steel. Likely it will also form the basis of some fuels for ships (maybe ammonia) or planes.
The threshold is renewable energy used to produce methane and ammonia, more economically than fossil fuels sources. Then H2 economy becomes inevitable.
For transportation, tackling all the use cases Li-ion doesn't. In other words, FCEV compliments BEV.
If we unlock H2 soon, maybe civilization can survive climate crisis.
Direct electrwinning is about 85-90% efficient. Why add an extra step by using hydrogen? Not to mention eletrowinning iron is a wet process. Where with reduction with hydrogen is a hot process.
I think 'hydrogen' is basically just an attempt to preserve the legacy power relations that have grown up around coal/oil/natural gas. If people can be convinced it's viable they can kick the can down the road for another 10-20 years.
Even if end to end efficiency is between 10-20% for green hydrogen (solar/wind electricity generation -> electrolysis -> hydrogen/ammonia -> fuel cell -> electricity), it helps solve the problem around intermittency for renewables.
To power a large electricity network with just wind/solar, it will need to be over-provisioned to the point where peak production will be heavily curtailed and lost or redirected to storage. Electricity needs to be used at the time of supply for something otherwise generation is wasted.
Batteries are great if you need to redirect that power over the course of an hour or maybe a day and are highly efficient but too costly at any kind of large scale. Most solar/wind at present day are only built with battery support of about 1-2 hours worth of equivalent storage. This is a massive help to smooth output but doesn’t help any kind of long term storage.
Then there is transport. Poles and wires are expensive to build/maintain. Their highly efficient but completely inflexible.
Hydrogen can be stored at large scales as well as be transported, plus be generated from generation that would otherwise be curtailed and lost due to having nothing to use it on.
Pumped hydro needs specific geography and is also hugely damaging to river eco systems, not to mention ties up a huge amount of a valuable resource (water). Renewables also geographically dependent, some places on earth are bestowed with huge amounts of wind/solar where others are not. Some of this will be solved by building international power lines, but smaller scale will likely want something like hydrogen fuel.
I’m very cynical of old/current energy companies and they are doing everything they can to slow this transition but hydrogen will very likely be part of the mix into the future. What I’m not sure of is if it will serve a massive part like heating Europe over winter via excess generated over summer or much smaller for backup of more remote decentralised grids I don’t know but it will definitely play a part in the energy mix for generations to come.
The technology for that is at a very early stage of development, only lab-scale experiments exist. (see https://www.siderwin-spire.eu/ ) It's decades away from any real-world use.
It's fine to look for better alternatives, but hydrogen-based stell is the technology you can start using in the next couple of years.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03043...
So while ammonia needs to be handled safely if it's being used as a fuel, there already is a big ammonia industry today that has plenty of experience in handling it.
The other storage alternatives each have their major drawbacks. Lithium batteries work great for solar as there you only need a few hours of capacity, and the current economical setup seems to be about 80% of output for 4 hours. Each day they get charged and each night they discharge and provide a relative fast return of investment. This doesn't work for wind.
Massive amount of reverse hydro has also been suggested, but getting the capacity up to the same output as current wind installations are difficult. Having a country like Germany operating for months on only hydro power would require a lot of land and constructions, both which carries with them a lot of initial pollution in terms of both methane and co2. It is also very expensive.
There are a few other lesser know storage suggestions like rust batteries and heat storage, but I have yet to hear any of them being currently economical viable to run a whole country.
Green hydrogen can however be created through converting a wind farm into a hydrogen production farm. The cost is currently still prohibitively more expensive compared to nuclear, but it is still the place where those political parties I mentioned early is putting their bets. They are hoping that prices will go down enough that they can start building those kind of wind farms and then convert existing fossil fuel burning power plants and infrastructure to use hydrogen instead.
(I had switched green to blue. Whops. Fixed).
However, that seems terribly inefficient to me, if only because you have to move hydrogen around. An efficient storage system should work in a closed loop: you produce hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis with surplus electricity, store hydrogen locally, and use the locally stored hydrogen to produce electricity when needed. There is no need to release anything into the environment. In particular, other chemicals could be used instead of hydrogen.
If you look at price trends, you can pretty much calculate when that might happen. A few decades from now, blue hydrogen will be more expensive than green hydrogen. The grey variety is likely to be heavily taxed with carbon taxes by then as well but even without that it will eventually end up being more expensive than green hydrogen.
Grey hydrogen is only cheap if we let you dump 7kg of CO2 in the atmosphere for every kg of hydrogen for free. Capturing and storing that 7kg of CO2 is not going to be cheap either. 1kg of hydrogen is about 33 KWH of electricity with a decent fuel cell. It takes at least 3x the kwh of clean electricity to create that. So, about 100kwh.
The price of grey hydrogen is about 0.70$ per kg. That's the dirties and cheapest variety. A more common price is > 2$/kg (still grey) in most parts of the world. Blue hydrogen costs more like 5$ per kg. So it's about 2-5x the cost of grey hydrogen.
So, get price competitive with grey hydrogen, green hydrogen would have to be generated using clean energy costing less than 0.7 cents per kwh. Once we hit that price point, it will be the cheapest form of hydrogen.
Current grid prices are way higher than that but a few recent bids for solar and wind plants came out at around 1.2 cents per kwh. So we're not that far off from hitting that price point.
Also, 33kWh is the upper bound for the energy you get out of hydrogen. Practically, a fuel cell will get 60-70% of that, depending on the type. Electrolysis is around 90% efficient today, depending on the type of electrolyzer, and how you measure. SOECs can get better than 100% apparent efficiency by utilizing waste heat.
Most sources I've seen for green H2 put the threshold for economic viability at around 2c per kWh. At that price you're still more expensive than grey, but you're at least within spitting distance, and this seems to line up with the Chinese figures.
Something I think is missing in these hydrogen discussions on energy storage is LiFePO4 cells. They give very good round trip efficiency, are simple to operate and have been plummeting in price.
https://about.bnef.com/blog/battery-pack-prices-cited-below-...
If prices continue to decline at the current trend, I’d expect to see large scale batteries used to store energy for use over multiple days. For small towns, this could be a relatively maintenance free and economical option to only draw from the grid on the days of the week when you have surplus wind or solar.
The most promising chemical to use as a hydrogen carrier is ammonia. It has its problems, too, but it doesn't contain carbon, which is a huge bonus.
If that’s true then inevitable leaks of unburnt methane would not be a good thing at all.
And then _becomes_ CO2 ?
Not seeing how this is a win?
If a tree absorbs CO2 to grow, dies, gives off methane and that methane eventually turns back into CO2, it's not a problem. That's just the natural carbon cycle.
The problem is that we're constantly injecting more carbon from deep underground into that carbon cycle. It's why biofuels are essentially carbon neutral.
It could be if it comes from wood or charcoal (though that seems unlikely).
Hydrogen as a direct swap for natural gas is an attractive concept in areas like mine that suffer very low renewable energies seasonally. (Northern winter. Little sun/wind for several months.)
That said, if we really wanted to, we could do deepwater electrolysis and let the Earth do the compression for us. You wouldn't even need oceanic electricity generation, because there's enough of a pressure differential between the surface and, say, 2km depth, that you could comfortably siphon some of the pressure in a turbine to power the reaction. The limitations at this point are mostly engineering and manufacturing -- we know how to do electrolysis at those pressures, and we can even do salt water electrolysis.
That isn't what OP meant (see his reply), but if the reason you create the hydrogen at high pressure is to reduce the cost of pressurizing it more, you would not want to reduce its pressure.
But let's say you do want to -- the energy stored in the pressure, would extracting that be worth the additional energy cost of creating hydrogen at the bottom of the ocean and bringing it to the surface?
> Plug that turbine into the machine making gas at bottom of ocean. Not exactly free energy but very efficient. Harvesting the weight of the ocean to help generate hydrogen gas.
Where it could leak would be at valve station flanges, which by code are required every X km depending on the land risks.
You can test to see whether the flanges are leaking, and you can tighten accordingly in most cases. Effectively this leaking can be avoided in a transmission/industrial sense with the right amount of applied effort.
If X is very large, you could argue that the leak of H2 does contribute to global warming.
In general though saying it isn’t useful for cars is kind of missing the point of new sources of energy. New sources of energy (and the associated prime movers) allow new forms of transportation.
For example you couldn’t really make a car using steam power. That was only possible with gasoline and an IC engine.
Looking at it another way: what new forms of transportation would be possible with hydrogen? Personal flight maybe?
We do a lot of really inefficient things if there is a market for it.
Stanley (and others) made steam cars in the early 20th century. By all accounts they were quite nice, but did have drawbacks in regards to needing pre-heating, and they were rather expensive luxury cars. Steam cars were absolutely a thing, though. Electric cars too, but the battery technology of the time was too primitive for long range.
Also, hydrogen isn't a source of energy, it is merely a storage medium.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Motor_Carriage_Compa...
Electrics were pushed out for many reasons, but not being an ideal commuter vehicle wasn't one of them.
Yeah, we used to power cars with wood during WW2 but wood was just the storage medium. The wood was used to create carbon monoxide which was used in an internal combustion engine.
Yes, but since we're capturing the CO2, that's fine.
There's also turquoise hydrogen [1] - produced from natural gas by pyrolysis, capturing solid carbon, without ever producing CO2. This is equivalent to blue hydrogen, but the technology looks a lot more promising to me, because solid carbon is easier to sequester than CO2.
The big problem with natural gas is the losses of the gas itself during production and transport. This is only 1-3% of the gas produced, but methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas, so even that amount is significant. If that could be substantially reduced, turquoise hydrogen looks pretty good to me.
Something i haven't been able to find out is how much the loss rate varies. Maybe it's 2% on average because losses from old Russian gas wells are 5% and losses from modern North Sea gas wells are 0.1%. That would also change the picture.
> we are wasting electricity that could have been used directly in BEVs
It's vital to understand what hydrogen would be used for. The most important use i can see is substituting for natural gas in legacy domestic heating. There are over 20 million gas boilers in homes in the UK. We are slowly replacing them with heat pumps, electric heating, and better insulation, but it will take decades to replace them all. If we could replace natural gas in the supply with hydrogen [2], we could cut emissions much sooner - even faster than waiting for electric cars to displace petrol ones.
[1] https://spectra.mhi.com/achieving-net-zero-what-is-turquoise...
I can't see hydrogen for cars and stuff due to lack of infrastructure, but if we got better and cheaper H2 fuel cells I could see a natural gas power plant that emits absolutely zero CO2. The loss of energy by converting to H2 and throwing away C would at least partly be compensated for by the high efficiency of fuel cells vs. heat engines.
I am not sure of the economics or the conversion rate of methane.
At the moment, the backup plan is generally diesel generators, and the transport grid is independent of the electrical. Going full battery changes the risk profile quite substantially.
What your failing to account for is a.) the fact that Hydrogen (and Oxygen) used with fuel cells is effectively a battery, and b.) all batteries use more energy to charge than the amount of retractable energy, c.) we accept these energy losses (costs) in the battery charging process because we need batteries for most mobile applications (not subways & similar though, these are connected to the grid).
H2 and other batteries (including oil itself) are a means of making energy portable so that you don't have to plug into the grid. If we could pluge everything into the grid, then yes you're correct, H2 energy storage would only be useful for back up grid or grid buffer energy storage.
For stationary applications, it doesn't make much sense to have batteries (H2 or Electric, or otherwise) since, as you state, you can just connect to the electric grid and avoid battery charging losses (unless your worried about grid instanility). However, for mobile applications (cars, ships, planes, etc), now you need to consider how to store energy off of the grid in a manner that is COMPACT and LIGHT, because these factors greatly effect vehicle transport efficiency.
Oild is still king in terms of volumetric energy desnity and specific (mass) energy desnity. An energy capacity equivalent Li-ion battery is still relatively much heavier and takes up more space (meaning your vehicle will be less energy efficient). H2 storage has the potential to exceed oil in terms of volumetric/specific energy density, but it's not there just yet.*
*Note that, the other component in the energy storage race isn't just the storage media, but the energy conversion efficiency of devices that use these media. For example, most common fuel cells are roughly 50% efficient in terms of the energy usage, but if you can make a fuel cell 90% efficient, then that makes the use of H2 as a battery, much more competitive. The same is true about oil burnjng engine efficiencies. Electric batteries and motors are very efficient at converting energy, however, electric batteries are currently much less energy dense than H2 or oil systems.
Oil is effectively a battery that has been charged naturally by the sun (as with most mined chemical energy storage). If you create oil in a lab, you are storing the reaction energy for later use, just like charging any battery.
When you charge a battery, because batteries follow the laws of thermodynamics, you always invest more energy to charge that you get out of them. Mined oil is cheap energy because it's already "charged". However, if you were to capture the waste emissions from the atmosphere and recombine them, the energy lost in the recombination would be far greater than that which you can extract when you burn it again.
If someone had a way to economically capture oild emissions, then recombine the into oil - and if this process is cheaper that liberating H2 from water.