I didn't realize this wasn't common knowledge.
They oil companies own a lot of infrastructure for moving fuel around. They cannot use this infrastructure to move electricity but they can use the existing infrastructure to move hydrogen around.
They oil companies own a lot of infrastructure for moving fuel around. They cannot use this infrastructure to move electricity but they can use the existing infrastructure to move hydrogen around.
[1]https://cleantechnica.com/2021/12/22/0-03-of-hydrogen-is-gre...
H2 can be produced in large quantities from green power. Part of the problem is, some people see everything as non-green.
Dams? Oh, carbon and cement! Nuclear? Oh risk. Windmills? Oh birds. Solar? Short cell lift and manufacturing waste.
So let's start with the snae assumption that a dam is green. Now you want to get power to cars.
Guess what. You can make h2 on site, at night (low power demand), then send it anywhere using existing gaslines.
And yes, you can. No, h2 isn't hard to store, hard to move.
Frankly, it is the oil industry flooding green forums with false crap about h2, because they know h2 is the only complete threat to them
Batteries, with their wonderful waste, slow charge time, massive weight, and vast dangers in a accident, won't be enough to break oil's back.
We need h2 for that, and that's why all this bullwark is spewed at h2. A tech demonstrated as workijg quite well in buses, cars, and spaceships for 50+ years.
https://www.iea.org/energy-system/low-emission-fuels/hydroge...
Also you need around 55kWh of electricity to get 11kWh of power out of a Toyota Mirai's wheels to the ground. It'd be more efficient just to send that 55kWh to a waiting plugged in EV using existing power lines.
As for "slow charge", you're behind on tech. The current Hyundai/Kia platform supports 800V charging, meaning it can take in power at 350kW. It'll take under 10 minutes to fill it from 0 to ~80%.
It works just fine. The British did studies in the early 2000s, injecting h2 into Ng lines, and separating it back out at the other end with mebranes.
Also you need around 55kWh of electricity to get 11kWh of power out of a Toyota Mirai's wheels to the ground. It'd be more efficient just to send that 55kWh to a waiting plugged in EV using existing power lines.
Love how you ignored the power loss in transit, the power loss in charging, especially with fast charging, and didn't mention how inefficient batteries are as a comparison.
As for "slow charge", you're behind on tech. The current Hyundai/Kia platform supports 800V charging, meaning it can take in power at 350kW. It'll take under 10 minutes to fill it from 0 to ~80%.
We'll only need about 100 trillion dollars in new power lines, transfer stations, and on demand power generation, to enable people to charge like that.
Far better to build power plants, and when off peak load, generate h2 and ship through our existing pipelines.
Batteries and charging have developed since then, but as far as I know there haven't been any huge leaps in electrolysis processes.
What about countries who don't have an extensive gas pipeline infrastructure? Should they spend "about 100 trillion dollars" building one so they can take part in the H2 revolution?
The US is pretty unique in how your pipeline structure is built vs how ancient even essential parts of your electric grid is. This combined with a legal structure that allows gas pipelines to be built pretty freely vs everyone who can see a new power line can complain about it makes stuff really hard to upgrade.
[0] https://cleantechnica.com/2021/02/01/chart-why-battery-elect...
Much of this profit comes from selling massive amounts of power the US Eastern states, which is why its long haul transmission lines are modern, high frequency, low power loss.
Some of that power comes from as far north as Hudson's Bay!
The other reason so much of the grid is modern, is from the ice storm at the turn of rhe century, which destroyed an incredible amount of the distribution network. Hydro Quebec took the rebuild as an opportunity, and modernized everything.
Point is, even with all of that, there is the need for more, more, more, as well as last mile stuff. Nimbyism isn't as big of a thing here, but it still exists.
Hydro Quebec is very green, and is building a variety of trial h2 infra. Generating H2 at the power source, and using pipes to send it through that massive network of local gasline distribution, does allow for distribution without the same power loss as sending power 2500km.
Even with high efficiency power lines, that's a long haul.
But the thing is, there should not be one solution! Frankly, long haul batteries should be prohibited in cars, we should have different solutions for different situations!
How inefficient is it to carry around 2000lb or more of batteries from long distance, when most people only need short runs?
Conversely for taxis, buses, and people who need range, h2 provides that without all that weight and battery waste.
And even better, short range battery cars are charged at home, or at office more often, and at lower power draws. Thus, having h2 and batteries means dual generation, and end point distribution methods.
We can scale with existing infra more easily.
Current ICE cars have propane, diesel, and gas. Why must there be "the true path!"? With more research, we may find h2 to be more efficient than batteries, and without all the weight and e-waste of batteries.
And this is why locales should build what infra works best. Not be forced into some cookie cutter solution.
The fight here is over whether natural gas-made hydrogen (SMR) is an interesting fuel at all. I think the numbers say no, while solar-made hydrogen is in fact extremely interesting.