Hacker News Reader

Comment by adrian_b | Hacker News Reader

You cannot compare it in general, but in a particular case you can very well compute it so you can determine whether you have spent well your energy, or you have wasted it because using it otherwise would have produced more hydrogen.

Even if you might not be able to compute the efficiency before the process is actually completed, it would be foolish to start it without at least some rough estimate, to see if there are chances for this to be worthwhile.

I agree with the previous poster that the article should have included some estimate of the efficiency they hope to obtain, otherwise it is impossible to say whether this is newsworthy in a positive way (it could be newsworthy in a negative way, if they had wasted resources for a negligible outcome).

View on HN

The article acknowledges:

> Hydrogen ... currently takes more energy to make than it yields, and the cheapest and most common way is by reacting steam with methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

> It’s possible to make zero-carbon hydrogen by splitting water with electrolyzers powered by renewable energy. But in most cases, the process is too expensive to be economical...

and also says,

> A back-of-the-envelope calculation convinced him that the cost of stimulated geologic hydrogen could easily compete with hydrogen made from methane. “If we get the technology right,” he concludes, “this could be huge.”

It's pretty clear from reading the article that actual yields will be highly dependent on discovering ideal mining sites, but the fact that people are building startups to research and develop this kind of implies someone ran some numbers and thought it was worthwhile enough to be "newsworthy".

thank you for actually reading the article and realizing that the team of energy scientists + engineers doing this have thought more carefully about the viability of the process than a HN commenter that learned about it this morning

kind of. the real figure of merit here is the levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH), which requires you to build a technoeconomic model to simulate the total cost and production of a hypothetical unit over its lifetime. focusing just on "energy efficiency" will be misleading (in favor of geoH2!) because, relative to a green H2 elyzer, this approach has relatively lower operational costs (OPEX) and relatively higher capital costs (CAPEX) because you don't need stoichiometric amounts of electrons but you do need to drill a bunch of boreholes. if you just looked at "energy efficiency" you'd fail to amortize the drilling capex which is probably a bigger cost driver than electricity opex.

and fwiw estimates of LCOH by this process are $0.50-1.50/kg compared to maybe $3-6/kg for green H2. but these are obviously pie-in-the-sky NOAK figures and a technoeconomic analysis is only as good as the assumptions you feed into it. is it actually cost effective? there is only one way to know for sure, and these guys are gonna find out it's the hard way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com