How to Promote the Hydrogen Economy Hoax

[Feed The Trees]

Is your BEV parked at home when the sun is shining the strongest so you can charge it for free? Can you be sure to find an other customer for the solar electricity that should have gone into your car battery in case parked at home but now can't?

Well yes the grid buys it back. The idea is you generate your power when you're home and not using it when the sun is brightest and give it to the grid that has a huge load. The power company pays you for this. Then when you do need more at night it's cheaper (depending on your company and rate). Sell high buy low.

 

[Feed The Trees]

The only way gravity electric will work is if we get to a point where we have so much freaking solar power that everyone is on it and we need some way to hang onto the excess for night time. And then I can't imagine it's better to use a battery which requires so much input versus, well a regular bank of batteries.

 

[Pushmi-Pullyu]

Experimental power generation works but the pipes were damaged in an earthquake. The floating unit will reduce one risk but add a storm risk.

Not the same thing at all. That uses the temperature difference between the top (warm) and the bottom (cold) of the ocean. No question that does produce power, but according to what I've read the pilot projects have not produced promising results. It's that cost/benefit problem again.

 

[bwilson4web]

My understanding is it produces electricity at $0.20/kWh:
https://www.makai.com/ocean-thermal-energy-conversion/

Bob Wilson

 

[Pushmi-Pullyu]

My understanding is it produces electricity at $0.20/kWh:
https://www.makai.com/ocean-thermal-energy-conversion/

I'm certainly willing to be convinced I'm wrong about this, if credible or convincing evidence is presented. But I wouldn't trust the claims on a company's website; that's just advertising. If this system really does produce power profitably, then we should see other companies building similar systems. The fact that there is no rush to duplicate the pilot project rather suggests that it's not really profitable, even if the company claims it is.
-

 

[Martin Williams]

1. Hydrogen has very low energy content by volume. That means that it has to be very highly compressed, to 5000 or 10,000 PSI, for use in a FCEV.

2. Compressing hydrogen to that degree requires special expensive high-pressure pumps, along with high-pressure pipes and storage tanks. Dispensing stations also have to have such pumps, pipes, and tanks, which is one of several reasons why building a hydrogen filling station is so extremely expensive; construction costs are about $1 million for each dozen FCEVs serviced per day! And of course maintenance costs for such fueling stations will also be orders of magnitude higher than costs for a regular gasoline filling station, on a per-car basis.

3. H2 (the hydrogen molecule, composed of two hydrogen atoms) is so very tiny that ordinary seals won't stop it from leaking pretty rapidly. Special expensive seals are needed for storage of compressed H2, and even then there is some slow leakage past seals. In fact, the H2 molecule is so tiny that it will (very slowly) leak right through the solid metal walls of a storage tank!

Note this also means the fuel will be constantly, albeit slowly, leaking out of any FCEV which it's stored in.

4. Because compressed H2 has to be compressed to such a high pressure, existing pipe distribution systems for natural gas and petroleum can't be used to move H2. Generally, hydrogen fuel has to be moved using special (and again, expensive) high-pressure tanker trucks, which of course drives up the expense and the energy cost of distributing the fuel.

1. is true. It IS bulky, but weight for weight it is very energy rich - 200 or more times as energy dense as batteries. That's why its used for rocket fuel.
2. is false. High power compressors are not particularly complex nor expensive, but you don't need them anyway if you choose the right sort of electrolyser.
3. is slightly true, but by lining tanks and pipework leakage can be reduced to negligible levels - comparable to evaporation of petrol from a tank.
4. is partly true, but the energy cost of distribution is very low for road tankers. Far less than losses incurred in the transmission of electricity.

You also neglect the possibility of storing it by absorption which is all done at a few bar.

You neglect entirely the possibility of home manufacture of hydrogen using solar power. This is a feasible, but currently expensive, and prototypes have been made.

Untruths, halftruths and omissions are fine in a propaganda exercise but are mildly irritating when deployed in support of purportedly rational arguments.

 

[Pushmi-Pullyu]

You also neglect the possibility of storing it by absorption which is all done at a few bar.

A few years ago, when I was first researching the possibility that H2 might someday be used as a practical fuel, I was hoping that one of Steven Chu's "four miracles" (which would be needed for fool cell cars to be practical) would be using hydride to store H2 fuel; a method which does not require high compression. Unfortunately, releasing the H2 requires heating the hydride, which of course requires input of energy, compounding the problem with very poor energy efficiency and EROI in the supply chain.

You linked to an interesting article the other day, Martin -- at least I think it was you -- about using graphene in a special molecular configuration to store H2 at lower pressure. That might hold some promise, but only if we can figure out how to produce graphene with an exacting and almost flawless atomic structure, and do that on an industrial scale. We might be able to do that some day, but producing flawless or nearly flawless CNT (Carbon NanoTubes) or graphene in industrial quantities has so far eluded the large numbers of companies and university research teams working on the problem.

Untruths, halftruths and omissions are fine in a propaganda exercise but are mildly irritating when deployed in support of purportedly rational arguments.

Yes, all the science-denier arguments from fool cell fanboys -- that includes your post above -- are quite annoying, aren't they?

But thanks for "bumping" my thread to the top of the "New Posts" list!
-

 

[bwilson4web]

Hi,

A lot of hydrogen reports both for and against lack detailed chemistry and physics addressed in this source:
https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax

. . .
As far as usable fuel is concerned, what we have managed to do is trade seven moles of methane for twenty moles of hydrogen. Seven moles of carbon dioxide have also been produced, exactly as many as would have been produced had we simply used the methane itself as fuel. The seven moles of methane that we used up, however, would have been worth 1435 kilocalories of energy if used directly, while the twenty moles of hydrogen we have produced in exchange for all our trouble are only worth 1320 kilocalories. So for the same amount of carbon dioxide released, less useful energy has been produced.
. . .​

Bob Wilson

 

[101101]

Bob, this shows what a load of BS hydrogen is. Notice how they hydrogen fuel stock is supposed to come from petrol. Petrol for fuel energy is crime, it needs prosecution not hydrogen lip stick on a pig.

 

[Pushmi-Pullyu]

Hi,

A lot of hydrogen reports both for and against lack detailed chemistry and physics addressed in this source:
https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax

. . .
As far as usable fuel is concerned, what we have managed to do is trade seven moles of methane for twenty moles of hydrogen. Seven moles of carbon dioxide have also been produced, exactly as many as would have been produced had we simply used the methane itself as fuel. The seven moles of methane that we used up, however, would have been worth 1435 kilocalories of energy if used directly, while the twenty moles of hydrogen we have produced in exchange for all our trouble are only worth 1320 kilocalories. So for the same amount of carbon dioxide released, less useful energy has been produced.
. . .​

Bob Wilson

Thanks, Bob! That looks like a very useful comparison.

Would you please duplicate your post over on my "How to Promote the Hydrogen Economy Hoax" thread? I'd like to include links there to all of these authoritative analyses debunking the claims of those promoting the "hydrogen economy" hoax.

* * * * *

This is utterly off-topic, but Robert Zubrin, author of that article, is one of my heroes! He's one of the ones promoting a manned mission to Mars, and is one of the most outspoken critics of NASA turning its back on manned exploration of space, with the manned mission section of NASA becoming little more than an agency for make-work jobs for engineers. (Thank goodness the unmanned mission section of NASA is still exploring new worlds and still doing real science!)

“The purpose of spaceships is to actually travel across space and go to new worlds. Not to hang out in space and observe the health effects of doing so.” -- Robert Zubrin

 

[Martin Williams]

It's over ten years old and way out of date. Hydrogen cars are now being sold and seem to becoming more popular as battery development continues to run into a series of problems from glacial improvements in energy density, to an inability to make them, via battery degredation, temperature sensitivity and agonisingly slow charging times.

This 'report' reminds me of the consensus by aerospace engineers some years by that a bee could not fly! Bees, however, not knowing this, continued to fly...

 

[Martin Williams]

"As far as usable fuel is concerned, what we have managed to do is trade seven moles of methane for twenty moles of hydrogen. Seven moles of carbon dioxide have also been produced, exactly as many as would have been produced had we simply used the methane itself as fuel. The seven moles of methane that we used up, however, would have been worth 1435 kilocalories of energy if used directly, while the twenty moles of hydrogen we have produced in exchange for all our trouble are only worth 1320 kilocalories. So for the same amount of carbon dioxide released, less useful energy has been produced."

I cannot call this a lie as it isn't. It is perfectly true if you wish to use methane as your feedstock.

But if you start with water and electrolyse it with electricity from renewable sources it is completely untrue.

The method used to produce hydrogen is up to us, and our choice depends on how much you respect our environment.

Living where I do, I may be one of the guinea pigs involved in this project soon.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...se-in-hydrogen-as-fuel-to-begin-in-north-west

The idea seems to be to set up a hydrogen plant stripping hydrogen from methane, but the plan is to pump the CO2 back down into the oil wells in the Irish sea rather than vent it to the atmosphere. We may well be getting hydrogen in our gas supply! Will I notice the difference? Probably not. One of the nice things about hydrogen is that it allows a phased transition from petrochemicals to renewable power.

 

[TeslaInvestors]

Hydrogen based transportation is way more scalable than the battery power hobbyist cars.

According to Wikipedia. back in 2004, the world produced 53 million metric tons of H2!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, 53 million metric tons were consumed worldwide in 2004.

Using Clarity FC's 73 mpkg EPA estimate ( ok, say 70 miles per kg conservatively, that I'm getting), it takes 171 kg for an US average of 12,000 miles/year.
So, that 53 million tonnes is enough to fuel 309 million cars.

The battery hoax will be too obvious only after billions of wasted tax dollars have been spent trying to resurrection some 100 old technology fails. I think that will take another 2-3 years to unveil.

 

[bwilson4web]

Hydrogen based transportation is way more scalable . . .

No problem. We can wait for hydrogen cars, filling stations, and fusion power plants since we already have two plug-in hybrids:

• 2017 Prius Prime
  • $2.50 / 100 miles EV
  • 1.9 gal / 100 miles gas ($4.79 @$2.52/gal)
• 2014 BMW i3-REx
  • $2.90 / 100 miles EV
  • 2.6 gal / 100 miles gas ($8.58 @$3.30/gal)

We voted with our wallets.

Bob Wilson

 

[Martin Williams]

No problem. We can wait for hydrogen cars, filling stations, and fusion power plants since we already have two plug-in hybrids:

• 2017 Prius Prime
  • $2.50 / 100 miles EV
  • 1.9 gal / 100 miles gas ($4.79 @$2.52/gal)
• 2014 BMW i3-REx
  • $2.90 / 100 miles EV
  • 2.6 gal / 100 miles gas ($8.58 @$3.30/gal)

We voted with our wallets.

Bob Wilson

Well, for that matter, you could wait with ICE cars too. And at significantly lower overall cost!

Do you see hybrids as interim technology until batteries improve or hydrogen takes over?

 

[bwilson4web]

Robert Llewellyn, a Tesla owner, has covered the Orkney Islands energy practices that includes using hydrogen to bank excess renewable energy. But when I checked out one of their web pages, they mentioned using a large battery, 2 MW, to buffer the island power:
http://www.oref.co.uk/orkneys-energy/innovations-2/

This reminded me of the South Australia, Hornsdale Power Reserve:
https://hornsdalepowerreserve.com.au

The desending "blue" lines are when the 100 MW battery is charging with cheap power. The thin, vertical "red" lines are when the battery is buffering the grid by discharging. The Tesla battery array minimizes having to start turbine and idling steam plants that provide expensive, on demand power. It does this within a single power cycle. So what does this have to do with the hydrogen fraud.

Fuel cells are slower than batteries to respond to energy drains. Even the three leasable fuel cell cars have a battery not only to handle regeneration braking but buffer a fuel cell sized for average power, not vehicle acceleration. Inertial power demands, acceleration and deceleration, are typically 5x that of the average. For example, my BMW i3-REx:

• 168 hp - electric drive motor
• 34 hp - range extender engine to sustain 70 mph
• 4.9 ~= 168 / 34

The Orkney Islands are demonstrating a lot of hydrogen technology but there were (are?) only EV cars on the islands. But even their grid-based, hydrogen systems need a battery buffer. If you're going to need batteries anyway, skip the inefficient "electricity -> hydrogen -> fuel cell" path. KISS (Keep It Simple Someone).

Bob Wilson

 

[Domenick]

"As far as usable fuel is concerned, what we have managed to do is trade seven moles of methane for twenty moles of hydrogen. Seven moles of carbon dioxide have also been produced, exactly as many as would have been produced had we simply used the methane itself as fuel. The seven moles of methane that we used up, however, would have been worth 1435 kilocalories of energy if used directly, while the twenty moles of hydrogen we have produced in exchange for all our trouble are only worth 1320 kilocalories. So for the same amount of carbon dioxide released, less useful energy has been produced."

I cannot call this a lie as it isn't. It is perfectly true if you wish to use methane as your feedstock.

But if you start with water and electrolyse it with electricity from renewable sources it is completely untrue.

The method used to produce hydrogen is up to us, and our choice depends on how much you respect our environment.

Living where I do, I may be one of the guinea pigs involved in this project soon.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...se-in-hydrogen-as-fuel-to-begin-in-north-west

The idea seems to be to set up a hydrogen plant stripping hydrogen from methane, but the plan is to pump the CO2 back down into the oil wells in the Irish sea rather than vent it to the atmosphere. We may well be getting hydrogen in our gas supply! Will I notice the difference? Probably not. One of the nice things about hydrogen is that it allows a phased transition from petrochemicals to renewable power.

It's true that hydrogen can be made using (a lot) of renewable energy, but with huge multinational energy companies involved whose business it is to extract and sell natural gas, it's pretty obvious that will be there focus. Sure, they'll highlight some renewable production for PR purposes, but there's no doubt in most people's mind how hydrogen will be produced.

It would be nice if some of the CO2 from that can be injected back into the ground, but the last 10 years of CCS attempts aren't especially promising.

 

[Martin Williams]

I think electrolysis is bound to win out eventually for three reasons.

1. Electrolysis is an essentially simple process and the equipment needed is orders of magnitude less expensive than making it from methane
2. The energy used is low-cost renewable electricity
3. Hydrogen produced by elecrolysis is extremely pure. That obtained from methane (natural gas) is not. Removng these contaminants is expensive.

It will be interesting to see how the hydrogen experiment in my part of the world pans out.

 

[bwilson4web]

Source: http://www.autoline.tv/journal/?p=55517&cpage=1#comment-1105739

. . .
HYDROGEN NETWORK FOR FUEL CELL SEMI TRUCKS
One of the challenges holding back the use of fuel cells is building a hydrogen infrastructure to refuel them. But Anheuser Busch has an interesting way to solve this. It operates 13 breweries in the United States that ship beer every day to distribution points. They use the same routes at the same time every day. So it wants to set up a series of hubs on highways in the western U.S. where fuel cell semis could refuel. Nikola will make the semis and it will manufacture hydrogen at those hubs using hydrolysis and renewable electricity. That would drastically cut down the cost of the hydrogen. The hubs will be 200 to 600 miles apart and another advantage is that drivers can drive to a hub, then switch to another truck and return. That way they would be home every night, instead of being on the road for days on end. This could help truck fleets attract more drivers since they face a driving shortage right now.
. . . ​

"It operates 13 breweries in the United States that ship beer every day to distribution points."

Here is a map:

"So it wants to set up a series of hubs on highways in the western U.S. where fuel cell semis could refuel. Nikola will make the semis and it will manufacture hydrogen at those hubs using hydrolysis and renewable electricity."

We already know the electrolysis-to-wheel efficiency is about 3x more expensive the using the electricity to recharge battery-electric cars. This avoids the inefficiencies of electrolysis, compression, and use by fuel cells that are less efficient than battery.

"The hubs will be 200 to 600 miles apart and another advantage is that drivers can drive to a hub, then switch to another truck and return."

This operational scenario, swapping trucks, works great for battery powered trucks too. It also negates the 'hydrogen advantage' of rapid refueling.

Bob Wilson

ps. Full disclosure, I abhor Budweiser.

 

[Martin Williams]

The advantage of hydrogen is that it can be stockpiled. You only need a tank. To do it with electricity requires a battery at least large enough to supply all the trucks, and conversion losses will be significant.

I don't know why you battery enthusiasts seem incapable of understanding that when the energy source is renewable, the cost of the electricity - and therefore the hydrogen produced from it - is low and in this scenario, you don't have to worry too much about the efficiency. The cost of the hydrogen is defined largely by amortisation of the equipment needed to produce it

Wind and solar power is getting less expensive by the day and electrolysers are essentially extremely simple in concept. If they use high differential pressure electrolysers you don't even need a compressor, so I guess the hydrogen costs are low enough for any cost advantage of batteries (if any) to be negligible. That is probably why the efficiency evidently hasn't counted for much in this decision.

I guess they may use hydrogen to power their fork-lifts too, so it makes sense that way as well.

Hopefully, they'll go ahead with this and we will at least see if it is a success or not.

You are right about Budweiser, however. It is best avoided