The Hydrogen fuel economy will not be viable.

[BrianHG]

Hydrogen Will Not Save Us. Here's Why by Sabine Hossenfelder.



She seems to have well researched the topic and provides a near unbiased view.
It sounds like it may be just a green-wash fuel for those special few who can afford it...

[mendip_discovery]

Unbias View...its a tough challenge to pull off. She gave the facts but this was a video exploring the downsides and not the upsides to Hydrogen so it is biased.

There are currently only 2 hydrogen car models available in the UK currently, so don't expect the sales to be through the roof. The current trend is for electric cars but that won't suit everyone and the lack of sales may be linked to anyone going green buying electric as its the one being pushed.

She made the comment it doesn't like the cold, and they use it in space. Thankfully space is rather warm.

New Holland has been working on a Deisel and Hydrogen tractor but they also had a big shout about Methane powered tractors this year. https://agriculture.newholland.com/eu/en-uk/equipment/products/agricultural-tractors/t6-methane-power

We need to be looking at alternatives to fossil fuels, and not be blinded by the NEW Steve Jobs who up until recently could do no wrong.

[Kleinstein]

Hydrogen in normal passanger cars is not such a good idea: they are usually not used so frequently and with battery EV there is a good alternative. So if it does not work well in a car this does not mean it is not viable for other uses (e.g. trucks, ships, stationary).

AFAIK the H2 production by electrolysis has not big problem working intermittent and with relative low capital costs this is also no economic problem.
Hydrogen can actually be a good way for using the fluctuating production from PV and wind. The first is to just replace the conventional fossile based production. For the CO2 footprint the point is using to a large part the excess power, not PV or wind specificly installed for H2 production. If extra for the H2 production this would be at very good locations.

For the longer time grid tied storrage I currently see no good alternatives to hydrogen - at least not in places where pumped hydro does not work well. One may not have to convert that much back to electricity, as the H2 consumption in the chemical industry alone as an adjustable consumer can do quite a bit, and it may get more when less natural gas is used.

[nctnico]

Unbias View...its a tough challenge to pull off. She gave the facts but this was a video exploring the downsides and not the upsides to Hydrogen so it is biased.

We need to be looking at alternatives to fossil fuels, and not be blinded by the NEW Steve Jobs who up until recently could do no wrong.

Agreed. And with almost the whole world (including the oil sheikhs! *) getting into hydrogen, it is utterly foolish to state that there is no future for hydrogen. The future IS hydrogen. Everything is pointing into the direction of hydrogen. Often the counter reasoning stems from thinking hydrogen is something radically new. But it isn't. Hydrogen is old tech. Very old tech. Before natural gas became the norm, the 'household gas' (made from turning coal into gas) contained a significant portion of hydrogen. Also, hydrogen is widely used in chemical plants for many production processes.

And to add the cherry on top: who is going to come up with a better alternative that works right now? The guys from NordVPN?  Time has ran out already...

* https://gulfbusiness.com/uae-completes-first-phase-of-national-hydrogen-strategy/

[tom66]

Agreed. And with almost the whole world (including the oil sheikhs! *) getting into hydrogen, it is utterly foolish to state that there is no future for hydrogen. The future IS hydrogen. Everything is pointing into the direction of hydrogen. Often the counter reasoning stems from thinking hydrogen is something radically new. But it isn't. Hydrogen is old tech. Very old tech. Before natural gas became the norm, the 'household gas' (made from turning coal into gas) contained a significant portion of hydrogen. Also, hydrogen is widely used in chemical plants for many production processes.

I think it would be wrong to say there is no future for hydrogen, but it will have a few very specific uses where it fits in very well. I didn't honestly know about the cold-start issue for hydrogen cars, but it sounds like it would make these vehicles even more impractical; you now need sufficient power in your small on board battery to fully defrost the hydrogen fuel cell before you could drive.

It's a telling sign that fossil fuel corporations are getting into hydrogen as the next big thing. Who could blame them - it allows them to continue to sell a fuel which is their whole business.  But we can't allow them to get away with blue hydrogen as the answer.  If we're going to go to a hydrogen economy it has to be green hydrogen and, except for excess renewables storage, I don't see how it would work.  It only works for excess renewables because that energy would otherwise be thrown away.

[nctnico]

Agreed. And with almost the whole world (including the oil sheikhs! *) getting into hydrogen, it is utterly foolish to state that there is no future for hydrogen. The future IS hydrogen. Everything is pointing into the direction of hydrogen. Often the counter reasoning stems from thinking hydrogen is something radically new. But it isn't. Hydrogen is old tech. Very old tech. Before natural gas became the norm, the 'household gas' (made from turning coal into gas) contained a significant portion of hydrogen. Also, hydrogen is widely used in chemical plants for many production processes.

I think it would be wrong to say there is no future for hydrogen, but it will have a few very specific uses where it fits in very well. I didn't honestly know about the cold-start issue for hydrogen cars, but it sounds like it would make these vehicles even more impractical; you now need sufficient power in your small on board battery to fully defrost the hydrogen fuel cell before you could drive.

It's a telling sign that fossil fuel corporations are getting into hydrogen as the next big thing. Who could blame them - it allows them to continue to sell a fuel which is their whole business.  But we can't allow them to get away with blue hydrogen as the answer.  If we're going to go to a hydrogen economy it has to be green hydrogen and, except for excess renewables storage, I don't see how it would work.  It only works for excess renewables because that energy would otherwise be thrown away.

There ain't no such thing as excess renewables. There is a transportation problem of getting solar power to places where and when the sun doesn't shine (enough). Hydrogen solves that.

Keep in mind that a solar panel in a desert receives about twice as much energy from the sun compared to a solar panel somewhere in the UK/ NL / Germany. So even with losses, you still come out on top with having a solar panel in the desert.

[tom66]

There ain't no such thing as excess renewables. There is a transportation problem of getting solar power to places where and when the sun doesn't shine (enough). Hydrogen solves that.

Hydrogen is a pretty bad method of transport compared to long distance high voltage cables, though.   You can go over 2000km with current HVDC lines (there is a 2200km line in China, carrying 8GW, stated efficiency is over 90%), and it doesn't seem like the technology has any practical limits in overall length, it just rolls off in efficiency the longer you get.  Hydrogen round trip efficiency is 50-60%, so you'd need a very long line to get over that disadvantage, probably bordering on 6000-8000km. 

I really only see hydrogen working in seasonal storage of renewable energy, and some heavy industrial applications.  For renewable storage, to store the weeks worth of energy requires far too much capacity in battery form, and there isn't enough pumped hydro in the world to even come close to 1% of the needs.  While renewable energy might be available elsewhere, I'm not makes sense to put a ton of solar in North Africa and make us dependent upon that electricity.  It's not as if that part of the world has been politically stable recently. 

[TimFox]

It's an engineering problem, with quantitative answers.
One feature of the problem is that pumping light gases through pipelines can be more efficient than long-distance transmission of electrical power.
Another place where detailed mathematical calculation is required, rather than hand-waving.

[nctnico]

There ain't no such thing as excess renewables. There is a transportation problem of getting solar power to places where and when the sun doesn't shine (enough). Hydrogen solves that.

Hydrogen is a pretty bad method of transport compared to long distance high voltage cables, though.   You can go over 2000km with current HVDC lines (there is a 2200km line in China, carrying 8GW, stated efficiency is over 90%), and it doesn't seem like the technology has any practical limits in overall length, it just rolls off in efficiency the longer you get.  Hydrogen round trip efficiency is 50-60%, so you'd need a very long line to get over that disadvantage, probably bordering on 6000-8000km. 

As I wrote before: calculating/thinking using efficiencies is fooling yourself. Calculate in cost per kWh transported.

And if you worry about political stability: if anything, the last year has shown that being fixed to suppliers by pipelines and/or wires is about the worst thing that can happen. Hydrogen can be shipped from anywhere around the world.

[SiliconWizard]

It sounds like it may be just a green-wash fuel for those special few who can afford it...

No kidding.

[BrianHG]

It's an engineering problem, with quantitative answers.
One feature of the problem is that pumping light gases through pipelines can be more efficient than long-distance transmission of electrical power.
Another place where detailed mathematical calculation is required, rather than hand-waving.

No.  Because of pressures needed for effectively transporting hydrogen and it's molecular size, both continuous leaking plus the hydrogen embrittlement problem, you will be continuously replacing your piping structure.  Also, there still is restive friction in the piping and if your distance elevation is higher in altitude than the source, you will still be fighting gravity.
If you do not pipe/pump with significant pressure, then at every destination, like a car's hydrogen tank, you will need energy and a capable pump to pressurize the hydrogen into that gas tank.  That is a lot of those high pressure hydrogen gas grade pumps whose compressors and piping are all susceptible to hydrogen embrittlement.

If you are making green hydrogen, then just HV feed electricity to your destination use it to make your hydrogen locally with fuel cells running in reverse.  You are still stuck with the hydrogen embrittlement problem locally, but you do not have to worry about thousands of miles of new piping infrastructure.

[Infraviolet]

For all the inefficiencies, I'd say that for any powered transport H2 is a better power source than batteries. The energy density will always be superior, and there are now lotsof novel storage methods developed (such as Toyota's idea for a plug-and-play hydrogen cartridge to avoid having to pump the material. For any decent future energy infrastructure we are going to need an awful lot of electrical production capacity (fusion, fission and renewables... too cheap to meter), the idea would be to cleanly produce far more energy than we need, at which point some inefficiency is making H2 from electricity becomes irrelevant.

As far as I can see, the hydrogen fuel cell is almost a mature technology, the problem, ofcourse, is nobody wants an H2 car until there are H2 filling stations, and nobody will build a filling station until there are far more H2 cars around.

Hydrigen cars are already an infrastructure and scale problem, not an automotive technology problem.

[TimFox]

Hydrogen embrittlement is a well-researched problem.  For example, it was a serious limitation to pressure and temperature in steam locomotive boilers. 
From a general article:  "Hydrogen is normally only able to enter metals in the form of atoms or hydrogen ions. Thus, gaseous hydrogen is not absorbed by metals at ambient temperatures, as it is in molecular form, in which pairs of atoms are tightly bound together. However, as the temperature rises, the molecules tend to dissociate into individual atoms allowing absorption at temperatures which, for example, are associated with petroleum refining or heat treatment procedures. Higher rates of absorption are experienced in molten material and this means that casting and welding operations can provide particular opportunities for the entry of hydrogen into metallic materials. Hydrogen ions are also produced by reactions associated with processes such as corrosion, electroplating and cathodic protection. Consequently, there is ample opportunity for the entry of hydrogen into metallic components."
Note that this is not generally a problem at room temperature.
Modern high-technology hydrogen storage at high pressures usually involves a relatively-thin non-embrittled liner inside an outer layer of higher-strength steel that resists the pressure.

[tom66]

Or, indeed, plastic piping.  It's one reason, among others, the local grid operator for the town I used to live in replaced several major gas mains with plastic pipes. These should last about 50 years, and are not embrittled by hydrogen, so if it is used in the future there is compatibility there.

[sleemanj]

https://youtu.be/MgmBkvrO0Dg

[Infraviolet]

I do find it perplexing why so many places are considering switching natural gas pipelines for supplying fuel to static equipment (household boilers, cookers...), but not working on hydrogen for transport. It would seem to me that for anything static the eventual end result must be to power it electrically, directly from the electricity produced from nuclear/renewable sources. If nuclear and renewables were built at the proper scale they could bring the price of electricity low enough to outcompete gas for such uses. Chemical fuels are something you reserve for transport, less effiicent in energy terms but necessary for energy density reasons. Its a long way off, but I see the ideal energy grid of the future as being an electrical only one, with hydrogen generated by electrolysis at the filling stations where it is needed for vehicles. Using hydrogen like natural gas just looks like a way to complicate things.

[james_s]

Having used electric cook stoves for the first half of my life when I finally had my own house and upgraded to a gas stove the difference is like night and day. I can't imagine ever going back to an electric stove, it's so nice being able to turn off the flame and not have to remove the pan from the burner, and I can easily visualize the heat by just looking at the flame. There is no lag between adjusting the knob and adjusting the heat.

[themadhippy]

can't imagine ever going back to an electric stove

if some of your bureaucrats get there way you may have to

[tom66]

Have you used induction hobs?  I had a short stint with one, and besides having to take care with the cookware you used, I think they struck the perfect balance.  They are fast and responsive and cook well.  It's worth noting that cooking using gas produces a lot of indoor air pollution, especially NOx and fine soot particulates, both of which are known hazards to health.

[james_s]

I saw one once about 30 years ago, it was interesting but it only worked with certain types of pans and I have not encountered one since, I don't think they ever really caught on here. I'm not concerned about the pollution, there's a vent hood above my stove that exhausts outside and it's not as if I'm cooking all day long every day. Another huge advantage of gas is it works during power outages, I can light it with a match if I want to but my little 2kW inverter generator powers the stove and vent fan easily, I would need an enormous backup generator to run any sort of electric stove.

[mendip_discovery]

I do find it perplexing why so many places are considering switching natural gas pipelines for supplying fuel to static equipment (household boilers, cookers...), but not working on hydrogen for transport. It would seem to me that for anything static the eventual end result must be to power it electrically, directly from the electricity produced from nuclear/renewable sources. If nuclear and renewables were built at the proper scale they could bring the price of electricity low enough to outcompete gas for such uses. Chemical fuels are something you reserve for transport, less effiicent in energy terms but necessary for energy density reasons. Its a long way off, but I see the ideal energy grid of the future as being an electrical only one, with hydrogen generated by electrolysis at the filling stations where it is needed for vehicles. Using hydrogen like natural gas just looks like a way to complicate things.

I am not keen on the "just use electric it's clean" logic, it just moves the problem to somewhere else. I have gas for the boiler, electricity for the hob and ovens, and a multifuel stove in the living room. This has meant during the recent panic I was able to use the fuel with the best price for the task at hand and if I lose one due to an issue I usually have the other two as a backup. I live in a rural area so it is not unknown to have supply issues. Would having everyone for transport/house/work reliant just on electricity not create a monopoly of sorts.

Back to Hydrogen, it may have its uses and we are in a Betamax type situation we need to look at the alternatives as some might work well for solving a certain issue or there may be a breakthrough and suddenly a lot of problems will just sort themselves out. I can't go electric for my car as I have to street park and have no chance of charging it at home so I have to wait until they can be charged easily at a station in a short period of time. But I doubt I will have to change during my lifetime, I own a 20yr old vehicle as my daily and that has enough parts around for it to carry on for another 20/30 years.

[BrianHG]

This is the current cleanliness of EVs:



It depends where on earth you live and how much you drive before it overtakes the conventional ICE solution.

As for practicality, if you own your own home or have a guaranteed parking spot where you can plug it in every night, if most of your travel is under the range of you EV's battery with occasional longer trips, then it is a very practical solution in countries with a good support infrastructure.  Also, you will save a shit load on your petrol bill.

Anything short of my above paragraph, for now, just go for an ICE car.

[nctnico]

Anything short of my above paragraph, for now, just go for an ICE car.

More specifically: a hybrid.

[Marco]

I'll just rephrase my usual argument, here and on youtube.

Currently hydrogen is planned as a reducing gas and heating gas in industry, for long haul trucking, marine and aviation. This will require vast quantities of hydrogen, quite regardless of potential use in seasonal storage, domestic heating and consumer cars where there are arguably alternatives (nuclear or vast overprovisioning vs seasonal storage, heatpumps vs domestic hydrogen heating, EV vs hydrogen cars).

What are the alternatives at net zero for industry, long haul trucking, marine and aviation?
- Synthetic fuel? Not actually an alternative, needs hydrogen to begin with ... but will be likely way more expensive than transporting/storing/using hydrogen directly.
- Carbon capture offsetting with continued fossil fuel use? Atrociously expensive.
- biofuel? Just for aviation/marine use would require more arable land and irrigation than we have on the planet (salt water crops are a boondoggle). Closed bioreactors could work, but atrociously expensive again.

Hydrogen is truly horrible, every alternative at net zero is worse.

Every realistic net zero alternative has more problems to overcome than hydrogen, not less. This is why hydrogen is going ahead regardless of all the nay saying, because the nay sayers aren't coming with real alternatives and 2050 is too close to listen to them.

[nctnico]

Have you used induction hobs?  I had a short stint with one, and besides having to take care with the cookware you used, I think they struck the perfect balance.  They are fast and responsive and cook well.  It's worth noting that cooking using gas produces a lot of indoor air pollution, especially NOx and fine soot particulates, both of which are known hazards to health.

I second that. Currently I have a ceramic stove but if that needs replacing, I'll go for an induction hob. For emergencies you can always keep a butane camping stove.

I do find it perplexing why so many places are considering switching natural gas pipelines for supplying fuel to static equipment (household boilers, cookers...), but not working on hydrogen for transport. It would seem to me that for anything static the eventual end result must be to power it electrically, directly from the electricity produced from nuclear/renewable sources. If nuclear and renewables were built at the proper scale they could bring the price of electricity low enough to outcompete gas for such uses. .. <snip> ..Using hydrogen like natural gas just looks like a way to complicate things.

Your reasoning makes sense up to a point. You have to look at cost versus benefit. The question is whether converting hydrogen back to electricity which is then turned into heat OR burn hydrogen to produce heat is cheaper. The gas infrastructure is already there to deliver hydrogen. The electricity grid OTOH would see yet another load added in a situation where the electricity grid is already under a huge strain and needs upgrading.

But you can also think in terms of moving to more centralised ways of heating homes like district heating. The residual heat from a nuclear power plant can be used for heating and hot water which replaces the use of natural gas or hydrogen for heating. Over here in the NL many cities are installing piping for district heating.