Hydrogen is the future, not BEVs?
Discussion
HustleRussell said:
DonkeyApple said:
HustleRussell said:
Undercover McNoName said:
Where do you think the energy comes from to create hydrogen?
Fool cells is a dead end technology for passenger cars.
Where do you think energy comes from to do anything? Are you aware that there are more than one sources? Fool cells is a dead end technology for passenger cars.
So, a market like the EU has no excess renewable energy. In fact we are all rather well aware that the whole continent has a total shortage of energy and is having to import it.
Energy security is so important that the EU is even having to take means to define legally what excess renewable energy actually is for the purpose of converting it to hydrogen.
You then have the commercial issues of the different type of 'excess' renewable energy. To build a viable GH supply you absolutely have to have a constant and predictable supply of renewable electricity. You cannot, of course, build a viable industrial supply around there possibly being some extra electricity from a wind farm somewhere at some time and where that excess cannot simply be exported for sale in its native form.
So, what we are talking about is categorically not green hydrogen. That's the green washing term layered on top of the spin.
The only viable source of hydrogen remains from fossil fuels. Coal or methane. That is what the European automotive industry is working with. That's why the end products are targeting developing nations as they transition to net zero far slower and later than developed nations.
DonkeyApple said:
HustleRussell said:
DonkeyApple said:
HustleRussell said:
Undercover McNoName said:
Where do you think the energy comes from to create hydrogen?
Fool cells is a dead end technology for passenger cars.
Where do you think energy comes from to do anything? Are you aware that there are more than one sources? Fool cells is a dead end technology for passenger cars.
So, a market like the EU has no excess renewable energy. In fact we are all rather well aware that the whole continent has a total shortage of energy and is having to import it.
Energy security is so important that the EU is even having to take means to define legally what excess renewable energy actually is for the purpose of converting it to hydrogen.
You then have the commercial issues of the different type of 'excess' renewable energy. To build a viable GH supply you absolutely have to have a constant and predictable supply of renewable electricity. You cannot, of course, build a viable industrial supply around there possibly being some extra electricity from a wind farm somewhere at some time and where that excess cannot simply be exported for sale in its native form.
So, what we are talking about is categorically not green hydrogen. That's the green washing term layered on top of the spin.
The only viable source of hydrogen remains from fossil fuels. Coal or methane. That is what the European automotive industry is working with. That's why the end products are targeting developing nations as they transition to net zero far slower and later than developed nations.
HustleRussell said:
I am designing a conceptual large scale green hydrogen plant for one of the major energy companies at the moment. Construction of such is a LONG way off. To me, at a project level, it feels similar to the beginning of a nuclear job i.e. this individual facility is on a development horizon of 15+ years.
Curious as to the actual power source for the plant and what the primary use of the hydrogen produced will be. I presume that must already have been long determined as a critical part of the business case for the plant’s development?It is conjecture. There is nothing forward looking about that post. Who's to say that we don't or won't have surplus green energy? We are already turning the system down at times. Whose to say that we won't have the facility to blackstart electrolysers as and when surplus energy is available? I'm looking at a technical specification from one of the major vendors of polymer exchange electrolysers and it gives a ramp up time of 30 minutes from cold or 15 minutes from hot.
dvs_dave said:
HustleRussell said:
I am designing a conceptual large scale green hydrogen plant for one of the major energy companies at the moment. Construction of such is a LONG way off. To me, at a project level, it feels similar to the beginning of a nuclear job i.e. this individual facility is on a development horizon of 15+ years.
Curious as to the actual power source for the plant and what the primary use of the hydrogen produced will be. I presume that must already have been long determined as a critical part of the business case for the plant’s development?2) The demand for significantly increased volumes of Hydrogen gas does not exist yet, it's classic chicken or egg- but all the major energy companies wish to explore Hydrogen as nobody is as yet sure how big a role it may or may not play in energy transition. They're conceptualising what it might look like on a distant horizon. This thing I'm working on isn't getting built, it's a sandbox. However you can right now buy electrolysers from multiple vendors which turn electricity and water into Hydrogen, and you can also buy fuel cells. Compressor vendors, component manufacturers also are working on bringing more products to market to satisfy Hydrogen specific requirements.
HustleRussell said:
1) Wind turbine array
2) The demand for significantly increased volumes of Hydrogen gas does not exist yet, it's classic chicken or egg- but all the majorenergyoil companies wish to explore Hydrogen as nobody is as yet sure how big a role it may or may not play in energy transition. They're conceptualising what it might look like on a distant horizon. This thing I'm working on isn't getting built, it's a sandbox. However you can right now buy electrolysers from multiple vendors which turn electricity and water into Hydrogen, and you can also buy fuel cells. Compressor vendors, component manufacturers also are working on bringing more products to market to satisfy Hydrogen specific requirements.
FIFY.2) The demand for significantly increased volumes of Hydrogen gas does not exist yet, it's classic chicken or egg- but all the major
LasseV said:
It says 26 in the original tweet. Edited by Undercover McNoName on Thursday 16th March 13:41
Undercover McNoName said:
LasseV said:
It says 26 in the original tweet.
HustleRussell said:
You're attempting to convince me that your previous post is '100% science', and none of it is conjecture rooted in the energy market and geopolitics as it is now?
Russell, I respect your religious belief that the law of covalent bonds will be changed but the cold reality is that when it really comes to the crunch those who devoutly believe that green hydrogen will be used how they want to believe it will be are going to at some point have to meet with reality. At some point you have to accept that GH is manufactured using excess renewable energy. Yes?
Hydrogen cannot be effectively stored or transported. That doesn't change. Hydrogen is a corrosive green house gas with a molecular size that means storage and transportation comes with huge loses and great cost. It is why 95% of hydrogen used in industry today is created as needed, where it is needed. What you seem to be proposing is that instead we switch to randomly producing it when the wind blows harder, that we then transport this hydrogen to where it is needed and then instead of using it to replace grey hydrogen you will somehow outbid all the industries who are investing in green hydrogen to replace their grey hydrogen and then use it in your car?
And all of this infrastructure is going to somehow be built before 2035 and that somehow all the people who cannot afford an EV will somehow have the money to pay vastly more for hydrogen?
Instead of trying to suggest that science is just an opinion why don't you actually outline how you're going to achieve all of this, why and who the customers are going to be?
DonkeyApple said:
HustleRussell said:
You're attempting to convince me that your previous post is '100% science', and none of it is conjecture rooted in the energy market and geopolitics as it is now?
Russell, I respect your religious belief that the law of covalent bonds will be changed but the cold reality is that when it really comes to the crunch those who devoutly believe that green hydrogen will be used how they want to believe it will be are going to at some point have to meet with reality. At some point you have to accept that GH is manufactured using excess renewable energy. Yes?
Hydrogen cannot be effectively stored or transported. That doesn't change. Hydrogen is a corrosive green house gas with a molecular size that means storage and transportation comes with huge loses and great cost. It is why 95% of hydrogen used in industry today is created as needed, where it is needed. What you seem to be proposing is that instead we switch to randomly producing it when the wind blows harder, that we then transport this hydrogen to where it is needed and then instead of using it to replace grey hydrogen you will somehow outbid all the industries who are investing in green hydrogen to replace their grey hydrogen and then use it in your car?
And all of this infrastructure is going to somehow be built before 2035 and that somehow all the people who cannot afford an EV will somehow have the money to pay vastly more for hydrogen?
Instead of trying to suggest that science is just an opinion why don't you actually outline how you're going to achieve all of this, why and who the customers are going to be?
HustleRussell said:
It is conjecture. There is nothing forward looking about that post. Who's to say that we don't or won't have surplus green energy? We are already turning the system down at times. Whose to say that we won't have the facility to blackstart electrolysers as and when surplus energy is available? I'm looking at a technical specification from one of the major vendors of polymer exchange electrolysers and it gives a ramp up time of 30 minutes from cold or 15 minutes from hot.
I don't know when or why you decided that I thought it was some kind of panacea but I am mostly busy with correcting misconceptions in the thread about the practicalities and impracticalities. I haven't said anything about the whens, only that it is on a distant horizon. I don't know why you're talking about 2035. Well, I have a rough idea why, but it's not a date which I feel is especially relevant. I am glad that you are at least appearing to appreciate that the future is a thing and therefore presumably open to the idea that things may be different then from how they are now- in terms of the availability of green energy, possible applications for hydrogen etc.
The problem with this thread is that you post anything one way or the other and people think you want to get entrenched in some kind of pro / con FCEV thing.
Edited by HustleRussell on Thursday 16th March 14:03
Undercover McNoName said:
LasseV said:
No, 26 different projects.
In 12 countries.And now 36 station for Italy did get funding.
https://energynews.biz/thursday-23/
Edit: European Hydrogen Bank announced by EU.
https://twitter.com/EUClimateAction/status/1636368...
Edited by LasseV on Thursday 16th March 14:27
HustleRussell said:
I don't know when or why you decided that I thought it was some kind of panacea but I am mostly busy with correcting misconceptions in the thread about the practicalities and impracticalities.
I haven't said anything about the whens, only that it is on a distant horizon. I don't know why you're talking about 2035. Well, I have a rough idea why, but it's not a date which I feel is especially relevant. I am glad that you are at least appearing to appreciate that the future is a thing and therefore presumably open to the idea that things may be different then from how they are now- in terms of the availability of green energy, possible applications for hydrogen etc.
The problem with this thread is that you post anything one way or the other and people think you want to get entrenched in some kind of pro / con FCEV thing.
But we know this stuff for the U.K. that's why posts about crystal ball gazing, unknown things in the future and some magical use for something is generally seen as not particularly competent. I haven't said anything about the whens, only that it is on a distant horizon. I don't know why you're talking about 2035. Well, I have a rough idea why, but it's not a date which I feel is especially relevant. I am glad that you are at least appearing to appreciate that the future is a thing and therefore presumably open to the idea that things may be different then from how they are now- in terms of the availability of green energy, possible applications for hydrogen etc.
The problem with this thread is that you post anything one way or the other and people think you want to get entrenched in some kind of pro / con FCEV thing.
Edited by HustleRussell on Thursday 16th March 14:03
You speak of excess renewables in the U.K. why don't you actually define what you mean by that. Why don't you also give some figura on production volumes and the tax implications for the grey hydrogen industry not switching to green?
There are many existing needs for GH and there will be future ones where no other solution is possible but this thread has a specific title that states a belief that hydrogen powered cars will replace battery powered cars and that is total rubbish on so many very basic scientific and economic levels that it is baffling how just so many people are so keen to fall for the marketing spin of businesses many of which have proven track records of dishonesty.
DonkeyApple said:
HustleRussell said:
I don't know when or why you decided that I thought it was some kind of panacea but I am mostly busy with correcting misconceptions in the thread about the practicalities and impracticalities.
I haven't said anything about the whens, only that it is on a distant horizon. I don't know why you're talking about 2035. Well, I have a rough idea why, but it's not a date which I feel is especially relevant. I am glad that you are at least appearing to appreciate that the future is a thing and therefore presumably open to the idea that things may be different then from how they are now- in terms of the availability of green energy, possible applications for hydrogen etc.
The problem with this thread is that you post anything one way or the other and people think you want to get entrenched in some kind of pro / con FCEV thing.
But we know this stuff for the U.K. that's why posts about crystal ball gazing, unknown things in the future and some magical use for something is generally seen as not particularly competent. I haven't said anything about the whens, only that it is on a distant horizon. I don't know why you're talking about 2035. Well, I have a rough idea why, but it's not a date which I feel is especially relevant. I am glad that you are at least appearing to appreciate that the future is a thing and therefore presumably open to the idea that things may be different then from how they are now- in terms of the availability of green energy, possible applications for hydrogen etc.
The problem with this thread is that you post anything one way or the other and people think you want to get entrenched in some kind of pro / con FCEV thing.
You speak of excess renewables in the U.K. why don't you actually define what you mean by that. Why don't you also give some figura on production volumes and the tax implications for the grey hydrogen industry not switching to green?
There are many existing needs for GH and there will be future ones where no other solution is possible but this thread has a specific title that states a belief that hydrogen powered cars will replace battery powered cars and that is total rubbish on so many very basic scientific and economic levels that it is baffling how just so many people are so keen to fall for the marketing spin of businesses many of which have proven track records of dishonesty.
If you don't believe we are turning down energy production at times of low demand or excessive supply, and renewable energy is a contributor to that scenario, you are simply wrong. And this is 2023, renewable energy as a share of UK power supply is going to grow, and the turndown issue exacerbated.
HustleRussell said:
Seeing as how it's you and me who are talking, and I believe have already given my stance in this thread on the supposed FCEV takeover of the passenger car market, taking about what 'many people' believe only obfuscates.
If you don't believe we are turning down energy production at times of low demand or excessive supply, and renewable energy is a contributor to that scenario, you are simply wrong. And this is 2023, renewable energy as a share of UK power supply is going to grow, and the turndown issue exacerbated.
Nope. What's wrong is a belief that the inconsistent supply you discuss has the industrial value for sporadic conversion to a complex to store and transport gas. If you don't believe we are turning down energy production at times of low demand or excessive supply, and renewable energy is a contributor to that scenario, you are simply wrong. And this is 2023, renewable energy as a share of UK power supply is going to grow, and the turndown issue exacerbated.
If people actually knew what hydrogen was it would be an enormous help in threads such as this. Likewise, if people had a basic grasp of the commercials of industry.
You need a constant and predictable supply. Random, sporadic oversupply is not that which is why it isn't set to be converted to GH.
DonkeyApple said:
HustleRussell said:
Seeing as how it's you and me who are talking, and I believe have already given my stance in this thread on the supposed FCEV takeover of the passenger car market, taking about what 'many people' believe only obfuscates.
If you don't believe we are turning down energy production at times of low demand or excessive supply, and renewable energy is a contributor to that scenario, you are simply wrong. And this is 2023, renewable energy as a share of UK power supply is going to grow, and the turndown issue exacerbated.
Nope. What's wrong is a belief that the inconsistent supply you discuss has the industrial value for sporadic conversion to a complex to store and transport gas. If you don't believe we are turning down energy production at times of low demand or excessive supply, and renewable energy is a contributor to that scenario, you are simply wrong. And this is 2023, renewable energy as a share of UK power supply is going to grow, and the turndown issue exacerbated.
If people actually knew what hydrogen was it would be an enormous help in threads such as this. Likewise, if people had a basic grasp of the commercials of industry.
You need a constant and predictable supply. Random, sporadic oversupply is not that which is why it isn't set to be converted to GH.
Before you appeared to be arguing that there is no surplus renewable energy, but now you accept that there is surplus renewable energy but there's 'not enough' to do anything constructive with it?
ETA: To extend the point to a conclusion, we are currently retaining a significant capacity to generate electrical power from combustibles so that we have a knob we can turn to balance the grid. If we have electrolysers in the network which can act as a load we can use them to balance the grid. If we have a means to balance the grid then we can make a greater share of the uk energy picture renewable. There will be applications for hydrogen, albeit IMO generally not in passenger cars.
Edited by HustleRussell on Thursday 16th March 15:34
HustleRussell said:
If you don't believe we are turning down energy production at times of low demand or excessive supply, and renewable energy is a contributor to that scenario, you are simply wrong. And this is 2023, renewable energy as a share of UK power supply is going to grow, and the turndown issue exacerbated.
The most common reason for turning down renewable output - typically wind - is not excess supply. It happens when local output exceeds the capacity of the transmission system so those wind farms are given curtailment payments to reduce output or shutdown entirely, at great cost to the grid.Why these projects were allowed to proceed without adequate transmission capacity is baffling - it should have been a requirement that the promoters paid for the transmission upgrades.
You are right that curtailment costs are going to increase anyway as renewable capacity has to be overbuilt to counter intermittency, absent a reliable, economic means of storing huge amounts of energy.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff