Hydrogen is not the panacea

[GRALISTAIR]

Love this from a German Scientist. Plenty of detail.

https:// youtu . be / Zklo4Z1SqkE

Hydrogen is not the panacea - from a German commentator. Many politicians are touting as so though. Hydrogen is 1st element on periodic table but it Takes a lot of volume so needs to be pressurized. This in itself uses energy.
Hydrogen will not save us. No radioactive waste, no dead birds, no carbon dioxide and the only waste is water - sounds perfect doesn't it?. Except it isn't.

 

[Class 170101]

Of course she didn't explain (as I recall) the issues with nuclear. ie the waste and how to deal with it and also the problem of explosions see chernobyl or Fukushima.

 

[eldomtom2]

Not sure anyone here was saying that hydrogen is a panacea - now the Americans on the other hand...

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

So its BEMUs, wires or will really an odd diesel train materially make any difference

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Not sure anyone here was saying that hydrogen is a panacea - now the Americans on the other hand...

Yes but not that long ago the politicians were. ABE - anything but electrification.

 

[Gostav]

Hydrogen energy or battery power, it depending on the on the availability of energy source. For example, if a island country whith no rare earth resources, no lithium ore and other rare metal veins, hydrogen power almost is the best way. Ideally, hydrogen is obtained by electrolysis of seawater which would be never shortage in a island country, and the large amount of electricity required is obtained by nuclear power plants. But, now everyone know, Fukushima Disaster almost destroyed everything.

 

[Facing Back]

Hydrogen energy or battery power, it depending on the on the availability of energy source. For example, if a island country whith no rare earth resources, no lithium ore and other rare metal veins, hydrogen power almost is the best way. Ideally, hydrogen is obtained by electrolysis of seawater which would be never shortage in a island country, and the large amount of electricity required is obtained by nuclear power plants. But, now everyone know, Fukushima Disaster almost destroyed everything.

I like hydrogen. I prefer nuclear and it looks like there a chance it is coming back with the micro-reactor proposals from Rolls-Royce - in about 20 years. Until then there is offshore wind. Hydrogen can be a useful method of storing energy against low wind days. Agreed we don't need to rare earths required for current batteries and the energy density is very much higher.

The trillion pounds required for the infrastructure is a bit of a challenge.

Love this from a German Scientist. Plenty of detail.

good video - I enjoyed it thanks

 

[AM9]

All these claims that Hydrogen (presumably created by electrolysis using soalr/wind power is a useful method of energy storage. So just how much energy is reclaimable from hydrogen that took a megawatt hour of electrolysis to separate water? I suspect that it is a very wasteful double conversion.

 

[HSTEd]

All these claims that Hydrogen (presumably created by electrolysis using soalr/wind power is a useful method of energy storage. So just how much energy is reclaimable from hydrogen that took a megawatt hour of electrolysis to separate water? I suspect that it is a very wasteful double conversion.

Depending on your assumptions, something like half or less.

 

[Facing Back]

All these claims that Hydrogen (presumably created by electrolysis using soalr/wind power is a useful method of energy storage. So just how much energy is reclaimable from hydrogen that took a megawatt hour of electrolysis to separate water? I suspect that it is a very wasteful double conversion.

it is indeed a very wasteful conversion - you lose at least 50%. You gain a high density, storable and transportable form of fuel which does not release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere but you spend a lot to get it. It is only effective if you have energy generation sources which exceed the day-to-day need otherwise electric is more efficient.

 

[Sorcerer]

Of course she didn't explain (as I recall) the issues with nuclear. ie the waste and how to deal with it and also the problem of explosions see chernobyl or Fukushima.

The issue relating to waste is not as big as the anti-nuclear crowd makes out, and the issues of Chernobyl and Fukushima were political and management issues, not systematic problems relating to nuclear energy.

 

[AlbertBeale]

The issue relating to waste is not as big as the anti-nuclear crowd makes out, and the issues of Chernobyl and Fukushima were political and management issues, not systematic problems relating to nuclear energy.

But political and management issues are themselves systemic - what major technological construction doesn't have them?

 

[The Ham]

it is indeed a very wasteful conversion - you lose at least 50%. You gain a high density, storable and transportable form of fuel which does not release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere but you spend a lot to get it. It is only effective if you have energy generation sources which exceed the day-to-day need otherwise electric is more efficient.

Indeed, the other issue with the hydrogen hype (i.e. claiming that it can be used for many more new reasons) is that there's a lot of hydrogen already being used for which we should at least make a start on changing from Grey to Green hydrogen as it's source.

Worldwide this would require renewables which equals the total energy production of the EU to totally convert to green hydrogen. Obviously this isn't something that we could do overnight, however is something which we should make a start of before using hydrogen for (as an example) flying.

That's not to say that we couldn't use it for power storage, however at the very least there should be a target (say 10% of hydrogen produced) to be used for existing purposes.

 

[zwk500]

The issue relating to waste is not as big as the anti-nuclear crowd makes out, and the issues of Chernobyl and Fukushima were political and management issues, not systematic problems relating to nuclear energy.

In that case Britain is stuffed....

 

[fandroid]

Hydrogen can be a useful method of storing energy against low wind days. Agreed we don't need to rare earths required for current batteries and the energy density is very much higher.

There's the small problem of actual density with hydrogen. Petrol is 8000 times more dense than hydrogen at normal temperature and pressure. At 700 bar pressure hydrogen is still 1/20 of the density of petrol. Compressing it for practical transportation uses energy and it still needs a whopping amount of space then.

 

[Class 170101]

The issue relating to waste is not as big as the anti-nuclear crowd makes out, and the issues of Chernobyl and Fukushima were political and management issues, not systematic problems relating to nuclear energy.

Chernobyl yes but I'm not so sure you could say that about Fukushima. Ultimately a tidal wave destroyed that with consequence around that site for at least the next 100 years (tf not longer) including abandonment of homes, livelihoods and communities.

I like hydrogen.

Maybe if it can be more efficient but certainly preferable to nuclear

I prefer nuclear and it looks like there a chance it is coming back with the micro-reactor proposals from Rolls-Royce - in about 20 years.

Sorry I'm not having one of those in my back yard.

 

[Sorcerer]

Chernobyl yes but I'm not so sure you could say that about Fukushima. Ultimately a tidal wave destroyed that with consequence around that site for at least the next 100 years (tf not longer) including abandonment of homes, livelihoods and communities.

Fukushima was very much a management issue because they had warnings about the design of the reactor as well as the tsunami. Also note how it was a tidal wave that caused the disaster and not the nuclear power plant itself. Again, no points to the anti-nuclear argument. For the sake of keeping this thread on subject I will be more than happy to have a discussion in a general discussion thread about nuclear energy, but I assure you that most arguments against it are heavily fear-mongered or not at all grounded in reality.

As for the subject of hydrogen, I feel like when it comes to railways the actual goal should be electrification. I feel like hydrogen, battery and bi-mode units have become cop-outs. Rather than make the long-term investment into electrification that will eventually pay for itself it seems the railways in this country want short-term gains by only investing in ultimately more complicated rolling stock. If anything, hydrogen and bi-mode should be stop gaps but I highly doubt that's how they are actually being treated.

 

[eldomtom2]

As for the subject of hydrogen, I feel like when it comes to railways the actual goal should be electrification. I feel like hydrogen, battery and bi-mode units have become cop-outs. Rather than make the long-term investment into electrification that will eventually pay for itself it seems the railways in this country want short-term gains by only investing in ultimately more complicated rolling stock. If anything, hydrogen and bi-mode should be stop gaps but I highly doubt that's how they are actually being treated.

At least the railways in this country are electrifying some lines...
But I agree with your point.

 

[Facing Back]

There's the small problem of actual density with hydrogen. Petrol is 8000 times more dense than hydrogen at normal temperature and pressure. At 700 bar pressure hydrogen is still 1/20 of the density of petrol. Compressing it for practical transportation uses energy and it still needs a whopping amount of space then.

Indeed. Considering the pressure vessel required also, compressed hydrogen it roughly twice the volume of its petrochemical equivalent although it's mass it less. Obviously this is mainly a problem for transport. Their is no fundamental engineering problem in placing larger, lighter fuel tanks in aircraft but the design and build costs for a new generation of planes with the same performance envelope of the current crop are staggering.

Much more likely - if it happens at all - is that current planes on shorter routes will be modified.

But the barriers to entry on all of this are huge and momentum at the moment exists but it is very small.

Sorry I'm not having one of those in my back yard.

You are far from alone in your view there. The planning and appeals process is one of the reasons why it takes such a long time to build things

Maybe if it can be more efficient but certainly preferable to nuclear

Given the ability to store hydrogen, it is a good partner for wind - to provide a constant rather than intermittent energy source and reduce further the requirement for fossil fuel backup generators

Fukushima was very much a management issue because they had warnings about the design of the reactor as well as the tsunami. Also note how it was a tidal wave that caused the disaster and not the nuclear power plant itself. Again, no points to the anti-nuclear argument. For the sake of keeping this thread on subject I will be more than happy to have a discussion in a general discussion thread about nuclear energy, but I assure you that most arguments against it are heavily fear-mongered or not at all grounded in reality.

We can argue the toss about whether it was a design issue or a management issue - probably both. The earthquake was the largest every recorded in Japan and it, and the 40 foot Tsunami both exceeded the design tolerances of the plant. The reactor vessels survived both intact but cooling systems failed. As you say off topic.

As for the subject of hydrogen, I feel like when it comes to railways the actual goal should be electrification. I feel like hydrogen, battery and bi-mode units have become cop-outs. Rather than make the long-term investment into electrification that will eventually pay for itself it seems the railways in this country want short-term gains by only investing in ultimately more complicated rolling stock. If anything, hydrogen and bi-mode should be stop gaps but I highly doubt that's how they are actually being treated.

I'm for electrification in principle but I am curious why you would consider hydrogen or batteries as a cop out. The end result is much the same.

 

[PGAT]

Chernobyl yes but I'm not so sure you could say that about Fukushima.

Chernobyl was poorly designed and poorly maintained. You would never see a nuclear meltdown like that ever again.

 

[eldomtom2]

I'm for electrification in principle but I am curious why you would consider hydrogen or batteries as a cop out. The end result is much the same.

Well, hydrogen and batteries are less energy-efficient than electrification. Also, they are used by those who oppose electrification as a reason not to electrify.

 

[HSTEd]

it is indeed a very wasteful conversion - you lose at least 50%. You gain a high density, storable and transportable form of fuel which does not release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere but you spend a lot to get it. It is only effective if you have energy generation sources which exceed the day-to-day need otherwise electric is more efficient.

I would hardly refer to hydrogen as being high density!

Even cryogenic liquid hydrogen has a density of only 80kg/m3, or a specific gravity of 0.08.

That's an energy density of about 9GJ per m3, compared to 36GJ per m3 for diesel or other petroleum fuels.

Compressed hydrogen is much worse than that.

The reality is hydrogen is a bandwagon pushed by the gas industry that is desperate not to see their enormous cash-cow infrastructure become a stranded asset.
It's strictly worse than storage heaters for domestic uses!

In aviation, the reality is synthetic petroleum is preferable in just about every way.
And even in aviation, supplying the current industry with hydrogen (either directly or for synthetic kerosene production) is likely to require comparable quantities of electricity to all extant consumption in the UK.

 

[Sorcerer]

I'm for electrification in principle but I am curious why you would consider hydrogen or batteries as a cop out. The end result is much the same.

Because short-term thinking governments, especially this Conservative one, will use bi-mode units as a reason to not proceed or cancel electrification schemes such as Cardiff-Swansea. The issue with bi-mode units is that they are only specific to that train and will at best last 30 years. Plus the maintenance costs increase with the moving parts, and bi-mode units like the 800s cannot reach their top speed under diesel power. Hydrogen trains will still have this same issue along with the baggage of not being a fully proven technology like diesel engines. Batteries aren't quite the same because they can compliment electrification by charging while under the wires and driving under stored electric power. That said they too should only be stop gaps at best because the routes they operate will partially be determined by how long the batteries can operate, and getting a high speed multiple unit up to 125 under it's own power is most certainly going to be draining. However, in the short term all three kinds of trains can be used as reasons not to electrify, but in the long-term the cost-benefit doesn't hold up quite as strongly.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I'm for electrification in principle but I am curious why you would consider hydrogen or batteries as a cop out. The end result is much the same.

I will probably start a separate thread on batteries and all the mining and mineral issues etc. They are also not a panacea.

 

[Facing Back]

I will probably start a separate thread on batteries and all the mining and mineral issues etc. They are also not a panacea.

I don't like batteries either

 

[zwk500]

I will probably start a separate thread on batteries and all the mining and mineral issues etc. They are also not a panacea.

If there was a panacea, there wouldn't be any debate.

Batteries, Electrification and Bi-modes (diesel or hydrogen) are all part of the solutions. Whether you like them or not.

 

[Facing Back]

I would hardly refer to hydrogen as being high density!

Even cryogenic liquid hydrogen has a density of only 80kg/m3, or a specific gravity of 0.08.

That's an energy density of about 9GJ per m3, compared to 36GJ per m3 for diesel or other petroleum fuels.

Compressed hydrogen is much worse than that.

The reality is hydrogen is a bandwagon pushed by the gas industry that is desperate not to see their enormous cash-cow infrastructure become a stranded asset.
It's strictly worse than storage heaters for domestic uses!

In aviation, the reality is synthetic petroleum is preferable in just about every way.
And even in aviation, supplying the current industry with hydrogen (either directly or for synthetic kerosene production) is likely to require comparable quantities of electricity to all extant consumption in the UK.

The figures I have for cryogenic hydrogen are closer to 18GJ for m3 with the mass being roughly 50% of the kerosene equivalent even including the pressure vessel.

I do agree that it is being heavily pushed by the petrochemical industry - and that is currently where most of the investment is coming from. Which is why most hydrogen is likely to remain as grey for the time being.

I'm not sure about bandwagon and I don't understand your point on storage heaters.

The truth is hydrogen is so embryonic, investment so low and battery infrastructure so much more advanced that it's likely that the ship has sailed unless we see some kind of event. I think this is a shame but I'm not going to pony up the trillion pounds to try to catch up.

Yes I agree with synthetics as the likely direction of travel for flights. I was responding in a more theoretical way. Green synthetics on a commercial scale are some way off too and suffer from the same efficiency issues as hydrogen production - it takes more energy to produce them than you get out of them.

If there was a panacea, there wouldn't be any debate.

Batteries, Electrification and Bi-modes (diesel or hydrogen) are all part of the solutions. Whether you like them or not.

I agree. I would like to see electrification of more of the high speed, high volume, long distance lines in principle but even if that happens it will surely never be the solution for rural routes - and we still need to move away from diesel on those.

 

[Airline Man]

I'm no rocket scientist but if hydrogen is lighter than air wouldn't the trains just float away?

 

[Bevan Price]

One snag with hydrogen under pressure is that you need fairly substantial (i.e. heavy) pressure vessels in which to store it. That increases the weight of a train, bus, etc., compared with one using liquid fuels. Also, you have to be careful in the materials chosen to contain hydrogen - it can make some metals brittle, and diffuse slowly (escape) through others.

 

[Facing Back]

Because short-term thinking governments, especially this Conservative one, will use bi-mode units as a reason to not proceed or cancel electrification schemes such as Cardiff-Swansea. The issue with bi-mode units is that they are only specific to that train and will at best last 30 years. Plus the maintenance costs increase with the moving parts, and bi-mode units like the 800s cannot reach their top speed under diesel power. Hydrogen trains will still have this same issue along with the baggage of not being a fully proven technology like diesel engines. Batteries aren't quite the same because they can compliment electrification by charging while under the wires and driving under stored electric power. That said they too should only be stop gaps at best because the routes they operate will partially be determined by how long the batteries can operate, and getting a high speed multiple unit up to 125 under it's own power is most certainly going to be draining. However, in the short term all three kinds of trains can be used as reasons not to electrify, but in the long-term the cost-benefit doesn't hold up quite as strongly.

I think that all governments are guilty of short-term thinking - its one of the features of a 5 year election cycle and not one of the good ones. I don't think it is purely a conservative problem so if you are hoping for a radically different horizon from the next labour government I worry you might be sadly disappointed.

As I understand it, the bi-mode 800s are specified at 110mph on diesel because that is the maximum linespeed of the bits of track they run on - I could have that wrong. Either way, if we wanted a bi-mode to run at 125mph on diesel I will bet you a shiny pound coin that Hitachi could provide it is short order, likewise 140mph. Getting from Bristol to Penzance on batteries can't be possible at the moment so that's diesel for the foreseeable future. It can't be economically viable to electrify the track through cornwall surely?

Carting the fuel and generators for several hundred miles whilst under the wires is not efficient either of course but we're not going to see electrification everywhere ever I suspect.

I'm no rocket scientist but if hydrogen is lighter than air wouldn't the trains just float away?

They tether them to the tracks whilst in the station and plan to give passengers with especially heavy luggage a discount. It has all be carefully thought through.