Creating the new hydrogen economy is a massive undertaking - The ECONOMIST

[MJCronin]

https://www.economist.com/briefing/...new-hydrogen-economy-is-a-massive-undertaking

MJCronin
Sr. Process Engineer

 

[moltenmetal]

Creating a "hydrogen economy" is pure idiocy. Hydrogen as a fuel makes sense in such a narrow range of use cases that it is of very little actual decarbonization benefit. Now if you're a fossil fuel company, hydrogen's your only hope of remaining relevant in the energy supply in a decarbonized future- especially if credulous governments drag you there with billions in subsidy.

Hydrogen is a massive decarbonization problem we must solve if we want to keep eating in a decarbonized future. It's not much of a decarbonization solution to anything. Just replacing the 90 million tonnes per year of black H2 that we'll need in a decarbonized future would require 4500 TWh of renewable or nuclear electricity- and in 2019, all the wind and solar on earth added up to 2100 TWh.

(

http://www.spitfireresearch.com)

 

[GregLocock]

Don't you think green hydrogen is a good solution to international air travel? Burned either as ammonia or methane in jets, or fuel cells and propellers?

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[1503-44]

Let's just cut air travel in half. Most doesn't seem too necessary. Open some local casinos and spend your money in your own neighborhoods. You will probably receive more benefit from that than spending it in Bali.

 

[rb1957]

so now our resident socialist is also an elitist ? air travel only for the rich ?

Interesting ideas Greg ... H2 "experiments" I've seen involve tanking H2 (not ammonia which would be much easier to tank).

Air travel is a trivial, but very visible, amount of CO2.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Creating a "hydrogen economy" is pure idiocy. Hydrogen as a fuel makes sense in such a narrow range of use cases that it is of very little actual decarbonization benefit. Now if you're a fossil fuel company, hydrogen's your only hope of remaining relevant in the energy supply in a decarbonized future- especially if credulous governments drag you there with billions in subsidy.

What about "fuel cell" type of technology which removes the hydrogen from natural gas (or other fuels?) and generates electricity directly ? I might not have the process quite right as it's been about 20 years since I really looked into it.

My impression is that Fuel Cell technology (while not easily scalable) can be very efficient and clean while producing little if any CO2. Granted, it definitely uses fossil fuels, it just doesn't burn them or consume them in the same way.

Not disputing your assertion, but looking for a response that can better inform me on the subject.

 

[rb1957]

aren't fuel cells "massively" expensive ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[TugboatEng]

The Toyota Mirai is a fuel cell car. If only they'd set it up to run on gasoline. I wonder how the thermal efficiency would compare to a Prius.

 

[rb1957]

and at $74k that may not be "massively" expensive, but it is expensive ... double an EV (which is expensive compared to a gas car)?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[TugboatEng]

I'd bet they would be a lot less expensive if they ditched the hydrogen option. Fuel cells are perfectly capable of running on conventional fuels.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

aren't fuel cells "massively" expensive ?

Not to my understanding. But, it depends on how much power you're trying to develop, right? If you're looking to generate something like 3 kilowatts, then a diesel generator is hard to beat, right? Incredibly inexpensive. Convenient. Fuel Cells probably can't complete. Same sort of thing with cars.

If you're talking about a 250 MegaWatt plant then I don't think Fuel Cells can compete with gas turbines.

But, if you're talking about 100 kW or 250 kW or such (say to power a hospital or factory or such), then I believe they can be pretty efficient and reasonably cost effective.

Caveat: I may be buying into the propaganda of a company that I did some engineering work for about 20 years ago. I just did the foundations and pipe supports and such. But, they were relatively successful selling 250 kW Fuel Cell "plants" that were relatively compact and self contained. They were trying to expand this into a 1 or 2 MegaWatt plant that was also self contained..... I don't think this was as successful. But, I left before the project was completed.

If I remember, their easiest sales were to waste water treatment facilities. If they can capture the natural gas generated by their waste processing and use it to generate power, then they have increased their profit margins. Though, I have to admit that I don't know much about the process side at all.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

I'd bet they would be a lot less expensive if they ditched the hydrogen option. Fuel cells are perfectly capable of running on conventional fuels.

I think you mis-understand (or maybe I do). My impression is that fuel cells work by stripping off a hydrogen molecule from natural gas which is what generates the electricity. There may be some combustion because the only waste generated is H20. But, my impression is that electricity was generated directly from the chemical process.

 

[1503-44]

Exactly the opposite. We can quintuple the air fares to all tourist destinations. Everybody pays. The rich guys have their Gulfstreams, or rent them, but we'll hit them with a special nonscheduled air carrier fuel tax.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Exactly the opposite. We can quintuple the air fares to all tourist destinations. Everybody pays. The rich guys have their Gulfstreams, or rent them, but we'll hit them with a special nonscheduled air carrier fuel tax.

Not sure what this is in response to. But, the government generally should not be setting the price for air fare. That just seems to suggest a fundament misunderstanding of economics. The company that runs the airline sets the airfare along with the overall supply and demand of the marketplace.

Now, a government can certainly tax Jet Fuel to the point where air fare increases significantly. The result would be higher prices. Companies that find a way to use less fuel in their flights would have an advantage and would push the industry towards greater efficiency. The uber-wealthy may not care about the price, but they'll still be paying their fair share, right? If they use 30 times the fuel (per passenger) to fly some place then they're definitely paying for it.

 

[1503-44]

That's like saying driving a heavy truck costs more in fuel, so they don't have to pay more to drive on toll roads, cross bridges, or pay any more road taxes than a motorcycle.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

That's like saying driving a heavy truck costs more in fuel, so they don't have to pay more to drive on toll roads, cross bridges, or pay any more road taxes than a motorcycle.

?? I don't see how it's even a little bit similar.

Here's the issue, you're assuming that you (or the government) is the best person to decide how to discourage air travel with an end goal of reducing emissions. Right? You're not. The government is most certainly not the best judge of how to do this. They will always excuse themselves from the process, best case scenario. Worst case, they will exclude anyone who is able to afford to the kind of campaign donations that get their attention.

However, if you merely add taxes to the commodity that produces the emissions, then you can raise the price of that commodity and force the MARKET to use it in a more efficient way. They'll raise prices, retire the less efficient planes and jets, et cetera. And, no one gets excluded from the tax because it's taxed production or import.

In your analogy, the government decides which types of cars or trucks should pay more, right? Maybe to reduce wear and tear on the highway. Is that what you're suggesting? So, the most efficient way of moving a large amount of goods (say a semi) would be discouraged and companies might use other, less efficient means of moving those goods. Let's say they use two smaller trucks to transport the same amount of goods (because the smaller trucks cost less due to your judgment). Resulting in more traffic and wear and tear on the highway than would have happened in the original situation.

It's hard to "prove" you wrong on silly theoretical analogies. But, we see this all the time with government interference in the free market. Rent Control laws, for example, are proven to decrease housing supply and make those areas dramatically less affordable. Why? Because, owners of the properties are encouraged to convert their rental properties into condos. No one wants to build new rental properties because they can't make a profit in the long term. Both of which dramatically reduce the supply of rental properties on the market.

 

[rb1957]

like it or not, we live in an economy which is ruled by pricing, as opposed to one where the state owns the means of production and sets prices.

unfortunately the government is heavily directed by lobbyists. In Josh's rent control example I suspect lobbyists got the condo conversion option included. Alternatively, this strategy was figured out ahead of time and the language created this loophole.

unfortunately too, companies and consumers find ways to minimise their costs ... if Canada taxes gas, but the US doesn't, then cross border shopping increases.

Sure we can make air travel expensive, but I suspect that not all countries will adopt the same (and accept the loss of business, jobs, taxes that will follow from this).

Sure, we can have sail-powered freighters (to save CO2) but the cost to the transportation system and everything that depends on on-time delivery will be horrendous.

Look at what is being talked about now ... urban mobility VTOL taxis and supersonic commercial jets. neither seems to me to be an efficient use of energy, a worthwhile production of CO2.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[JoshPlumSE]

And, we've got some of the wealthiest "environmentalists" spending their time and money to take a 15 minute flight into outer space. I wonder if anyone of them have looked into the net CO2 caused by that trip?

PS I know those flights use liquid hydrogen or such instead of fossil fuels. But, that liquid hydrogen came from somewhere.... It wasn't just pulled off of a tree like an apple.

 

[GregLocock]

Some hugenum %age of industrial hydrogen is made from fossil fuels, stripping the hydrogen off the carbon and giving diamonds and hydrogen as the output.

Uh, no. The carbon is burned off. Those flights are essentially fossil fuelled.


Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[TugboatEng]

This thread is being brigaded by science deniers. Time to shut it down.