Hydrogen power

[Fr J Hackett]

I think the alternatives are really just ways of increasing the energy density of gaseous hydrogen. Liquefication is one method, chemical conversion or adsorption on a substrate are others.

Ammonia production is one method and there are quite a few other chemical hydrides, metal hydrides etc. available.

The trick is to find the most efficient option. Hydrogen is more of a battery technology than a fuel. It takes energy to produce and then you lose some converting it to a denser storage medium. Methanol fuelled cells obviously release carbon dioxide and that matches the amount used to create the methanol. The trick is to avoid use of fossil fuel in methanol production. I don't know the current state of play but imagine there must be a lot of investment in that process.

At some point unless it is by direct hydrogenation of CO2 with hydrogen ( and where does the hydrogen come from?) all methanol production involves petrochemicals and of course energy as the reactions require heat. This is why hydrocarbons cannot be abandoned and left in the ground at the moment and probably not in the future.

 

[Mistroma]

At some point unless it is by direct hydrogenation of CO2 with hydrogen ( and where does the hydrogen come from?) all methanol production involves petrochemicals and of course energy as the reactions require heat. This is why hydrocarbons cannot be abandoned and left in the ground at the moment and probably not in the future.

Hydrogen is plentiful but not in the elemental form. I said that hydrogen was really a different type of battery rather than a fuel.
Hydrogen has to be generated and that takes energy. Nobody is taking the carbon dioxide and other waste products to turn back into oils to be pumped underground.

It follows that we cannot abandon other fuels unless we have non-fossil fuel based power generation already in place. We don't have that yet and EVs will add hugely to electricity consumption.

Many different technologoes need to be in place at improved efficiency and industrial scale. e.g. I said the trick is to avoid use of fossil fuel in methanol production (i.e by definition, direct hydrogenation).

I think we are in agreement that it will have to happen but will need to use other fuels to fill the gap meantime. The other option is to cut back energy usage significantly. I imagine you also see the problems in achieving that goal at the same time as we try to move from fossil fuel. It is a huge challenge.

On the bright side, we are always being told that fusion power is only 30 years away. I really believe that recent advances in technology have been game changers and fusion power is now just 3 decades away.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

On the bright side, we are always being told that fusion power is only 30 years away. I really believe that recent advances in technology have been game changers and fusion power is now just 3 decades away.

ROFL!

 

[Fr J Hackett]

ROFL!

I didn't say that

But yes it's very funny ???

 

[srm]

A few years ago a guy at the Toronto Boat Show tried to sell me an ethanol fuel cell to charge the boat's batteries and run a coffee maker! The coffee seemed to be his main selling point.
I did not see the point with solar and wind generation on my boat keeping us self sufficient at anchor and the fuel cell ment another fuel to source. But over there they are heavilly into engines and generators so perhaps a silent form of energy could make sense.

 

[Mistroma]

A few years ago a guy at the Toronto Boat Show tried to sell me an ethanol fuel cell to charge the boat's batteries and run a coffee maker! The coffee seemed to be his main selling point.
I did not see the point with solar and wind generation on my boat keeping us self sufficient at anchor and the fuel cell ment another fuel to source. But over there they are heavilly into engines and generators so perhaps a silent form of energy could make sense.

I looked at the EFOY units around 2010 and decided they were not good value.

1. Output falls significantly after a year, possibly by 25% rated output and falling
2. It was hugely expensive and that meant high financial risk.
3. Fuel was expensive and not that easy to get everywhere.
4. Output was low and running hours would be high, soon exceed warranty hours.
5. Warranty lost if you didn't buy over-priced fuel from them (Alternative sources could be equally pure)

Running costs were therefore quite high, lifespan fairly short and output relatively low. Solar is a much better investment, especially when combined with LiFePO4 batteries.

 

[Neeves]

Fossil fuel consumption by 'us', I believe, is insignificant compared to usage of fossil fuels to make steel, aluminium and cement. Green steel is possible but not widely adopted and I have not heard of green cement nor green aluminium. Unless these three fundamental products are made a different way then using hydrogen to fuel a yacht, even a motor yacht, is tinkering round the edges.

If, as desired, Australia (and Brazil and Indonesia) stopped selling coal to India and China their basic industries would close down (advantageously global warming might stabilise) but their economies would collapse and there would be huge social unrest (including in Australia et al), Until 'tonnage' and cheap hydrogen production becomes established, which might then be available in a form to power a motor yacht or vehicle - reducing the rate of global warming remains a difficult target.

Imagine a world without aluminium (which is actually produced using electricity), cement and steel. The pressure should be firmly focussed at the big polluters (including world shipping and air travel) not leisure yachts. Scrap all the petrol/diesel driven vehicles and boats (and then ocean going vessels) - where is the steel coming from to replace them. Where will the cement come from to build the roads (and buildings, bridges etc etc).

I imagine that the master plan might be for Australia to replace its coal exports with hydrogen exports, using solar as the power source, - but we are a long way from producing tonnage hydrogen and further away from, anyone, producing tonnage green steel, cement and aluminium.

However before all this happens we might run out of lithium and some of the rare earth metals - and much of what we do now will need a fundamental re-think.

Jonathan

 

[smert]

Aluminium can be produced with 'green' energy. It was at Fort William using hydro power for many years.

 

[Neeves]

Aluminium can be produced with 'green' energy. It was at Fort William using hydro power for many years.

Correct - aluminium relies heavily on electricity and production is usually based close to a cheap source of power, commonly hydro.

The data might be a bit dated but 93% of Chinese aluminium relies on electricity from coal fired power stations. Hydro - power stations usually rely on concrete dams, reinforced with steel, The Chinese will need a lot of new dams to produce green aluminium - why am I a cynic and think the environmental impact of new dams (not only in China) will be glossed over and there will be claims of 'green aluminium'.

China produces, roughly, 50% of the world's aluminium

Jonathan

 

[Fr J Hackett]

Aluminium can be produced with 'green' energy. It was at Fort William using hydro power for many years.

And is in France next to some big hydro electric generation capacity.

 

[dukeofted]

The advantage that batteries have over hydrogen or other fuel cell technologies is cost. You need to use electricity to create and compress the hydrogen and then the fuel cell is not 100% efficient either. Charging a battery directly is more than 90% efficient, and you can do that yourself at home or on your boat. That last point is why the fossil fuel industry is pushing hard against batteries, they lose control of the distribution system that makes them a fortune. They shouldn't worry as there are plenty of uses where batteries won't work and you have to just accept the extra costs of using fuel cells. But for cars, you would have to have a very niche use case to accept paying triple the running costs of a battery car!

The only way this might change in future is if fusion power becomes a proper reality and we have so much power that the inefficiency doesn't matter any more.

 

[srm]

Fossil fuel consumption by 'us', I believe, is insignificant compared to usage of fossil fuels to make steel, aluminium and cement. Green steel is possible but not widely adopted and I have not heard of green cement nor green aluminium. Unless these three fundamental products are made a different way then using hydrogen to fuel a yacht, even a motor yacht, is tinkering round the edges.

If, as desired, Australia (and Brazil and Indonesia) stopped selling coal to India and China their basic industries would close down (advantageously global warming might stabilise) but their economies would collapse and there would be huge social unrest (including in Australia et al), Until 'tonnage' and cheap hydrogen production becomes established, which might then be available in a form to power a motor yacht or vehicle - reducing the rate of global warming remains a difficult target.

Imagine a world without aluminium (which is actually produced using electricity), cement and steel. The pressure should be firmly focussed at the big polluters (including world shipping and air travel) not leisure yachts. Scrap all the petrol/diesel driven vehicles and boats (and then ocean going vessels) - where is the steel coming from to replace them. Where will the cement come from to build the roads (and buildings, bridges etc etc).

I imagine that the master plan might be for Australia to replace its coal exports with hydrogen exports, using solar as the power source, - but we are a long way from producing tonnage hydrogen and further away from, anyone, producing tonnage green steel, cement and aluminium.

However before all this happens we might run out of lithium and some of the rare earth metals - and much of what we do now will need a fundamental re-think.

Jonathan

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” attributed to Albert Einstein.

The risks of global heating were becoming apparent in the 70's. Margaret Thatcher laid out the economic risks of doing nothing at a global summit. We are now at COP26 and the establishment wants to essentially carry on as normal. Shell needs to keep on selling oil to fund its token transition to a green energy business. Yes, drastic action is needed to stay below +1.5 C and undoubtedly would cause large economic and social unrest. Carrying on as we are with token political promises will cause even greater global economic and social unrest. It looks as if either way humanity is happily heading towards a self inflicted extinction event.

 

[Neeves]

Its not all gloom and doom

JCB signs deal to import ‘green’ hydrogen from Australia to UK

SSAB is working with Volvo to make and supply 'green steel', using hydrogen - the technology is available.

I don't see why you cannot use hydrogen to fire a tunnel kiln for cement (but have never heard of anyone mentioning ''green cement')

If China is making half of the world's supply of aluminium and is the primary steel producer (and maybe top of the heap in cement production) then unless China is on board then that +1.5c needs to be achieved without them - which is a huge ask.

Jonathan

 

[Buck Turgidson]

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” attributed to Albert Einstein.

The risks of global heating were becoming apparent in the 70's. Margaret Thatcher laid out the economic risks of doing nothing at a global summit. We are now at COP26 and the establishment wants to essentially carry on as normal. Shell needs to keep on selling oil to fund its token transition to a green energy business. Yes, drastic action is needed to stay below +1.5 C and undoubtedly would cause large economic and social unrest. Carrying on as we are with token political promises will cause even greater global economic and social unrest. It looks as if either way humanity is happily heading towards a self inflicted extinction event.

I was onboard until your last claim which is alarmist nonsense. Doing nothing would lead to a small reduction in economic growth as populations adapt to a small change in the environment. By the end of the millennium it's been calculated as a 430% growth compared to 450% without the impact of climate change.

It's the hype that puts people off!

 

[Fr J Hackett]

Its not all gloom and doom

JCB signs deal to import ‘green’ hydrogen from Australia to UK

SSAB is working with Volvo to make and supply 'green steel', using hydrogen - the technology is available.

I don't see why you cannot use hydrogen to fire a tunnel kiln for cement (but have never heard of anyone mentioning ''green cement')

If China is making half of the world's supply of aluminium and is the primary steel producer (and maybe top of the heap in cement production) then unless China is on board then that +1.5c needs to be achieved without them - which is a huge ask.

Jonathan

On it's own you couldn't but with methane or carbon monoxide you could but the majority of the CO2 from cement production comes from the calcination of limestone one of the principal constituents. There are "green cements" but they are not cements as we know them Jim ? more akin to Roman cement which used volcanic ash and pumice.
Something that is not well known is that cement in use absorbs about 30% of the CO2 from atmosphere as is emitted in its manufacture.

 

[BabaYaga]

Early plans still, but might come true by 2030, using CCS to store the CO2:
Sweden first in the world with carbon-neutral cement plant

 

[Fr J Hackett]

Early plans still, but might come true by 2030, using CCS to store the CO2:
Sweden first in the world with carbon-neutral cement plant

It's all very nice but they haven't indicated what the additional costs will be CCS is not cheap nor is it particularly efficient.

 

[BabaYaga]

what the additional costs will be CCS is not cheap nor is it particularly efficient.

True when you just look at the cost of concrete, but surprisingly insignificant if you look at the total cost of a project. Cost increase for an appartment building using ”fossil neutral” concrete has been calculated to 0.5 percent.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

True when you just look at the cost of concrete, but surprisingly insignificant if you look at the total cost of a project. Cost increase for an appartment building using ”fossil neutral” concrete has been calculated to 0.5 percent.

Depends on the structure I think an apartment building is something that gives a good headline figure but try a bridge it won't be so small.

 

[srm]

By the end of the millennium it's been calculated as a 430% growth compared to 450% without the impact of climate change.

A remarkably precise prediction for the next 80 years . . . . what were the inputs and assumptions used?

When I was studying geomorphology I discovered that a stretch of coastline can remain stable for hundreds of years, then one event, usually a storm but there are examples of human intervention, subtly changed the dynamic balance and the stable coast then became an area of erosion, or of deposition. Coastline dynamics are complex, but the ocean/atmosphere dynamic is much more so. A relatively small change in one area can cause significant changes elsewhere. The different effects on global weather(and food production) by El Nino and La Nina temperature distributions in the Pacific are a well documented example.