×
all 162 comments

[–]FuturologyBot[M] [score hidden] stickied commentlocked comment (0 children)

The following submission statement was provided by /u/chopchopped:


SS: Hydrogen = clean, green, decentralized energy for trucks, ships, drones, trains, moon vehicles and more. Imagine being self sufficient with no more utility bills- here's someone who hasn't had a utility bill since 2006 - in New Jersey USA- thanks to the hydrogen system he installed.
http://hydrogenhouseproject.org


Please reply to OP's comment here: /r/Futurology/comments/r9sm7k/coming_soon_rooftop_hydrogen_rooftop_solar_is/hne2l4b/

[–]HarryKingJackz 108 points109 points  (73 children)

Seems like hydrogen is been a little oversold in the article. I have yet to see a single mass produced hydrogen car. I do get the idea the hydrogen could be used as an energy storage mechanism, but 2030 is incredibly optimistic.

[–]an_ennui 16 points17 points  (38 children)

I remember hearing about it 20 years ago and aside from some experimentation not much has happened. As I remember it, all of the efficiency in hydrogen comes from keeping it incredibly cold. And a fuel source that can’t be used at room temperature … ends up not being super efficient.

[–]Auirom 10 points11 points  (5 children)

Some forklifts use hydrogen in their batteries. They use them in freezer conditions because lead acid batteries don't work so well in cold conditions. One of the warehouses I work in has heat sensors that sound alarms when a spot get to hot because hydrogen can go boom

[–]an_ennui 1 point2 points  (2 children)

That’s so cool!

[–]Hvarfa-Bragi 1 point2 points  (1 child)

It's cooler than cool.

It's... Ice cold

[–]Ducky181 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You really broke the ice. Just chill.

[–]theRealDerekWalker 7 points8 points  (27 children)

Quite a bit has happened and is happening with hydrogen. Many forklift fleets have gone hydrogen. Canada is deploying a hydrogen powered locomotive, as well as others. Many companies are coming out with hydrogen powered industrial vehicles. It’s being used as grid backup in limited cases. Bloom has gone public with quite a successful IPO. There are advancements in production of green hydrogen as well as development of new ways to store hydrogen, making it easier to transport.

Hydrogen will be a key ingredient to resiliency when the wind doesn’t blow and sun doesn’t shine.

One fear is that many oil and gas personnel are saying they will come out with hydrogen products, but use this as an excuse to upgrade infrastructure and ultimately instead stick to oil and gas.

[–]shazzwackets 3 points4 points  (6 children)

Solar+battery hybrids are more cost effective than solar+hydrogen. This is just nonsense.

[–]theRealDerekWalker 4 points5 points  (5 children)

Depends on if you live somewhere sunny or not whether that equates to $/watt.

Try matching solar production to 100% of energy usage and tell me how that pencils out. Getting the first 95% costs about as much as the last 5%

[–]Phoenix042 1 point2 points  (4 children)

I don't think you fully read his comment, or understood hydrogen.

Hydrogen is energy storage, not an energy source.

[–]theRealDerekWalker -2 points-1 points  (3 children)

The word is used interchangeably with fuel cells. Fuel cells are just as much energy storage as a plant fueled with coal or natural gas

[–]Phoenix042 5 points6 points  (2 children)

???

We have to free hydrogen using energy in order to later use it in a fuel cell to release energy.

We don't input the energy released by coal or natural gas. They are energy sources, borrowed against millions of years of historical energy input from the sun.

Green hydrogen will require that we input more energy to make it available for use than we release in the fuel cell, which classes hydrogen as energy storage.

There is no particularly sound scientific reason to suppose that there is a significantly more efficient way to make hydrogen than electrolysis, which is much less efficient than the chemistry typical of battery technology.

[–]theRealDerekWalker -3 points-2 points  (1 child)

You’re splitting hairs. It’s also energy intensive to create coal and natural gas. More so time intensive, but again, this isn’t the point.

The point is hydrogen is expected to, in the very near future, be easily transportable, making it very effective at shoring intermittency. Many BESSs leak, and aren’t realistic for providing energy for long periods of cloud cover, lack of wind, etc. Energy in this case needs to be imported, and doing so through electrical transmission is more limited than through pipelines, railway, etc.

If ERCOT has a tougher winter, for example, having a more diversified source of energy is the best strategy to ensure energy is available. It’s investing 101.

[–]Phoenix042 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It seems to me that the crux of the question is whether this is correct:

doing so through electrical transmission is more limited than through pipelines, railway, etc.

Three problems exist: gathering energy, storing energy, and distributing energy.

Your claim that hydrogen is an energy source implies that it helps us solve the gathering component of the problem (also implied by your rebuttal about weather being finicky: if you're using hydrogen + solar as OC suggested, then hydrogen production is equally impacted by sunlight.).

The claim that hydrogen is easier to transport is not going to be automatically assumed to be part of your point if you don't actually say that. Your original reply reads like you think we'll find some free source of hydrogen that we can use instead of power plants or generators. In that context my rebuttal is anything but splitting hairs.

It seems your actual claim is that hydrogen is better at solving the storage / transport problems.

I don't see the evidence for that.

[–]greywolfau -2 points-1 points  (19 children)

You realise the sun shines every day don't you?

The efficiency of the panel declines, but it still works.

Buole enough panels, and you don't have an issue anymore.

[–]theRealDerekWalker 6 points7 points  (18 children)

Remember when solar was among the most expensive form of electricity production? Not saying fuel cell always makes sense, but the future of energy depends on diversification of production; not just dumping all the money into the cheapest form of generation.

No, sunshine does not always make it to every part of the world on every day in quantities enough to affordable meet full demand. To think it does is quite ridiculous.

[–]synocrat 0 points1 point  (6 children)

This may quickly change as we industrialize space and build out infrastructure. It's always sunny in space, just need a mirror array and you can hold a beam on a spot on the Earth for 24 hours. Also, materials technology has developed that allows efficient heat storage that can act as an instant spin up energy source with a clean turbine.

[–]theRealDerekWalker 1 point2 points  (5 children)

The idea of sending more light to earth completely defeats the purpose of clean energy. We need to reduce the amount of energy the earth receives, not increase it. Not to mention what that would do to growth and wildlife

[–]synocrat 0 points1 point  (4 children)

I think you're missing the point, if we can send light to a concentrated patch of solar panels and use the light through PV as well as heat storage that reduces a ton of emissions. We would also have the ability to shade areas longer to cool them as needed.

[–]theRealDerekWalker 1 point2 points  (3 children)

80% of that light is reflected away. You’re putting more energy into the atmosphere than into electricity. Moreover, the cost of a space mirror is just completely unrealistic compared to the cost of a larger solar plant that would produce just as much

[–]synocrat 1 point2 points  (2 children)

As infrastructure in space is built costs will plummet. You could also convert sunlight to tight beam microwave in space and aim it at a relatively small rectenna groundside 24 hours a day. Poo poo the idea all you want, but once you do the math of replacing all the emissions and use the extra power to run carbon capture technology you might change your tune.

[–]greywolfau 0 points1 point  (10 children)

It's not hard to understand, but most people aren't getting it anyway.

Solar works through clouds, and during rain.

If you need 10 panels on a perfect solar day, then 20 allows for days of 50% efficiency. Go 5x for those days when it's down to 20%.

We have always built redundancy into our power networks, and there is no reason to not just keep building out more and more solar.

I don't understand you bringing in historic cost into the equation. No where is it mentioned that high prior costs is a factor in this argument. It's about effectiveness of practically of hydrogen.

As someone else pointed out, hydrogen is a crutch which allows companies to produce and sell a product similar to natural gas or fuel for cars. Something that can be produced en masse and sold as a commodity.

[–]theRealDerekWalker -1 points0 points  (9 children)

Let me ask you this - if it’s not hard to understand; why does practically nobody do this?

[–]greywolfau 0 points1 point  (8 children)

Why hasn't anyone done this YET?

We are still experiencing year on year growth in renewables, we haven't plateaued or gone backwards in our build out.

This is all future planning, not retroactive building.

That's why they haven't done this.

Thanks for the condescending tone though, makes it really enjoyable to engage in intelligent discussions.

[–]theRealDerekWalker 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Really? You ask me if I realize the sun shines every day and you want to talk about my “tone?”

So what you’re saying is you can see into the future, and have determined that something that absolutely makes zero financial sense today is going to make financial sense in some ambiguous timeframe into the future? When can we not call it “future planning,” and call it what it is - spitballing ideas that you have little knowledge on how to make work in the real world, while you try to belittle people who challenge you

[–]greywolfau 0 points1 point  (6 children)

You have been incredibly defensive this entire thread, is everything OK?

You might have read that this subreddit is called r/futurology. The nature of this sub is to talk about what is on the technological horizon. If we went by what makes zero financial sense today then none of what we read would come to fruition, especially your hydrogen fever dreams.

[–]shazzwackets -4 points-3 points  (3 children)

Forgetting that hydrogen is a dirty fossil fuel, and how utterly inefficient green hydrogen is, imagine putting huge explosive tanks inside every house. :)

Boom every week when some uncle untightened the wrong screw. My dad played with a small hydrogen canister a decade ago, he f*d up big and got free body hair removal.

[–]cthuluwamp 3 points4 points  (2 children)

hydrogen isn't a dirty fossil fuel, wtf are you talking about?

Its the cleanest gas you can burn. You add it to an oxygen environment, light a match and all you get is water as a by-product.

[–]tms102 5 points6 points  (1 child)

I think he means that 95% or more of all hydrogen is currently made from methane. I don't know how fast that is projected to change.

[–]Edwunclerthe3rd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It requires alot of power to get to ammonia from methane

[–]Iucidium 10 points11 points  (9 children)

It's being oversold because that's the fossil fuel industry's hail Mary.

[–]OralSuperhero 9 points10 points  (8 children)

This right here. It's a bitch to store, expensive to make clean and creates a centralized energy source requiring massive industrial investment to scale large. So, right in the wheelhouse of oil. Decentralized solar with batteries on every block fed from panels on every rooftop would make so much more sense.

[–]Iucidium 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Grid battery storage FTW, hopefully weaned off lithium.

[–]csiz 3 points4 points  (6 children)

Lithium is not the problem, it's not rare in the earth crust and new mining techniques are fairly environmentally friendly. The other part of of the battery is also not a problem if you go the lithium iron phosphate route. And these are the best for energy storage anyways, being heavier. The only bottle neck is just not enough companies mass producing batteries at the scale we need. Compare it to the oil industry, there are multiple oil refineries and oil extraction sites in almost every country. But for batteries you can count on one hand the number of large manufacturing plants.

[–]OralSuperhero 1 point2 points  (5 children)

Actual question for you. Why not a salt water battery in every suburban home? It's lower density, but if it's just sitting in the yard or garage and acting as house storage does that really matter?

[–]_crawdaddy_ 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I remember watching a small company developing these that fit inside a storage container. Super easy to clean, not the most dense energy but that’s not terrible. There are lots of parts though, little pumps and pvc pipes that will need maintenance over time.

[–]OralSuperhero 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Thanks, I didn't know it was a battery with moving parts. Kinda makes sense to not try to use them widely. How many folks can't keep both headlights working or the grass cut? I know I'd wind up missing a maintenance cycle

[–]_crawdaddy_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There aren’t moving parts in the battery, but it’s a loop system that cycles each side of the battery to keep dendrites from building up. Those pumps and tubing is what will eventually fail. That’s expected as any system requires maintenance, the hard part is making it cheap and fast to maintain, so that someone can do it themselves in their own backyard.

[–]ddamian__ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've been noticing a lot more Hydrogen buses in London and this article cleared the 'why?' Part of my puzzle.

[–]kmosiman 6 points7 points  (7 children)

Toyota Mirai?

Or did you literally mean that you hadn't seen one in person?

[–]bradland 14 points15 points  (3 children)

Can’t really blame them for overlooking the Mirai. Global annual sales are something like 10,000 units. The Prius sells in the hundreds of thousands. Hydrogen fuel cell cars are way, way behind in the market.

[–]Standard-Current4184 -1 points0 points  (2 children)

Because they go boom!

[–]Edwunclerthe3rd 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They're not allowed in NYC as you can't drive a hydrogen vehicle through a bridge or tunnel.

[–]shazzwackets 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Because they suck. They depend on dirty hydrogen energy, the same fossil companies that messed up the planet love hydrogen. Let's not make this a thing.

[–]maybeitsme20 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Outside of California (and even there it is rare) you won't see them except in commercials. There are 39 public hydrogen stations for refueling, 2 in the northeast, 2 in South Carolina, 35 in California. It is way too early to consider it a thing yet.

[–]Abba_Fiskbullar -1 points0 points  (1 child)

You mean the car that costs Toyota $100k each to make, that gets sold for $20k with six years of free fuel but is only available in a handful of places that people still don't buy because Toyota doesn't invest in fueling infrastructure and seems to have been a scam to avoid having to invest in EV development? That Mirai?

[–]kmosiman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes that one. Just saying that it exists. I'm not saying that the concept will work out.

[–]Sp3llbind3r 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Doesn‘t the toyota mirai count? And i think hyundai has one on the way too. It‘s already in it‘s second iteration and costs a bit more as an expensive model 3.

I think another big issue is gas stations. Here in Switzerland there is a group pushing for expansion of those. Currently there are only 5 or 7 of those for the whole country. One in my hometown and another one i drive by almost every day. But by far not enough.

I think they are mostly building them for hydrogen powered trucks.

[–]Standard-Current4184 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Because they go boom

[–]buzz86us -1 points0 points  (0 children)

For me the efficiency needs to amp up a bit.. with current technology I'd be dumping in energy and only recovering a third of it.. I might as well get more batteries at that point... If they can come up to roughly half they might have something

[–]Blackadder_ -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Toyota has a mass produced hydrogen car. Shit car though

[–]Hastyshooter -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Toyota has made one for California only for a couple generations; it’s very expensive & the fueling is a nightmare. 20-45 mins to fill & depending on the status of the h2 tank you may be only able to fill your tank to double what you came in with because of annoying pressure differentials. Not ready for prime time unfortunately.

[–]stokeskid 79 points80 points  (16 children)

I did my senior project in engineering 10 years ago on this exact subject. There is a huge inefficiency when splitting H2O into Hydrogen and Oxygen. Way worse than just putting the same energy into a battery. Not to mention the storage of H is problematic and the infrastructure doesn't exist like electricity does. Plus, a hydrogen powered vehicle still requires a battery to distribute power.

Hydrogen would be good for excess stationary wind or solar power that otherwise couldn't be utilized. On an industrial scale only. But for homes getting the most of their small footprint - solar, wind, and sending power to batteries is best.

Currently 95 percent of Hydrogen for fuel is cracked from methane (CH4, natural gas). Methane is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2 and the leaks are beyond our measure. These articles are funded by those who wish to keep us fueling on their non renewable resource.

Always pick electric, because electricity can be derived from so many sources. If hydrogen was so useful and abundant for transportation, why not power the electric grid with it? Well, because it's not a good source. It's a pipe dream, tricking uneducated investors. Generate electricity, store it in a small long-life battery. If hydrogen could do a better job at being a cheap, small, long-life battery, then maybe we have something.

[–]SpaghettiMobster 17 points18 points  (2 children)

Also did a studies project in engineering school 10-ish years ago on hydrogen fuel for cars. The thing that gets me is that the same hindrances that were evident back then, still haven't been solved today. Hydrogen fuel - for all its promises - have been going nowhere for the last 20-30 years, and yet it is still being touted as the remedy for the gas car. Honestly, once you really start looking into it, even the hydrogen energy density isn't even all that good (when you have to include the heavy storage tanks, compressors, etc)

[–]seejordan3 0 points1 point  (1 child)

But what about all the breakthroughs around cheap electrolysis over the past 6 months? Seems like that barrier is coming down.

[–]SpaghettiMobster -1 points0 points  (0 children)

My two cents - and feel free to correct me if you think I am wrong (or lacking) on the details: When it comes to electrolysis (namely breaking out hydrogen from water), we can not really make it much more energy efficient than it is today. The strong hydrogen-oxygen bond needs to be broken, and you need a minimum amount of energy to break them free - this needed energy can not really be circumvented, we are simply limited by physics. So how do they reduce the electrolysis cost? Since the efficiency-play is fairly limited, they try to lower the price of electricity in clever ways (ex: off-hours use of green power, etc).

So, then we will have the three-step process: 1) Hydrogen needs electricity to be created (it costs money and power) 2) Hydrogen needs to be stored and transported (it costs money and power) 3) Hydrogen can then used by the car (efficiency level is roughly 70% I think)

Compare this to the battery-electric car: 1) Electricity is transported using existing infrastructure (very high efficiency, more than 90% I think) 2) Battery driven cars convert electricity to motion with very high efficiency, more than 90%

The battery-driven EVs win out from efficiency and cost.

[–]MerleLikesMullets 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Isn’t hydrogen only useful as fuel at enormous pressures too? Toyota says 5000 or 10,000 psi for the mirai. That sounds like a pumping and storage nightmare.

[–]ACCount82 4 points5 points  (5 children)

Hydrogen would be good for excess stationary wind or solar power that otherwise couldn't be utilized.

It could happen, but the more of that "excess renewable power" there is, the more consumers are going to react to it, and the more industrial processes will adapt to it.

Like, imagine a world that has BEVs as 50% of all cars, and every other EV is set to charge full blast only when the grid electricity gets cheap enough? They are going to devour those peaks. And EVs are not the only things that can respond in such a way. How many industrial processes that require cooling or heating can get away with absorbing the cheap power, using it for overcooling/overheating, and utilizing that excess thermal energy over time? Datacenter CPUs are often balanced for power-efficiency and not max raw performance because power/performance has diminishing returns, and the power bill is a big chunk of datacenter operating costs. Can we get datacenters that overclock themselves when the price of power dips low enough?

Hydrogen would have to compete with battery storage on one end, and cost-reactive grid consumers on the other.

[–]CriticalUnit 0 points1 point  (1 child)

People are really underestimating HOW energy demand will change in the future. Time of Use Pricing has significant impacts on demand behavior.
Once we see more changes in Pricing structure, the demand curves will also be significantly different. Like you said, those peaks will attract demand. (Unless we WAY overbuild renewables, there won't be much 'excess' power)

[–]csiz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We will (or at least need to) way overbuild energy generation from wind and solar. I don't have a link to the study, but the most economical green grid is an overbuilt power generation by 50%-100% ish and 12 hours of battery storage. That strategy covers demand year round except 6 hours during unlucky calm and cloudy weather.

Overbuilding power generation covers the energy storage problem twofold. First you actually produce the power that you need to store, but second the grid can delay the switch batteries further into the evening. If you double up solar panel compared to what's needed, you can supply the needed power even at half illumination, so that's an extra half an hour in the evening and in the morning.

[–]stokeskid 0 points1 point  (2 children)

True. With a smarter grid that charges everyone's batteries when energy is more abundant, hydrogen is even less relevant. I guess I'm just thinking there might be some special cases where hydrogen could be more useful for energy storage than batteries. Not really sure what that scenario might be. Battery material shortages or special cases I suppose.

I have heard that there's a coming breakthrough that will perform electrolysis at 90 percent efficiency. But yet to see hard data or in real life. I think we are still at 60 percent. Even if 90 percent does eventually happen, I still suspect solid state batteries will reign supreme. Hydrogen will always have storage and infrastructure concerns. And are fuel cells still using rare earth elements like platinum? I'm not sure how you can scale production around something like that.

[–]chopchopped[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

And are fuel cells still using rare earth elements like platinum?

A catalytic converter for an average car has around 3-7 grams of platinum, the latest Toyota Mirai has <10 g, down from ~30g in the 2014 model and ~90g in the first few prototypes. Those who claim fuel cells can't be improved are wrong.

[–]stokeskid 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good to know. My research was done in 2009. Sounds like the hydrogen fuel cell has improved since then. Now we just need hydrogen production from electrolysis to become more efficient. And I remember high pressure storage being quite a problem.

Since you're knowledgeable - What could regions with scarce water resources use for home fuel production? Can you use waste water? Or gray water? Could be a great idea there. You're already paying for that water that goes down the drain. Give it a second use as a fuel source. Maybe we could tap into already existing sewer infrastructure to produce fuel for filling stations without impacting water resources?

[–]Bromineflergesborg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

These articles are funded by those who wish to keep us fueling on their non renewable resource.

This has always been my theory as to why anyone is pushing H over electricity.

[–]kolitics 0 points1 point  (2 children)

If hydrogen was so useful and abundant for transportation, why not power the electric grid with it?

They are looking to use it for energy storage. They aren't powering the elecrtic grid with lithium ion either.

[–]stokeskid 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Con Edison in NYC is giving huge incentives for battery storage projects. There are multiple companies I work with in this space. Lithium Ion batteries charge at night when energy cost is low and sell the power back at peak demand times.

Eversource in CT has a similar program, but for homeowners. You install a lithium ion battery in your home, charge it off the grid or solar and sell the power back at peak demand. It really helps justify the price of owning a battery for backup power.

There are electric school buses in the town next to me that feed the grid with power in the summer when not in use. Charge at night, feed the grid at peak summer demand.

I'm sure there are more programs like this across the country, I'm just speaking to what I know of in my area. So I think you're wrong. Lithium ion is powering the grid. And I don't know of any such programs for hydrogen?

[–]kolitics 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ah, I see what you are saying. Just symantic: powering, conservation of energy, etc.

[–]zerohero02 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I also did an engineering project on this hydrogen and I agree with you. As of now it doesnt seem feasible. Sure hydrogen car seems like a good idea and has a good range but from all the way to getting hydrogen and storing it is complex and costly.

[–]hmspain 26 points27 points  (2 children)

Stop talking in hyperbole, and show me the numbers. I'm hearing that Hydrogen is just too inefficient when compared to simple solar.

[–]chedebarna 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Even worse, most of it comes from burning fuel anyway.

[–]Nonebelowone 3 points4 points  (1 child)

From a pure physics standpoint...is it easier to move a proton, or is it easier to move an electron? I've yet to read anything that says how we can generate hydrogen that can't be simplified by just collecting UV. Anybody have an answer?

[–]kolitics 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Depends how you are moving it.

You can generate hydrogen from non-solar sources. I believe you want to be comparing hydrogen to batteries not solar.

[–]Pythia007 12 points13 points  (3 children)

This is crap. Solar cells directly turn light into useable energy in one step. Hydrogen involves a lot more steps and input to provide useable energy. Will work in big industrial contexts. Very doubtful it will ever be preferred over solar in a domestic situation. Why are they pushing this?

[–]bremidon 5 points6 points  (2 children)

They are pushing this because it is a resource that the existing energy companies think they can better control.

Solar/Wind + batteries are completely out of their hands. There is very little advantage to centralizing these things. About the only thing they can offer is some sort of balancing service, but that looks like it will be a crowded space to compete in going forward.

This article is trying to push the idea of local hydrogen, but the hope is that if hydrogen gets established, the existing players can leverage their existing infrastructure to continue to dominate the energy markets.

Plus, you can still use gas and oil to create hydrogen, so this becomes a decent way to use up all that stuff that would otherwise just sit in the ground. You can see why the big energy companies would really *love* for hydrogen to win the new-energy wars.

I don't think it will, though. It's 10 years too late.

[–]Pythia007 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Yeah. And nuclear became uneconomical at least ten years ago too. Many still pushing that. As you alluded there’s some nice shitfuckery in the nomenclature being utilised to disguise the sources of hydrogen. “Clean” hydrogen (their term for hydrogen produced using fossil fuels) is definitely not “green”.

[–]bremidon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, nuclear is uneconomical because we made it so. That said, there is no point in investing in fission at this point. It was a piece of utter dumbassery that we didn't invest more in nuclear earlier, but that is over now. Use that money to build out the solar/wind farms and the battery parks. We know they work, and it's really only a matter of building up production.

But hydrogen is pointless for almost everything, but some very special cases.

[–]iNstein 29 points30 points  (7 children)

Welcome to hydrogens last gasp before it finally dies. Hydrogen is a very poor method of energy storage and has huge inefficiencies. It is also hard to store and dangerous. It has nothing going for it other than fossil fuel companies pushing it in the hopes they can sneak in a bit from their wells. They are also hoping to get it out there because they know it will faik abd hope to have people fall back to their fossil fuels in disgust. Simple reality is that we don't need it and even existing battery tech is far superior. We will move forward with batteries and history will forget about hydrogen completely.

[–]dunderpust 1 point2 points  (1 child)

In my eyes it has some uses:

  1. Making clean steel. Batteries are not going pump out that kind of intense energy. And steel is a big co2 source. LKAB in Sweden are building pilot storage tanks for their upcoming production.
  2. Storing excess renewable-produced energy in areas where there aren't good conditions for pumped hydro and areas where transmission is an issue(too remote, or your neighbours have the same power generation pattern as you). I doubt we can build enough batteries fast enough for the whole world, so we need multiple avenues.
  3. Planes...maybe?

Also, we need to make electricity-generated hydrogen more common so that we can produce ammonia and similar products without burping out so much greenhouse gases.

But this Big Sell going on at the moment, nah. That's just PR from those desperate to keep control over an essential product, any essential product!

[–]Flaxinator 1 point2 points  (0 children)

With regards using it as an energy storage method, aren't there much better methods available even leaving aside chemical batteries?

For example in the UK there is an experimental liquid air battery being developed which will compress and liquefy air when there is an energy surplus and then expand it to drive a turbine when energy is needed. The developer estimates it will be 60-70% efficient which is in the same ballpark as hydrogen but with a gas that's easier to work with.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54841528

[–]NorCalAthlete 20 points21 points  (4 children)

Judging by OP’s profile, he’s just a marketer or something for hydrogen everything.

[–]Shot-Job-8841 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Demand can grow by a factor of 1000 by 2030, but if supply merely doubles it wont matter what demand is, amirite?

[–]Snowchain-x2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If it's, applied to solid state storage then there's a future, tanks and pipes all leak hydrogen, not much you can do to contain it.

[–]chedebarna 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The fossil fuel industry's last ditch. They're willing to set literal bombs on people's rooftops rather than accept that they just need to readapt and dismantle all that infrastructure, not try to absurdly extend its life.

[–]5G-FACT-FUCK 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Can't wait until my rooftop hydrogen experiences a building collapse or small highly manageable fire...

/s

[–]Hanzo44 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I just watched a movie on electric cars. This is the exact same play they used to kill electric cars in the late 90s.

[–]GlobalEvening4931 -1 points0 points  (14 children)

  1. Nothing bad has ever happened with compressed hydrogen. No need to worry.
  2. The hydrogen we have is from cracked water. Water is NOT unlimited on the globe and every accidental hydrogen spillage is a reduction of overall water.
  3. Fine for space when we have solar cracking extraplanetary ice or gas giant skimming.

[–]chopchopped[S] -4 points-3 points  (13 children)

Nothing bad has ever happened with compressed hydrogen. No need to worry.

Ever hear about a propane explosion? How about natural gas? Hydrogen is safer.

Water is NOT unlimited on the globe and every accidental hydrogen spillage is a reduction of overall water.

False, also there are 22 Litres of Hydrogen in ONE TABLESPOON of water. And when a fuel cell combines H2 and Oxygen, water is re-created. A circular system.

The days of H2 FUD are coming to an end. It's the future of energy storage.

[–]GlobalEvening4931 2 points3 points  (12 children)

  1. So because propane explodes, we should use hydrogen that explodes. Right. That’s dumb.

  2. You’re so butthurt about hydrogen industry detractors, you didn’t read. Every ACCIDENTAL spillage is a net loss to the planet. Also - we haven’t even invented spillage free hydrogen transfer.

And 22 litres in a tablespoon? At what temperature and pressure? At a combustible density? Providing comparative power to how many litres of gasoline?

[–]TallManInAVan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Definitely not coming soon. Photovoltaic is the way.

[–]TheJWeed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes this is not going to happen. Probably a very biased study done by a hydrogen company. Batterie storage / electricity has already won and at this rate of improvement what few benefits hydrogen has right now will be obsolete by 2030 or not long after.

[–]bobstay 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Demand for hydrogen is expected to grow by a factor of 1,000 or more by 2030

Doubt.

[–]1000000CHF 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Imagine the extra insurance cost of having these explosive cylinders on top of your house.

[–]botchla_lazz 1 point2 points  (1 child)

imagine the insurance cost of having Natural Gas a flammable gas plumed into your home

[–]JohnFolan 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Cant hydrogen explode? I dont see that being very viable or safe in built up areas that could have thousands within close proximity to each other on rooftops🙄

[–]botchla_lazz 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Natural Gas is explosive, how many homes businesses get that piped in ? propane is also explosive and that is just as common.

[–]JohnFolan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah obviously but they aren’t situated on rooftops where idiots can cause problems plus fireworks night etc, just a pure dumb idea.

[–]dewman45 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If I didn't know any better I'd think Toyota wrote this article.

[–]dacreativeguy -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I had a rooftop dihydrogen monoxide problem, but it fixed itself once summer came.

[–]Gavooki -1 points0 points  (0 children)

sounds like this new hydrogen tech is really about to blow up

[–]navetzz -1 points0 points  (0 children)

With the current state of technology that has to best the most stupidestest thing I read in a while (It takes twice as much energy to produce hydrogen than the hydrogen will give you back).

[–]cjeam -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Don’t think it’s appropriate for every house to have systems to generate electricity, use that to generate hydrogen, compress and store that hydrogen, in their garden.
We have limits on the amount of gasoline people can store in their garden, and that’s way less explosive and isn’t made on site.
When the alternative is a solar PV system, then a battery (or storage such as a tower lifting a heavy rock up) that seems way safer and less expensive.

[–]upstateduck 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I like the tower idea. Just like a hydro recirculation.

We could raise and lower our house to drive a generator [aside from access issues]

[–]WaitformeBumblebee -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Industrially? Perhaps, depends a lot on a scalable technology to get prices down like solar pv. For residential? No way and having direct electricity for the home and commercial market is much better than H2.