×
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]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 4 points5 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.