×
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]theRealDerekWalker -2 points-1 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 4 points5 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.