This video was released 7 months ago, but nicely summarises the future potential production and use of emission free hydrogen. While it is clear that if you can use electricity, you should, some...
This video was released 7 months ago, but nicely summarises the future potential production and use of emission free hydrogen. While it is clear that if you can use electricity, you should, some industries are difficult to electrify (such as steel and energy dense applications such as aviation), and for these hydrogen might be the answer.
I used to think hydrogen planes made sense, and they still might be an option simply by default, but realistically they make no sense in the short or long term. Hydrogen is an absolute pain...
I used to think hydrogen planes made sense, and they still might be an option simply by default, but realistically they make no sense in the short or long term.
Hydrogen is an absolute pain logistically - storing it requires pressurized tanks and nozzles, which is both more expensive than current infrastructure and can't be retrofitted (or at least not cheaply). So if you're building hydrogen infrastructure, you're expecting to use it long-term for it to pay for itself.
Oh also you need to re-design the plane, you can't really use the standard tube-model of plane that 747s etc have, if you care about performance. Which you do, because this is aerospace.
Meanwhile, hydrogen is a crappy fuel. Climate issues aside, it's basically a worse version of methane. It has great specific-energy, but it has the worst energy density. In the long term (i.e. decades out, possibly after the climate change deadlines), hydrocarbon synthfuels will be better.
So in the long term you want to keep the existing infrastructure and switch to synthfuel (which would almost certainly have variants that can work in existing planes, and definitely pipes), and in the short term you have to replace basically everything but the actual runway, so the optimal strategy is clearly to delay those upgrades and see if you can't squeak past with as little spent on hydrogen as possible until synthfuels arrive.
Which is to say, at no point will anyone want to adopt hydrogen. Which means it won't have much of a network effect. It's this awkward middle-step, which might yet be necessary but won't be desirable.
It also leaks from every single container you put it in, because of - you know - smallest element in the universe. You can slow it down, but not stop it from leaking. The first BMW hydrogen cars...
Hydrogen is an absolute pain logistically - storing it requires pressurized tanks and nozzles, which is both more expensive than current infrastructure and can't be retrofitted (or at least not cheaply). So if you're building hydrogen infrastructure, you're expecting to use it long-term for it to pay for itself.
It also leaks from every single container you put it in, because of - you know - smallest element in the universe. You can slow it down, but not stop it from leaking.
The first BMW hydrogen cars leaked so badly the tank could be empty if you went on a 2 week vacation and left the car at the airport...
Yep, the leakage is so difficult to combat that space agencies and rocket companies struggle with it. If spacecraft that cost millions or billions of dollars to build can’t keep it contained,...
Yep, the leakage is so difficult to combat that space agencies and rocket companies struggle with it. If spacecraft that cost millions or billions of dollars to build can’t keep it contained, smaller vehicles that need to be more cost effective surely aren’t going to be able to either.
I imagine space agencies and rocket companies struggle with some slightly different issues. For example: an extra 1% weight on the tank is a non-issue for cars, but can be devastating for the...
Yep, the leakage is so difficult to combat that space agencies and rocket companies struggle with it.
I imagine space agencies and rocket companies struggle with some slightly different issues. For example: an extra 1% weight on the tank is a non-issue for cars, but can be devastating for the performance of a rocket (which adds to far more than 1% performance loss). Also, if 99.999% recovery is too low due to being in space and resupply being prohibitively expensive, then you'll have "problems with hydrogen leakage" that are a non-issue in terrestrial environments.
Seriously, I can't stress how absurd it is to assume that if a space agency has a technical problem then everyone on earth will also have that problem. Space agencies have a problem with pencils - they create debris that could damage electronics, in space. Have you ever heard of a data centre mandating a pens-only policy?
Not true. Hydrogen is used extensively in industry, especially in the oil industry, and in fact the first hydrogen pipeline was built over 80 years ago and is still in use. It's much harder if...
It also destroys pretty much every metal it comes into contact with for long enough.
Not true. Hydrogen is used extensively in industry, especially in the oil industry, and in fact the first hydrogen pipeline was built over 80 years ago and is still in use.
It's much harder if you're using hydrogen in infrastructure that was never designed for hydrogen, though.
According to this chart, it has roughly double the energy density of compressed or liquified natural gas. Makes sense, as the hydrogen is doing all the lifting there anyway and the carbon is just...
Climate issues aside, it's basically a worse version of methane.
According to this chart, it has roughly double the energy density of compressed or liquified natural gas. Makes sense, as the hydrogen is doing all the lifting there anyway and the carbon is just holding it together.
Denser than gasoline even. 1kg of hydrogen is equivalent to 1 gallon of gasoline. But a gallon of gasoline is about 2.8 kg.
Provided we capture the carbon as we do so, it's worthwhile to strip natural gas down to hydrogen centrally as part of a transition process while green hydrogen production ramps up.
Hydrogen has good energy density per mass, but not per volume. As just one data point, the 2014 Toyota Mirai's hydrogen tanks (interior volume of about 120 liters[1]) weigh 87.5kg, and hold only...
Hydrogen has good energy density per mass, but not per volume. As just one data point, the 2014 Toyota Mirai's hydrogen tanks (interior volume of about 120 liters[1]) weigh 87.5kg, and hold only 5kg of hydrogen.[2][3]. That's somewhere around 170kWH of energy. The equivalent mass in gasoline would be 33 gallons (or 125 liters, roughly the same volume!), containing about 1000kWH of energy. Of course, gas engines are less efficient than hydrogen fuel cells (~66%[4] to ~40%[5]), and I'm ignoring a lot of things around the drivetrain, too—fuel cells, batteries, electric motors, gas engines all take varying masses and volume.
I'm also sceptical about using hydrogen for long-haul travel: there just isn't enough energy density. But for short-haul flights it might make sense. There are infrastructure problems that could...
I used to think hydrogen planes made sense, and they still might be an option simply by default, but realistically they make no sense in the short or long term.
I'm also sceptical about using hydrogen for long-haul travel: there just isn't enough energy density. But for short-haul flights it might make sense. There are infrastructure problems that could be solved using short-haul hydrogen flights: mountainous regions such as Norway or New Zealand come to mind, where building tunnels and roads to service low population regions doesn't make economic sense.
My senior project in college was researching electrocatalytic hydrogenation of nitrobenzene to aniline. I’ve personally come to view green hydrogen as being most useful in chemical and industrial...
My senior project in college was researching electrocatalytic hydrogenation of nitrobenzene to aniline. I’ve personally come to view green hydrogen as being most useful in chemical and industrial processes rather than electricity or energy storage. However, I see some potential in hydrogen peaker turbines, as well as in certain forms of transportation (mass-limited but unconstrained by volume, so marine shipping, aviation, and possibly rail).
Edit: @Loire, I was wondering if you might have some thoughts on hydrogen and how it relates to the future of the O&G industry.
Making green hydrogen only makes sense if you have free energy. It's a good idea to use excess renewables to create hydrogen on-site and then run it through a fuel cell back to the network when...
Making green hydrogen only makes sense if you have free energy.
It's a good idea to use excess renewables to create hydrogen on-site and then run it through a fuel cell back to the network when production is down.
But first it makes more sense to fill every battery you can, fill up pumped hydro storage etc. It's the last line of energy storage because the efficiency is utter crap.
CapEx on electrolysers are apparently no joke, so it can make sense to turn them on early, just because once all the batteries are completely full, you don't have enough electrolyzers to soak up...
But first it makes more sense to fill every battery you can, fill up pumped hydro storage etc. It's the last line of energy storage because the efficiency is utter crap.
CapEx on electrolysers are apparently no joke, so it can make sense to turn them on early, just because once all the batteries are completely full, you don't have enough electrolyzers to soak up all that power. So if the weather forecast show wind and sun, and tomorrow the batteries should be full and after that wind and sun continue, you turn the electrolyzers on right now and let the batteries trickle their way to full charge s.t. they finish when the weather turns. I know, uncertain predictions in practice, yada yada.
This video was released 7 months ago, but nicely summarises the future potential production and use of emission free hydrogen. While it is clear that if you can use electricity, you should, some industries are difficult to electrify (such as steel and energy dense applications such as aviation), and for these hydrogen might be the answer.
I used to think hydrogen planes made sense, and they still might be an option simply by default, but realistically they make no sense in the short or long term.
Hydrogen is an absolute pain logistically - storing it requires pressurized tanks and nozzles, which is both more expensive than current infrastructure and can't be retrofitted (or at least not cheaply). So if you're building hydrogen infrastructure, you're expecting to use it long-term for it to pay for itself.
Oh also you need to re-design the plane, you can't really use the standard tube-model of plane that 747s etc have, if you care about performance. Which you do, because this is aerospace.
Meanwhile, hydrogen is a crappy fuel. Climate issues aside, it's basically a worse version of methane. It has great specific-energy, but it has the worst energy density. In the long term (i.e. decades out, possibly after the climate change deadlines), hydrocarbon synthfuels will be better.
So in the long term you want to keep the existing infrastructure and switch to synthfuel (which would almost certainly have variants that can work in existing planes, and definitely pipes), and in the short term you have to replace basically everything but the actual runway, so the optimal strategy is clearly to delay those upgrades and see if you can't squeak past with as little spent on hydrogen as possible until synthfuels arrive.
Which is to say, at no point will anyone want to adopt hydrogen. Which means it won't have much of a network effect. It's this awkward middle-step, which might yet be necessary but won't be desirable.
It also leaks from every single container you put it in, because of - you know - smallest element in the universe. You can slow it down, but not stop it from leaking.
The first BMW hydrogen cars leaked so badly the tank could be empty if you went on a 2 week vacation and left the car at the airport...
Yep, the leakage is so difficult to combat that space agencies and rocket companies struggle with it. If spacecraft that cost millions or billions of dollars to build can’t keep it contained, smaller vehicles that need to be more cost effective surely aren’t going to be able to either.
I imagine space agencies and rocket companies struggle with some slightly different issues. For example: an extra 1% weight on the tank is a non-issue for cars, but can be devastating for the performance of a rocket (which adds to far more than 1% performance loss). Also, if 99.999% recovery is too low due to being in space and resupply being prohibitively expensive, then you'll have "problems with hydrogen leakage" that are a non-issue in terrestrial environments.
Seriously, I can't stress how absurd it is to assume that if a space agency has a technical problem then everyone on earth will also have that problem. Space agencies have a problem with pencils - they create debris that could damage electronics, in space. Have you ever heard of a data centre mandating a pens-only policy?
Hydrogen cars are dumb, but not for this reason.
It also destroys pretty much every metal it comes into contact with for long enough. It’s really a terrible substance to have to work with.
Not true. Hydrogen is used extensively in industry, especially in the oil industry, and in fact the first hydrogen pipeline was built over 80 years ago and is still in use.
It's much harder if you're using hydrogen in infrastructure that was never designed for hydrogen, though.
According to this chart, it has roughly double the energy density of compressed or liquified natural gas. Makes sense, as the hydrogen is doing all the lifting there anyway and the carbon is just holding it together.
Denser than gasoline even. 1kg of hydrogen is equivalent to 1 gallon of gasoline. But a gallon of gasoline is about 2.8 kg.
Provided we capture the carbon as we do so, it's worthwhile to strip natural gas down to hydrogen centrally as part of a transition process while green hydrogen production ramps up.
Hydrogen has good energy density per mass, but not per volume. As just one data point, the 2014 Toyota Mirai's hydrogen tanks (interior volume of about 120 liters[1]) weigh 87.5kg, and hold only 5kg of hydrogen.[2][3]. That's somewhere around 170kWH of energy. The equivalent mass in gasoline would be 33 gallons (or 125 liters, roughly the same volume!), containing about 1000kWH of energy. Of course, gas engines are less efficient than hydrogen fuel cells (~66%[4] to ~40%[5]), and I'm ignoring a lot of things around the drivetrain, too—fuel cells, batteries, electric motors, gas engines all take varying masses and volume.
I'm also sceptical about using hydrogen for long-haul travel: there just isn't enough energy density. But for short-haul flights it might make sense. There are infrastructure problems that could be solved using short-haul hydrogen flights: mountainous regions such as Norway or New Zealand come to mind, where building tunnels and roads to service low population regions doesn't make economic sense.
My senior project in college was researching electrocatalytic hydrogenation of nitrobenzene to aniline. I’ve personally come to view green hydrogen as being most useful in chemical and industrial processes rather than electricity or energy storage. However, I see some potential in hydrogen peaker turbines, as well as in certain forms of transportation (mass-limited but unconstrained by volume, so marine shipping, aviation, and possibly rail).
Edit: @Loire, I was wondering if you might have some thoughts on hydrogen and how it relates to the future of the O&G industry.
Hydrogen is energy storage, and not an energy source for the most part.
It depends on what energy source you use to make hydrogen.
Making green hydrogen only makes sense if you have free energy.
It's a good idea to use excess renewables to create hydrogen on-site and then run it through a fuel cell back to the network when production is down.
But first it makes more sense to fill every battery you can, fill up pumped hydro storage etc. It's the last line of energy storage because the efficiency is utter crap.
Is it really worse than pumped hydro? My understanding was that pumped hydro is even less efficient, just relatively cheap to deploy.
Pumped hydro needs the correct geographic location pretty much. If you need to build a huge tower or dig a deep hole, it'll never pay itself back.
CapEx on electrolysers are apparently no joke, so it can make sense to turn them on early, just because once all the batteries are completely full, you don't have enough electrolyzers to soak up all that power. So if the weather forecast show wind and sun, and tomorrow the batteries should be full and after that wind and sun continue, you turn the electrolyzers on right now and let the batteries trickle their way to full charge s.t. they finish when the weather turns. I know, uncertain predictions in practice, yada yada.