Wind Turbines

[IT Minion]

Hydrogen might make sense with lots of wind. When the wind blows and we have a massive surplus we make hydrogen. When it's middling we cut back on hydrogen production. When there's none we burn the hydrogen to make electricity.

Its an example of how something can work with renewables rather than replacing them like nuclear.

 

[Brigadier]

Interesting one as there are signs that the world is going to need rather a lot of it - at some point. That largely down to the power needed to create it.

Your post makes no sense.

 

[ajohn]

When there's none we burn the hydrogen to make electricity.

It can go further than that. It's a gas and can be piped. It can be used to power vehicles and fuel them in much the same way as fossil fuels are distributed.

 

[IT Minion]

It can go further than that. It's a gas and can be piped. It can be used to power vehicles and fuel them in much the same way as fossil fuels are distributed.

Much the same but different enough that it won't work for domestic use or light vehicles.

HEV sales are consistently falling and filling stations closing globally.

The recent attempt to trial hydrogen for domestic use got rejected as it was insane.

 

[ajohn]

or light vehicles

Some countries have more problems with general mobility due to distances than the UK has. It's also difficult to see how heavy goods vehicles will be handled. I'm talking about the higher multi tonne axel load range. Germany have produced hydrogen / fuel cell trains. One is being evaluated here. Also currently in the UK
There are currently four hydrogen refuelling stations in London, one in Birmingham and one in Sheffield. Two more sites are situated in Aberdeen. New sites in Glasgow, Belfast, Tees Valley and Liverpool are planned to open shorty, according to The UK H2Mobility.
Vehicles are available. The above is on the increase. There was none in B'ham not long ago. Future - who knows but there definitely is an interest in it. Main problem is green power to produce the stuff not it's use.

Pure EV's. In order to replace my Forester I'd need to spend ~£57k on a Volvo to get similar to what I have assuming it still has decent boot space. I also wouldn't get the range that is indicated when driving distances at speed. A rather pointless mild hybrid Forester costs over £40k.

These prices wont hold for ever. To get an idea what is likely to happen eventually take a look at MG. Price is set by range and trim. They also give ranges under different driving conditions. How cheap eventually. Hard to say but if the producers want to continue to make current car sales numbers things will have to change.

 

[IT Minion]

The above is on the increase.

First Shell, now Motive, hydrogen fuel station clusures continue in the UK

The number of hydrogen refuelling stations in the UK has dwindled from 15 in 2021 to just 5 now.

innovationorigins.com

As a result, the number of hydrogen refuelling stations in the UK has dwindled from 15 in 2021 to just five remaining.

Dropping by 2/3rds is not on the increase.

Pure EV's. In order to replace my Forester I'd need to spend ~£57k on a Volvo to get similar to what I have assuming it still has decent boot space.

The only hydrogen SUV in the UK is the Hyundai Nexo, starting at £69,000. It has reduced boot space as it needs to store the hydrogen tanks. 460 ltr, Vs 570 for an iPace or 800 in the £45,000 model Y.

So if you want a car you can only drive around London and Birmingham, that costs half again what an EV costs and costs more than petrol to run, go for it.

 

[StephenStephen]

I remember when pumped water storage was being built in Scotland, it was trumpeted as if it was an important big thing, but the actual generation figures are so small that they are insignificant, except for balancing short term peaks and troughs.

My understanding is that it is specifically designed to balance peaks and troughs

 

[ajohn]

Dropping by 2/3rds is not on the increase.

You missed the word eventually. From your own link
Thank you for sharing this story! However, please do so in a way that respects the copyright of this text. If you want to share or reproduce this full text, please ask permission from Innovation Origins ([email protected]) or become a partner of ours! You are of course free to quote this story with source citation. Would you like to share this article in another way? Then use this link to the article: https://innovationorigins.com/en/fi...gen-fuel-station-closures-continue-in-the-uk/

Motive Fuels, a leading UK hydrogen refuelling station operator, recently announced the closure of two of its London-based stations as it shifts its focus toward providing hydrogen refuelling for large commercial vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cells. Although the company has invested over £2 million annually since 2019 in light vehicle fuelling stations designed primarily for cars, it has determined that the current demand for hydrogen fuel cell-powered cars is insufficient to sustain these pumps.

The company’s decision is in line with the UK Hydrogen Strategy, which predicts that hydrogen will play a significant role in powering heavier transport modes by 2030.

Add another 20years to that.

 

[wobs]

My suggestion is that, in practice, storage and efficiency (for example; maybe actually listen to what insulate Britain have to say) though less manly and sexy than more generation, would be practically more helpful...

Storage: Limited by economics of stoarge. No matter what technology you use, you are limited by how much storage would be affordable. It is also part of the reason why 100% renewables would be unaffordable, even when you have cheap wind turbines and solar panels. It has been said that you could get 18hrs of economic storage if you hooked it up to a solar CSP farm in a desert. The numbers don't differ that much for other renewables, which isn't good news if you have days/weeks of unsuitable weather.

Efficiency: If you are referring to just using less energy through insulation and turning stuff off etc. - if it made a difference, it would only be a small % of the total energy consumption. In a more realistic senario, you fall into the trap of Jevons Paradox, where any savings are wiped out by using that money on other things with a carbon footprint, which benefits the economy, which in turn incrtease carbon emissions.

Without some control for the increas of energy use, it is counterproductive. Controls such as carbon tax for example, but these are only applied to big energy users. Decarbonising the economy through nuclear and renewables is the main avenue for this. As well as some hydorgen for where we have no alternative.

 

[wobs]

Hydrogen might make sense with lots of wind. When the wind blows and we have a massive surplus we make hydrogen. When it's middling we cut back on hydrogen production. When there's none we burn the hydrogen to make electricity.

We will likely need hydrogen to make virgin steel without a blast furnace. Such large scale uses are where it will be useful.

But making electricity may also be one avenue.

What we have to be careful of is using hydrogen in applications where maintenance may not be great, as a leak of only a few % would render the whole excercise pointless, owing to the fact that hydrogen is an indirect greenhouse gas. Large users are likely to maintanin their kit better than a fleet of lorry/vans.

 

[StephenStephen]

Storage: Limited by economics of stoarge. No matter what technology you use, you are limited by how much storage would be affordable. It is also part of the reason why 100% renewables would be unaffordable, even when you have cheap wind turbines and solar panels. It has been said that you could get 18hrs of economic storage if you hooked it up to a solar CSP farm in a desert. The numbers don't differ that much for other renewables, which isn't good news if you have days/weeks of unsuitable weather.

Efficiency: If you are referring to just using less energy through insulation and turning stuff off etc. - if it made a difference, it would only be a small % of the total energy consumption. In a more realistic senario, you fall into the trap of Jevons Paradox, where any savings are wiped out by using that money on other things with a carbon footprint, which benefits the economy, which in turn incrtease carbon emissions.

Without some control for the increas of energy use, it is counterproductive. Controls such as carbon tax for example, but these are only applied to big energy users. Decarbonising the economy through nuclear and renewables is the main avenue for this. As well as some hydorgen for where we have no alternative.

Energy use is already falling in areas where efficiency has increased - look at actual vs predicted electricity demand change in the UK.
Everything is limited by economics, but if you look at the actual economics of storage vs the actual economics of (for example) new nuclear...!
There's nothing counterproductive in increasing insulation and efficiency - you might want to read 'Factor 4' which came out of MIT many years ago...

Anecdotally, solar and storage works extremely well in my home, and hasn't led to increased consumption...
...and of course energy use is already increasingly responsive to cost and availability of supply...

 

[wobs]

Energy use is already falling in areas where efficiency has increased - look at actual vs predicted electricity demand change in the UK.
Everything is limited by economics, but if you look at the actual economics of storage vs the actual economics of (for example) new nuclear...!
There's nothing counterproductive in increasing insulation and efficiency - you might want to read 'Factor 4' which came out of MIT many years ago...

Anecdotally, solar and storage works extremely well in my home, and hasn't led to increased consumption...

You need to think on the macro economic scale.

Speaking of MIT, they looked about 1000 scenarios to decarbonise the US, & none were viable without nuclear.

Btw, your solar sounds good, but isn't an energy efficiency measure. Its part of the decarbonisation measures that need to happen, so nice one!

 

[Justin Passing]

a leak of only a few % would render the whole excercise pointless,

No - it seems that's one of those qualitatively apparently valid arguments which doesn't stand up when the numbers go in:
"The UK Government report explains that "the increase in equivalent CO2 emissions based on 1 percent and 10 percent H2 leakage rate offsets approximately 0.4 and 4 percent of the total equivalent CO2 emission reductions, respectively," so even assuming the worst leakage scenario, it's still an enormous improvement." Hydrogen is not itself a greenhouse gas.
Those figures are allowing for the secondary harm done by hydrogen to ozone, CO2 and methane.

It's quite difficult to winkle the right numbers out.


And yes you can make virgin steel without fossil fuels, but using hydrogen is relatively new and using electrolysis to do it, the way aluminium is made, is possible.
Most "Steelmaking" these days is melting down scrap, which is much easier. They'll continue to do that in Port Talbot.

 

[wobs]

No - it seems that's one of those qualitatively apparently valid arguments which doesn't stand up when the numbers go in:
"The UK Government report explains that "the increase in equivalent CO2 emissions based on 1 percent and 10 percent H2 leakage rate offsets approximately 0.4 and 4 percent of the total equivalent CO2 emission reductions, respectively," so even assuming the worst leakage scenario, it's still an enormous improvement." Hydrogen is not itself a greenhouse gas.
Those figures are allowing for the secondary harm done by hydrogen to ozone, CO2 and methane.

It's quite difficult to winkle the right numbers out.

There are a lot of uncertainties, but this study into solar green hydrogen puts it thus:
"Under baseline conditions, the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are around one-quarter that of the currently dominant process for hydrogen production, steam methane reforming (SMR). However, sensitivity analysis shows that GHG emissions may be comparable to SMR under reasonably anticipated conditions."

Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions and net energy assessment of large-scale hydrogen production via electrolysis and solar PV

Water electrolysis powered by solar photovoltaics (PV) is one of several promising green hydrogen production technologies. It is critical that the life cycle environmental impacts and net energy balance are assessed to ensure that solar-electrolysis can contribute to the deep decarbonisation of...

pubs.rsc.org

In other words, in reasonable assumed conditions (ie. not ideal conditions), it is comparable to grey hydrogen. Whether wind would be better than solar, is also uncertain. It could be, as it uses less rare earth metals, but is more varied in supply, so its uncertain.

And yes you can make virgin steel without fossil fuels, but using hydrogen is relatively new and using electrolysis to do it, the way aluminium is made, is possible.
Most "Steelmaking" these days is melting down scrap, which is much easier. They'll continue to do that in Port Talbot.

We will need to keep making virgin steel for the foreseeable future. There has been talk of hydrogen steel at Scunthorpe, which makes sense as there could green hydrogen production in the Humber region by 2040.

As your link stated: We need a surging price in carbon, and a drop in the price of hydrogen.

 

[wobs]

Or nuclear power derived hydrogen might actually be cheaper:

Link is a discussion into the different types of hydrogen production methods, and notes that its early days for many of these systems.