How to use hydrogen in a way that I don't really remember being directly addressed here: There are many existing uses for hydrogen that already use substantial amounts of it. The clean way to make hydrogen is to make it from clean electricity. Those clean sources of electricity, at least wind and solar, tend to be very distributed. It follows that hydrogen can be economically generated very close to the point of use. That being the case, the usual costs of electricity transmission AND hydrogen storage can largely be avoided. Since these are generally stationary uses, if you have a suitable storage space, compression of the hydrogen can be much easier, possibly avoided altogether.
The easiest step to take for the US is to harness 10 quadrillion BTUs of wasted grid electricity, and turn it into hydrogen by electrolysis. 1 quad is equal to 76 of the largest oceangoing supertankers, filled to the top. Each one of these tankers would hold 2 million barrels of oil. We are ignoring the fastest, and most readily available path, along with extreme amounts of cash, on the table. With oil over 70 dollars a barrel, the valuations are quite considerable.
Contrast hydrogen subsidies to fossil fuel subsidies, and to further downstream fossil fuel collateral damage portfolios. These may go on to include lowered real estate values, early demise, abandoned oilwells. loss of canopy and surface waters, decrease of topsoil, remediation outlays, illnesses, and lower agriculture yields. Geopolitical strife, military operational costs, insurance and medical premiums, price inflation and uncertainty, et cetera, could all also be evaluated respectively.
YES but... the challenge is green energy you can switch-on. We need green fuels. Nuclear is great for baseload. We also want green peak power. I would argue we also want green fuel for transport, the grid power is only about 25% of the energy used. Batteries will not ever work for ships or trucks.
Not all electricity on the grid is used, irrespective of the location or time, so adding new generation is a pointless exercise in most cases in the US. Peaks might require power, at least in the near term, but rooftop solar and wind turbines are not built out yet. Consequently, it isn't possible to predict the characteristics of the 2050 grid. In any case, cash in on curtailment, nightly grid power loss, and seasonal wind power surges. These are wasted energy streams that can be used to make hydrogen, right now. The US wastes well over half of its grid total electricity output, grid power has unlimited range (hence A/C), and electricity moves at 9/10s the speed of light. 10 quadrillion BTUs of grid energy can be harnessed, and are being left on the table. As such, why are they so worried about locations of generation? The comments made in this video are truly mystifying. Generation and use are not matched well, especially when paired with solar and wind, so hydrogen and batteries would of course be needed..
Hydrogen is a ridiculous material. It is wildly impractical. You do not want to store it, ship it, handle it... I think ammonia is the first thing you do... Japan already pulled the trigger on this. -Ammonia is a huge commodity - 2% of GHG in NA already -Japan is co-firing ammonia in existing energy plants - offsetting the dirty fuels while utilizing the existing infrastructure -Europe has several flex-fuel ship engines in production - these can run on diesel OR ammonia. Japan is also building port facilities for ammonia fueling. Another point I want to raise, we dump green energy sometimes. This is because of the matching problem, green electricity production does not match up with demand perfectly. This creates a cost/benefit tradeoff - as we create more green energy supply we dump more. If green energy was not dumped, if it was made with green energy during off-peak the economics change a lot. I have a report I could share that estimates with free electricity you could make green ammonia for ~$100/ton, the open market price for ammonia is in the range $600-1500.
Having colors for hydrogen is a distraction. The original intent was for green hydrogen to convey the zero carbon nature of hydrogen. Siblings for green hydrogen are green steel, green cement, green mobility, green electricity, green ammonia, et cetera. Having this endless debate of hydrogen within a reference of colors schemes, may lead to results of inconsequence. Let's consider and debate with strategy in mind.
![Can the UK deliver clean power by 2030? [Clean Energy Pod #11]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tofYY8kResE/mqdefault.jpg)
Love the clarity, thanks.
Thoughtful and insightful discussion. Thanks!
Really, really great discussion. 600 bil wall to climb O_O
How to use hydrogen in a way that I don't really remember being directly addressed here: There are many existing uses for hydrogen that already use substantial amounts of it. The clean way to make hydrogen is to make it from clean electricity. Those clean sources of electricity, at least wind and solar, tend to be very distributed. It follows that hydrogen can be economically generated very close to the point of use. That being the case, the usual costs of electricity transmission AND hydrogen storage can largely be avoided. Since these are generally stationary uses, if you have a suitable storage space, compression of the hydrogen can be much easier, possibly avoided altogether.
The easiest step to take for the US is to harness 10 quadrillion BTUs of wasted grid electricity, and turn it into hydrogen by electrolysis.
1 quad is equal to 76 of the largest oceangoing supertankers, filled to the top. Each one of these tankers would hold 2 million barrels of oil.
We are ignoring the fastest, and most readily available path, along with extreme amounts of cash, on the table. With oil over 70 dollars a barrel, the valuations are quite considerable.
Hope is not a product. Hype avoids the messy little problems. In case of hydrogen they're fatal to hope
Panasonic operates a hydrogen-to-the-home network. The Enefarm division has been highly successful.
Green electricity consists of hydroelectric, wind, solar, biogas, and nuclear power.
Contrast hydrogen subsidies to fossil fuel subsidies, and to further downstream fossil fuel collateral damage portfolios. These may go on to include lowered real estate values, early demise, abandoned oilwells. loss of canopy and surface waters, decrease of topsoil, remediation outlays, illnesses, and lower agriculture yields.
Geopolitical strife, military operational costs, insurance and medical premiums, price inflation and uncertainty, et cetera, could all also be evaluated respectively.
Nuclear is also Green, it's not less green then solar or wind.
YES but... the challenge is green energy you can switch-on. We need green fuels. Nuclear is great for baseload. We also want green peak power. I would argue we also want green fuel for transport, the grid power is only about 25% of the energy used. Batteries will not ever work for ships or trucks.
Not all electricity on the grid is used, irrespective of the location or time, so adding new generation is a pointless exercise in most cases in the US. Peaks might require power, at least in the near term, but rooftop solar and wind turbines are not built out yet. Consequently, it isn't possible to predict the characteristics of the 2050 grid.
In any case, cash in on curtailment, nightly grid power loss, and seasonal wind power surges. These are wasted energy streams that can be used to make hydrogen, right now.
The US wastes well over half of its grid total electricity output, grid power has unlimited range (hence A/C), and electricity moves at 9/10s the speed of light. 10 quadrillion BTUs of grid energy can be harnessed, and are being left on the table.
As such, why are they so worried about locations of generation? The comments made in this video are truly mystifying.
Generation and use are not matched well, especially when paired with solar and wind, so hydrogen and batteries would of course be needed..
Hydrogen is a ridiculous material. It is wildly impractical. You do not want to store it, ship it, handle it...
I think ammonia is the first thing you do... Japan already pulled the trigger on this.
-Ammonia is a huge commodity - 2% of GHG in NA already
-Japan is co-firing ammonia in existing energy plants - offsetting the dirty fuels while utilizing the existing infrastructure
-Europe has several flex-fuel ship engines in production - these can run on diesel OR ammonia. Japan is also building port facilities for ammonia fueling.
Another point I want to raise, we dump green energy sometimes. This is because of the matching problem, green electricity production does not match up with demand perfectly. This creates a cost/benefit tradeoff - as we create more green energy supply we dump more. If green energy was not dumped, if it was made with green energy during off-peak the economics change a lot.
I have a report I could share that estimates with free electricity you could make green ammonia for ~$100/ton, the open market price for ammonia is in the range $600-1500.
Having colors for hydrogen is a distraction. The original intent was for green hydrogen to convey the zero carbon nature of hydrogen.
Siblings for green hydrogen are green steel, green cement, green mobility, green electricity, green ammonia, et cetera.
Having this endless debate of hydrogen within a reference of colors schemes, may lead to results of inconsequence. Let's consider and debate with strategy in mind.
Re: repurposing gas pipelines isn't this a big focus in Europe (European hydrogen backbone)? Seems to contradict what Michael was arguing...
I'm not convinced the animated background is helpful just a distraction from what you're watching.