• TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: most new hydrogen technology is snake oil.

    Its main source right now is as a byproduct to petrochemical processing, so a lot of the motivation behind it is really about maintaining these production lines, rather than “going green”.

    Some things do require hydrogen, eg science applications. Hydrogen can be made using green electricity, but the energy cost is incredibly high. In order to fulfill just the things that require hydrogen, where there is no other alternative, we would need 3x the global renewable capacity solely dedicated to hydrogen production. If we start adding mass transport into that mix, or things like this hydrogen heating system, then we’re only exacerbating the problem.

    We need our renewable electricity to power things that already use electricity. We don’t have enough capacity to be pouring it away into all the potential uses for hydrogen - which are often far less efficient. You lose so much energy creating hydrogen (as well as losses due to leaks) that you may as well just power it with electricity directly.

    • roofuskit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      There could not have put up a bigger sign saying, “I didn’t bother to read the article.”

      Otherwise I don’t disagree with most of what you’re claiming. But most of the problems you posed do not even apply to this relatively new system.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Lol you caught me out, I skimmed over most of the article. I’ve also realised later down the thread that one of my main sources actually includes hydrogen for heating as a viable use case.

        I still stand by my claim that most hydrogen consumption proposals are snake oil, which would be better served by using electricity directly (particularly in transport), but perhaps this could be good.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Production and consumption are two different things. We need more green hydrogen production (currently at 0.1% of all hydrogen production), and we need to heavily tax black and brown hydrogen to balance the environmental cost against the low price of dirty production.

        With hydrogen consumption, we already have a significant demand for scientific and other uses that have no alternative. This currently relies on black and brown hydrogen, but will eventually need to be fulfilled by green hydrogen. If we throw anything and everything that could use hydrogen on top of that, then we’ll be using fossil fuels for even longer while we build enough renewable generation capacity for it all to be provided by green hydrogen.

        Also, the vast majority use scenarios proposed for hydrogen could be fulfilled directly by electricity at a much greater overall efficiency. Maybe hydrogen would be cheaper right now, while it’s all produced by petrochemicals, but when you factor in the cost of green hydrogen the long term projections simply do not work.

        Do you think Maersk is designing ammonia powered ships for nothing?

        I think Maersk is designing ammonia powered ships because they’re not far removed from conventional ICE’s, which they’re already proficient in. They’re less concerned with what is the best solution overall, but which is the most profitable to them right now.