Hydrogen Hype is Dying, And That's a Good Thing

[caraher]

Sabine has had some bad takes on numerous subjects, but this one is on target

[Think. Again.]

1. Wow, that was a classic attempt at a smear campaign.

The fossil fuel industry has been working hard for years to discourage the advancement of every technology needed for us to transition away from CO2-emissions. And now, with an easily buyable U.S. government on top of the influencers they use, it's only going to get worse.

[progree]

2. Video is about 5:30 m:s long (everything after that is an ad for brilliant so can skip).

So it's not a super-high investment of time.

A couple of the key parts technically IMHO --

It talks about embrittlement briefly at 1:54-2:11 but doesn't say what the specific impact is, e.g. nothing about how much it shortens the life of component infrastructure, or requires pipes that are twice as expensive, or anything like that.

Then starting at around 2:11 it talks about the round-trip efficiency (converting electricity to hydrogen and converting the hydrogen back to electricity) of "optimistically 40%", but "realistically far lower" because the process becomes more inefficient the more it is ramped up and down -- which is unfortunate because that's the use it is intended for -- filling in gaps in renewables production.

Before 1:54 it is mostly about green H2 projects closing or being cancelled.

[Think. Again.]

3. Yeah, no mention of the fact that the materials used in containing H2 are impervious to embrittlement...

...nor any mention of the inefficiency of our current electrical distribution systems...

"Losses of electricity through the delivery system are significant. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that losses through the delivery system are 65%. Another way of saying this is that nearly two-thirds of the primary energy used to create electricity is lost before the electricity arrives at the customer meter." - https://energyknowledgebase.com/topics/electricity-losses.asp

[progree]

5. 59 percentage points of that 65% is loss at the thermal power plant producing thermal power plant electricity

From the energyknowledge base link very importantly it goes on to say (as a matter of clarification)

It is estimated that of the 65% of primary energy lost, 59% of it is lost in the generation process. This includes:

Waste heat occurring due to inefficiencies in the process of converting primary energy to electricity. This makes up about 54% of the primary energy lost.
Electricity used internally by the power plant during operations. This makes up about 5% of the primary energy lost.

59% is the primary energy lost in a thermal power plant (coal, oil, natgas, nuclear) to produce electrical output, including station use. (So the thermal power plant is 41% efficient in producing electricity).

First electricity has to be made before we have the electricity to produce the hydrogen through electrolysis. In that post 64.8% was the electrolysis efficiency and 50% is the fuel cell efficiency (using midpoints) for a round trip efficiency of 32.4% in converting electricity back to electricity. (That fairly well agrees with the video's "optimistically 40%" .).

So to have a thermal power plant coupled with a hydrogen storage system, we have an overall efficiency of 41% * 32.4% = 13.3%. (And that doesn't include any power line losses)

More detail: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=3367144
including a look at what if the initial electricity is produced from solar/wind rather than a fossil or nuclear thermal power plant. And using a H2 storage system vs. using a battery storage system.

=================================================================

.nor any mention of the inefficiency of our current electrical distribution systems.. "Losses of electricity through the delivery system are significant. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that losses through the delivery system are 65%.

Just so we're all clear that 65% is not the losses from the transmission and distribution system (i.e. the power lines), as most people would read it.   91% of that 65% (59%/65% = 91%) is the fuel heat wasted at the thermal power plant itself.

I don't at all disagree that our power system is very wasteful of energy.

[Think. Again.]

6. The inefficiency is still there no matter what the cause of it...

...either through heat energy lost in producing electricity from fossil fuels or from the Hydrogen fuel cell process.

So for the fossil fuel industry to be pushing the efficiency numbers of Hydrogen or any other non-CO2 energy production system is just a very, very weak argument. They are relying on the ignorance of the general public, and I find youtubers, like the one above who also do that, to be offensive and ridiculous.

Edit to add:

I do not consider Hydrogen produced with or from fossil fuels (such as in your statement:

"So to have a thermal (fossil fuel) power plant coupled with a hydrogen storage system, we have an overall efficiency of 41% * 32.4% = 13.3%. (And that doesn't include any power line losses) "

...to be a worthy method of producing Hydrogen, since our only reason to produce H2, and our overarching goal, is the elmination of the use of fossil fuels. Green Hydrogen (which does not use any fossil fuels at all) is the only thing anyone should be discussing.

[progree]

9. The reason I bring up the thermal power plant at all is because your citation from energyknowledgebase

about the 65% "Losses of electricity through the delivery system" is applicable to a thermal power plant producing the electricity, so the reason I went through this thermal power plant thing is just to explain what this citation means.

That's the only reason I brought it up. You cited the 65%. I explained it. Every time you make that citation, I will explain that by far most of that is internal to the thermal power plant.

I think the energyknowledgebase wording, calling it the "delivery system", is poor, since as a former electric utility engineering professional (MSEE) in the electric power industry (Xcel Energy), formerly superintending the operational planning department, we think of "delivery system" as meaning the transmission and distribution system, i.e. the power lines. I think most non-engineering non-power-system professionals on DU would read it that way too.

To recap the systems in my post are, just to list them, whether or not they are important to the discussion of green storage systems or green energy production

41% efficiency thermal power plant (100%-54%-5%). Most are less efficient than that)

Storage system:

Hydrogen storage system electricity-to-electricy 34.8% efficiency
-or-
Battery storage system electricity-to-electricity about 80% efficiency

Transmission and distribution (the power lines) are about 10% losses combined, i.e. 90% efficient

I would not have brought up thermal power plants at all otherwise, as I think their efficiency is irrelevant and beside the point when we're discussing the efficiency of various storage systems.

..to be a worthy method of producing Hydrogen, since our only reason to produce H2, and our overarching goal, is the elmination of the use of fossil fuels. Green Hydrogen (which does not use any fossil fuels at all) is the only thing anyone should be discussing.

I agree, therefore I would urge you not to use citations applicable to thermal power plants, or, if you do, at least explain what it is (or include the next 2 paragraphs in the citation), and then explain why you are using a thermal power plant efficiency number in the first place.

Exception: nuclear thermal power plant - I will defend the right of those to be in the conversation.



 

[Think. Again.]

11. I use that citiation specifically to counter the position that Hydrogen is an inefficient way to produce electricity....

....many people don't seem to understand that energy transfer is inherently inefficient, and so I use the comparison of currently standard power plants to show that this inefficiency is par for the course and can not be taken seriously as a reason to rule out Hydrogen as one of the many non-CO2 emitting energy technologies we will desperately need to build out quickly.

And I also include nuclear in the group of non-CO2 energ techs we must get serious about building out. Now.

[progree]

14. And I include my response to clarify what that citation is about. Because that citation, calling it a "delivery system"

is confusing at best, as I don't consider a power plant as a "delivery system" although yeah, I understand one can say it is delivering the energy in a lump of coal or uranium pebble to a customer's meter . And readers of that citation wouldn't know that a thermal power plant is being compared to unless they looked it up, or unless you also included some of the next 2 or 3 paragraphs

Generation
It is estimated that of the 65% of primary energy lost, 59% of it is lost in the generation process. This includes:

Waste heat occurring due to inefficiencies in the process of converting primary energy to electricity. This makes up about 54% of the primary energy lost.

Electricity used internally by the power plant during operations. This makes up about 5% of the primary energy lost.

Transmission and distribution grid
Another 5 to 7% of the original primary energy is lost during the delivery of electricity through the T&D system. The energy becomes waste heat released in the air due to line losses and conversion losses in transformers and other line equipment.

From your #3

..nor any mention of the inefficiency of our current electrical distribution systems..

"Losses of electricity through the delivery system are significant. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that losses through the delivery system are 65%. Another way of saying this is that nearly two-thirds of the primary energy used to create electricity is lost before the electricity arrives at the customer meter." - https://energyknowledgebase.com/topics/electricity-losses.asp

(all emphasis added by progree)

What I consider a "delivery system" is the transmission and distribution system. In the above citation, it says 5 to 7%. At Xcel, it was more like 10%. And no professional in the field considers an "electrical distribution system" to include the power plant, since what the power plant is doing is converting the energy in fuel into electricity, not distributing it.

I see nothing wrong with a physicist or anyone else calling out the "optimistically 40%" efficiency of the storage system (I'll admit I don't know if she backs that up without looking at the video again, or the YouTube discussion, but it comports with other things I've read and seen unchallenged here). And note that a hydrogen storage system does not produce electricity -- it takes electricity that was already produced by other means, and then regurgitate it with about 65% losses To me, that's something I want to know about. Just like I want to know that a battery storage system is about 80% efficient.

I am not anti-hydrogen. After I took the time to watch the video, I just wanted to summarize the video to save my fellow progressives some time in deciding whether to watch it or not. I'm just trying to f'ing learn and understand, not to trash or extol one technology over another (at least not in this thread). Exception: trashing fossil fuel.

[Think. Again.]

16. Yes, so to sum up...

Our current sources of electricity using fossil fuels, including production and delivery, has only about 35% efficiency while producing and delivering electricity using Green Hydrogen has aproximately 40% efficiency.

And please keep in mind that producing and delivering electricity through a battery system that is charged with a fossil fuel source would have only 21% efficiency (59% production loss + 20 delivery (battery) loss = 79% loss, hence 21% efficiency).

[GoreWon2000]

4. Green hydrogen is the future

This issue is very near and dear to me because it was part of my childhood. My engineer father with bachelors and masters degrees in engineering, more than 40 years of aviation and automotive engineering work experience and was a member of the Society of Automotive Engineers firmly believed that green hydrogen is the solution. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and the only by-product from burning green hydrogen is water. My engineer father well understood that the world had to stop burning the planet killing fossil fuels that threatens our planet and the survival of humanity. I would be very curious to know what engineering credentials that Sabine has in order to make her erroneous claims about hydrogen? I would be happy to discuss the issue with anyone who has an engineering resume that matches my father's engineering resume.

[Think. Again.]

7. "Sabine" is simply a youtube influencer.

[progree]

10. And we're all message board randos with our own agendas as all human beings have.

https://www.youtube.com/@SabineHossenfelder
Sabine Hossenfelder has a PhD in physics. She is author of the books "Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray" (Basic Books, 2018) and "Existential Physics: A Scientist's Guide to Life's Biggest Questions" (Viking, 2022).

Can you go into the "simply a youtube influencer" thing some more? Is she being paid to hawk a certain point of view for example?

Edited to add
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabine_Hossenfelder

[Think. Again.]

12. I would gladly show you my own credentials in ecology, but, it's the internet.

[GoreWon2000]

17. Sabine is putting out false information about hydrogen

The amount of false information is exploding online and Sabine is helping to feed it. Sabine has no clue about the actual facts and actual faacts don't dseem to be a priority for her.

[Think. Again.]

18. You're correct...

...she's just another youtuber who uses her educational credentials to appear to be an authority on everything from the beauty business to molecular science, and probably gets paid well to do it.

[hunter]

8. I'm done arguing with the hydrogen promoters here.

The math didn't work forty years ago when I first pursued it and it won't work now. The hydrogen promoters are doomed to disappointment whether I argue with them or not.

Physical reality is like that.

I'm not even going to argue about the waste of resources. A lot of things humans do are a fruitless waste of resources that do not make our world a happier place.

[Think. Again.]

13. Biden's Department of Energy will have enough to deal with anyway soon.

[Caribbeans]

15. "The math didn't work forty years ago when I first pursued it"

And nothing has happened in 40 years to improve that, according to a poster that seems to revel in a "Woe is Me and Everyone Else- Nothing can be done! Get Ready To Die Soon!" attitude.

The hydrogen promoters are doomed to disappointment

We'll see about that, won't we. Also, no one around the world is expecting the nation that has spent the last 30 years bombing, invading and attempting global hegemony to contribute anything to a green future. And no one here points out that these wars are the #1 contributor to the C02 assault. Ignorance is bliss, "Hunter", isn't it. Fortunately and Happily, I will be leaving the USA hellhole of lies within the year. Y'all can have "The Most Lethal Nation In Existence" to yourselves. Enjoy. Good and hard.