Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Think. Again.

(22,456 posts)
19. A small mistake you made...
Sat Jan 4, 2025, 02:05 PM
Jan 2025

...you said "Half the CO2 potential as methane, but twice of it entering the atmosphere." when the CO2 potential is actually less than half (methane is 28%, H2 11%) and only twice as leaky, making H2 a better bet.

Also, the amount of H2 that would have to leak to have that effect on atmospheric methane is around 9%, considering the cost of producing Green H2, that's quite a bit of loss that the industry would want to avoid, but of course a brand new infrastructure built specifically to avoid H2 leakage would be needed anyway (our current methane infrastructure sucks).

"For hydrogen referred to as green hydrogen, which is produced by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen using electricity from renewable sources, Bertagni said that the critical threshold for hydrogen emissions sits at around 9%. That means that if more than 9% of the green hydrogen produced leaks into the atmosphere -- whether that be at the point of production, sometime during transport, or anywhere else along the value chain -- atmospheric methane would increase over the next few decades, canceling out some of the climate benefits of switching away from fossil fuels."

- https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/03/230313162740.htm

Also,

"The researchers emphasized the importance of the time scale over which the effect of hydrogen on atmospheric methane is considered. Bertagni said that in the long-term (over the course of a century, for instance), the switch to a hydrogen economy would still likely deliver net benefits to the climate, even if methane and hydrogen leakage levels are high enough to cause near-term warming."

(Both quotes from: - https://engineering.princeton.edu/news/2023/03/13/switching-hydrogen-fuel-could-prolong-methane-problem

So, knowing that the only possible goal is to replace all fossil fuel burning with alternative forms of supplying energy, Hydrogen is still something we must pursue.

(And as a personal disclaimer, I only consider Green H2 as a viable consideration in the advancement of a Hydrogen economy.)

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

By virtue of the second law of thermodyamics, hydrogen is an extremely dirty fuel. NNadir Jan 2025 #1
It's also the most abundent element of the universe BumRushDaShow Jan 2025 #2
Yes, but on earth it is chemically bound. Looking at it... NNadir Jan 2025 #3
Hydrogen is not a "form of energy", it is an energy storage medium... Think. Again. Jan 2025 #5
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe GoreWon2000 Jan 2025 #8
Yes, we need to make some very big progress building out non-CO2 emitting electrical production. Think. Again. Jan 2025 #10
Well... BumRushDaShow Jan 2025 #6
Post removed Post removed Jan 2025 #9
His background is in chemistry. He's in the pharmaceutical industry. His journal is worth a scroll nmmi Jan 2025 #14
As explained in the article... Think. Again. Jan 2025 #4
Except when it leaks NickB79 Jan 2025 #11
Natural gas leaks are 28X as powerful as CO2.... Think. Again. Jan 2025 #12
And hydrogen leaks twice as much as methane, by it's very nature as the smallest element NickB79 Jan 2025 #17
A small mistake you made... Think. Again. Jan 2025 #19
Green hydrogen is the future GoreWon2000 Jan 2025 #7
When will the scam that is the "hydrogen economy" Miguelito Loveless Jan 2025 #13
If you're Anti-Hydrogen, whatever you do - DO NOT LOOK AT CHINA or India Caribbeans Jan 2025 #15
Simple math Miguelito Loveless Jan 2025 #16
And then fuel cells lose about 40%-60% of the 34kWH in the H2 converting it into electricity? /nt nmmi Jan 2025 #18
Which is still less than the energy lost by our current long distance delivery systems... Think. Again. Jan 2025 #23
59% is losses in the power plant itself in converting the fuel's energy to electricity at the power plant and net of nmmi Jan 2025 #24
Yes, the Hydrogen would not replace batteries... Think. Again. Jan 2025 #25
The problem is Miguelito Loveless Jan 2025 #34
Correct, I personally believe only a Green H2 economy is worthy of pursuing.... Think. Again. Jan 2025 #37
That doesn't alter the fact Miguelito Loveless Jan 2025 #44
Correct, directly powering your home from solar makes the most sense... Think. Again. Jan 2025 #45
To me, marine and flight uses Miguelito Loveless Jan 2025 #51
Yes, and other uses where easily transportable fuel for combustion or on-site electric generation is needed. Think. Again. Jan 2025 #54
The environmental impact for lithium-ion Miguelito Loveless Jan 2025 #31
Yes, and H2 can be used when weight and volume are considerations... Think. Again. Jan 2025 #40
So far, Miguelito Loveless Jan 2025 #46
Yes, passenger vehicles are better for batteries... Think. Again. Jan 2025 #49
My losses are much lower Miguelito Loveless Jan 2025 #29
Yes, no one is suggesting H2 should replace batteries, or any other form of energy storage. Think. Again. Jan 2025 #33
But, in using H2 for power Miguelito Loveless Jan 2025 #39
Yes, and in situations where batteries are not viable due to weight or volume or non-existent power grid lines... Think. Again. Jan 2025 #43
By very expensive tanker trucks Miguelito Loveless Jan 2025 #50
It doesn't make much sense does it madville Jan 2025 #20
A loss of energy also occurs when it is transferred into batteries... Think. Again. Jan 2025 #22
It must be stored either in liquid form Miguelito Loveless Jan 2025 #28
Hydrogen containment tanks are made of materials that are impervious to embrittlement.... Think. Again. Jan 2025 #32
The tanks are Miguelito Loveless Jan 2025 #36
Yes, they can be. And older existing lines can even be coated to be impervious. Think. Again. Jan 2025 #42
That means digging up old lines and replacing them Miguelito Loveless Jan 2025 #48
No, if the cost is 2 million, that's what it is, not more. Think. Again. Jan 2025 #53
The issue is not flammability Miguelito Loveless Jan 2025 #38
Precisely. Miguelito Loveless Jan 2025 #27
Any transfer of energy results in a loss... Think. Again. Jan 2025 #21
True, Miguelito Loveless Jan 2025 #26
Yes, but Lithium is not infinite nor renewable, while Hydrogen basically is.... Think. Again. Jan 2025 #30
Lithium can be recycled from batteries Miguelito Loveless Jan 2025 #35
Yes, with additional energy costs. Think. Again. Jan 2025 #41
The additional energy cost is far lower Miguelito Loveless Jan 2025 #47
The Hydrogen economy infrastructure would be a cost of doing business.... Think. Again. Jan 2025 #52
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Biden administration adds...»Reply #19