Scotland using hydrogen to balance windload:

Link (http://news.scotsman.com/uk/Hydrogen-plan-will-fill-in.4810948.jp)

Large scale hydrogen use will be the first market penetration of hydrogen, as this and other stories of its use in buses, etc. start revealing the practicality of the material over batteries in these cases.

THAT is why the government should not be picking a winner between hydrogen and batteries. Hydrogen ICE vehicles are the only zero emissions solution for cold climates, and hydrogen ICE / fuel cells make more sense for long haul trucking, trains, cargo ships, etc. than batteries. Even plug-in fuel cell vehicles have a strong business case, given their rapid recharge times, compared to batteries.

This whole project sounds a little fishy. First of all, it has been done before. Even the article states:

"Similar schemes have been built in Norway and Canada, but if the applications get the go-ahead, it will be the first time it has been tried in the UK."

Then they say they patented the system. I need to look more into that but what's to patent? It has been know for ages that this is possible but too costly. Current electrolyzers are very inefficient.

That is why there was such hope a few months ago when Dr. Nocera of MIT claimed to have discovered a very efficient electrolyzer.

Second of all, the group against the project says that the wind farm and the hydrogen plant won't even be physically connected! The article states:

"A spokeswoman said: "This hydrogen plant will use electricity directly from the grid and there is absolutely no way it can be linked to the wind farm."

Mr. Radford responded by saying the "equivalent electricity" to that created by the wind farm was being supplied to the hydrogen plant, using the national grid."


What the heck good is that? If the grid can already absorb the energy then why even bother with the hydrogen plant? Sounds like a PR stunt.

Putting aside the strangeness with this specific project, I think a hydrogen storage system makes a lot of sense, if it can be competitive with other options. Let's face it, there is not too many other options out there.

Assuming there will be better electrolyzers in the future (hurry up Dr. Nocera!) then building out the infrastructure today makes a lot of sense. The first generation systems might not be that cost effective but the replacement equipment will be much better. If not, the alternative electrical energy storage technology can use the same location and grid connection.

Perhaps we don't have the ideal node technology but we do have the smart grid network technology. We just need the commitment to implement it.

Knowing the Scots, I'm pretty sure that the project involves sheep . . .

Men in plaid skirts.........

There's really no such thing as picking between batteries and hydrogen. Hydrogen fuel cells still need batteries to balance out the peaks and troughs of demand usage when driving. Besides that, electricity will always be cheaper than hydrogen, therefore I would imagine people will want HPEV (Hydrogen plugin electric vehicles) vs pure HEVs because the only extra cost will be a slightly larger battery and a cable to plug it in.

Scotland using hydrogen to balance windload:

Link (http://news.scotsman.com/uk/Hydrogen-plan-will-fill-in.4810948.jp)

Large scale hydrogen use will be the first market penetration of hydrogen, as this and other stories of its use in buses, etc. start revealing the practicality of the material over batteries in these cases.

THAT is why the government should not be picking a winner between hydrogen and batteries. Hydrogen ICE vehicles are the only zero emissions solution for cold climates, and hydrogen ICE / fuel cells make more sense for long haul trucking, trains, cargo ships, etc. than batteries. Even plug-in fuel cell vehicles have a strong business case, given their rapid recharge times, compared to batteries.

I agree, the government should not pick technologies, but regulate emissions as is done with other pollutants.

Wasn't obvious to me, but they apparently will use IC Gensets for making power from the hydrogen:

http://www.whlenergy.com/index.php?id=92

Generously, give the electrolysis + compression efficiency 75%, then generously give 35% efficiency to the genset and generously ignore any transmission/transformer losses. Overall efficiency is 26% at most. Generously energy from wind is $0.05/kWh. The energy costs alone from the stored energy are going to be $0.15/kWh (ignoring all of the capital costs for the electrolyzers and gensets).

This is just wacky cost-wise.

NREL study on Wind-H2

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/39534.pdf

http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_wind_hydrogen.html

There's really no such thing as picking between batteries and hydrogen. Hydrogen fuel cells still need batteries to balance out the peaks and troughs of demand usage when driving. Besides that, electricity will always be cheaper than hydrogen, therefore I would imagine people will want HPEV (Hydrogen plugin electric vehicles) vs pure HEVs because the only extra cost will be a slightly larger battery and a cable to plug it in.




Again, never say never. ;) I can imagine in the future there will be some countries that have small wind and solar resources but huge energy demand. If you can't get a power line to them (mountains, sea or distance) that is cost effective then it just might be easier to ship them a liquid fuel like liquid hydrogen. If petroleum becomes very expensive for generating electricity (it will eventually) these nations have little choice. Japan currently imports massive amounts of liquidified NG. If the price of NG rises and some solar rich nation can supply liquified hydrogen, it's possible for the cost of their electricity to be less. I can think of many examples were liquified hydrogen could be cheaper.

Another one would be for multiple days of energy storage. Let's take Hawaii for example. They might need many days worth of electrical energy storage to make their grid like it is today. Today they store a huge amount of petroleum for that purpose. I don't think pumped storage hydro is a good solution there because it would ruin the natural beauty of the island. So, you have batteries and liquid hydrogen. For a small system the batteries would be cheaper but as the storage gets greater all you have to do put in more tanks for the hydrogen. The hydrogen system (with current battery prices) would end up being cheaper. Current batteries are very expensive, especially for grid energy storage.

I guess you have to ask what are the alternatives? Different countries have different resources. You have to look at each one individually and then determine the best and most cost effective solution. If petroleum becomes as unstable as it did this past summer than just about any renewable infrastructure will become very attractive. Hydrogen just might be the most cost effective solution to generate base power.

Finally, your comment about the need for batteries for hydrogen cars is a bit misguided. The use of batteries in hydrogen cars allows the overall fuel cell size to be much smaller. That results in a smaller storage requirement. It's analogous to putting a capacitor in a circuit to help smooth out the electrical fluctuations. The battery or capacitor in this case would be very small compared to lets say the battery in the Tesla. There is a very basic distinction that needs to be made. This is also the principle behind current hybrid electric cars. The battery is very small but allows a much smaller ICE to be used because the small battery can provide large amounts of short-term power.

Another good example is for a future electric airliner. The energy density for liquid hydrogen is extremely high. Battery technology is currently multiple times less dense. Liquid hydrogen might be the only way for this system to even work.

Thus, never say never! People need to understand that just because a system is inefficient doesn't mean there are not other good reasons for using it! Our current automobiles are a great example of this. If your goal is to move your body to your workplace then our current automobile technology is only about 1% efficient. Horrible yet that the best we could come up with. Hydrogen might be very inefficient, solar might be very inefficient, etc. but if you use the two together and then assume petroleum becomes very unstable you just might determine that the solar/hydrogen model is the way to go. It might provide the least amount of risk and be more cost effective that dealing with petroleum and all of the hidden costs that are associated with it (environmental, national security, military bases and war, health, etc.)

We need to continue our hydrogen R&D. There just might be a bright future for the lightest element.

Let me just say, I think your point is valid that we need to continue to develop hydrogen fuel cells because not everything can run on batteries, and at the same time, not everything can run on fossil fuels forever either.

That being said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

I guess it's possible to store liquid hydrogen for energy storage, but you're going to have to ship/store over 3 times as much to equal the gasoline equivalent (10.1MJ per Liter for hydrogen vs. 34.2 MJ per Liter for gasoline). In some cases this isn't a big deal, in some cases it will be. But I can see your point about the CNG prices getting out of control, as supplies become scarcer and energy demand increases, and liquid hydrogen being an alternative, albeit more difficult to transport since it must stay highly pressurized. I'd be interested to know how much it would cost to build a liquid hydrogen tanker that could keep that much liquid hydrogen pressurized at 5000PSI for transport. I would think we would find a way to put undersea power lines in before it came to that, but I could be wrong.

I think it's safe to say that the day that we see a substantial amount of hydrogen vehicles on the road (year 2025 minimum?), we will have long since developed batteries that are fairly cost effective to the point where it will not be a problem to throw a high capacity battery in there, instead of just the minimum capacity necessary to level out the peaks and troughs of power demand. The question will be whether the US has stayed economically competitive during that time with Asian countries where their entire education system is entrenched in and political leaders are forged from engineering and technological prowess. We have an uphill battle to fight in this age where meaningful inventions are not as simple as making a big plastic circle and calling it a "hula hoop". Innovative technology takes a lot of time and money, time and money are definitely finite, so we must pick our battles carefully and figure out what we as a country can offer the world in order to enjoy the prosperity we've seen the last 5 decades.

Another good example is for a future electric airliner. The energy density for liquid hydrogen is extremely high. Battery technology is currently multiple times less dense. Liquid hydrogen might be the only way for this system to even work.

Volumetric energy density is important too and liquid hydrogen is 3X lower than Jet A, not counting the volume needed for the insulation in the tanks for the liquid hydrogen. Hydrocarbons are great transportation fuels. Government funding for developing non-fossil hydrocarbon fuels (along with battery, solar, fuel cell, and fusion research) should be a priority if we really want to get away from fossil fuels.

Again, never say never. ;) I can imagine in the future there will be some countries that have small wind and solar resources but huge energy demand. If you can't get a power line to them (mountains, sea or distance) that is cost effective then it just might be easier to ship them a liquid fuel like liquid hydrogen. If petroleum becomes very expensive for generating electricity (it will eventually) these nations have little choice. Japan currently imports massive amounts of liquidified NG. If the price of NG rises and some solar rich nation can supply liquified hydrogen, it's possible for the cost of their electricity to be less. I can think of many examples were liquified hydrogen could be cheaper.

Glad to see you've moderated your position, or are you appeasing your fellow forum members while safe in the knowledge that Obama is going to kill hydrogen as an alternative fuel?

Glad to see you've moderated your position, or are you appeasing your fellow forum members while safe in the knowledge that Obama is going to kill hydrogen as an alternative fuel?




While I have moderated my position on hydrogen it's not for what you expected (I think). I have, and still think hydrogen will not make it for personal transportation. I still believe the EV will rule the day. The liquid hydrogen brought to those countries will be used to generate electricity, not to be delivered to hydrogen filling stations for automobiles.

The reason I have moderated my position is due to Dr. Nocera's discovery of a potentially very efficient electrolysis process. He has been very quiet as of late so maybe he spoke too soon.

I have always said hydrogen R&D should continue in earnest. There may be several uses for it. I believe it will not beat EV's but for trucks, ships, planes, etc. There are probably some good applications for hydrogen. It's very light and can pack a lot of energy. It can be burned or used in a fuel cell.

I like the idea of matching solar with hydrogen. It's a beautifully clean system. All we need is better electrolysis and such a system could be a game changer.

The reason I have moderated my position is due to Dr. Nocera's discovery of a potentially very efficient electrolysis process. He has been very quiet as of late so maybe he spoke too soon.

This can signal two things - either he goofed and is lying low, or what he is working on is going to be really good. ;)

Not really fair to compare hydrogen to Jet A, is it ? I am familiar with another designation. JP-4, JP-8 etc. I thought Jet fuel was more like kerosene and diesel than gasoline. It is well known that diesel has more energy than gasoline. That's why trucks use it. What is the relationship in fuel density between hydrogen and 87 octane gasoline ?

Not really fair to compare hydrogen to Jet A, is it ? I am familiar with another designation. JP-4, JP-8 etc. I thought Jet fuel was more like kerosene and diesel than gasoline. It is well known that diesel has more energy than gasoline. That's why trucks use it. What is the relationship in fuel density between hydrogen and 87 octane gasoline ?

I compared to Jet A because Texas was talking about planes, but roughly the same argument applies to gasoline compared to liquid hydrogen.

I don't think it really matters what the difference is between gas and hydrogen. Gasoline is going to be replaced with batteries, not hydrogen.

One only needs to compare the infrastructure build-out costs for the PBP model with that of a hydrogen infrastructure to see that there is no way hydrogen is going to make it. Unless of course if Obama spends 2 trillion dollars on a hydrogen infrastructure project in an attempt to keep Americans addicted to a taxable liquid fuel. There's always that possibility. ;)

Just imagine all the infrastructure needed to drive you from your home to your grandmother's house using hydrogen (Including the hydrogen car, tanker trucks to transport hydrogen, hydrogen filling stations, safety check systems, etc.). Then imagine the cost of doing the same trip using the PBP model. Huge difference in cost! Huge efficiency difference as well! One would need to have ulterior motives to go with hydrogen at this stage of development.

I don't think it really matters what the difference is between gas and hydrogen. Gasoline is going to be replaced with batteries, not hydrogen.

One only needs to compare the infrastructure build-out costs for the PBP model with that of a hydrogen infrastructure to see that there is no way hydrogen is going to make it. Unless of course if Obama spends 2 trillion dollars on a hydrogen infrastructure project in an attempt to keep Americans addicted to a taxable liquid fuel. There's always that possibility. ;)

Just imagine all the infrastructure needed to drive you from your home to your grandmother's house using hydrogen (Including the hydrogen car, tanker trucks to transport hydrogen, hydrogen filling stations, safety check systems, etc.). Then imagine the cost of doing the same trip using the PBP model. Huge difference in cost! Huge efficiency difference as well! One would need to have ulterior motives to go with hydrogen at this stage of development.

... so you haven't really changed your position, you are just confident that it won't happen.

... so you haven't really changed your position, you are just confident that it won't happen.



Yes, even more confident. The EV model is looking strong to me. It will start with the EREVs, pure EV's and even PBP's swap stations. Eventually, we are likely to move to pure EV's with either leased or owned quick-charge energy storage devices. Then again, I'm going to wait to see where Obama sends the checks. ;) He and his staff might decide biofuels is the way to go. Maybe hydrogen. Hopefully EVs. I just hope they are not going to draw straws to determine the winner.

If Obama decides to go with hydrogen and the PBP model works better, that would be very embarrassing.

Yes, even more confident. The EV model is looking strong to me. It will start with the EREVs, pure EV's and even PBP's swap stations. Eventually, we are likely to move to pure EV's with either leased or owned quick-charge energy storage devices. Then again, I'm going to wait to see where Obama sends the checks. ;) He and his staff might decide biofuels is the way to go. Maybe hydrogen. Hopefully EVs. I just hope they are not going to draw straws to determine the winner.

If Obama decides to go with hydrogen and the PBP model works better, that would be very embarrassing.

Trust me, the Dems will figure out a way to tax any and all wealth creating enterprises to increase the size of the government, regardless of technology - battery, hydrogen, ethanol, bio-diesel, compressed air, etc.

Hydrogen ICE and compressed air are the ONLY zero emissions solutions that work in cold climates, so they will have their place among the technologies.