I’ve seen it claimed that hydrogen is the renewable energy option backed by fossil-fuel interests precisely because it’s impractical. That way, it consumes funding and interest that would otherwise be spent on electrification, without threatening the dominance of fossils.
It also can partly re-use natural gas infrastructure, allowing them to exploit existing capital.
@WaterWaiver @AllNewTypeFace There’s a perception that we could just reuse existing methane gas (i.e. “natural gas”) infrastructure for hydrogen. But often that just isn’t the case:
"The pipelines that transport hydrogen are made of the same basic material as most of those built for natural gas: steel. But hydrogen is a much smaller molecule than methane, the main component in natural gas. In fact, hydrogen is the smallest molecule on Earth. Its size means it can squeeze into tiny spaces in certain steel alloys in a way that natural gas cannot. That can cause “embrittlement,” making the metal more likely to crack or corrode. Hydrogen molecules are also much more likely to leak from valves, seals, and other connection points on pipelines (which risks undermining green hydrogen’s climate benefits). And hydrogen is transported in a more pressurized state than natural gas, which puts more stress on the pipeline carrying it.
“Rather than transporting 100 percent hydrogen, many companies are now testing whether they can blend hydrogen with natural gas for transport in existing pipelines. In a study released last summer, the California Public Utility Commission found that up to 5 percent hydrogen blended with natural gas appears safe, but higher percentages could lead to embrittlement or a greater chance of pipeline leaks. Internationally, France places the highest cap on hydrogen blending, at 6 percent, according to the International Energy Agency (Germany allows blending at 8 percent under certain conditions).”
If the aim is to reach net zero emissions by 2050, a 90% or 95% methane to 10% or 5% hydrogen gas blend just isn’t that useful for reaching that goal.
(And that’s assuming the hydrogen is green hydrogen as well.)
And if a lot of your infrastructure has to be retrofitted anyway, electrification plus renewables plus storage makes a lot more sense in many cases.
There are still use cases where green hydrogen will be useful — international long-haul flights, rockets, some industrial processes, etc. But it’s not the best solution in most cases.
#ClimateChange #hydrogen #gas #NetZero #electrification #transport
Thankyou for that info. I knew it was leaky, but I didn’t realise that pipeline materials were so incompatible.
@WaterWaiver @ajsadauskas Even if the pipelines were not, as a software engineer I don’t get how you get past the incompatible end user appliances in domestic and industrial sectors.
You can get to that 5%, and an ongoing 5% drop is a little helpful, but how do you swap every single gas appliance?
How do you ensure that every single appliance on a network branch is compatible at scale?
You can not do a flag day, surely, but how do you change a stove from one jet to another at the right time?
You’re focusing only on (1) consumer usage and (2) fixed pipelines. There is a bigger variety of gas infrastructure than that.
@ajsadauskas
Thanks for sharing this information.
Still it seems to be more economical to use existing pipelines than new ones. Also a polymer coating is an option.You’re just spreading propaganda against hydrogen. It is fundamental to a zero emissions society. It is even necessary to get the grid to zero emissions. Nearly all rhetoric against hydrogen is just some kind of corporate propaganda, if not from the battery industry then it is from the petroleum industry.
Hydrogen is essential, but we need it for the chemical industry, steelmaking, etc. Using hydrogen as an incredibly expensive and inefficient battery by turning it back into electricity is not the future.
Depends on how much they cost. Since hydrogen energy storage means throwing away 2/3 of the energy you generate, it’s not a viable option unless it’s massively cheaper or batteries just can’t do the job at all.
Hydrogen has to be stored at cryogenic temperatures and high pressures to reach any sort of capacity. Desnsity wise your not going to beat cubic kilometers of water halfway up a mountain in cost per kw, even before factoring in the far higher power losses that come with synthesizing or domposing hydrogen.
Yes, that’s the point. The problem of batteries is that you need to mine a vast amount of raw materials for them. So it doesn’t even matter how much “better” they are. It is simply not an answer no matter what.
@Hypx @Baku @AllNewTypeFace @WaterWaiver @ajsadauskas @zurohki A lot to be said for low capex / high opex in some of these cases.
@ajsadauskas @WaterWaiver @AllNewTypeFace @25kV
maybe, if climate change was taken seriously already 25 years ago, non-negligible share of principal gas infrastructure could have been hydrogen-ready by now…
Sounds on brand.
I know I’m late, but I just realised I remember your name from Reddit times and got really excited! Hello!
The only people saying this are battery investors. They merely want to replace our dependency on fossil fuels with a dependency on their batteries. That is the real scam.
Luckily, it turns out it’s possible to just start manufacturing batteries almost anywhere. You can’t really get lock-in where you’re stuck with their product like with oil and gas.
Wrong. you are totally stuck with the metal requirements needed for those batteries. It is just another dependency. Meanwhile, the alternative such as hydrogen has no such dependencies.
@Hypx @Baku @AllNewTypeFace @zurohki
AllNewTypeFace wrote: “I’ve seen it claimed that hydrogen is the renewable energy option backed by fossil-fuel interests precisely because it’s impractical.”
To which you replied: “The only people saying this are battery investors. They merely want to replace our dependency on fossil fuels with a dependency on their batteries.”
But the fossil fuel industry’s support for hydrogen and biomethane isn’t just some myth cooked up by battery producers.
And you don’t need to take my word on that. Here’s ExxonMobil on hydrogen:
“Hydrogen produces zero greenhouse gas emissions at its point of use. It’s also versatile - suitable for power generation, trucking, and heat-intensive industries like steel and chemicals. We are scaling up production of low-carbon hydrogen to reduce CO2 emissions in our own facilities, and helping others do the same… Natural gas is comprised largely of methane (CH4) and can be turned into hydrogen through a reforming process.”
Source: https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/what-we-do/delivering-industrial-solutions/hydrogen
Here’s what Australian Gas Networks has to say:
"Australian Gas Networks and the Australian gas sector has a clear vision for a low carbon future using renewable gases such as hydrogen and biomethane. We know we need to deliver on this vision to help Australia meet national and statebased emissions reductions targets, whilst also maintaining the reliability of supply at lowest cost to our customers.
“Hydrogen Park South Australia and Hydrogen Park Gladstone will demonstrate how we can use the existing gas network to deliver blended gas to customers - the Australian Hydrogen Centre (AHC) is the next step in our journey, delivering feasibility studies on blending 10% renewable hydrogen into towns and cities, and plans for a 100% renewable gas future.”
Source: https://www.australiangasnetworks.com.au/australian-hydrogen-centre
Here’s Gas Energy Australia, a lobby group that represents LNG gas producers:
“We strongly support the inclusion of hydrogen and biomethane in the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF). Further expanding the way displacement is credited under the ERF to include the full array of emerging renewable gases to replace fossil fuels, would enable the Australian gas industry to make a profound contribution to reducing emissions.”
Source: https://www.gasenergyaus.au/about/aims.html
I can give you more examples, including from submissions to government inquires, but this post is getting too long as it is.
No-one is disputing that green hydrogen has an important role to play in decarbonisation.
But.
When oil & gas firms, and their lobbyists, start touting hydrogen, then people will and should ask questions. And no, that’s not just battery manufacturers.
There is almost zero interest from the fossil fuel industry for hydrogen. It is pursued as enthusiastically as they pursue wind and solar. There is no reason they will strongly pursue anything that could replace fossil fuels. And if they did, then all the better, since it is in fact, green energy.
What you’re doing is just gish gallop. It has no bearing to reality. You are arguing a conspiracy theory where if the fossil fuel industry pursues a green energy technology, it automatically means it is a scam. A claim with so many illogical leaps of faiths that it is incoherent. Even wind and solar would be scams in that worldview, since fossil fuel companies spend something on those technologies.
@Hypx @Baku @AllNewTypeFace @zurohki
“There is almost zero interest from the fossil fuel industry for hydrogen.”
The oil and gas industry routinely cites the potential of hydrogen and biomethane as substitutes for oil and methane gas, including in submissions to government inquires.
Take a look at any of the submissions to Victoria’s inquiry from an oil or gas industry group.
Almost every single one, including the submission from Exxon-Mobil, cites hydrogen and biomethane as their preferred long-term options: https://engage.vic.gov.au/help-us-build-victorias-gas-substitution-roadmap
And going back to the original post, the grey hydrogen to be used in Victoria’s bus trial is not exactly an emissions-free fuel source.
“It is pursued as enthusiastically as they pursue wind and solar. There is no reason they will strongly pursue anything that could replace fossil fuels.”
Because the oil and gas industry knows the prospect of hydrogen is effective at delaying the replacement of gas appliances with electric ones.
“And if they did, then all the better, since it is in fact, green energy.”
Hydrogen that’s produced with methane gas or coal — what Exxon-Mobil is producing — is not green energy.
“What you’re doing is just gish gallop. It has no bearing to reality. You are arguing a conspiracy theory where if the fossil fuel industry pursues a green energy technology, it automatically means it is a scam. [Snip]”
Again, green hydrogen (produced using renewable power) has its place, especially in industrial processes, in agriculture, in aviation, etc.
But it has its limits. And there are use cases where renewables with local battery, grid scale battery, or other energy storage solutions (eg grid-scale pumped hydro) are a better option.
Especially if the hydrogen in question is grey or brown hydrogen, as per the Victorian bus trial.
Elsewhere in this thread, you claimed any criticism of hydrogen came from the battery industry or the fossil fuel industry. You have presented nothing to back up that assertion.
To the contrary, the Australian oil and gas industry regularly cites hydrogen as a reason to delay or avoid the transition from gas to electric renewable alternatives.
As yet another example, here’s Energy Networks Australia’s Gas Vision 2050 policy statement. Hydrogen is right there on the front page:
“Since Energy Networks Australia and our industry partners launched Gas Vision 2050 two years ago, the industry has invested in research and development, policy analysis and pilot projects to demonstrate these new technologies, with a focus on the role of hydrogen.”
https://www.energynetworks.com.au/projects/gas-vision-2050/
I’ve cited multiple examples of where the oil and gas industry has cited hydrogen as a reason to delay or avoid a switch away from gas.
Do you have any concrete examples to back up your assertion that: “The only people saying this are battery investors. They merely want to replace our dependency on fossil fuels with a dependency on their batteries. That is the real scam”?
This is just Gish gallop. Please shut up. If you use your style of rhetoric, wind, solar and even battery manufacturing are just a scam by the oil companies. This is pure gibberish. Volume of bullshit doesn’t make for a coherent argument.
You can extract lithium from ocean water, you know? Nothing else in an LFP battery is rare, and we’ve got sodium batteries starting to roll out.
You can also extract hydrogen from water. Except now it’s not an insanely impractical idea. Sodium batteries haven’t been invented yet, and will have a much lower energy density.
I mean… you can order some right now if you want. Their energy density isn’t that bad.
They’re in the production ramp phase, not the hoping for future technology phase like hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen storage.
The link is dead.
You have an inverted view of reality. Hydrogen fuel cells are a now technology. Your idea don’t exist outside of science projects and underwhelming early demonstration versions.
Theyre not wrong. Gray Hydrogen is made from methane through a process called hydrocracking. This requires that methane and water be heated together to over 1,000 degress celsius in the presence of suitable catalysts to convert methane and water into hydrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. It requires a lot of energy and can not convert all of the potential energy of the methane into hydrogen. The only saving grace is that hydrogen can be consumed in fuel cells generating electricity at high efficiency. But that doesnt really make up for the production process or difficulty of storage.
Whhhhhhhy? Just why?
Like esp with hydrogen embrittlement. You are better off just burning the methane (not that I advocate this either, use green hydrogen or fuck off tbh)
That is the point the article and I were making yes.
I’m no big fan of hydrogen fuel vehicles as an alternative to battery-electric, mostly because, as you said, it’s difficult to process and store. But with that said, the argument that hydrogen isn’t environmentally friendly because gray hydrogen is derived from fossils fuels has always rung a bit hollow to me. Most electricity in the world is also derived from fossils fuels. The advantage of both hydrogen and BEV over gas is that their fuel sources can also be derived using green methods. There’s still work to do on the backend to make that happen, but from an end user point of view the transition is seamless.
Blue Hydrogen is the term you are looking for. i.e Hydrogen produced through electrolysis. And this process is less efficient than storing electricity in a battery. Fuel cells are typically in the 50-60% efficiency range and electrolysis is around 70-80%. Batteries are around 90% efficient. So the round trip efficiency of Hydrogen production and conversion back to electricity is 35 to 48%. So youve got a fuel source that converts electricity into motion around half as efficiently as batteries, that requires high pressure and/or low temperature storage, is an explosion hazard and burns with a clear invisible flame that has even less infrastructure than electric cars do. So many things would have to be improved for it to be more viable than battery electric. The transition to Hydrogen for transportation is not “seamless.”
Hydrogen is better suited to chemical industries. Trying to shoehorn it into transportation is trying to wedge a square peg into a round hole. Let Hydrogen do what it is best at and let batteries do what they are best at instead of trying to force them into areas of the economy that they have no business being in.
Electrify what you can, use renewable fuels like hydrogen for what you can’t.
Hydrogen buses will have a role, but they’re not in direct competition with electric buses.
There’s a few things about this that surprise me:
Melbourne isn’t already entirely, or at least mostly, electrified (not just trains, but buses too)
Regional Vic is having all of their buses replaced too. Naturally that’s going to exclude vline coaches, but although big cities like Geelong and Ballarat make sense, smaller ones like Portland and horsham feel like much lower priorities to me
They’ll be using this demonstration project to better understand the TCO of the vehicles and situate them in ideal use cases. I don’t expect these ones to stay around in the city.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
@LovesTha @BinChicken @Railison @Baku Here’s a link to the timetable for Sydney’s Metro Northwest line, which runs driverless trains: https://transportnsw.info/documents/timetables/93-M-Sydney-Metro-North-West-20230929.pdf
Note that even off-peak or on weekends, the frequency is every 10 minutes, and every four minutes during the peak.
The technology is there to do far more frequent driverless trains, but Victoria hasn’t invested in it.
Probably. I’m hoping I’ll be able to get a few photos before that happens though. I don’t see them sticking around that long
They’ll probably continue to be used around hydrogen hubs. Government is doing a lot of work to scale green hydrogen production, part of which requires there to be demand for what’s produced
Eh, I’m not sure I think hydrogen is the best option honestly. It seems like a lot of effort to go to, and certainly more than chicken some solar panels and a few batteries at a depot/on buses
@Baku @Railison Burning methane (“natural”) gas to make hydrogen to run a bus really isn’t much of a step forward, if your aim is to reduce emissions.
Some solar panels and a battery would be a much better option.
From TFA:
"But Guardian Australia understands the buses will run on grey hydrogen, produced using natural gas.
“Currently about 96% of the world’s hydrogen is produced using coal (brown hydrogen) and gas (grey). The production of grey and brown hydrogen releases carbon dioxide and unburnt fugitive methane into the atmosphere.”
#bus #vicpol #climate #methane #ClimateChange #PublicTransport #melbourne #environment #auspol
Yeah never said that emissions reductions were the aim for this trial. They’ll be looking at how much the vehicles cost to run and maintain, and probably use that to help determine the strike price for green hydrogen subsidies down the track.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
@Baku @Railison Battery electric busses are a well established technology, used widely, normally hard to get grants for.
Despite this they got a 50 bus grants for the battery technology, plus 2 for hydrogen. If you want to get free money for these things it needs to be novel, and H2 is.
Regardless, anything is better than diesel. I ride my bike on a now almost all electric bus route. I hold my breath much less often now. The reduced particulates is enough to show in the graphs for Wellington
@Railison @Baku Electric buses should refer to directly electrified buses. The problem with battery powered buses is the weight and cost of the battery. It fundamental dooms that idea to non-viability, and nearly all transit agencies have found them to be nearly unusable once real-world factors are taken into account.
For buses that can’t be electrified, it pretty much has to be #hydrogen or some other chemical fuel.
Does anyone know which services the hydros are running? I’m keen to go on one before they inevitably get pulled
Victoria’s hydrogen buses will service routes across Footscray, Williamstown, Moonee Ponds and Sunshine in Melbourne’s west. The government said the trial, involving six operators, would provide information on how no-emission buses perform, including energy usage.
That’s your clue, there. Those areas all belong to Transit Systems: https://www.transitsystems.com.au/hydrogen-bus-new
You can try calling or emailing them, but you’ll probably have better luck going to Footscray station and asking the staff there. They’ll know the bus numbers and when they’re next due to arrive.
I did see and think of that, I was just curious if anyone had managed to ride one yet, which service it was. But I’ll send them an email and see what they say
