A Real Reality Check on "Green Hydrogen"

[ronwagn + 6,290]

https://www.rechargenews.com/transition/a-wake-up-call-on-green-hydrogen-the-amount-of-wind-and-solar-needed-is-immense/2-1-776481

A wake-up call on green hydrogen: the amount of wind and solar needed is immense

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have an abundance of energy sources including vast amounts of clean natural gas. Enough for hundreds of years. Who is behind the push for green hydrogen? The citizens of the world and economies of the world will suffer greatly, if pushed into this crazy nightmare. Lets spend our efforts getting natural gas distributed to everyone throughout the world. The powers that be seem to want more expensive plans. RCW

[markslawson + 1,042]

On 7/7/2020 at 7:33 AM, ronwagn said:

We have an abundance of energy sources including vast amounts of clean natural gas. Enough for hundreds of years. Who is behind the push for green hydrogen? The citizens of the world and economies of the world will suffer greatly, if pushed into this crazy nightmare.

Crazy nightmare is right. Where did this nonsense come from? Hydrogen is simply too inconvenient and difficult to store in anything like the quantities required for grid level storage. If you're really into renewables then shifting power between regions through a network of high voltage DC lines, maybe supplemented with a few batteries, is a vastly better bet, and the technology exists now. Admittedly its horrifically expensive, but it may be cheaper than using hydrogen. 

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

The far left movement doesn't really care. And that movement is running now, not walking. 

We are in a truly nightmarish period of American life in many respects. Perhaps the renewables are truly the answer for the world. We'll see.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

On 7/6/2020 at 2:33 PM, ronwagn said:

https://www.rechargenews.com/transition/a-wake-up-call-on-green-hydrogen-the-amount-of-wind-and-solar-needed-is-immense/2-1-776481

A wake-up call on green hydrogen:

Whoever wrote that, is a complete and utter bald faced MORON of epic proportions...🤣

Whole article is based on their bottom addendum: "calculation"🤣🤣🤣

"With 1kg of hydrogen containing 120-142 megajoules of energy, Irena’s prediction that 19 exajoules of green hydrogen will be needed in 2050 translates to 133.8 million to 158.3 million tonnes of hydrogen every year.

Using Platts’ formula that 1TWh of electricity provides 20,000 tonnes of green hydrogen (using PEM electrolysis), 6,690-7,915TWh would be needed every year to produce that amount of green hydrogen. Presuming a capacity factor (CF) of 100% (ie, operating 24 hours a day, 365 days a year), that translates into 763GW.

Of course, in the real world, CFs of even baseload fossil-fuel plants do not add up to 100%. Using average global CF figures for 2018, provided by the International Renewable Energy Agency and the World Nuclear Association, Recharge calculates that 6,690TWh is the equivalent of 957GW of nuclear (79.8% CF), 1,775GW of offshore wind (43% CF), 2,243GW of onshore wind (34% CF) or 4,240GW of solar PV (18% CF)."

***** SImple calc time ****** Lets just look at the very small part I bolded as a reality check.  TODAY we have installed ~400GW of nuclear around the world producing https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx

2500TWh of power for ~10% of electricity around the world.  Yet the genius's in this article say that by multiplying current Nuclear capacity by 2.5X  is going to solve the worlds power requirements... 🤣.  Lets see, 10% + said 10% load(250%) = 35% last I checked......🤣  And that is ONLY electrical generation requirements.  Does not TOUCH transportation requirements, industrial, heating, etc...

How unbelievably STUPID does one have to be to publish such utter Garbage?  You would think one of these stupid fools would run their numbers past their 13 year old children...  Oh right, they have NO CHILDREN, as they are "saving" the planet with the "miracles" of green 🤣  science 🤣 .... Yea, saving the planet from their utter insane STUPIDITY!!!!!

Edited July 8, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com

[ronwagn + 6,290]

4 hours ago, markslawson said:

Crazy nightmare is right. Where did this nonsense come from? Hydrogen is simply too inconvenient and difficult to store in anything like the quantities required for grid level storage. If you're really into renewables then shifting power between regions through a network of high voltage DC lines, maybe supplemented with a few batteries, is a vastly better bet, and the technology exists now. Admittedly its horrifically expensive, but it may be cheaper than using hydrogen. 

I am an advocate of redundant energy that is localized to insure availability in unforeseen calamities. So I would like to see more localized natural gas plants. We already have the pipelines for that and it would reduce the need for the DC lines but they do sound like an improvement. 

[BradleyPNW + 282]

"According to the International Renewable Energy Agency (Irena), the world will need 19 exajoules of green hydrogen in the energy system in 2050"

2050 is a totally different world. By 2050 robots build robots powered by systems built by robots with materials mined from mid-ocean ridges by robots and transported by robots. All the engineering and supply chains are managed by computers with no human labor or capital costs involved. Financial costs won't limit anything people in 2050 want to do. If they want hydrogen they'll build hydrogen. If they want nuclear they'll build nuclear. Everything in 2050 will be a matter of political negotiation and agreement without regard for price tags. 

For that reason we should shorten our time frames. Figure out what we want during the next 10-20 years and ignore the ultra-wealthy 2050 populations. Our concerns today are cost, national security, local pollution and health. Climate change matters today in the sense we need to arrive at politically acceptable solutions. Personally, if someone asks if we should have a hydrogen economy I'll say, "sure, why not." By the time we can build a hydrogen economy it won't cost anything to build it. 

[BradleyPNW + 282]

I lean toward hydrogen because it isn't scary to the voting population. But maybe people won't be scared of nuclear anymore in 2050. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

23 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

2500TWh of power for ~10% of electricity around the world.  Yet the genius's in this article say that by multiplying current Nuclear capacity by 2.5X  is going to solve the worlds power requirements... 🤣.  Lets see, 10% + said 10% load(250%) = 35% last I checked......🤣  And that is ONLY electrical generation requirements.  Does not TOUCH transportation requirements, industrial, heating, etc...

They first computed the amount of "green hydrogen" needed. Only a small amount of this hydrogen, if any, would be used to produce electricity. The electricity is to be produced directly by wind and solar backed up by other stuff not mentioned here. The hydrogen is to be used only for "transportation requirements, industrial, heating, etc..."

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

1 hour ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

They first computed the amount of "green hydrogen" needed. Only a small amount of this hydrogen, if any, would be used to produce electricity. The electricity is to be produced directly by wind and solar backed up by other stuff not mentioned here. The hydrogen is to be used only for "transportation requirements, industrial, heating, etc..."

Common man, you do not need Hydrogen for electrified vehicles, or residential heating... Do not make everyone do simple math for you. USA ~population 330M used 100quads of energy last year.  Going all electric will not make it more efficient either as more things lose efficiency than gain efficiency.  Or we can assume everything gains 66% efficiency... Another number for you:  1.64E9 kWh = 1Mbarrels of oil and Hydrogen to oil requires massive amounts of energy, but I digress...  One is just STARTING to add energy required to get from Hydrogen to plastics. Back to more relevant numbers: Their number used was ~7000TWh or ~7T kWh for this new utopia...

USA, by itself, on a yearly basis uses: 100quad = 29T kWh    If we assume 66% gain in efficiency (AS if) this would be ~10T kWh

😆 29T kWh >> 10T kWh >> 7T kWh 😂

Either way you slice it.  Their numbers appear out of thin air without any justification

Even if you assume their numbers are ONLY for the USA, they are still WAY too low.