Is it time to talk about Hydrogen?

[Wombat + 1,028]

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Fuel-Cells/Australia-Could-Lead-The-11-Trillion-Hydrogen-Boom.html

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

I'm going to say there must be a typo in the following quote from the article 

Quote

In a clear sign of the times, French power company Engie SA ENGI was recently forced to abandon a multibillion-dollar contract to export LNG to the U.S.  due to pressure by the French government on environmental concerns. This could very well become a standard requirement for the vast fossil fuel ecosystem.

 

I'm assuming the author meant import LNG? 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

Making hydrogen using electrolysis is thermodynamic lunacy. Of course we have a lot of lunacy going on today so why not? The round trip Net Energy Ratio is very likely negative 2 or 3, which is fairly impressive waste. Put in 30kjoules and get 10kjoules back? That said, there are some interesting developments in hydrogen production, so long as you're willing to ignore thermodynamics returns. And let's face it, mining bitcoin is the very worst kind of thermodynamic loser, but it keeps the minions busy…

A bit dated but still Interesting review of hydrogen production methods

 

[NickW + 2,714]

4 hours ago, Wombat said:

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Fuel-Cells/Australia-Could-Lead-The-11-Trillion-Hydrogen-Boom.html

If the economics of producing Hydrogen from stranded / surplus renewable energy (or off peak nuclear) are viable then this is fantastic news. 

For OZ it can utilise land which has little or no economic value for both wind and solar. For other countries especially net importers it offers an opportunity to offset some of its gas import costs by producing Hydrogen and blending into the network. The UK is a case in example. The Health and Safety Executive have concluded that blending up to 20% by volume is achievable without modifying the network. Thats about 6.6% by calorific value. 

The UK consumption of gas is about 75 bn m3 (812TWH). So the Uk can add approx 53 TWH of Hydrogen to the network. 

This is the biggest benefit  - It would effectively allow a massive overbuild of renewables with the gas network acting as a reservoir into which surplus H2 can be dumped. 

In addition plant adjacent to CCGT stations could produce H2 in surplus periods on site and the CCGT could use pure H2 at peak times. The turbine manufacturers already have models that can burn H2 or very rich H2 - CH4 mixes. 

Globally the World uses about 3.8 Trillion M3 of gas or 41000TWH. At 6% (assuming the HSE figure is representative) addition by calorific value thats 2500TWH of renewable Hydrogen that could go into the global gas grids. 

 

[NickW + 2,714]

2 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Making hydrogen using electrolysis is thermodynamic lunacy. Of course we have a lot of lunacy going on today so why not? The round trip Net Energy Ratio is very likely negative 2 or 3, which is fairly impressive waste. Put in 30kjoules and get 10kjoules back? That said, there are some interesting developments in hydrogen production, so long as you're willing to ignore thermodynamics returns. And let's face it, mining bitcoin is the very worst kind of thermodynamic loser, but it keeps the minions busy…

A bit dated but still Interesting review of hydrogen production methods

 

As I said in my last post the main benefit is it allows massive overbuild of renewables to primarily produce electricity with H2 being produced with surplus. 

This is of particular relevance to net importers of gas and other fossil fuels. 

[Meredith Poor + 883]

3 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Making hydrogen using electrolysis is thermodynamic lunacy. Of course we have a lot of lunacy going on today so why not? The round trip Net Energy Ratio is very likely negative 2 or 3, which is fairly impressive waste. Put in 30kjoules and get 10kjoules back? That said, there are some interesting developments in hydrogen production, so long as you're willing to ignore thermodynamics returns. And let's face it, mining bitcoin is the very worst kind of thermodynamic loser, but it keeps the minions busy…

A bit dated but still Interesting review of hydrogen production methods

 

PEM electrolysis has an electrical efficiency of about 80% in working application, in terms of hydrogen produced per unit of electricity used to drive the reaction. The efficiency of PEM electrolysis is expected to reach 82-86% before 2030, while also maintaining durability as progress in this area continues at a pace.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer_electrolyte_membrane_electrolysis

At 80%, 30Kjoules in would produce 24KJoules of hydrogen. There are some issues with the nature of the electrodes and the operating temperature, among other things. However, a number of electrolysis technologies perform far better than the 30% you're quoting here.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, Meredith Poor said:

PEM electrolysis has an electrical efficiency of about 80% in working application, in terms of hydrogen produced per unit of electricity used to drive the reaction. The efficiency of PEM electrolysis is expected to reach 82-86% before 2030, while also maintaining durability as progress in this area continues at a pace.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer_electrolyte_membrane_electrolysis

At 80%, 30Kjoules in would produce 24KJoules of hydrogen. There are some issues with the nature of the electrodes and the operating temperature, among other things. However, a number of electrolysis technologies perform far better than the 30% you're quoting here.

All except the 600C operating temp. 

I get it, disregard enough variables and even fusion works. Try to deploy that in reality at industrial scale? Not so much. I guess if you get perfect insulation working and few dozen other issues, no problem. 

To those just lurking PEM is basically running a fuel cell backwards. Fuel cells generally crap out because contaminants foul the membrane. I'm not sure if that's still an issue in reverse. I had an in-law who was an engineer at Bloom energy. Fouling was the biggest problem back then as I recall. 

[Meredith Poor + 883]

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

All except the 600C operating temp. 

I get it, disregard enough variables and even fusion works. Try to deploy that in reality at industrial scale? Not so much. I guess if you get perfect insulation working and few dozen other issues, no problem. 

To those just lurking PEM is basically running a fuel cell backwards. Fuel cells generally crap out because contaminants foul the membrane. I'm not sure if that's still an issue in reverse. I had an in-law who was an engineer at Bloom energy. Fouling was the biggest problem back then as I recall. 

Just to be clear, I don't think much of the hydrogen idea in general. I don't mind the idea of using methanol, ammonia, or urea as hydrogen carriers, or even methane for that matter. There are reactors that produce these products directly from CO2 and water.

While urea is the 'least energy dense' of the four listed above, it is both very safe and solid at room temperature. Methanol and ammonia are both toxic. Keyword search urea electrolysis. Anyone can build a urea electrolyzer for producing hydrogen gas, or at least anyone that could build anything that wires up two metal electrodes in a jar.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

The basic concept seems to be, run renewable energy plants at full blast whenever you can and if there's no demand for the power (unlike economics theory, in power demand must equal supply) shunt it over to hydrogen production. This is of interest only in the following scenarios:

1) There's no alternative use for the power generated

2) There's no nearby hill or mountain available for pumped hydro storage

3) The transport, storage quandary of hydrogen gets solved

It does seem a quirk of fate that the best places for renewable generation are places no one wants to live. Since no one is there, there's no likely alternate use for the power. Given the inefficiency, battery storage or pumped hydro would make more sense. That leaves 3 above, say we produce H2 in the middle of nowhere Australia. How do we get it to market? 

[NickW + 2,714]

11 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

The basic concept seems to be, run renewable energy plants at full blast whenever you can and if there's no demand for the power (unlike economics theory, in power demand must equal supply) shunt it over to hydrogen production. This is of interest only in the following scenarios:

1) There's no alternative use for the power generated

2) There's no nearby hill or mountain available for pumped hydro storage

3) The transport, storage quandary of hydrogen gets solved

It does seem a quirk of fate that the best places for renewable generation are places no one wants to live. Since no one is there, there's no likely alternate use for the power. Given the inefficiency, battery storage or pumped hydro would make more sense. That leaves 3 above, say we produce H2 in the middle of nowhere Australia. How do we get it to market? 

convert to Ammonia and offer it as fertiliser / chemical feedstock? 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

24 minutes ago, NickW said:

convert to Ammonia and offer it as fertiliser / chemical feedstock? 

There's cheaper, less energy inefficient ways to make ammonia. 

The problem with hydrogen is it's affinity to other elements. The bonds are quite strong so if you want to put hydrogen in, but get useful H2 out, you'll exert too much energy to break those bonds. Interestingly "hydrocarbons" have some of the weakest bonds, which is why they're so useful. And now we've come full circle. 

Reminds me of the hole in the bucket riddle. 

 

Edited November 9, 2020 by Ward Smith
Added song

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

The problem with hydrogen is it's affinity to other elements. The bonds are quite strong so if you want to put hydrogen in, but get useful H2 out, you'll exert too much energy to break those bonds. Interestingly "hydrocarbons" have some of the weakest bonds, which is why they're so useful. And now we've come full circle. 

That's the reason Elon calls them hydrogen fool sells. 😊

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

Just now, Gerry Maddoux said:

That's the reason Elon calls them hydrogen fool sells. 😊

Well, that and the fact that he has this, uh, battery to cell. 😂

[Wombat + 1,028]

9 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

I'm going to say there must be a typo in the following quote from the article 

I'm assuming the author meant import LNG? 

Indeed.

[Wombat + 1,028]

3 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

The basic concept seems to be, run renewable energy plants at full blast whenever you can and if there's no demand for the power (unlike economics theory, in power demand must equal supply) shunt it over to hydrogen production. This is of interest only in the following scenarios:

1) There's no alternative use for the power generated

2) There's no nearby hill or mountain available for pumped hydro storage

3) The transport, storage quandary of hydrogen gets solved

It does seem a quirk of fate that the best places for renewable generation are places no one wants to live. Since no one is there, there's no likely alternate use for the power. Given the inefficiency, battery storage or pumped hydro would make more sense. That leaves 3 above, say we produce H2 in the middle of nowhere Australia. How do we get it to market? 

Ward, my understanding is they will convert the H2 to ammonia, ship it to Japan etc, who will then convert it back to H2. Even more thermodynamic lunacy but that seems to be the plan. My other understanding is that Australia's goal is to get the price of H2 down to $2/kg, but the Europeans are aiming for $1/kg and even then, this would require a carbon price between $50 and $100 to make economic sense versus gas and coal, according to an article I saw either on this site or bloomberg, I think. My other concern is that the proposed plant in West Australia is gigantic, but my best guesstimate is that it would only produce about 50,000 bdoe. If it only produces the equivalent of 50,000 b/d of oil, and oil demand is approx 100m b/d, then we are talkin 2000 giant H2 plants scattered around the globe which I don't think is feasible. Neither on cost or suitable sites. However, my math may be terribly wrong coz I have not delved into it yet, don't even know where to start in converting a kilo of H2 that will be used in a fuel cell vehicle into a given amount of gasoline or diesel. So far the discussion seems focused on the replacement/partial substitution of natural gas in electricity production which seems to be main aim in Europe, but my understanding is that in Asia, the first priority is to replace oil. Can anyone help me figure out how many barrels of oil equivalent we are talkin in regards to any of these proposed H2 plants?

[Wombat + 1,028]

5 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

All except the 600C operating temp. 

I get it, disregard enough variables and even fusion works. Try to deploy that in reality at industrial scale? Not so much. I guess if you get perfect insulation working and few dozen other issues, no problem. 

To those just lurking PEM is basically running a fuel cell backwards. Fuel cells generally crap out because contaminants foul the membrane. I'm not sure if that's still an issue in reverse. I had an in-law who was an engineer at Bloom energy. Fouling was the biggest problem back then as I recall. 

Good point. I recall that an Aussie company made a fuel cell for household electricity and used the waste heat for water heating. It ran on NG and claimed 80% efficiency, but was very expensive and the membrane had to be replaced every 5 years at over $1000 a pop. Don't know how long a H2 fuel cell would last in a vehicle?

[Rob Kramer + 696]

Art Berman tweet:

 

50kWh to produce 1kg of hydrogen which produces 15kWh of electricity. --"Assessment of the Extra Capacity Required of Alternative Energy Electrical Power Systems to Completely Replace Fossil Fuels" 1:3

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

57 minutes ago, Wombat said:

However, my math may be terribly wrong coz I have not delved into it yet, don't even know where to start in converting a kilo of H2 that will be used in a fuel cell vehicle into a given amount of gasoline or diesel.

[]

Can anyone help me figure out how many barrels of oil equivalent we are talkin in regards to any of these proposed H2 plants?

Sure. 

Simplest way is to just compare heat value on a weight basis. 

 

For a fuel cell you need to do more math as it is not typical combustion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_enthalpy_of_formation

H2O(g) is -241.8 KJ/mol (use H20(g) for combustion calculations)

H2O(l) is -285.8 KJ/mol (use H20(l) for a fuel cell)

CO2(g) is --393.5KJ/mol

O2 and H2 are delta Hf are zero by definition (32g/mol and 2g/mol respectively).

 

Edited November 10, 2020 by Enthalpic

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

@Enthalpic

That figure for natural uranium in a fast neutron reactor... is exactly why I look forward to advancements in reactor tech. 

[Wombat + 1,028]

2 hours ago, Rob Kramer said:

Art Berman tweet:

 

50kWh to produce 1kg of hydrogen which produces 15kWh of electricity. --"Assessment of the Extra Capacity Required of Alternative Energy Electrical Power Systems to Completely Replace Fossil Fuels" 1:3

Thanks for the link.

[NickW + 2,714]

9 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

There's cheaper, less energy inefficient ways to make ammonia. 

The problem with hydrogen is it's affinity to other elements. The bonds are quite strong so if you want to put hydrogen in, but get useful H2 out, you'll exert too much energy to break those bonds. Interestingly "hydrocarbons" have some of the weakest bonds, which is why they're so useful. And now we've come full circle. 

Reminds me of the hole in the bucket riddle. 

 

What I understand is the combination of falls in the cost of renewable electricity, notably solar and the cost of building electrolysers is reaching the point where it has parity with producing hydrogen from natural gas. 

Sure at this point if you are awash with natural gas its of limited interest but if as a country you are a net importer of energy its a different story. So in that sense yes its a little strange that this set in Australia. With the UK planning a mass overbuild of wind the opportunity to dump surplus electricity into H2 production that can go into the grid is significant. More H2 we produce that's less CH4 we have to important from Russia and Qatar  

[Wombat + 1,028]

1 hour ago, NickW said:

What I understand is the combination of falls in the cost of renewable electricity, notably solar and the cost of building electrolysers is reaching the point where it has parity with producing hydrogen from natural gas. 

Sure at this point if you are awash with natural gas its of limited interest but if as a country you are a net importer of energy its a different story. So in that sense yes its a little strange that this set in Australia. With the UK planning a mass overbuild of wind the opportunity to dump surplus electricity into H2 production that can go into the grid is significant. More H2 we produce that's less CH4 we have to important from Russia and Qatar  

Actually Nick, Australia is the world number 1 exporter of both coal and LNG and we know we have to get cracking and become a major export superpower of renewables in order to replace lost income as the world turns green. Simple as that. We screwed if we can't manage the transition. Japan is our largest energy market, take 50% of our coal and LNG but are about to close 100 of their older, less-efficient coal fired power plants for just 10 large super-critical ones, and their demand for our LNG has also started to fall. They are switching their nukes back on as well as going hard on renewables. If we can supply them with H2 for both transport and LNG replacement (perhaps green steel and ammonia too), then we might do OK

[NickW + 2,714]

2 minutes ago, Wombat said:

Actually Nick, Australia is the world number 1 exporter of both coal and LNG and we know we have to get cracking and become a major export superpower of renewables in order to replace lost income as the world turns green. Simple as that. We screwed if we can't manage the transition. Japan is our largest energy market, take 50% of our coal and LNG but are about to close 100 of their older, less-efficient coal fired power plants for just 10 large super-critical ones, and their demand for our LNG has also started to fall. They are switching their nukes back on as well as going hard on renewables. If we can supply them with H2 for both transport and LNG replacement (perhaps green steel and ammonia too), then we might do OK

As a fellow Australian (blow in) I support this too although due to the remoteness I think Oz is at a disadvantage if it tries to export elemental hydrogen will all the issues with compressing it. 

Better to focus on making Ammonia for fertiliser - WA is a straight line route to South Asia where there must be huge demand. Also fuel - I see some ship engine builders are designing dual LNG / Ammonia engines.

Using that H2 locally to manufacture steel and get Oz back into manufacturing and not the white mans Zambia (dig stuff out the ground and export) 

[Robert Ziegler + 121]

8 hours ago, Wombat said:

Indeed.

The moment you think hydrogen is a useful energy carrier, such details don't really matter any more....

[Wombat + 1,028]

5 minutes ago, NickW said:

As a fellow Australian (blow in) I support this too although due to the remoteness I think Oz is at a disadvantage if it tries to export elemental hydrogen will all the issues with compressing it. 

Better to focus on making Ammonia for fertiliser - WA is a straight line route to South Asia where there must be huge demand. Also fuel - I see some ship engine builders are designing dual LNG / Ammonia engines.

Using that H2 locally to manufacture steel and get Oz back into manufacturing and not the white mans Zambia (dig stuff out the ground and export) 

Alas, we would need the Aussie dollar to crash to about 30 US cents in order to manufacture again! It is not just Chinese manufacturing we are up against, the whole Emerging World has dirt cheap labour and dirt cheap currencies. We are still doing some "niche" manufacturing in certain high-tech areas (vaccines, hearing aids, carbon-fibre wheels etc) and a fair bit in construction and food processing, but our manufacturing industry is now only 6% of GDP, compared to 10% in US, and about 15-20% in UK and most of Western Europe. I dunno if you have heard of "Dutch Disease" but we got a bad case of it. Stupid thing is, we don't even have a large trade surplus like Germany or China. It is just that the rest of the Western world use our currency as a proxy to bet on China. The Aussie/USD is now the world 5th largest currency trading pair, exceeding that of the Pound/Dollar. Our Reserve bank is trying desperately to lower the exchange rate, but they are spittin in the wind