Can Hydrogen Energy Save Coal Country?

[Meredith Poor + 894]

Scenario 1 is that existing silicon solar cells and wind power costs decline in a predictable progression, leading to solar panels costing roughly 1 cent per watt before 2030. The current lowest price I can find in China is about 15 cents per watt for a panel. The current lowest price I can find per cell is around 7 cents per watt.

Note: I have found a price of 2 cents per watt quoted by one Chinese vendor, if the order is for 465 MW cells, or 100,000,000 units.

Scenario 2 is that perovskite solar cells become commercially viable, shortening the path to one cent per watt to the mid-2020's, or earlier. The 'one cent per watt' price might be for a panel that only lasts 10 years, however this may well be economically viable.

Scenario 3 is that thermal hydrogen fusion commercializes no later than 2030.

Scenario 4 is that HB11 fusion commercializes, also between 2025 and 2030.

None of these necessarily excludes the others - there are some situations where silicon PV would remain desirable even if perovskite panels are significantly cheaper - generally smaller scale uses where high longevity is paramount. There may be so much cross fertilization on the fusion front that 'all of them' commercialize in their respective niches.

Of these scenarios, the most desirable for incumbent power plants is scenario 3, since this is a 'boiling water' system that simply replaces the coal with a fusion reactor. This isn't 'Green Hydrogen', but it is a 'hydrogen' solution, so to speak.

Anyone that proposes hydrogen as a fuel should look up hydrogen embrittlement. Start with the idea that ordinary hydrogen is the 'smallest' atom making up the 'smallest' molecule (H2). This is going to be stored under pressure in tanks made of steel or similar materials, and transferred through pumps, pipes, valves, and metering over long distances. Hydrogen's energy potential is enormous - great as a fuel when burned in appropriate circumstances, not so great when it's burning the ship or the pipeline it's being transported in.

This leads to the idea that there are appropriate hydrogen 'carriers', such as methane, ammonia, urea, or propane. Methane is a very stable molecule, unfortunately it is a gas at room temperature and a contributor to global warming. Ammonia and propane are both liquids when transported in bulk, usually under moderate pressures. Urea is a solid at room temperature, and is both non-toxic and non-volatile.

Using nitrogen (in ammonia and urea) as a carrier is problematic due to the energy required to disassociate the nitrogen molecule. The flip side of that is that when the hydrogen is consumed at the end, the 'emissions' are nitrogen and water. However, urea also contains a carbon, so it's disassociation produces a certain amount of CO2.

Hydrolyzing water to make ammonia or propane would be 'perfect' work for the kind of people that operate power plants and oil refineries, since this is a lot of plumbing and chemical reactors. So this is good in scenarios 1, 2, and 3 where electricity (and/or sunlight) needs to be converted to chemical energy.

Scenario 4 generates electricity directly, so there is no boiling water and no point in transporting fuel. If, for example, a locomotive ran on an HB11 reaction, it would have no fuel and no engine. There would be something that looks vaguely like a fuel cell or battery generating electricity. There might also be batteries to store 'regenerated' power - the fusion reactor would ramp up and down 'slowly', keeping the batteries 'topped off' while the train is underway. This would also work for ships. It may or may not work for aircraft.

Much of the 'problem' in the coal areas is that there is no inherent reason anyone would want to live in eastern Kentucky, Wyoming, Montana, or West Virginia. While the people might find jobs, they might find them in places that are more attractive - due either to culture or climate.

[Prometheus1354 + 178]

"Much of the 'problem' in the coal areas is that there is no inherent reason anyone would want to live in eastern Kentucky, Wyoming, Montana, or West Virginia."

Such commentary is endemic of the "Liberal Bias" of {Fly over country} here in the US.  Sadly, more Pathetically; this ideology is part & parcel of Why the Left are so ill regarded by much of the country.  You want us to "accept" the changeover too Clean Energy; yet you want to Sh!t on us at the same time.  No Thank You!

Certainly the extraction of Hydrogen from Coal is doable. It also is the least "clean" means of extracting Hydrogen at this present time with the technology available.  That doesn't mean that within 3-5 years it will still be the status.  With the rapid advancements in technology; we well could and I would Expect that new means for extracting Hydrogen from Coal will be the norm. 

But that won't be the case with a continuation of the "mindset" on display in the highlighted commentary at the beginning of my reply.

[Geoff Guenther + 317]

On 11/28/2020 at 9:30 PM, Meredith Poor said:

Scenario 1 is that existing silicon solar cells and wind power costs decline in a predictable progression, leading to solar panels costing roughly 1 cent per watt before 2030. The current lowest price I can find in China is about 15 cents per watt for a panel. The current lowest price I can find per cell is around 7 cents per watt.

Note: I have found a price of 2 cents per watt quoted by one Chinese vendor, if the order is for 465 MW cells, or 100,000,000 units.

Michael Liebriech (Bloomberg NEF) thinks the best solar prices available by 2030 could be as low as £10/MWh. Based on the continued drop in prices, by 2050, green hydrogen could be competitive with brown hydrogen. 

https://about.bnef.com/blog/peak-emissions-are-closer-than-you-think-and-heres-why/

[Meredith Poor + 894]

1 hour ago, Geoff Guenther said:

Michael Liebriech (Bloomberg NEF) thinks the best solar prices available by 2030 could be as low as £10/MWh. Based on the continued drop in prices, by 2050, green hydrogen could be competitive with brown hydrogen. 

https://about.bnef.com/blog/peak-emissions-are-closer-than-you-think-and-heres-why/

Look up ercot.com, particularly their map of generator prices across the State of Texas. It's common to see wholesale prices of $20 per Mwh now, and some areas get below that at some times. Of course, some of the time the prices are negative.

The UK may not be in that ballpark at present, but a lot of wind energy (as well as solar) is cheap in the middle of the US. £10/MWh is equivalent to $13 per Mwh, and there are plenty of times wholesale rates get to that level. The last retail rate I was paying in Texas (2017) was 8.5 cents per Kwh, which translates to $85 per Mwh.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 11/28/2020 at 3:30 PM, Meredith Poor said:

Scenario 1 is that existing silicon solar cells and wind power costs decline in a predictable progression, leading to solar panels costing roughly 1 cent per watt before 2030. The current lowest price I can find in China is about 15 cents per watt for a panel. The current lowest price I can find per cell is around 7 cents per watt.

Note: I have found a price of 2 cents per watt quoted by one Chinese vendor, if the order is for 465 MW cells, or 100,000,000 units.

Scenario 2 is that perovskite solar cells become commercially viable, shortening the path to one cent per watt to the mid-2020's, or earlier. The 'one cent per watt' price might be for a panel that only lasts 10 years, however this may well be economically viable.

Scenario 3 is that thermal hydrogen fusion commercializes no later than 2030.

Scenario 4 is that HB11 fusion commercializes, also between 2025 and 2030.

None of these necessarily excludes the others - there are some situations where silicon PV would remain desirable even if perovskite panels are significantly cheaper - generally smaller scale uses where high longevity is paramount. There may be so much cross fertilization on the fusion front that 'all of them' commercialize in their respective niches.

Of these scenarios, the most desirable for incumbent power plants is scenario 3, since this is a 'boiling water' system that simply replaces the coal with a fusion reactor. This isn't 'Green Hydrogen', but it is a 'hydrogen' solution, so to speak.

Anyone that proposes hydrogen as a fuel should look up hydrogen embrittlement. Start with the idea that ordinary hydrogen is the 'smallest' atom making up the 'smallest' molecule (H2). This is going to be stored under pressure in tanks made of steel or similar materials, and transferred through pumps, pipes, valves, and metering over long distances. Hydrogen's energy potential is enormous - great as a fuel when burned in appropriate circumstances, not so great when it's burning the ship or the pipeline it's being transported in.

This leads to the idea that there are appropriate hydrogen 'carriers', such as methane, ammonia, urea, or propane. Methane is a very stable molecule, unfortunately it is a gas at room temperature and a contributor to global warming. Ammonia and propane are both liquids when transported in bulk, usually under moderate pressures. Urea is a solid at room temperature, and is both non-toxic and non-volatile.

Using nitrogen (in ammonia and urea) as a carrier is problematic due to the energy required to disassociate the nitrogen molecule. The flip side of that is that when the hydrogen is consumed at the end, the 'emissions' are nitrogen and water. However, urea also contains a carbon, so it's disassociation produces a certain amount of CO2.

Hydrolyzing water to make ammonia or propane would be 'perfect' work for the kind of people that operate power plants and oil refineries, since this is a lot of plumbing and chemical reactors. So this is good in scenarios 1, 2, and 3 where electricity (and/or sunlight) needs to be converted to chemical energy.

Scenario 4 generates electricity directly, so there is no boiling water and no point in transporting fuel. If, for example, a locomotive ran on an HB11 reaction, it would have no fuel and no engine. There would be something that looks vaguely like a fuel cell or battery generating electricity. There might also be batteries to store 'regenerated' power - the fusion reactor would ramp up and down 'slowly', keeping the batteries 'topped off' while the train is underway. This would also work for ships. It may or may not work for aircraft.

Much of the 'problem' in the coal areas is that there is no inherent reason anyone would want to live in eastern Kentucky, Wyoming, Montana, or West Virginia. While the people might find jobs, they might find them in places that are more attractive - due either to culture or climate.

A lot of good points Meredith. Your last paragraph is offensive though. 

Methinks natural gas is a far better choice though. It seems that the crony capitalists want to make more money off their energy sources however. 

[markslawson + 1,057]

On 11/29/2020 at 8:30 AM, Meredith Poor said:

Scenario 1 is that existing silicon solar cells and wind power costs decline in a predictable progression, leading to solar panels costing roughly 1 cent per watt before 2030. The current lowest price I can find in China is about 15 cents per watt for a panel. The current lowest price I can find per cell is around 7 cents per watt.

MP - you come in guns blazing there .. I looked for a link and then thought, for a moment, that I had started on the second page of the discussion, until I realised you were setting out your own scenarios.. Okay, as we've discussed before, its never PVs by themselves, but PVs plus batteries and firming capacity (probably gas plants) for when the PVs don't produce (night, storms). There is no indication in what is now extensive operational experience of renewable energy that the falling costs for PVs and wind generators are cutting costs. In fact, the exact opposite seems to be the case (Spain, Germany, Denmark and the UK). I see we an agree on the general uselessness of H2 as a fuel - as for its use in fusion, sure, but that's a long way away if it ever does become practicable.  In the meantime the energy future will be PVs and wind generators plus gas generators to take over a short notice when the first two don't produce anything. The PVs and wind will be there because green activists cannot be persuaded that they are useless and keep insisting, in the teeth of all evidence, that somehow they cut power costs. Coal plants take too long to fire up so they can't be added to the mix. Behind it all will be a poor set of grid operators who become prematurely aged trying to make it all work.