Quantcast

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
11,746
984
Hypernormality
I think dumb a F means hydrogen is dumb as fuck.

Which it kinda is.
OK, here we go, a little bit.

We are going to decarbonise our world economy. Fastest wins, looser is a cunt, and probably a poor cunt.

Right now, wind and solar prices are dropping and will continue to drop, whilst the tech becomes more efficient, more powerful and finds more applications. Great stuff. However:

a) A large and particularly CO2 heavy section of the economy — thermal power reliant industry — Think steel manufacturing, concrete manufacturing, industrial gas and feedstock manufacturing, aluminium etc etc — that is hard to decarbonise with electrons, at least with current tech and ideas.

b) Despite the increase in national grid tech, it is partially true that ‘The wind is not blowing and the sun isn’t shining, oh no!’. Battery storage is not a good long-term energy storage solution, in fact it’s kinda pants in the medium term even. We need a long-term energy carrier that can effectively store energy that is created insert for situations. At the end of the day great big carbon fibre tanks are a lot cheaper than batteries too.

c) Particular classes of transport, especially those which are heavy, large, and long distance, or those which require very rapid refuelling, which are unsuitable for battery tech. Ships, coaches, planes, locomotives, those massive crane at the docks.

Hydrogen is it incredibly efficient energy carrier and can be stored for long-term losing virtually zero energy. The conversion of hydrogen back to electricity is actually highly efficient. Double the efficiency of burning petrol at least and getting better all the time. It can also be combusted with zero carbon output. It solves all the issues above.

Until recently the cost of producing hydrogen has been significantly higher than natural gas, coal and other classic thermal energy feedstock. It is now clear that this will not be the case for much longer and in fact is already dropping considerably. Allowing for no further increases in the efficiency of hydrogen production, it is already going to be the case that by 2050 green hydrogen will cost less than one dollar a kilo simply based on the falling cost of solar power. At the same time, companies such as BOC, or predicting that efficiencies of scale will lead to similar scale price reductions, and and additionally, governments all over the world, research institutes, and private industry are investing massively in fuel cell and electrolyser technology. Electrolyser technology is likely to become 80% efficient in the near future.

All this adds up to a situation where green hydrogen is very very cheap. It will possibly be cheaper than natural gas by 2030 in most places. Despite what you might think the engineering challenges of transporting and storing hydrogen are not really challenges. They are simply things we are not doing at the moment because hydrogen is expensive. We have the tech to do them in the same way we have the tech to store petrol in the back of your car right now.

So the hydrogen economy is coming. It will help decarbonise the last parts of our economy, such as steel creation and concrete creation, and in combination with photovoltaic power will allow near a 100% clean economy. You can think what you like, but the literal trillions of dollars being invested in it worldwide say your point of view is wrong. At the end of the day it’s thermodynamics and dollars. It’s a simple as that.
 
Last edited:

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
11,746
984
Hypernormality
To help understand how for example steel can be decarbonised with hydrogen consider the following. Right now, we produce steel by digging iron ore out of the ground. Basically we have to strip the oxygen from that ore in order to make iron and then steel. Currently we do that by adding loads of carbon and heat. The carbon preferentially reacts with the oxygen and thus we end up with pure iron and literally gigatons of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. Instead, we could use hydrogen if it is cheap and plentiful, which, as above, it will be. When you add in a rising price for carbon, this becomes an absolute no-brainer.

Instead of adding loads of carbon to our hot iron ore (which now gets hot via a hydrogen flame or potentially renewable energy powered modern microwave technology, kind of cool), we preferentially oxidise with hydrogen leaving pure iron and water as the outputs. You now no longer have to feel bad about all the energy that went into creating your new car or whatever.

There are already two or three demonstrator plants operating at industrial scale with this process. It works. The moment green hydrogen is cheaper than carbon (coal and/or natural gas) it is game over.
 
Last edited:

Jm_

sled dog's bollocks
Jan 14, 2002
13,263
5,010
AK
OK, here we go, a little bit.

We are going to decarbonise our world economy. Fastest wins, looser is a cunt, and probably a poor cunt.

Right now, wind and solar prices are dropping and will continue to drop, whilst the tech becomes more efficient, more powerful and finds more applications. Great stuff. However:

a) A large and particularly CO2 heavy section of the economy — thermal power reliant industry — Think steel manufacturing, concrete manufacturing, industrial gas and feedstock manufacturing, aluminium etc etc — that is hard to decarbonise with electrons, at least with current tech and ideas.

b) Despite the increase in national grid tech, it is partially true that ‘The wind is not blowing and the sun isn’t shining, oh no!’. Battery storage is not a good long-term energy storage solution, in fact it’s kinda pants in the medium term even. We need a long-term energy carrier that can effectively store energy that is created insert for situations. At the end of the day great big carbon fibre tanks are a lot cheaper than batteries too.

c) Particular classes of transport, especially those which are heavy, large, and long distance, or those which require very rapid refuelling, which are unsuitable for battery tech. Ships, coaches, planes, locomotives, those massive crane at the docks.

Hydrogen is it incredibly efficient energy carrier and can be stored for long-term losing virtually zero energy. The conversion of hydrogen back to electricity is actually highly efficient. Double the efficiency of burning petrol at least and getting better all the time. It can also be combusted with zero carbon output. It solves all the issues above.

Until recently the cost of producing hydrogen has been significantly higher than natural gas, coal and other classic thermal energy feedstock. It is now clear that this will not be the case for much longer and in fact is already dropping considerably. Allowing for no further increases in the efficiency of hydrogen production, it is already going to be the case that by 2050 green hydrogen will cost less than one dollar a kilo simply based on the falling cost of solar power. At the same time, companies such as BOC, or predicting that efficiencies of scale will lead to similar scale price reductions, and and additionally, governments all over the world, research institutes, and private industry are investing massively in fuel cell and electrolyser technology. Electrolyser technology is likely to become 80% efficient in the near future.

All this adds up to a situation where green hydrogen is very very cheap. It will possibly be cheaper than natural gas by 2030 in most places. Despite what you might think the engineering challenges of transporting and storing hydrogen are not really challenges. They are simply things we are not doing at the moment because hydrogen is expensive. We have the tech to do them in the same way we have the tech to store petrol in the back of your car right now.

So the hydrogen economy is coming. It will help decarbonise the last parts of our economy, such as steel creation and concrete creation, and in combination with photovoltaic power will allow near a 100% clean economy. You can think what you like, but the literal trillions of dollars being invested in it worldwide say your point of view is wrong. At the end of the day it’s thermodynamics and dollars. It’s a simple as that.
Problem though is that it's not very dense in terms of energy. Kerosene is magnitudes of orders better. This makes it very hard to see as viable for fuel-hungry things, like big passenger planes, ships, etc., because your hydrogen fuel tanks become impractically large.

And while again not a solution for every situation, they are looking at things like modular batteries where a ship or whatever simply "plugs in" a new one and sails off, rather than wait for the depleted one to charge. The depleted one is charged in port while waiting for the next ship...

The other aspect is that spending money creating hydrogen infrastructure/storage is a huge waste if that same energy can be delivered by electricity. I'm aware that it can't in every possible situation, but in most situations, it can, so it would seem that establishing any kind of scale hydrogen infrastructure would need to be looked at very closely.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
44,872
10,524
Sleazattle
Problem though is that it's not very dense in terms of energy. Kerosene is magnitudes of orders better. This makes it very hard to see as viable for fuel-hungry things, like big passenger planes, ships, etc., because your hydrogen fuel tanks become impractically large.

And while again not a solution for every situation, they are looking at things like modular batteries where a ship or whatever simply "plugs in" a new one and sails off, rather than wait for the depleted one to charge. The depleted one is charged in port while waiting for the next ship...

The other aspect is that spending money creating hydrogen infrastructure/storage is a huge waste if that same energy can be delivered by electricity. I'm aware that it can't in every possible situation, but in most situations, it can, so it would seem that establishing any kind of scale hydrogen infrastructure would need to be looked at very closely.

It also takes a shit ton of energy to compress hydrogen so it can be stored in a compact manner. Those pressures are extremely high so very heavy very strong and very expensive vessels/lines are required. In addition hydrogen is really small and is good at finding leaks, can be very explody when it leaks and hydrogen fires aren't exactly visible. All these problems can be solved but it erodes the economic viability of the technology which has been around forever yet hasn't found a market while other more promising technologies become more mature.
 

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Aug 25, 2003
28,929
5,596
The old timey times
Oh come on westy. Name one example where the sauds have acted incredibly irresponsibly for money, where cutting corners has caused some kind of detriment to society.

Especially when it comes to energy....





You know theyre gonna fuck it up because they wont let women engineers in there.
 
Last edited:

Jm_

sled dog's bollocks
Jan 14, 2002
13,263
5,010
AK
It also takes a shit ton of energy to compress hydrogen so it can be stored in a compact manner. Those pressures are extremely high so very heavy very strong and very expensive vessels/lines are required. In addition hydrogen is really small and is good at finding leaks, can be very explody when it leaks and hydrogen fires aren't exactly visible. All these problems can be solved but it erodes the economic viability of the technology which has been around forever yet hasn't found a market while other more promising technologies become more mature.
Yeah, that was what I meant in my original post about how energy-intensive it is.

I can see it being produced on-site to be used in a gas-turbine generator later and in some limited situations, but like with the Toyota hydrogen cars? Hell no.

There's a bunch of ICE holdouts on the car forums that seem to think this will preserve the ICE and be the savior somehow. I just don't see it. I don't see getting off of fossil fuels completely, just shifting consumption and minimizing the situations where fossil (from oil) is used. Battery energy density is likely going to surpass hydrogen at some point for viability (IMO) in nearly every situation making it more practical, except for airplanes and rockets. Energy/battery density is the main issue with batteries, not an issue in some applications, but a huge issue in others, and that's the same basic problem with hydrogen, energy density.
 
Last edited:

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
44,872
10,524
Sleazattle
Oh come on westy. Name one example where the sauds have acted incredibly irresponsibly for money, where cutting corners has caused some kind of detriment to society.

Especially when it comes to energy....





You know theyre gonna fuck it up because they wont let women engineers in there.
At my previous job I was asked to spend a few months in Saudi upgrading some oil pipe manufacturing facility. I said no. I was offered a lot more money and shown the fine hotels I would be pampered at. Hard nope.
 

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Aug 25, 2003
28,929
5,596
The old timey times
blowjob for you

thousand more enslaved to enrichen the royals....


whats the problem?


I have no doubt that the ditinguished monarchy will handle one of the most volatile gases on earth responsibly. I mean thats just what monarchies do....the right thing!
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
44,872
10,524
Sleazattle
Yeah, that was what I meant in my original post about how energy-intensive it is.

I can see it being produced on-site to be used in a gas-turbine generator later and in some limited situations, but like with the Toyota hydrogen cars? Hell no.
Even then it only makes sense when energy is essentially free. Hydrogen also poses a materials problem as it causes embrittlement in lots of common metals.

And hydrogen powered airplanes? :rofl:
 

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Aug 25, 2003
28,929
5,596
The old timey times
It's kinda weird, we've been producing more oil than we import for several years now (thanks obama!).

I wonder when this 'energy independence' day is coming. Oh well, those saudi balls just taste so good. Nice and salty!



maybe we'll start importing hydrogen just to keep them happy :rofl:
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
11,746
984
Hypernormality
It also takes a shit ton of energy to compress hydrogen so it can be stored in a compact manner. Those pressures are extremely high so very heavy very strong and very expensive vessels/lines are required. In addition hydrogen is really small and is good at finding leaks, can be very explody when it leaks and hydrogen fires aren't exactly visible. All these problems can be solved but it erodes the economic viability of the technology which has been around forever yet hasn't found a market while other more promising technologies become more mature.
Compressing gas is currently a 10% total energy cost. This figure is almost completely about scale. It will never go away of course but as scale increases it will drop.
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
11,746
984
Hypernormality
Fusion has taken a few steps closer recently too, basically mostly due to the amount of compute we can throw at Plasma sim and control. Here’s a US company doing good stuff.

 

Jm_

sled dog's bollocks
Jan 14, 2002
13,263
5,010
AK
Fusion has taken a few steps closer recently too, basically mostly due to the amount of compute we can throw at Plasma sim and control. Here’s a US company doing good stuff.

So is it 10 years away now :D ?
 

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Aug 25, 2003
28,929
5,596
The old timey times
Fusion has taken a few steps closer recently too,
oh fucking great

what could possibly go wrong with that in the hands of for profit, publicly traded energy companies........


Hydrogen just blows up once at least. We should really be focusing on hydrogen, it's way safer.


Daddy what's the name of that sun?

Well we used to call it los angeles back when your mom and I first moved here to mars. Back then it was just a city with a new power plant. Now it's an ongoing chain reaction that's in a constant state of protons slamming themselves into hydrogen over and over again.......a power source that safely powers us here on the red planet.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
44,872
10,524
Sleazattle
oh fucking great

what could possibly go wrong with that in the hands of for profit, publicly traded energy companies........


Hydrogen just blows up once at least. We should really be focusing on hydrogen, it's way safer.


Daddy what's the name of that sun?

Well we used to call it los angeles back when your mom and I first moved here to mars. Back then it was just a city with a new power plant. Now it's an ongoing chain reaction that's in a constant state of protons slamming themselves into hydrogen over and over again.......a power source that safely powers us here on the red planet.

I don't think that is how it works. It would have all been over after Ivy-Mike. Not even the sun can fuse carbon and there isn't enough light fusible material on earth to maintain a self-sustaining reaction.
 
Last edited:

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Aug 25, 2003
28,929
5,596
The old timey times
I don't think that is how it works. It would have all been over after Ivy-Mike. Not even the sun can fuse carbon and there isn't enough light fusible material on earth to maintain a self-sustaining reaction.
That was still fission driven fusion. I'm talking the real deal.






Sure you start with big heavy 'safe' atoms.............


Just like fukushima started with a safety plan.......


Next thing you know, it's dogs and cats fusing together TOTAL CHAOS!
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
44,872
10,524
Sleazattle
Knew I saw this somewhere:

Someone properly motivated could build a hydrogen powered airplane demonstrator tomorrow, but that doesn't mean it is feasible. Check out the following analysis. You will see that the big drawback is the required space to store the hydrogen and the significantly reduced range and cargo capacity. Try to add sufficient fuel to match the range and you no longer have an aircraft that can carry cargo.



The paper totally glazes over the safety aspect with “Safe handling of hydrogen is no longer a problem in the industrial and commercial area” Correct, because they jut put hydrogen tanks outside, if there is a leak the wind blows it away. Industrial hydrogen doesn't get bounced around in turbulence or get slammed into runways. They don't cram people like chattel around industrial hydrogen storage. For an airplane it needs to go inside the fuselage, the wind isn't going to blow it away when there is a leak. You could certainly make it safe but the rigor and factors of safeties required would be absurd.

Perhaps there could be a niche market where a short range hydrogen aircraft would be viable, but it could never replace the industry as a whole, which you then need to look at the infrastructure required. A flight from NYC to LA doesn't just depend on those two airports, it depends on every airport between for possible emergency landings. That means that the fuel infrastructure between LA and NYC would need to support hydrogen, which is a monumental task.
 

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Aug 25, 2003
28,929
5,596
The old timey times
party pooper


I think hydrogen is a great fuel source to get me across 30 mile dry lakebeds in 0.87 seconds


possibly reaching all parts of the lakebed, around every edge in that same time, at least in parts if not a whole woo
 

Jm_

sled dog's bollocks
Jan 14, 2002
13,263
5,010
AK
oh fucking great

what could possibly go wrong with that in the hands of for profit, publicly traded energy companies........


Hydrogen just blows up once at least. We should really be focusing on hydrogen, it's way safer.


Daddy what's the name of that sun?

Well we used to call it los angeles back when your mom and I first moved here to mars. Back then it was just a city with a new power plant. Now it's an ongoing chain reaction that's in a constant state of protons slamming themselves into hydrogen over and over again.......a power source that safely powers us here on the red planet.
Naw, fusion is totally safe. We have to supply a shitload of energy to make it happen and then we get nothing out of it.