It's both easier and cheaper to store at large scale than electricity, as well as there being indicators that fossil gas infrastructure can be converted for usage with H2.
You’re just proposing gravitational energy storage. This is many orders of magnitude smaller than what is doable with chemical energy storage systems. Frankly, you are trolling now.
Oh for sure. Only problem is that pumped hydro is already matured. We won't see any real future cost savings there, and it's too expensive to be practical for mass adoption. We need something cheaper, which hydrogen might be.
My link was just to highlight that H2 doesn't need to be frozen for grid-scale storage, and leakage is less of an issue there.
Hydrogen is simply too expensive to store for any real mass power use. H2 is nothing more than the latest fantasy of folks trying to find a reason to avoid investing in solar.
Green hydrogen is made via electrolysis using renewable energy. You're simply repeating the same language of the oil and gas industry by suggest new green technologies are just fantasies.
No it is not. "Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees,
makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,
completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents
that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. ", meaning, we needed to fluff these rich folk to keep donations flowing in by threatening the existing cash flow. You have been scammed.
It is very saddening that you refuse to acknowledge factual sources when they are presented to you.
Disclaimers such as this one are the standard in technical and research papers published in the US (particularly from the gov:t), protecting them against potential lawsuit.
No disrespect intended, but I’m uncertain whether you are ignorant, or deliberately trolling. If it is the former case, please educate yourself and read up on the topic from a diverse set of academic sources, and in both cases, please refrain from spreading further disinformation on this subject.
You have been brainwashed by particular corporate interests. You are basically becoming a climate change denier because you cannot accept facts outside of your worldview, nor are you even aware of the necessary steps needed to eliminate all GHG emissions. You'll starve half of humanity and shut down all industry due to your narrow understanding of the issue.
It's actually the cheapest at what it does. Like I said, you are basically repeating the language of fossil fuel companies. It is tragic that certain "pro-green" groups have basically chosen to oppose green energy because they have already made up their minds about what green technology can be.
High pressure tanks or freezing it to make it liquid is in no way inexpensive. The entire idea is an attempt to keep existing LPG manufacturers in business. It is a total scam. Just like uranium, it shall always be expensive to use. Which is the entire intent.
You can store hydrogen underground at a tiny fraction of the cost of any other type of energy storage. All you are demonstrating is your incredible ignorance of the topic. Like I said, you are stuck in the past and are repeating obsolete "facts," mainly because you have already decide what green energy could ever be.
Advancement in technology and economies of scale will ensure it will be very cheap in the long-run. People who doubt this are just repeating the same arguments used against renewable energy in general. We were told many times that it was "impossible" for wind and solar to be cost effective, until they did.
I think the key advantages with hydrogen is cheaper construction of large storage, ease of long-distance transportation and long-term storage.
Thing is that current battery tech is fundamentally incompatible with large scale application. It's been challenging to use it effectively even on the scale of vehicles - and gridscale is magnitudes larger. From the numbers I've seen (correct me if there's newer data) it isn't even competitive with pumped hydro.
Btw, the problem with variable renewables isn't the cost-effectiveness in electricity generation, it's their inability to guarantee a stable energy supply on their own without incurring huge overhead costs (a problem that still hasn't been solved).
Making renewable energy reliable will require hydrogen as an energy storage mechanism. Except for a few special cases, 100% renewable grids are impossible without it.
Definitely agree, at least if seeking a cost-effective solution.
I expect an optimized clean electricity system would see renewables built to a ratio of hydro availability (35-50% of renewable production being hydro, depending on longitude, climate and storage investments), and the rest being some mix of nuclear, biomass & situational options (such as geothermal or regional interconnects).
They all basically require hydrogen. E-fuels or green ammonia all require water electrolysis. Attempts at alternatives inevitable up trying to make crazy ideas work, like burning sodium or boron or whatever. Those ideas are pretty much all nonstarters.
Add comment