Submitted by ForHidingSquirrels t3_zy4194 in Futurology
MagicPeacockSpider t1_j26mba8 wrote
Reply to comment by SatanLifeProTips in Robotic boats are surveying seabeds at offshore wind farms by ForHidingSquirrels
I agree we're going to need all the tools but ignoring round trip efficiency because renewables are "plentiful and easy" isn't right.
Renewables cost money. Renewable energy will cost money.
On demand renewable energy will cost more money.
We all need to be able to afford energy.
So the cost of generating power from a renewable source, storing it, then deploying it to match demand cannot be a wasteful process.
The goal is to be able to replace fossil fuels and we can't afford to do that if we make energy more expensive and cause a permanent recession.
The cost of renewables with roundtrip efficiency is the direct price comparison to on-demand gas plants as they currently are.
The fact H2 is likely to just be figuratively shoved into a gas plant as you suggest is actually a huge problem economically speaking. It means you're maintaining infrastructure nearly identical to the fossil fuel system we have with a more expensive fuel.
It can't be cheaper until fossil fuels are scarce enough we've torched the planet already.
Other storage options allow greater round trip efficiency and allow a potentially lower price/kW for on demand power.
I want us to fix climate change by taxing carbon and pricing externalities or by consumer choice refusing fossil fuels.
I know that's not likely. So my hope is with investment direct price comparison on a near like to like market application leads to renewables as soon as possible.
Hydrogen doesn't offer that future. Lithium and salt batteries with wind and solar could.
Subsidies for zero carbon energy or a carbon tax could bring hydrogen into the market but I know globally, especially in the US, that kind of government intervention isn't likely.
Subsidies into R&D for technologies capable of beating fossil fuels in a market with a level field are what I want to see. Once a technology is proven it needs no government intervention to enter a market.
Hydrogen I don't see as a stepping stone, it's likely something we use once economies of scale for fossil fuels no longer exist. After we've already created abundance of energy to make hydrogen cheaper than digging up fossils.
SatanLifeProTips t1_j26zbna wrote
It’s a materials question. Unless you can pull a lithium astroid in from orbit, there just isn’t enough materials to build high efficiency green energy storage. We will see if these flow batteries scale and they aren’t meant for more than a couple of days of use.
We already HAVE power plants. A lot of them. And owners vested in not shutting them up forever. Converting them to run as backups and just putting a shit ton of tanks out back is easy and fast. One day we’ll figure out something better. But when you need 21 gigawatts quiet cold night it is hard to beat.
And you aren’t getting a ship, train or plane to move on batteries very far. Crossing oceans needs something potent like H2.
MagicPeacockSpider t1_j281v0f wrote
Planes are the only transport you listed where it's not feasible and H2 lacks density for that application as well.
Ships have acres of space, trains can absolutely use batteries where lines can't be electrified, they're miles long.
If you want to replace fossil fuels from an energy density point of view you're talking biofuels.
There's a lot of lithium on planet earth and batteries are recyclable so an asteroid isn't necessary.
It's all a moot point until we overbuild renewables supply. As well as overproducing food if we want to use biomass and biofuels.
I'm not saying hydrogen isn't a partial solution, I'm saying it's not a primary solution.
We really need to move forward with battery technology as it is the primary solution.
It really doesn't matter what sunk costs anyone has into fossil fuels we should aim for the most efficient solution to ensure costs are low.
Converting current plants to hydrogen will happen when hydrogen is cheaper than fossil fuels. So we're relying on the price/kW dropping a long way. Hydrogen becoming economically viable relies on other technologies. It's not a stepping stone.
SatanLifeProTips t1_j2a9zlt wrote
Airbus seems to think Hydrogen is quite viable in aircraft. But what do aviation engineers know?
Liquid H2 stores down pretty small. Not as small as Jet A, but given that it is half the weight of diesel even the most die hard engineer takes interest in a massive weight savings. It does require a rethink of current aircraft configurations but as soon as you start talking electric motors you can move propulsion into all kinds of new places. Blended wing designs are likely. (See the render in the article).
And you don’t need any refrigeration equipment with liquid H2 as long as you have a jet/fuel cell running just boiling off the liquid keeps it plenty cold.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments