• Tak
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    That seems like a misguided approach because green hydrogen is not really efficient. To use it to fuel mobile applications is one thing but to use it for the electrical grid is a misguided venture in my opinion.

    I think pumped hydro is likely a better medium with about 80% efficiency while green hydrogen is lucky to get half that.

    • smegforbrains
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I don’t think it’s a question of efficiency. It’s a question of producing the least amount of CO2 as possible. This is where green hydrogen shines.

      • Tak
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        5 months ago

        It really is though. If you need twice as many solar panels to make the same energy it’s a very pertinent problem.

        • smegforbrains
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I don’t think that’s right, since during times of high solar or wind production, more energy is produced than is consumed. This energy will then be used to create hydrogen. This is a very battery like concept which enables the buffering of renewable energy using hydrogen production. Because of this assymmetry we do not need twice the amount of renewable power plants.

          • Tak
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            5 months ago

            You do though. You need to refill the storage faster than it is drained, it’s a simple numbers game.

            If you waste half the electricity produced going hydrogen over pumped hydro then you need more renewables.

            • smegforbrains
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Okay I think I understand, you mean because of the energy lost to the process during hydrogen production, right? This is true, but it’s again a question of how can we produce climate neutral energy without employing fossil fuels or nuclear energy, and if that means we have built more renewable power plants, to fill the hydrogen tanks, why not just build them?

              • alcoholicorn [comrade/them, doe/deer]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                4 months ago

                Sure, if it was free to build, it would be better than not having them (though worse than more efficient types of storage), assuming the cost of refining the steel breaks even.

                There’s a reason fossil fuel companies fund hydrogen.

                • smegforbrains
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Of course this is more expensive. This is the price for being independent of fossil and nuclear fuel.

                  Fossil fuel companies support hydrogen plants that use fossil fuel to produce “grey” hydrogen, not green hydrogen produced by renewables.