I am retired chemist. I can assure that a kg of H2 contains a significant amount of potential energy.
The problem is that it takes more energy to produce a kg of the stuff than it intrinsically contains. Then there is the issue of storing and transporting, amoung other problems that also require even more energy input, likely from fossil fuels.
The Laws of Physics and Thermodynamics still hold, but that is ignored typically these days for the "Green Agenda".
Hydrogen still has value as a locally produced feedstock for other processes.
If it was produced from nuclear driven electrolysis, that would be an advantage.
Thank you, very informative. Do you think hydrogen will have much impact on heavy industry (as POSCO hopes with it's hydrogen reduction steelmaking plant)?
The fluidized bed process in which iron oxide pellets reduced by hydrogen is a specialized "Gucci" way of making steel. It is an energy intensive process in itself. There are specialized applications for non carbided or low carbide steel that may demand a premium vs carbon reduced bulk steel.
It is a greenwash or the marketing side, which all corporations seem to be engaged in.
I wrote a piece on a different way to look at hydrogen. I don't see the focus on automotive transportation. We've had hybrid cars for 15 years and plug-in hybrids have been around for almost as long. I plug in combines the advantages of a small size IC engine with an short-range EV. It uses a small battery relative to an EV that can be charged overnight from a standard American 110 V plug. We can use these during a transition to full EV. So I think the auto problem as a solution.
We don't have a solution for aviation. This is where I think hydrogen (for synfuel manufacture makes sense).
We suspect this is where some progress is being made, for example where we highlight:
"Last year, the world’s first commercial shipment of “clean ammonia” was transported 14,000km over 20 days from Saudi Arabia to South Korea, with plans for another this year"
But, the challenge, is how you ship the hydrogen - which is notoriously difficult (aka expensive!) to send via pipeline. This is where we suspect ammonia will play a key role. Stay tuned as we've got a big analysis on ammonia dropping in next month or so.
So you are talking about converting hydrogen into ammonia (presumably using atmospheric nitrogen), ship the ammonia to the end user and then converting the ammonia back? That involves a gas recovery and two chemical operations. Why not just convert the hydrogen into CO and H2O using CO2 (from the atmosphere). And then while you are at it, convert it the CO and more H2 into liquid hydrocarbons, which can be cheaply piped to the refinery to me made into green diesel and aviation fuel. This also involves two chemical operations and a gas recovery with the end product something you can easily plug into the existing energy economy.
The reason why I don't suggest this is because the best locations for solar are not nice places to live, so it makes more sense to carry out the industrial operations in places where lots of people already live who do this sort of thing. The assemble of operation of the solar fields and electrolysis units can be done by oilfield workers as part of a shift from crude oil-derived hydrocarbon fuels to solar hydrogen-derived hydrocarbon fuels.
Good article, thank you.
I am retired chemist. I can assure that a kg of H2 contains a significant amount of potential energy.
The problem is that it takes more energy to produce a kg of the stuff than it intrinsically contains. Then there is the issue of storing and transporting, amoung other problems that also require even more energy input, likely from fossil fuels.
The Laws of Physics and Thermodynamics still hold, but that is ignored typically these days for the "Green Agenda".
Hydrogen still has value as a locally produced feedstock for other processes.
If it was produced from nuclear driven electrolysis, that would be an advantage.
Thank you, very informative. Do you think hydrogen will have much impact on heavy industry (as POSCO hopes with it's hydrogen reduction steelmaking plant)?
The fluidized bed process in which iron oxide pellets reduced by hydrogen is a specialized "Gucci" way of making steel. It is an energy intensive process in itself. There are specialized applications for non carbided or low carbide steel that may demand a premium vs carbon reduced bulk steel.
It is a greenwash or the marketing side, which all corporations seem to be engaged in.
> without releasing any greenhouse gases, including carbon.
Water vapour is considered a greenhouse gas, correct?
🙌 you're right - we've updated the copy! Thanks
I wrote a piece on a different way to look at hydrogen. I don't see the focus on automotive transportation. We've had hybrid cars for 15 years and plug-in hybrids have been around for almost as long. I plug in combines the advantages of a small size IC engine with an short-range EV. It uses a small battery relative to an EV that can be charged overnight from a standard American 110 V plug. We can use these during a transition to full EV. So I think the auto problem as a solution.
We don't have a solution for aviation. This is where I think hydrogen (for synfuel manufacture makes sense).
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/a-different-way-to-look-at-solar
We suspect this is where some progress is being made, for example where we highlight:
"Last year, the world’s first commercial shipment of “clean ammonia” was transported 14,000km over 20 days from Saudi Arabia to South Korea, with plans for another this year"
But, the challenge, is how you ship the hydrogen - which is notoriously difficult (aka expensive!) to send via pipeline. This is where we suspect ammonia will play a key role. Stay tuned as we've got a big analysis on ammonia dropping in next month or so.
So you are talking about converting hydrogen into ammonia (presumably using atmospheric nitrogen), ship the ammonia to the end user and then converting the ammonia back? That involves a gas recovery and two chemical operations. Why not just convert the hydrogen into CO and H2O using CO2 (from the atmosphere). And then while you are at it, convert it the CO and more H2 into liquid hydrocarbons, which can be cheaply piped to the refinery to me made into green diesel and aviation fuel. This also involves two chemical operations and a gas recovery with the end product something you can easily plug into the existing energy economy.
The reason why I don't suggest this is because the best locations for solar are not nice places to live, so it makes more sense to carry out the industrial operations in places where lots of people already live who do this sort of thing. The assemble of operation of the solar fields and electrolysis units can be done by oilfield workers as part of a shift from crude oil-derived hydrocarbon fuels to solar hydrogen-derived hydrocarbon fuels.