Energy Markets and Net Zero

[leftieliberal]

An interesting approach to tidal turbines being used in the Faroe Islands:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59401199

I have seen similar proposals for an alternative to wind turbines. I haven't looked into it too closely, but I think that a similar approach on land could avoid having to shut down wind turbines when the wind speed becomes too high.

[mercian]

Those underwater kites look brilliant!

[Danny]

Nov 27, 2021 19:51:26 GMT lens said:

The relevance is that with current pricing, gas is the main choice for heating - electricity for "other things". But it needs to be asked what would happen if a kWh of gas cost more than a kilowatt of electricity? What would then be the point of a gas supply - why not use an electricity supply for everything?

And if the scheme was to make gas from renewable electricity - inevitably meaning you need much more than a kWh of electricity to produce a kWh of gas - then it's impossible to see how a kWh of gas can still be cheaper than a kWh of electricity! (Especially when you take into account the expensive electrolysis, compression equipment.) So why not just send the electricity directly to the home?

The problem is not simply cost but availability. Wind power varies widely in available output, and while it could be used to entirely power the UK, we need to store some of that energy for windless periods. Probably rather a lot of it.  In effect this will also lead to wholesale electricity having two prices. one very cheap for any generation above current demand, and the other much dearer to match demand.  This means there will be cheap electricity available so that gas generated using it compares more favourably in price.

But whatever the cost, we have to store energy. The most obvious way to do this would be to have an integrated generating industry which averages out the costs of different sources of power and gives the end user a stable price.   I agree it makes more sense to use electricity directly for whatever purpose. But the degree of storage we need either because of seasonal demand (ie winter heating not summer) or intermittent supply might mean the easiest solution is to retain at least some home heating  with gas.

There is an inherent efficiency bonus using gas in the home for heating instead of in a power station where much heat is wasted. Given we are forced to convert electricity to gas for storage, then it might still be better to use it in the home.

[bantams]

Be nice if they stopped slaughtering whales!

[Danny]

Nov 29, 2021 11:31:49 GMT @tw said:

The issue for all countries who have such a target is to plan and deliver to get into the position of 'excess supply' of 'green' electricity generating capacity (wind, solar, nuclear, perhaps tidal) asap.

Nuclear being 'green' in the same way diesel fuel was considered green?

Interesting reath lecture this morning on R4 about AI.  The lecturer was talking about the risks of the AIs becoming our masters rather than slaves.  Or more precisely he saw the real risk being we might set AIs to accomplishing a task without realising the implications of their succeeding at the task. So the switch to diesel saw harmful particulates soar in cities, while nuclear leaves us an unresolved and very expensive cleanup problem and risk of widespread contamination after a major accident.  The green agenda at the moment is very tunnel vision on CO2.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Nov 29, 2021 11:49:27 GMT leftieliberal said:

An interesting approach to tidal turbines being used in the Faroe Islands:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59401199

I have seen similar proposals for an alternative to wind turbines. I haven't looked into it too closely, but I think that a similar approach on land could avoid having to shut down wind turbines when the wind speed becomes too high.

was indeed interesting, thanks for the link. (The stuff on seaweed and salmon too)

[alec]

@tw - "Green hydrogen can cost less than 'grey' alternative, EU's von der Leyen says... green hydrogen could cost less than 1.8 euros per kilogram by 2030, and that should be the bloc's target"

That would be good, and it confirms lens' (and my own long held view) that green hydrogen will be expensive and is best suited to alternative road, aviation, industrial and heating uses where green alternatives are difficult, with a limited role in energy balancing, because it is expensive. The price you quote above from VdL is more than renewable electricity costs now, and that gap will grow by 2030 as renewables become more and more efficient, so in true TW style, you've once again linked to a source that proves your opponents point.

lens - hello. Very much with you on this. I've pointed out to TW on the old UKPR many times that the companies most interested in hydrogen tend to be the petro chemical and gas giants who have billions invested in infrastructure that is becoming redundant, but can be repurposed if they can convince governments to subsidise mass scale hydrogen, rather than go for the cheaper and more practical options.

There is a big role for hydrogen, but I suspect it will be for more specialist sectors where there is no ready alternative, and it will be more costly.

[alec]

c-a-r-f-r-e-w - the innovative use of seaweed in Leftie's link was something I had never come across before, but I seen that BEIS have recently funded a number of seaweed and algae biomass projects. Most of these are looking to anaerobic digestion to produce liquid fuels, but there is a developing area of sea floor biomass development. The same funding has also back a couple of other novel projects, including one looking to harvest hedge trimmings for solid biomass.

[leftieliberal]

An interesting approach to removing CO2:

phys.org/news/2021-10-liquid-metal-proven-cheap-efficient.html

They are estimating the cost at around $100 per ton of CO2. It could become a useful way of using spare electricity from renewables, as an alternative to making hydrogen by electrolysis.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Dec 7, 2021 10:33:01 GMT alec said:

c-a-r-f-r-e-w - the innovative use of seaweed in Leftie's link was something I had never come across before, but I seen that BEIS have recently funded a number of seaweed and algae biomass projects. Most of these are looking to anaerobic digestion to produce liquid fuels, but there is a developing area of sea floor biomass development. The same funding has also back a couple of other novel projects, including one looking to harvest hedge trimmings for solid biomass.

alec - Posted about the algae thing some years ago as it happens. Putting a science hat on, I like solutions like that, because they solve a couple of the issues with using CO2 - capturing the CO2, and providing the energy required since algae get it from the sun. Also, because producing fuels, storage is kinda already figured out too. (Some might worry as to the genetic engineering aspect of course…)

Regarding sea floor, read something recently about how it’s an untapped resource for storing carbon, but harvesting it for biomass is new to me. I think there’s some worry about exploitation of the sea floor, but maybe that’s more regarding minerals? Hedge trimmings could be good if we are going to be growing more hedges. (Does it remove nutrients from the surrounding area if they don’t decay naturally though?)

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Dec 7, 2021 16:35:06 GMT leftieliberal said:

An interesting approach to removing CO2:

phys.org/news/2021-10-liquid-metal-proven-cheap-efficient.html

They are estimating the cost at around $100 per ton of CO2. It could become a useful way of using spare electricity from renewables, as an alternative to making hydrogen by electrolysis.

yes that is cool, especially as instead of just storing the CO2 it converts it into Carbon and Oxygen. 

Carbon capture could be a game changer if it works at scale. Is it now starting to take off?

You’d think Musk might get more into this, given its utility on other worlds. He’s already planning to use the Sabatier process on Mars to fuel the rockets, but that’s surely the thin end of a potentially substantial wedge…

[Deleted]

c-a-r-f-r-e-w leftieliberal We'll certainly need some carbon -ve 'tech' to get to net zero and possibly beyond and most future 'plausible scenarios' assume some of that. Some of the 'biological' solutions (algae, seaweed, bacteria) are moving from 'theory' to 'prototype' stage and hopefully mass roll out after that. As mentioned repeatedly then it is great that we are pursuing ALL options as the future is not set. Not every solution will end up having a massive role but the most solutions we try the more likely we'll find some good ones (in terms of cost-benefit, mass roll out potential, domestic+export opportunity) 

On planes, trains and automobiles then more progress with hydrogen planes:
www.gov.uk/government/news/government-backed-liquid-hydrogen-plane-paves-way-for-zero-emission-flight

Lots of exciting things happening in Energy Markets and Net Zero! Exactly what the future will look like is TBC but thank you both for posting constructive info. 

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Dec 7, 2021 19:58:57 GMT @tw said:

…then it is great that we are pursuing ALL options as the future is not set. Not every solution will end up having a massive role but the most solutions we try the more likely we'll find some good ones (in terms of cost-benefit, mass roll out potential, domestic+export opportunity) 

On planes, trains and automobiles then more progress with hydrogen planes:
www.gov.uk/government/news/government-backed-liquid-hydrogen-plane-paves-way-for-zero-emission-flight

Yes, some may argue that it is burdensome to pursue lots of options and instead one should stick to the more likely best candidates, but instinctively I tend to prefer widening the net where possible. Like we did with the vaccines (though naturally I’d have wanted it still wider).

i looked into hydrogen for planes. Interesting in that on the one hand, hydrogen has a high specific impulse, or put more simply, you get a lot of energy per kilo. However, by VOLUME it’s not so efficient: the energy density is poorer in those terms, requiring big fuel tanks and making it hard to have a narrow profile. So they are looking into designs with wider bodies etc.

 

[Deleted]

Dec 7, 2021 20:22:29 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

i looked into hydrogen for planes. Interesting in that on the one hand, hydrogen has a high specific impulse, or put more simply, you get a lot of energy per kilo. However, by VOLUME it’s not so efficient: the energy density is poorer in those terms, requiring big fuel tanks and making it hard to have a narrow profile. So they are looking into designs with wider bodies etc.

 

We've discussed the OxAZ model before. Each situation is somewhat different but as wide a net as possible to begin with and then start narrowing it down once you have a better idea which ones 'work' in the Real World (in a practical and economic sense). I should add (repeat) that we want to get into a position of excess renewable supply asap - we'll then hopefully have narrowed down the 'better' ways to use that excess supply (and of course it doesn't need 'forgetting' that demand side will have a role to play as well as that goes without saying)

Agreed on the volume issue of hydrogen. Shorter flights are more likely in the near term to cope with that issue. Plenty of issues to resolve and perhaps e-fuels 'win' for planes, possibly even batteries if they can resolve the energy/weight issue of those. Given the infrastructure requirements at airports, etc then it will likely be a 'Betamax v VHS' contest for planes. For ships then the volume issue of hydrogen would have less relevance and if we're going to start building floating wind farms then we can have floating green hydrogen refuelling to extend distances if required. The future is not set..

[alec]

c-a-r-f-r-e-w - with the hedge trimmings, I think cyclists would suggest that burst tyres are more of an issue than naturally degrading clippings...

More seriously, the project I've seen is seeking to encourage the replanting of hedgerows by developing the technology to make them an income generating asset via the biomass collection. They also found that three year intervals for cutting provided the optimal output for biomass collection, which also aids wildlife, when compared to annual clips.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Dec 7, 2021 22:50:15 GMT alec said:

c-a-r-f-r-e-w - with the hedge trimmings, I think cyclists would suggest that burst tyres are more of an issue than naturally degrading clippings...

burst tyres as well? It’s worse than I thought...

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Dec 7, 2021 20:35:55 GMT @tw said:

Dec 7, 2021 20:22:29 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

i looked into hydrogen for planes. Interesting in that on the one hand, hydrogen has a high specific impulse, or put more simply, you get a lot of energy per kilo. However, by VOLUME it’s not so efficient: the energy density is poorer in those terms, requiring big fuel tanks and making it hard to have a narrow profile. So they are looking into designs with wider bodies etc.

 

I should add (repeat) that we want to get into a position of excess renewable supply asap - we'll then hopefully have narrowed down the 'better' ways to use that excess supply (and of course it doesn't need 'forgetting' that demand side will have a role to play as well as that goes without saying)

you might recall my posting about how if we go for excess supply and convert it to hydrogen, then it’s important how quickly the electrolysers get going, and checking learned that there are some hybrid designs that can get going in under a second.

Regarding planes, batteries keep getting lighter per unit of energy year-on-year... whether this winds up marginalising the role of hydrogen remains to be seen.

they keep talking about how supersonic aircraft are set to make a return, and it could be a while before batteries could power those. Mind you, if Musk uses his starships for suborbital hops to Oz in a couple of hours, those are powered by methane...

[Deleted]

c-a-r-f-r-e-w Yes I recall our discussions. As we've discussed in the past the various techs have current strengths and weaknesses but are making improvements to address those issues[1] and that is why the future is not set. At some point then certain key decisions will need to be made in some sectors (eg hydrogen's role in heating in 2026, or which 'tech' will become the Global 'VHS' for roles such as air or sea transport) as there will be cost and logistical issues in some sectors to have 2+ formats. 'Land' vehicles could feasibly be BEV for vast majority of small-medium roles (although Mush has a BEV HGV available) with hydrogen or e-fuels having roles in some larger areas (SUV, LGV, HGV, trains). TBC of course..

Storage similar. Batteries and pumped hydro great for efficiency and rapid spin-up but currently limited in 'TWh' scale for various reasons. Interconnectors can help (see earlier posts) but rely on other countries - one day we'll hopefully be a net exporter on those interconnectors though (see the various NG or HMG 'plausible scenarios'). Hydrogen might well have the largest role for 'seasonal' demand-supply balancing (and wouldn't need to be converted back to electricity if hydrogen had a decent size role in end use). All TBC but getting to the position of excess supply is several years away so there is some time for decisions to be made and for each tech to make further improvements. 

[1] EG If batteries can become lighter or break out into different types (eg some 'heavy' not ultra efficient and not reliant on rare earth metal batteries are developed to compete with the longer storage potential of hydrogen then great - competition is good). Hydrogen certainly has lots of current issues but those will likely reduce with further investment. Lots of interesting stuff in e-fuels, carbon -ve, 'biological' solutions, etc. No fate...

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

@tw

Batteries tend to be rather more efficient than hydrogen and they have been improving in performance at a rate of around five to eight percent a year for decades, so it’s hard to see them not winning out in the end.

Obviously there are resource issues but they are working on getting rid of cobalt, recycling is liable to improve and there is the possibility that sodium batteries may also ramp up. Don’t perform quite as well but fine for static applications and sodium is very abundant.

I thought maybe hydrogen for aircraft until seeing the density problem.

In part it depends on the pace of battery production. If the ramping up of batteries keeps pace with demand, then there may not be much room for hydrogen in that context (though it’ll still be needed for things like fertiliser etc.)

Incidentally, another area being explored as a fuel, is ammonia…

www.statkraft.com/newsroom/news-and-stories/archive/2021/green-ammonia-climate-friendly-fuel-for-long-distances-and-heavy-tasks/

[Deleted]

c-a-r-f-r-e-w Attached link mentions ammonia (not a new thing) along with other points

www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2021/12/08/why-hydrogen-will-likely-be-the-gateway-to-net-zero/?

Batteries will certainly play a significant role[1] and I have never once said otherwise, so please let's not go back to the misrepresentations from UKPR (although you're certainly not the worst offender in that regard and I have desire to block your posts). In specific sectors there are infrastructure reasons why decisions might end up as 'Betamax v VHS' but not every sector will be the same (we've discussed this repeatedly in the past)

The future is not set!

[1] Certainly Musk, the major car companies and 'others' have piled huge $$ into batteries (Musk once tweeted 'Fuel Cells = Fool's Sells'[2] but then he does have a bias!) and hence past investment has meant we've already seen a lot of the advances in battery tech. Past performance is no guarantee of future success. The future is not set, but investment in hydrogen 'tech' has lagged batteries. If you want to 'predict' the future advances in hydrogen v battery 'tech' and their use in every possible need then I'll leave you to that. I'm excited there are lots of possibilities and will not predict the future beyond making the observation (again) that we can't continue with 'dither and delay' forever. Future decisions can be made on future info (ie not every decision has to be made today but there will be a time when decisions have to be made - in UK and rWorld). Who knows maybe one day Thorium has a major role to play - I dunno, as the future is not set! 

[2] Once again then BEVs will almost certainly dominant small and medium sized cars, partly due to their current dominance from most of the major players and some new entrants (eg Musk), plus private+public sector investment in charging infrastucture, incentives, etc. However, the future is not set on everything else. The capacity in TWh required for seasonal supply-demand balancing (which some folks will never accept, or maybe slowly 'shift the sands' to get there eventually and claim they had that view all along) will be very challenging to store in batteries, or UK pumped hydro, but we have enormous potential capacity to store green (and to a lesser extent pink and yellow in UK at least) hydrogen which IF/WHEN we are into huge excess supply of renewable electricity will be much cheaper to produce. For sure there might be better uses for the green(pink/yellow) hydrogen (eg it's role in heating or other forms of transport, the plane issue you keep repeating is solvable). The future is not set.

www.cnbc.com/2021/12/06/elon-musk-has-strong-views-on-hydrogen-and-not-everyone-agrees.html

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Dec 9, 2021 5:21:53 GMT @tw said:

c-a-r-f-r-e-w Attached link mentions ammonia (not a new thing) along with other points

www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2021/12/08/why-hydrogen-will-likely-be-the-gateway-to-net-zero/?

Batteries will certainly play a significant role[1] and I have never once said otherwise, so please let's not go back to the misrepresentations from UKPR (although you're certainly not the worst offender in that regard and I have desire to block your posts).

And nothing in my post claimed that you had said otherwise. All I did was suggest some factors affecting adoption of hydrogen, and the amount of progess concerning battery performance and production can affect that.

 

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Dec 9, 2021 5:21:53 GMT @tw said:

[1] Certainly Musk, the major car companies and 'others' have piled huge $$ into batteries (Musk once tweeted 'Fuel Cells = Fool's Sells'[2] but then he does have a bias!) and hence past investment has meant we've already seen a lot of the advances in battery tech. Past performance is no guarantee of future success. The future is not set, but investment in hydrogen 'tech' has lagged batteries.

True, but batteries are already around 98% efficient and it’ll take some going for hydrogen to match that. This doesn’t have to mean no role for hydrogen. Like I said, the more demand outstrips battery supply, then there’s a greater role for hydrogen. I wasn’t arguing that hydrogen is a bust, but was simply exploring factors affecting its prospects. And like I said, the non-energy uses are such that it’s probably worth a punt anyway.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Dec 9, 2021 5:21:53 GMT @tw said:

The capacity in TWh required for seasonal supply-demand balancing (which some folks will never accept, or maybe slowly 'shift the sands' to get there eventually and claim they had that view all along) will be very challenging to store in batteries, or UK pumped hydro, but we have enormous potential capacity to store green (and to a lesser extent pink and yellow in UK at least) hydrogen which IF/WHEN we are into huge excess supply of renewable electricity will be much cheaper to produce. For sure there might be better uses for the green(pink/yellow) hydrogen (eg it's role in heating or other forms of transport, the plane issue you keep repeating is solvable). The future is not set.

This is the thing. One possibility is that in the shorter-to-medium term, battery production is insufficient for what’s required, leaving more of a role for hydrogen. But longer term, greater numbers of more efficient batteries may wind up eclipsing hydrogen. But you might still repurpose the hydrogen for something else. 

(Bear in mind that longer term, not only will batteries be more efficient but will last longer and there will be more batteries to recycle). 

Regarding battery development, it doesn’t show many signs of abating. Batteries have been improving exponentially for a century, there are lots of avenues being explored, there’s no big reason why it can’t carry on for a good while.

[Deleted]

I'll repost EC's view (Jul'20):

A hydrogen strategy for a climate-neutral Europe

ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/hydrogen_strategy.pdf

[Deleted]

Dec 9, 2021 8:57:39 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

True, but batteries are already around 98% efficient.

So not much more to gain to be made there then. However, further advances certainly possible in energy/weight ratio, cost and charging speeds and quite possibly a 'two-pronged' development. Some large/heavy, potentially not even super efficient batteries could well challenge salt cavern hydrogen storage or pumped hydro[1] providing the role for long-term storage. Very light, super efficient[2], ultra fast charge batteries might well be adopted in more larger vehicles (eg HGVs or 'semis' as they call them in US, possibly planes but I reckon (an inspired guess as it's in the future) planes will be either hydrogen or e-fuels)

www.tesla.com/semi

[1] Without going through pumped hydro all over again then IMO the scope to expand that in UK is 'politically' (and rEnvironmentally) limited. With small capacity in UK then it's best suited to frequent use (eg intra-day demand-supply balancing which is regularly does now). Norway as the 'Green (mostly hydro) battery' for Europe that UK interconnects with will have a role in longer-term storage but I'd be cautious about over reliance on that (see previous comments and below link that covers some of the 'political' feasibility) and the scale of interconnectors we would need would be massive and costly when we could have home grown options.

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421513001286

and note Norway, who have a massive natural and partially developed comparative advantage in pumped hydro due to fjords and existing infrastructure, are wise enough to cover multiple options (as UK and 'others' should)

www.energy-storage.news/giga-norway-panasonic-equinor-check-out-green-battery-business-potential-in-northern-scandinavia/

[2] maintaining where they are or even tolerating a modest drop if benefits elsewhere (eg a much lighter battery that is slightly less efficient would be more useful in certain roles, possibly aviation - being the future then I dunno)

[alec]

@tw - "I'll repost EC's view (Jul'20):..."

Of, course, having read the link, and the research and references upon which it is based, you will appreciate that the EU is not proposing to use hydrogen for large scale seasonal energy storage. This is mainly because we won't need as much of this as you appear to still think, because of the way renewable output will work in the future.

Hydrogen has a role on the electricity grid as a back up, for shorter term buffering, and to transport energy geographically, which is what the EU are saying. They are not focusing on hydrogen as the primary source of seasonal energy storage, which is what your posts upthread and on UKPR1 regularly suggest.

But it is good to see you soften your tone and discuss more relevant avenues like demand side management. This feel like progress.

[Deleted]

There are many ways to store hydrogen but Salt Caverns (eg repurposing Rough facility[1]) have massive potential:

Theoretical storage capacity of ~3000 TWh across the three regions (of England)

ukccsrc.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/John-Williams_CCS-and-Hydrogen.pdf

We'd only need a small fraction of that and obviously some sites will be cheaper to develop than others. Of course, currently, we aren't producing excess renewable/nuclear electricity so producing green, yellow or pink hydrogen would be uneconomic due to the inefficiency issue and hence we currently have zero need to store hydrogen for any use - currently! Repurposing Rough could, and IMO should, be a 'prototype' (ie it would currently not be economic but we need to develop the tech and until we 'do stuff' we don't know what all the costs and opportunities to reduce them will be - a similar argument could be made for tidal lagoons, we know we could build them but seem too concerned about the cost/other issues to trial one in Swansea Bay). Hopefully by late 2023 then enough new wind farms will have come online and we'll be starting to see some periods of excess supply return and that should ramp up quickly after that so that by 2030[2] we should have significant periods of excess supply and we need to start getting ready for that now. 

[1] Due to various issues then Rough would take until 2026 before it was ready so ahead of that we might return to some more frequent times where we can charge BEVs for 'free' or less than 4p/kWh (and BEV sales will likely increase that demand which is useful for short-term supply-demand shifting)
www.edie.net/news/8/Hydrogen--Shell-opens-Europe-s-largest-electrolyser-as-Centrica-eyes-storage-at-Rough/

[1] Pretty sure I've posted the roll out numbers back on the UKPR. We know the very near future as it takes time to build a new wind farm that has already been approved. Beyond that it is 'inspired guesswork' about how many sites can be built per year, how cost effective 'floating' farms will be, etc (as we've obviously built out the best sites first). This far North and with cloudy climate then Solar is not a great large scale option for UK (fans of massive Solar farms should be big supporters of hydrogen storage, if they'd take a few minutes to work it out).  

[alec]

@tw - "Of course, currently, we aren't producing excess renewable/nuclear electricity..."

Sorry, but this isn't correct. We are producing record amounts of excess energy, particularly across the wind sector, although allocating a proportion of the excess at any given time to one specific type of generator is not logical. National Grid estimate total balancing charges of around £3bn in the year to March 2022, with somewhere between a third and a half of this being 'constraint payments', when generators are paid to switch off. So far this year, the biggest month for constraint payments was October, at £153.60m, which was mainly due to excessive output from wind farms. In the last decade, wind farm operators have been paid over £1bn in total for instructed shut downs, and the level of payments is increasing rapidly.

It simply isn't true to suggest that we don't currently have excess renewable energy. Hydrogen production isn't happening yet on any substantial scale because it is economically inefficient - not because there isn't excess energy to use.

National Grid report all this data, if you want to check the sources.

[Deleted]

c-a-r-f-r-e-w Follow up to Musk's 'Semis' (HGVs). A report you might be interested in given it looks at various options:

www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/CCC-Zero-Emission-HGV-Infrastructure-Requirements-Ricardo-Energy-Environment.pdf

Most of the options have significant 'chicken and egg' issues (huge in the case of overhead catenaries) where govt has to play the rooster ('seeds' and approves the process, although with some 'crow(d)ing in' to help reduce risk to taxpayers). Problem in UK is Kwarteng is a cock and instead of being up very early every day doing his stuff then BEIS are asleep at wheel and the 'crowding in' is happening elsewhere. UK risks being left behind and doing more bonkers stuff like importing hydrogen for the other side of the planet 

www.cnbc.com/2021/11/01/jcb-signs-deal-to-import-green-hydrogen-from-australia.html

More from Australia's richest man:
www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/fortescue-signs-deal-bring-green-hydrogen-airlines-more-come-2021-11-10/

In which they state: 'The JCB agreement broke the dam of green hydrogen skepticism'

Tweaking the metaphor slightly then we need to producing the 'feed' (hydrogen) in UK, rather than import it from the other side of the planet but to do that we need to make hydrogen production in UK more cost effective, which it CURRENTLY is not (but perhaps would be by 2023 or soon after - if BEIS do more to fix the 'chicken+egg' conundrum, which would be achieved best (IMO) by giving some bungs to private sector but then I admit to a bias   )

PS Batteries are past the 'chicken+egg' (dam breaking) phase and well into the early adopters period of development. Hydrogen is still at the 'bleeding edge' although folks like Forrest are hoping to do for hydrogen what Musk did for batteries. The future is not set of course so all TBC. The collective have a few eggs in places where the roosters are busy but would prefer to generate it in Britain. Middle East are big into 'yellow' hydrogen, notably Dubai who have a bigger incentive to find post oil solutions:

Hydrogen: From Hype to Reality

www.dubaifuture.ae/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Hydrogen-From-Hype-to-Reality-EN-v1.0.pdf

[lens]

Dec 9, 2021 5:21:53 GMT @tw said:

The future is not set!

[1] Certainly Musk, the major car companies and 'others' have piled huge $$ into batteries (Musk once tweeted 'Fuel Cells = Fool's Sells'[2] but then he does have a bias!) and hence past investment has meant we've already seen a lot of the advances in battery tech. Past performance is no guarantee of future success. The future is not set, but investment in hydrogen 'tech' has lagged batteries. If you want to 'predict' the future advances in hydrogen v battery 'tech' .........

Sorry, but the comment about Musk having a bias shouldn't go unchallenged. When Musk first got involved, then it was to try to create an industry producing a "clean car". At that point hydrogen looked like the obvious choice - batteries were simply too expensive as well as having seemingly insoluble issues with charge times etc. Musk started with a clean slate, did huge research into what may be possible in the future, and perhaps more importantly what would not be, and then was when he made the famous quote. At a time when Tesla could have as well gone the hydrogen route as battery - if Musk had considered it made sense.

If Musk was making the "fool cells" comment now, a charge of bias may be valid - but at the time he made it Tesla could have equally gone the hydrogen route.

I would also dispute that "investment in hydrogen 'tech' has lagged batteries". The concept of the hydrogen car has been around for decades, and most famously was heavily promoted by George Bush around 20 years ago - georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/technology/economic_policy200404/chap2.html . It's had huge investment thrown at it, and that includes from the likes of (more recently) Honda and Toyota. But (certainly for cars) the physics and chemistry of hydrogen mean that too many of the problems are intrinsic. Whilst the (perceived) problems with batteries for cars were more down to technology and cost than fundamental physics.

Musk and Tesla invested in battery technology because of a belief that in the future (now the present!) it could be made to work. He didn't go the hydrogen route because of a belief that certain "laws of physics" made the concept less likely to be successful. That Tesla is struggling to match demand, whilst Toyota are having to massively subsidise each Mirai and even so are selling very few, seems to indicate Musk got it absolutely right.

As for hydrogen for aircraft, then in a previous post it was mentioned that it had very good energy density by weight, but poor by volume. Absolutely true, but the latter is compensated by either pressurising it as a gas, or liquefaction at cryogenic temperatures. Problem with the former is the weight of the necessary tanks - rather negating the good energy density by weight - whilst the latter brings a host of other problems. What's important is not the enrgy density of the fuel, but energy density of the fuel plus associated tank.