|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Oct 20, 2022 14:48:37 GMT
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Oct 20, 2022 15:44:17 GMT
Thank you for posting. FWIW then here is the direct source, with more info on other related issues, from 6Oct: www.nationalgrideso.com/news/eso-takes-cautious-action-ahead-winter-ensure-security-electricity-supplyWhen they first released that info the press attention was only on the 'scary' stuff covered in their update, see 'ALTERNATE SCENARIO' section Very few people will read NG's info direct but good to see some more press outlets spreading the 'news'. National campaign covering demand related issues coming soon... |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Oct 20, 2022 16:25:34 GMT
Thank you for posting. FWIW then here is the direct source, with more info on other related issues, from 6Oct: www.nationalgrideso.com/news/eso-takes-cautious-action-ahead-winter-ensure-security-electricity-supplyWhen they first released that info the press attention was only on the 'scary' stuff covered in their update, see 'ALTERNATE SCENARIO' section Very few people will read NG's info direct but good to see some more press outlets spreading the 'news'. National campaign covering demand related issues coming soon... Yes, I was surprised to see it in The Guardian, which has a poor reputation for Science and Technology reporting (although their IT reporting is quite good). |
|
|
|
Post by deleted2 on Oct 20, 2022 17:03:01 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by deleted2 on Oct 20, 2022 17:04:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lens on Oct 20, 2022 23:03:50 GMT
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Oct 21, 2022 8:16:19 GMT
I can see a lot of sense in producing green hydrogen for industrial use - replacing dirty hydrogen Shell are certainly prioritising and focussing on the big/easy wins in the short-term. From earlier this year: Shell to start building Europe’s largest renewable hydrogen plant... where it will replace some of the grey hydrogen usage in the refinery... As heavy-duty trucks are coming to market and refuelling networks grow*, renewable hydrogen supply can also be directed toward these to help in decarbonising commercial road transport.www.shell.com/media/news-and-media-releases/2022/shell-to-start-building-europes-largest-renewable-hydrogen-plant.html* Across Continental Europe rather than UK (for now at least), often with significant 'help' from their govts/Brussels. Lower investment/lower risk here as ' Shell (now only) wants to explore opportunities to build “multi-modal hubs for heavy-duty trucks” in the UK (non-paywall link for those who don't pay for news from Times: www.electrive.com/2022/10/18/shell-quietly-closes-all-hydrogen-filling-stations-in-the-uk/)A huge opportunity for UK (and iScotland if that ever happens) to become a major exporter of hydrogen to our more progressive neighbours in a few years time as we continue to expand our renewables generating capacity (see links previously provided) and reach the point of having sufficiently frequent and prolonged periods of very cheap electricity to make the economics of mass scale electrolysers work without the need of significant amounts of taxpayer money. Generate it in Britain. |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Oct 21, 2022 8:22:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lens on Oct 21, 2022 14:06:39 GMT
I can see a lot of sense in producing green hydrogen for industrial use - replacing dirty hydrogen I remain sceptical about hydrogen and road transport even for trucking, and Shell's announcement about passenger cars and hydrogen tends to make me even more so. They may still be talking about refuelling (hydrogen) networks for trucks - but then they were for cars only a year or so ago. It's only about 10-15 years since hydrogen was seen as "natural" to replace petrol/diesel if we wanted clean exhausts, how quickly sentiment (and battery technology!) has changed. A good example may be with buses. Tfl first trialled hydrogen buses nearly 20 years ago, and has had a handful since. They trialled the first battery buses only in the last few years, and I now believe there are about 40 battery for each hydrogen bus. And the ratio expected to get bigger not smaller. Various manufacturers have been trialling fairly small scale battery truck production runs, with maybe the most publicity going to Tesla - even if their promised truck is about two years late from when first announced. But recent announcements do seem to indicate we'll see the first deliveries in a month or so, and recently: www.teslarati.com/tesla-to-produce-50k-tesla-semi-next-year/"So, we expect to see significant — we’re tentatively aiming for 50,000 units in 2024 for Tesla Semi in North America. And obviously, we’ll expand beyond North America. ..............” Musk said." Now personally, I shall be very surprised if they are even close to 50,000 pa by 2024, but even if they only manage an annual run rate of 10-20,000 by then, and if their running costs are lower than for a fuel cell truck, then we can forget about building hydrogen truck refuelling networks. |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Oct 21, 2022 14:38:49 GMT
Link for the hydrogen refuelling network for Europe (eg 95 already in Germany, scroll down to section: The filling station network for hydrogen cars in Germany, for more info) h2.live/en/Although they did back diesel so maybe best UK adopts a 'wait and see' approach. The map needs to be updated for UK, where we're taking one step backwards (and TBC if that turns out to be two steps in forward in the future) 'Japan now has the world's largest network of hydrogen refuelling stations, symbolising the government's faith in the future of hydrogen and its effort to lead the world in the race to commercialise it': www.glpautogas.info/data/hydrogen-stations-map-japan.htmlNot much in N.America outside of California: afdc.energy.gov/fuels/hydrogen_locations.html#/find/nearest?fuel=HY Many of those 'public' maps don't include 'private' (or govt) hub facilities. LAB Mayor of London is hedging his bets across various solutions but note: 'We want London to be a world leader in hydrogen and fuel cell activity'www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/environment/pollution-and-air-quality/cleaner-busesA lot of hydrogen buses are 'Made in Britain (+NI)' and exported globally. So even though we're slow to adopt then at least we're benefiting via exports. NB As discussion at length with c-a-r-f-r-e-w then this is not a case of 'betamax' v 'VHS' as there is potential for multiple solutions. Clearly BEVs have significant 'first/major mover' advantage for smaller vehicles and hydrogen has lots of alternate potential uses, even if it only ever has a niche role in road transport. We can of course all have an opinion on how significant the role of hydrogen will be and fair to say Musk might have a bit of a bias  |
|
|
|
Post by deleted2 on Oct 21, 2022 15:28:10 GMT
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Oct 21, 2022 15:44:26 GMT
Also, seems a bit unnecessary to carry the battery rather than just a larger hydrogen tank... Well, a small battery can be useful. For the Nikola version then it " Supplements hydrogen power from the fuel stack for acceleration and captures energy through regenerative braking"
nikolamotor.com/tre-fcevAgree no real need for a larger battery. We should probably take this discussion to the pub given it's POETS day. |
|
|
|
Post by lens on Oct 21, 2022 17:48:22 GMT
A lot of hydrogen buses are 'Made in Britain (+NI)' and exported globally. So even though we're slow to adopt then at least we're benefiting via exports. NB As discussion at length with c-a-r-f-r-e-w then this is not a case of 'betamax' v 'VHS' as there is potential for multiple solutions. Clearly BEVs have significant 'first/major mover' advantage for smaller vehicles and hydrogen has lots of alternate potential uses, even if it only ever has a niche role in road transport. I personally disagree with the Betamax/VHS thought (sorry, but carfrew discussion may be before my time?) - at least within each individual market segment. For the reason that its going to be expensive - very expensive - to build out either a nationwide charging or hydrogen solution. To build out *BOTH* in parallel would be ludicrous. As for first mover advantage, then surely that went to hydrogen in the passenger car market? Come to that, for buses as well? From memory I believe Tfl did fuel cell bus trials somewhere around 2004-5? With the first battery buses at least 10 years later? But in spite of that, the number of battery buses in operation now dwarfs hydrogen. And as for cars..... We can of course all have an opinion on how significant the role of hydrogen will be and fair to say Musk might have a bit of a bias The Musk/bias argument needs to looked at from the other direction. When Musk first got involved with Tesla, he could have easily gone with hydrogen as battery. His "mission" was to design a car which was seen as green and non-polluting, certainly at the tailpipe. And the conventional wisdom then was hydrogen was the only sensible way forward. He went with battery not out of bias, but because he worked out it was a better way forward. Pretty clever thinking at the time, to anticipate that battery technology was likely to drop in price the way it has. He made his "hydrogen fool cell" comment NOT because Tesla was a battery company - rather Tesla went battery because he had worked out (for road transport) "hydrogen meant fool cells". An interesting comparison is Musk/Tesla, with a small UK company called Riversimple. (See www.riversimple.com/about-riversimple/#History) They both formed at roughly the same time, and both with a similar aim - to make a new technology "green" car. The difference is that Riversimple went with the acknowledged wisdom of the day (hydrogen) - Tesla went with battery. I think comparing them now tends to indicate which got it right, and which got it wrong...... |
|
|
|
Post by lens on Oct 21, 2022 18:15:05 GMT
Also, seems a bit unnecessary to carry the battery rather than just a larger hydrogen tank... Well, a small battery can be useful. For the Nikola version then it " Supplements hydrogen power from the fuel stack for acceleration and captures energy through regenerative braking"
nikolamotor.com/tre-fcevAgree no real need for a larger battery. We should probably take this discussion to the pub given it's POETS day. You really need a larger battery than you may think. Size of battery affects two things - the total energy that can be stored (doh! obvious....) but also the instantaneous power it can either deliver or absorb. For such as a truck this is important. A fuel cell works best and most efficiently at delivering a steady and even power. It's very inefficient to design one of such a size that it can cope with peak power demands during such as acceleration and climbing a steep gradient - most of the time it would then be only delivering a fraction of it's max output. A battery is the opposite. It will be designed primarily for range (energy capacity) and being able to deliver high peak power then comes as a given. For the same reason it will be able to absorb very high power flow during regenerative braking. Hence a (fairly large) battery tends to be used with a fuel cell to give acceptable performance and enable regen. And I'm not sure that Nikola is the best example of good practice in the trucking industry........ as their founder and previous CEO (until he was forced to stand down) has just been convicted of fraud in the US and is now awaiting sentencing. (And likely to be behind bars for a very long time.) He was a strong advocate for hydrogen, and unfortunately one legacy he seems to have left them is to develop a fuel cell truck in parallel with a battery truck, due to contracts signed when he was still in charge. Even if the new management wants to now go legit, he's left them a poisoned chalice, and it's far from certain if they can survive at all - let alone develop two products. (Their share price is currently slumped to record lows.) |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Oct 22, 2022 6:31:47 GMT
Be nicer (for the planet) if it was Green rather than Blue but our neighbours are going to be big users+importers of hydrogen in the near future. Now which country can, should and hopefully will become a massive producer of Green Hydrogen in the (hopefully not too distant) future.... Germany receives first hydrogen shipment from UAE
www.dw.com/en/germany-receives-first-hydrogen-shipment-from-uae/a-63524001 |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Oct 22, 2022 6:44:49 GMT
You really need a larger battery than you may think. Well I don't think they're being built to compete in F1 races but I could be wrong about that. Anyway, since you're clearly no longer a skeptic about their use then, using the links I've already provided (or your own), then perhaps suggest the size of battery you think is needed in an HGV ' purely for additional acceleration by capturing energy through regenerative braking' (small IMO) versus a battery that is intended to do most/all of the steady miles (see the two Tevva models which started the discussion of small v large) I'm now not uncertain of the reason Tevva have an unnecessary large battery in their hydrogen electric model, I wonder if you can work it out or at least take an inspired guess? |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Oct 22, 2022 9:07:26 GMT
lens - I tend to agree with you that hydrogen is unlikely to become a common fuel for smaller vehicles. It's better suited to heavy vehicles which have longer intervals between filling, and this means that it can fulfill a role in the transport mix with a much sparser network of filling stations. While it's not likely to overcome the momentum that EVs have, I also think biofuels may well have a role. Cheaper than hydrogen with minimal switch over costs, we're now seeing biofuel technology develop such that in a few years we're likely to see significant opportunities from seaweed and marginal land crops (like bracken) which could enable the production of reasonably volumes of fuel with no loss of productive farmland.
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Oct 22, 2022 9:18:30 GMT
I think you might also be interested in this - h2dualpower.com/enThe Scottish government funded a dual fuel hydrogen project for agriculture a couple of years ago, where they developed a bolt on hydrogen injection system for a tractor. Initially this cost around £10k but the price fell to around £1k per unit, with one of the farmers featured on BBC's Landward saying that the unit was cost effective and that he was fitting one onto his own pick up to save money. This would be one of the easiest ways to reduce diesel use without large scale changes to engines etc. Again, it's showing the value of hydrogen in the heavy vehicles sector. |
|
|
|
Post by lens on Oct 22, 2022 11:24:32 GMT
Be nicer (for the planet) if it was Green rather than Blue but our neighbours are going to be big users+importers of hydrogen in the near future. Now which country can, should and hopefully will become a massive producer of Green Hydrogen in the (hopefully not too distant) future.... Germany receives first hydrogen shipment from UAE
www.dw.com/en/germany-receives-first-hydrogen-shipment-from-uae/a-63524001Blue hydrogen is simply pointless from an environmental point of view - if currently necessary for industrial processes where there is no alternative. Green hydrogen should certainly have a future - but in displacing "dirty" hydrogen from the processes above. There are two separate discussions. Hydrogen for industry - and hydrogen for new applications (esp road transport). They shouldn't be conflated. Though the oil industry is very keen to muddy the waters. |
|
|
|
Post by lens on Oct 22, 2022 12:12:52 GMT
You really need a larger battery than you may think. Well I don't think they're being built to compete in F1 races but I could be wrong about that. That's not the point. It's to give them even acceptable performance compared to diesel without a fuel cell that is unnecessarily large most of the time. You *COULD* make an FCEV truck with no battery - but then accept really poor performance or spend a fortune on an oversized fuel cell and ancillary equipment. (Air filtration etc) And you don't just need power for acceleration - think of climbing a long, steep gradient. (Or for that matter being able to capture the energy back coming down such.) Anyway, since you're clearly no longer a skeptic about their use then, using the links I've already provided (or your own), then perhaps suggest the size of battery you think is needed in an HGV ' purely for additional acceleration by capturing energy through regenerative braking' (small IMO) versus a battery that is intended to do most/all of the steady miles (see the two Tevva models which started the discussion of small v large) Oh, I remain a big sceptic about fuel cells for trucking. Not they can't be made to work at all - it's the viability and environmental point of them that I remain sceptical about. As for "how big a battery do you need", then it's an impossible - how long is a piece of string? - question to answer. How big is the truck? What's the weight? What proportion of energy recovery are you engineering for? What C rate do you consider acceptable for the batteries and longevity? (To absorb a given amount of regen power, the bigger the battery size the lower the C rate - and likely the longer such will last.) I'm now not uncertain of the reason Tevva have an unnecessary large battery in their hydrogen electric model, I wonder if you can work it out or at least take an inspired guess? I'm not familiar with Tevva, but before Trevor Milton's sad demise ( ) I believe he was talking about several hundred kWh in a semi trailer design? Though a later spec talked about less? I'd therefore expect a couple of hundred in a large truck towing a trailer, maybe half that in a small rigid truck? But it really is a piece of string question. (Especially with regards to size/weight of the vehicle.) At the end, noone can beat physics, and in this respect a lot is set by air resistance. For both the Tesla Semi and Nikola's truck, energy consumption is largely considered around 2kWh/mile - Tesla claiming a bit less, Nikola's a bit more owing to the flat front. It's worth asking the question "why hydrogen"? What does it offer that battery doesn't? A few years ago hydrogen proponents claimed three things: Range, refuelling (charging) time, and a weight advantage. They always had to concede that energy costs per mile would be worse. For the former (range), much of that has now disappeared - Tesla are claiming (we'll see) 500 miles, the same as Nikola for hydrogen. Refuelling time? Hydrogen may still have a 0-100%tank fill advantage, but does it really now matter? Tesla are already claiming (with others catching up) "300 miles range in 30 minutes charging", which effectively means getting back 300 miles range during a drivers break. (Use the 2kWh/mile rule of thumb and it's easy to work out the power needed - 300x2kWh in 30 minutes, so an average of approx 1.2MW. Well within the MCS spec.) Weight? Again Tesla are now claiming the Semi can handle a fully laden trailer, no penalty versus diesel. |
|
|
|
Post by lens on Oct 22, 2022 13:24:11 GMT
I think you might also be interested in this - h2dualpower.com/enThe Scottish government funded a dual fuel hydrogen project for agriculture a couple of years ago, where they developed a bolt on hydrogen injection system for a tractor. Initially this cost around £10k but the price fell to around £1k per unit, with one of the farmers featured on BBC's Landward saying that the unit was cost effective and that he was fitting one onto his own pick up to save money. This would be one of the easiest ways to reduce diesel use without large scale changes to engines etc. Again, it's showing the value of hydrogen in the heavy vehicles sector. Well, interesting, but I'm far from convinced. Some years ago my company decided to convert it's fleet - including my personal car - to LPG, and to cut a (very) long story short it was a disaster. After a year or two the use of LPG in the cars was banned and soon after the conversions were ripped out. Must have wasted the company upwards of £100,000. And that was LPG - liquid at moderate pressure at room temperatures, so much easier to deal with than hydrogen. My own car suffered a fatigue fracture in a gas pipe which led to an engine cut out at speed in the fast lane of a motorway. Thank you for the link, but to take just one sentence from it: "The hydrogen is stored in 5 cylinders, which are placed above the tractor cab for increased safety without compromising functionality. Each cylinder contains 11.5kg of hydrogen pressurised at 350 bar."That instantly raises questions re cost to me. It's possible to easily roughly calculate ball park figures for the weight of a pressure cylinder given weight of content - for 700bar and hydrogen (350 bar will be worse) cylinder weight is roughly 20x content weight - so each cylinder about 200kg, and a total weight around 1 tonne! Now knowing how much pressure cylinders for scuba cost (smaller and at lower pressures)it's inconceivable that the tanks alone could come to only £1,000, let alone the cost of the conversion itself!? I'm inclined to wonder therefore about subsidies, and likely huge ones at that? It's the sort of question that should really have been asked by Landward. "You say it's cost effective, but is it subsidised, and if so by how much?" The other question is how does the hydrogen get to the farm? I can't believe they have electrolysis on site, so I'm asssuming trucked in? And such is a problem in itself, not just the local storage, not just having compression plant to charge the tractor, but the actual transport from the refinery - the weight of the pressure vessel having to be so much more than the weight of contained gas. But it's amazing what problems can be solved - at small scale - by big enough subsidies and grants........ |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Oct 22, 2022 13:51:51 GMT
Be nicer (for the planet) if it was Green rather than Blue but our neighbours are going to be big users+importers of hydrogen in the near future. Now which country can, should and hopefully will become a massive producer of Green Hydrogen in the (hopefully not too distant) future.... Germany receives first hydrogen shipment from UAE
www.dw.com/en/germany-receives-first-hydrogen-shipment-from-uae/a-63524001Blue hydrogen is simply pointless from an environmental point of view - if currently necessary for industrial processes where there is no alternative. Hydrogen production+use is a chicken+egg problem. Until we have sufficient genuine "excess" (ie frequent and prolonged periods) of green sources of electricity (the egg) then some folks are unwilling to commit to the uses of hydrogen (the chicken). Although as per my link to Shell piece then replacing Grey hydrogen production is happening (slower than I'm sure we would both want to see). Blue hydrogen is a bridge to make larger (and hence cheaper) volumes of hydrogen available while 'greener' (and/or 'pinker') source supplies for hydrogen production are built (again see all the links provided on UK plans and you can find similar for a lot of other countries as well - pretty sure I've posted the German source in the past). Germany were hoping to use cheap Russian gas (eg desire for NordStream2) to provide the bridging source but have needed to adapt when Russia invaded Ukraine hoping to exploit Germany/EUrope's over reliance on Russian gas. I fully, 100%, totally agree that green hydrogen is much better.. (see the bit where I said ' Be nicer (for the planet) if it was Green...'). Countries like UAE (and UK) would rather supply Germany with a more downstream product (ie hydrogen) rather than electricity or gas as a/ it's more profitable b/ gas (or electricity that comes form burning gas) is only a bridge (and you find lots of info (some of which I've posted in the past) on various countries who have large O&G exports looking to move to solar, wind, nuclear, etc - slower than we'd both like to see, but the demand (chicken) needs to be there as well) One thing battery fans will like is the 'reverse' of why a small battery is useful for large hydrogen vehicles. It is very likely that batteries will be able to help regulate a more steady supply of 'excess' electricity for electrolysers. Quite the Green team when you combine the two technologies together! |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Oct 22, 2022 14:33:37 GMT
I'm now not uncertain of the reason Tevva have an unnecessary large battery in their hydrogen electric model, I wonder if you can work it out or at least take an inspired guess? I'm not familiar with Tevva... I believe he was talking about several hundred kWh in a semi trailer design? Though a later spec talked about less? I'd therefore expect a couple of hundred in a large truck towing a trailer, maybe half that in a small rigid truck? But it really is a piece of string question. Thank you such a long list of links and sources (I'm being ironic, especially as I even gave you some - try the Volvo one if you don't like the other/newer companies). Unclear if your 'guess' is 'expect a couple of hundred (Wh)..' (v.small like you'd find on a small battery e-bike*) or 'several hundred kWh' (unnecessarily way, way too big unless there is another reason - largely an ironic one to do with 'range hesitancy' and reluctance of some manufacturers to go for hydrogen only**). Big difference between 2-300Wh and 500-700kWh (Tesla 'all battery' Semi kind of size) The main reason to even have a battery pack is to make use of the energy lost in braking (ie use regenerative brakes). Given that is proven tech then might as well make use of that (ie turn otherwise wasted kinetic energy into electricity and store it in a battery). Then what to do with said (small) storage of electricity?!?! (Pause while pondering) Well, why not use it to give an occassional boost of power rather than overbuild the number of fuel cells needed, some of which would only be used some of the time (eg when accelerating hard or going up a steep hill with a heavy load) Great combination of the two technologies but the battery required to make use of the otherwise wasted braking only NEEDS to be small, as hydrogen has the much higher energy density (ie if you have fuel cells anyway then far better to add a larger hydrogen tank than carry an unnecessarily large battery). On some models they might choose the battery pack to be 'large' but it only needs to be 'small'. * Tangent. Be nice if when I used my brakes on my e-bike it would recharge the battery... one day perhaps. ** Other than the 'might as well' aspect of regenerative braking. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Oct 22, 2022 14:54:21 GMT
lens - for clarity, the two examples were entirely different. The Dutch example doesn't appear to be cost effective at present, but the Sottish example seemed to be a reasonable approach, for a hybrid system and was apparently unsubsidised at the £1000 per vehicle cost, but I can't recall the details. Will have a look to see if I can dig out the details.
|
|
|
|
Post by lens on Oct 22, 2022 15:01:32 GMT
Blue hydrogen is simply pointless from an environmental point of view - if currently necessary for industrial processes where there is no alternative. Hydrogen production+use is a chicken+egg problem. Until we have sufficient genuine "excess" (ie frequent and prolonged periods) of green sources of electricity (the egg) then some folks are unwilling to commit to the uses of hydrogen (the chicken).  You're not serious!!! Do you realise just how much hydrogen is currently produced and already used (in industry)? It's tens of millions of tonnes!! It is *NOT* a "chicken and egg" problem - the chicken is absolutely huge already! And it's currently nearly all "dirty" hydrogen made from fossil fuels. There is a *HUGE* market there waiting to convert from dirty to green already. A market where hydrogen is necessary in itself (ammonia and fertiliser production, oil refining, and many others) - not merely as a form of energy storage/delivery. For those applications hydrogen is necessary, and it's such a large market there is no necessity whatsoever to look for new markets (eg road transport) where better alternatives exist. The people promoting such are those with a historical vested interest. One thing battery fans will like is the 'reverse' of why a small battery is useful for large hydrogen vehicles. It is very likely that batteries will be able to help regulate a more steady supply of 'excess' electricity for electrolysers. Quite the Green team when you combine the two technologies together! NO. That is not a "green team". Grid storage battery is still relatively expensive. If you're going to the trouble to build such, it makes VASTLY more sense to use it to supply that stored energy as electricity, not convert it inefficiently into hydrogen. One of the more valid criticisms of renewable electricity is that it may not be generated at the time it's needed. If you've got battery storage, by far the most sensible way to use it is to stabilise the generation/consumption graph directly! |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Oct 22, 2022 15:02:58 GMT
Refuelling time? Hydrogen may still have a 0-100% tank fill advantage, but does it really now matter? Tesla are already claiming (with others catching up) "300 miles range in 30 minutes charging".. Thank you once again for the link with numbers that seem more likely to apply to a car on the 250kW Supercharger V3 network. I'll provide one, but by all means supply your own: "According to unofficial reports, the Semi should be able to charge at up to 1.5 MW at such a station"(so with a 500kWh battery and range of 300-500miles then actually quicker than 20mins but allow a bit of time for the driver to connect/disconnect and maybe take a leak, buy a coffee, so happy to say 300miles range in 30mins is possible.. if you can charge at 1.5MW) insideevs.com/news/563413/four-tesla-semi-megacharging-station/Shall I supply the link for the global map of the Tesla 1.5MW Megacharger network (and the issues with trying to expand that beyond the one near Tesla factory and the few nearby, using existing electricity grid infrastructure). Wow, and folks talk about the limited network for hydrogen refuelling (which is already fairly substantial in places like Germany, Japan and... California - see links previously provided). At risk of upsetting Tesla fanclub then some might find the following funny  www.teslarati.com/tesla-semi-mocked-renault-trucks-ad/ |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Oct 22, 2022 15:45:06 GMT
lens - "NO. That is not a "green team". Grid storage battery is still relatively expensive. If you're going to the trouble to build such, it makes VASTLY more sense to use it to supply that stored energy as electricity, not convert it inefficiently into hydrogen." Absolutely. Many of the myriad blog posts about hydrogen talk about energy storage and release without due consideration of the tremendous conversion losses that are incurred. Batteries suffer this too, obviously, but not to such a great extent, and the idea of going from battery to hydrogen to end user just ends up with very little left.
|
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Oct 22, 2022 16:28:22 GMT
Yup, the whole hydrogen thing is suitably complicated and hard to predict. There are often extra angles to consider, e.g. can use hydrogen in making biofuels, and using ammonia instead of hydrogen to overcome some of the issues (ammonia has a greater energy density, is less flammable, easier to store etc.)
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Oct 22, 2022 16:32:37 GMT
NO. That is not a "green team". Grid storage battery is still relatively expensive. If you're going to the trouble to build such, it makes VASTLY more sense to use it to supply that stored energy as electricity, not convert it inefficiently into hydrogen. One of the more valid criticisms of renewable electricity is that it may not be generated at the time it's needed. If you've got battery storage, by far the most sensible way to use it is to stabilise the generation/consumption graph directly! Yes, batteries are expensive so why not make the best and most frequent possible use of them. Simple question: What do you propose we do with the upcoming more frequent and prolonged periods of 'excess' electricity we'll be generating in UK? EG During a nice long Summer, with a bit of breeze on many days (and nights). Assuming the roll-out of wind farms (and solar, nuclear, etc) in UK (and elsewhere in Europe) comes on stream and hopefully gathers pace (once again, see links I've provided to show what is already being built and what we 'plan' to build but still awaiting approval and/or getting the tech right* before it is rolled out en masse) Those days (and nights) will be ideal time to make hydrogen for whatever use (and once again I want the grey stuff, then the blue stuff phased out as well) BUT, as you know, it is much better (ie cost effective and hence folks will build them) to run electrolysers for prolonged periods. So in order of use for the upcoming (probably from 2024) periods of more frequent and prolonged periods of 'excess' electricity being generated in UK: 1/ Fill up your batteries and pumped hydro to reuse as electricity, then once full.. 2/ Export it (eg fill up Norway 'bath tubs'), but everyone is likely to want to do that same time.. 3a/ Pay suppliers to not supply electricity (as per current arrangement) 3b/ Use the batteries to smooth out the supply to electrolysers, safe in the knowledge that you checked the weather and were very confident you could easily supply the electrolysers and fully recharge those batteries each night for the next few weeks (weather harder to predict much beyond that) I'd pick 3b (and I'm not uncertain NG and HMG will as well, same in other countries of course) but you are of course entitled to your own opinion and want to maintain 3a in UK while other countries move forward. We need to plan ahead - other countries are. This stuff just can't be built overnight, it take years, and hence the need to look ahead and plan accordingly. Flex in the plan of course, mainly due to how long all this stuff takes to build, BUT the navel gazing and can kicking that Starmer quite rightly points out has held UK back for too long, needs to end. * EG floating wind farms, SMR nuclear, hopefully tidal lagoons and in time wave. |
|
|
|
Post by lens on Oct 22, 2022 16:35:00 GMT
lens - for clarity, the two examples were entirely different...........was apparently unsubsidised at the £1000 per vehicle cost, but I can't recall the details. Will have a look to see if I can dig out the details. OK, thanks for the clarification. I still remain somewhat sceptical. I'm more used to gas pressure regarding scuba tanks, and for a simple steel 12 litre would expect to pay about £200 for a standard 232 bar tank. I'd expect to pay a lot more for one suitable for hydrogen at 350 bar - and that's before even thinking about mounting and installation, let alone valves and control equipment and the conversion itself. Then there's the additional servicing required - I've just had 3 scuba tanks serviced and tested, not cheap! - to say nothing of where you get the hydrogen from..... |
|
You're not serious!!! Do you realise just how much hydrogen is currently produced and already used (in industry)? It's tens of millions of tonnes!! It is *NOT* a "chicken and egg" problem - the chicken is absolutely huge already!
