From the “you can wish in one hand…” dept
Public Release: 26-Feb-2019
Economists map out economically viable path to renewables-based hydrogen production
Technical University of Munich (TUM)
Hydrogen production based on wind power can already be commercially viable today. Until now, it was generally assumed that this environmentally friendly power-to-gas technology could not be implemented profitably. Economists at the Technical University of Munich (TUM), the University of Mannheim and Stanford University have now described, based on the market situations in Germany and Texas, how flexible production facilities could make this technology a key component in the transition of the energy system.
From fertilizer production, as a coolant for power stations or in fuel cells for cars: Hydrogen is a highly versatile gas. Today, most hydrogen for industrial applications is produced using fossil fuels, above all with natural gas and coal. In an environmentally friendly energy system, however, hydrogen could play a different role: as an important storage medium and a means of balancing power distribution networks: excess wind and solar energy can be used to produce hydrogen through water electrolysis. This process is known as power-to-gas. The hydrogen can recover the energy later, for example by generating power and heat in fuel cells, blending hydrogen into the natural gas pipeline network or converted into synthesis gas.
“Should I sell the energy or convert it?”
However, power-to-gas technology has always been seen as non-competitive. Gunther Glenk of the Chair of Management Accounting at TUM and Prof. Stefan Reichelstein, a researcher at the University of Mannheim and Stanford University, have now completed an analysis demonstrating the feasibility of zero-emission and profitable hydrogen production. Their study, published in the renowned journal Nature Energy, shows that one factor is essential in the current market environments in Germany and Texas:
The concept requires facilities that can be used both to feed power into the grid and to produce hydrogen. These combined systems, which are not yet in common use, must respond optimally to the wide fluctuations in wind power output and prices in power markets. “The operator can decide at any time: should I sell the energy or convert it,” explains Stefan Reichelstein.
Production in some industries would already be profitable today
In Germany and Texas, up to certain production output levels, such facilities could already produce hydrogen at costs competitive with facilities using fossil fuels. In Germany, however, the price granted by the government would have to be paid for the generation of electric power instead for feeding it into the grid.
“For medium and small-scale production, these facilities would already be profitable now,” says Reichelstein. Production on that scale is appropriate for the metal and electronics industries, for example – or for powering a fleet of forklift trucks on a factory site. The economists predict that the process will also be competitive in large-scale production by 2030, for example for refineries, ammonia production, assuming that wind power and electrolyte costs maintain the downward trajectory seen in recent years. “The use in fuel cells for trucks and ships is also conceivable”, says Glenk.
Energy sources for intelligent infrastructure
The economists’ model offers a planning blueprint for industry and energy policy. It can take into account many other factors, such as charges for carbon emissions, and calculate optimal sizing of the two sub-systems. It is also applicable to other countries and regions.
“Power-to-gas offers new business models for companies in various industries,” says Glenk. “Power utilities can become hydrogen suppliers for industry. Manufacturers, meanwhile, can get involved in the decentralized power generation business with their own combined facilities. In that way, we can develop a climate-friendly and intelligent infrastructure that optimally links power generation, production and transport.”
###
Publication: G. Glenk, S. Reichelstein: Economics of converting renewable power to hydrogen. Nature Energy, 2019. DOI: 10.1038/s41560-019-0326-1
More information: Gunther Glenk conducts research at the Center for Energy Markets of the TUM School of Management. The study was supported by the Hanns-Seidel-Stiftung with funding from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
From the above press release’s first paragraph: “Hydrogen production based on wind power can already be commercially viable today.”
I will assume that phrasing is a German-to-English translation error. In any event, to the Technical University of Munich: please get back to me when you have hard evidence of “viability” and not just speculation.
I have seen far too many studies and claims of what “can”, “might”, “may”, “could”, etc., happen that actually turned out to be rubbish. For example, remember when cold fusion could solve all of mankind’s energy needs?
Years ago, I remember visiting a pulp and paper plant in northern Alberta that was investigating the feasibility of a cogen plant on site. They were producing roughly 7 MW equivalent of H2 daily and it was just vented into the atmosphere. Of course, they wanted to know if it was possible to use this as a fuel. Having such a low MW, it was uneconomic to compress for use in the gas turbine, but if a duct burner was added to the heat recovery boiler it might have made sense to stream it in. Any way, we never got that far as the project was dropped.
Do note that hydrogen powered trains are now coming into service in UK and Germany… so there doesn’t seem to be a problem storing hydrogen there…
Basic concept:
https://www.dw.com/en/hydrogen-powered-trains-are-coming-to-germany/a-45525099
Roll out in Germany:
https://futurism.com/hydrogen-powered-trains-are-coming-to-germany-in-2021/
roll out in UK
https://www.alstom.com/press-releases-news/2018/5/alstom-confirms-plans-to-bring-hydrogen-trains-to-the-uk
we’ll see how they do in Germany in 2021 when they’re actually in service. (the UK link didn’t specify an in service date, so looks more like in discussion rather than an actual roll out there). While I certainly don’t hope for a train crash, it will be very enlightening as to how safe these trains are when the first crash of one happens.
Ok, found you an article that specifies 2022 for the UK
https://www.upi.com/Energy-News/2019/01/07/Alstom-to-introduce-hydrogen-powered-trains-in-UK/9801546863006/
So again, it looks like we need to wait and see if they live up to Alstom’s hype.
Griff, you have a serious English comprehension problem. “Coming to Germany in 2021” and “plans to bring hydrogen trains to the UK” are not the same meaning as “now coming into service”. Please find a remedial language course and learn the difference between present and future tenses.
Griff, you have a serious English comprehension problem
That would explain why he so often posts links that don’t exactly match the assertions the he makes.
I think you have the comprehension problem: these trains are scheduled to be put into live operation, will be on the railways, are definitely going to happen, or any other form of words which make you happy.
No griff, you are the one with the comprehension problem as you are the one that was using present tense for something that you now admit hasn’t happened yet but rather is planned to happen *in the future*. You really do need to learn the difference between present and future tense, it makes a big difference.
“…excess wind and solar energy can be used to produce hydrogen through water electrolysis.”
The way grids have to balance power, effectively almost all wind and solar energy is excess energy. Perhaps hydrogen production can be the primary use of such non-dispatchable power, with a grid hookup to use the wind farm as surge capacity.
But if this approach is economical, why would it not be even more economical to use excess energy from the base load to generate hydrogen? After all, even a grid based on coal and gas sometimes has to dump power. Whatever technical challenges exist in setting this up with a traditional plant, will be even more complicated when using wind and solar.
According to Wikipedia, the current best two processes for water electrolysis (PEM and alkaline electrolysis) have an effective electrical efficiencies in the range of 70–80%. Undoubtedly, this efficiency will decrease with scale-up of electrolysis to industrial-use levels (e.g., 100 to 1000 of MWh)
Overall conversion efficiency (electricity-to-H2/O2-to-hydrogen compressed and stored at high pressure-to-transport to hydrogen fueling stations-to-combustion with air in piston or turbine engines) only goes downhill from there. There is probably an additional 30% or so loss of energy from using electrolysis-generated hydrogen versus use of the same electrical energy to directly charge a battery. That’s a tremendous amount of waste heat to dump into Earth’s environment, as if anyone cares.
And if anyone thinks storing compressed hydrogen for later combustion might be akin to pumped storage hydropower, they have no concept of the low energy density of hydrogen and the risk such a scheme entails . . . on the latter matter, think of a oil well blowout ^5.
My concern about hydrogen powered cars is that the gas has to be compressed to a very high pressure to get a sufficient quantity in a container small enough to fit in a car. The rupture of one of these vessel in an accident could create a massive fireball which will kill or injure people who wee not involved in the actual accident. Also hydrogen has a low energy density compared to any carbon based fuel even when compressed.
There is new hydrogen storage technology that could be a game changer.
The company, Electriq Global (https://www.electriq.com/), has a method of trapping hydrogen stably in a water based solution (stable for a decade…better than gasoline…and claimed to be safer). The hydrogen is removed from the solution in real time by a catalytic process…then used to generate electricity in a hydrogen fuel cell. The aqueous solution can be recharged with hydrogen.
A tank of this hydrogenated solution is claimed to be able to run a hydrogen-fuel-cell-electrified car with twice the range and at half the cost of a gasoline powered car…so 1/4 times the cost of a gasoline. (e.g. 1000 miles for $25 vs. 500 miles for $50)
This technology (if close to as good as claimed) could be used to store wind and solar energy.
In addition to transportation, this hydrogenated solution could be delivered through pipelines to run a hydrogen fuel cell economy…?? eventually replacing the grid ??
Website strangely devoid of real facts or real industry partners or real demonstration or proper description of the technology. A bit like cold fusion, really.
Which is pretty much what you find every time some shill comes along touting “a new xxxxx technology that could be a game changer”. The links are always devoid of real facts, real industry partners, real demonstration or anything else real. Lots of hype and nothing else.
I did some digging and got some numbers…and ran the numbers “back of the envelope”:
– Getting twice the range (example 15 gal x 20mpg = 300 miles…x 2 = 600 miles ) per tank requires ~87 gallons (but need 2 tanks!!) of hydrogenated fuel (3% H2 by weight) weighs about 700 EXTRA POUNDS (lbs. more than a tank of gas at 43 lbs.)
– 3% by weight doesn’t sound like nearly enough…but H2 energy density (MJ/Kg) is 3.3 times that of gasoline…and “H2 fuel-cell-through-motors” is 2.5 times more efficient than “gasoline-through-a-motor”. 43 lbs of gasoline equates to only 5 lbs H2.
– WEIGHT OF DRIVE TRAIN replaced is only ~500 lbs… so 200 lbs min. is added…not good but plausible.
– Cost (CH4 to Hydrogen × 2 times mark-up) is around $3+/gallon gasoline equivalent…which is half the cost IN ISRAEL at $6.50 a gallon. So their 1/2 cost claim works IN EUROPE AND ISRAEL.
– This $3/gal calculation is based on twice the driving range…so for same range the equivalent would be $1.50 per gallon BEFORE TAXES.
So a doable…and a possibly competitive…thing cost-wise, but not as great a deal in the US.
A demonstration project (running converted electric buses) is soon under way…so real numbers in ~3 to 6 years.
I hope this works and they do it in Europe and elsewhere… that would drive the cost of petrol down in the US.
but H2 energy density (MJ/Kg) is 3.3 times that of gasoline
No, it isn’t. As I just got done pointing out in another part of the thread, density is by volume not by weight. So while what you say may be true by weight (there’s more energy in a kilogram of H2 than there is in a kilogram of gasoline) that’s not density and we don’t fill tanks with kilograms. (When you stop at the local petrol or gas station, do you ask for xx kilograms of gas? no, you ask for xx liters, liters are a measure of volume), and by volume, H2 has 1/3rd the energy of petrol/gasoline.
Or to put it another way, if H2 energy density was, as you claim, 3.3 times that of gasoline, you would not need ~87 gallons of the stuff to equal 30 gallons (15 gal x 2) of gas, you’d only need less than 10 gallons. Because, the definition of energy density is “the amount of energy stored in a given system, substance, or region of space per unit volume“.
Or think of it this way. Imagine you have two objects that weigh the same (say a couple of bricks). One object is more dense than the other (one is made of a light-weight material such as Styrofoam and one from a heavy material such as iron). Given that information which one would be smaller (IE takes up less space) for the given weight? the one made from Styrofoam or the one made from iron? The iron one, because it’s made of a denser material.
Similarly, the more energy dense a material is the less space it takes up per unit of energy. Since H2 takes up more space (~87 gal) for the same energy as gasoline (30 gal or 15 gal x 2) the more energy dense material is the one taking up less space – in this case gasoline.
FYI MJ/Kg is properly referred to as “specific energy” or “Mass specific energy”.
Great post. Not my area of expertise, but good to see griff back. Containing Hydrogen has been a problem, but NASA seems to have worked it out (albeit without economic constraint).
What the hell, certainly worth trials…
The Green industry don’t need hydrogen as they’ve got it all sorted already with solar and wind-
https://www.australianethical.com.au/news/myth-busters-guide-renewable-energy/