Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Germany has affirmed its climate leadership by announcing a plan to embrace a hydrogen powered future. But nobody can explain where they will get all the hydrogen.
Germany plans to spend billions funding green hydrogen
Up to 2030, Germany’s federal government wants to establish 5 GW in electrolysis capacity, only to be doubled again in the subsequent five years. The country acknowledges that it will also need outside help to achieve the goal.
BY MAZ PLECHINGER Published: 10.06.20 at 13:54
…
“As the first step in accelerating the market for hydrogen technologies, a strong, sustainable production and consumption – a ‘home market’ – is crucial. A robust national market will also create a signal effect for the use of hydrogen technologies internationally,” the federal government writes in the strategy.
Mainly in its steel and chemical sectors, Germany already uses significant volumes of industrial hydrogen, although the resource is currently derived from natural gas rather than renewable power and water.
…
Doesn’t cover requirement
Precisely how Germany will build the bridge to economic viability is not revealed in the plan, which does, however, mention that Berlin is considering a tax exemption for electricity used for hydrogen production – not least giving a tax pass to green H2 from the Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz (EEG) fee that’s used to finance the green energy transition and which had EUR 11 billion earmarked in connection with the economic recovery plan as an aid ceiling.
Another top limit is how much green hydrogen Germany will be able to produce itself. When the offshore wind build-out target for 2030 was recently raised by 5 GW to 15 GW, and the 52 GW solar cap was scrapped, green hydrogen production was one factor given consideration.
But even though 5 GW of electrolysis in the hydrogen strategy multiplies current domestic capacity 200 fold, the government says this is grossly inadequate to cover demand. According to the strategy, 5 GW of electrolysis is enough to produce 14 TWh made from 20 TWh of renewable energy – while the requirement for the resource is estimated to be 90-110 TWh.
…
Read more: https://energywatch.eu/EnergyNews/Policy___Trading/article12209986.ece
The renewable energy powered hydrogen economy takes expensive renewable electricity, and discards 60% of the energy in the form of conversion losses. Ignoring compression, storage and transport losses;
electrolysis (80% efficient) x Fuel cell (50% efficient) = 40% (60% lost)
40% efficiency end to end hydrogen conversion makes hydrogen at least 2.5x more expensive than the original renewable energy used to produce the hydrogen (1 / 0.4 = 2.5).
There are lots of wild claims these days that renewables are incredibly cheap – but renewables still seem to require a lot of government life support, either directly through subsidies or by forcing distributors to purchase a fixed quota of renewable energy.
No doubt adding the expense of converting the electricity to hydrogen and back to electricity will make it all better.
h/t HAS – The German publication DW understands;
“But despite being a promising energy carrier in a low-carbon energy system, green hydrogen is still facing significant technical and commercial challenges. Its disadvantages like weak energy efficiency and huge infrastructure requirements could be overwhelming outside a few core uses.“
Germany average yearly air temperature is about 9 C
Spain is 14 C
Is something wrong with Germany having average yearly air temperature of 14 C
It seems Germany is more worried about the world, than thinking of Germany, first.
Or seems German would prefer the average air temperature closer to Spain, then closer
to Germany.
And India average temperature is about 24 C and they are having problems due to their
high average temperature- which they had for thousands of years.
If wanted do something for rest of world- which be bad idea has NAZI plans were also making the world better when no one needed their help. But i want to do something useful for the world in terms it being too hot, then focus on problem of Urban Heat island effect. UHI effect makes places where most people live, quite a bit hotter.
In terms issue like polar bears, they were existing in time periods of much higher global temperature then we have in our +million year Ice Age.
And I think we need a study of how many polar bears we should have, it seems there be could problem with over population. But maybe if they double their population it will be ok. Need study to try to determine upper limit for polar bear. Or humans have been the top predator of the planet and have been killing bears for long time- so shouldn’t remove the main bear predator from the environment without any kind of a plan.
Well at least DW understands the problem and seems unconvinced. Read the last para
https://www.dw.com/en/first-element-in-periodic-table-why-all-the-fuss-about-hydrogen/a-53783698
Thankyou, added your link to the post.
Reading that:
“Germany wants to become the world leader in hydrogen technology”, I can’t eat as much I have to puke.
And I thought that unicorn farts were the greenest source of hydrogen. Sure I read somewhere that if hydrogen were used as the main transport fuel, the leakage of fuel would both damage the ozone layer, and shift the loss of hydrogen from the atmosphere out of geologic timescales and into human timescales – at least that would eliminate any worry about rising sea levels.
Angela Merkel, top candidate of the Christian Democratic Union Party…
Oh man! They’re going for the full sucker in that name. None of those words belong with one another. They’re going for all the “good feeling” demographics.
Local press and even localized YouTube fills with advertisements on “how to become a hydrogen millionaire”.
As long as tax money is a free resource, some would exploit it.
Just as Germany could not get the Helium it wanted for safety of the the LZ 129 Hindenburg, so also they will not get the Hydrogen they now crave for their Green Dream. It is time to flash up those pictures of the burning LZ 129 Hindenburg at Lakehurst, New Jersey yet again.
The atmosphere of the Earth loses ~3 kg hydrogen per second to empty space. This hydrogen originates from dissociated water in the thermosphere. Hydrogen escaping from the surface of the Earth will not enhance this amount as it is oxidized in the stratosphere where however it can affect the ozone layer.
It is expected that when the Sun becomes 10% brighter than it is now (within ~1 billion years) the ‘waterlock’ becomes less efficient and the Earth will lose its oceans.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape
We’re going to need to build a Druidian air shield.
Two things are wrong with this statement.
Firstly, it is yet to be proven that electricity derived from ambient wind and solar is “renewable”. That term should never be used without qualification as it is misleading and incorrect use of language.
The second point is more complex. As grids strive to increase the proportion of intermittent sourced generation there is a need for massive capacity overbuild depending on the amount of storage available in the system. In a system with little storage, the overbuild often results in producing below the available capacity. The term used for such periods is “curtailment”. If the generator can supply a supply responsive load then the need for curtailment is avoided. That load is then using energy that would otherwise not be generated. In essence the electric energy is truly free of cost. It is not expensive – it is zero cost. The expensive component of intermittent generation is making it dispatchable for an on-demand grid.
So the starting point for hydrogen electrolysis is the growing availability of free electricity; ambient energy that would not be converted to electricity as there was insufficient demand at the time it was available.
The wind generators in South Australia are regularly curtailed. The state has installed wind capacity of 2,142MW and a similar capacity of rooftop solar. When the sun is shining on a balmy spring day the grid emend can drop to 400MW. That does not leave much for all those wind generators to supply. Plus they currently need to have gas plant ticking over with some load for stability requirements.
The grid operator in Australia is forecasting stability issues from excess rooftop solar. It is imminent that new rooftop solar will need some ability to be centrally controlled so the grid operator can reduce output in circumstances of the grid being oversupplied from rooftop generation.
https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/solar-rooftops-too-hot-to-handle-for-aemo-20200506-p54q84
A supply responsive load such as water electrolysis would be beneficial for stability.
What I do not know is how easy it is to make water electrolysis able to cope with variable power supply. Most chemical processes thrive on stability and die on variability.
It is hard to honestly call the “excess” extra expensive energy free when there is such a large cost to make said electricity useable (without regard to the high cost to produce it in the first place). Considerable expensive infrastructure is required to start to use that electricity, then to store the resulting product, then to transport the product to where it might be useful. All of that also requires constant expensive maintenance.
In economic terms it seems considerably dumber than the plan of selling each apple at a loss so as to generate more sales.
Hasnt Germany failed enough already? apparently not.
The Germans are catching on to the economy-wrecking renewables scam….gotta get them looking over here instead…hey, look at how shiny hydrogen is!
For goodness sake can you guys quit bringing up the Hindenburg? That is like comparing a blunderbus to an AK47. You really weaken your arguments by including such outdated silliness.
The hydride tank has been around since the 80s and is safer than gasoline or propane. See this old video (nice shooting tex 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiD7thxC9UQ
I’ve been a fan of hydrogen as a carrier due to its clean burning nature but it has huge problems. Safety is NOT one. Storage, while COMPLETELY SAFE, is low density and leaks due to its extremely light nature along with embrittlement of the container.
Don’t worry though. Once you tell the greenies that it outputs the super powerful greenhouse gas (water vapour) they will call it quits on it.
Maybe they got that Wendelstein 7-X fusion reactor close to going online? Talk about a game changer.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a24172/fusion-reactor-working/
From what I understand it runs best at a constant output so use the off peak excess/surplus to generate hydrogen? Just my SWAG.
I think it’s fake.
They want to use hydrogen gas to feed into metal smelter processes instead of using carbon. Reversing oxidisation with carbon produces CO2, with hydrogen is produces H2O (water). Both are greenhouse gasses but water is considered net neutral.
Hydrogen is harder to compress and riskier to handle than natural gas.
The other uses, efficiencies and risks are described elsewhere.
That photo was taken as she was explaining when Putin flashed his manhood at her during a summit meeting.
🙂
But wait … burning hydrogen produces water vapour, the very worst of all GHGs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_safety
https://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/hydrogen-vehicle-danger.htm
If energy production can’t be monopolised then you’ll get no funding, and it might just get you killed, as Stanley Meyer found out back in the 90’s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3FQhf8X9OY
This water car ran in the 1990’s(or even earlier)judging by the quality of the video, why wasn’t it put into production…
Because it’s always been a scam.
Official Stanley Meyer Autopsy Report
There are very few poisons that kill in minutes. There are very few poisons that leave no trace (unless you want to conclude that the coroner was in on the conspiracy.)
There are very few poisons that kill via a brain aneurysm.
There are very few poisons that cause one to start vomiting seconds after taking it.
There is nothing “unprofessional” about using the word “supposedly”, the author of the video used it himself a few minutes later. It just indicates a lack of definitive evidence.
There should have been a police investigation of a mysterious death, why not include that document?
And finally, no, voltage alone does no work. For the same reason, I can push on a wall all day long, but if the wall doesn’t move, then I have done no work. I may have spent a lot of energy, but I did no work.
MarkW
We store Voltage in a battery to do work on demand. Because when those tiny electrons start to move they are very powerful.
Ever wonder what voltage really is?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYS9kdS56l8
It still seems to me that it should be best to transport the energy via an electrical grid with a few locations producing and consuming hydrogen on a large scale.
Whatever the final efficiency calculations turn out to be, it does at least have the merit of returning to the idea of requiring the generation of huge amounts of cheap electricity. Opposed to that, current anti-human green “thinking” still insists on making energy ever scarcer and ever more expensive. If we are to survive and prosper, nuclear is the only long term option. The sooner greens and governments swallow that bitter pill, the better.
michael hart
“If we are to survive and prosper, nuclear is the only long term option.”
Maybe Safire can clean up the radioactive waste of the past .
THE SAFIRE PROJECT has become a commercial venture. Based on the discoveries of the last six years, the SAFIRE team is currently developing a nuclear-plasma reactor that will have the capacity to both generate electrical power and remediate radioactive waste.
Germany Hydrogen
What’s could go wrong?
Here is another way of producing hydrogen
http://www.proton.energy.com
From their website:
We’re creating a continuous source of green, clean and affordable energy from deep earth. We’re meeting a huge market need with a rapidly scalable solution. Using our patented technology for ‘Hygenic Earth Energy’, industries worldwide will convert hydrocarbon reservoirs into hydrogen mines and thermal generators, and simply leave the carbon and other pollutants in the ground. All kinds of reservoirs will be converted – new and abandoned, light oil and heavy oil, gas and coal.
Germany has two people to thank for this mess it’s in.One is Jeremy Rifkin and his Third Industrial Revolution.
The other is Chancellor Merkel for letting Rifkin talk her into going full speed to make the switch to renewal
energy.When Biotechnology first emerged back in the 1980’s,Rifkin waisted no time attacking it with lawsuits,
protests,and demostrations.He warned that scientists were rushing to use this technology without all the facts.
He raised concerns and issues and warned of unforeseen consequences.But now,Rifkin’s rushing people to make
the switch to renewable energy.The problem is Rifkin’s not raising concerns and issues with renewable energy
like he did with Biotechnology.The problem is Rifkin’s playing favorites.Unlike his opposition to Biotechnology
Rifkin’s in favor of renewable energy.He’s not going to listen to any problems or complaints about it.He’s not
going to care if the citizens in germany get stuck paying sky high taxes to pay for this hydrogen fiasco.
Rifkin can’t understand why other countries like the U.S. aren’t following Germany in rushing to make the switch to renewable energy.Hopefully,the other countries will learn a lesson from this.By the way,that war of
Rifkin’s against Biotechnology was a farce.He was using it as a scapegoat.His REAL beef was with the Nuclear
and Petrochemical(OIL)industries.Rifkin was angry that he couldn’t file lawsuits against them because people depend on these industries for power and fuel,so he took it out on Biotechnology instead.This is why
Rifkin’s rushing people to make the switch to renewable energy.He’s trying to get revenge against the Nuclear
and Petrochemical industries for what they’re doing to the planet.