Can the Government Create a Green Hydrogen Fuel Industry?

By Steve Goreham

Originally published in Washington Examiner.

World leaders promote hydrogen as a possible low-emissions fuel for transportation and industry. Nations have announced hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to support development and supply of hydrogen. But will governments be able to create a new green hydrogen fuel industry?

When hydrogen burns, the only combustion product is water vapor. Net Zero advocates, such as the International Energy Agency (IEA), propose that green hydrogen be used as fuel in place of natural gas and coal in industry and transportation. But the problems with existing hydrogen technology are many.

For all practical purposes, a hydrogen fuel industry does not exist today. Ninety-five million tons of hydrogen are produced annually by steam methane reforming using natural gas or by coal gasification methods. But the vast majority of hydrogen is not used as fuel. It is used on-site as feedstock for industrial processes.

Chemical and refining industries, for example, use hydrogen to generate ammonia or methanol. The steel industry uses hydrogen as a reducing agent to produce direct reduced iron. Hydrogen feedstock made from natural gas or coal is inexpensive, with a cost as low as $1 per kilogram.

Instead of using natural gas or coal, hydrogen advocates propose to use wind and solar electricity to produce “green” hydrogen by electrolysis of water. They also propose to create a new hydrogen fuel industry and to ship hydrogen around the world through pipelines or ships. But hydrogen from electrolysis is very expensive to produce and very difficult to transport.

To produce a kilogram of hydrogen by electrolysis, electricity alone costs $3 to $6 per kilogram, resulting in a total cost of at least $5 per kilogram. This makes hydrogen from electrolysis more than five times as expensive as hydrogen made from natural gas or coal.

Nevertheless, nations are rushing to try to establish a leadership position in a new green hydrogen fuel industry. The Biden administration has awarded grants to firms to establish seven regional hubs to produce green hydrogen. Germany, India, and Japan have announced national strategies to produce and export hydrogen. Forty-one countries now have a green hydrogen strategy in place.

More than 280 billion in government subsidies have been announced to try to create a green hydrogen industry that, according to the IEA, totaled only a miniscule $1.4 billion in 2022. Advocates propose to use hydrogen fuel in heavy industry, transportation, and even homes.

Cement, chemicals, plastics, and steel industries are urged to use hydrogen fuel in furnaces and other energy-intensive processes. To date, these efforts have been experimental. Little green hydrogen exists to fuel these industries. In addition, the amount of electricity needed from wind and solar systems to drive electrolyzers to produce green hydrogen for heavy industry is huge.

It has been estimated that the incremental renewable electricity needed to produce hydrogen fuel just for the steel industry is larger than the world’s total current output of renewable electricity. The amount of renewable electricity needed to drive electrolyzers to produce hydrogen for the chemical industry is three times as large as what is needed for steel.

Hydrogen vehicle fleets remain tiny. In 2022, only 70,000 hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles operated across the world, compared to more than 30 million electric vehicles and about 1.5 billion gasoline or diesel light vehicles. Hydrogen fuel use is small but growing in niche markets, such buses, trains, and factory forklifts. But the performance of hydrogen vehicles is spotty.

California has a network of 65 hydrogen fueling stations, the only such network in the US. But after tens of millions of dollars in state subsidies, only about 12,000 hydrogen cars drive on California roads, less than one of every 1,000 vehicles. An ongoing hydrogen fuel shortage in southern California makes it hard to refuel vehicles. Hydrogen vehicle fuel remains more expensive than gasoline and hard to find.

Not only is green hydrogen expensive to produce, but hydrogen is difficult to transport. Hydrogen must be supercooled to -253degrees Celsius to liquify it, or it must be super-pressurized to 700 atmospheres, about 300 times the air pressure in your car tire. Even at 700 atmospheres of pressure, hydrogen at a filling station requires storage tanks with seven times the volume of gasoline to store the same energy.

Hydrogen pipeline networks do not exist and transporting hydrogen by ship is also very expensive. For the world to use hydrogen fuel, production, pipeline, and ship transport industries would all need to be established. This is unlikely to happen in most people’s lifetimes.

Some have even advocated the use of hydrogen for home heating. But hydrogen is nature’s smallest molecule, is prone to leaks, and will ignite with low levels of energy such as static electricity. Some years ago, lighting stuck our house, damaging appliances and causing a leak in our natural gas line. We soon smelled gas and were able to repair the leak without further damage. Had that been a hydrogen line, the leak would likely have exploded or burst into flame, destroying our house. Hydrogen lines to homes and gas stations involve dangerous safety risks.

Today, hydrogen is used on-site, but governments now want to create a new hydrogen fuel industry using market intervention, mandates, and massive subsidies. But physics and economics strongly oppose the development of a green hydrogen fuel industry. Get ready for a spectacular failure of these government-sponsored efforts.

Steve Goreham is a speaker on energy, the environment, and public policy and the author of the new bestselling book Green Breakdown: The Coming Renewable Energy Failure.

4.9 31 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

118 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 13, 2024 6:09 pm

If Hydrogen as a fuel was a good idea we would have been doing it when electricity was a lot cheaper.

Reply to  John in NZ
February 13, 2024 10:29 pm

But Governments, as usual,have picked another winner. We know how that will turn out.

William Howard
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
February 14, 2024 7:35 am

just like the EV disaster

MarkW
Reply to  John in NZ
February 14, 2024 10:01 am

There has always been a need to store excess power generated at night in order to recover that power during the day.

If batteries or hydrogen had ever been up to the task, we would be using them for those purposes already.

Rick C
Reply to  John in NZ
February 14, 2024 11:57 am

So-called green hydrogen as energy storage makes no sense on the most basic economic level. Electricity is the most universal and versatile form of energy and thus the most valuable. This is evident from the fact that no matter how it is produced it can be sold at a profit in a free market. Consider that production of electricity using natural gas is 35 to 64% efficient but the electricity it produces is profitable even given the capital and operating costs involved. Turning high value electricity from any source into low value but expensive hydrogen results in the loss of about 70% of the electrical energy due to inefficiency of the two conversions involved. This is a stupid way to operate. Basically turning a silk purse into a sow’s ear. If this were actually a good idea why not build nuclear power plants just to power hydrogen production?

In reality it is even worse in that any large scale electrolysis plant will not operate efficiently when powered solely by intermittent wind and/or solar power. Constantly starting, stopping and adjusting production in response to variable power availability is an untenable business model. Who, other than ignorant politicians and bureaucrats, would consider investing a large amount of capital in a business that cannot control or even accurately forecast production rates of their product?

Now let’s talk about infrastructure and hydrogen embrittlement… ok, let’s not.

Reply to  Rick C
February 14, 2024 11:26 pm

Exactly Rick.

Everything you said times 10.

February 13, 2024 6:22 pm

If it’s a viable concept, the free market will create it and do a hell of a lot better job than the government would.

Mike71
Reply to  David Kamakaris
February 14, 2024 8:39 am

But because of the lack of funding it is the free market that has been developing it. In Japan they have breakthrough after breakthrough and because of these developments the Japanese government has spoken put that Hydrogen is where they think the future will lead. At first everybody complained that it wasn’t viable, now we see the breakthroughs in Japan people start complaining about other things. Japan is focussing on nuclear an hydrogen. Also the system they have developed at this moment brings the price per Kilogram down way under 3 dollar per kilogram. But for some reason we are ignoring the developments in Japan and with Toyota, and keep talking about hydrogen through, goal, gas, and methaan. Besides that we already have for several years working prototypes of hydrogen panels which each produce no less than 250 liter of Hydrogen per day. Parents on that have already been approved, and they are now working with companies on making working systems to be put on rooftops.

What people are discussing is the situation of years ago before all these Independent developments.

https://nieuws.kuleuven.be/en/content/2023/ku-leuvens-hydrogen-panels-incorporated-into-a-spin-off

Just so we realise the free market development is already beyond gas/methane/coal.

It is clear that the market sees potential and the market is coming up with solutions, imagine what we would have if they had more money to invest.

MarkW
Reply to  Mike71
February 14, 2024 10:03 am

Having breakthroughs is meaningless, if you still can’t get to a cost effective model.

BTW, if it requires government investment, then it isn’t the market.

Reply to  Mike71
February 14, 2024 3:38 pm

imagine what we would have if they had more money to invest.”

Not buying that line, Mike. How many billions do Gates, Steyer, Bezos, Gore, Heinz as well as the rest of these indulgents have to throw around if they thought hydrogen energy was a concept worthy of their investment, just to get a pilot program going to show it’s viable? Why aren’t they throwing their weight behind this program given their concern for climate change, carbon pollution, whatever.

Only two possibilities exist.

  1. Hydrogen can’t be dummyproofed and hydrogen energy won’t work. (Hindenberg?).
  2. They really don’t give a rat’s ass about climate change.
February 13, 2024 6:28 pm

Water…. by FAR the strongest so-called “greenhouse gas” !

Reply to  bnice2000
February 13, 2024 11:15 pm

If you can call CO2 “Carbon”, you can call H2O “Hydrogen”.

Reply to  DMacKenzie
February 13, 2024 11:56 pm

Or Oxygen ! 🙂

The whole world works because of those three elements.

And the moronic clowns want to limit one of them !

Reply to  bnice2000
February 14, 2024 7:00 pm

I always liked Dihydrogen Monoxide 😉😊

J Boles
February 13, 2024 6:33 pm

Hyzon Motors – Zero Emission, Hydrogen-Powered Vehicles

There is lots of money for companies who claim to have a great idea, no matter if it works or not, but the fed will fund it, like corporate welfare, just mention hydrogen, or climate change, or hybrid.

John Hultquist
February 13, 2024 6:36 pm

 Early in chemistry class, one learns that water is a very strange substance and not dangerous (exceptions – yes), while the components as independents are always dangerous. The same can be said of common table salt.
ClimateCult™ members skipped basic chemistry.

Capt Jeff
Reply to  John Hultquist
February 13, 2024 10:52 pm

So saying we want reduce your “carbon” footprint is somewhat equivalent to asking for the chlorine shaker at the dinner table of a waiter asking you if you would like a glass of hydrogen.
Carbon is not a gas, let alone a greenhouse one.

Reply to  Capt Jeff
February 14, 2024 5:49 am

Well, only above 4,000K or so.

comment image

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  It doesnot add up
February 14, 2024 6:51 am

Great phase diagram, thanks for posting!

John XB
Reply to  Capt Jeff
February 14, 2024 6:49 am

It used to be soot.

Editor
February 13, 2024 6:36 pm

Over many years, we could all see that command economies didn’t work, as they failed one after another. A few European countries have freed themselves, but the rest of us are being strangled. Is Donald Trump really the free world’s only hope?

jshotsky
Reply to  Mike Jonas
February 13, 2024 7:43 pm

Only hope? What a gas! The worst president ever, and a constant threat to a free United States. He is a self-proclaimed dictator. He would tear our united states apart, and supports Putin, not just today, but when he had his arm around him when he was president. He INVITES Russia to intervene in US policy. Not just once, but regularly. Anyone that thinks Trump, with his draft dodging (5 times) and many bankruptcies (again, 5 times) is somehow good for the united states should themselves leave the united states for a different dictatorship country. There is not an ounce of good in Trump – the ultimate narcissist in our history.

Mr.
Reply to  jshotsky
February 13, 2024 7:49 pm

Any alternative options you like to suggest?

William Howard
Reply to  Mr.
February 14, 2024 7:37 am

Trump is the worst candidate – except for all the others

Chris Hanley
Reply to  jshotsky
February 13, 2024 9:20 pm

TDS.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
February 14, 2024 2:55 am

Yeah big time.

Biden threatened, “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ‘ain’t Black”

You really can’t get more racist than that.

Trump lifted median Black household incomes to their highest levels on record and pushed Black unemployment rates and poverty rates down to their lowest levels.

… but orange man bad eh?

Reply to  Alpha
February 14, 2024 7:43 am

Trump’s 14.8% unemployment rate was the worst since the Great Depression in the 1930s.

MarkW
Reply to  scvblwxq
February 14, 2024 10:08 am

Are you blaming Trump for COVID?

Scarecrow Repair
Reply to  jshotsky
February 13, 2024 9:22 pm

Criminy! A senile corrupt fool who thinks he’s the savior from Trump is more of a narcissist than Trump.

Editor
Reply to  jshotsky
February 13, 2024 9:52 pm

Hey, I never said Donald Trump was a nice guy, but the reason he is where he is in the race for president is that he understands how corrupt the system has become and not only says so but also says what he would do about it. Before he was elected president, he issued an election manifesto that stated all the things that he would do as president. When president, he implemented or tried to implement every single one of them. Now maybe he’s not the first US president in history to have done that, but I don’t think it’s all that usual. (Barack Obama promised to destroy the US economy by putting a rocket under energy costs, and he fulfilled his promise, but I don’t think that’s quite in the same category). I still keep reading of good things that Donald Trump did with legislation while president. I wish there was someone better, but the sad reality is that there isn’t, not by a wide margin.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
February 14, 2024 7:59 am

Trump sexually assaulted a woman and now has to pay her millions in damages, and he is their best candidate?

The GOP used to be the party of law and order.

Things sure have changed.

Curious George
Reply to  scvblwxq
February 14, 2024 10:41 am

That’s what she said, and the jury believed. Evidence is such an outdated concept.

Reply to  scvblwxq
February 14, 2024 2:01 pm

Trump sexually assaulted a woman

Please show me where he was convicted of doing this.

Reply to  scvblwxq
February 15, 2024 11:24 am

I don’t believe any woman could forget the year she was raped. I doubt President Trump will end up paying anything as he was not convicted of rape and saying “I didn’t rape her and she’s not my type” is not defamation

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  jshotsky
February 14, 2024 5:43 am

If you could actually think you would probably be able to craft something intelligent. All you do is repeat Democrat lies. Go back down your hole and leave us adults alone.

John XB
Reply to  jshotsky
February 14, 2024 6:51 am

A free USA not run by a dementia suffering tyrant? Where is this place?

JamesB_684
Reply to  jshotsky
February 14, 2024 7:10 am

“Well, bless your heart”. <spoken with southern U.S.A. drawl>

William Howard
Reply to  jshotsky
February 14, 2024 7:38 am

but he has already shown, unlike Buyden, that he is good for America

MarkW
Reply to  jshotsky
February 14, 2024 10:07 am

What a performance, I can’t think of a single lie that you missed.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
February 14, 2024 7:40 am

Trump, 14,8 percent unemployment recession.

MarkW
Reply to  scvblwxq
February 14, 2024 10:10 am

Even if that was accurate, are you claiming that Trump was responsible for COVID?

Reply to  scvblwxq
February 14, 2024 2:06 pm

January 2017: 4.7%
February 2020: 3.5%
April 2020: 14.8%

So 3 years of declining unemployment leading to the lowest rate in over 20 years (previous was 4.4% in 2007), and then jumped crazy high in 2 months.

That leads me to conclude that something significant must have happened between Feb. 2020 and Apr. 2020. I don’t suppose you know what that might have been?

February 13, 2024 6:51 pm

Can the government do anything correctly? I think the answer is a solid no. The best thing for government to do is to get out of the way and let free enterprise figure it out.

Scarecrow Repair
Reply to  John Aqua
February 13, 2024 9:22 pm

Their core competence is a monopoly on violence and fraud, and they don’t even do that very well.

HB
February 13, 2024 7:13 pm

They are desperate to justify there excess solar and wind production so they can continue with there crazy rollout
If you make methanol from your hydrogen you an either burn it of use a direct methanol fuel cell but that will not fly as it produces the dreaded CO2

February 13, 2024 7:14 pm

Even The Guardian thinks hydrogen is a bad idea!
– – – – – – – –

Will hydrogen overtake batteries in the race for zero-emission cars?
In part six of our series exploring myths surrounding EVs, we weigh up what will be the power of the future

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/13/will-hydrogen-overtake-batteries-in-the-race-for-zero-emission-cars

Rod Evans
Reply to  Cam_S
February 14, 2024 5:03 am

Always remember the first rule of fighting the Green slime. Never click on a Guardian article. It just gives them click count advertising revenue.
Even better never post a link to the Guardian.

abolition man
Reply to  Rod Evans
February 14, 2024 7:35 am

That is an insult to slimes everywhere! Even pond scum has higher morals and intelligence than membersof the GangGreen borg!

antigtiff
February 13, 2024 7:25 pm

I have seen a video of the Nikola fuel cell truck. It is one complex piece of machinery and contains some large batteries too. Nikola also makes a battery truck….government mandates and funds result in amazing things even though they are not needed. Damage a fuel cell powered vehicle in a wreck and the cost will be high…..very high.

dk_
February 13, 2024 7:29 pm

Governments tax in order to increase the size of government agencies. Cronies and politicians dine side by side at the public trough.
Entrepreneurs create.

antigtiff
Reply to  dk_
February 13, 2024 7:50 pm

US Government built a NG fuel station in Afghanistan becuz NG is greener than gasoline….since no vehicles powered by NG were available….the gubment ordered a couple dozen. The villains are the people in gubment who do this millions and billions and trillions of waste.

February 13, 2024 7:32 pm

How much research, in time and public money, is required to determine if hydrogen is actually a viable energy source for every day use? How many academic research institutions have their nose in the public trough for every CO2 abatement scheme? A couple of bicycle mechanics from Dayton, Ohio designed and built the first American heavier than air flying machine. If academia had been involved they’d still be working on it using billions of federal funds.

The same goes for hydrogen gas. There are no secrets about its non-advantages and considerable drawbacks. No amount of research is going to change the molecular and atomic characteristics of hydrogen, which have been known for centuries. A peek into one of the federally financed research labs at an AAU university is likely to reveal a happy community of scholars doing what young people do, which won’t change hydrogen into a practical means of safely and economically moving mass from point A to point B. To believe otherwise is to accept things like mermaids and werewolves.

But continuing research on hydrogen as a fuel reveals one of the most sacred tenets of American culture: don’t leave money on the table. If government will finance research into mermaid biology apply for the funds.

Dan Hughes
Reply to  general custer
February 14, 2024 4:00 am

Biden’s Hydrogen Hubs will become Hydrogen Stubs to Nowhere.

Curious George
Reply to  Dan Hughes
February 14, 2024 10:50 am

Shouldn’t the California High Speed Train to Nowhere be powered by hydrogen?

Reply to  general custer
February 14, 2024 5:36 am

When government departments measure “success” by how much money they spend on research grants, and academic institutions measure “success” by how much grant money they pull in, then I’d say that the amount of research “required” is likely to be limitless.

jshotsky
February 13, 2024 7:34 pm

While hydrogen powered vehicles are possible, they will never reach the efficiency of ICE. Period. It is not just a problem of network availability, it is simply not as efficient as gas. There isn’t as much energy in an equivalent volume. You could make hydrogen cheaply as a waste product of nuclear power plants, but it will never be as efficient as gas. Just look at race car fuel – if there was a better fuel, they would be using it. If you want to make a more efficient fuel, make race car fuel cheaply.

Curious George
Reply to  jshotsky
February 14, 2024 10:52 am

Links, please.

February 13, 2024 7:41 pm

The goal of the subsides, grants, guaranteed loans, etc. is to provide taxpayer funds looted from the treasury to favored political constituencies, friends, even family in some cases. Rest assured, our politicians are highly accomplished in achieving this, especially the party that is openly pro-corruption (Democrat, obviously).

Bob
February 13, 2024 8:23 pm

Get the government out of the energy production business, they don’t know a damn thing about it. Hydrogen is not suitable as an energy source. Stop this nonsense now.

GeorgeInSanDiego
February 13, 2024 9:15 pm

Another example of the growing hydrogen farce is the FIA Extreme H racing series, to begin in 2025.

February 13, 2024 9:45 pm

Well.. out on the farm I have a horse and a 1 horned cow.

I leave them in the same paddock… soon, very soon, I will have a unicorn…

…. then I can invent the apparatus for collecting the farts.

And I will save the world !!

Donations are required to help breed up the herd and strengthen the fences.

Reply to  bnice2000
February 14, 2024 1:42 am

“Donations are required . . . .”

You are becoming a politician. That’s not a good look.

Reply to  Jim Masterson
February 14, 2024 2:33 am

Please…. Not a politician.. that’s cruel :-(..

Capt Jeff
Reply to  bnice2000
February 14, 2024 5:52 am

Donations are required. Spoken like a true alarmist climate scientist!

Reply to  Capt Jeff
February 14, 2024 10:22 am

Thank you Capt !! 🙂

Hoping to become an AGW-cultist and swill from the climate trough.

There is money to be made from all sorts of scams.

February 13, 2024 9:47 pm

 Some years ago, lighting stuck our house, damaging appliances and causing a leak in our natural gas line. We soon smelled gas and were able to repair the leak without further damage. Had that been a hydrogen line, the leak would likely have exploded or burst into flame, destroying our house. Hydrogen lines to homes and gas stations involve dangerous safety risks.”

Not true during all the years when hydrogen was piped to houses in the UK no such problems occurred. When it was replaced by natural gas then explosions did occur as a result of leaks.

Reply to  Phil.
February 14, 2024 12:59 am

“….during all the years when hydrogen was piped to houses in the UK no such problems occurred….”

This is just false, or at least completely misleading. Pure hydrogen has never been piped to houses in the UK. Coal gas was piped to houses, and the combustible part of that is about 50/50 hydrogen and carbon monoxide. Total hydrogen content is not more than one third by volume.

“….typically syngas is 30 to 60% carbon monoxide (CO), 25 to 30% hydrogen (H2), 0 to 5% methane (CH4), 5 to 15% carbon dioxide (CO2), plus a lesser or greater amount of water vapor, smaller amounts of the sulfur compounds hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbonyl sulfide (COS), and finally some ammonia and other trace contaminants….”

https://netl.doe.gov/research/coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/syngas-composition

If you look at the actual results in the table you will see the hydrogen proportion never rises above one third.

But this coal gas experience is nothing like piping pure hydrogen into houses and the coal gas experience is no guide to the consequences of doing that. If you could get a supply of green hydrogen, which its very clear is not possible, you could mix some with natural gas in existing pipework, up to a maximum of about a third by volume.

It would make absolutely no difference to CO2 emissions however, and would be pointless in those terms, as well as being as expensive as it is impractical to source.

Reply to  Phil.
February 14, 2024 1:53 am

Natural gas doesn’t have an odor either. They add a smelly agent, mercaptan, so leaks are detectable. They could do the same with hydrogen. We had an apparent gas leak at my place of work and everyone was evacuated. It turned out to be an accident with a vehicle carrying mercaptan that is used to make natural gas smelly.

1saveenergy
Reply to  Jim Masterson
February 14, 2024 4:12 am

Jim, You can’t add an odorant to H₂ if it is going to be used in fuel cells.

Reply to  Jim Masterson
February 14, 2024 6:07 am

The problem is that the rate of diffusion of a gas is inversely proportional to the square root of molecular eight (Graham’s Law). Mercaptan m.w. is 48, vs. 2 for hydrogen, so hydrogen diffuses about 5 times as fast. You may get an explosive mixture before you get to smell the mercaptan. There is no recognised stenching agent for pure hydrogen.

Reply to  It doesnot add up
February 15, 2024 9:02 am

That rapid rate of diffusion of hydrogen is exactly why leaks of hydrogen weren’t an explosion risk, it diffused so fast that an explosive mixture couldn’t be achieved (below lean limit).

John Pickens
Reply to  Jim Masterson
February 14, 2024 6:10 am

There is no known odorant which is compatible with H2 storage. You are simply wrong.

MarkW
Reply to  Jim Masterson
February 14, 2024 10:19 am

H2 is a lot lighter than CH4. Is it compatible with mercaptan?

Capt Jeff
February 13, 2024 10:45 pm

Not mentioned: H2 is the smallest molecule and it can penetrate the crystalline structure of steel, what is known as hydrogen embrittlement. it burns colorless so you can’t see the flame. It is odorless and, unlike natural gas which in its pure state is odorless, you can’t blend in an odorant.
And remember the Hindenburg

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Capt Jeff
February 14, 2024 5:52 am

And if you are in the US, the OSHA rules make working with hydrogen much more expensive.

Reply to  Capt Jeff
February 14, 2024 8:05 am

One large explosion will end the whole industry and with hydrogen in the consumer’s hands that is very likely.

Chris
Reply to  Capt Jeff
February 14, 2024 12:56 pm

I have a vague memory that H2 is a stable molecule except in the presence of say, a sulphide salt whereupon it can be encouraged to form hydrogen radicals, which are single element and small enough to penetrate the crystal structure of steel and become trapped at lattice faults (intersticial sites), greatly reducing the toughness by preventing the fault from slipping under load (yielding). Semantics for sure as the issue ends up the same, an external load could fail the integrity and release the contents to the outside.

Reply to  Capt Jeff
February 15, 2024 9:09 am

Remember the Zeppelin bombing raids on Britain, shooting them with machine guns did very little damage.

Coeur de Lion
February 13, 2024 11:48 pm

‘Traditional Biomass’ produces three times the global energy than all the solar panels and windmills on the planet. Couldn’t it be used for hydrogen production? Oops dorry

Coeur de Lion
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
February 13, 2024 11:49 pm

Sorry

sherro01
February 14, 2024 1:20 am

An orderly progression for global electricity from now on should be:
. Recognise that now there are many windmills and a few big solar farms, and start to wind them down because they are so expensive.
. Allocate W&S future production to production of hydrogen by water electrolysis.
. Emphasise the return of nuclear, coal and other hydrocarbon combustion ways to make electricity, because (a) they are cheaper than W&S and (b) they need far less expensive and fragile grid expansion than W&S.
. Finally realise that the cost of net zero in its many forms is far greater than a return to the old, classic ways of making reliable, cheap electricity, because the factor of preventing an increase in CO2 is illusory and without evidence linking CO2 in air to significant global temperature change.
Geoff S

Mikehig
February 14, 2024 1:52 am

“When hydrogen burns, the only combustion product is water vapor.”
Not so. When burnt in air, hydrogen has a very high flame temperature which generates much more NOx than using natural gas.
Obviously this does not apply to fuel cells but it complicates plans to use hydrogen for heating etc, to the extent that some form of “exhaust treatment” may be required – as fitted to cars – with all the cost, complexity, etc that entails.

Reply to  Mikehig
February 14, 2024 8:07 am

It’s also very explosive and you need IR glasses to see the flame.

Reply to  scvblwxq
February 14, 2024 7:14 pm

When you work around it you carry an IR sensor.

mikeq
February 14, 2024 2:23 am

Renewable power generated H2 system would be subject to all the same intermittency concerns, it would be impossible to maintain steady state H2 production with intermittent renewable power.

H2 production facilities would need to be sized to use large outputs of renewable power, but would routinely operate at such a lower capacity that it is unlikely they could ever recover their capital costs.

The wind turbines capacity factor is only 30%, therefore the max capacity factor of the H2 facility must also be not more than 30%.
However, the actual capacity of the H2 Facility will be much lower because it will not be able to ramp production up and down exactly as the electricity supply rises and falls. Assume 30% x 80% = 24% could be the actual capacity factor, therefore actual production would be likely to be less than a quarter of the nominal full rate production.
And then, wind, and therefore renewables capacity factor can vary considerably from year to year and can be lower than 20%. In a low wind year, H2 production could be down to less the 16% of nominal capacity.

You can’t make a profit running an industrial facility at only 16% to 24% of capacity.

Curious George
Reply to  mikeq
February 14, 2024 11:08 am

You presume no hydrogen storage.

Reply to  Curious George
February 14, 2024 7:17 pm

H² is very hard to store, it really likes to leak. and when it leaks it likes to ignite.

mikeq
Reply to  Curious George
February 14, 2024 11:48 pm

No. I merely omitted it.
Storage comes after production.
The intermittency of H2 product would require huge storage in order to ration H2 to priority users, but that does not improve the hopeless economics of H2 production.
It just makes it worse.
But, since H2 production is hopelessly uneconomic, why bother?

beholden
February 14, 2024 2:24 am

This article is disingenuous as it does not discuss the recent breakthroughs in material science that allow hydrogen to be safely stored without pressure within a metal hydroxide. An examples is Powerpaste from a german company, however, there are multiple ongoing efforts worldwide with the same goal, commercially available nearly indefinite, safe, economical hydrogen storage.

Key benefits of POWERPASTE include:

  • High gravimetric and volumetric energy densities nearing the theoretical maximum
  • Abundant supply of starting materials (i.e., Mg)
  • Competitive cost per kWh
  • Considerable optimization potential for large-scale production
  • Convenient material handling
  • Long shelf life, no self-discharge
  • Direct execution of the hydrolysis reaction with liquid water (no heat or steam required)
  • Adjustable reaction kinetics for application-specific needs
  • High reaction and system safety
  • Noiseless and zero-emission energy conversion
  • Non-toxicity of both the hydrolysis fuel and its byproducts

Metal Hydride Storage | Hydrogen Tools (h2tools.org)
Hydrogen storage over alkali metal hydride and alkali metal hydroxide composites – ScienceDirect
POWERPASTE (fraunhofer.de)

Rod Evans
Reply to  beholden
February 14, 2024 5:25 am

The study was published in 2014. Is there a more up to date report on how things have evolved since then?

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Rod Evans
February 14, 2024 6:04 am

They were supposed to have a plant up and running by 2021, but I can’t find anything about it. The idea of changing out a cartridge and filling it with water isn’t that bad, but what is done with the old cartridges? Since the water is not pure how will that affect the efficiency? Since there are no reports of wonderful vehicles driving around using Powerpaste, I think it must still be “in development” needing more government grants. Sort of like the EV battery recyclers.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  beholden
February 15, 2024 1:35 pm

So no plant, just futures.

beholden
Reply to  Rod Evans
February 14, 2024 6:18 am
Reply to  beholden
February 14, 2024 5:43 am

If you get less energy out than it takes to make then no matter the storage it is not viable. Plus if you do use H you still get a GHG called WV.

Grumpy Git UK
Reply to  beholden
February 14, 2024 6:39 am

You have obviously fallen for the publicity blurb.

  1. High gravimetric and volumetric energy densities nearing the theoretical maximum, how if it is “without pressure” then it is just Hydrogen, which has far less volumetric energy than NG.
  2. Abundant supply of starting materials (i.e., Mg), but you have to manufacture it.
  3. Competitive cost per kWh, how, you first have to use energy to make Mg and then use the process to store the non pressurised low energy hydrogen.
  4. As to power paste note “At 350 degrees Celsius and five to six times atmospheric pressure, this is reacted with hydrogen to form magnesium hydride.”. What is the input energy to acieve this?
  5. Once the hydrogen is released you have all the same safety issues.
beholden
Reply to  Grumpy Git UK
February 14, 2024 7:49 am

Perhaps I have. Did you read the white paper?

  1. The hydrogen is stored in the paste and released via chemical reaction when water is added, half of the hydrogen is from the water added, half from the stored hydrogen in the paste
  2. Concur
  3. Concur, however, it can still be competive if the input/creation of hydrogen is low (there are recent advances in thermo-chemical hydrogen splitting, rather than electrolysis), MIT design would harness 40 percent of the sun’s heat to produce clean hydrogen fuel | MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology This is just one design, the recent materials science advances that utilize solar input to separate hydrogen and oxygen. Cheap, sustainable hydrogen through solar power | University of Michigan News (umich.edu)
  4. This is not detailed in any literature I could find, however, that is 350 degrees Celsius and 5-6 ATM seems very reasonable for production of the paste. What is your concern?
  5. As the hydrogen is released on demand and under control from the power paste during the power generation process, I don’t understand your concern.
Grumpy Git UK
Reply to  beholden
February 15, 2024 2:35 am

It still does not have anything close to the energy density of fossil fuels.They are laboratory style quantities, to replace the 35,442,913,090 Barrels of Oil Products, let alone Natural Gas would take massive investments.If you can’t see that on top of the cost of producint the hydrogen you also have the cost of combining it with the Mg would make it far more expensive than natural gas I can’t help you.

MarkW
Reply to  beholden
February 14, 2024 10:26 am

Nothing new about metal hydroxides, I was reading about them back in the 70’s.

MarkW
Reply to  beholden
February 14, 2024 10:27 am

Just how much do you have invested in this?

beholden
Reply to  MarkW
February 15, 2024 1:25 am

Just hope, fusion for power and hydrogen for energy storage.

mikeq
Reply to  beholden
February 14, 2024 11:54 pm

The paper does not address the mass/weight of the storage medium, or its storage capacity (kg/cubic meter).
Also, it would create yet another demand on Lithiul
Even if this system were to become economic, these two factors would be very likely to limit the range of appropriate application.

1saveenergy
February 14, 2024 4:37 am

de Rivaz was the first ICE engine powered by hydrogen in 1804; followed by the 1st ICE vehicle (also powered by hydrogen) in 1807.
200 years & still not viable … sounds ripe for another government money sink scam.

Reply to  1saveenergy
February 15, 2024 9:27 am

About 20 yrs ago I participated in a DoE meeting about the use of hydrogen in automobiles.
The motor industry reps said that they would be able to make H2 powered automobiles but it would require an in place supply system before it would be practical, the fuel industry reps said that they could set up a supply system but it would need a substantial number of vehicles to make it practical. The basic conclusion was that a third party (the government) would have to set up such a system for H2 powered vehicles to be practical.

Verified by MonsterInsights