cartoonzi OP t1_iyzyg3p wrote
I was aware of the challenges of hydrogen, like the high production costs of green hydrogen and why hydrogen isn't an ideal fuel to create electricity, but I didn't know how bad blue hydrogen is.
"In a peer-reviewed study, Cornell and Stanford researchers found that emissions from blue hydrogen production are only 9%-12% less than those from grey hydrogen. Blue hydrogen production also releases more methane than grey hydrogen, which traps 80 times more heat than CO2 during its first 20 years in the atmosphere (MIT)."
The article also discusses the storage and transportation challenges, and how much energy is lost when hydrogen is converted to be compressed as a gas or liquified, which can consume 10%-40% of its energy.
It was also interesting to learn how the steel manufacturing company in Sweden was using green hydrogen instead of coal.
One thing I don't hear enough about is pink hydrogen (made using nuclear power). Does anyone have any interesting readings or case studies on whether it's a viable path for hydrogen production?
wwarnout t1_iz08iyb wrote
There is another aspect of using hydrogen as a fuel for ICE vehicles is rarely discussed. We hear that the exhaust is just water vapor, but this isn't always the case. The combustion temperature is so high that nitrogen from the atmosphere (which is always part of the intake mixture) is converted to nitrous oxides, which are expelled during the exhaust phase of the cycle (nitrous oxides are also produced in regular ICEs). This is an undesirable pollutant.
cartoonzi OP t1_izgzipa wrote
Oof. I definitely didn’t know about that. Seems like another reason why hydrogen cars aren’t ideal. I wonder why Toyota and Hyundai still plan on investing in them. Thanks for teaching me something new 🤝
_WardenoftheWest_ t1_iz07tue wrote
Pink hydrogen is absolutely viable. It’s likely the best method with current technology.
By the fact it’s even still under discussion showed the lamentable and infuriating attitude that still pervades towards nuclear power.
uwumasters t1_iz1h0ai wrote
Nuclear power is still one of the best transitions into renewable sources, if there are already built plants.
_WardenoftheWest_ t1_iz1hjtd wrote
UK gov has in-motion plans to build one a year. They aren’t fucking around. Once SFFR get the go ahead it’ll be even quicker.
Sir_Osis_of_Liver t1_iz39ixw wrote
The initial budget for Hinkley Point C was £16B. With the latest cost overrun announcement, the price is now expected to come in around £26B, as operations have been pushed back to 2027 at the earliest. And that's for a minimum strike price of £106/MWh in 2021 (the contract strike price is indexed to inflation). In comparison, the strike price from wind can be as low as £40/MWh.
Under the amended terms of the contract, delivery could be pushed back as far as 2036.
The project is in little better shape than the EDF projects at Taishan, Flamanville or Olkiluoto.
uwumasters t1_iz1ian9 wrote
Yeah I'm not from the US so I don't know the specifics there, but in Europe there are so many that were being dismantled because of the fearmongering and now we depend on coal and oil from Russia *sigh
_WardenoftheWest_ t1_iz1ixgv wrote
Dude. I said UK Gov.
Turbulent-Mango-2698 t1_iz38c37 wrote
Nuclear power is better used for essential base load as it’s the absolute most expensive form of energy production. You wouldn’t really want to use nuclear to produce H2 as this would just make H2 even more expensive.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments