Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Miguelito Loveless

(4,789 posts)
44. That doesn't alter the fact
Sun Jan 5, 2025, 11:49 PM
Jan 5

that the electricity from a renewable source is more efficiently used directly charging EVs, or powering heat pumps, than creating H2, storing it, then converting it back to electricity, then charging EVs/powering heat pumps. H2 the plants and infrastructure are more complicated, thus more expensive, and have a higher maintenance cost.

Also, you did bring up the issue of weight, with H2 being much lighter as a storage medium than batteries, but weight is irrelevant to a power plant. Weight is an issue in transportation, but the current HFCEV still have chemical batteries, and don’t weigh that much less than BEVs. The loss in efficiency converting H2 back into electricity still has pure BEVs more efficient per unit of weight than a fuel cell vehicle.

If I have an HFCEV, I am back to going to a special station to get re-fueled, and must pay for that fuel each time. Right now, I re-fuel my EV every night when I come home, at a fraction of the cost of the traditional way (FF), or H2.

And to power my house, why would I use my solar array to make H2, and then power my house at a fraction of the efficiency of simply using the electricity and skipping the whole electricity-to H2-to electricity step? My house averages 50-60kWh of electricity production a day, why would I use that to make a single kg of H2, that would provide me with 34kWh of electricity?

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

By virtue of the second law of thermodyamics, hydrogen is an extremely dirty fuel. NNadir Jan 3 #1
It's also the most abundent element of the universe BumRushDaShow Jan 3 #2
Yes, but on earth it is chemically bound. Looking at it... NNadir Jan 3 #3
Hydrogen is not a "form of energy", it is an energy storage medium... Think. Again. Jan 3 #5
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe GoreWon2000 Jan 3 #8
Yes, we need to make some very big progress building out non-CO2 emitting electrical production. Think. Again. Jan 3 #10
Well... BumRushDaShow Jan 3 #6
Post removed Post removed Jan 3 #9
His background is in chemistry. He's in the pharmaceutical industry. His journal is worth a scroll nmmi Jan 3 #14
As explained in the article... Think. Again. Jan 3 #4
Except when it leaks NickB79 Jan 3 #11
Natural gas leaks are 28X as powerful as CO2.... Think. Again. Jan 3 #12
And hydrogen leaks twice as much as methane, by it's very nature as the smallest element NickB79 Jan 4 #17
A small mistake you made... Think. Again. Jan 4 #19
Green hydrogen is the future GoreWon2000 Jan 3 #7
When will the scam that is the "hydrogen economy" Miguelito Loveless Jan 3 #13
If you're Anti-Hydrogen, whatever you do - DO NOT LOOK AT CHINA or India Caribbeans Jan 4 #15
Simple math Miguelito Loveless Jan 4 #16
And then fuel cells lose about 40%-60% of the 34kWH in the H2 converting it into electricity? /nt nmmi Jan 4 #18
Which is still less than the energy lost by our current long distance delivery systems... Think. Again. Jan 4 #23
59% is losses in the power plant itself in converting the fuel's energy to electricity at the power plant and net of nmmi Jan 4 #24
Yes, the Hydrogen would not replace batteries... Think. Again. Jan 4 #25
The problem is Miguelito Loveless Jan 5 #34
Correct, I personally believe only a Green H2 economy is worthy of pursuing.... Think. Again. Jan 5 #37
That doesn't alter the fact Miguelito Loveless Jan 5 #44
Correct, directly powering your home from solar makes the most sense... Think. Again. Jan 5 #45
To me, marine and flight uses Miguelito Loveless Jan 6 #51
Yes, and other uses where easily transportable fuel for combustion or on-site electric generation is needed. Think. Again. Jan 6 #54
The environmental impact for lithium-ion Miguelito Loveless Jan 5 #31
Yes, and H2 can be used when weight and volume are considerations... Think. Again. Jan 5 #40
So far, Miguelito Loveless Jan 5 #46
Yes, passenger vehicles are better for batteries... Think. Again. Jan 6 #49
My losses are much lower Miguelito Loveless Jan 5 #29
Yes, no one is suggesting H2 should replace batteries, or any other form of energy storage. Think. Again. Jan 5 #33
But, in using H2 for power Miguelito Loveless Jan 5 #39
Yes, and in situations where batteries are not viable due to weight or volume or non-existent power grid lines... Think. Again. Jan 5 #43
By very expensive tanker trucks Miguelito Loveless Jan 6 #50
It doesn't make much sense does it madville Jan 4 #20
A loss of energy also occurs when it is transferred into batteries... Think. Again. Jan 4 #22
It must be stored either in liquid form Miguelito Loveless Jan 5 #28
Hydrogen containment tanks are made of materials that are impervious to embrittlement.... Think. Again. Jan 5 #32
The tanks are Miguelito Loveless Jan 5 #36
Yes, they can be. And older existing lines can even be coated to be impervious. Think. Again. Jan 5 #42
That means digging up old lines and replacing them Miguelito Loveless Jan 6 #48
No, if the cost is 2 million, that's what it is, not more. Think. Again. Jan 6 #53
The issue is not flammability Miguelito Loveless Jan 5 #38
Precisely. Miguelito Loveless Jan 5 #27
Any transfer of energy results in a loss... Think. Again. Jan 4 #21
True, Miguelito Loveless Jan 5 #26
Yes, but Lithium is not infinite nor renewable, while Hydrogen basically is.... Think. Again. Jan 5 #30
Lithium can be recycled from batteries Miguelito Loveless Jan 5 #35
Yes, with additional energy costs. Think. Again. Jan 5 #41
The additional energy cost is far lower Miguelito Loveless Jan 6 #47
The Hydrogen economy infrastructure would be a cost of doing business.... Think. Again. Jan 6 #52
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Biden administration adds...»Reply #44