NYT article about hydrogen/natural gas mixture Italian pasta maker's trial.

[cdev]

better than batteries for long term storage and its compatible with existing pipes..

This looks like a winner.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/27/business/hydrogen-fuel-climate-change.html

[ahbushnell]

better than batteries for long term storage and its compatible with existing pipes..

This looks like a winner.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/27/business/hydrogen-fuel-climate-change.html

I wonder what the energy efficiency is of using electrolysis to make hydrogen?

Edit:
I looked it up and it's about 80% now and it's expensive. 

 

[themadhippy]

I looked it up and it's about 80% now and it's expensive.

only if your paying for the electricity,if you've a nice geothermal and hydro set ,like iceland ,up the costs plummet,

[mark03]

I looked it up and it's about 80% now and it's expensive.

only if your paying for the electricity,if you've a nice geothermal and hydro set ,like iceland ,up the costs plummet,

By "expensive" I'm sure he means the fixed costs and/or consumables apart from the electricity.  Otherwise it would be meaningless to characterize the process as cheap or expensive---that much is already summarized in the efficiency number.  (Assuming one already knows that electrolysis requires electricity as input.)

Anyway, I thought we were waiting for an effective electricity -> liquid -> electricity pathway.  If hydrogen energy storage were practical it would have been adopted a long time ago, no?

[Marco]

It just saves a bit on natural gas, hardly a renewable.

Given the timeframe countries have set for 100% renewable aims, there's no more time to waste subsidies for these halve measures ... there's only time for a couple years planning and then starting construction on 100% renewable megaprojects. If existing piping can't take 100% hydrogen without embrittlement, then they'll either need to convert the hydrogen to hydrocarbons with atmospheric CO2 or give up on using hydrogen with the natural gas distribution network.

[nctnico]

I looked it up and it's about 80% now and it's expensive.

only if your paying for the electricity,if you've a nice geothermal and hydro set ,like iceland ,up the costs plummet,

By "expensive" I'm sure he means the fixed costs and/or consumables apart from the electricity.  Otherwise it would be meaningless to characterize the process as cheap or expensive---that much is already summarized in the efficiency number.  (Assuming one already knows that electrolysis requires electricity as input.)

Anyway, I thought we were waiting for an effective electricity -> liquid -> electricity pathway.  If hydrogen energy storage were practical it would have been adopted a long time ago, no?

Cost effective is the key word here. Hydrogen is more versatile compared to storing & transporting electricity. You can put hydrogen in a large ship and bring it to the other end of the world. However coal & gas are much cheaper to generate electricity from so that has put hydrogen on the back burner.

[cdev]

Because of the low efficiency and limited capacity of batteries this could both save natural gas and allow the creation of hydrogen to effectively act as an energy storage medium for times when electricity was plentiful/ or was needed back. But the great thing is it can be burnt like natural gas in existing equipment. Natural gas is relatively expensive and is being exported from some areas. Hydrogen could act as a partial replacement to stretch the natural gas longer.

I looked it up and it's about 80% now and it's expensive.

only if your paying for the electricity,if you've a nice geothermal and hydro set ,like iceland ,up the costs plummet,

[Someone]

It just saves a bit on natural gas, hardly a renewable.

Given the timeframe countries have set for 100% renewable aims, there's no more time to waste subsidies for these halve measures ... there's only time for a couple years planning and then starting construction on 100% renewable megaprojects. If existing piping can't take 100% hydrogen without embrittlement, then they'll either need to convert the hydrogen to hydrocarbons with atmospheric CO2 or give up on using hydrogen with the natural gas distribution network.

Its another storage mechanism but one that leverages the existing gas network and appliances, even just stored locally and used for tri-generation would be practical for many locations. Probably a good technology for the short-medium term to support transition away from non-renewable sources of energy. As more fluctuating sources come online its expected that storage will become more profitable and "poor" efficiency solutions will be commercially viable.

Conversion to a softer/easier to store synthetic "natural" gas is proven in scale so its just a matter of economics....  the low grade heat and cheap CO2 sources that improve that are byproducts of conventional fossil plants. So think of it as a head start before the full costs of sourcing those inputs needs to be carried (big challenge to avoid the double/multiple counting of the offsets!). But that can reach a circular CO2 cycle using tree/bio sources for the CO2 fixation.

[Someone]

I looked it up and it's about 80% now and it's expensive.

only if your paying for the electricity,if you've a nice geothermal and hydro set ,like iceland ,up the costs plummet,

By "expensive" I'm sure he means the fixed costs and/or consumables apart from the electricity.  Otherwise it would be meaningless to characterize the process as cheap or expensive---that much is already summarized in the efficiency number.  (Assuming one already knows that electrolysis requires electricity as input.)

Anyway, I thought we were waiting for an effective electricity -> liquid -> electricity pathway.  If hydrogen energy storage were practical it would have been adopted a long time ago, no?

Cost effective is the key word here. Hydrogen is more versatile compared to storing & transporting electricity. You can put hydrogen in a large ship and bring it to the other end of the world. However coal & gas are much cheaper to generate electricity from so that has put hydrogen on the back burner.

Thankfully hydrogen is usually one of the base components of these synthetic gas/liquid fuel concepts so there has and continues to be plenty of research to improve that. If there is a practical use for hydrogen it'll be available in bulk as a precursor for these other more complex processes.

[nctnico]

The way things seem to be moving it is more likely hydrogen is going to be used directly. Either through mixing with / replacing natural gas or being used to generate electricity on the spot by feeding it into a fuel cell. Turning hydrogen into a hydro-carbon seems like an unnessary step to me which on top of that also produces CO2 at the end.