Hydrogen vs battery storage

[billvon]

This has come up a few times lately so I figured I'd start a thread on it.

Hydrogen has been around forever. It's been used as a fuel for spacecraft (the Space Shuttle's main engines used hydrogen and oxygen) as a feedstock for refinery cracking, and as an intermediate step in a great many industrial processes. It is even planned for manufacture on Mars via a fairly clever fuel cycle, like so:

• A lander with a few hundred pounds of hydrogen lands; the rest of its tanks are empty. The lander then takes CO2 from the air, and via the Sabatier process, turns the two ingredients into methane and water. The water is broken down into oxygen and hydrogen. The hydrogen is reused; the oxygen and methane are stored in the lander's tanks. After a few months the lander has enough fuel to return to Earth. This is called ISRP (in situ resource production) and is about the only way to get back from Mars in a reasonable time.

But that's a side note. The 'battle' that is shaping up, if you will, is between battery and hydrogen storage of energy. Batteries have been assumed both for grid scale storage (for peak loads and to store solar/wind) and for EV's. This is mainly because batteries are very, very efficient and storing and releasing energy; you can see 75-99% efficiencies depending on charge/discharge rate.

They are expensive though, although that cost has been dropping rapidly. They are now sufficiently energy dense and sufficiently cheap to make cheap long range cars available. The one remaining problem is that the raw materials are scarce, but as lithium ion gives way to lithum phosphate and eventually sodium, that problem will decline - making batteries more and more attractive.

Hydrogen hasn't been standing still, though. And there are now more and more companies making compact electrolyzers that are both efficient and cheap. Off-the-shelf systems now hit 80% and smaller experimental electrolyzers are hitting 98%. And they offer an interesting niche - as solar and wind get built out, there are times when the grid cannot accept all the power that they produce. During one day last spring, for example, solar/wind/hydro produced 103% of California's power needs. (The 3% was exported.) This means that pretty soon we will see periods where way more power than the local grid needs will be produced by renewables.

At that point you can curtail (shut down generation) or find other loads. Batteries are a good load, but their cost goes up by how much energy you store. Hydrogen is the opposite - you pay for power, but energy (storage) is very, very cheap.

More and more companies are making small (two shipping containers) electrolyzers that will take 10 megawatts of power and convert water to hydrogen with the power. And these go for a few million. If energy is free, that sort of system will recoup its cost in 3-4 years. And more and more often, energy will be free for part of the day, especially near solar and wind farms.

And this is starting to happen. Several natural gas plants in the LA area now run on a 70/30 methane/hydrogen mix, and fuel cell peakers are in the planning stages.

I used to think that hydrogen was going to be a non-starter for both storage and vehicles until we had high temperature nuclear reactors that could do thermal dissociation of water. But the advent of efficient and cheap electrolyzers - along with the unexpected problem of having too much free energy - has been making me rethink that. It also enables some solutions (like aviation) that are decades away from being doable with batteries.

So in the future you may see hydrogen start to creep into wider use as a storage medium and as a motor fuel. Rapid reductions in battery cost will slow that down, but hydrogen will continue to be a more and more viable option as time goes on.

 

[Seattle]

This has come up a few times lately so I figured I'd start a thread on it.

Hydrogen has been around forever. It's been used as a fuel for spacecraft (the Space Shuttle's main engines used hydrogen and oxygen) as a feedstock for refinery cracking, and as an intermediate step in a great many industrial processes. It is even planned for manufacture on Mars via a fairly clever fuel cycle, like so:

• A lander with a few hundred pounds of hydrogen lands; the rest of its tanks are empty. The lander then takes CO2 from the air, and via the Sabatier process, turns the two ingredients into methane and water. The water is broken down into oxygen and hydrogen. The hydrogen is reused; the oxygen and methane are stored in the lander's tanks. After a few months the lander has enough fuel to return to Earth. This is called ISRP (in situ resource production) and is about the only way to get back from Mars in a reasonable time.

But that's a side note. The 'battle' that is shaping up, if you will, is between battery and hydrogen storage of energy. Batteries have been assumed both for grid scale storage (for peak loads and to store solar/wind) and for EV's. This is mainly because batteries are very, very efficient and storing and releasing energy; you can see 75-99% efficiencies depending on charge/discharge rate.

They are expensive though, although that cost has been dropping rapidly. They are now sufficiently energy dense and sufficiently cheap to make cheap long range cars available. The one remaining problem is that the raw materials are scarce, but as lithium ion gives way to lithum phosphate and eventually sodium, that problem will decline - making batteries more and more attractive.

Hydrogen hasn't been standing still, though. And there are now more and more companies making compact electrolyzers that are both efficient and cheap. Off-the-shelf systems now hit 80% and smaller experimental electrolyzers are hitting 98%. And they offer an interesting niche - as solar and wind get built out, there are times when the grid cannot accept all the power that they produce. During one day last spring, for example, solar/wind/hydro produced 103% of California's power needs. (The 3% was exported.) This means that pretty soon we will see periods where way more power than the local grid needs will be produced by renewables.

At that point you can curtail (shut down generation) or find other loads. Batteries are a good load, but their cost goes up by how much energy you store. Hydrogen is the opposite - you pay for power, but energy (storage) is very, very cheap.

More and more companies are making small (two shipping containers) electrolyzers that will take 10 megawatts of power and convert water to hydrogen with the power. And these go for a few million. If energy is free, that sort of system will recoup its cost in 3-4 years. And more and more often, energy will be free for part of the day, especially near solar and wind farms.

And this is starting to happen. Several natural gas plants in the LA area now run on a 70/30 methane/hydrogen mix, and fuel cell peakers are in the planning stages.

I used to think that hydrogen was going to be a non-starter for both storage and vehicles until we had high temperature nuclear reactors that could do thermal dissociation of water. But the advent of efficient and cheap electrolyzers - along with the unexpected problem of having too much free energy - has been making me rethink that. It also enables some solutions (like aviation) that are decades away from being doable with batteries.

So in the future you may see hydrogen start to creep into wider use as a storage medium and as a motor fuel. Rapid reductions in battery cost will slow that down, but hydrogen will continue to be a more and more viable option as time goes on.

This fits in with a more deflationary economy with less debt and lower costs of most everything. Everything tends to have an energy/transportation cost including farming and food.

I had thought it was further into the future as I thought in terms of energy as being much cheaper if fusion, including distribution costs should become a reality and do all that it is supposed to do.

Maybe that day is closer using hydrogen as you suggest...

 

[exchemist]

This has come up a few times lately so I figured I'd start a thread on it.

Hydrogen has been around forever. It's been used as a fuel for spacecraft (the Space Shuttle's main engines used hydrogen and oxygen) as a feedstock for refinery cracking, and as an intermediate step in a great many industrial processes. It is even planned for manufacture on Mars via a fairly clever fuel cycle, like so:

• A lander with a few hundred pounds of hydrogen lands; the rest of its tanks are empty. The lander then takes CO2 from the air, and via the Sabatier process, turns the two ingredients into methane and water. The water is broken down into oxygen and hydrogen. The hydrogen is reused; the oxygen and methane are stored in the lander's tanks. After a few months the lander has enough fuel to return to Earth. This is called ISRP (in situ resource production) and is about the only way to get back from Mars in a reasonable time.

But that's a side note. The 'battle' that is shaping up, if you will, is between battery and hydrogen storage of energy. Batteries have been assumed both for grid scale storage (for peak loads and to store solar/wind) and for EV's. This is mainly because batteries are very, very efficient and storing and releasing energy; you can see 75-99% efficiencies depending on charge/discharge rate.

They are expensive though, although that cost has been dropping rapidly. They are now sufficiently energy dense and sufficiently cheap to make cheap long range cars available. The one remaining problem is that the raw materials are scarce, but as lithium ion gives way to lithum phosphate and eventually sodium, that problem will decline - making batteries more and more attractive.

Hydrogen hasn't been standing still, though. And there are now more and more companies making compact electrolyzers that are both efficient and cheap. Off-the-shelf systems now hit 80% and smaller experimental electrolyzers are hitting 98%. And they offer an interesting niche - as solar and wind get built out, there are times when the grid cannot accept all the power that they produce. During one day last spring, for example, solar/wind/hydro produced 103% of California's power needs. (The 3% was exported.) This means that pretty soon we will see periods where way more power than the local grid needs will be produced by renewables.

At that point you can curtail (shut down generation) or find other loads. Batteries are a good load, but their cost goes up by how much energy you store. Hydrogen is the opposite - you pay for power, but energy (storage) is very, very cheap.

More and more companies are making small (two shipping containers) electrolyzers that will take 10 megawatts of power and convert water to hydrogen with the power. And these go for a few million. If energy is free, that sort of system will recoup its cost in 3-4 years. And more and more often, energy will be free for part of the day, especially near solar and wind farms.

And this is starting to happen. Several natural gas plants in the LA area now run on a 70/30 methane/hydrogen mix, and fuel cell peakers are in the planning stages.

I used to think that hydrogen was going to be a non-starter for both storage and vehicles until we had high temperature nuclear reactors that could do thermal dissociation of water. But the advent of efficient and cheap electrolyzers - along with the unexpected problem of having too much free energy - has been making me rethink that. It also enables some solutions (like aviation) that are decades away from being doable with batteries.

So in the future you may see hydrogen start to creep into wider use as a storage medium and as a motor fuel. Rapid reductions in battery cost will slow that down, but hydrogen will continue to be a more and more viable option as time goes on.

It seems to me that hydrogen may well become an essential part of the energy mix for home heating, certainly. In the UK, most people have gas central heating and the housing stock is old - much of it 100 years old or so. These houses are very hard to retrofit with heat pumps (I explored it and gave up) and the cost of such pumps is high, especially in a country where AC is not required in summer so you get no advantage from running them backwards in summer. You can blend 25% of hydrogen into the existing natural gas distribution system, however, without even changing the burners.

Hydrogen for transport suffers from the usual Carnot cycle efficiency drawback, but if its production is close to free, from surplus solar and wind generation, that may not matter. And from what I read there are real problems with getting batteries big enough for heavy duty lorries. Even the trolley bus system, with overhead wires on motorways, is being considered, to get over this difficulty. Hydrogen might be a better bet for this.

I certainly think governments should fund the kickstarting of hydrogen technology and avoid putting all their eggs in the electricity basket. I see it as like VHS vs. Betamax. We can't know at this stage which will win out commercially, so attempting to pick a winner, to "save" upfront development cost could be a strategic blunder.

 

[billvon]

Hydrogen for transport suffers from the usual Carnot cycle efficiency drawback

True only if it is used in such an engine. Fuel cells are getting cheaper as well.

I certainly think governments should fund the kickstarting of hydrogen technology and avoid putting all their eggs in the electricity basket.

Agreed, although hydrogen at its most basic is just another way of distributing electricity.

I see it as like VHS vs. Betamax. We can't know at this stage which will win out commercially, so attempting to pick a winner, to "save" upfront development cost could be a strategic blunder.

Also agreed.

 

[Derek.H.]

It seems to me that hydrogen may well become an essential part of the energy mix for home heating, certainly. In the UK, most people have gas central heating and the housing stock is old - much of it 100 years old or so. These houses are very hard to retrofit with heat pumps (I explored it and gave up) and the cost of such pumps is high, especially in a country where AC is not required in summer so you get no advantage from running them backwards in summer. You can blend 25% of hydrogen into the existing natural gas distribution system, however, without even changing the burners.

Hydrogen for transport suffers from the usual Carnot cycle efficiency drawback, but if its production is close to free, from surplus solar and wind generation, that may not matter. And from what I read there are real problems with getting batteries big enough for heavy duty lorries. Even the trolley bus system, with overhead wires on motorways, is being considered, to get over this difficulty. Hydrogen might be a better bet for this.

I certainly think governments should fund the kickstarting of hydrogen technology and avoid putting all their eggs in the electricity basket. I see it as like VHS vs. Betamax. We can't know at this stage which will win out commercially, so attempting to pick a winner, to "save" upfront development cost could be a strategic blunder.

It seems to me that hydrogen may well become an essential part of the energy mix for home heating, certainly. In the UK, most people have gas central heating and the housing stock is old - much of it 100 years old or so. These houses are very hard to retrofit with heat pumps (I explored it and gave up) and the cost of such pumps is high, especially in a country where AC is not required in summer so you get no advantage from running them backwards in summer. You can blend 25% of hydrogen into the existing natural gas distribution system, however, without even changing the burners.

Hydrogen for transport suffers from the usual Carnot cycle efficiency drawback, but if its production is close to free, from surplus solar and wind generation, that may not matter. And from what I read there are real problems with getting batteries big enough for heavy duty lorries. Even the trolley bus system, with overhead wires on motorways, is being considered, to get over this difficulty. Hydrogen might be a better bet for this.

I certainly think governments should fund the kickstarting of hydrogen technology and avoid putting all their eggs in the electricity basket. I see it as like VHS vs. Betamax. We can't know at this stage which will win out commercially, so attempting to pick a winner, to "save" upfront development cost could be a strategic blunder.

Energy-Folk ,
Good points all , but... hydrogen-fueled airplanes will just plain not be practical near-future , while the only batteries adequate for their usage will likely be metal-air ones .
The volume and thermal issues with H2 may preclude it's use in aviation for decades , while the compactness and high power-density of metal-airs means that they can soon become plug-and-play , this commensurate with the installation of adequate infrastructure .

 

[Derek.H.]

Reference Article for above Answer : sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/metal-air-battery

 

[exchemist]

Energy-Folk ,
Good points all , but... hydrogen-fueled airplanes will just plain not be practical near-future , while the only batteries adequate for their usage will likely be metal-air ones .
The volume and thermal issues with H2 may preclude it's use in aviation for decades , while the compactness and high power-density of metal-airs means that they can soon become plug-and-play , this commensurate with the installation of adequate infrastructure .

Interesting. I have not looked much at what is happening in the aviation world.

What about ammonia? That is being looked at seriously for ships, as effectively a storage medium for hydrogen: 4NH3 + 3O2 -> 6H2O + 2N2. It can be stored fairly simply, in compact form as a liquid.

 

[billvon]

Good points all , but... hydrogen-fueled airplanes will just plain not be practical near-future , while the only batteries adequate for their usage will likely be metal-air ones .

There are already primary training aircraft (the Pipistrel Velis) that use lithium-ion batteries, and about a dozen other short range aircraft. It will be a long time before we see a widebody electric aircraft flying from New York to Sidney, but passengers in Alaska are already taking commuter flights on electric aircraft.

 

[TheVat]

Interesting. I have not looked much at what is happening in the aviation world.

What about ammonia? That is being looked at seriously for ships, as effectively a storage medium for hydrogen: 4NH3 + 3O2 -> 6H2O + 2N2. It can be stored fairly simply, in compact form as a liquid.

But aren't Haber-Bosch synth and then the subsequent cracking the NH3 and getting the hydrogen back out kind of energy-gulping? You're probably more up on this than I am - maybe it's now more efficient and that's why they can consider it for ships etc. It does make storage much easier, that's for sure.

 

[exchemist]

But aren't Haber-Bosch synth and then the subsequent cracking the NH3 and getting the hydrogen back out kind of energy-gulping? You're probably more up on this than I am - maybe it's now more efficient and that's why they can consider it for ships etc. It does make storage much easier, that's for sure.

You can burn ammonia in an engine. No cracking required.https://www.wartsila.com/insights/article/ammonia-fuel-for-thought-in-our-deep-dive

There seems to be an issue with N2O production, which requires exhaust aftertreatment, but apart from that it seems to work. The Haber process does not have to be energy inefficient.

 

[TheVat]

Wow. Well, looking at the rxn formula it does look like a clean efficient burn. Maybe I was thinking about fuel cells, where you could use ammonia for storage and transport but then have to crack it for the fuel cell (ammonia poisons fuel cells). (I understand that ships wouldn't be using fuel cells and getting any kind of range.)

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

For cars, at least, how about a combination of batteries and hydrogen fuel cells. Batteries for most city driving and hydrogen (produced without fossil fuels) fuel cells for longer highway trips.

 

[exchemist]

A bit more about the ammonia engine technology: https://www.wartsila.com/media/news...ission-reductions-by-up-to-90-percent-3590235

Wärtsilä have gone for what they call a "low pressure Otto cycle". That will mean spark-ignition rather than compression ignition. Not sure what they mean by low pressure, though. The picture of the engine here: https://www.offshore-energy.biz/wartsila-rolls-out-industrys-first-4-stroke-ammonia-engine/. seems to show a turbocharger, so low pressure can't mean naturally aspirated. And I see they claim to have efficiency similar to that of an LNG engine, and those are turbocharged.

Anyway, Wärtsilä is a leading producer of marine engines worldwide (there are only 3-4 notable manufacturers) and is also the most innovative company in the field. From their sales pitch, they evidently think they are ready to sell you an ammonia engine already, if you care to order one for your new ship.

 

[Ken Fabian]

I think Hydrogen has both a lot of potential and some serious problems in achieving that potential. The cost effectiveness of electrolysers is best when they run continuously. Running periodically - sunny daytimes, windy periods and other times of high supply (and low cost) - appears to be financially problematic; that ideal of operating intermittently and soaking up electricity at times of oversupply looks hard to achieve. At this point batteries are doing that better - and then there is pumped hydro. As transport fuel there are other considerations.

Making it into ammonia makes it easier to use as a transport fuel but adds more costs and whilst storing and shipping ammonia is easier than for Hydrogen it is still not simple or cheap. I don't know which would be more dangerous if it leaks - hydrogen for the fire and explosion hazards as well as potential asphyxiation or ammonia for the toxicity. I would expect exposure to leaked ammonia, being corrosive, would be very bad for a lot of technology as well as people.

Raising atmospheric Hydrogen levels also has a global warming impact, indirectly, by slowing the breakdown of methane.

 

[exchemist]

I think Hydrogen has both a lot of potential and some serious problems in achieving that potential. The cost effectiveness of electrolysers is best when they run continuously. Running periodically - sunny daytimes, windy periods and other times of high supply (and low cost) - appears to be financially problematic; that ideal of operating intermittently and soaking up electricity at times of oversupply looks hard to achieve. At this point batteries are doing that better - and then there is pumped hydro. As transport fuel there are other considerations.

Making it into ammonia makes it easier to use as a transport fuel but adds more costs and whilst storing and shipping ammonia is easier than for Hydrogen it is still not simple or cheap. I don't know which would be more dangerous if it leaks - hydrogen for the fire and explosion hazards as well as potential asphyxiation or ammonia for the toxicity. I would expect exposure to leaked ammonia, being corrosive, would be very bad for a lot of technology as well as people.

Raising atmospheric Hydrogen levels also has a global warming impact, indirectly, by slowing the breakdown of methane.

Well the shipping industry seems to prefer ammonia to simple hydrogen. Electricity seems out of the question.

But tell me, how do you think heavy goods road vehicles will be powered? I have seen no practical progress on decarbonising these at all, so far, which I find pretty shocking.

 

[Ken Fabian]

Well the shipping industry seems to prefer ammonia to simple hydrogen. Electricity seems out of the question.

But tell me, how do you think heavy goods road vehicles will be powered? I have seen no practical progress on decarbonising these at all, so far, which I find pretty shocking.

I think if this is an industry that really has to decarbonise they will find ways - and not result in loss of heavy vehicles. To date the requirements to do so have been weak and as long as they don't have to they won't. It seems likely to take a lot more infrastructure planning and investment than I've been seeing.

My own view is battery electric is going to work, if the effort is made to work around the limitations. Battery swapping would be one way; I think that option probably suits heavy vehicles that ideally spend most of the time in operation, more so than for car EV's that can and probably should have Vehicle to Grid and to Home capability and should spend as much of their parked time plugged in as possible.

Another way would be some kind of in-road or over-road electrification made to facilitate charging of moving vehicles (in addition to charger fitted depots and rest stops). In-road would be the most convenient for drivers but I suspect overhead will deliver more power - and may ultimately be cheaper.

The sections of road for this would be strategic; approaches and exits to cities and towns, steep and long and heavily trafficked uphill sections (downhill will get charging from regen braking) -

 

[exchemist]

I think if this is an industry that really has to decarbonise they will find ways - and not result in loss of heavy vehicles. To date the requirements to do so have been weak and as long as they don't have to they won't. It seems likely to take a lot more infrastructure planning and investment than I've been seeing.

My own view is battery electric is going to work, if the effort is made to work around the limitations. Battery swapping would be one way; I think that option probably suits heavy vehicles that ideally spend most of the time in operation, more so than for car EV's that can and probably should have Vehicle to Grid and to Home capability and should spend as much of their parked time plugged in as possible.

Another way would be some kind of in-road or over-road electrification made to facilitate charging of moving vehicles (in addition to charger fitted depots and rest stops). In-road would be the most convenient for drivers but I suspect overhead will deliver more power - and may ultimately be cheaper.

The sections of road for this would be strategic; approaches and exits to cities and towns, steep and long and heavily trafficked uphill sections (downhill will get charging from regen braking) -
View attachment 6939

View attachment 6940

Yes I’ve seen these mocked up pantograph pictures too. But there’s no evidence I can find that this is more than a concept. Governments do not seem to be applying any pressure on the manufacturers to get serious. Possibly because they are shying away from the infrastructure costs, which would have to be borne by the public purse.

Perhaps they are all just hoping for lower weight batteries to come along.

I do feel we are placing too much reliance on batteries. The scarcity and geopolitics of the elements needed is a problem, as are the environmental snags of refining. I’d like to see some diversification of solutions, which is why hydrogen strikes me as an option that should not be sidelined.

 

[Ken Fabian]

But there’s no evidence I can find that this is more than a concept.

The trials of it have been real enough but true, no real progress. I do think overhead electrification would be a better long term road freight solution but it would take those kinds of deep commitment and long term investment that are not apparent; doing the least that can be gotten away - 'saving' economies from having to do much more than empty gesturing - seems to dominate what governments and industry are committed to. Battery passenger EV's like wind and solar energy have managed to achieve remarkable growth on the back of empty gesturing, enough to move beyond it.

Financing of options that cost more upfront despite costing less over time remains a very serious problem not confined to decarbonising road freight; in many ways that is effective climate policy's biggest impediment.

Battery swapping looks a more achievable option. Even better with everyone using the same form factors and standards. Expedience beats any grand plans.

Not much evidence Hydrogen trucks are much further along than battery electric despite a lot more lead time. Yes there are H2 trucks but not sure they are cheaper than battery electric offerings and are still more a case of proof of concept than viable commercial offerings. The H2 production and supply is very limited, still expensive and difficult to expand. I do think battery electric will continue to have a distinct advantage simply because it can piggyback on electricity grids - and I do think that there will be long term advantages to electrification over developing parallel Hydrogen/Ammonia.

Battery electric requires use of batteries at scales far beyond anything that has gone before... but everything we do will be, has to be, at scales far beyond anything that has gone before - it will be a bad sign if they aren't. If it runs into intractable resource limitations that will become apparent by the doing - not apparent yet and there are a variety of chemistries and alternatives.

Keeping on seeking the perfect is fine but holding out for perfect is not.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

Work on sodium to replace lithium in batteries is on going. They are aiming for 70 percent of the energy density of lithium. Sodium is cheaper and more available than lithium

 

[exchemist]

Work on sodium to replace lithium in batteries is on going. They are aiming for 70 percent of the energy density of lithium. Sodium is cheaper and more available than lithium

Indeed. I was encouraged reading about that. It seems to be reaching the stage of commercialisation, so not just yet another theoretical idea.