Thanks. I knew hydrogen took more energy to produce than what you get in return, but hadn't heard the figure Doomberg quotes - "“As a general rule, it takes about twice as much energy to produce hydrogen than can be usefully extracted from it.”
If that's true, the whole thing about H2 as a fuel is a pipe dream. We need it for certain industrial processes, like making fertilizer, but it will always be too expensive to use for a fuel.
By the way, hydrogen is a byproduct of the coal cracking process that Frontieras.com is developing.
I am checking out a few technologies that claim to be able to use coal with no CO2 emissions and that produce hydrogen, graphene, graphite, etc. If hydrogen production is a byproduct, then these technologies could be more useful in the push to use hydrogen. Producing hydrogen for the sake of producing hydrogen is not likely to be worth it for the foreseeable future.
The obsession to replace oil/gas/coal is truly astounding. The energy density, storage capacity, and effectiveness of the big 3 are the unmatched by any other source. This reminds me of a quote my parents always said “penny wise, pound foolish….” All these alternative energy schemes always cost more and work less effectively.
Only nuclear energy can surpass hydrocarbons in terms of energy density. The other options — wind and solar — are woefully inadequate and wasteful distractions from the actual energy issues we need to prioritize: reliability, affordability, and security.
Of course nuclear is superior in density, but the giant over regulation makes it unaffordable. A great country in a massive hurry to kill itself…… that’s the way it feels to a regular citizen.
Even with that it is still far more affordable than offshore wind. While also being practical, unlike the wind. Throwing $trillions down the sewer on wind & solar scams that need to be almost 100% backed up by fossil/hydro/nuclear and will need to be replaced in 10-30yrs is the penultimate in absurdity. Far wiser to spend all those Climate Change $ on nuclear even if the NRC/EPA are ripping us off incredibly. Maybe DOGE will close those two useless agencies and turn that over to the States to regulate.
Notice China has no problem, $2500/kw for its new NPPs. That's cheaper than gas, levelized cost.
I hope that geologic hydrogen and/or new technologies, like the one Al Christie has discussed in comments on this article, can help provide more hydrogen for the chemical processes you note.
Hydrogen isn't an energy source, it is an energy carrier & energy storage medium like electricity is. And a terrible energy carrier. Terrible at energy storage. H2 has always been a scam, they bring it out every 20yrs ago in order to pretend they are solving some energy problem, in this case GHG emissions. It's all bull.
I calculate the efficiency of a Solar/wind to H2 to electricity system at 16.5%. And an EROI of the entire system at 2:1. Totally infeasible.
Hydrogen is a scam. The most difficult fuel to store. Most leaky fuel. Most difficult to transport. Expensive especially if Green Hydrogen. Very dangerous, prone to leaks which can be ignited in a wide range of concentration in air from 4% to 74%. Even a lightning strike a mile away can ignite it.
For rockets to orbit, H2 is has the highest energy/mass. Every kg of fuel saved is an extra kg of mass to orbit. That was worth $54k for the Space Shuttle and $2720 for the Falcon 9. That's one big advantage for fuel for rockets, worth +$3k/kg mass saved. And yet both Musk and Bezos chose Methane over H2 for their new rocket engines. It's just not worth it, even in expensive rockets to deal with H2 and all its problems.
What you can do is combine nuclear hydrogen with carbon from seawater CO2, or use flue gas (i.e. cement plant), biomass (i.e. forest overgrowth that causes terrible wildfires), stranded gas or waste to make Methanol, the easiest fuel to transport. And the simplest of chemical synthesis, has been done for hundreds of years. Methanol is a far superior fuel to H2 for vehicles, home heating or cooking fuel as it is being widely used in China where they make it from Coal for 13 cents/liter.
The absurdity of Hydrogen fuel is explained here:
The Unfortunate Truth About Toyota's Hydrogen V8 Engine, Engineering Explained:
"...Toyota and Hyundai both halted sales of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Norway after an explosion at a Hydrogen fuel station. Norway, which has a more advanced infrastructure in terms of Hydrogen — as compared to North America — is basically shut down temporarily as both refuelling stations and new car sales of hydrogen vehicles from two manufacturers came to a halt. The explosion at the Uno-X station in Sandvika, Norway was massive enough to prompt the shut down of other stations and — temporarily, at least — new car sales of fuel-cell models from two manufacturers. Hydrogen is highly volatile — the reason it’s no longer used in airships — mandating caution in terms of safety. Hydrogen is among the most volatile of gases. The explosion was so big it triggered airbags in nearby cars. The fire department had to evacuate an area 500 meters around the station...."
Thanks. I knew hydrogen took more energy to produce than what you get in return, but hadn't heard the figure Doomberg quotes - "“As a general rule, it takes about twice as much energy to produce hydrogen than can be usefully extracted from it.”
If that's true, the whole thing about H2 as a fuel is a pipe dream. We need it for certain industrial processes, like making fertilizer, but it will always be too expensive to use for a fuel.
By the way, hydrogen is a byproduct of the coal cracking process that Frontieras.com is developing.
I am checking out a few technologies that claim to be able to use coal with no CO2 emissions and that produce hydrogen, graphene, graphite, etc. If hydrogen production is a byproduct, then these technologies could be more useful in the push to use hydrogen. Producing hydrogen for the sake of producing hydrogen is not likely to be worth it for the foreseeable future.
The obsession to replace oil/gas/coal is truly astounding. The energy density, storage capacity, and effectiveness of the big 3 are the unmatched by any other source. This reminds me of a quote my parents always said “penny wise, pound foolish….” All these alternative energy schemes always cost more and work less effectively.
Only nuclear energy can surpass hydrocarbons in terms of energy density. The other options — wind and solar — are woefully inadequate and wasteful distractions from the actual energy issues we need to prioritize: reliability, affordability, and security.
Of course nuclear is superior in density, but the giant over regulation makes it unaffordable. A great country in a massive hurry to kill itself…… that’s the way it feels to a regular citizen.
Even with that it is still far more affordable than offshore wind. While also being practical, unlike the wind. Throwing $trillions down the sewer on wind & solar scams that need to be almost 100% backed up by fossil/hydro/nuclear and will need to be replaced in 10-30yrs is the penultimate in absurdity. Far wiser to spend all those Climate Change $ on nuclear even if the NRC/EPA are ripping us off incredibly. Maybe DOGE will close those two useless agencies and turn that over to the States to regulate.
Notice China has no problem, $2500/kw for its new NPPs. That's cheaper than gas, levelized cost.
I worked with one of my interns a few years ago to describe the problems that the NRC was causing for the American nuclear industry.
https://www.mackinac.org/blog/2023/the-nuclear-regulatory-commission-is-killing-nuclear-energy
Good article!
Hydrogen is a poor fuel for many reasons already outlined, but is an essential and extremely important feedstock for many chemical processes.
I hope that geologic hydrogen and/or new technologies, like the one Al Christie has discussed in comments on this article, can help provide more hydrogen for the chemical processes you note.
https://alchristie.substack.com/p/revolutionary-coal-refining-process
https://jasonhayes.substack.com/p/why-the-hydrogen-future-is-not-imminent/comment/88137958
Hydrogen isn't an energy source, it is an energy carrier & energy storage medium like electricity is. And a terrible energy carrier. Terrible at energy storage. H2 has always been a scam, they bring it out every 20yrs ago in order to pretend they are solving some energy problem, in this case GHG emissions. It's all bull.
I calculate the efficiency of a Solar/wind to H2 to electricity system at 16.5%. And an EROI of the entire system at 2:1. Totally infeasible.
Hydrogen is a scam. The most difficult fuel to store. Most leaky fuel. Most difficult to transport. Expensive especially if Green Hydrogen. Very dangerous, prone to leaks which can be ignited in a wide range of concentration in air from 4% to 74%. Even a lightning strike a mile away can ignite it.
For rockets to orbit, H2 is has the highest energy/mass. Every kg of fuel saved is an extra kg of mass to orbit. That was worth $54k for the Space Shuttle and $2720 for the Falcon 9. That's one big advantage for fuel for rockets, worth +$3k/kg mass saved. And yet both Musk and Bezos chose Methane over H2 for their new rocket engines. It's just not worth it, even in expensive rockets to deal with H2 and all its problems.
What you can do is combine nuclear hydrogen with carbon from seawater CO2, or use flue gas (i.e. cement plant), biomass (i.e. forest overgrowth that causes terrible wildfires), stranded gas or waste to make Methanol, the easiest fuel to transport. And the simplest of chemical synthesis, has been done for hundreds of years. Methanol is a far superior fuel to H2 for vehicles, home heating or cooking fuel as it is being widely used in China where they make it from Coal for 13 cents/liter.
The absurdity of Hydrogen fuel is explained here:
The Unfortunate Truth About Toyota's Hydrogen V8 Engine, Engineering Explained:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJjKwSF9gT8
"...Toyota and Hyundai both halted sales of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Norway after an explosion at a Hydrogen fuel station. Norway, which has a more advanced infrastructure in terms of Hydrogen — as compared to North America — is basically shut down temporarily as both refuelling stations and new car sales of hydrogen vehicles from two manufacturers came to a halt. The explosion at the Uno-X station in Sandvika, Norway was massive enough to prompt the shut down of other stations and — temporarily, at least — new car sales of fuel-cell models from two manufacturers. Hydrogen is highly volatile — the reason it’s no longer used in airships — mandating caution in terms of safety. Hydrogen is among the most volatile of gases. The explosion was so big it triggered airbags in nearby cars. The fire department had to evacuate an area 500 meters around the station...."