[PVpost] Energy storage - it's no energy source.

PVPoster1 · Post by **PVPoster1** » 24 Jun 2005, 18:13

This is an edited re-post of a topic that existed before
the forums were hit by a virus in June 2005. Please feel free to add
comments at the end.

The only real use for hydrogen, if it's embraced, is as an energy battery.
Batteries are very energy inefficient, and so is hydrogen. The EROEI is negative, so it's a net energy loser, not a source. However, it can be used to store energy captured via other means, like PV or wind for example.

PVPoster1 · Post by **PVPoster1** » 24 Jun 2005, 18:14

This is a great article on why the hydrogen economy is a false start.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/cgi-bi ... swers.html

I'm going to a lecture by Rifkin, author of the hydrogen economy, and I shall try to raise some of these points with him.

PVPoster1 · Post by **PVPoster1** » 24 Jun 2005, 18:15

Such is the case with your unfortunate infomercial on hydrogen (Science and Technology, Hydrogen Cars Are Almost Here, But There are still serious problems to solve, such as: Where will drivers fuel up? BusinessWeek, January 24, 2005 pp. 56). This article reflects the contemporary pop culture mantra that pollution free hydrogen fuels will save the environment, a belief that ignores the pollution penalty of hydrogen production, distribution and consumption. It also obscures hydrogen's primary disadvantage: hydrogen is an energy intensive alternative to motor fuels derived from oil.

http://www.energybulletin.net/4243.html

PVPoster1 · Post by **PVPoster1** » 24 Jun 2005, 18:15

Some very precious metals like platinum are required for hydrogen fuel cells.
There are currently 700million vehicles on the planet. Platinum takes energy (oil) to extract. Even if we extracted all of our platinum, we will have in no way come close to 700 million hydrogen fueled cars!

PVPoster1 · Post by **PVPoster1** » 24 Jun 2005, 18:16

...

http://www.hydrogen.co.uk

which looks at the possibility of changing to a hydrogen economy?

Peter.

Sam172 · Post by **Sam172** » 17 Jul 2005, 10:14

Okay, I'm still reading through this site - but I'm somewhat dubious, especially as they pulled out the old:

"The hydrogen energy system could meet all the world's energy needs forever"

quote

fifthcolumn · Post by **fifthcolumn** » 21 Dec 2007, 11:57

The problem is the "hydrogen economy" is a misnomer.

It's the ELECTRICITY economy and it's already here.

The question really is this:
Do we waste the energy in electricity by converting it to hydrogen by splitting water or something else (losing some energy in the process) and then burning it again (losing some heat in the process) to make electricity AGAIN?!?! OR
do we store it in a MUCH MORE EFFICIENT battery?

In both cases the car at the end of the day is an electric car. Why bother with a hydrogen fuel cell.

What a joke hydrogen is.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 21 Apr 2008, 21:46

Couldn't agree more. A recent ODAC piece on Hydrogen ended with this:

David Strahan, a trustee of ODAC, and the author of The Last Oil Shock: A Survival Guide to the Imminent Extinction of Petroleum Man wrote:The debate about hydrogen normally focuses on short term obstacles such as the cost of fuel cells or the lack of a fuel distribution infrastructure. But the real issue is how to produce enough of the fuel itself.

Most hydrogen today is stripped out of natural gas, a process which emits carbon dioxide ? rather defeating the climate claims of the proponents of the so-called hydrogen economy. To produce the gas cleanly and in bulk you must electrolyze water, which requires huge amounts of power. (To give an idea of scale, two chlorine plants operated in Cheshire by Ineos Chlor, which produce the chemical by electrolyzing salt water, consume more electricity than the entire city of Liverpool).

Then, to reduce the hydrogen gas to a manageable volume, it must either be chilled to -160C to become liquid, or must be compressed, both of which processes require more energy.
Because of all this, to run Britain?s road transport on cleanly generated hydrogen would require a massive expansion of electricity generating capacity: 42 Sizewell B nuclear power stations (we currently have the equivalent of 10); solar panels covering every inch of Lincolnshire; or a wind farm covering the either northwest region of England. You would be much better off developing electric vehicles, where the energy losses between wind turbine and tarmac are massively smaller. It is mystifying therefore that so many apparently intelligent people remain transfixed by the hydrogen mirage.

Post by **adam2** » 22 Apr 2008, 09:15

Batteries are not that inefficient, large lead acid batteries have an efficiency of 80/85% which compares favourably with hydrogen storage.

Unless DC current at battery voltage is required, there will be additional losses in the inverter that produces line voltage AC from the battery, however fuel cells also produce low voltage DC and would be suject to the same losses.

Fuel cells are already just about viable for small scale portable or mobile energy needs.(cost and efficiency is often secondary in such applications)

The very large scale use of fuel cells appears less likely due to the costs and losses.
Better in most cases to use, hydroelectric power, demand management, or limited peak load use of oil/gas to balance electricity demand/supply.