America's Clean Hydrogen Dreams Are Fading, Again (nytimes.com) 26
Companies are canceling clean hydrogen projects across the United States after Congress shortened the qualification window for a Biden-era tax credit by five years, requiring projects to be under construction by the end of 2027.
Energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie estimates three-quarters of proposals will not meet this deadline. Woodside Energy and Fortescue have scrapped projects in Oklahoma and Arizona respectively, citing cost increases and policy uncertainty. According to McKinsey, fewer than 15% of low-emission hydrogen projects announced in the United States since 2015 have reached final investment decision stage.
Energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie estimates three-quarters of proposals will not meet this deadline. Woodside Energy and Fortescue have scrapped projects in Oklahoma and Arizona respectively, citing cost increases and policy uncertainty. According to McKinsey, fewer than 15% of low-emission hydrogen projects announced in the United States since 2015 have reached final investment decision stage.
Wonderful concept, major problems to implement (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sign me up for the Hydrogen powered Ford Pinto.
Re: (Score:2)
Sign me up for the Hydrogen powered Ford Pinto.
Ah yes, Ford Pinto. As joked by the National Lampoon, they were the original "Chariots of Fire".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wonderful concept, major problems to implement (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a total nightmare to transport and store, it can pass through solids, embrittles steel on the way out, burns with an invisible flame, and was only available from a small handful of stations in a few states in the US. It's also so far been about as expensive as gas and almost purely produced from fossil fuel sources (moreso than today's common E10/E15 gas). Filling a hydrogen car is also not much faster than quick-charging an EV. So remind me what was so wonderful about the concept?
Re:Wonderful concept, major problems to implement (Score:4, Informative)
Don't forget that batteries have long passed fuel cells, price wise, as well as durability.
IE with a fuel cell hydrogen car, you'd still need a battery to take advantage of regenerative braking (a major mileage increase), meanwhile the fuel cell to power the car costs drastically more than a similar battery would, and would need to be replaced more often. While killing realistic ways to recharge/refuel at home.
All to save maybe 5 minutes when refueling.
Re: Wonderful concept, major problems to implement (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even then unless something has changed last I checked the majority of hydrogen sold is actually produced from natural gas rather than electrolysis so it may not be as clean as expected.
AFAIK there are no consumer vehicles storing it in a liquid state
Imho the ideal way to do it would be to produce it on site from water and electricity thus avoiding the shipping issues.
Still I think that at least for consumer vehicles it's missed its chance.
EVs already beat it in most every category, only things that need a m
Superficially appealing with a predictable fate. (Score:2)
SSL.
Solar (Score:1)
Hydrogen is an unnecessary middleman.
Solar is the future.
Re: Solar (Score:2)
Clean hydrogen is a trojan horse by big oil (Score:3, Insightful)
Absolutely nobody actually focused on sustainable energy gives hydrogen even a second of thought. Big oil has been pushing hydrogen forever as you can make it with fossil fuels, and requires siloing and pipelines and refineries - all stuff oil companies have in spades.
Other than Japan (which has no significant fossil fuel resources domestically) nobody is actually spending a dime on this stuff. It's a total red herring. Do yourself a favor and just forget about hydrogen. It barely made sense in the 90s before lithium batteries were affordable, and today it's just a hollow black hole where funding goes to die.
Hydrogen support (Score:3)
The only hydrogen I support at this point is for industrial chemical processes like refining steel and other metals.
Turns out that we can produce pure iron, ready for alloying to make steel and other alloys, by using hydrogen instead of coke, drastically reducing the energy cost and CO2 production.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah there are valid uses for hydrogen. Powering Karen's mini van is not one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Big oil has been pushing hydrogen forever as you can make it with fossil fuels, and requires siloing and pipelines and refineries - all stuff oil companies have in spades.
Well we do need something to replace fossil fuels where batteries are not ideal. Long haul trucking, rail, shipping, stationary generation, aircraft, etc. Given the choice between e-fuels and hydrogen though the former seems like a better plan, not least of which specifically because it is a drop in replacement for the existing distribution and fueling infrastructure. That is actually a feature, as anyone who has trouble finding a place to charge can attest.
Re: (Score:1)
- Continent wide dunkelflautes exist (only a problem for renewables, not nuclear).
- Biofuel based on arable land can only provide tiny amounts.
- Biofuel without arable land makes electrolysis based fuel look cheap.
- People would like continuing to fly planes.
- People would like shipping to continue to be possible.
- Direct air/ocean capture and sequestration is very expensive.
People focused on sustainable energy would unlikely be the type to go "well, we can just use a little fossil fuel without offset emiss
screw em (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
H2 was always a distraction scam (Score:2)
Re:H2 was always a distraction scam (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure hydrogen makes sense for very long distance heavy shit like semis
No, it doesn't. Semis are already available that can easily drive fully loaded for the maximum time allowed between mandatory breaks, and recharge more than enough during that break for the next shift segment. And at least in Europe, the charging infrastructure is a non-issue as well.
Not a fuel (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Wood isn't a significant fuel, at best it's just something to burn while you deforest the earth.
It's fine for a couple people, it's useless for everyone.
Re: Not a fuel (Score:2)
I always heard... (Score:3)
the push for Hydrogen was largely driven by the U.S. military and the fascination with it providing clean water (could be used for drinking water for troops) when large vehicles were driven around in the desert. Supposedly, they were behind some of the funding and pressure on GM to research and develop it.
No telling how much or little truth there was to that one? But I never saw Hydrogen as the way forward for vehicles owned by residential consumers. If you want to successfully transform things so we have options other than gasoline/diesel fuel for them, I think you have to really focus on one clear solution. Battery powered vehicles were already making progress, and they were a good fit for people putting PV solar on their roofs, too.
Existing gas stations are increasingly accepting of the idea they can invest in a DC fast charger or two on their lot, but they don't want all new Hydrogen fuel infrastructure to invest in as well!
separation (Score:2)
Have they found a less energy intensive way to separate H2O into its component pieces? Otherwise you may as well just burn the source fuel directly without the conversion loss. If it can be done with electricity, powered by wind, solar or nuclear, then it might be an OK storage medium for things that have to move long distances.
As some other commenters mentioned however, there are serious downsides to even doing that in terms of storability and safety. It would be better to pour research into making