LADWP Says It Will Shift Its Largest Gas Power Plant To Hydrogen (latimes.com) 76
Bruce66423 shares a report from the Los Angeles Times: The board of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power on Tuesday approved a controversial plan to convert part of the city's largest natural gas-fired power plant into one that also can burn hydrogen. In a 3-0 vote, the DWP board signed off on the final environmental impact report for an $800-million modernization of Units 1 and 2 of the Scattergood Generating Station in Playa del Rey. The power plant dates to the late 1950s and both units are legally required to be shut down by the end of 2029. In their place, the DWP will install new combined-cycle turbines that are expected to operate on a mixture of natural gas and at least 30% hydrogen with the ultimate goal of running entirely on hydrogen as more supply becomes available.
The hydrogen burned at Scattergood is supposed to be green, meaning it is produced by splitting water molecules through a process called electrolysis. Hydrogen does not emit planet-warming carbon dioxide when it is burned, unlike natural gas. [...] Although burning hydrogen does not produce CO2, the high-temperature combustion process can emit nitrogen oxides, or NOx, a key component of smog. [...] [T]he approved plan contains no specifics about where the hydrogen will come from or how it will get to the site. "The green hydrogen that would supply the proposed project has not yet been identified," the environmental report says. Industry experts and officials said the project will help drive the necessary hydrogen production. "Burning hydrogen produced by 'excess' solar or wind power is a means of energy storage," adds Slashdot reader Bruce66423. "The hard question is whether it's the best solution to the storage problem given that other solutions appear to be emerging that would require less infrastructure investment (think pipes to move the hydrogen to the plant and tanks to store it for later use)."
The hydrogen burned at Scattergood is supposed to be green, meaning it is produced by splitting water molecules through a process called electrolysis. Hydrogen does not emit planet-warming carbon dioxide when it is burned, unlike natural gas. [...] Although burning hydrogen does not produce CO2, the high-temperature combustion process can emit nitrogen oxides, or NOx, a key component of smog. [...] [T]he approved plan contains no specifics about where the hydrogen will come from or how it will get to the site. "The green hydrogen that would supply the proposed project has not yet been identified," the environmental report says. Industry experts and officials said the project will help drive the necessary hydrogen production. "Burning hydrogen produced by 'excess' solar or wind power is a means of energy storage," adds Slashdot reader Bruce66423. "The hard question is whether it's the best solution to the storage problem given that other solutions appear to be emerging that would require less infrastructure investment (think pipes to move the hydrogen to the plant and tanks to store it for later use)."
A plant that burns nonexistent hydrogen. (Score:5, Insightful)
Enough said.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Its chicken and egg. There won't be suppliers if there are no buyers.
It is not clear there will be suppliers even if there are buyers. Storing energy by making hydrogen is grossly inefficient. Even pumped hydro is much more efficient. It only seems to make sense if generation greatly exceeds transmission capacity for such a long time that no practical energy storage mechanism can buffer it. There are cases where wind farms are required to shut down but those are due to local weakness of the power grid and I don't think these wind farms have storage anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Its chicken and egg. There won't be suppliers if there are no buyers.
It is not clear there will be suppliers even if there are buyers. Storing energy by making hydrogen is grossly inefficient.
Inefficient, but not necessarily a non-starter. Keep in mind that the more solar gets added to the electric network, there very well can be an excess of power at times. Excess power is starting to become a problem in the European grids these days. However, when there is more power than demand, you can divert that excess electricity to create hydrogen basically for free. The hydrogen can be stored and turned back into electricity later, e.g. at night when solar production is nil.
Re: (Score:2)
This particular plant is on the coast, between a refinery (with offshore tanker terminal) and a very large sewage treatment plant. It is a nearly ideal location for offshore wind turbines. Specific to LA DWP there is a need for a lot of excess capacity in this area because it is relatively landlocked for transmission capacity-- with Scattergood down it is hard to serve all the City of LA customers south and west of downtown.
Personally I think a small modular reactor at Scattergood makes more sense than burn
Re: (Score:2)
Storing energy by making hydrogen is grossly inefficient.
By grossly inefficient you mean twice as efficient as one of the most common ways we convert stored energy: burning gasoline in an otto cycle?
Yes it is inefficient, around 40-50%. But it does have some benefits in that it actually scales quite well compared to say batteries. Inefficiency starts mattering less when you run in market of negative power generation, and can have a planned form of power delivery. By that I mean it makes economic sense use excess solar / wind to electrolyse hydrogen and store it f
Re: (Score:2)
By grossly inefficient you mean twice as efficient as one of the most common ways we convert stored energy: burning gasoline in an otto cycle?
Irrelevant to the discussion at hand, where no otto cycle engines are involved.
Yes it is inefficient, around 40-50%. But it does have some benefits in that it actually scales quite well compared to say batteries.
It doesn't. That's why TCO on a HFCEV is far higher than a BEV.
Re: (Score:2)
How can it twice as efficient when it's still just burning fuel in the same Otto cycle (or rather Brayton cycle for turbines)? Mixing in some hydrogen doesn't let you cheat thermodynamics.
Re: (Score:2)
Storing/transporting hydrogen at scale has significant negative climate impacts. it's much harder to store and inevitably has leakage. Let alone the increased maintenance of embrittlement. There may be niche uses that outweigh it's negatives but 'at scale' it's not a viable solution.
linky [edf.org]
Re: A plant that burns nonexistent hydrogen. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrogen from surplus solar/wind, energy storage (Score:2)
Enough said.
Actually there is quite a bit to say ...
The summary mentions the hydrogen will displace some natural gas used for electrical power generation: "convert part of the city's largest natural gas-fired power plant into one that also can burn hydrogen"
While the plan does not specifically identify a source, another poster points out that hydrogen production can be an "energy storage" method for any surplus solar or wind power on a given day.
Also the thing they signed off on is the final environmental impa
Re: (Score:2)
...While the plan does not specifically identify a source,
Stop right there. It wasn't the article that "did not specifically identify a source". The article said that the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power didn't identify a source.
another poster points out that hydrogen production can be an "energy storage" method for any surplus solar or wind power on a given day.
If you follow the technology, right now production of hydrogen by electrolysis is slow, inefficient, and relies on expensive catalysts.
Maybe someday it won't, but right now, hydrogen is made... from natural gas.
Re: (Score:2)
If you follow the technology, right now production of hydrogen by electrolysis is slow, inefficient, and relies on expensive catalysts.
So you admit the article identifies a source; you simply dismissed it because you think it will not work.
Re: (Score:2)
If you follow the technology, right now production of hydrogen by electrolysis is slow, inefficient, and relies on expensive catalysts.
So you admit the article identifies a source; you simply dismissed it because you think it will not work.
It wasn't me who said that they have not identified a source. I was quoting the article, which stated that they had not identified a source.
Re: (Score:2)
While the plan does not specifically identify a source, another poster points out that hydrogen production can be an "energy storage" method for any surplus solar or wind power on a given day.
Right. And that's the interesting question, what's the best way to store surplus solar/wind electricity? Batteries? Hydrogen (to be burned or to run a fuel cell)? Sold to other grids who need it and bought back when they have a surplus? As hot sand?
I wouldn't jump to the assumption that generating, storing, and burning hydrogen is obviously best. It does have the nice benefit that one might generate it on-site (you've got the high capacity tie to the grid just sitting there, right?) and you're using a very
Re: (Score:2)
You are wrong. Hydrogen is one of the most efficient chemical P2F solutions available, and that's the reason it has so much attention.
Of course is inefficient if you compare against NON chemical storage like batteries or air pressure. But in the chemical conversions, is one of the best. All are inefficient, but hydrogen is the best of them.
The problem is that the overall efficiency includes other complexities like storage AND very expensive infrastructure at current prices. And that's the reason it still fa
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrogen is one of the most efficient chemical P2F solutions available, and that's the reason it has so much attention.
I read a great report by the Rocky Mountain Institute around 2000. They went through all the math of various hydrogen solutions, taking into account all the various efficiencies. It would be fun to see an update.
As I wrote, suppose you have a spare kWh of electric power. What do you do with it? There's lots of choices, including just "venting" it if it turns out none of the storage solutions are cheaper than just burning a cubic foot of natural gas. The good news is we seem to have lots of people trying var
Re: A plant that burns nonexistent hydrogen. (Score:2)
Batteries, too? [Re: A plant that burns nonexi...] (Score:2)
Making electricity from gas made with electricity is retarded.
Think of it as using electricity to perform a chemical reaction, then reversing that chemical reaction to make electricity.
This is what a battery does.
Re: Batteries, too? [Re: A plant that burns nonexi (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but a battery is much more efficient.
Today.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. It might not be technologically apt, but if you think of the gas as a "battery that can hold a charge for a really long time" it makes sense. The question is more "is this a reasonable approach with our current technologies?", and I don't know the answer to that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, the plan is ... (Score:5, Informative)
Solar -> Electricity -> Electrolysis -> Hydrogen -> Combustion Turbine -> Electricity
Why not:
Solar -> Electricity -> Battery -> Electricity
It would appear that the latter would have a better end to end efficiency. Bypassing the losses in electrolysis and combustion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So, the plan is ... (Score:2)
Batteries are expensive and don't scale on demand very well. Steel tanks can be produced much more quickly and cheaply.
Electrons are easy to move; molecules are easy to stockpile.
This is a tradeoff. Tradeoffs exist in real life. The reality distortion field has little effect on them.
Re: (Score:2)
Batteries are expensive and don't scale on demand very well. Steel tanks can be produced much more quickly and cheaply.
I'm going to disagree. Remember, we're talking about H2, the smallest molecule, which has a lot of trouble being contained and also tends to make metals weak and brittle (or hydrogen embrittlement). An H2 tank failure is not a good thing. :)
OTOH, batteries aren't all that hard to make and they can build a new Tesla Megapack in an hour or so. (Of course, there is a wait list, but getting the right number of packs is an exercise in up-front planning.) Last I heard, a Megapack3 is about $1.4M to hold ~5MWh. I
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully the plan is not to greenwash ... (Score:2)
Solar -> Electricity -> Electrolysis -> Hydrogen -> Combustion Turbine -> Electricity
Why not:
Solar -> Electricity -> Battery -> Electricity
It would appear that the latter would have a better end to end efficiency. Bypassing the losses in electrolysis and combustion.
Which batteries? The ones manufactured in the US/EU with proper pollution controls? Or the ones manufactured in Mongolia that are turning the place into a toxic wasteland? But hey, cheap batteries, greenwashed virtue signaling vibes, and Mongolia is far away.
CCP - the greatest polluter on earth (Score:2)
A Mongolian is far less polluting than an American.
The Mongolians are the victims. The polluter is the Chinese Communist Party. The greatest polluter on earth.
"In 2023, China was the biggest carbon polluter in the world by far, having released 11.9 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (GtCO). Although the U.S. was the second-biggest emitter, with 4.9 GtCO in 2023, its CO emissions have declined by 13 percent since 2010. By comparison, China’s CO emissions have increased by more than 38 percent in the same period. ""
https://www.statista.com/stati. [statista.com]
Combustion is not the only option ... (Score:2)
Solar -> Electricity -> Electrolysis -> Hydrogen -> Combustion Turbine -> Electricity
Why not:
Solar -> Electricity -> Battery -> Electricity
It would appear that the latter would have a better end to end efficiency. Bypassing the losses in electrolysis and combustion.
See Fuel Cell post below yours. Combustion is not the only option.
https://hardware.slashdot.org/... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Solar -> Electricity -> Electrolysis -> Hydrogen -> Combustion Turbine -> Electricity
Why not:
Solar -> Electricity -> Battery -> Electricity
It would appear that the latter would have a better end to end efficiency. Bypassing the losses in electrolysis and combustion.
See Fuel Cell post below yours. Combustion is not the only option. https://hardware.slashdot.org/... [slashdot.org]
Fuel cell efficiency sucks, too. Sure, maybe it's half again more efficient or even twice as efficient, but a battery would be more like 5x as efficient.
Re: (Score:2)
Solar -> Electricity -> Electrolysis -> Hydrogen -> Combustion Turbine -> Electricity
Why not:
Solar -> Electricity -> Battery -> Electricity
It would appear that the latter would have a better end to end efficiency. Bypassing the losses in electrolysis and combustion.
Depends on how much energy you want to store and how long you want to store it.
The size of a battery is directly proportional to how much energy you store. If the battery provides a megawatt for ten hours, the battery weighs ten times as much as a battery providing a megawatt for one hour. On the other hand, for a fuel cell, only the storage tank is proportional to how much energy you store (and the storage tank is by far the cheapest part of the fuel cell system). The longer the storage period, the more a
Re:So, the plan is ... (Score:5, Informative)
Depends on how much energy you want to store and how long you want to store it.
Not really, no.
The size of a battery is directly proportional to how much energy you store. If the battery provides a megawatt for ten hours, the battery weighs ten times as much as a battery providing a megawatt for one hour. On the other hand, for a fuel cell, only the storage tank is proportional to how much energy you store (and the storage tank is by far the cheapest part of the fuel cell system). The longer the storage period, the more attractive fuel cells are.
If you're rolling it around on wheels, maybe. For a fixed installation, weight has exactly zero relevance. You're putting it on top of a concrete slab on top of dirt. Who cares how much it weighs?
Volumetric density might matter sometimes. Typical density for hydrogen peaks at about 40 kg per cubic meter (assuming Google search isn't lying to me). With a fuel cell, this will maybe give you 1320 kWh. But then you need additional space for the fuel cell itself, plus compressors to compress the hydrogen on the way in.
Batteries give you half the energy density, but that's all you have to have. Electricity in, electricity out.
Which one is more dense depends entirely on A. how quickly you need to store the incoming hydrogen (size/number of compressors) and B. how quickly you need to be able to turn the hydrogen in your tanks into electricity. Because the batteries will be instant. The power is just there. Whereas with fuel cells you need more/bigger fuel cells depending on how high your kW output needs to be. So storing huge amounts of power is more dense with hydrogen if you only need to dribble it out, but massively less dense if you need to dump all of the stored energy in an hour or two.
And realistically, for grid-tied energy storage, that second case is more common than the first. You aren't going to store energy for a year unless you're in Alaska had have all-day twilight for several months. No, you're going to store the energy during the day and use the vast majority of it between the middle of the afternoon to the early evening. It's probably a three or four hour window in which you will be dumping all the energy that you stored, give or take.
But to make matters worse for hydrogen, they're talking about burning it, not using it in a fuel cell. The efficiency there is maybe half the efficiency of a fuel cell. So when used in that way, batteries are more efficient in terms of volumetric density than hydrogen even BEFORE you factor in all the space for the turbines to burn it and turn it into electricity! This is absolutely *insanely* space-inefficient.
Add to that the problem of hydrogen embrittlement, where you have to keep replacing those storage tanks every few years, not to mention the pipes, turbines, etc., and it quickly becomes obvious that this project is a giant money pit in which Southern California will burn dollars and turn them into a negligible amount of temporary power storage.
There's no way in this world that burning hydrogen from electrolysis at somewhere in the neighborhood of 20% round-trip efficiency makes sense. This is quite possibly the single most clueless idea ever to come out of California's government in the history of California's government. The only people this makes sense for are the ones who are bilking the taxpayers by building out this infrastructure. Because it will never be useful. It will always be more efficient to use the incoming energy to charge batteries, or to do something else. Even when you're talking about things like nuclear power and using waste heat to crack water into hydrogen, you'd still be more efficient with any number of other thermoelectric energy capture systems going straight to electricity and storing it in a battery.
Hydrogen is not the answer. Hydrogen is the question. No is the answer. Always. For literally any purpose you could possibly come up with other than fusion.
Case dependent [Re:So, the plan is ...] (Score:2)
The size of a battery is directly proportional to how much energy you store. If the battery provides a megawatt for ten hours, the battery weighs ten times as much as a battery providing a megawatt for one hour. On the other hand, for a fuel cell, only the storage tank is proportional to how much energy you store (and the storage tank is by far the cheapest part of the fuel cell system). The longer the storage period, the more attractive fuel cells are.
If you're rolling it around on wheels, maybe. For a fixed installation, weight has exactly zero relevance.
Correct. But you missed the point. Weight is not the issue. Volume is not the issue. Cost is the issue. Fuel cells are expensive. Storage tanks are cheap. The longer your storage period, the more of the set-up is the cheap part rather than the expensive part.
Later in your post you seem to understand this point. The rest of your argument seems to be "I have done this trade-off calculation in my head and assert that 'No is the answer. Always'."
Sorry, but no. The trade off between batteries and fuel cells
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. But you missed the point. Weight is not the issue. Volume is not the issue. Cost is the issue. Fuel cells are expensive. Storage tanks are cheap. The longer your storage period, the more of the set-up is the cheap part rather than the expensive part.
In practice, storing energy for a longer period of time is basically never done, with the only real exception I can think of being space travel. And it's not how long the storage period is that matters. It's how quickly you need to get the energy when you're done. Sure, if you store a year worth of energy in a day and dribble it out over a year, a tiny fuel cell and a huge tank is great for cost. But literally space travel is the only practical application of that. For every real-world application othe
Electrolyzer efficiency [Re:So, the plan is ...] (Score:2)
Modern tech at scale is between 80-90%.
Modern tech doesn't exist at the scale needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Modern tech at scale is between 80-90%.
Fuel cell efficiency is at best about 60%. So no, you do NOT have 80% round-trip efficiency, unless you've found a way to violate the first law of thermodynamics.
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrogen is not the answer. Hydrogen is the question. No is the answer. Always. For literally any purpose you could possibly come up with other than fusion.
I'm with you regarding hydrogen as energy capture. It should be noted however that hydrogen may be relevant to displacing fossil fuels in chemical applications, such as in making steel [europa.eu].
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrogen is not the answer. Hydrogen is the question. No is the answer. Always. For literally any purpose you could possibly come up with other than fusion.
I'm with you regarding hydrogen as energy capture. It should be noted however that hydrogen may be relevant to displacing fossil fuels in chemical applications, such as in making steel [europa.eu].
I would still expect it to be less efficient than electric arc furnaces, but maybe not, so I'll grant you that this might be a very narrow use case, solely because burning the fuel source is actually important for that. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Add to that the problem of hydrogen embrittlement, where you have to keep replacing those storage tanks every few years,
This.
I didn't even touch on this because I've never worked the problem of hydrogen storage at power generation scales. But an application I worked needed hydrogen (and cost/efficiency wasn't an object). After considering all the tank/plumbing issues, we went with just making it as needed.
it quickly becomes obvious that this project is a giant money pit in which Southern California will burn dollars and turn them into a negligible amount of temporary power storage.
Has anyone done a study of burning the dollars directly in a thermal plant?
This is quite possibly the single most clueless idea ever to come out of California's government in the history of California's government.
Not even close.
One thing hinted at: The hydrogen production/storage/transportation could also be used for fuel cell vehicles. So this could be a b
Re: (Score:2)
IIUC, they're talking about turbines, so probably not fuel cells. (And fuel cells have their own problems, which is why they aren't more popular.)
Re:So, the plan is ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's some efficiency numbers...
If you start with & stay with electricity, after transportation/distribution, you end up with ~94% of your original energy starting amount at the site for usage.
If you start with electricity then change to H2, after electrolysis + transportation/distribution, you end up with ~68% of your original starting energy at the site for usage.
Hmm, which is more, 94% or 68%? :) It is never better to go from electricity to H2 for energy unless you have an absurdly special use case (aviation is the only niche I can think of where it *might* make sense if you squint just right). The research has been done (from article "Why Battery Electric Vehicles Beat Hydrogen Electric Vehicles Without Breaking A Sweat" where they used to have an amazingly useful chart to show the numbers which is now gone and only findable on the Wayback Machine). As long as they're going to burn the H2, I can stop there.
However for those who say "use a fuel cell" for the H2 to make electricity, the chart goes on to show the overall efficiency for electric only (or solar->electricity->battery->electricty) to end up at 77%. Meanwhile, the fuel cell route causes the overall efficiency to end up at a frightening 33% of original energy left. That further reinforces the idea that if you start with electricity, just stay there.
Re: (Score:2)
If you start with electricity then change to H2, after electrolysis + transportation/distribution, you end up with ~68% of your original starting energy at the site for usage.
Hmm, which is more, 94% or 68%?
You forgot that this is about gas turbines. They're going to BURN the hydrogen. Divide that 68% number by two, and that's still probably wildly optimistic. More realistic numbers are probably more like 20%.
Re: (Score:2)
Modern combined-cycle gas turbines are much more efficient than that. Most new installations now get around 60% efficiency if not better, and the current record is 64.18%, set by a Siemens turbine at Keadby Unit 2 Power Station in the UK. The end result won't be 68%, but it also won't be 34%. Given the losses associated with electrolysis, the net is likely to be around 50%, which still makes it a bad idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Modern combined-cycle gas turbines are much more efficient than that. Most new installations now get around 60% efficiency if not better, and the current record is 64.18%, set by a Siemens turbine at Keadby Unit 2 Power Station in the UK. The end result won't be 68%, but it also won't be 34%.
60% efficiency times 68% is 40.8% efficiency. Yeah, that's slightly better than 34%, but in much the same way that a s**t sandwich is slightly better than s**t. :-)
And this will still be capable of running on natural gas, which probably means it won't be optimal efficiency-wise for either fuel.
Given the losses associated with electrolysis, the net is likely to be around 50%, which still makes it a bad idea.
The losses from electrolysis alone make it a bad idea, even if the next step were 100% efficient. It just gets worse from there.
Re: (Score:2)
You stopped at hydrogen onsite, which means you missed the inefficiency of the CCGT.
68% X 60% (an in your best dreams CCGT efficiency) = 41%
Re: (Score:2)
Because maybe you are thinking in storage LOTS of energy?
Think about it. A battery is amortized with usage. You have a range of batteries, but usually the best for BES is very stable batteries that can support 5.000-10.000 cycles.
So even if they battery + infrastructure costs you 300 $ per kwh, each cycle depends on
150/10.000 = 0,03 $/kwh cycled. Cheap enough.
But... how much time takes to do 10.000 cycles?
If you do a cycle per day, that's 10.000 days or around 27 years. Let's round to 30. Still reasonable.
B
Re: (Score:2)
Could be because they want spinning mass to help with stability, or it could be because they want to wring more profit out of an existing investment instead of switching to batteries.
Re: (Score:2)
Efficiency and economics vary with scale. Any storage solution that scales simply with the size of storing a material ultimately beats out economically another storage solution that has a fixed cost for increase when it is scaled up.
Honestly I'm surprised flow redux batteries aren't more popular for this reason, they scale in capacity with liquid storage much like hydrogen storage would.
The problem here isn't efficiency, the problem is safety. Hydrogen storage only makes economic sense in large scales, prec
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is LA. There are unions who expect their fair share of graft and corruption. The more inefficient that process, the more union jobs, the more donations to re-election war chests.
Politics as usual in the Pyrite State.
Once they make the effort to get H2 by itself (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe they'll be motivated to understand that you get much better efficiency from it with fuel cells than with thermal expansion.
Yes... and no.
First, combined-cycle natural gas generators are well down the learning curve. There is no problem producing megawatts, even gigawatts, with natural gas, and converting this to hydrogen is straightforward. Fuel cells, on the other hand, have never been scaled up.
Second, fuel cells are expensive, use rare materials like platinum for catalysts. Third, it's not clear that they can last for thousands of cycles.
So, trading some efficiency for a technology that's know, reliable, and cheap? Might
Re: (Score:2)
There are no sunk costs around the turbines. The existing turbines will be replaced. From TFS:
In their place, the DWP will install new combined-cycle turbines that are expected to operate on a mixture of natural gas and at least 30% hydrogen with the ultimate goal of running entirely on hydrogen as more supply becomes available.
They're reusing the land and part of the existing structure on it.
If you make hydrogen you can make methane (Score:3, Interesting)
And the beautiful thing about methane is it requires absolutely no changes to the gas plant since natural gas is almost entirely methane. There is also existing storage, pipeline, and processing infrastructure that handles natural gas.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Coal gas (Score:2)
No one uses clean hydrogen past the demo (Score:2)
after the demo where they massively overpay for clean hydrogen they start burning the stuff you get from natural gas.
Hydrogen is BS in all practical applications.
I have a perpetual motion machine I'd like to sell (Score:3)
Oooohhh, i know. (Score:2)
because... (Score:2)
Because why not spend money we don't have on making everybody's energy more expensive. Our reward will be in the next world.