dutchguylivingintheuk
Über Member
Sorry i don't agree, first of zeppelins used hydrogen gas not liquified hydrogen, and we have modern technologies like a release valve, that combines with the fact that hydrogen is lighter than air and therefore diffuses very quickly makes the comparison with a zeppelin a bit silly. In the zeppeling the ideal circumstances for an explosion where created, it was also which made the zeppelin fly, but on a fuel cell powered car the release valve would release the hydrogen in very small amounts, and therefore prevent a fire form happening in the first place. This is an well documented fact from our goverment '' Hydrogen has a wide flammability range (4-74% in air) and the energy required to ignite hydrogen (0.02mJ) can be very low. However,
at low concentrations(below 10%) the energy required to ignite hydrogen is high--similar to the energy required to ignite natural gas and gasoline in their respective flammability ranges--making hydrogen realistically more difficult to ignite near the lower flammability limit'' (source: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/h2_safety_fsheet.pdf ) Batteries on the contrary do not catch fire very quickly although, the sudden enormous rise in demand has lead to many cowboys trying to make a big buck, and therefore a much higher risk although technically most fires start in control boards as (chinese) companies are good in making an one fits all design that works really well until it doesn't and the circuits overloads. but the problem with a battery that is on fire is that is very hard to put out.
Such as? I mean numerous truck companies, Toyota Hyundai beg to differ, they both make these vehicles for multiple years now.Hyrdogen is certainly a option which will have its place in the inherently diversified energy production and storage world we need to create post fossil fuels. But it has significant challenges and comparing with battery technology doesn't make sense for a large number of use cases (including cars).
No battery technology is canibalising itself, the only survivors are the cheaper but slightly better cells but new battery technologies, like Ericson's Li-polymer, like the numberours attemps to create batteries that use nuclear waste don't come from the ground. Because we live in a word where everything for the big buck and the least amount of efforts gets rewarded. i'm pretty sure(but it still is an opinion) that 90% of the so called green industries do not gave a fark about the planet.Battery technology advances have been primarily around making it cheaper to produce which has been extraordinarily successful. It is true that other measures have been much slower, but we have got too used to the lightening fast technical progress of things like silicon chips. Most things don't progress quickly, and neither does solving the problems around using Hydrogen for energy storage.
You always gonna have those companies, however with hydrogen it was mainly after the 2000's with Al-gore instead of Greta when they where still trying to make combustion engines run on hydrogen.(which can be done but with a huge performance penalty) yet i read you above writing hydrogen has no future, but truck companies in many countries, busses, andin the US also normal cars are using it, so how do you explain that? Is the UK that one exception where there are big thing against hydrogen that work everywhere except for the uk?Some companies are promoting Hydrogen. Mostly fossil fuel companies who rather like the idea of it because currently there isn't really another economic game in town other than obtaining it as the by product of the oil refining process. Electrolysis is a fine option for Hydrogen (water is plentiful after all) if one ignores the eye watering energy demands to do so. Then recombining to recoup the energy isn't currently energy efficient leading to system efficiencies well below battery technology. It isn't much good having capacity to store twice as much energy if half of it is lost in the process.
Yes but compared with heat pumps what is now hailed the solution the problem is exactly the same. it's just going to be a bigger unit, or an system with one big unit that generates and smaller unit that heats it up locally. You can buy that for your tap too a little boiler that you put in between your boiler and tap so you have warm water quicker. a electric shower also is that very same principle, so it's not like we haven't dealt with those issues before, i don't known how populair those red-diesel heating was here but that was also a massive machine with often smaller boilers around the house.On home energy heating, the problems are huge. Hydrogen, being a tiny molecule, has a capability to leak through pipes as well as being corrosive to the types of pipes in homes. It wouldn't be simply changing the boiler. Storing and moving involves low temperatures or high pressures which brings its own challenges - certainly against natural gas which is a far more amenable chemical.
Also Simply swapping the boiler wouldn't happen anyway if someone come completely off gas, but the problem shouldn't also be made bigger than it is, on a house that does not use gas for cooking, the gas only comes in at the boiler, there it heats the water for either heating or hot water, it's not like all heating pipe are needing to be replaced or something
Well obviously batteries are here to stay, it's an technology that has already had a lot of development and it's easy to invest a little in it and claim huge advancements but realistically battery technology isn't going that fast at all or better said it's going fast in the direction that benefit those making an quick buck not the direction that is best for us as humanity or real advancement of the technology.Now none of this means Hydrogen is a waste of time. It just isn't in the same ballpark as battery energy storage. It may find its way into heavy vehicle transportation as an alternative to hugely polluting fuels. It will have a role in energy management but the challenges are big and batteries are here to stay.
Last edited: