In this post RMP debunks Dr. Ulf Bossel’s anti-hydrogen thesis that has been propagated for years and was even published as recent as October 26, 2017 by Electrek. Dr. Bossel’s thesis says that making hydrogen is wasteful but ironically terawatt hours of electricity are being curtailed or wasted because we are not using that energy to make hydrogen. Read this post if you want to learn why so much energy is being wasted that could be used to make clean green hydrogen.
RMP is 501(c)3 non-profit organization registered in Michigan. We are committed to protecting fresh water resources by advocating for: sustainable energy production, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, remediating environmental pollution & rethinking waste management.
Important issues. Difficult to read.
The main facts and points are mixed up and confused with comments about the Anti Hydrogen people.
Ken points should be stated simply and directly without a lot of unnecessary comments.
Fair enough Ken. Thanks for reading.
Resonating with Ken on this: overload on target attack. But on the other hand, the good Dr. maybe talking about an isolated H2 system from prime source to H2. Then numbers are correct.
It is a very different matter to figure out an escape from the isolated case. IF CASIO & world body of generators are aware of the ungenerated electricity, that is also a fine information. But what will add credence to RMP position in a revised paper would be to demonstrate that these people , politics, money people will allow to have H2 generators soaking up extra generation- I would imagine colocation of H2 gens..one way. Knowing all this, I think it would require mighty force to overcome. Understood, Dr Bossell does not deal with this possibility at all. The systems approach to suck in the extra energy to be stored in H2 is what RMP has to present to make this Article totally immune to ad Hominem.
nice read
Thx
This “so called” debunking appears to be seriously flawed. The argument about not including H2 from steam reformed methane is nonsensical. Each 2 kg of methane would produce 5.5 kg of CO2 – What are you going to do with the CO2? Put it in the atmosphere? We know that sequestering does not work.
As for using hydrolysis for H2. Each kg of H2 requires 9 kg of water!. Where are you going to get the water??
This rebuttal is totally busted.
I think when you say “hydrolysis” you mean “electrolysis”? The world is 2/3 water. Hydrogen is the most abundant element on the planet, so there’s plenty for everyone.
Thanks for long and detailed arguments. The reason why Natural gas is ignored is actually quite simple. In order to decarbonize the world to slow down climate change the fossil fuels need to stay in ground. If you are going to make hydrogen from natural gas, you may as well run your car on natural gas. Both ways you still heating up the planet.
So for people focused on greenhouse gas emission cuts, hydrogen from gas derived from fossil sources if off the tables.
I agree with the other comments on the use of natural gas. Not only because of the CO2 emissions, there is also a significant energy loss (25-35%) during the reaction of CH4 with H2O.
Another key issue is the economic penalty due to the intermittency of wind and solar energy, knowing that these energies will first meet the demand for electricity and that hydropower is used to meet the peaks in electricity demand.
BS article. DR. Bossel is solidly grounded in his position on the hydrogen economy.
Please elaborate on what is BS about the article. Which argument(s) do you disagree with? It’s getting harder to argue against the points I made in the article because there is evidence mounting more & more that prove out the points. Here is just one recent example with Air Liquide in Hobro Denmark called the HyBalance Project. Air Liquide, working with Hydrogenics out of Toronto Canada area, will be converting “waste” electricity into 500kg of carbon free hydrogen each day. This is one example of many that supports my argument and there are many more going on around the world. You say “its BS” but my points are not theoretical, they’re substantiated with more and more real world examples. You sound like sour grapes. It’s a good thing to use otherwise wasted energy to reduce our imports of energy. Is this your LinkedIn page Lawrence? If so, it looks like you’re a technical writer, do you have any papers you’ve published that support your points that argue mine? I would rather read some technical support to your argument instead of just “its BS”.
Agree! Bossel’s article is based on the universal laws of physics and thermodynamics. Indeed, if there were “waste energy” you might consider to turn it into hydrogen. However, such “waste energy” is only produced by windmills and solar panels at moments of sunshine at hours of low demand, or moments of high winds at hours of low demand. This happens at only a small proportion of time (at present, max. 10%). Who would invest in a hydrogen electrolysis plant which runs only 10% of time? This article is just promotion of a company that makes it’s money from production of hydrogen generation equipment.
This article has valid points that show why hydrogen energy storage is good for society and will be encouraged by policy makers.
People commenting on this article must realize technological tendencies that are becoming apparent:
1) Semi trucks cannot effectively use batteries to power propulsion because the weight of the batteries consumes an enormous amount of the payload of the semi truck. Also semi trucks emit an a lot of CO2. The only foreseeable way to decarbonize semi trucks is with hydrogen fuel cells. Thank you Toyota and Nikola for developing hydrogen fuel cell trucks.
2) Although steam methane reforming produces some CO2, it is much less than an internal combustion engine. Also the methane used in the reforming process can be sourced from biological sources (landfills, bio-digesters, etc.). The amount of H2 supplied from reforming will be reduced in the future, but at the beginning of the hydrogen transition, the budgetary benefit of hydrogen from reforming cannot be ignored.
I dislike arguments between battery and hydrogen promoters because the focus should be on the environment and the benefit to society. Battery cars are great for individuals who want a commuter car, but the technology also has limitations. Anyone who does not admit the benefit of both technologies is sincerely biased. (In fact the technologies complement each other very well: a hydrogen range extender in conjunction with a battery electric vehicle can increase the vehicle’s range so that the vehicle can be driven longer distances and refueled quickly.)
Thanks Josh.
Dear Mat
I just ran across your article about my fundamental analysis of a hydrogen economy. I cannot recall the E-mail you claim to have sent 10 years ago, but I normally reply to messages of technical relevance. Anyway, I appreciate your concerns about my founded conclusions. We both share the goal of establishing a clean and sustainable energy future without CO2 based on energy from renewable source. For that we suggest significant modifications of our energy system. We booth realize that energy transport to the consumer is a key issue of the energy transition. Energy harvested from renewable sources has to be distributed to the users with highest efficiency and lowest cost using, whenever possible, existing infrastructures. Now comes the point you have not properly considered in your article. Most renewable energy will be harvested in the form of electricity. Electric power can be distributed to users by exiting grids or directly from PV roofs to batteries in the basement. Only minor changes are needed for the establishment of an “Electron Economy”. Green electricity is clean, affordable and of universal use. About 90% of the primary Energy is available to satisfy consumer needs. If hydrogen is chosen as energy carrier, most of the green electricity is lost in or has to be supplied to various technical processes like water make-up, electrolysis, compression or liquefaction, transport, transfer to tanks, pressurizing again for transfer into vehicles, losses in fuel cells, DC-AC conversion etc. All these stages are technically matured and well described by laws of physics and engineering. No significant efficiency improvements are possible. The total energy required to deliver primary electricity via hydrogen and fuel cells to the consumer is significant. Depending on the chosen hydrogen route, only 15 to 30 % of the original energy is available for practical use. Furthermore, a new infrastructure is needed. We have to solve an energy problem by established physics and rational engineering and not by wishful thinking. We now have the choice betweena swift completion of the energy and climate transition by a most efficient “Electron Economy” or starting a wasteful “Hydrogen Economy” that will eventually fail because not enough green electricity can be harvested and because of excessive costs. Also, who would invest in a 5 MW electrolyser system to rescue the power output of a 5 MW wind turbine for a few hours per year? You may have noticed the trends in the automobile sector. All automobile and bus companies have shifted their attention to battery-electric solutions. Also, people will soon discover that green power from the roof top is much less expensive than hydrogen supplied by pipe lines. In other words, the implementation of a clean energy transition is endangered by a hasty start into a hydrogen economy.
Please study my original publication (The Future of the Hydrogen economy: Bright or Bleak?) again and reconsider your statements.
Ulf Bossel
ubossel@bluewin.ch
Thank you for taking the time to read the post and reply but the arguments you make are weak. In this article written nearly 4 years ago I posited a prediction to prove how wrong your argument is to think that we can use either battery or hydrogen. I posited that California would soon curtail 100MWh as proof of how wrong you are to think we must choose one or the other. I updated this post in April (just two months ago) because California curtailed over 350MWh!! There are no batteries that can store this energy cost effectively so it is wasted. Just as I predicted and was vindicated. This is why we still have zero off-grid battery fast-charging stations using renewable energy. I just posted yesterday about this. If you want to charge BEVs with renewable energy at scale and economically, it will require hydrogen fuel cells. Hydrogen fuel cells work together with batteries. They’re both nearly the same thing: an anode, a cathode, and an electrolyte. For you to continue to profess a false dichotomy that does not exist and say we must choose just one technology, I say what I said nearly 4 years ago: you’re wrong. We must use both. RMP has no issue with batteries and fully supports battery technology alongside hydrogen fuel cells.
Curtailing is standard in power engineering. Power plants are designed for maximum needs, but operated at 50% output or less. Also, cars engines deliver 200 kW, although only 20 kW are needed for normal driving. To convert unused green power into hydrogen, you need electrolyzers and equipment. The question is not the use of free electricity, but the amortization of expensive equipment for hydrogen production from water make-up to supply to the consumer. The total investiment will lead to unaffordable cost of hydrogen. Please accept the reality and do not worry about the “waste” of green electricity. For a safe energy supply we have to oversize the generating capacities. Batteries in the end sector will be useful. Intermittent energy storage with hydrogen is a fading opton. Please look at the fate of hydrogen-fuel cell cars. High expectations in 2000, Today a dead horse. Electromobility has suceeded.
The paragraph above is from a Reuters article published 4 days ago. Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm calls green hydrogen a game changer with a cost of $1 per kg. Do you think $1/kg is expensive?
The Dapartment of Energy should respect physics instead of publishing wishful thoughts. A Hydrogen Economy will be a total flop. There are always better solutions for power to the people. We can watch this in the car industry. 20 years ago hydrogen fuel cell cars were just around the corner. Now the hype has gone. Battery electric cars prove to be the better solution well-to-wheel. we will see the same in all segments of hydrogen trials.
just to get notifications
The fundamentals of Bossel’s papers are still remaining actual. Whatever the progress of the methods of converting the water-power system into H2 + 1/2 O2, the thermodynamic limitations for electrolysis, H2 compression and possibly the reverse of electrolysis will cause a great waste of energy. Thus much higher cost for H2 than for power, particularly for transport. As a result, economics will prioritize power over H2. In Europe, car builders are starting to realize that.
Consequently, economics will give priority to power over H2, except possibly in the event of overproduction of renewable energies.
For example, renewables are able to provide 23% of Germany’s power. But when there is a production of wind or solar power exceeding the demand, Germany is OBLIGED to export at low cost or even at negative cost. See for example “Figure 20 – Daily average wholesale power prices in the CWE region”. (Germany, France, Netherland, Belgium). In this period, the average price of power in this area is 40 € / MWh. But only German prices fall 6 times under 30 € / Mwh because of its obligation to export the excess power. It is in these periods that it will be interesting to store energy in H2. This is hardly sufficient to justify the necessary investments.
When the wind is blowing, it’s everywhere in northern Europe. When all of Germany’s neighbors will be equipped like him, what will happen? Electrolysers everywhere operating for a few weeks a year ?
The H2 route could be more realistic with offshore wind turbines, but the power cost will be larger.
Hi Matt, good article! just to add my two pennies worth to the ‘graph’ debate’
Dr Bossel’s graph is purely based on efficiencies and is more or less correct – my take away is h2 production is never going to be efficient (actually very inefficient) due to the laws of physics – therefore it doesn’t make any sense to convert energy in such an inefficient manner.
This is fairly black and white, but perfectly reasonable argument to put forward, however, the real world throws in many other variables that need to be factored in when looking at the bigger energy picture. Here are just a few:-
1 The problem with ‘renewables’ has always been intermittency
2 Cost of solar and wind power continues to drop – only five years ago the UK Gov’ assessment on wind costs were out by 30-50% below current costs and this continues to go down – less the £40 MWh in some cases.
3 UK is currently building Hinkley point C nuclear power plant estimated at £92.50 per MWh (although this price is likely to rise further).
4 It is widely reported the cost of producing green hydrogen is going to be on parity with grey in the next ten years in many parts of the world.
5 First UK Gov’ subsidy free wind farms are due to start operating in 2023
Given the economics of energy are driven by price, my question would be at which point does the science/ efficiency argument fall away? – does it ever? – but even UB must admit at some point the principle no longer has relevance given the wider economic factors (lets simplify as ‘price’) – hitting the necessary sweet spot – at which point H2 conversion efficiency no longer really matters.
A report commissioned by Greenpeace back in 2016 makes interesting reading on a real life example https://tinyurl.com/xftetcbz. Please take into account the report is from 2016 so costs for wind have gone down dramatically and the cost for Hinkley C have gone up dramatically. Whilst this is a short report with assumptions that can be pulled apart and discussed ad infinitum, the principle stands – ie. the UK gov’ could have made significant cost savings opting for the electrolysis route.
Why do you think Orsted is testing electrolysis directly at the wind turbine? – they are doing this because this brings down their costs – they see their very effective energy generation business model being further unlocked by becoming a 24/7 power source provider – and H2 is providing that transition vehicle.
Personally I think this is a case of not being able to see the wood from the trees.
The problems with solar and wind is not just intermittency but the stupidity of building such forms of energy production out in the open where they can be totally destroyed by severe storms and weather. Big thunderstorms can totally destroy solar and wind and Puerto Rico saw this with Hurriane Maria in 2017. Wind turbines CAN NOT BE DESIGNED AGAINST VERTICAL STRESS. Underneath large thunderstorm cells all blades are driven down together and when fronts pass with storms the wind veers 180 degrees instantaneously. They don’t stand up well to big hail and lightning either. The level of gear box and bearing failures around the world are quite high, most occurring by five years and it is impossible to keep the blades in balance once installed.
The probable answer to our future fuel problems is nuclear power producing methanol or di-methyl ether which was proposed by the former Nobel Laurette in Chemistry – Prof. George Olah from California in his book “Beyond Oil and Gas – The Methanol economy ” I think what Dr. Bossel has written is correct.