To add something to this discussion and this excellent piece, something I know Robert is aware of but many readers many not be, I offer this recent piece on the challenges of putting hydrogen into natural gas infrastructure. The authors are far from apolitical - they dump on H2 because they are advocating for electrification as the primary means to address the “climate crisis” - but their survey makes many good points. This is why companies like ET Fuels will take another energy hit to convert H2 to methanol or ammonia, which are easier to store, transport, and burn as a fuel. It is truly a thermodynamic obscenity, as Robert aptly points out.
* "Water electrolysis, producing hydrogen by splitting water molecules, accounts for less than 2% of world hydrogen output. Why does electrolysis account for such a small percentage? The answer is simple: it requires vast amounts of electricity" *
Exceptional extrapolation of factors here, regarding the hydrogen energy cost & effect to produce, store, transport, and finally - use case.
There's a new argument about necessities for fossil fuel or nuclear power used to produce this vast amounts electricity you elaborate on.
Fortunately those factors have met their demises *and* thanks to these two innovative corporations. And yes I'm partial to them and invest in their technology, to support the r&d, particularly.
*(Disclaimer statement, not financial advice or solicitations. Do your own due diligence.)*
[You'll be glad you did.]
By the way, I agree with phases and "bridges" to make any type of transition away and towards better purposes and ideology. That which command multiple perspectives from the majority, where the majority matter more than the minority that they are much too expectational upon.
We could cover each negative factor individually but it's moot at this particular juncture. Because they've been there far too long, used to distract and delay - literally wreck anything that is detrimental to the fossil fuel giant's monopolies.
Meet: Sun Hydrogen, Heliogen, and FusionFuelGreen. BloomEnergy, Toyota, and Nikola; to name a few.
[Links to come shortly, it's bedtime.]
Without writing my own essay in your essay, I'll provide the links for you and the readers.
And my gratitude to the Author for his fairly unbiased perspectives.
The vast amount of subsidies put into solar/wind technology and capacity in the past decades has resulted in the cheapest energy production source per unit. And there is still room for further improvement (lower cost). Reducing the cost of hydrogen in the process.
What outcome should be achieved in what timeline to justify this level of subsidies?
We're talking decades again, maybe even half a century.
Is it a 'false' incentive in today's economy within the timeframe of a decade for example?
Could it be the right incentive if the horizon would be 2 generations down the line (the children of our current toddlers)?
I think it's worse than you show here. If million is 10^6 and trillion is 10^12, then if 1 Mcf is $2.17 then a Tcf is $2.17 times 10^6 or $2,170,000 or $2.7 million. That would make $25 billion divided by $2.17 million equal to 11,520, so the subsidy is 11,520 times the price of natural gas. Did I get that right?
Anyway, thanks for all your work. It's really appreciated.
My math is correct. Abbreviations for oil and gas can be confusing. The abbreviation for 1,000 cubic feet of natty is 1 Mcf. Thus, 10^3 ft3 of nat gas costs $2.17 and 10^12 ft3 (1 Tcf or 1 EJ) of natty costs $2.17 billion.
No, nothing new. Just generated clean, reliable, safe electricity continuously without regard to hurricanes, hail storms, or tornadoes, in the safest, and cheapest method of energy liberation known to humans.
It’s paradoxical that Robert Bryce, an acknowledged energy specialist on social media, chose to display his ‘agenda’ on the future of the hydrogen economy with an 87 year-old picture – time and technology moves on! It takes very little research to conclude hydrogen will prove to be the safest energy carrier of all – batteries; gasoline; ammonia; etc..
What Robert Bryce needs to take on board is that fossil fuel-free hydrogen is as essential to eventually ridding humanity of the ‘evils’ of burning fossil fuels (FFs) as FF-free electricity.
We all know FF-free electricity at scale, within an acceptable time frame, will all ultimately be generated by Gen III+ nuclear power plants (NPPs). Robert Bryce needs to read this to get up to speed on nuclear enabled hydrogen (NEH) and it may give him food for thought that this technology really does offer efficient production of hydrogen at scale:
As far as him being appalled by the subsidies levelled at present day hydrogen production from wind and solar, Robert Bryce might care to consider what a FF-free, nuclear powered grid alone might save the US economy. And, how this humongous saving would benefit every single US household allowing them to pay extra for NEH fuel for their vehicle and have money to spare:
And the best way to transport and use that nuclear created H2 is to use it to synthesize hydrocarbon fuels and keep our entire hydrocarbon based transportation and fuel distribution system.
We might stop using fossil fuels, but we aren't going to stop using hydrocarbon fuels, unless we end civilization.
We can make carbon negative hydrogen for about $0.25 per kg and clean up the environment. With the subsidy, the profit would be $5.75 per kg assuming a sale price of $3.00 per kg. A small facility would cost $25,000,000 but could return about $18,000,000 annually with subsidy, but excluding any debt from capital investment. Who says green hydrogen can't be profitable? Unfortunately, still seeking funds. Anyone know an investor or financier that might be interested?
Working in the lab, as a youth, we had to deal with hydrogen. Worst substance in the world. Constantly leaking out of our testing apparatus, always finnicky, never enough stored in the bottle.
Hydrogen just doesn't behave...normally. It's so light, and has such low density, it was very difficult to work with.
Not only what you said but higher pressures and temperatures for hydrogen containment cause hydrogen embrittlement in metals. Brittle materials are less tolerant of fatigue and tend to fracture when bent. Thus, containers must be continually checked for leaks.
A couple of other questions. Where is the ultra clean water that electrolytes need to make hydrogen coming from? And, who's leasing the thousands of acres the wind and solar projects are using to the sponsors?
The efficiency of the conversion process goes up as a function of how pure your water is - any ions in solution degrade the reaction. They leach energy from the system. They can even, like in the case of chlorine dissolved in the water, create dangerous side reactions.
To get the clean water you need you need more energy, to process and filter it. This is a huge energy drain from the system. And there is no technical solution to this problem.
Thanks Robert Bryce, for your insight. If the right mix of technologies are selected i.e nuclear hydrogen, the electrical efficiency of SOEC hydrogen can reach over 104%. That's the input energy at just 34.5kWh over the lower heating value of H2 at 33.33kWh LHV. At these figures subsidies are seldom needed. I have demonstrated this in a model that co-located data and ammonia production to offset the cost of H2.
I assume the nuclear hydrogen results from ionizing radiation and proton fission products. Separating the hydrogen from other gases such as water vapor and radon requires compression and cooling to separate hydrogen from condensed radon and water. Is this factored into your efficiency calculation?
May have not been elaborate on the my initial comment but the hydrogen co-produced. It takes no part in the fission. The coolant is molten lead and the heat medium for the turbines is helium gas because it's fairly inert and can reach very high temperatures for a combined Brayton cycle. In this approach, waste heat is still high quality enough to reduce the need for more electrical input per unit of hydrogen produced. As far as radiation, molten lead is the only element that can effectively shield several forms of radiation effectively due to its inherent atomic density.
The sheer amount of insanity never ceases to amaze me. They simply cannot be allowed to pave the Edwards Plateau with toxic wind and solar! I’m originally from Texas so this cuts deep! I pray enough people can be informed that great protests rise up to block this particular piece of insanity!
Makes no sense to subsidize an energy source that take more energy to produce than it creates. The green grift continues. A stunning waste of taxpayer dollars.
Why is an Irish company getting a US government subsidy to make hydrogen? The same question applies to Danish and Spanish companies building wind turbines. Do American companies get subsidies in Ireland or Denmark or Spain -- or China?
We will eventually deplete hydrocarbon fuels. When that happens, we'll need to make them, or abandon modern civilization -- back to sailing ships and horses. We'll need to extract hydrogen and CO2 and combine them. The most energy-efficient way to extract hydrogen from water is the copper-chlorine process, which needs heat at the same temperature as a nuclear reactor core. The best way to get CO2 is to extract it from seawater using the bipolar membrane electrodialysis process developed at PARC. They can be combined to produce hydrocarbons using the hundred year old Fischer-Tropsch process. The US Navy is already working on this to make jet fuel at sea, so the deployment duration for aircraft carriers will be limited by food and toilet paper, not jet fuel. Details in my book "Where Will We Get Our Energy?"
Either way, the synthetic hydrocarbons Van Snyder refers to will be ready to fill the gap if the price of extracted hydrocarbons ever grows too high ~$6/gallon gasoline.
So far, I've seen no evidence that hydrocarbon fuels are being re-created by the Earth as we mine them and burn them. The only way they will not eventually be depleted is if we stop burning them. As long as we continue, they're being depleted. Surface Jack doesn't think deeply.
No you believe that hydrocarbon fuels will be depleted because someone said so. More and more hydrocarbons are being discovered every year and the available amount is increasing not decreasing. That is the finding of IER’s 2024 North American Energy Inventory: “Since 2005, oil production in the U.S. has increased by 149 percent and natural gas production has more than doubled.” C. Warren Hunt's Anhydride Theory has not been falsified. Van Snyder doesn't answer why that is.
Because you don't see the evidence does not mean your position is correct.
Do you think water will be depleted and oxygen will be depleted, because the is no evidence of that. Primary water is studied and proves that is is not being depleted.
A new discovery has been made showing oxygen is possibly being created deep below oceans and not by sole domain of photosynthetic organisms. However, recent discoveries in the CCZ (Clarion-Clipperton Zone) suggest an alternative source of oxygen—one that operates in total darkness, thousands of meters below the ocean’s surface. As products are framed as a scarce commodity, it becomes easier for powerful entities to monopolize it.
It's clear that Van Snyder doesn't think deeply either and ignores evidence that contradicts his belief.
"Being discovered" isn't the same as "being created." Even if marine creatures are "creating" hydrocarbons (or carbohydrates), the rate is far smaller than the rate of human consumption.
Water isn't destroyed when you drink it or use it to cool a power plant.
Ah! There well may be light at the end of the tunnel. Whilst you flounder and look for a reason to support your nonsensical belief... I never made the claim that discovered was the same as being created (circular reasoning much). you are just starting to think a little deeper well done! Oh dear then you tripped into a logical fallacy for which you have no evidence Quote "Even if marine creatures are "creating" hydrocarbons (or carbohydrates), the rate is far smaller than the rate of human consumption."- I'll dismiss that idiotic claim.
It was Christopher Hitchens that stated. "Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"
To add something to this discussion and this excellent piece, something I know Robert is aware of but many readers many not be, I offer this recent piece on the challenges of putting hydrogen into natural gas infrastructure. The authors are far from apolitical - they dump on H2 because they are advocating for electrification as the primary means to address the “climate crisis” - but their survey makes many good points. This is why companies like ET Fuels will take another energy hit to convert H2 to methanol or ammonia, which are easier to store, transport, and burn as a fuel. It is truly a thermodynamic obscenity, as Robert aptly points out.
https://scijournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1861
* "Water electrolysis, producing hydrogen by splitting water molecules, accounts for less than 2% of world hydrogen output. Why does electrolysis account for such a small percentage? The answer is simple: it requires vast amounts of electricity" *
Exceptional extrapolation of factors here, regarding the hydrogen energy cost & effect to produce, store, transport, and finally - use case.
There's a new argument about necessities for fossil fuel or nuclear power used to produce this vast amounts electricity you elaborate on.
Fortunately those factors have met their demises *and* thanks to these two innovative corporations. And yes I'm partial to them and invest in their technology, to support the r&d, particularly.
*(Disclaimer statement, not financial advice or solicitations. Do your own due diligence.)*
[You'll be glad you did.]
By the way, I agree with phases and "bridges" to make any type of transition away and towards better purposes and ideology. That which command multiple perspectives from the majority, where the majority matter more than the minority that they are much too expectational upon.
We could cover each negative factor individually but it's moot at this particular juncture. Because they've been there far too long, used to distract and delay - literally wreck anything that is detrimental to the fossil fuel giant's monopolies.
Meet: Sun Hydrogen, Heliogen, and FusionFuelGreen. BloomEnergy, Toyota, and Nikola; to name a few.
[Links to come shortly, it's bedtime.]
Without writing my own essay in your essay, I'll provide the links for you and the readers.
And my gratitude to the Author for his fairly unbiased perspectives.
ORION
Robbing Peter to pay Paul then taxing Paul to give back to Peter.
The vast amount of subsidies put into solar/wind technology and capacity in the past decades has resulted in the cheapest energy production source per unit. And there is still room for further improvement (lower cost). Reducing the cost of hydrogen in the process.
What outcome should be achieved in what timeline to justify this level of subsidies?
We're talking decades again, maybe even half a century.
Is it a 'false' incentive in today's economy within the timeframe of a decade for example?
Could it be the right incentive if the horizon would be 2 generations down the line (the children of our current toddlers)?
If wind and solar are so cheap, why does electricity double and triple in price everywhere they penetrate the grid to any degree?
Total waste of capital
I think it's worse than you show here. If million is 10^6 and trillion is 10^12, then if 1 Mcf is $2.17 then a Tcf is $2.17 times 10^6 or $2,170,000 or $2.7 million. That would make $25 billion divided by $2.17 million equal to 11,520, so the subsidy is 11,520 times the price of natural gas. Did I get that right?
Anyway, thanks for all your work. It's really appreciated.
My math is correct. Abbreviations for oil and gas can be confusing. The abbreviation for 1,000 cubic feet of natty is 1 Mcf. Thus, 10^3 ft3 of nat gas costs $2.17 and 10^12 ft3 (1 Tcf or 1 EJ) of natty costs $2.17 billion.
Isn’t this just pump priming a new industry, whereas nuclear hasn’t done anything particularly new in 50 years?
No, nothing new. Just generated clean, reliable, safe electricity continuously without regard to hurricanes, hail storms, or tornadoes, in the safest, and cheapest method of energy liberation known to humans.
Cheapest? U.K. experience is that nuclear is the most expensive form of power generation on earth. If it was cheap we would already have loads of it
Redo your numbers taking into account the lifetime of the plant. Cheapest by far. Especially if you add in the externalities of coal and gas.
Not my numbers, U.K. government
And you think the current or previous UK government can be trusted with numbers? They've clearly lost their minds or their integrity or both.
I’d trust their numbers, but not them. Current government haven’t published any
It’s paradoxical that Robert Bryce, an acknowledged energy specialist on social media, chose to display his ‘agenda’ on the future of the hydrogen economy with an 87 year-old picture – time and technology moves on! It takes very little research to conclude hydrogen will prove to be the safest energy carrier of all – batteries; gasoline; ammonia; etc..
What Robert Bryce needs to take on board is that fossil fuel-free hydrogen is as essential to eventually ridding humanity of the ‘evils’ of burning fossil fuels (FFs) as FF-free electricity.
We all know FF-free electricity at scale, within an acceptable time frame, will all ultimately be generated by Gen III+ nuclear power plants (NPPs). Robert Bryce needs to read this to get up to speed on nuclear enabled hydrogen (NEH) and it may give him food for thought that this technology really does offer efficient production of hydrogen at scale:
https://substack.com/@colinmegson/p-121228909
As far as him being appalled by the subsidies levelled at present day hydrogen production from wind and solar, Robert Bryce might care to consider what a FF-free, nuclear powered grid alone might save the US economy. And, how this humongous saving would benefit every single US household allowing them to pay extra for NEH fuel for their vehicle and have money to spare:
https://substack.com/@colinmegson/p-146111400
If you’ve half an hour to spare Robert, I hope you will read these and let me have your comments.
And the best way to transport and use that nuclear created H2 is to use it to synthesize hydrocarbon fuels and keep our entire hydrocarbon based transportation and fuel distribution system.
We might stop using fossil fuels, but we aren't going to stop using hydrocarbon fuels, unless we end civilization.
We can make carbon negative hydrogen for about $0.25 per kg and clean up the environment. With the subsidy, the profit would be $5.75 per kg assuming a sale price of $3.00 per kg. A small facility would cost $25,000,000 but could return about $18,000,000 annually with subsidy, but excluding any debt from capital investment. Who says green hydrogen can't be profitable? Unfortunately, still seeking funds. Anyone know an investor or financier that might be interested?
Working in the lab, as a youth, we had to deal with hydrogen. Worst substance in the world. Constantly leaking out of our testing apparatus, always finnicky, never enough stored in the bottle.
Hydrogen just doesn't behave...normally. It's so light, and has such low density, it was very difficult to work with.
Not only what you said but higher pressures and temperatures for hydrogen containment cause hydrogen embrittlement in metals. Brittle materials are less tolerant of fatigue and tend to fracture when bent. Thus, containers must be continually checked for leaks.
A couple of other questions. Where is the ultra clean water that electrolytes need to make hydrogen coming from? And, who's leasing the thousands of acres the wind and solar projects are using to the sponsors?
EXACTLY. A+ student.
The efficiency of the conversion process goes up as a function of how pure your water is - any ions in solution degrade the reaction. They leach energy from the system. They can even, like in the case of chlorine dissolved in the water, create dangerous side reactions.
To get the clean water you need you need more energy, to process and filter it. This is a huge energy drain from the system. And there is no technical solution to this problem.
The best way to implement this system is to build a system of nuclear reactors along the coasts to desalinate seawater into purified fresh water.
Then forget the whole hydrogen idea and just use the fresh water where ever you need it.
Thanks Robert Bryce, for your insight. If the right mix of technologies are selected i.e nuclear hydrogen, the electrical efficiency of SOEC hydrogen can reach over 104%. That's the input energy at just 34.5kWh over the lower heating value of H2 at 33.33kWh LHV. At these figures subsidies are seldom needed. I have demonstrated this in a model that co-located data and ammonia production to offset the cost of H2.
I assume the nuclear hydrogen results from ionizing radiation and proton fission products. Separating the hydrogen from other gases such as water vapor and radon requires compression and cooling to separate hydrogen from condensed radon and water. Is this factored into your efficiency calculation?
May have not been elaborate on the my initial comment but the hydrogen co-produced. It takes no part in the fission. The coolant is molten lead and the heat medium for the turbines is helium gas because it's fairly inert and can reach very high temperatures for a combined Brayton cycle. In this approach, waste heat is still high quality enough to reduce the need for more electrical input per unit of hydrogen produced. As far as radiation, molten lead is the only element that can effectively shield several forms of radiation effectively due to its inherent atomic density.
The DOE did a study ages ago called "Green freedom". Basically, using nuclear energy to make fossil fuels. Check it out.
The sheer amount of insanity never ceases to amaze me. They simply cannot be allowed to pave the Edwards Plateau with toxic wind and solar! I’m originally from Texas so this cuts deep! I pray enough people can be informed that great protests rise up to block this particular piece of insanity!
Makes no sense to subsidize an energy source that take more energy to produce than it creates. The green grift continues. A stunning waste of taxpayer dollars.
Why is an Irish company getting a US government subsidy to make hydrogen? The same question applies to Danish and Spanish companies building wind turbines. Do American companies get subsidies in Ireland or Denmark or Spain -- or China?
We will eventually deplete hydrocarbon fuels. When that happens, we'll need to make them, or abandon modern civilization -- back to sailing ships and horses. We'll need to extract hydrogen and CO2 and combine them. The most energy-efficient way to extract hydrogen from water is the copper-chlorine process, which needs heat at the same temperature as a nuclear reactor core. The best way to get CO2 is to extract it from seawater using the bipolar membrane electrodialysis process developed at PARC. They can be combined to produce hydrocarbons using the hundred year old Fischer-Tropsch process. The US Navy is already working on this to make jet fuel at sea, so the deployment duration for aircraft carriers will be limited by food and toilet paper, not jet fuel. Details in my book "Where Will We Get Our Energy?"
I'll bet they're not planning on deploying a platform that requires food and toilet paper either.
What do sailors on aircraft carriers eat? Do they clean themselves after a dump?
"We will eventually deplete hydrocarbon fuels" Absolutely no evidence of that Malthusian tripe. Just saying
Either way, the synthetic hydrocarbons Van Snyder refers to will be ready to fill the gap if the price of extracted hydrocarbons ever grows too high ~$6/gallon gasoline.
So far, I've seen no evidence that hydrocarbon fuels are being re-created by the Earth as we mine them and burn them. The only way they will not eventually be depleted is if we stop burning them. As long as we continue, they're being depleted. Surface Jack doesn't think deeply.
No you believe that hydrocarbon fuels will be depleted because someone said so. More and more hydrocarbons are being discovered every year and the available amount is increasing not decreasing. That is the finding of IER’s 2024 North American Energy Inventory: “Since 2005, oil production in the U.S. has increased by 149 percent and natural gas production has more than doubled.” C. Warren Hunt's Anhydride Theory has not been falsified. Van Snyder doesn't answer why that is.
Because you don't see the evidence does not mean your position is correct.
Do you think water will be depleted and oxygen will be depleted, because the is no evidence of that. Primary water is studied and proves that is is not being depleted.
A new discovery has been made showing oxygen is possibly being created deep below oceans and not by sole domain of photosynthetic organisms. However, recent discoveries in the CCZ (Clarion-Clipperton Zone) suggest an alternative source of oxygen—one that operates in total darkness, thousands of meters below the ocean’s surface. As products are framed as a scarce commodity, it becomes easier for powerful entities to monopolize it.
It's clear that Van Snyder doesn't think deeply either and ignores evidence that contradicts his belief.
"Being discovered" isn't the same as "being created." Even if marine creatures are "creating" hydrocarbons (or carbohydrates), the rate is far smaller than the rate of human consumption.
Water isn't destroyed when you drink it or use it to cool a power plant.
Hydrocarbons are destroyed when they're burned.
QED.
Ah! There well may be light at the end of the tunnel. Whilst you flounder and look for a reason to support your nonsensical belief... I never made the claim that discovered was the same as being created (circular reasoning much). you are just starting to think a little deeper well done! Oh dear then you tripped into a logical fallacy for which you have no evidence Quote "Even if marine creatures are "creating" hydrocarbons (or carbohydrates), the rate is far smaller than the rate of human consumption."- I'll dismiss that idiotic claim.
It was Christopher Hitchens that stated. "Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"
And to you too QED.
So, if you have anything other than schoolboy insults or vague handwaving, provide your extraordinary evidence.