SA backs second renewables-to-gas hydrogen plant, in Tonsley

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Government-backed power-to-gas plant in Adelaide to store renewable electricity and distribute it in gas network as hydrogen.

share
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

South Australia is set to host its second hydrogen production and distribution facility, with the construction of a 1.25MW Siemens electrolyser that will produce hydrogen using electricity from the grid and potentially on-site solar.

The $11.4 million project, announced on Wednesday by the Australian Gas Infrastructure Group (AGIG), will be built at the Tonsely Innovation Disctrict in Adelaide – the industrial suburb built around the former Mitsubishi car manufacturing plant.

It is not the only example of power to gas technology being developed in Australia, or in South Australia, for that matter.

Earlier this month, the SA government announced funding for a 15MW renewable-hydrogen electrolyser plant to be built near the end of the grid at Port Lincoln on the Eyre Peninsula, 

The Port Lincoln facility – to be built by Hydrogen Utility (H2U), working with Germany’s thyssenkrupp – will include a 10MW hydrogen-fired gas turbine, fuelled by local wind and solar power, and a 5MW hydrogen fuel cell. It remains to be seen which SA project will be completed first.

And in the ACT back in 2016, Neoen and Megawatt Capital announced plans invest $55 million in partnership with Siemens and Hyundai to establish a 1.25MW hydrogen electrolyser, including a a hydrogen refuelling station and service centre and an initial fleet of 20 hydrogen fuelled cars, including a technical support and research program.

The news of the SA Tonsley project coincides with a separate announcement from Carnegie Clean Energy, of its own plans to transform the former Adelaide General Motors Holden factory into a solar and battery storage microgrid, with backing from the SA government.

And of course the South Australian government had a fairly major announcement of its own on Wednesday, revealing pre-election policy plans to boost its renewable energy target to 75 per cent by 2025, and to introduce the nation’s first “energy storage target” of 750MW by the same date.

The hydrogen produced by the Tonsley-based power-to-gas demonstration plant – to be known as Hydrogen Park SA (HyP SA) – will be injected into AGIG’s local gas network. intially to power the Tonsley Innovation District – but with the ability to supply a proposed residential development in the area and other remote customers through tube and trailer facilities.

As one of the first major demonstration of the technology, the facility is also expected to play a crucial role in showing how electrolysers can be integrated into electricity networks around the country, to support energy stability as more renewable energy generation capacity comes onto the grid.

Like the newly announced microgrid at the former Holden plant, the Hydrogen Park project has been awarded grant funding from the South Australian government – in this case, $4.9 million from the $150 million Renewable Technology Fund.

“We are delighted that South Australia will lead the way with this pioneering technology,” AGIG’s Andrew Staniford said on Wednesday.

“The project is expected to be the first in Australia where renewable electricity is stored and distributed in the gas network as hydrogen, providing an additional market for fluctuating renewable electricity and thereby also improving the economics of renewable electricity.

“And importantly, it propels South Australia’s status as a leader in renewable technology and a first mover in hydrogen,” Staniford said.

Jeff Connolly, CEO and chair of Siemens Australia said his company was excited to be a part of delivering “proven and world leading hydrogen technology” to Australia.

“It’s pleasing to see hydrogen become reality since we began driving this conversation in Australia only a few short years ago,” he said from the CEDA: Economic and Political Overview in Adelaide event in Adelaide on Wednesday.

“Reticulating hydrogen into the gas network supports de-carbonisation of the state.

“It also supports the development of a domestic market for hydrogen which I believe can lead to Australia becoming a renewable energy export superpower if we harness the untapped renewable assets of the country.”

Siemens’ electrolyser technology will use proton exchange membrane (PEM), which are designed to operate in highly variable conditions such as those created by renewable energy generation.

According to Siemens, PEM Electrolysers have a very fast start-up time and can quickly absorb excess renewable energy from a power system, converting water into hydrogen and oxygen.

“These utility scale electrolysers can, with surgical precision, be energized and de-energized in less than 10 seconds, capturing excess energy from the grid when energised,” Siemens said.

Essentially, it added, they play a demand side management role within the energy system, and may be used as a tool to keep the grid in balance.

“This is about using inexpensive or free energy, which would otherwise be spilled to produce a clean form of stored energy that has many value streams – 100 per cent pure hydrogen, with the only by-product being 100 per cent pure oxygen.”

As Giles Parkinson noted earlier this month, hydrogen has often been dismissed as a viable technology because of the recent gains of electric vehicles and battery storage, but its proponents believe that it can create export industries to rival that of natural gas, and its added value chain can make it extremely valuable in the domestic market.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

34 Comments
  1. George Michaelson 7 months ago

    There is a direct exploitable distribution network, and consumers. An article from the UK in 2016 has this comment: “The conversion of appliances to run on hydrogen is critical to safe and effective operation, and requires working out what can be done with the existing appliance stock. The physical properties of hydrogen differ from natural gas such that the flame will be shorter, but for a given supply pressure from the meter will give a very similar heat output, which differs from the experience of the conversion from coal gas to natural gas. The conversion process will be similar but have different challenges to that of the 1960s and 70s. Various research projects are currently under development to support this.”

    I remember this conversion, basically the gas board(s) had to go round every consumer and convert burners on stoves and other appliances. So if this is a simpler conversion at the fire-end, its interesting. The same article observes the need for modern piping which was part of their stock replacement anyway (old mains replaced by appropriate plastic ones, which I think are what we have reticulated anyway)

    The original article and comments are at https://www.theengineer.co.uk/converting-the-gas-network-to-hydrogen/

    • CsabaU 7 months ago

      I would not like to live in a house with a hydrogren piping!

      I have worked with hydrogen in lab and I know all the hazards with it – and there are many very regious rules working with hydrogen in a lab. Better to limit the hydrogen to few well-controlled places.

    • MarkH 7 months ago

      For the time being I think the maximum allowable h2 content in the network is 10%. A long long way to go to even get to this point.

      I agree with CsabaU concern about the dangers of pure h2. For example flame from burning h2 can be practically invisible so quite dangerous for use in households.

    • mick 7 months ago

      if you have your solar/storage sorted why would you want gas

  2. Michel Syna Rahme 7 months ago

    A great day it will be if South Australians come together to reelect this incumbent government that, as representatives of those very people, have done so much already in leading the way for both our country and the world. South Australians should be very proud of themselves. GO SA GO!

    • Michael Griffin 7 months ago

      yes they have been terrific gov SA Labor. we in sydney are envious and looking at the great things happening in SA with awe. Great loss if they lost.

  3. William 7 months ago

    Has anyone looked at the economics to see if the technology can be used as an alternative to battery storage ? Example would be wind farm hosting a hydrgen power generator on site where the hydrogen gas is produced. When the wind is blowing hard the excess can used to produce hydrogen. When the wind stops blowing the hydrogen can be used to keep generating electricity.

    • Charles 7 months ago

      No – converting to hydrogen and back to electricity wastes about 75% of the energy contained within. Battery storage only loses about 10%. Some forms of battery storage (e.g. zinc bromide, like Redflow’s ZCell) is even lower.

      • crazy biologist 7 months ago

        Charles, new proton exchange membranes are very efficient, with proton conductivities of up to 10⁻³ siemens (symbol: S)/cm in 3 dimensions at high relative humidity. Could that result in a more competitive system?

        • Be 7 months ago

          Still around 50-60. You got a link that shows a commercial system that’s better?

          • Ariel Panelli 7 months ago

            http://nelhydrogen.com/product/electrolysers/
            93% efficient
            Efficiency: 3.8kwh/Nm3 –> this mean that consume 3.8kwh for 1 m3 of H2 at 1 bar and 0 celcius.
            Energy density of h2: 1Nm3 of H2 = 3.54 kwh
            Efficiency: (3.54*100)/3.8 –> 93% efficiency.
            Roadmap for h2,
            http://www.hydrogennet.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF-filer/Partnerskabet/Strategier/Roadmap_AEC_2012_Final_rev3.pdf

            Also stucrmnx is right, efficiency does not really matter on clean energy, the only thing that matters is final cost… h2 storage would be way more cheaper and clean than batteries.

          • Be 7 months ago

            Sounds great, let’s see an independent test.
            If the efficiency was that good, it would be the headline. They are leaving something out. Pressure for instance. Other things I suspect as well. Nor is there an independent labs analysis of the machines, of which there is one? Lots of plans, but only one working one, right? The output listed is unpressurized. No detailed data sheet, case study, cost or anything technical.

          • Ariel Panelli 7 months ago

            There are many things you have to know to understand the current state of h2 technology.
            If someone search on internet on electrolysis efficiency, you will see some sources that talk about 60% and different values up to 95%.
            This is because you have to take into account many things.

            1- Date of publication: This is like searching price info on solar panels, Today PV cost 7 times less than 7 years ago. Even people working on the energy sector still does not fully adjust their brains to this new reality. The boom of research on h2 tech started just 5 years ago, they accomplish a lot of breakthroughs in this short time and many more are around the corner. Fuel cells for example they went from 45% to 60% in efficiency and 1/3 of the cost and size in just 3 years.

            2- Utility case: Electrolyzers can come in many forms, some already made electrochemically compression at different pressures which change the efficiency from 1 bar to 200 bar (which is half the power requirement to reach 700 bar). Scale also matters, is not the same a small and simple electrolyzer than a big who tries to take advantage of each process to the maximum. They also use different materials to improve capital cost over efficiency, right now the market wants to convert power to h2 as a way of storage, there are many times in which wind and solar produce so much power that the electricity price is at a 30% of its normal cost, or even free or even negative (the company pay you to consume) in those moments you dont care on efficiency, you just want to generate the higher amount of h2 with the lower capital cost.

            Now, about my previous link on a commercial electrolyzer, those values are right, in fact, japaneses had a record on a prototype test using pure platinum with 97% of efficiency.
            This is another big company with 86% of efficiency with a 80 bar h2 outcome.
            http://www.efcf.com/fileadmin/content/GSMpresentations/03_Frois.pdf
            Also explain the overall cost difference between battery storage and their system for 4 and 12 hours, in both hydrogen is cheaper, and if you increase that by days or months of storage you can understand why this is the only way to accomplish 100% renewable energy in all sectors.

            Here you have a paper saying that PEM electrolysis is between 82 to 97% of efficiency
            http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/11/1836/pdf
            That is an independent source.

          • Be 7 months ago

            You references include heat recovery. Gas turbines are 97% efficient with CHP. Like I said, they are playing with the numbers, and so are you.

          • Ariel Panelli 7 months ago

            Only the ITM power reference include heat recovery, the others not, ITM mention that without heat recovery it is 77% which include 80 bar of compression, 80 bar = half the energy required to reach 700 bar.
            So without compression this electrolyzer should be at 83% of efficiency. Remember that many electrolyzers in production today decide reduce capital cost (cheaper catalyst materials) with low capacity factor to maximize fast production on power to gas.
            There are also new tech on compression in develope called electrochemical compression which is more efficient, last year come out the first product of this type:
            http://hyet.nl/hydrogen/

            Here you have in the page 39 a table which compare many electrolyzer supplier (Nel Is included) and it said 93% of efficiency.
            https://file.scirp.org/pdf/JPEE_2017102716120865.pdf

            You have to understand than Nel company is the biggest company on electrolysis on the world, they are around since 1927 and in 1940 installed 135 mw of electrolyzers which was huge for that time!
            https://mb.cision.com/Public/115/9915549/bbdc5ebd4ed5a48c.pdf

            They recent buy another big company of electrolyzers called “Proton on site”.

            Now.. your example of 97% of gas turbine chp I imagine is from this source:
            https://www.saacke.com/uk/news-references/references/effective-power-heat-or-steam-from-a-single-turbine/
            But I bet that is measured from the LHV instead of HHV as it should be to measure overall efficiency, all the values I show you were in HHV.
            Heat recovery on fuel cells or electrolyzers should be easier because the heat source is in one place, instead on combined cycles you have to try to extract waste heat from many points of the system at different temperatures which is not cheap.
            The best thermal plants achieve 60% of efficiency and 80% with heat distribution, which is very far from 97%.
            If your source use HHV it should be 87%.
            Also.. efficiency in practice and theory: Thermal < Fuel cells < Electrolysis, so there is no way you achieve better efficiency on thermal cycles.
            In the next years the new electrolyzers will include new materials that already were developed in the recent years to remplace platinum on PEM or ceramics on SOAC reducing the cost and increasing the efficiency, they were already tested over thousands of hours.
            Now it depends on you if you keep denying this new reality or you learn about it.

          • Be 7 months ago

            It depends on getting an independent test and analysis report.

          • Ariel Panelli 7 months ago

            Your initial question:
            *Still around 50-60. You got a link that shows a commercial system that’s better?*
            I provide you 3 independent reports that contradict your point
            https://file.scirp.org/pdf/JPEE_2017102716120865.pdf
            http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/11/1836/pdf
            http://www.hydrogennet.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF-filer/Partnerskabet/Strategier/Roadmap_AEC_2012_Final_rev3.pdf
            And 2 commercial products that exceed by a big amount your figure with many more mentioned in the table report of commercial electrolyzers, also you can simple verify more products with a simple google search on electrolyzer suppliers.
            But instead, you choose the “world conspiracy” calling everyone (between the most respected and serious companies) liars, just to not admit that you were wrong.

            Yeah.. you are a piece of work.. I thought I was talking with someone serious. Next time, instead of waste energy educating others would be better idea to not disturb the internet ignorance, because is clear that you want to remain that way. Bye.

          • Be 7 months ago

            Thanks, but your first link proved exactly what I feared: the efficiency numbers are on the stack, not the whole system. It’s pr. “Thereby, the difference is made between the PEM electrolyser efficiency of the full system or the stack only, which is sometimes reported in the documentation.” The Siemens numbers are the only ones I would believe, they make the largest unit, and they only 65%. Your third link also verifies it’s stack efficiency being listed, not system.

          • Ariel Panelli 7 months ago

            I already explain that to you 3 times!! You are so desperate to look excuses that you dont know what you said anymore…
            Go back to my FIRST post when I explain that 3.8kwh/Nm3 means at 1 bar and 0 celcius, this is without compression, in my second and third post I explain again the difference in compression between different systems!!
            That is the main difference between electrolyzers, in the table is mention that NEL is at ATM and the others at different compression measured in bar!
            I also explain you the amount of energy waste to compress to 700 bar on multistage, which is 12% of the total energy contained in the h2 produced, for 80 bar is 6 % which is half way and 20 bar would be 4% so you understand the curve of work.
            The new electrochemical compression methods require a 25% less energy than multistage.
            Also.. NEL is the best, you can not compare spacex with other agencies and call spacex liars due the difference in performance.
            Also.. the 93% of efficiency is NEL working at lower load for the maximum stack load, at max load reach 80% of efficiency, but it does not matter, because as I explain you, it depend on the energy price of that moment, you dont care to be less efficient if the electricity cost is almost free..
            And in case you still dont understand.. you know what the stack does?? THat is where the hydrogen and oxygen separation occurs, the thing that requires all the energy!
            If you think that electronics, few other pumps who does not compress or other elements require a lot of energy to work, then you are 100% wrong.. look:

            http://diamondlite.com/en/products/#1495788637618-1ea40812-a170
            It said electrical power consumption:
            mw of the stack: 2.1
            mw of the whole system: 2.2
            This is for Nm3 which is no compression and a small device, if you keep scaling up, the power from electronics and everything else with the exception of compression becomes negligible!

            ITM power is at 77% whole system with compression, which it can work at 83% of efficiency if you measure from Nm3 (normal pressure) without heat recovery.
            Here you have different electrolyzers
            Take into account that if values are in 4.9 kwh/Nm3, you will find the efficiency doing 354/ 4.9 = 72% hhv

            http://www.scandinavianhydrogen.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/6_Henrik-Steen-Pedersen.pdf
            78% at full production and 84% at low load.

            http://www.arevah2gen.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/AREVA_H2GEN_FICHE_PRODUIT_FRANCE_HD.pdf
            73% full system at full load, if you reduce the load you increase the efficiency.

            https://www.h-tec-systems.com/en/products/electrolysers/h-tec-series-me/
            71%, same, full system at full load

            http://www.hydrogenics.com/wp-content/uploads/HyLYZER_600_3MW.pdf

            http://www.ginerelx.com/electrolyzer-systems

            http://igas-energy.de/fileadmin/individual/igas-energy-de/editor/Broschueren/iGas_green_Elektrolyzer_E_170420.pdf

            All show you that you are wrong, is not 50 or 60%, is 70% to 90%.
            Also.. you dont need compression for many applications, like residential gas injection (it will be silly to compress the gas to later descompress the gas).
            To convert h2 to amonia or methane you dont need compression, etc.

          • Ariel Panelli 7 months ago

            I already explain all in detail.. but still you dont get it.
            It seem that you are so desperate to find an excuse that you dont even bother to read or understand.
            I explain it in my first post, in my second, third, in all of them.
            One thing is when they include compression and the other thing is without compression.
            Most efficiencies that you saw in kwh/Nm3 is system efficiency without compression.
            System power consumption = (stack consumption) + (electronics, few small pumps, filters)
            Here you have a vendor that include stack and overall system without compression:
            http://diamondlite.com/en/products/#1495788637618-1ea40812-a170
            Stack consumption= 2.1 mw
            Whole system= 2.2 mw
            At higher scale the difference would become even more negligible. It case you dont know.. the stack is the thing that split water.
            Repeat: when you see kwh/Nm3 it means system efficiency without compression.
            In the table that you saw where all supplier are, it measure system efficiency + compression, and for the NEL case it said that is at ATM, for the others specify the outcome pressure in bars.
            It was all well explain from the beginning!!
            About compression:
            On multistage to reach 700 bar it consume 12% of the hydrogen that you are compressing.
            To reach 80 bar (half way) it requires 6%
            To reach 20 bar it requires 4%.
            The new electrochemical compression requires a 25% less energy than multistage.
            Many applications does not need compression, as residential grid h2 injection, ammonia and methane production, etc.
            For inter natural grid injection you need 30 bar or similar.

            ITM power was at overall system efficiency with compression 77% without heat recovery.

            Here you have many other suppliers all mention overall system efficiency without compression:

            http://www.arevah2gen.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/AREVA_H2GEN_FICHE_PRODUIT_FRANCE_HD.pdf
            Remember that you have to do 354/ 4.4 kwh/Nm3 (in this example) to know the efficiency = 80%

            https://www.h-tec-systems.com/en/products/electrolysers/h-tec-series-me/

            http://www.hydrogenics.com/wp-content/uploads/HyLYZER_600_3MW.pdf

            Some of those like Nel had different efficiencies at different loads, Nel efficiency at max production is 80% without compression, but as I said, it does not matter if you lose efficiency at higher production because you use that when the price of electricity is low.
            Still all sources prove you wrong, the max efficiency achieved to split water is 97%.

          • Be 7 months ago

            You don’t get it. I proved that your high efficiency are for a subsystem, not the unit. You want me to believe the pr of the day for some little startups, when Siemens get 65%. Exactly what I said to begin with.

          • Ariel Panelli 7 months ago

            the only thing you proved is that you will stay ignorant for the rest of your life.
            Siemens just started with electrolyzers 3 years ago.. how much they installed? just 6 mw, the 3 electrolyzers that you see in this picture, is all the electrolyzers installed by siemens in the world.
            http://www.industrie-mag.com/IMG/jpg/8619.250.jpg
            Meanwhile, Nel is making electrolyzers since 1928, 140 mw installed in 1940.. in this year they installed 100 mw more and they have a contract with france to install 700 mw more.
            Again.. siemens does not exist in the electrolyzer industry!
            And even siemens is at 65 to 70% with 35 bar which is equal to 75% max efficiency without compression, which totally disprove your 50 to 60 claim!
            I already prove that you can obtain full system 93% of efficiency, I even prove that you can obtain 97% with high quality materials with 99% purity and no electronics.
            All companies that I show you, all break your words.
            You were schooled and humiliated, this will teach you to keep your mouth shut on topics that you dont understand, I imagine that those are all topics.
            Keep talking alone.. bye.

          • Be 7 months ago

            You proved nothing. No system runs at 93%. Not one. That’s the stack only.

        • stucrmnx120fshwf 7 months ago

          In general, renewables are more efficient than fossil fuels, up to 10X as efficient, but I hate to break the spell, but efficiency doesn’t matter, price and environmental damage matter. If liquid hydrogen were 1/3rd as efficient as 100% (doesn’t happen in the real world,) whilst solar power were 1/4 of the price of new coal fired power, without subsidies. You’d be in profit, without damaging the environment anywhere near as much, look at solar plus storage, being cheaper than already built coal fired power plants. This is with lithium batteries, lithium is expensive, or 8 billion dollars worth of Snowy Mountains 2 tunnel and engineering works, or Tasmanian hydro storage, with the Basslink cable.

          So what about we consider coal, without the built in subsidies, like governments giving them away for a song, the source coal near the plants, going cheap, earmarked for the power plant. The power plant sold for a fraction of the capital cost, of making a new coal fired power plant, which is run down, by the investors, lack of maintenance. Those investors know building new coal fired power plants, makes no sense, that’s why they’re not doing it. They’re going for cheaper initial capital outlays renewables, like solar, which being solid state, requires next to no maintenance, but they need to store that power.

          If the other storage schemes, make sense economically, then we’d probably find, that the inefficiency of hydrogen, is a similar energy loss, the storage medium itself plentiful, unlike Lithium, in economic quantities. Hydrogen can be transported as a gas through pipelines, liquid, fixed as ammonia. It can be stored on site, at remote locations, rapidly ready for conversion to electricity, which can be moved through power cables, at intercontinental distances. OKAY, that’s not 100% efficient, but if it’s economical and environmentally friendly, who gives a monkeys, just because it’s not 100% efficient, doesn’t mean it’s uneconomical.

          I’ve been way too long winded, but it’s hard to show the predjudiced thinking, against anything new, it’s built into our psyche, like induction chargers are inefficient, so what, they’re convenient and that makes them, more economical. If there’s a Grand Depression, in the 2030’s, following the roaring 2020’s, it will be because renewables, electric vehicles and vertical farming are too efficient. Solid state power production, solid state lighting, software and robotics, doing the food production; cars that need 1/10th of the maintenance, that resell for much more, for much longer.

          So where are the maintenance jobs and income, once market saturation has occurred, the jobs go, without income, people don’t buy new vehicles, there’s no more work in fuel extraction. Or farming, or power production, the fuel source, the sun keeps on providing, with negligible transportation energy costs, transmission lines. For 50 years a solid state solar panel, is producing electricity, at the half century point, it’s still producing 50% as much. Without needing inputs, renewables far from being too inefficient and uneconomical, might be seen as too efficient, an electric vehicle, needs 1/5th as much energy. When economy of scale, production experience curves, take over, things are very historically fast, if in 2022, solar power is 1/3rd of the price, that it is today, that’s game changing.

          Carbon emissions reductions in the US, have stopped being, because of the change over, to natural gas, from coal and are now due to renewables, we’ve already turned the corner. But we’d better have universal basic income, when the market saturation, Grand Depression arrives.

      • Ariel Panelli 7 months ago

        wrong.. today electrolyzers are at 93% of efficiency without compression, and like 83% at 700 bar.
        Fuel cells are at 60%, but you dont need fuel cells to convert the h2 to electricity again to be injected into the grid, that would be silly, you just use the h2 in the transport or heat sector using the natural gas grid for distribution.
        They are way more cheaper than batteries to store energy, in case you want to store more than 6 hours…

    • crazy biologist 7 months ago

      Yeah, in fact that’s mentioned in this very article: “The news of the SA Tonsley project coincides with a separate announcement from Carnegie Clean Energy, of its own plans to transform the former Adelaide General Motors Holden factory into a solar and battery storage microgrid, with backing from the SA government.”

  4. Be 7 months ago

    Sure, we should build one and see how it works out. But the last thing we need is another mass shipping of energy around the world. I doubt many ports will want to host tons of hydrogen.
    Hydrogen is inefficient and dangerous. It has the highest energy content, the lowest ignition energy, and the widest range of explosive mixtures: from 5 to 75% in air. I have my concerns with pumping that into homes and businesses as well. Over 5% and you have a whole new explosion hazard.
    Why don’t they instead use the hydrogen to make ammonia and fertilizer? That’s the main use of hydrogen now, and huge user of fossil fuels.

    • Ariel Panelli 7 months ago

      you did not read?? they use the natural gas grid to distribute hydrogen, you can even have cheap filters that only let pass h2 and block methane due molecule size to extract pure hydrogen from any point of the natural gas grid.
      Hydrogen is not dangerous, it is just different. In many ways is safer than gasoil or methane, it just need different safety measures (read about it).
      Hydrogen is the best way to store renewable energy, because batteries are only good to store no more than 6 hours of power. Instead h2 can store months, which reduce the cost a lot.
      With batteries you always need to add more to increase your capacity, with hydrogen you just need a bigger tank.. the natural gas grid is so big that even rising a bit the pressure, you can store thoudsands of terawatts hour.

      • Be 7 months ago

        Gas pipes aren’t designed to handle hydrogen. Hydrogen can leak right through many NG pipe. The energy density of hydrogen is 30% less tan methane, and the hydrogen is far more dangerous than methane. Methane won’t even detonate, hydrogen will. Methane has a very narrow combustion range of 5-15%. If we ever use hydrogen it should be rural, without pipelines. Local storage for a power plant. Like pumped hydro.

        Hydrogen will destroy the current gas pipes: “At ambient temperature and pressures below 100 bar, the
        principal integrity concern for high-strength steel is hydrogen
        embrittlement. Hydrogen will diffuse into any surface flaws
        that occur due to material defects, construction defects or
        corrosion, resulting in a loss of ductility, increased crack
        growth or initiation of new cracks. These will ultimately lead
        to material failure: search Conversion of the UK gas system to transport
        hydrogen

        • Ariel Panelli 7 months ago

          Some gas grids were in fact designed to use hydrogen long time ago and the later lower cost of methane change its use in some places.
          https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/01/06/hydrogen/

          Yeah, hydrogen might has some issues with embrittlement on steel, but it all depends on concentrations.
          All countries who study and test this on deep reach the conclusion that almost all grids can operate with 10% of hydrogen in the mixture without issues.
          You think it is crazy? England, Germany, Poland, Holland, Japan, USA, Hawaii, Australia and many more already started to inject hydrogen in their natural gas grids, some by sections other at bigger scale.
          Also.. all the natural gas grid pipes are being replaced you wanted or not by PVC pipes who does not have any issue with h2.
          In addiction, you dont need to inject hydrogen in the transmission lines that work at higher pressure (15 to 40 bar), you can inject in the residential sector that works from 0.5 to 2 bar.
          Anyone would be able to have their own electrolyzer selling h2 to the net or use it in its own fuel cell car.
          There is another advantage with this, the natural gas has different section operated by electric pumps to compress the gas in each section, and they can operate with a big range of pressures. So you can compress the gas when the electricity price is low and reverse the pumps and flow of gas to produce electricity when the grid needs extra energy, so you have CAES and Chemical storage in the same system.

          Your hydrogen safety concerns are from the time of hindenburg and not even in that case was direct fault of h2.
          In that time (1930) they did not have no flamable envelopes or h2 sensors, from 97 passagers, only 37 die, those were the ones who jump or the ones who burn from the gasoil who reach the ground and ignite (that burns under you).. not like hydrogen above you.
          Take a look to this:
          https://wsuwp-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/sites/44/2017/03/Hydrogen-versus-gasoline-fueled-car.png
          H2 rise 10m in 1 second, it diffuse faster, in the combustion radiate less heat because the water produced absorb a big amount of this, etc
          A fully explanation:
          https://www.arhab.org/static/h2_safety_fsheet.pdf

          As I said, h2 is just different.
          The energy density is 3 times lower but its specific energy (Mj/kg) is 4 times higher.

          • Be 7 months ago

            Hydrogen explosions are modern day, not just the hindenburg. It just burned. Thanks for the hydrogen industry pr video.
            check out China Light and Power Cast Peak
            Generating Station (August 28, 1992) where air got mixed with hydrogen
            The blast was equivalent to 275KG of TNT, and caused extensive damage at 100 meters!
            Even without air added to the tank, just defeating the pressure release valves creates a deadly bomb!
            The math for a hydrogen air explosion in the 11 lb tanks Toyota is talking about? Assume that about half the hydrogen is replaced with air, that is a nice explosive mixture at 10,000 psi! That’s an energy of around 300 MJ! that’s the equivalent of about 300 sticks of dynamite! nearly 80 lbs of TNT. tanks over 11,000 MJ are being planned for trucks. looks like the detonation velocity in air h mixes is about 2k meters per sec.

          • Ariel Panelli 7 months ago

            one example of 1992?? That is all you got??
            How many explosion were caused by hydrocarbons fuels?
            Also.. that is not the way to prove if something is safe or not.. a better approach is to analyze the properties of each fuel and theory on different hypothetical circumstances.
            Hydrogen makes more noise than damage.. you may be familiar with the perfect mix of pure oxygen and hydrogen bubbles exploding in tv host hands.
            Even taking into account that pure oxygen is not the same than air! In normal circumstances, the time for hydrogen ignition is narrow due super fast diffusion, at normal pressure they require more volume which reduce the energy density of the explosion. You can not have a good amount of mixture (air and hydrogen) because this rise super fast.
            You can ignite a flame close to a perforated h2 tank and it would not explode, because the mix would be outside as your kitchen hob. The air can not enter to the tank due the pressure differential.
            The h2 tanks from fuel cell cars can only be perforated with 50 caliber or higher, even in this case nothing happen, it does not explode, the h2 leaves the tank in few seconds and everything ends.
            You can heat with fire these tanks and a special valve would release the extra pressure, without air mix can not explode.
            Hydrogen is just different, it require different safety mechanism, but is not more dangerous, in fact, it will be more safety due extreme measures that are taking into account due the bad media that this gas has.
            Read the hydrogen safety sheet that I show you:
            https://www.arhab.org/static/h2_safety_fsheet.pdf

  5. RobertO 7 months ago

    Hi All
    These utility scale electrolysers can, with surgical precision, be energized and de-energized in less than 10 seconds, capturing excess energy from the grid when energised,” Siemens said.
    And if they are next to a solar farm rather than curtailing solar energy going to the grid they have another energy (Natural Gas can have up to 10% H2 added without any issues). Steel may leak but most Natural Gas pipes are plastics these days. See also “https://nikolamotor.com/motor” they are planning Kevlar pressure tanks for H2 for a fuel cell semi-truck.

  6. Graham9772 7 months ago

    I have read of methods of converting hydrogen to a liquid fuel A hydrocarbon very close to petrol I think. Does anyone know the efficiencies and cost per kilogram of the resulting fuel. The plant could be located adjacent to the PV or wind farm and the product easily distributed. I would hope that the exhaust would only be putting back into the atmosphere the CO2 the manufacturer took out.
    Perhaps this is a way to reduce the CO2 output of a coal power station during the transition.

Comments are closed.