This effectively means no new fossil fuel equipment within a few years

  • Aniki@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    30 days ago

    I think gas won’t be phased out; it will be gradually enriched with renewably produced hydrogen (from electrolysis) until the gas mix is 100% renewable.

    • Hanrahan@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      30 days ago

      maybe but it’s a ridiculous thing to do, so let’s hope not.

      Might as well just electrify. It’s a massively inefficient way of making H, storage and transport of H is beyond tricky , H is a GHG so whatever fugitive emissions you have, which there’s plenty of with a molecule that small, are ubiquitous.

      That said, doing stupid things has never stopped humanity before, so who knows. Every H project in Australia has been shitballed, some are saying make Ammonia now instead but that’s ripe with problems as well but it is significantly easier to store and transport.

      • Hypx@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        29 days ago

        It’s far easier to store and distribute hydrogen than electricity. Hydrogen is not a GHG either.

        • matlag@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          29 days ago

          From an energy point of view, generating hydrogen and burning it later is an absurdly inefficient cycle. It’s also a very small molecule that is extremely difficult to contain (understand: leak very easily).

          Electricity storage is an issue, but batteries are progressing at a much faster pace than electrolysis. As for transportation, it’s also difficult, but in most parts of the world, we either have the infrastructure already in place, or the place in question lack both electricity and gas. In addition to that, electricity can be generated close to the point of consumption with renewables and batteries.

          There are really no good reason to stand by hydrogen in a crushing majority of use cases.

          • Hypx@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            29 days ago

            It is no more inefficient than many other ideas. Hydrogen is not much more difficult to store than natural gas. In reality, we have more than enough renewable energy to justify making and storing hydrogen.

            The narrative of “batteries are progressing” is becoming wishful thinking if not outright delusion. They are not progressing in a way that could actually solve their fundamental problems. Hydrogen for energy storage is necessary for a 100% green grid, as well as many other things. We can make hydrogen close to the point of consumption too.

            Hydrogen is a viable option in nearly every situation. And in many sectors, practically the only option.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      30 days ago

      Doesn’t really work like that. You can’t put more than a bit of hydrogen into existing appliances or pipes without destroying them

        • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          29 days ago

          Yes, with a tiny amount of hydrogen. Exceed 25% and appliances explode and pipes corrode in new ways causing leaks. It will ultimately be a lot cheaper to electrify everything than to switch to hydrogen

          The leakage of hydrogen in widespread use (eg: not just the chemicals Industry) means a set of reactions in the atmosphere which cause a bunch of warming as well.

          • Aniki@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            29 days ago

            do you have sources on hydrogen pipelines not being possible? because they are actively being built in germany right now. i doubt that somebody builds a billion-dollar pipeline for nothing.

            • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              29 days ago

              They’re very possible, but existing pipes used for natural gas aren’t suitable, and replacing them is more expensive than electrification.

              • Aniki@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                29 days ago

                interesting. i remember reading that hydrogen transport through hydrogen pipes costs about half of what it costs to transport the same amount of power over the same distance through electric cables. iirc the figures are: 0.6 - 1 ct/kWh for cables, 0.3 ct/kWh for hydrogen (per 100 km or 1000 km, not sure anymore). could be that i’m mixing that up though and that the number is actually only for methane gas.

                • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  29 days ago

                  We’re talking household distribution here, not long-distance transport. The economics are very different when you’re talking about having to open up walls and dig new holes in foundations to put in pipes.

                  HVDC probably comes in cheaper for long-distance transmission at this point.