Biden Administration Unveils Hydrogen Tax Credit Plan To Jump-Start Industry (npr.org) 104
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: The Biden administration released its highly anticipated proposal for doling out billions of dollars in tax credits to hydrogen producers Friday, in a massive effort to build out an industry that some hope can be a cleaner alternative to fossil fueled power. The U.S. credit is the most generous in the world for hydrogen production, Jesse Jenkins, a professor at Princeton University who has analyzed the U.S. climate law, said last week. The proposal -- which is part of Democrats' Inflation Reduction Act passed last year -- outlines a tiered system to determine which hydrogen producers get the most credits, with cleaner energy projects receiving more, and smaller, but still meaningful credits going to those that use fossil fuel to produce hydrogen.
Administration officials estimate the hydrogen production credits will deliver $140 billion in revenue and 700,000 jobs by 2030 -- and will help the U.S. produce 50 million metric tons of hydrogen by 2050. "That's equivalent to the amount of energy currently used by every bus, every plane, every train and every ship in the US combined," Energy Deputy Secretary David M. Turk said on a Thursday call with reporters to preview the proposal. [...] As part of the administration's proposal, firms that produce cleaner hydrogen and meet prevailing wage and registered apprenticeship requirements stand to qualify for a large incentive at $3 per kilogram of hydrogen. Firms that produce hydrogen using fossil fuels get less. The credit ranges from $.60 to $3 per kilo, depending on whole lifecycle emissions.
One contentious issue in the proposal was how to deal with the fact that clean, electrolyzer hydrogen draws tremendous amounts of electricity. Few want that to mean that more coal or natural gas-fired power plants run extra hours. The guidance addresses this by calling for producers to document their electricity usage through "energy attribute certificates" -- which will help determine the credits they qualify for. Rachel Fakhry, policy director for emerging technologies at the Natural Resources Defense Council called the proposal "a win for the climate, U.S. consumers, and the budding U.S. hydrogen industry." The Clean Air Task Force likewise called the proposal "an excellent step toward developing a credible clean hydrogen market in the United States."
Administration officials estimate the hydrogen production credits will deliver $140 billion in revenue and 700,000 jobs by 2030 -- and will help the U.S. produce 50 million metric tons of hydrogen by 2050. "That's equivalent to the amount of energy currently used by every bus, every plane, every train and every ship in the US combined," Energy Deputy Secretary David M. Turk said on a Thursday call with reporters to preview the proposal. [...] As part of the administration's proposal, firms that produce cleaner hydrogen and meet prevailing wage and registered apprenticeship requirements stand to qualify for a large incentive at $3 per kilogram of hydrogen. Firms that produce hydrogen using fossil fuels get less. The credit ranges from $.60 to $3 per kilo, depending on whole lifecycle emissions.
One contentious issue in the proposal was how to deal with the fact that clean, electrolyzer hydrogen draws tremendous amounts of electricity. Few want that to mean that more coal or natural gas-fired power plants run extra hours. The guidance addresses this by calling for producers to document their electricity usage through "energy attribute certificates" -- which will help determine the credits they qualify for. Rachel Fakhry, policy director for emerging technologies at the Natural Resources Defense Council called the proposal "a win for the climate, U.S. consumers, and the budding U.S. hydrogen industry." The Clean Air Task Force likewise called the proposal "an excellent step toward developing a credible clean hydrogen market in the United States."
Hydrogen, Lithium, what about Helium? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually a little scary that we're venting it into space or putting it into party balloons.
I believe it would be scarier to fill party balloons with hydrogen.
Seriously though I have heard about how helium in party balloons is hardly an issue with helium supplies. One is that the helium that goes into party balloons is contaminated to a point it is no longer useful for scientific and industrial applications where the high purity stuff is required. Also, there's going to be leaks of helium into space regardless and any losses with party balloons is minimal on the grand scheme. The helium that co
Re: (Score:2)
One is that the helium that goes into party balloons is contaminated ...
If by "contaminated" you mean "never refined", sure. Helium is obtained on an industrial scale from natural gas, it forms a surprising fraction of natural gas deposits given its rarity in the atmosphere. After you liquify the methane and other useful gases from the natural gas, what you're left with is "contaminated" helium, which you then purify to whatever degree you need for your application, which is not very much for balloons.
Nonetheless this doesn't make the unrefined helium used in ballons any les
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Hydrogen, Lithium, what about Helium? (Score:2)
Dude you already made a speech about this on the house floor ten years ago, remember?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Z2... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Party balloons only are responsible for a small amount of helium loss. Industry, and especially MRIs, lose the vast majority. They buy liquid helium for cooling and then just vent it into the air with no recovery.
Mandating recovery circuits would dramatically cut down on our helium usage.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
no money needed (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporations have already spent billions proving that hydrogen is a dumb fuel. No government funding is required to prove it. This is a bullshit handout.
Re: (Score:1)
(end sarcasm)
Re: (Score:2)
You are 100% right.
But who will think about the energy companies, their pipelines, gas stations, and cars dealerships that depend on failing vehicles for repeat business?
If we go all electric, all those will go away. But if we use hydrocarbons to generate hydrogen, use delivery vehicles, need special gas stations, and make the engines even more brittle, I can see the need for that new $140 billion business.
All business is good business, right?
Sounds Like A Tesla Musk Sucker (Score:2)
Toyota (largest car maker in the world) and quite a number of other large companies still believe quite strongly in hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. And there are findings of huge reserves of white hydrogen around the world, and green hydrogen facilities are in planning stages or being built to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. The EU will be mandating that hydrogen filling stations be built at least every 200km on highways. The EU and China are both pushing for more hydrogen vehicles. And no wonder,
Re: (Score:1)
It's people like you and your idol, Musk
This is the most offensive part of your whole post. I think Elno is a gigantic piece of shit and I spend karma here saying it frequently. Perhaps you haven't noticed because those comments often get downmodded so you're less likely to see them, or maybe it's because you're a fucking noob who barely uses this site and therefore doesn't actually know me. But since you clearly don't, how about you shut the fuck up about who you think I idolize?
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations have already spent billions proving that hydrogen is a dumb fuel.
Dumb fuel for what? And be specific, because the industry certainly is. Or do you propose to run industrial furnaces with space heaters? And in what way have they proven anything so far?
Yeah there are dumb ways to use any fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrogen is not too horrible as a stationary energy storage system, using fuel cells. The thing about that is that we don't need to jumpstart development of the technologies needed to do that, because they already exist. It's "always" going to be a PITA for mobile uses for reasons which have been discussed plenty already. Barring some kind of severe and dramatic improvement in storage, which is not likely to happen overnight no matter how much money is realistically spent and may never happen, transporting
Re: (Score:2)
For passenger vehicles, yes.
But for commercial vehicles, e.g. trains, ships and aircraft,
the added weight and size of the H2 tanks is insignificant.
Nor is the availability of hydrogen fueling depots important,
since these big vehicles already have dedicated fueling facilities.
Good idea (Score:1)
So the plan is to combat drought by destroying water...
Re:Good idea (Score:4, Funny)
If only there was a fuel that produced water as a byproduct!
Re: (Score:3)
> If only there was a fuel that produced water as a byproduct!
Yeah! Fossil fuels to the rescue once again!
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.thechemicalenginee... [thechemicalengineer.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Does it take less energy to separate the hydrogen and oxygen than you get when you recombine them? The article doesn't address it, which is telling.
If not, then it's actually more polluting than simply burning the fossil fuel used to run the process.
Re: (Score:2)
That's ridiculous, that's like expecting a battery to output more energy than it took to charge it.
Re: (Score:2)
Batteries are used to store energy generated in one form, to be delivered in another form. Batteries are good at this.
Hydrogen is not.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, hydrogen as a vehicle fuel is pretty ridiculous.
Re: (Score:1)
Does it take less energy to separate the hydrogen and oxygen than you get when you recombine them? The article doesn't address it, which is telling.
It is only telling us, how uneducated you are.
Simple answer: no.
Re: (Score:2)
So, let me see if I have this straight: I'm uninformed, and you agree with me.
Your mother must be proud.
Re: (Score:1)
No, I don't agree with you.
How ever your question is either utterly stupid, or you are uneducated, or it was an attempt for a rethorical question, which did not work out.
Re: (Score:2)
1) How is it more polluting if it is hydrolyzed using things like wind generators like planned in Newfoundland?
2) There are huge reservoirs of white hydrogen being discovered all around the world in the last few years. A massive one in Europe just recently.
3) It isn't about efficiency of storage, it's about distribution; but most of EV ostriches don't want to hear that.
We have existing models and distribution networks to move hydrogen. But 80% of the world can't even reliably distribute electricity reliab
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it preferable to use hydrogen over using the electricity that is used to generate it directly, and more efficiently? Are you invested in a hydrogen company?
Re: Good idea (Score:2)
I'm not a scientist but I have a good way to create hydrogen too. I stick some electrified wires in a bucket of water, and I capture the gas that comes off the cathode. Storing, transporting, and converting the hydrogen into useful power are the hard parts.
Hydrogen might be a good idea (Score:4, Insightful)
...maybe, but it has a LOT of problems
It's a great research project, but is nowhere near ready for widespread use
Methinks the push to hydrogen is driven by those with large investments in fossil fuel tech who believe that some of it can be reused for hydrogen
Re: (Score:3)
Methinks the push to hydrogen is driven by those with large investments in fossil fuel tech who believe that some of it can be reused for hydrogen>
There was a lot of talk about hydrogen-powered vehicles 20+ years ago. Everyone has forgotten about it now, but in the very early 2000s there was lots of talk about "A new hydrogen economy".
And nothing ever came of it, because they were never actually serious about it It was nothing more than a distraction, created by the fossil fuel companies to get people chasing a dead-end unworkable technology instead of working on something/anything that might cut into the profits of the fossil fuel companies.
B
Re: Hydrogen might be a good idea (Score:2)
I haven't forgotten. It was George w Bush's State of the Union speech. He touted the new hydrogen economy. In the same speech he said we were going to put them in on Mars.
Re: (Score:2)
Toyota has been selling a hydrogen powered car [toyota.com] for a number of years, so it isn't really fair to say nothing came of it.
It is a dying technology, though, because more and more of the fueling stations are closing, especially as subsidies dry up.
Re: (Score:3)
Toyota has been selling a hydrogen powered car [toyota.com] for a number of years, so it isn't really fair to say nothing came of it.
It is a dying technology, though, because more and more of the fueling stations are closing, especially as subsidies dry up.
There are more H2 fueling stations globally this year than ever, but it is still a tiny number. One of the biggest drivers of H2 fuel research is long haul trucking. Many if not all large truck manufacturers have fuel cell R&D programs. When and if that is successful the hope is passenger vehicles will be able to piggyback off that infrastructure. It won't be today or tomorrow, but it is also stupid not to consider all the options for the future.
Re: (Score:2)
Something like half of the hydrogen station in California have closed down in the last few years, and prices have skyrocketed to several times what gasoline costs for the same number of miles. The reason?
The subsidies have gone away.
Hydrogen simply costs more. A lot more.
Re: (Score:2)
https://natural-resources.cana... [canada.ca]
And anyway, reading the article that started this thread, it looks like the US now has one too.
Not everything can be electrified. You can keep using fossil fuels, or find something else.
Re: (Score:2)
Not everything can be electrified. You can keep using fossil fuels, or find something else.
If you can fuel it with hydrogen then it can be electrified - the storage tanks are bulky and heavy. If you're planning only a limited number of facilities on common major routes, which is the pattern being used for hydrogen for trucking, then you could instead do battery swaps. Since diesel fuel tanks hang on the outside of the frame, it's a very short step to hanging swappable batteries there instead.
Hydrogen is a stupid motor fuel. The place it makes sense is stationary power storage. If you do not care
Re: (Score:2)
If you can fuel it with hydrogen then it can be electrified
I gave the example in another comment about hospitals with large fossil fuel generators. They will keep the hospital running as long as you feed them fuel. How many batteries do you think it would take to keep a hospital running for even a single day? Not gonna happen. It's much easier to tank in fuel, either fossil or H2, than to do battery swaps on that scale.
Since diesel fuel tanks hang on the outside of the frame, it's a very short step to hanging swappable batteries there instead.
The batteries in a Class 8 truck are going to be quite considerably larger than diesel tanks.
"For the complete tractor, Bleim said, a typical
Re: (Score:2)
So swapping ~14,000 pounds of batteries every 350 miles? Even if you could have a standard form factor for all trucks, yeah, I'm not seeing that either.
You could certainly have a standard form factor, you'd swap them with a fork lift with a different attachment instead of the forks in the worst case or with some kind of stationary machine with storage beneath it in most cases. It's not a big deal at all.
Re: (Score:2)
So swapping ~14,000 pounds of batteries every 350 miles? Even if you could have a standard form factor for all trucks, yeah, I'm not seeing that either.
You could certainly have a standard form factor, you'd swap them with a fork lift with a different attachment instead of the forks in the worst case or with some kind of stationary machine with storage beneath it in most cases. It's not a big deal at all.
You would also need a standard chemistry then, since all the ancillary control and cooling is dependent on that. If anything it would be a constraint on innovation IMHO. Given the long working lifetimes of these vehicles you would not be able to change the standards very often, or you would end right back up with a large variety of incompatible batteries.
Re: (Score:2)
Since the batteries hang off of the frame, they can come with their own cooling systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Hydrogen might be a good idea (Score:2)
Absolutely not. First of all there is still one company doing swaps on cars. Second it does NOT have all of the same problems. Cars are all unibody now, no trucks are. There is easy access to the frame of a truck, cars don't even have frames. A majority of trucks make essentially the same trips repeatedly and stop in exactly the same places for refueling, and many of them already only go to private refueling stations that nobody else can use. They are in every way the ideal case for battery swaps.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.volvotrucks.com/en... [volvotrucks.com]
https://www.kenworth.com/truck... [kenworth.com]
https://www.peterbilt.com/news... [peterbilt.com]
https://www.daimlertruck.com/e... [daimlertruck.com]
https://www.hyundaimotorgroup.... [hyundaimotorgroup.com]
Re: Hydrogen might be a good idea (Score:2)
We have hydrogen powered buses in London. Eight proper H2 buses ran on route RV1 from 2010/2011 until that route was cancelled. Last year I think they started 20 more elsewhere. 20 is obviously a drop in the ocean for a city like London that has 7000-8000 buses, but it is a start and they are targeted on the most polluted routes.
https://www.smmt.co.uk/2021/07... [smmt.co.uk]
https://www.london.gov.uk/prog... [london.gov.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
There was a lot of talk about hydrogen-powered vehicles 20+ years ago. Everyone has forgotten about it now,
Long haul trucking companies haven't.
https://www.volvotrucks.com/en... [volvotrucks.com]
https://www.kenworth.com/truck... [kenworth.com]
https://www.peterbilt.com/news... [peterbilt.com]
https://www.daimlertruck.com/e... [daimlertruck.com]
https://www.hyundaimotorgroup.... [hyundaimotorgroup.com]
Some things are not well suited to electrification - long haul trucking, aircraft, stationary backup generation, possibly even shipping. They can keep using fossil fuels, or find something else.
woot (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrogen would be awesome.
The people on The Hindenberg would disagree.
Re: woot (Score:2)
Batteries would be even more awesome than hydrogen. For that matter, a water wheel would be more awesome than hydrogen.
Re: (Score:2)
Batteries would be even more awesome than hydrogen. For that matter, a water wheel would be more awesome than hydrogen.
Consider something like a hospital. It is going to have multiple very large backup generators, typically burning diesel or natural gas. As long as you keep the fuel supply going, they can run for as long as required. How many batteries do you think it would take to run a hospital for even a single day? Serious question.
Re: (Score:3)
And a way to produce it at scale that doesn't require more energy to produce it than it delivers when you burn it, which doesn't exist.
The people selling stock in these companies know that, too.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes and oil and gas run for free through pipelines, and electricity costs nothing to be pumped through a grid ...
Re: (Score:2)
Neither requires more energy to deliver than they deliver. By a significant margin. That is not true of hydrogen. The physical reality is that it takes more energy to separate hydrogen and oxygen than you get back when you recombine them. (Yes, there are some techniques that work around that. None, so far, can be scaled up to provide enough hydrogen to replace gasoline, by a lot.
The bottom line is it takes more fossil fuel to replace hydrogen than the fossil fuel it replaces.
Reality doesn't care if you beli
Re: (Score:1)
That was not the point.
The points are:
a) people underestimate how efficient electrolysis is
b) people completely underestimate how much fuel as in gasoline/diesel and nat gas is spent in producing it and transporting it
E.g. a gas pipeline has every few miles a turbine for compressing the gas. It burns a part of the gas inside. Unless the pipeline is under water of course.
Similar for oil.
So, what is your suggestion for a transition to an hydrogen economy?
The guys who do not want to give up ICE vehicles need i
Thus Spoke Zarathustra (Score:3)
"Little prigs and three-quarter madmen may have the conceit that the laws of nature are constantly broken for their sakes." -- Friedrich Nietzsche
Wait, what? Why hydrogen? (Score:2)
I thought we were on a full-court press to electrify everything. Is hydrogen back on the table?
Toyota has been pushing hydrogen https://global.toyota/en/newsr... [global.toyota] but I didn't think it would ever be a thing
Toyota has also been pushing hybrids as better for most people than EV's. I know two people who live in a city that have just bought hybrids. They don't have anyplace to plug in an EV.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrogen research is a hand out to the oil industry. They have all these great big oil refineries and both pipeline and truck/trail distribution networks. Electricity needs none of this stuff, but the wires connecting society together only need replacement every 100 years or so. So the oil industry has been pushing for hydrogen for a long, long time. Hydrogen economy falls apart under any kind of scruitny.
Japan has some need for hydrogen. Japan has very few natural resources, but you can make hydrog
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Japan cannot feed their economy from hydrogen because hydrogen is not a fuel like natural gas, it must be produced. I suspect you know this but I can't be sure since I've encountered people that don't know how hydrogen is produced.
To produce hydrogen takes energy, and that source of energy must be something that Japan can get reliably and in abundance or they will have a problem maintaining their economy. Right now those energy sources are their limited supplies of offshore natural gas, imports of fossil
Re: (Score:2)
https://thediplomat.com/2023/0... [thediplomat.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Japan cannot feed their economy from hydrogen because hydrogen is not a fuel like natural gas, it must be produced.
Japan has a lot of wind that they could use to make hydrogen, solving the intermittency problems that come with wind power in small nations. This is a stationary context where hydrogen makes some reasonable sense, unlike as a motor fuel.
Before you all freak out! (Score:5, Insightful)
One contentious issue in the proposal was how to deal with the fact that clean, electrolyzer hydrogen draws tremendous amounts of electricity. Few want that to mean that more coal or natural gas-fired power plants run extra hours. The guidance addresses this by calling for producers to document their electricity usage through "energy attribute certificates" — which will help determine the credits they qualify for.
The reason for the electrolyzer and the attribute certs being linked is because this credit would create a second industry for nuclear reactors that fossil fuels would never have access to. Literally this is a niche that neither solar/wind nor fossil fuel can really bank massively off of. Only the nuclear industry can maximize this credit to its fullest as it produces no CO2 that would fall into the certificate process (yes there's CO2 in the construction, but that's supposed to be the upfront, remember that whole EPA thing?) and creates enough power for these to be greatly profitable. Solar and wind can also provide some H production, but total time to breakeven would be decades for any setup that plugs in there. Unless we get a massive kick off on investment in that respect, but everyone still very busy with Lithium.
Ideally, we'd have a nice little mix. But nuclear would be the quickest method to rapid fire credits in time lengths that investors would be interested in.
Bigger question is, will we actually see this for that sector? Right now, fossil fuels have a massive advantage because CCGTs already provide this. That's why everyone bitches about H currently and how it's not a clean energy storage. Which also, every time you call hydrogen dirty, Exxon gets a massive boner looking at their massive lithium mines they just purchased.
Yes, short term this sucks for everyone but fossil fuels. Long term, this would be a massive new industry for nuclear to diversify their production and make a whole lot of people looking at the TCO smile a bit more. I mean, time to market is still a bitch for nuclear, nobody going to be happy about that, but have more than a muni as a customer helps to calm the nerves. But I acknowledge that this also has the possibility for fossil fuels to drag their heels on closing because they could, even at really low rates, kept somewhat afloat sucking on the US Government teat.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I could recall where I saw it but there is evidence of hydrogen produced from heat off nuclear fission being very low cost when compared to many options already tried elsewhere. I'll see people that will say nuclear power is worthless for hydrogen production because electrolysis is so inefficient. Well, there's more than electrolysis as a means to get hydrogen from nuclear fission. While Democrats are big on getting lower CO2 emissions they sing like Meatloaf on how they "won't do that" should nuc
Re: (Score:2)
this credit would create a second industry for nuclear reactors
It will not. The credits for hydrogen electrolysers and the kind that are intended to be cashed in within the coming 4 years, not in 2 decades. No one is linking nuclear power projects to hydrogen electrolysers, the time frames don't even remotely align for any project to to consider the other.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The reason for the electrolyzer and the attribute certs being linked is because this credit would create a second industry for nuclear reactors that fossil fuels would never have access to. Literally this is a niche that neither solar/wind nor fossil fuel can really bank massively off of. Only the nuclear industry can maximize this credit to its fullest as it produces no CO2 that would fall into the certificate process (yes there's CO2 in the construction, but that's supposed to be the upfront, remember that whole EPA thing?)
You haven't supported in any way your assertion that only nuclear could profit from this. Everything you say about nuclear applies equally to solar and wind. There's no ongoing CO2 emissions from solar or wind power, it's all in construction. They are cheaper per Wh than nuclear. Nuclear's one supposed benefit is its alleged reliability. Power storage is a direct response to the somewhat overblown but still real problem of solar and wind's intermittency.
To be fair and clear, storage is also a valid solution
H2 is a pain in the (Score:4, Interesting)
butt. From embrittlement, to leaks, to high pressures, cryo temperature and low energy density, hydrogen is a crappy fuel source for general use. Fuel cells for spacecraft and submarines, or combustion for race cars is hydrogen's niche.
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrogen is not good for fuel but it can be used to make ammonia or hydrocarbons for fuel. I saw some news articles on how producers of engines for agricultural use where producing engines that could run on ammonia for fuel. This is great for agriculture because ammonia is already something that farmers use as fertilizer so there's no need for added training in handling it, or added infrastructure in distributing it. Start with irrigation pumps and such then move on to other things, perhaps tractors. Ge
Re: (Score:2)
Everything they said about hydrogen was true 30 years ago and is still true. Yes, we have "solutions" to these problems, but the solutions are themselves costly which returns to the unsolved problem of hydrogen — it costs more. Also, hydrogen has a high GWP, and it's about half the cost to build a high tension line as to build a hydrogen pipeline (although if you bury the lines the cost goes the other way — but the maintenance cost is much lower for electric.)
Re: (Score:1)
Everything that was true: remains true. But it is no longer true, as you do it different now.
A 400 atmosphere bitterling metal container to hold pressurized H2: was expensive. And did not work long, because it was brittle
A 400 atmosphere plastic container to hold H2: is not expensive. And is not brittle, either. Ooops.
And so on. Everything, anyone, mentions about Hydrogen in industries and economy in our times: is wrong.
Hydrogen is super mature now, but dinosaurs, like you, do no not read news. As Hydrogen
Re: (Score:2)
All of that stuff is still true if you are trying to use it as a motor fuel. Instead of those kinds of tanks you have carbon fiber tanks which are even more expensive and still a point of failure.
That's why it's a shitty motor fuel.
Which is what I've said consistently.
Re: (Score:1)
For a ICE it is the same fuel as any other ...
Even diesel engines are easy converted to burn H2
Re: (Score:2)
For a ICE it is the same fuel as any other ...
For an ICE you need expensive coatings on the metals, or to use even more expensive alloys, to avoid hydrogen embrittlement of hot metal. It is NOT the "same fuel as any other", it comes with special and costly considerations.
Even diesel engines are easy converted to burn H2
Mostly false, for the reason described above. You do not convert an engine to burn H2. You build a new engine. It is literally cheaper than doing a conversion correctly.
For wet sleeved engines, I suppose you would only need new liners, new pistons, and a new cylinder head. You'd save t
Re: (Score:1)
For an ICE you need expensive coatings on the metals, or to use even more expensive alloys, to avoid hydrogen embrittlement of hot metal. It is NOT the "same fuel as any other", it comes with special and costly considerations.
Metal embrittlement does not happen in ICE engines.
As the H2 is burned there. And not stored under high pressure and low temperatures.
Every (especially not to modern) ICE engine is trivially converted to burning H2 or CH4.
There are several things:
a) you learned wrong in school what em
Re: (Score:2)
hydrogen is a crappy fuel source for general use
No one is proposing using hydrogen as a fuel source for general use. Well except Toyota, and even the oil industry considers them fringe lunatics at this point.
It's not an emergency (Score:4, Interesting)
But we can't use hydrogen, or e-fuels, or nuclear power. We must only use wind and solar, disregarding all the existing fossil fuel consumers, the infrastructure that can't be electrified, or the concomitant need for massive amounts of storage and extensive transmission system upgrades.
It's kind of like a religion for many people.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What about "white hydrogen"? (Score:2)
France may have huge deposits of "white hydrogen": hydrogen deep in the earth that can be pumped out just as easily as petroleum. Will the Biden administration support exploration for similar stores of hydrogen in the United States? Or will they subsidize importing "white hydrogen" from the EU?
Offset carbon tax? (Score:2)
I have an excellent source of hydrogen fuel. For which I expect a significant credit. Possibly enough to offset the tax on the carbon that it comes attached to. In the form of CH4.
Hope it's structured better than EV charger funds (Score:2)
Congress provided $7.5B for electric vehicle chargers. Built so far: Zero.
https://www.politico.com/news/... [politico.com]
If the funding is too complex, or too difficult to actually apply for, it won't accomplish much.
In other words (Score:4, Insightful)
US Taxpayers will send $140 billion to companies to produce an uneconomical product that no one can buy and consume because the market does not exist
Why not synthetic gasoline or diesel? (Score:3)
Porsche has a process that makes synthetic gasoline out of carbon dioxide. there is a process to make diesel as well. Why not keep supply disruptions and multiple fuels to a minimum, and just use what we already have the networks and stores for? Hydrogen, natural gas, propane, E100, and other fuels are great, but ideally, having fuels match the current ecosystem might be good for the short term, then look at serial hybrids and BEVs for the long term?
Re: (Score:2)
Burning hydrocarbon fuels means producing soot, you also burn some lube oil and there is no way around that. It's really better just to electrify and then you don't have to move fuels around. Remember that ICEVs burst into flames about four times as often as ICEVs because it's hard just to move fuel around the vehicle safely!
Re: (Score:2)
Er, ICEVs burn about four times as often as EVs, I mean. Sigh.
Look at all these recalled Hyundais and Kias for example. But it's not just them, recalls for vehicles that burst into flames because their injectors crack or flexible fuel lines fail or fuel rail seals fail are very common. Hydrocarbon fuels were a convenient way to get around the lack of a national grid in the early days of the automobile, but as such a thing has come into being they have become steadily less sensible. Now that we have cheap, r
Re: (Score:2)
You hit the nail on the head when you meant the grid. Having an EV means having complete faith in the electric grid, assuming it will always be up. I live in a certain state where they pay Bitcoin mining corporations to not use electricity. If something bad does happen, with an EV, I'm SOL, especially if another grid-down happens like in 2021, or earlier this year when ice storms and the collapsed trees took power out.
I prefer packing my own parachute, which is why I mention serial hybrids. Normally, th
Re: Why not synthetic gasoline or diesel? (Score:2)
Ideally you would have a parallel hybrid if you are looking for redundancy. Most cheaply, FWD ICEV with electric added to the rear, and using manual steering or EPS. When both systems are functioning they can communicate and collaborate to provide for charging of the batteries, engine restarting, etc. If only one or the other is working, no problem, you're just going slower, and obviously also having range problems in the one case. Use NiMH and you can put the electric batteries in the trunk without modific
H2 might be useful for aircraft but no much else (Score:3)
If the goal is fixing climate change we don't need to get rid of 100% of fossil fuels in the US, we need to get rid of MOST fossil fuels globally.
Long haul aircraft are one application that is both a largen enough CO2 use to be worth going after and where there is no practical battery alternative. It might make sense to use H2 fueled aircraft - either fuel cell or hydrogen burning turbines. The very low density of LH2 would require entirely new aircraft designs (extremely expensive) but its much lower weight than Jet-A per energy is a large advantage in overall energy use.
If H2 is used for aircraft, then on-airport production of LH2 from the electric grid seems the most practical approach. Sadly that isn't the approach in this proposal, which is just a green-washed proposal that only makes sense to people who think hydrogen is an energy source, not a transportation / storage medium
amazing source (Score:2)
It's truly amazing how Biden has discovered the well of infinite money. This is even better than Ponce de Leon's fountain of youth.