Is Green hydrogen the "gas of the future"? (2023) | Hacker News Reader

Is Green hydrogen the "gas of the future"? (2023)

adamtooze.substack.com

Direct use of hydrogen the gas, especially in small transport seems unlikely in the future for many pragmatic reasons.

Green hydrogen production still fills a niche .. mainly as a component of green ammonia, methanol, and alumina production.

The geen hydrogen industry expansion in Australia has stalled out somewhat but is still ongoing and has a potential strong future as an essential component in a larger greener industrial base.

see (for example)

Green hydrogen has stalled in nearly every corner of Australia. So why is the government still revving it up?

25th March, 2025 - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/mar/24/green-hy...

So, in the style of the original remit of "Ignition!", here's a list of the desirable properties for electrochemical long term storage solutions which have not yet been met.

- The process must take a liquid electrolyte with two electrodes in it and a current applied, and emit some substances (I'm going to say "products") at anode and cathode which can be stored

- The process must be reversible with reasonable efficiency

- The electrodes must have a reasonable capital cost (i.e. not platinum) and lifetime (problem for exotic materials)

- same for any required proton exchange membrane (these are expensive and have finite lifetime)

- The products must be storeable, that is shelf-stable in tanks. This also means they must be fluids at room temperature; processes which emit solids are used in battery cells instead

- The products must be capable of being handled with standard plumbing, nothing weirder than stainless steel and rubber seals (may be a problem for hydrogen)

- Gas products must not be toxic (this is a big objection to using ammonia)

- Liquid products must be within the range of normally handle-able toxic substances which can be dealt with by dilution (e.g. conc sodium hydroxide is used in households, but some substance which can poison an aquifer if it leaks would be unacceptable)

- products should not be too explosive (risk for hydrogen) or react too violently on contact with air or, ideally, water

That is, it should be possible to build a system of electrolysers and tanks which is not significantly more expensive than a brewery or petrol station and, crucially, doesn't require spending too much on safety or trained personnel or insurance, doesn't require exceptional planning permission, which can be run intermittently (i.e. cheap enough that amortized capital costs are less then operating income) to store and release electricity.

Design one of those and you could be a global hero.

There are now 5 or more gigafactories under construction producing electrolysers via roll-to-roll (automated) production systems, with the same or lower prices as alkaline, vastly decreased BoP costs, and all the qualities of PEM - plus proven stable efficiencies of 90%+.

These gigafactories are in a race and those who fail will quickly get replaced by another electrolyser technology, production method or whatever. The Chinese will then buy up the IP and perfect whatever works, and the cycle will continue.

I can guarantee: it will be like solar manufacturing in the past, with all it's pitfalls and market/policy based competition.

If you type in "AEM electrolysis" in the Norwegian funded (anti) hydrogen rag, 'Hydrogen Insight' you will see that governments are now starting massive investment in new electrolyser tech of their own.

The game is over for slow ramping or PGM-dependent electrolysis manufacturers.

Governments will eventually see past the entrenched fossil-sponsored hydrogen lobbying and start investing in this truly gamechanging industry as the EU H2 pipeline infrastructure builds out and secure markets for offtakers are established - all within the (legally binding) conversion of the entire EU gas network.

Scary for some, but this is going to happen.

There was quite an interesting article "Seasonal energy storage in aluminium for 100% solar heat and electricity supply" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26463249

I'm not sure how that got on - it was from 2021 - but something like that could be interesting. The stored product is aluminium metal and gets oxidised to hydrogen and aluminium hydroxide producing heat which can be used for heating and hydrogen that can be used in fuel cells or industrial processes.

This is quite a good skeptical take on hydrogen but worth noting that 2 years later many if the big projects are collapsing as the financing world gets cold feet about funding them.

It'll still have a niche in the future but at the moment it's just giving money to fossil fuel industry. Which if it gets them to stop interfering with renewables rollout might actually be cynically worth it.

Damnit, you beat me to it.

Let me clarify what I would have meant with my “no”. Hydrogen fuel has been pushed by petroleum companies for decades. Widespread adoption would simply allow them to continue business as usual with “zero emissions” greenwashing capabilities (and additional social and environmental costs of a cryogenic delivery pipeline). Nobody who actually knows and cares about renewable fuels takes it seriously. The people who push it are known shills in the employ of large oil companies.

Maybe with excess solar, to some extent.

Let's be clear: the anti-hydrogen contingent is vast and mendacious

Comments for his article are not enabled

He forgets / fails to include the massive investments finalised in the middle east / North Africa (400GW in this region) most with consortium members from Europe to China and government backing. There are billion-dollar (euro) projects announced on a weekly basis.

Hydrogen spells the end of fossil fuels, but the middle east is happy with pipeline connections to Europe - perhaps not so much the US who will find the petrodollar on increasingly shaky ground.

These shills and their underlings (Michael Liebreich etc al) make a career out of trying to block the industry, with really only one objective: the preservation of tje fossil fuel industry.

There is NO WAY batteries and direct electrification will replace fossil fuels in a meaningful way.

Policy groups - many for ideological reasons - also maintain the false narrative of 'hydrogen cost declines are not possible' and every straw man and tin pot argument in the book.

The pipelines are being built, and no amount of lobbying can undermine the hydrogen economy future - arriving within a decade sooner, as renewables and electrolysis make the great leap forward.

Batteries are already replacing fossil fuels in a meaningful way. I got around today on an ebike and electric train and London where I am is switching the buses and taxis to 100% battery over the next few years. I have a petrol car but it's mostly parked.

As to battery vs hydrogen in the future I figure it's mostly down to costs - the most cost effective will win. So far it's battery in the lead. London tried hydrogen buses - it still has about 20 - but they weren't as good.

I've got a friend who was chairman of a hydrogen gizmo company Intelligent Energy Holding and I was puzzled why they were losing money and went broke as the gadgets like a hydrogen fueled phone charger seemed cool and worked eg this https://www.macrumors.com/2014/11/19/hydrogen-fuel-cell-upp-...

It turned out the problem is compared to battery it cost ten times as much and was a pain - refueling the hydrogen phone charger meant swapping it at a shop paying £5 whereas recharging a battery pack involves plugging it in and costs ~10p.

Wasn't the general consensus about hydrogen as a fuel source just a grift from the fossil fuel industry desperately trying to make them relevant again as most of the current hydrogen production comes from there?

It still is. But the apologists are vast in number and heavy in their delusions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com